Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?"
(→Yes: Placed comment) |
(→Yes: Fixed spelling) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Yes. Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''inolve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it? | Yes. Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''inolve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it? | ||
| − | With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your | + | With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? Andd, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST) |
Revision as of 23:04, March 10, 2007
No
No!!!!
NOOO!!!!!!!! --Jess 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Yes
Yes. Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns inolve guns, do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?
With all due respect, I do not understand why people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? Andd, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. Geekman314(contact me) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)