Lily
Administrator
Posts: 2,197
Joined: May 2011
|
Post by Lily on Dec 17, 2012 22:12:11 GMT -5
In the wake of the terrible tragedy in Connecticut, people are understandably demanding more stringent gun control for they feel this will prevent similar tragedies. The facts, however, indicate that this might not be the case. Gun control laws tend to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, leaving them powerless to defend themselves against gun-wielding thugs, who'll never have any problem getting a gun, regardless of the law. www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13627827-sandy-hook-tragedy-raises-hope-for-assault-weapons-banIn Canada, which has strict gun control laws, the gangs are still armed to the teeth, and engage in shoot-outs on the streets. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/09/11/toronto-galloway-danzig.htmlThe laws restricting firearms are much more stringent in the UK, than in Canada. But that didn't stop a madman from arming himself with 4 handguns and murdering 16 children, and one adult, in a primary school, in Scotland. www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1303460--newtown-school-shooting-scottish-town-dunblane-shares-agony-of-connecticut-tragedyOr, for another crazy to go on a shooting rampage in England, killing 12 people and wounding 11 others. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-11668697
|
|
marcel
Member
Posts: 138
Joined: January 2012
|
Post by marcel on Dec 18, 2012 3:49:56 GMT -5
There are no guarantees, EVER!
|
|
oracle
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: July 2012
|
Post by oracle on Dec 19, 2012 12:40:09 GMT -5
|
|
Lily
Administrator
Posts: 2,197
Joined: May 2011
|
Post by Lily on Dec 19, 2012 17:23:15 GMT -5
If someone in the Dark Knight Rises movie theatre had been armed, then at least those people would have had a fighting chance, instead of which they were like sitting ducks. Ditto for the school killings, and every other instance of murder, both on a massive scale and otherwise. I'd much rather be armed when facing an armed madman intent on my destruction, than totally defenceless. Who wouldn't? Obama's campaign to ban military assault weapons is only the beginning. If he's successful in this, then his next step will be to restrict handguns, etc. Soon the US could have as restrictive and ridiculous gun laws as Canada, where you cannot remove your handgun from the gun club, which you have to belong to, in order to get a gun in the first place. So, you might say, you can always shoot a home invader with your hunting rifle. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Defending yourself, your home and your family against an intruder is against the law in Canada. You have to let him do anything he wants to you and your family and your property, or be charged with murder. Nice, huh? I'd hate to see US citizens end up in a similar bind. The ideal solution, of course, would be if NOBODY was armed. But that's not possible, since the bad guys will always manage to get guns.
|
|
Lily
Administrator
Posts: 2,197
Joined: May 2011
|
Post by Lily on Dec 19, 2012 19:22:03 GMT -5
|
|