England headed towards 'only the strong survive' country

[dksuddeth]

With the launch of a 'knives amnesty' program, a program designed to 'save lives and reduce injury', it should only be a matter of time before the violent crime and property crime hits an even bigger high.

Knives amnesty launched

The amnesty, which started today and runs until June 30, is part of a nationwide initiative targeted at 14- to 30-year-olds, particularly those who carry weapons out of fear.

I guess those that will carry them out of an intent to commit crime don't need to turn them in

"Taking knives off our streets will cut crime and save lives," said Inspector Nick Bancroft, of the community safety department at Wiltshire police.

because defending ones self against a violent criminal will only serve to get you killed and possibly charged with a crime.

"These weapons cause harm not only to the victims but to their families, friends and local communities.

but criminals are an integral and cherished part of our community who should not be ostracized and victimized for carrying out violence against others.

How much more are you brits willing to subject yourselves to before you realize that you're being primed for slavery?

[dksuddeth]

when is the 'curry powder amnesty' set to begin

A HERO shopkeeper foiled an armed robbery - by throwing his wife's red-hot curry powder in the face of the knifeman.

Sikander Ali proved too hot for robber Gary Boyd to handle when he demanded cash - and got a face full of curry powder instead.

how dare they, don't they know that they could have that curry powder turned against them?

[paulskinback]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

How much more are you brits willing to subject yourselves to before you realize that you're being primed for slavery?

We don't have a choice! There is never a referendum on the issues, the government just make decisions.

I can't stand this hell-hole of a country now i'm all "grown-up" and can't wait to emigrate.

[Topper]

What they need to do is ban bricks.. or start some sort of KFC for knives program...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006260255,00.html

I think it's hopeless at this point...

[basmoq]

I only visit states that have reciprocal CCW permit agreements with Ohio. Either that, or the states that will accept an Ohio CCW permit. Guns are good, people are bad.

[Topper]

Wouldn't it be nice if that legislation passed that would require all states to recognise concealed permits issues by other states? (like they have to do for driver's licenses, etc)

Not that it has much of a chance in passing though..

[stevie667]

To be honest, the government here sucks, the justice sucks, and yes, knife crime is on the increase.

However arguing that one should be able to carry a knife to defend oneself is fundamentally flawed, its like saying lets give everyone a gun, because that way it will be M.A.D.
Well, it only takes one idiot to pull out his knife and we have a frakin' middle ages melee on our hands. Weapons of the street is weapons off the street at the end of the day.

There will be a big change on this sooner or later, unfortunatly its going to take something very nasty happening to someone before it does.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevie667

To be honest, the government here sucks, the justice sucks, and yes, knife crime is on the increase.

However arguing that one should be able to carry a knife to defend oneself is fundamentally flawed, its like saying lets give everyone a gun, because that way it will be M.A.D.
Well, it only takes one idiot to pull out his knife and we have a frakin' middle ages melee on our hands. Weapons of the street is weapons off the street at the end of the day.

There will be a big change on this sooner or later, unfortunatly its going to take something very nasty happening to someone before it does.

when the law abiding populace is disarmed of every potentially harmful weaponry/tools and crime is running rampant where even the police are of little help, would that make you change your mind or will you then ask for your government to implement curfews and grouping laws?

[stevie667]

Thats a very extreme view your taking there, i think this thread would be better suited to politics at this rate.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevie667

Thats a very extreme view your taking there,

Well, lets see. you're country has already gone through a sever gun control restriction where almost 95% of your citizens have had to turn in their firearms, all in reaction to ONE massacre. Now that criminals, who aren't going to follow the anti gun laws anyway, have free reign, your citizens have started to carrying knives to defend themselves. Because criminals will always be present, those NEW criminals that haven't had a chance to acquire a gun are going to use a knife, so your country is going to outlaw knives. Will those criminals follow THIS law? doubtful, but eventually criminals will find knives hard to get hold of so they will resort to things like baseball bats. Will your country then ban them? who is the one with the extreme view again?

[Daniel_]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Well, lets see. you're country has already gone through a sever gun control restriction where almost 95% of your citizens have had to turn in their firearms, all in reaction to ONE massacre.

OK - there was a shooting at Hungerford (where a mentally ill man used an assault rifle, if I remember correctly). And then a few years later there was the shooting at Dunblane (where a man shot up a school with a handgun).

This was BEFORE the rules were changed, and therefore under the old gun control measures - and we still remember them decades later - this demonstrates not that we are at the mercy of criminals and ought to defend ourselves, but that we have a largely gun free society where acts so small that they would only just make the local news in the US remain in the national consciousness for years.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Now that criminals, who aren't going to follow the anti gun laws anyway, have free reign, your citizens have started to carrying knives to defend themselves. Because criminals will always be present, those NEW criminals that haven't had a chance to acquire a gun are going to use a knife, so your country is going to outlaw knives.

What crap. Knives have been carried for years and have been the "default" weapon of choice for most criminals for years - again, we have had rules in the UK forbidding the sale of knives to the under 16s for a decade or more, and simple possession of a knife with intent to harm is punishable by 2 years in jail already - BEFORE the new attention on knives.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Will those criminals follow THIS law? doubtful, but eventually criminals will find knives hard to get hold of so they will resort to things like baseball bats. Will your country then ban them? who is the one with the extreme view again?

Lets get this straight - you belive that because some people will use a minor weapon (e.g. a bat, to use your illustration) that the public at large must be allowed knives.

But then criminals use knives, so the public need handguns.

So criminals use handguns, so the public need rifles.

So criminals use rifles, so the public need machineguns.

Before you know it you are allowing people to use WMDs to defend their homes.

I live near a harbour - can I have an aircraft carrier to keep myself safe from a criminal armed with a pointed stick?

I have noticed that many of your arguments repeat the falacy of Xeno's Paradox - the one that shows it is not possible to shoot a tortoise with an arrow, because as the arrow gets to where the tortoise was, the tortoise has moved, and so forth - the problem is that you are dealing with smaller and smaller slices of time.

In your case you downgrade the weapons aailable and you are dealing with smaller and smaller slices of crime - therefore the number of people that get hurt or killed in England with it's silly laws that keep guns out of the hands of normal people is vastly lower than in nice, safe USA with it's armed citizens.

If having a gun makes you feel safe, then I'm glad you are happy with your local laws - keeping guns out of peoples private ownership makes me feel safe, so I'm happy to live here.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Daniel_

OK - there was a shooting at Hungerford (where a mentally ill man used an assault rifle, if I remember correctly). And then a few years later there was the shooting at Dunblane (where a man shot up a school with a handgun).

This was BEFORE the rules were changed, and therefore under the old gun control measures - and we still remember them decades later - this demonstrates not that we are at the mercy of criminals and ought to defend ourselves, but that we have a largely gun free society where acts so small that they would only just make the local news in the US remain in the national consciousness for years.

now I ask you, in your largely gun free society, are people NOT at the mercy of criminals who aren't following those gun laws?

Originally Posted by Daniel_

What crap. Knives have been carried for years and have been the "default" weapon of choice for most criminals for years - again, we have had rules in the UK forbidding the sale of knives to the under 16s for a decade or more, and simple possession of a knife with intent to harm is punishable by 2 years in jail already - BEFORE the new attention on knives.

ok, i'll accept that knives have been carried for years before this attention was brought to them, so I ask WHY has that attention been brought to them?

Originally Posted by Daniel_

In your case you downgrade the weapons aailable and you are dealing with smaller and smaller slices of crime - therefore the number of people that get hurt or killed in England with it's silly laws that keep guns out of the hands of normal people is vastly lower than in nice, safe USA with it's armed citizens.

by your statement here, I can only assume that your premise is that crime in England is mostly associated with 'normal' people being allowed access to guns. Are the English that inclined to commit crimes just because they were able to own a gun?

Originally Posted by Daniel_

If having a gun makes you feel safe, then I'm glad you are happy with your local laws - keeping guns out of peoples private ownership makes me feel safe, so I'm happy to live here.

Having a gun makes me feel safer than I would if I didn't have one, does keeping guns out of the hands of private law abiding citizens make you feel safer from criminals who have guns illegally?

[stevie667]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

now I ask you, in your largely gun free society, are people NOT at the mercy of criminals who aren't following those gun laws?

ok, i'll accept that knives have been carried for years before this attention was brought to them, so I ask WHY has that attention been brought to them?

by your statement here, I can only assume that your premise is that crime in England is mostly associated with 'normal' people being allowed access to guns. Are the English that inclined to commit crimes just because they were able to own a gun?

Having a gun makes me feel safer than I would if I didn't have one, does keeping guns out of the hands of private law abiding citizens make you feel safer from criminals who have guns illegally?

Unlike in america, every bad guy and his best friend don't carry guns, they're not a 'problem' per se, as only a small minority use them. We did ban guns over one incident, and it never happened (touch wood) again. I can think of several instances in the states where kids have gone into their schools and blown people away. Pretty good reason to ban guns IMHO.
Guns arn't a problem here anymore than they are in other countries that have restrictions on personal gun ownership.

Would you have one of your kids go into school with a knife because some other kid may or may not have one? How about sending him in with a gun for the same reason? Or maybe a baton or baseball bat.

Your argument seems to be that 'well, the bad guys are breaking the law, and they seem to like it, so why not let everyone else have weapons, yeh, that'll do'.

Attention has been brought to knives recently because several murders have been commited, a large proportion against kids, over the past few months. Bearing in mind england only has a few hundred murders each year, this is a big deal.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevie667

Unlike in america, every bad guy and his best friend don't carry guns, they're not a 'problem' per se, as only a small minority use them. We did ban guns over one incident, and it never happened (touch wood) again. I can think of several instances in the states where kids have gone into their schools and blown people away. Pretty good reason to ban guns IMHO.
Guns arn't a problem here anymore than they are in other countries that have restrictions on personal gun ownership.

thats odd, because I hear of gun crimes committed against your disarmed citizens on a daily basis. On top of that, what is the rest of your violent crime stats? how many done with knives and clubs? how many rapes, assaults, robberies?

Originally Posted by stevie667

Would you have one of your kids go into school with a knife because some other kid may or may not have one? How about sending him in with a gun for the same reason? Or maybe a baton or baseball bat.

I wouldn't have the kids armed, obviously, but more than one massacre has been prevented or stopped from having an adult around (not a cop) that had a gun.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Your argument seems to be that 'well, the bad guys are breaking the law, and they seem to like it, so why not let everyone else have weapons, yeh, that'll do'.

no, my argument is that the bad guys are victimizing unarmed individuals, therefore those unarmed individuals should arm themselves to protect themselves. THAT will do.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Attention has been brought to knives recently because several murders have been commited, a large proportion against kids, over the past few months. Bearing in mind england only has a few hundred murders each year, this is a big deal.

a picture perfect example of how banning guns did NOT prevent crime, it only forced those intent on committing crime to find a different means.

[Daniel_]

DK - you are missing the point to an extent. Your comment that attacks have been prevented by armed citizens is all well and good, and I understand the image that gives people that guns help keep them safe.

The difference is that guns being available allow mre crimes to take place - a quick google shows this: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

A Time Line of Recent Worldwide School Shootings
Feb. 2, 1996
Moses Lake, Wash. Two students and one teacher killed, one other wounded when 14-year-old Barry Loukaitis opened fire on his algebra class.
March 13, 1996
Dunblane, Scotland 16 children and one teacher killed at Dunblane Primary School by Thomas Hamilton, who then killed himself. 10 others wounded in attack.
Feb. 19, 1997
Bethel, Alaska Principal and one student killed, two others wounded by Evan Ramsey, 16.
March 1997
Sanaa, Yemen Eight people (six students and two others) at two schools killed by Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri.
Oct. 1, 1997
Pearl, Miss. Two students killed and seven wounded by Luke Woodham, 16, who was also accused of killing his mother. He and his friends were said to be outcasts who worshiped Satan.
Dec. 1, 1997
West Paducah, Ky. Three students killed, five wounded by Michael Carneal, 14, as they participated in a prayer circle at Heath High School.
Dec. 15, 1997
Stamps, Ark. Two students wounded. Colt Todd, 14, was hiding in the woods when he shot the students as they stood in the parking lot.
March 24, 1998
Jonesboro, Ark. Four students and one teacher killed, ten others wounded outside as Westside Middle School emptied during a false fire alarm. Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, shot at their classmates and teachers from the woods.
April 24, 1998
Edinboro, Pa. One teacher, John Gillette, killed, two students wounded at a dance at James W. Parker Middle School. Andrew Wurst, 14, was charged.
May 19, 1998
Fayetteville, Tenn. One student killed in the parking lot at Lincoln County High School three days before he was to graduate. The victim was dating the ex-girlfriend of his killer, 18-year-old honor student Jacob Davis.
May 21, 1998
Springfield, Ore. Two students killed, 22 others wounded in the cafeteria at Thurston High School by 15-year-old Kip Kinkel. Kinkel had been arrested and released a day earlier for bringing a gun to school. His parents were later found dead at home.
June 15, 1998
Richmond, Va. One teacher and one guidance counselor wounded by a 14-year-old boy in the school hallway.
April 20, 1999
Littleton, Colo. 14 students (including killers) and one teacher killed, 23 others wounded at Columbine High School in the nation's deadliest school shooting. Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, had plotted for a year to kill at least 500 and blow up their school. At the end of their hour-long rampage, they turned their guns on themselves.
April 28, 1999
Taber, Alberta, Canada One student killed, one wounded at W. R. Myers High School in first fatal high school shooting in Canada in 20 years. The suspect, a 14-year-old boy, had dropped out of school after he was severely ostracized by his classmates.
May 20, 1999
Conyers, Ga. Six students injured at Heritage High School by Thomas Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend.
Nov. 19, 1999
Deming, N.M. Victor Cordova Jr., 12, shot and killed Araceli Tena, 13, in the lobby of Deming Middle School.
Dec. 6, 1999
Fort Gibson, Okla. Four students wounded as Seth Trickey, 13, opened fire with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun at Fort Gibson Middle School.
Dec. 7, 1999
Veghel, Netherlands One teacher and three students wounded by a 17-year-old student.
Feb. 29, 2000
Mount Morris Township, Mich. Six-year-old Kayla Rolland shot dead at Buell Elementary School near Flint, Mich. The assailant was identified as a six-year-old boy with a .32-caliber handgun.
March 2000
Branneburg, Germany One teacher killed by a 15-year-old student, who then shot himself. The shooter has been in a coma ever since.
March 10, 2000
Savannah, Ga. Two students killed by Darrell Ingram, 19, while leaving a dance sponsored by Beach High School.
May 26, 2000
Lake Worth, Fla. One teacher, Barry Grunow, shot and killed at Lake Worth Middle School by Nate Brazill, 13, with .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol on the last day of classes.
Sept. 26, 2000
New Orleans, La. Two students wounded with the same gun during a fight at Woodson Middle School.
Jan. 17, 2001
Baltimore, Md. One student shot and killed in front of Lake Clifton Eastern High School.
Jan. 18, 2001
Jan, Sweden One student killed by two boys, ages 17 and 19.
March 5, 2001
Santee, Calif. Two killed and 13 wounded by Charles Andrew Williams, 15, firing from a bathroom at Santana High School.
March 7, 2001
Williamsport, Pa. Elizabeth Catherine Bush, 14, wounded student Kimberly Marchese in the cafeteria of Bishop Neumann High School; she was depressed and frequently teased.
March 22, 2001
Granite Hills, Calif. One teacher and three students wounded by Jason Hoffman, 18, at Granite Hills High School. A policeman shot and wounded Hoffman.
March 30, 2001
Gary, Ind. One student killed by Donald R. Burt, Jr., a 17-year-old student who had been expelled from Lew Wallace High School.
Nov. 12, 2001
Caro, Mich. Chris Buschbacher, 17, took two hostages at the Caro Learning Center before killing himself.
Jan. 15, 2002
New York, N.Y. A teenager wounded two students at Martin Luther King Jr. High School.
Feb. 19, 2002
Freising, Germany Two killed in Eching by a man at the factory from which he had been fired; he then traveled to Freising and killed the headmaster of the technical school from which he had been expelled. He also wounded another teacher before killing himself.
April 26, 2002
Erfurt, Germany 13 teachers, two students, and one policeman killed, ten wounded by Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, at the Johann Gutenberg secondary school. Steinhaeuser then killed himself.
April 29, 2002
Vlasenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina One teacher killed, one wounded by Dragoslav Petkovic, 17, who then killed himself.
April 14, 2003
New Orleans, La. One 15-year-old killed, and three students wounded at John McDonogh High School by gunfire from four teenagers (none were students at the school). The motive was gang-related.
April 24, 2003
Red Lion, Pa. James Sheets, 14, killed principal Eugene Segro of Red Lion Area Junior High School before killing himself.
Sept. 24, 2003
Cold Spring, Minn. Two students are killed at Rocori High School by John Jason McLaughlin, 15.
Sept. 28, 2004
Carmen de Patagones, Argentina Three students killed and 6 wounded by a 15-year-old Argentininan student in a town 620 miles south of Buenos Aires.
March 21, 2005
Red Lake, Minn. Jeff Weise, 16, killed grandfather and companion, then arrived at school where he killed a teacher, a security guard, 5 students, and finally himself, leaving a total of 10 dead.
Nov. 8, 2005
Jacksboro, Tenn. One 15-year-old shot and killed an assistant principal at Campbell County High School and seriously wounded two other administrators.

Sorry for the long list, but the point is that almost all of them are in the US.

Is the small number of lives saved by armed citizens worth the VAST number of people killed by nutters.

I vote NO, you vote YES.

I'm sure you are a great bloke, and I appreciate the way you defend your beliefs with strength and good manners - but I wouldn't want to live like you chose to.

[dksuddeth]

I just can't possibly believe that those school shootings took place because guns are not allowed in schools. (yes, i'm being sarcastic, bear with me)

earlier this year I mentioned that the 'gun free school zone' sign equated to a target rich environment and was promptly shot down by most people despite the fact that I posted two incidents where a faculty member had access to a gun and stopped the shooting in progress.

school shootings happen because law abiding citizens don't carry guns there making it a 'shooting fish in a barrel' scenario for those that decide to 'snap'.

does crime go down with more people being armed? I can't say for sure because some places it does and some places it doesn't, but this I can say for sure.....If a person is armed they are better able to defend themselves.

the old saying that 'an armed society is a polite society' does hold true, just look at vermont, one of the safest states in the nation.

[stevie667]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

thats odd, because I hear of gun crimes committed against your disarmed citizens on a daily basis. On top of that, what is the rest of your violent crime stats? how many done with knives and clubs? how many rapes, assaults, robberies?

I wouldn't have the kids armed, obviously, but more than one massacre has been prevented or stopped from having an adult around (not a cop) that had a gun.

no, my argument is that the bad guys are victimizing unarmed individuals, therefore those unarmed individuals should arm themselves to protect themselves. THAT will do.


a picture perfect example of how banning guns did NOT prevent crime, it only forced those intent on committing crime to find a different means.

There have been roughly 2 1/2 million reported incidents of violent crime in 2000, the highest majority of which was at home (27%).
On average, 43% of violent crimes were commited by a stranger.
Those may sound like large numbers, but i would like to see what the figures are in the states.

I'm not saying there isn't gun crime, of course there is. However, it is rare (comparative) and certainly isn't as prevelant as it is in the states.
How many knife crimes are committed in the states?

I applaud your idea that kids shouldn't have weapons, thats what i'm trying to say, and thats what this amnesty was trying to prevent, kids having weapons. We can't have everyone going around armed, because it only takes one idiot before we have a riot. Not everyone is as well informed about the dangers of weapons as others.
You say more than one massacre has been prevented by guns, but how many more have been caused? Its not a very good arguing point. Did those kids who went nuts at schools do it with guns they purchased on the black market, or happened to get from the store/family/home e.t.c?

Banning guns has prevented crime, it doesn't prevent all crime, but it does prevent alot that would happen if people had free access to guns. You can't ban knives, but you can at least try to keep them under control from a legal stand point.

The point that you seem to be making is that people should be armed because the criminals are armed. Shouldn't the whole point be stopping the criminals have weapons in the first place?


Edit: Just a thought, but how many people (criminals and law abiding) know how to use a knife, beyond stab and hope for the best, anyway?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevie667

We can't have everyone going around armed, because it only takes one idiot before we have a riot.

One thing i've noticed about all the people I know that are armed....they are some of the most polite people i've ever met and go out of their way to avoid conflict. It has been my experience that those people that know they have the power of life and death strapped to their belt take great pains to make sure they don't abuse it.

Originally Posted by stevie667

You say more than one massacre has been prevented by guns, but how many more have been caused? Its not a very good arguing point.

sure it is. think about this. at least two that I'm aware of were stopped because a responsible adult had a gun to stop it. the others were allowed to happen because there wasn't anyone there armed until police showed up.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Did those kids who went nuts at schools do it with guns they purchased on the black market, or happened to get from the store/family/home e.t.c?

all of the above, except for the gun store. juveniles are not allowed to buy guns legally.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Banning guns has prevented crime, it doesn't prevent all crime, but it does prevent alot that would happen if people had free access to guns. You can't ban knives, but you can at least try to keep them under control from a legal stand point.

I don't believe banning guns prevented crime. It may have prevented a gun crime, but it only forced intent criminals to find other tools or methods.

Originally Posted by stevie667

The point that you seem to be making is that people should be armed because the criminals are armed. Shouldn't the whole point be stopping the criminals have weapons in the first place?

when you can guarantee that criminals will not have the slightest possible chance of having any kind of weapon, I could possibly consider more stringent controls on private possession.

[Daniel_]

See - this is the problem.

You totally 100% KNOW that people having guns keeps then safe and makes them respect each other.

I (and seemingly stevie) totally 100% KNOW that keeping guns rare keeps people safe and makes them respect each other.

The crime statistis seem to back up Stevie's and my view - there is less gun crime in the UK than in the States per head of population.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Daniel_

See - this is the problem.

You totally 100% KNOW that people having guns keeps then safe and makes them respect each other.

I (and seemingly stevie) totally 100% KNOW that keeping guns rare keeps people safe and makes them respect each other.

The crime statistis seem to back up Stevie's and my view - there is less gun crime in the UK than in the States per head of population.

actually, I'm NOT saying that keeping a gun makes you safe. I'm saying it makes you safer than not having one.

The main problem seems to be that those of you who favor banning guns think that if there are fewer guns, there will be less crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. Crime will not go away because you remove one weapon from the table. Crime will continue as there will always be someone willing to commit a crime. That is human nature.

What I'm trying to say is that if law abiding people who want to be as safe as possible would carry a weapon, they would be more able and more responsible as to the issues of having a gun.

[stevie667]

We're not saying that removing weapons will stop crime, far from it. We're saying removing weapons may help to reduce crime with those weapons. Criminals are always going to commit crimes, we know that.

As for people who know how to use a gun, good for them. It doesn't mean there arn't a thousand idiots out there who don't for every one person that does.

Other massacres were allowed to happen not because the armed police didn't show up in time, but because the kids had guns. Which bit don't you get? The school massacres over here have been by complete nutjobs with guns, not some kid that went out and bought a gun on the black market. All you've proven is that guns are more freely accesable to criminals in the states.

Juvinilles are not allowed to buy knives legally either.

I'm not too sure of your logic. You seem to be thinking that arming the entire populance will be a good thing, for 'defence'? People are idiots, thats the problem. The less that are in charge of a weapon the better.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevie667

As for people who know how to use a gun, good for them. It doesn't mean there arn't a thousand idiots out there who don't for every one person that does.

of course, if we didn't make serious attempts at limiting peoples ability to be responsible for themselves, they just might be more responsible with a gun.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Other massacres were allowed to happen not because the armed police didn't show up in time, but because the kids had guns. Which bit don't you get? The school massacres over here have been by complete nutjobs with guns, not some kid that went out and bought a gun on the black market. All you've proven is that guns are more freely accesable to criminals in the states.

I graduated high school in 1984 and guns were easily more accessible and there were no school massacres back then. why is it so hard for people to believe that school massacres happen because kids KNOW that there victims are going to be unarmed and vulnerable?

Originally Posted by stevie667

I'm not too sure of your logic. You seem to be thinking that arming the entire populance will be a good thing, for 'defence'? People are idiots, thats the problem. The less that are in charge of a weapon the better.

how about forcing these 'idiots' to stop being idiots instead of letting them continue their idiotic ways of irresponsibility?

[stevie667]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

of course, if we didn't make serious attempts at limiting peoples ability to be responsible for themselves, they just might be more responsible with a gun.

I graduated high school in 1984 and guns were easily more accessible and there were no school massacres back then. why is it so hard for people to believe that school massacres happen because kids KNOW that there victims are going to be unarmed and vulnerable?


how about forcing these 'idiots' to stop being idiots instead of letting them continue their idiotic ways of irresponsibility?

Similarly, if we stopped trying to stop people committing crimes, then they must just be nice and not offend?

School massacres happen because kids get pissed off, kids realised that they can kill people who've pissed them off with relative impunity, then go and act on that. Your responding to the problem by arming the populance, not fixing it.

Forcing people to stop being idiots? Welcome to the department of education, take a seat and someone will be with you in A-5 minutes B-10 minutes C-25 minutes D-sometime with the next 28 days.

Seriously, all your points may be great on paper, but in reality, they don't work. The problems are weapons and the people who use them. You need to act on both fronts, not just one.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevie667

Similarly, if we stopped trying to stop people committing crimes, then they must just be nice and not offend?

you can't stop people from committing crime by making one or two weapons illegal. You prevent future crimes by locking these violent people up for life.

Originally Posted by stevie667

School massacres happen because kids get pissed off, kids realised that they can kill people who've pissed them off with relative impunity, then go and act on that. Your responding to the problem by arming the populance, not fixing it.

It's the responsibility of parents to fix that problem, not the governments. It's also not fixing the problem by arming all the adults, i agree, what it does do is remove a target rich environment for said child to kill as many people with impunity by having someone there able to stop the massacre.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Forcing people to stop being idiots? Welcome to the department of education, take a seat and someone will be with you in A-5 minutes B-10 minutes C-25 minutes D-sometime with the next 28 days.

stop using the government as a baby sitter and people will either become responsible for themselves or wallow in self defeat and devestation. I assure you, most people will buck up and become responsible.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Seriously, all your points may be great on paper, but in reality, they don't work. The problems are weapons and the people who use them. You need to act on both fronts, not just one.

The problem most certainly is the people that use them, not the weapons themselves else every cop out there would be committing crimes also. A weapon is a tool that is neither good nor evil, only an extension of the will using it.

[stevie667]

Just for the record, i believe this argument is going nowhere fast.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you can't stop people from committing crime by making one or two weapons illegal. You prevent future crimes by locking these violent people up for life.

It's the responsibility of parents to fix that problem, not the governments. It's also not fixing the problem by arming all the adults, i agree, what it does do is remove a target rich environment for said child to kill as many people with impunity by having someone there able to stop the massacre.

stop using the government as a baby sitter and people will either become responsible for themselves or wallow in self defeat and devestation. I assure you, most people will buck up and become responsible.

The problem most certainly is the people that use them, not the weapons themselves else every cop out there would be committing crimes also. A weapon is a tool that is neither good nor evil, only an extension of the will using it.

Locking everyone who commits a violent crime up for life? I definatly agree with the sentiment, but its about as realistic as getting all the bad guys round for a cup of tea and discussing why what they do is wrong.

You said why not force the idiots to stop being idiots. Now your saying, for all intents and purposes, that the idiot parents need to stop the idiot children being idiots. People won't stop doing what they're doing because its the right thing to do, or because someone tells them. They will do what is easiest, plain and simple. The few people who are sensible enough in the first place don't factor into the equation because they're already responsible.

Having armed guards at school does one thing, ensure that when someone does get pissed off enough to come in with a gun, there will his death if not others. It doesn't solve the issues of the kids being armed, they can still go out on the streets and blow people away.

I will agree with your final statement, but, you must agree, someone can't use a weapon for bad purposes if they don't have one, it doesn't matter who they are. I do leave the police out of my statements because they aren't the problem in society.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevie667

Just for the record, i believe this argument is going nowhere fast.

you're probably right. It's been my experience that the majority of anti-gun liberals have an ideal that refuses to be shaken, even when presented with cold hard facts to refute their position. Not that i'm saying you're 'liberal', but it certainly seems that way from what you've stated so far.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Locking everyone who commits a violent crime up for life? I definatly agree with the sentiment, but its about as realistic as getting all the bad guys round for a cup of tea and discussing why what they do is wrong.

I agree, realistically this can't happen because too many 'liberal' minded individuals think that these violent criminals are just misunderstood.

Originally Posted by stevie667

You said why not force the idiots to stop being idiots. Now your saying, for all intents and purposes, that the idiot parents need to stop the idiot children being idiots. People won't stop doing what they're doing because its the right thing to do, or because someone tells them. They will do what is easiest, plain and simple. The few people who are sensible enough in the first place don't factor into the equation because they're already responsible.

which is why I say that the only solution is to lock them up when they commit a crime. If a person or criminal can't be trusted with weapons, they don't need to be walking the streets.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Having armed guards at school does one thing, ensure that when someone does get pissed off enough to come in with a gun, there will his death if not others. It doesn't solve the issues of the kids being armed, they can still go out on the streets and blow people away.

and it wouldn't get very far in the streets either if people took responsibility for their own defense instead of leaving it to incompetent police.

Originally Posted by stevie667

I will agree with your final statement, but, you must agree, someone can't use a weapon for bad purposes if they don't have one, it doesn't matter who they are. I do leave the police out of my statements because they aren't the problem in society.

Again, if you could guarantee, with your life, that nobody could ever get their hands on a weapon, i'd consider weapon banishment a possibility. As for police not being the problem? I suggest you google 'police' and 'we're the only ones' and start reading the stories of police being problems. Of course one might say that this is just the example of only a few people, but I could say the same thing about 'citizens' irresponsibility with guns being 'just a few'.

[stevie667]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you're probably right. It's been my experience that the majority of anti-gun liberals have an ideal that refuses to be shaken, even when presented with cold hard facts to refute their position. Not that i'm saying you're 'liberal', but it certainly seems that way from what you've stated so far.

I agree, realistically this can't happen because too many 'liberal' minded individuals think that these violent criminals are just misunderstood.

which is why I say that the only solution is to lock them up when they commit a crime. If a person or criminal can't be trusted with weapons, they don't need to be walking the streets.

and it wouldn't get very far in the streets either if people took responsibility for their own defense instead of leaving it to incompetent police.

Again, if you could guarantee, with your life, that nobody could ever get their hands on a weapon, i'd consider weapon banishment a possibility. As for police not being the problem? I suggest you google 'police' and 'we're the only ones' and start reading the stories of police being problems. Of course one might say that this is just the example of only a few people, but I could say the same thing about 'citizens' irresponsibility with guns being 'just a few'.

I'm far from liberal in my stance upon crime, my opinion is to bring back the gallows for a vast majority of them, but i do not believe private gun ownership is something to be had in society, neither is the regular carrying of knives. The cold hard facts are, put simply, more people die from guns where they are allowed, then where they are not. More crimes are committed where guns are allowed, then where they are not. Getting knives off the street is an important step in crime prevention. Sure, criminals are always going to commit crime with knives, but the aim is to stop kids going around with knives because they think they will be 'hard', or they have some kind of protection.

You say locking people up when they commit a crime isn't the whole picture. One needs to stop them committing the crime in the first place. Your responding to the problem, not preventing it.

The point of the police is to defend the public. On the whole the police here do a reasonably good job, they fuck up a fair few times, but so does any force. The police arn't routinely armed over here, so their incidents of bad gun practice are limited (though not unheard of). I can't speak however for the american police...

Not everyone wants to defend themselves. Is it reasonable to give an old lady a knife to prevent someone stealing her bag? How about a little kid in the playground so no-one will pick on him? Maybe i should give a knife to my sister so that she can stab anyone who makes unwanted advances. The line is very small, and very easy to cross between defending oneself, and plain old assault/murder. People would need a good legal grounding to stop themselves falling short of the law.

In theory, it may work, but in practice, no. Defending oneself against an armed criminal when your armed will just end in tears for a vast majority of people. Personally, i don't carry a knife, and i would like to see the standard robber around here try to get my wallet when i've just broken his shin/testicles with my steel toe caps. If he had a gun, then i might be more inclined to comply, but he would have to pull a pretty big knife to make me do the same. Thats just my opinion however.

As far as i can see, my opinion of your stance is that you appear to be the typical 'lets give everyone guns and let them sort out their own problems' yankee.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevie667

I'm far from liberal in my stance upon crime, my opinion is to bring back the gallows for a vast majority of them, but i do not believe private gun ownership is something to be had in society, neither is the regular carrying of knives. The cold hard facts are, put simply, more people die from guns where they are allowed, then where they are not. More crimes are committed where guns are allowed, then where they are not.

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?

Originally Posted by stevie667

Getting knives off the street is an important step in crime prevention. Sure, criminals are always going to commit crime with knives, but the aim is to stop kids going around with knives because they think they will be 'hard', or they have some kind of protection.

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?

Originally Posted by stevie667

You say locking people up when they commit a crime isn't the whole picture. One needs to stop them committing the crime in the first place. Your responding to the problem, not preventing it.

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.

Originally Posted by stevie667

The point of the police is to defend the public. On the whole the police here do a reasonably good job, they fuck up a fair few times, but so does any force. The police arn't routinely armed over here, so their incidents of bad gun practice are limited (though not unheard of). I can't speak however for the american police...

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.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Not everyone wants to defend themselves.

you're kidding, right? are there actually people in England that prefer being a victim instead of defending themselves?

Originally Posted by stevie667

Is it reasonable to give an old lady a knife to prevent someone stealing her bag?

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.

Originally Posted by stevie667

How about a little kid in the playground so no-one will pick on him?

That would be called adult supervision.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Maybe i should give a knife to my sister so that she can stab anyone who makes unwanted advances.

you'd rather her be raped and possibly murdered than for her to fight back and defend herself from harm?

Originally Posted by stevie667

The line is very small, and very easy to cross between defending oneself, and plain old assault/murder. People would need a good legal grounding to stop themselves falling short of the law.

this goes without saying. If someone assaults you or intends to assault you, you have the natural human right to defend yourself.

Originally Posted by stevie667

In theory, it may work, but in practice, no. Defending oneself against an armed criminal when your armed will just end in tears for a vast majority of people.

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.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Personally, i don't carry a knife, and i would like to see the standard robber around here try to get my wallet when i've just broken his shin/testicles with my steel toe caps. If he had a gun, then i might be more inclined to comply, but he would have to pull a pretty big knife to make me do the same. Thats just my opinion however.

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?

Originally Posted by stevie667

As far as i can see, my opinion of your stance is that you appear to be the typical 'lets give everyone guns and let them sort out their own problems' yankee.

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.

[stevie667]

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.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevie667

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.

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'?

Originally Posted by stevie667

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.

yes you have. you've said that banning guns would prevent crime. not ALL crime, but it would prevent some crime.

Originally Posted by stevie667

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).

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.

Originally Posted by stevie667

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.

Then I would say get some training. fast.

Originally Posted by stevie667

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.

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.

Originally Posted by stevie667

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.

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.

Originally Posted by stevie667

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.

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.

Originally Posted by stevie667

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?

I've educated MY kids about them. Whats stopping others?

Originally Posted by stevie667

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.

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?

Originally Posted by stevie667

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.

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?

[stevie667]

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.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevie667

Firstly, banning crimes prevents circumstantial crime with those guns.

Crime is already illegal, what will banning crime do?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

[stevie667]

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.

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?

[dksuddeth]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[stevie667]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

How would you define intention? How would you define harm? Would you kill him, or just wound him? I'm all for killing intruders into ones home, but would you do the same on the streets?

You said people don't want guns, so if the bad guy has guns, that person now has no way to defend themselves, yes? Obviously they need to go buy a gun, because the bad guy has one.


Despite your claims otherwise, you don't seem to be grasping the difference between petty criminals and gang warfare. Your average criminal in england does not have a gun, your average criminal in england couldn't get a gun if he tried. Apart from the usual inner city/crime hotspots, guns are pretty rare. I'd imagine it would be significantly easier to get one in the states.

'Hardcore' criminals will have guns, normal criminals won't. Its hard to commit a gun crime if you don't have a gun. By definition, gun crime is drastically reduced. If someone has a knife, they are in theory less dangerous than someone with a gun, but still dangerous.
Getting knives off the streets, either by confiscating them/imprisoning or educating the owners is a priority. You'll never be able to get everyone to give up their weapons, thats stupid, but its a priority nonetheless. Your approach seems to be along the lines of 'well, theres gona be drunk drivers, so lets give law abiding people a tank'.

Ok, i accept the fact that guns arn't a major factor in child suicide, but what about gun accidents? Pretty hard to have a gun accident if you can't get hold of one.
I also never said petty criminal acts were violent acts, i said they were merely criminal, you then took it onto yourself to infer violence. The point was about the line between criminals and law abiders being a thing one.

I havn't bought into the idea of guns caused random acts of violence, i've watched in on many many a police reality show from the states. Watch a reality show from england, and you'll see a gun hardly ever, and even more rarely used.

Yes, you cannot stop bad people getting guns, but you can make it harder. I don't know why you consider your police so inept, but its their job to keep law and order, not ours.
You are simply subsituting one form of violence for another, not once have you properly adressed the problem behind it. Social change will not happen if one only tries to change one part of the populance.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevie667

How would you define intention? How would you define harm? Would you kill him, or just wound him? I'm all for killing intruders into ones home, but would you do the same on the streets?

all necessary means to stop the threat of harm. If that means the bad guys death, so be it.

Originally Posted by stevie667

You said people don't want guns, so if the bad guy has guns, that person now has no way to defend themselves, yes? Obviously they need to go buy a gun, because the bad guy has one.

Actually, I think I said that nobody wants bad guys from having guns, not that nobody wants a gun.

Originally Posted by stevie667

Despite your claims otherwise, you don't seem to be grasping the difference between petty criminals and gang warfare. Your average criminal in england does not have a gun, your average criminal in england couldn't get a gun if he tried. Apart from the usual inner city/crime hotspots, guns are pretty rare. I'd imagine it would be significantly easier to get one in the states.

'Hardcore' criminals will have guns, normal criminals won't. Its hard to commit a gun crime if you don't have a gun. By definition, gun crime is drastically reduced. If someone has a knife, they are in theory less dangerous than someone with a gun, but still dangerous.
Getting knives off the streets, either by confiscating them/imprisoning or educating the owners is a priority. You'll never be able to get everyone to give up their weapons, thats stupid, but its a priority nonetheless. Your approach seems to be along the lines of 'well, theres gona be drunk drivers, so lets give law abiding people a tank'.

Ok, i accept the fact that guns arn't a major factor in child suicide, but what about gun accidents? Pretty hard to have a gun accident if you can't get hold of one.
I also never said petty criminal acts were violent acts, i said they were merely criminal, you then took it onto yourself to infer violence. The point was about the line between criminals and law abiders being a thing one.

I havn't bought into the idea of guns caused random acts of violence, i've watched in on many many a police reality show from the states. Watch a reality show from england, and you'll see a gun hardly ever, and even more rarely used.

Yes, you cannot stop bad people getting guns, but you can make it harder. I don't know why you consider your police so inept, but its their job to keep law and order, not ours.
You are simply subsituting one form of violence for another, not once have you properly adressed the problem behind it. Social change will not happen if one only tries to change one part of the populance.

I think you may be right when you said that it's time to stop the debate. It's not going anywhere. peace.

[stevie667]

T'was a good argument.

[Daniel_]

Agreed.

Interesting sparring, but ultimately you will never convince me to give up my British view of guns, and we will never convince you to give up your American one.

Like I said - good that we each live where we do.

[longbough]

Originally Posted by paulskinback

We don't have a choice! There is never a referendum on the issues, the government just make decisions.

I can't stand this hell-hole of a country now i'm all "grown-up" and can't wait to emigrate.

AMEN!!!
I was born in the U.S. but lived in the Westmidlands for a year and came back with a greater appreciation of our rights as U.S. citizens!

As an average UK citizen you don't have any leverage to question the genesis nor execution of most laws no matter how draconian.

It's a sad fact that most U.S. citizens don't realize how good we have it here. We take our individual rights and freedoms for granted often times. Living abroad really opens up one's eyes - I've lived in the West Indies, the UK and a couple of other places. But it's good to be back in the U.S.A.

[dksuddeth]

http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/s...0-3102,00.html

"A SCORNED Spanish man desperate to be reunited with his ex-wife has been accused of setting the woman's new fiance alight outside a Gold Coast social club." ...

"Mr Fuller said Exposito waited in the car park until the couple left about 10pm, then threw a bucket of petrol on Sanchez and ignited it."

"He said Sanchez was burning when he ran back into the club, where bar staff doused the flames with water and wet tablecloths."

"Sanchez was taken ... to the Royal Brisbane Hospital with burns to 75 per cent of his body. He died on May 1, 2003." ...

"Balaguer said he told her she was lucky he had not been able to buy a pistol on a recent trip to Sydney or she and Sanchez would be dead." ...

So, instead of being shot in anger, Mr. Sanchez spent the last 6 weeks of his life in agony dying in a burn unit. Does that make him 'morally superior' than stooping to having a gun for self defense, possibly killing his attacker?



would have posted the entire article, but seems that service is down right now.