I think we should start to round this debate up, its starting to decend into a slugging match, not that i mind a good argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Crime is already illegal, what will banning crime do?
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. 
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?
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.
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.
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?
But if they knew that serious prison time awaited them for irresponsible use of a weapon, 95% of them would get responsible damn quickly.
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?
Sure I do, you're saying that because a few people have abused their rights, that everyone should be forced to endure the punishment. |
Why should i have to undergo biometric testing to enter the states because a small minority of someone elses population crashed a plane into your building? Why does my airline until recently have to give over nearly 30 peices of information? I'm not going to commit an act of terrorism, so why should my rights be removed? Your government is practising that spiel on a whole new level.
There is no hardship in banning guns because we don't have guns already. Lots of criminals in the states have guns, my auntie works for the judiciary over there and it was one of the reasons she is moving back here, where there arn't any guns. She doesn't want to use a gun, neither does my uncle. Does that mean they're a bunch of pansies, who have no desire to use a weapon? No, it means they don't like the idea of a shooting match. Not everyone is as gung-ho as you, you have to realise this.
If we legalised guns here today, everyone would go out and buy one because they knew immediatly all the criminals would go get one. The criminals would go get one because they could rob more people, and all you get out of it is people shooting each other, they don't act nice.
Yes the amount of kids who die because of guns is small compared to other accidents (though without numbers its still pretty meaningless), but i can think of 1 incident of child suicide with a gun over the past few years. I can think of a few more due to accident, but the numbers can fit on two hands.
A concealed weapon law is a completly different thing to bringing in guns altogether. You just said its legal to carry guns on the street, i bet a few people did already. The people already had the guns, they were just allowed to keep them around a bit more. How many people are shot on the streets of those states each year? Alot more people that 1% are irresponsible.
You contradicted yourself in that post, the whole point about giving mandatory sentances to people with knives was to make them buck up the ideas. As much as you may want there to be, there is not a major leap between the law abiding people and the criminals. How many times have you broken the speed limit/thrown away a parking ticket/broken the law? That makes you a criminal, there is no 'us and them' most of the time.
I never said it wasn't the problem of the drunk person if they caused injury, i don't know where you got that from. The point is that it would have been much harder to commit that crime if they wern't armed. Your not viewing the entire picture of society. Your view of the wild west is true if they allowed guns, people are not used to them, there will be increases in violence, if just bringing them to parrallel per head to other countries. That is too much.
I don't see how keeping weapons off the streets is punishment (although it does sound like the beginnings of a good thread). Your saying 'yeh, the bad guys are gona have guns and knives, well, lets not bother trying to stop them having them, lets just arm the other side and make our jobs easier'.
Let me ask you a question, would you rather the bad guy didn't have a weapon, or that he did have one so you could shoot him?