Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
Firstly, banning crimes prevents circumstantial crime with those guns.
|
Crime is already illegal, what will banning crime do?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
so you wish to put a hardship on everyone because a small percentage of the criminally minded COULD use a gun when they otherwise wouldn't? makes sense to me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
but if there is already a law on the books about kids not having knives, what will another law do? why not just increase the sentence for the existing law instead of making a second law that includes a whole group of people that weren't the issue?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
Even with our 'lax' gun laws, there were more kids accidentally killed by drowning in a swimming pool than there were those accidentally shot with a gun. There were more kids killed in drunk driving accidents than there were accidentally killed with a gun. those figures are miniscule compared to the average household accident.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
The same thing was said when the concealed weapon law was passed in texas in 95, it never happened. The same thing was said for Florida when they passed their concealed weapon law, there has been no blood running down the street. The wild west didn't magically appear because colorado made concealed carry legal. Blood running down the streets over parking space arguments has been made in nearly every state that has enacted or discussed concealed carry and it has not come true anywhere.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
who is the responsible individual if they get drunk while carrying a weapon and then shoot someone? The individual that shot someone while they were drunk. Now, tell me what sense does it make to remove a right from people because 1% of the people are irresponsible?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
But if they knew that serious prison time awaited them for irresponsible use of a weapon, 95% of them would get responsible damn quickly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
It is not my fault or responsibility that the majority of people are idiots, tell me why I need to pay the price for their idiocy? Would it make sense to you if all citizens in England were forced to submit to random background checks and fingerprinting/DNA sampling on the street because a gang of criminals run roughshod over the city?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
You really, really don't seem to be getting what i'm saying here.
|
Sure I do, you're saying that because a few people have abused their rights, that everyone should be forced to endure the punishment.