Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
you shouldn't have to and there are quite a few of us over here who are still doing what we can to get these policies overturned.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
Gun ownership in the states has been considered a natural right since our country was founded. That doesn't mean that every one is forced to own one. It simply means that if someone wants to, they can. Is someone a pansy because they don't want to own one? certainly not and I don't believe I said that they were.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
Do criminals still have guns in England? by all accounts, they still do so from what I can gather is that banning guns only truly affected those that wished to abide by the law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
IT is a fallacious argument to say that a gun caused that childs suicide. It is also a fallacious argument to say that guns cause crime. If guns caused crime then Englands crime rate should have dropped precipitously, but it hasn't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
depending on what kind of shootings you want to consider, most of it is gang on gang shootings while some of it is criminal/victim shootings.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
a speed limit violation or a parking ticket does not a violent criminal make. It's useless to reduce an argument down to semantics of this nature. We all know that when we consider guns and criminals, that we are talking the violent criminal type. It is offensive to garner every individual who has committed a jaywalking infraction in to the violent criminal category.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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.
|
There were less random shootings in the wild west than there are today, even given the population increase. You've bought in to the myth that cold pieces of steel in the shape of a gun cause mass hysteria, random acts of violence, and surges of testosterone.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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'.
|
Back in the 18th century here it was policy to lock someone up for life or hang them if they committed a crime with a gun. gun crime barely existed for that reason. You CANNOT stop bad people from getting guns, even if England totally banned lead and gunpowder from the island. It's never going to happen, so yes, the bad guys are always going to have guns. Tell me what good it is going to do to keep the populace vulnerable to rape, robbery, and murder?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
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?
|
In a perfect world the bad guy wouldn't have a weapon. That is never going to happen while the bad guy is free. It also wouldn't matter if he had a weapon or not for me to shoot him. All that would be required would be for him to intend to do harm to me or someone near me for me to shoot him.