Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

?
Lv 6
? asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 month ago

Why punish everyone?

Taking away everyone's guns (or just the ammo) is punishing everyone for the actions of a few. Is that a "sensible" law?

Update:

There's several countries with no gun laws. Zero. For example, Switzerland. The government trains all their men on the use & when they leave the army, they take their gun home. Yet, we don't hear of mass shootings in Switzerland. Today, we have 20,000 gun laws (local, state & federal). Which one did the trick? Which one worked?

Update 2:

The UK & Australia banned guns, for the most, decades ago. How'd that work out? A 400% increase in violent crimes. On the other hand, Florida & Arizona had laws requiring concealed carry. Crime dropped like a lead balloon. 

27 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Law and Regulations must be equal to all residents and citizens of United States of America.  

    People protect themselves from people who have firearms.   Why dont make it everyone not owning a firearm(s)?    So you dont have to protect yourself.  

    Maybe learn Asian Karate or Asian Kungfu to protect yourself?   The teachers can protect themselves from guns so they dont have to carry firearms.....

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    This is not going to work out. No amount of guns will help you. Solving social contradictions in a certain society is a way to reduce crimes.  Transfering pressure is another way.  You should bury this in mind that many countries don't reveal their crime cases at all. 

  • ?
    Lv 4
    1 month ago

    There are just as many deaths from vehicular incidents, including both DUI related ones and not, as there are with guns (only IF you include suicide). 

    Suicides shouldn’t even be included in gun statistics because you can’t throw legislation at that problem to solve that. Try that. “It’s now against the law to commit or attempt to end your own life. The harshest penalties with the most extensive cell time will be for those who succeed. If the laws aren’t strict enough to stop them, we will just make even harsher laws.” Yeah, right.

     I have yet to see any public outcry to outlaw all wine and beer or outlaw all automobiles when a DUI incident takes place. No, everyone demonizes the drunk who did it, not the car, not the alcohol. But when someone is shot, they don’t want to blame the shooter, they want to blame the gun and all gun owners.

     I have yet to hear people calling casual drinkers and car drivers “selfish” and “who don’t care about how many people die before they will give up all their stuff.”Yet, somehow guns and gun owners are the problem? Maybe we should start telling people that if you have a glass of wine or drive your car, YOU are the problem and enemy of society the way they keep telling us about gun owners.

    Oh wait...we can’t do that. Because you all actually enjoy having a glass of wine once in a while. You all think you need a vehicle.  According to the law...having a glass of wine is a PRIVILEGE...driving a vehicle is a PRIVILEGE. Having a firearm is a RIGHT. 

    To the person who said “because society as a whole would be safer if we had stricter gun laws.

    just look at the crime rates and homicide stats in Japan and Europe.”— having laws on the books doesn’t prevent crimes. Outlawing guns does NOT equate to ending crime. Crime will never go down to zero, no matter how many laws we have. Criminals will still do crimes regardless of the tool they use. There will always another murder whether there are guns available or not.  If there is less crime in those palaces of the world, it has something to do with the nature of their society, NOT the presence or lack thereof of an inanimate object. 

  • ?
    Lv 5
    1 month ago

    Which would you prefer?

    1. Everyone carries a gun so that no one dares to shoot another because that person can shoot back.

    2. No one carries any gun so that no one can shoot at anyone.

    Option 1, deterrence is based on fear of same kind response. But a person who is hell-bent on a shooting rampage would normally not be deterred by fear.

    Option 2, deterrence is based on denying the availability of guns. Of course, you may ask, what about Illegal guns? There is no perfect solution but it would be easier for law enforce personnel to enforce a no gun rule than to have legal gun owners going rouge. Much safer for law enforcement personnel too.

    Before you answer 1 or 2, do note that this only applies to gun violence, not about attacks using knives, car ramming, punching, kicking and etc.

  • 1 month ago

    NO ONE is taking away your 2nd amendment !.

  • 1 month ago

    Have not heard of any serious proposal to take away guns. 

          But there might be good reason  to have back ground checks, mental health checks, and competency checks before issuing guns or ammo to just anyone.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Oh yes, most definitely that is an extremely sensible law!!!!!

     

    Signed, Just a "Liberal" Clutching Her Community College Degree in Rocket Science

     

    As for "why punish everyone", ALL Democrats do is one-size-fits-all legislation. Sad.

  • 1 month ago

    No it isn't. HAVING a gun is punishment, not having one is freedom.

  • 1 month ago

    Idk why punish people who already  survived covid for not getting  fraudulent vaccines. When your immune system is proven to be more safe and effective 

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    No one is taking everyone's guns away.  Settle down kiddo

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.