Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?"
m |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]] | [[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]] | ||
| − | If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous? | + | If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT) |
NOOO!!!!!!!! | NOOO!!!!!!!! | ||
Revision as of 15:57, March 11, 2007
No
No!!!!
If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--AustinM 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
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)