Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Why do liberals believe more laws pro Gun Control means the world would be safer?

This is something that has bothered me for a long, long time.

Why do liberals believe that forcing through more legislation for "gun control" is genius. I mean, how many laws are already on the books for gun control? The only thing I've been able to find is an extremely high 20,000+ number, and a 300 "relevant federal laws".

But still, 300 laws for gun control. That's a huge amount of laws concerning firearms that are ALREADY on the books. And gun crime still happens. Wonder why.

I've heard people compare guns to cars to the effect that cars kill more people each year than guns do. Ok, I can kind of understand why that is an absurd comment to make from a generic standpoint. However, if you pay close attention to the statement "Cars kill more people than guns do" and actually think about it. It's saying that even with all of the laws concerning cars, people still do stupid crap, and still get killed. D.U.I's, hit and runs, texting while driving, etc.

So the point of the statement made before is that with all of those laws, people still disobey traffic laws. Are they hardened criminals? No, most of the time they're just average citizens. If an average citizen is going to disobey a don't text while driving law, what makes you think a criminal is going to OBEY a new law that says there gun can't hold more than 7 rounds?

If a law is passed saying people can't own AR-15 "type weapons" then at that point, only the criminals would still have them.

I'm sorry, but to me it seems entirely absurd to pass NEW laws, and demonize firearms, instead of focusing on the real issue here. Informing people about how to use a firearm safely, putting emphasis on enforcing the laws ALREADY in place, and demonizing criminals not a 8 pound piece of metal and plastic.

Update:

@mark

Good job at either attempting to troll. I doubt you even read what I posted. But if you did read what I wrote, then you probably didn't have a valid argument. For me. Kudos.

Update 2:

@Binky

While I do agree very loosely with your premise. I believe that there should be gun laws, just like they are. However, what is being proposed is mostly a moot point. Until the laws that are already in place are more strictly enforced, then all of the new laws are entirely worthless. If the laws already in place were enforced then that would help a lot.

My argument is that the more people that are educated about guns and their only purpose. The passing of new laws would not be needed.

Update 3:

@Nicholas J

I'm glad that you brought your A-Game, gun grabber. I will agree with you that a gun's primary purpose is to kill. A handgun is designed to kill. It is the wielder that is other good or evil. I only use my gun for self-defense. I'm glad to see that you believe the guns are 'stupid' and not the users. Grats.

Update 4:

@Grimlord

I hate to point this out to you buddy... But here ya go.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/...

Update 5:

@Charles U Farley.

Sorry buddy, but your argument is mostly invalid.

While I will agree with you that laws are passed to make things more difficult for the 'bad guys' or the insane to get their hands on things they shouldn't be able to.

But at this point I am absolutely sick of hearing about how no one 'needs'... That argument should never have been brought up by the politicians. Why? I'll explain.

No one NEEDS a Ferrari that drives 175 Mph, goes 0-60 in 2.1 seconds, and can out run any police car in the state of Georgia. Sure no one NEEDS one, but I want one.

No one NEEDS a cheese burger from McDonalds, with a large fry, and an apple pie. And if people stopped eating those then maybe they'd live healthier lives. Sure no one NEEDS one, but I want one.

You, sir, dictating what people do and do not need, should and should not have is bogus, it's irrational it's unconstitutional, it's illegal, and it's just plain wrong. You should

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Mostly because liberal gun control bigots, and their followers are stupid and uncivilized!

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a firearm, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

    The firearm is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

    The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

    The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation, and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    That used to be Governor Romney. Presidential-candidate Romney is adversarial to all of those things. That's like how Democrats in general respected Senator McCain, whereas Presidential-candidate McCain fought like the humans the Senator claimed to despise. Either method, once elected a Republican president can be anticipated to behave like a Republican. Their administration will mostly the identical, regardless of who is simply in place of business.

  • lost 1
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    Because the Dumbocrap Party for years now has been controlled by the Marxist They hate America and the freedom we have They seek to control We The People

  • 8 years ago

    Since laws don't stop crime, why make laws? Every man for himself, survival of the fittest. The idea is to make it as difficult as possible for criminals and the insane to get guns, not easier. No one needs an "assault weapon" and high capacity mags to defend themselves or for sport and hunting.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Well the thing is, see, that statistically the more gun laws there are, the fewer gun deaths there are...and that's just a reality...

    Can gun laws prevent ALL gun crime? Of course not, but that's not a logical reason not to bother trying, any more than the deaths of a dozen people last year who were killed by their SEAT BELTS would be a sane reason to abolish seat belt laws!

    http://news.yahoo.com/more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths-5...

  • 8 years ago

    Spoons make people fat, cars run into other cars, and battery chargers are responsible for not connecting to our phones. That is their logic. Bad guys won't be like oh it;s illegal now better turn in my gun. Assault weapons are hardly involved in crimes anyways. It is mostly handguns and single shot rifle. 2nd amendment, remember that. They will never be able to put those laws into effect. There will be people with brains to stop them.

  • 8 years ago

    Guns are f****** stupid hunks of metal that propel smaller hunks of metal at high speed with the express purpose of killing other people.

    I say stop making them completely. If you want a gun then make it in your own home. But the second you try and sell one it's open to regulation.

  • 8 years ago

    Seems to work in other stable countries such as the UK, Japan, Australia, etc.

    Source(s): Alba gu Bráth
  • mark
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Because we're smart. You should listen to us.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.