If the weapons that Stephen Paddock had were illegal to own, then doesn't this prove that gun control does not work?
2017-10-04 2:04 am
Those assault rifles that he used to commit the massacre were most likely illegal to own. Why do leftists think that making more firearms illegal actually help the problem? Do they not realize that almost all major shootings happen in gun free zones, and not areas were guns are allowed, where people can return fire? Why to liberals constantly ignore these simple facts?
回答 (9)
2017-10-04 2:06 am
No, it just proves that gun control isn't perfect.
Laws don't stop 100% of crime, that's just not a reasonable standard. They should make it harder to commit the crime, and provide a mechanism for punishment.
Murder laws didn't stop Stephen Paddock either. Should we not bother with murder laws?
Laws don't stop 100% of crime, that's just not a reasonable standard. They should make it harder to commit the crime, and provide a mechanism for punishment.
Murder laws didn't stop Stephen Paddock either. Should we not bother with murder laws?
2017-10-04 2:08 am
it is not so much about guns as it is gun ownership. Republicans in Congress have made it legal for "severely" mentally ill people to own guns. Severely mentally ill people are the kind of people that shoot up a concert.
2017-10-04 2:08 am
No.
It just proves that what American conservatives call "gun control" is ANYTHING BUT.
It just proves that what American conservatives call "gun control" is ANYTHING BUT.
2017-10-04 2:07 am
Because you don't understand the dynamics of "gun free zones" and how existing law allows those laws to be circumvented. Consider Chicago, how hard is it to drive to Gary, IN and buy guns? ID? Dude, if I have an associated gang member in Gary and he buys the guns for me, I get them to Chicago. In NY, all I have to do is drive to GA.
Comprehensive, enforced, gun laws will not eliminate deaths, the idea is to turn 50 into 5. The 45 people that would still be alive would appreciate the opportunity to raise a middle finger to O'Reilly.
Comprehensive, enforced, gun laws will not eliminate deaths, the idea is to turn 50 into 5. The 45 people that would still be alive would appreciate the opportunity to raise a middle finger to O'Reilly.
2017-10-04 2:07 am
They haven't said whether or not they were illegal.
2017-10-04 2:08 am
Oh god! Could you imagine being in the room under him and all of a sudden bullets start raining into your room from nuts returning fire? Wait a minute he was 300 m away, handguns would strike like 10 stories lower LOL
2017-10-04 2:17 am
funny how it works in every other country then
by your logic japan should have been decimated decades ago
by your logic japan should have been decimated decades ago
2017-10-04 2:06 am
Not necessarily. But it is a good point.
2017-10-04 3:27 am
No, at most it proved it failed, once. FYI, the guns were legally bought semi-auto rifles, modified to fire or simulate firing full auto. In any case, I do not get the justification that failed gun control is cause for no gun control. Anything that makes it more difficult for people killing large groups of people is a good thing.
收錄日期: 2021-04-24 00:50:01
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171003180433AATH1AG