Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I realize that cultures across the pond are different. I'm glad you advocate serious punishment for serious crimes, now if only your government could do the same you might realize that private gun ownership is not a bad thing. If more crimes are committed where guns are allowed, then why is vermont (a state where no license is required to carry open or concealed) one of the three safest states in the US?
getting knives off the street will not prevent crime, just like getting guns off the street did not prevent crime. If anything, your crime rate as a whole went up. Question, is it already illegal in England for juveniles to carry knives?
That is simply because human nature is reactive, not proactive. We are not in the age of the minority report, although some people would like to think so. Simply telling people 'crime is illegal' isn't going to stop criminal activity. The same goes for banning guns, it won't prevent crime. It only forces those intent on committing crimes to use an alternate tool.
by and large the police in america do a fair job also, however, we have our handful of screwups as well. What I fail to understand is how society as a whole tends to 'forgive' the entire police force for that handful of bad apples yet punishes an entire populace for one percent of it's criminals.
you're kidding, right? are there actually people in England that prefer being a victim instead of defending themselves?
No, which is why the gun is a more appropriate tool. It levels the playing field and gives the little old lady the ability to defend herself against anyone of any size.
That would be called adult supervision.
you'd rather her be raped and possibly murdered than for her to fight back and defend herself from harm?
this goes without saying. If someone assaults you or intends to assault you, you have the natural human right to defend yourself.
when it comes down to it, if i'm attacked, I would rather make it home to my family that night than leave them husbandless/fatherless. If I kill the attacker, is that MY fault? because he decided to deprive me of MY rights? I think not.
And the little old lady/ladies that are walking home from the market? should they just let themselves be pummeled by a large assailant because they were foolish enough to expect to walk safely in their town?
If that is how you choose to see it. Personally I prefer to see everyone able to provide for their own defense should someone outside of the law decide to infringe on their personal rights. That way, those that choose to be a criminal are literally taking their life in to their own hands. |
Private gun ownership is a bad thing, its be proven and accepted here.
Vermont is safe, so? Go up to some of the farming communities where everyone has a shotgun here, they're pretty safe too. So's my county, and there is practically no guns around. What does that tell me? That vermont is safe, nothing more. Without figures, that statement is meaningless, there are considerably more factors in crime than just arms.
It is illegial in britain for anyone to carry a blade that could be offensive without due excuse (e.g. i have my penknife because i'm on a camping trip e.t.c). It is illegial for anyone under 16 to purchase a knife. Currently plans are under consideration to make possesion of an offensive blade a minimum of 5 years, and sale legal to over 18s only. What kind of restrictions does the states have on knives and guns out of curiosity?
Banning guns won't prevent crime with those people who are intent on committing crimes with guns, of course not, i never said it would. Banning guns will prevent joe criminal from using one though, because joe criminal can't get hold of one. Some places will have more prevelance of weapon availability than others, true, but lots of places don't have a major gun presence.
I meant some people are pacifists, or don't want to engage in a fight, and would much rather avoid potential trouble if asked for their wallet e.t.c. I doubt a little old lady would want to get in a fight (though saying that, i know a few who would give most robbers a thrash around the block).
Similarly, if someone comes up to you pointing a gun, do you really have time to pull out you gun and give them the ol' double tap? Unless you happen to do lots of weapon training, i doubt it.
Guns do level the playing field, but omnidirectionally. Some punk who comes up to a body builder weilding a gun has a lot more weight behind him. He may not even consider him a target if he had just a knife or his bare hands.
If you give the law abiding people guns, you give it to criminals as well. Having guns in the states, thats something you have come to live with, but i doubt many people would like the idea of giving criminals another way to commit crime.
The point is preventing crime, not
just reacting to it, i keep saying this, and you keep ignoring it. Arming everyone is not a valid way to prevent crime.
Adult supervision didn't prevent those school massacres over there, all a kid has to do is pull a gun and fire, he can't be watched every second of every day. That leads me to another point, how many accidently deaths are there by kids each year playing with guns, or just people being idiots with guns anyway? Yeh you can say they wern't educated, but whos gona educate them about it, you?
The odds of my sister being raped and murdered on her way home are well, bugger all. The chance of her stabbing some shmuck when shes drunk, suprisingly high. Same goes for lots of people. Your arm the populance, and they will just do something stupid.
Of course its not your fault if you kill your attacker, good on you for standing up to him, serves the git right for trying to rob you. I'm not arguing with you there.
The aim should be to prevent crime in the first place. People will always offend, nothing you can really do about that. The less people you can get doing it the better, and the less armed they are the more so. Once they do offend, then i'm with you in chucking them away for a very long time.