Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
you're probably right. It's been my experience that the majority of anti-gun liberals have an ideal that refuses to be shaken, even when presented with cold hard facts to refute their position. Not that i'm saying you're 'liberal', but it certainly seems that way from what you've stated so far.
I agree, realistically this can't happen because too many 'liberal' minded individuals think that these violent criminals are just misunderstood.
which is why I say that the only solution is to lock them up when they commit a crime. If a person or criminal can't be trusted with weapons, they don't need to be walking the streets.
and it wouldn't get very far in the streets either if people took responsibility for their own defense instead of leaving it to incompetent police.
Again, if you could guarantee, with your life, that nobody could ever get their hands on a weapon, i'd consider weapon banishment a possibility. As for police not being the problem? I suggest you google 'police' and 'we're the only ones' and start reading the stories of police being problems. Of course one might say that this is just the example of only a few people, but I could say the same thing about 'citizens' irresponsibility with guns being 'just a few'.
|
I'm far from liberal in my stance upon crime, my opinion is to bring back the gallows for a vast majority of them, but i do not believe private gun ownership is something to be had in society, neither is the regular carrying of knives. The cold hard facts are, put simply, more people die from guns where they are allowed, then where they are not. More crimes are committed where guns are allowed, then where they are not. Getting knives off the street is an important step in crime prevention. Sure, criminals are always going to commit crime with knives, but the aim is to stop kids going around with knives because they think they will be 'hard', or they have some kind of protection.
You say locking people up
when they commit a crime isn't the whole picture. One needs to stop them committing the crime in the first place. Your responding to the problem, not preventing it.
The point of the police is to defend the public. On the whole the police here do a reasonably good job, they fuck up a fair few times, but so does any force. The police arn't routinely armed over here, so their incidents of bad gun practice are limited (though not unheard of). I can't speak however for the american police...
Not everyone wants to defend themselves. Is it reasonable to give an old lady a knife to prevent someone stealing her bag? How about a little kid in the playground so no-one will pick on him? Maybe i should give a knife to my sister so that she can stab anyone who makes unwanted advances. The line is very small, and very easy to cross between defending oneself, and plain old assault/murder. People would need a good legal grounding to stop themselves falling short of the law.
In theory, it may work, but in practice, no. Defending oneself against an armed criminal when your armed will just end in tears for a vast majority of people. Personally, i don't carry a knife, and i would like to see the standard robber around here try to get my wallet when i've just broken his shin/testicles with my steel toe caps. If he had a gun, then i might be more inclined to comply, but he would have to pull a pretty big knife to make me do the same. Thats just my opinion however.
As far as i can see, my opinion of your stance is that you appear to be the typical 'lets give everyone guns and let them sort out their own problems' yankee.