Gun Control Debate - Philadelphia, PA

When violent criminals are locked up for life, then I might consider it.

Jim wrote:

When violent criminals are locked up for life, then I might consider it.

Sad that your rights are so easily thrown away.

why would anyone oppose handguns? It takes a person to work that gun, They don't go off by themselves! Besides in ancient history people didn't have guns but people still killed. If someone wants to commit a crime theres a million more way to do so with out a handgun. Thanks.

NO BAN

not the guns you should care about its the criminals. law abiding citizens will have to give up there guns but the criminals will still have them

2A is all I have to say

Independence, self direction, the right to self defense... all reasons why we should be encouraged to own, carry and practice with firearms.

They are a viable self defense option. If handguns are illegal then only criminals will have them... that just doesn't make sense.

Shall not be infringed !

Handguns kill -they seldom protect. I'm not supporting a ban on hunting rifles, but handguns are too easy for criminals to obtain. We don't need them.

Scott Spencer wrote:

Handguns kill -they seldom protect. I'm not supporting a ban on hunting rifles, but handguns are too easy for criminals to obtain. We don't need them.

Do you in your right mind think that if there was a ban on handguns, criminals couldnt get one?????? Do you have any idea how easy it is to make a gun? I would rather take my chances with a handgun then asking a criminal to wait until I get my rifle! If you let the politicians take one right, why not let them take them all. Why dont you research the gun crimes in England. They have a very strict gun control law. Seems that the criminals couldnt give a rats butt about their gun control laws.

Scott Spencer wrote:

Handguns kill -they seldom protect. I'm not supporting a ban on hunting rifles, but handguns are too easy for criminals to obtain. We don't need them.

Handguns are used between 800,000 - 1.5 million times a year for self defense in this country.

Hardly "seldom"

Ban criminals

If you don't like private gun ownership, move to Cook County.

Scott Spencer wrote:

Handguns kill -they seldom protect. I'm not supporting a ban on hunting rifles, but handguns are too easy for criminals to obtain. We don't need them.

**********
If everyone thought like you we would be an easy mark for a
totalitarian government.

God created all men equal. Sam Colt made it true.

steve wrote:

Ban criminals

Correct.
We don't have a gun control problem, we have a crime control problem.

Every time a "bad guy's" name comes up, go look them up here:
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CP....
If people would do this they would quickly learn that the majority of the problem lies in our local justice system.
Philly, especially, likes to play "Catch and Release". That game is best left to the fishermen, not the courts.

rayray wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct.
We don't have a gun control problem, we have a crime control problem.
Every time a "bad guy's" name comes up, go look them up here:
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CP....
If people would do this they would quickly learn that the majority of the problem lies in our local justice system.
Philly, especially, likes to play "Catch and Release". That game is best left to the fishermen, not the courts.

Absolutely agree.
What is really glaring is how often these scumbags are allowed to plea bargain away any gun charges.

In fact the last six scumbags who killed police officers in Philly had been on parole after the DA dropped gun charges that would have kept them locked up for five years or more.

BobbySomers wrote:

<quoted text>Absolutely agree.
What is really glaring is how often these scumbags are allowed to plea bargain away any gun charges.
In fact the last six scumbags who killed police officers in Philly had been on parole after the DA dropped gun charges that would have kept them locked up for five years or more.

Isn't it amazing that somehow those very well educated people in the justice system just do not understand the phrase "Minimum Mandatory Sentence". But yet, we the common folks grasp its meaning quite clearly.

I only voted 'OPPOSE' because there wasn't a 'OPPOSE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!!!' choice.