In what way? Because it would have prevented them from getting guns? How? They didn’t buy the guns they used themselves anyway. Someone else bought them for them. They couldn’t have stolen them, if they really wanted them (and they obviously did)?
They also made two 20lb propane bombs (which luckily didn’t detonate and which was obviously an act of God) that would have killed more people than all the guns they had combined. How could gun control have stopped that? They also had bombs rigged in their cars which would have killed more people.
How could gun control have prevented Columbine? If they couldn’t get guns in any way, would they not have just used bombs, as they tried to do anyway? And if the bombs didn’t go off for some reason, would they not have just kept trying until they got it right?
Dude, I didn’t mention liberal or conservative, because to be honest, I could care less. Labels mean nothing to me.
Gun control will NOT prevent criminals from getting guns. Laws only stop law abiding citizens. How hard is that to understand?
As far as self-defense, here are some articles that may interest you:
http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
And by the way, the leading cause of gun death in this country is SUICIDE. Not murder or accidental shooting.
Related posts:
- wouldn't gun control be like prohibition act 2.?
- Having bombs come with a firearm license?
- Is gun control black and white?
- Do you believe gun control, or the government could have stopped the devastating and recent shootings at VT?
- Firearm Control, how is it a good thing?
- Why gun control and not stricter sentances for gun crimes??
- Who wants gun control?
- Pro-gun control/Anti-gun folks.. POLL..?
- Do you think our failure to act after Columbine makes us partially responsible for the Virginia Tech deaths?
- Canadian Gun control Survey for my project(please answer asap)?
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity … will respect the less important and arbitrary ones … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Thomas Jefferson
http://www.youtube.com/user/DOUGandFRIENDS
Open carry would have stopped those little prlcks from even thinking about it.
No, it wouldn’t.
However, proper gun control would have stopped someone with a medical story of mental problems like Seung Hui Cho (the Virginia Tech shooter).
And just to make things clear: generalized gun control is not a liberal issue. We just want a better flow of information during background checks, so people with addiction problems, mental health problems and a fat prontuary cannot buy guns easily.
And also to limit the availability of some weapons, which could be used to kill many people in a short period of time. Why would a civilian need them?
No. But if every student had had a gun the gunman would not have been able to go on a rampage.
Criminals don’t follow the law.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
Murders are committed with bare hands, kitchen knives, rocks, sticks, automobiless, belts, just about everything.
Good question.
It wouldn’t have. Gun control does not work in reality (Oh yea, not to mention it’s protected by the second amendment). People are going to get their guns, just like they get their weed.
Ignorant parents, teachers, and students could have prevented Columbine. Those dudes would have done the same thing without guns.
The two kids who did the murdering at Columbine broke 13 gun laws going into that school, you think two more would have stopped them ? I don’t think so. Blaming guns for Columbine, is equivalent to blaming forks and spoons for Rosey O’Donell being fat. God bless.
Remove all the guns from the houses and give them to cops. Too many kids are taking it and shooting one another in school. When was the last time you heard of someone shooting a robber who invaded their home? More often than not, they end up shooting their wives, husbands, relatives, other kids…
These people who "cling to their guns" and go hunting as well, need to give them up. These hunting rituals allow young kids to practice with guns, encourages a gun culture and is the first thing the kid grabs when angry, insulted or suicidal. If this had been done, maybe the stepmother who was shot by her stepson would still be alive today.
Republicans can talk about protecting their home and stuff like that… but then what are the cops for? It’s easier to get a gun than a job. That’s part of the reason the murder rate is so high. If guns were removed, at least most criminals wouldn’t have it either. It’s too easy to kill. Maybe if someone had to use a knife, they would be less likely to kill and it would be much easier to stop them.
Not a chance. Gun control MIGHT control 10% of the civilian owned guns in the nation. The others are way too put away where no one can count or register them.
I grew up in Colorado. We took guns to school(high school) so we could hunt. They were left in our cars. Half days we went hunting so we had high powed rifles,shotguns,and small guns. We didnt all get along but guns werent an option. We just beat the hell out of each other with fists if we disagreed too much. Those Columbine kids were raised by uncaring parents(didnt care about their kids, just $) and never were spanked.
"Gun control will NOT prevent criminals from getting guns. Laws only stop law abiding citizens. How hard is that to understand?"
Very hard, actually. Where do the criminals get their guns? In a society that doesn’t worship the ability to threaten murder, there aren’t the guns to steal.
It’s been one of my biggest difficulties in trying to understand US society from the other side of the Atlantic, this whole (to me) weird idea that everyone owning multiple guns could somehow keep the country safer. The more guns are available, the more guns can be used. We can’t know whether gun control would have stopped any one particular incident; but we can be pretty darn sure that there wouldn’t be so many incidents overall.
Your point about suicide being the leading cause of gun death rather supports my contention. If the guns weren’t so handily available, a large number of people might not be dead. Of course, they could have tried a different method – but any other method requires considerably more planning, and reduces the likelihood of ‘impulse’ suicide in those with suicidal ideation.
The fact that other people bought the guns used at Columbine, or that they could have stolen them, means that if there were fewer guns around and they were very much more difficult to obtain, there would not be the thought of using those (non-existent) guns.
Having guns readily available changes the way people understand the possibilities and parameters of their lives.
Let us first all remember that guns do not kill people. Death kills people.
However, gun control would not have prevented Columbine, nothing would have. They would have shot people in the neck with blow guns if that was all that they had. Determined people will go to any length to prove their point.
Lets think about it like this. If Columbine had happened minus the guns and the bombs failed just like they did, the loss of life would have been close to zero.
Guns played a part no matter how you look at it. Now lets say there was total ban on guns at the time of Columbine would it have happened? Probably not. But there is always a chance of getting them illegally
This question has been beat to death. No one can say if it would have happened differently because it only happened one way.