Do you agree with this statement : Stricter gun laws could have prevented Aurora massacre. Explain.
Gun laws and the implementation of it (whether it is properly followed or not) could have played a big factor whether or not the Aurora massacre could have happened. Agree or disagree? Others might argue that there are other weapons to use if an individual is deranged, so it is not about gun control laws or implementation but a person who is delusional can kill even if he does not have a gun because he can use other means.
That is like arguing that a Pinto and a Porsche are the same because they both get you from point A to point B. Sure they do, but one does it at 60mph and the other at 160mph.
Weapons such as the AR-15 are tactical combat weapons designed and built for killing people, by delivering an accurate and sustained stream of bullets at a high-rate of fire. They are not designed for hunting or as personal defense weapons. Compared to hunting rifles and handguns, they are like a Porsche to a Pinto.
There isn't any reason not to make getting these weapons more difficult. There are no guarantees that they won't end up in the wrong hands, but increased regulatory pressure would increase the odds that they don't.
The October 2009 issue of Outdoor Life, the premier magazine of hunting and fishing, prominently featured an AR rifle on it's cover, and declaring it one of the top 10 deer hunting rifles of the year. Why do people comment on what they don't know?
Saying that the AR-15 is at fault for a shooting is like be trying to convince the cop that it was the Porsche's fault you were driving 160mph.
@Jack - I made a comment on its design that is correct. Doesn't mean it isn't good at other tasks.
@huntnfish - agreed, but we could choose not to sell Porsches and then no one would ever be going 160. The speed isn't needed for legitimate use.
Not up to you to determine the legitimate self defense needs of another person. The Mauser bolt action rifle was "designed as a weapon of war" and yet became the most popular deer hunting rifle of all time.
It isn't up to me only, but I do get a vote. Either way, I have said nothing of an outright ban on these weapons.
I think that the debate over gun control is a very difficult one. I this particular case I believe that there is no logical reason why an individual should need a high powered rifle, whether they are hunters or not. If you want to be able to collect these types of weapons than there should be restrictions on ammunition or some other way of regulating these types of weapons. I heard that this person in Colorado just starting buying weapons in May and had already collected a rifle, shot gun, two pistols, and full body armor. I have never purchased a gun in my life but that seems pretty excessive to me.
As far as gun control in which all weapons are restricted I believe that in every case the crime rate has actually increased. I believe that it is irresponsible of a city or municipality to restrict all weapons, which simply gives individuals who are willing to break the law the upper hand in every situation including home invasions.
So, to answer your question, I do not believe that stricter gun laws who have prevented this massacre. If someone is willing to break the law in order to shoot a group of individuals they will find a way to get their hands on weapons. They only thing that tough gun restrictions creates is a difficulty for the average person to get a weapon to defend themselves.
Tens of millions of "high powered rifles" safely in the hands of law abiding citizens and because some few social deviants choose to use one for harm then jd wants to restrict the freedom of those tens of millions of people. That's an odd concept.
by Patricia Scott 9 months ago
If someone says the words to you, 'what goes around comes around', how do you respond?Do you agree? Disagree? Totally dismiss it? And, I have heard this stated in different terms as well.
by Ciel Clark 5 years ago
"That's the way it's always been done." Do you agree with this statement or does it bother you?I like traditions and history, but saying something is right just because it's always been done that way is no recommendation to me. What do you think?
by WTucker 8 years ago
What does the second amendment mean to you? Please include historical precedence and logical deduction for your meaning. I would discourage what you wish the gun policy would be for the US but rather what you feel the amendment actually means.A well regulated militia being necessary to...
by Dr Anupma Srivastava 5 years ago
"Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly." Do you agree with this statement?We must not hasten in any work, our elder use to say it. Do you agree with it?
by ledefensetech 8 years ago
The public interest before self interest.
by kallini2010 4 years ago
"Creativity takes courage". Why? Do you agree with this statement?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|