Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
and yet you are claiming that there is a high crime rate of kids with knives. If there is already a law against it, do you think that those kids are going to say 'oh crap, they made another law against knives. I better not carry now'?
yes you have. you've said that banning guns would prevent crime. not ALL crime, but it would prevent some crime.
This is where I cannot fathom the logic of liberals. You are saying that by people submitting to someone ALREADY violating a persons rights, that they would never think of violating MORE of those rights, like beating/stabbing/shooting someone during the commission of a crime. It's like trying to tell criminals that as long as they can just get away with robbing a person, they need not worry about eliminating the eyewitness. The authorities will just let you go as long as you don't hurt the victim. crazy.
Then I would say get some training. fast.
criminals will always find a way to get a weapon, be it a gun, knife, or other deadly instrument whereas law abiding people will not posess them because of their illegality. You are giving criminals an advantage.
You cannot prevent crime by banning a weapon. Crime will exist whether its done with a gun, a knife, a ball bat, or even a motor vehicle. Banning a weapon will not prevent crime.
If those adults had been armed, they wouldn't have happened....or at least 90 percent of them. look at the timeline as well. school massacres didn't happen until AFTER gun free school zones were put in to effect.
I've educated MY kids about them. Whats stopping others?
Is your sister that much of a sociopath? Is she that unpredictable and psychotic that she would stab someone the first chance she gets if she had a knife?
Hypothetically, if there were NO weapons to be had, be it guns, knives, clubs, etc. who do you think would be the most victimized? Those that are too old/young/weak/little to fight back. You'd be making victims of the weakest of society. That is not preventing crime. I've read stories every month about how some older man/woman shot a home invader here in texas and that had it not been for having that gun, they would have been robbed or worse. Now, would it be a better society if those older people were defenseless or if they were able to defend themselves?
|
You really, really don't seem to be getting what i'm saying here.
Firstly, banning crimes prevents circumstantial crime with those guns. Hardcore criminals will have guns, but your average joe criminal who has no real connections beyond smash and grab won't. Thats the important thing. I just watched a cop show where several officers got themselves shot by run of the mill criminals who wouldn't have guns here. If those situations had been in england, then they would not have got shot, plain and simple.
Its not just 'another' law, its a 5 year jail term, for carrying a knife. I think kids, and thats what the whole point of this thread was aimed about, kids, will get a bit more of an idea. The point about all of this uproar about knives is specifically about kids on the street stabbing other kids without any thought to consiquences. Getting those kids to give up their knives or go to jail is what the aim here, not letting everyone else have knives so that when they do get confronted everyone can have a jolly good knife fight.
90% of massacres wouldn't have happened, that still leaves 10% of kids who got blown away by some other kid. Pretty big figures. 100% of our massacres are by nutjobs with guns, which is highly unfortunate, but bad things happen.
I'm not saying people shouldn't defend themselves in their home, but letting everyone out on the streets with weapons is just going to end in large amounts of bloodshed.
My sister isn't a sociopath, i was illustrating the point that people can be idiots, especially when drunk. People who are armed who decide when drunk they fancy a fight are going to cause lots more damage/death than those who use fists, plain and simple. I dare you to pull out some numbers about how many people are killed with guns each year in the home, by friends, when drunk, or cases that arn't to do with 'crime', per se. Then, the numbers that do involve crime. Those people have acess to guns because they are perfectly legal to the vast majority of society, and the culture doesn't really seem to mind.
People won't get training for weapons, because they're lazy/broke/whatever, and you can't force them. Someone who pulls out a weapon without knowing how to use it becomes an even bigger liability.
My point revolves around this: People are idiots. They won't educate themselves about having weapons for defence, and you can't force them. Giving the public free reign to weapons will only serve to cause more bloodshed on all sides. The best methods of fighting crime is prevention, and harsher punishment, not letting vigilantism run riot.
Getting weapons off the street is a priority.