Maybe they will amend it so you can have them as long as you dont run with them.Major_Spittle wrote:
I'd carry a potatoe peeler if they took away my knife.SuperSlowYo wrote:
man this is too funny... they even want ppl to hand in kitchen knives classic... fear the deadly butter knife larfff
Wow, a society that doesn't trust itself with sharp objects.
Having a gun stops lots of crime and stops lots of criminals. How many people have been mugged while packing a gun on their hip???? How many homes are broken into when they know someone is home and armed???? How many times has someone been cased and they make it a point to show they are packing a gun and the criminals go away????Vilham wrote:
haha thats classic, you americans take the piss, your like 'i own a gun for my protection' You do realise that you are more likly to get killed by your own gun than actually stop a criminal. Here in england we dont need to protect ourselves, our police actually do their jobs and protect us. America is a joke on democracy.specops10-4 wrote:
I am lucky to be in the US, soon in the UK they will take away pens and pencils and make everyone use crayons...
All these laws are getting me worried, I really do not care about gun laws or knife laws, but soon all the criminals will have weapons "illegally" while us law abiding people give up our stuff and have little to defend ourselves...
I don't hear about many campsite thefts during hunting season, but you hear about it all the rest of the year.
The fact is that guns stop a lot of crimes that they aren't given credit for or people don't even know about.
When I first moved into an apartment in a bad part of a town in Oregon I had my Bar-B-Que stolen and my car vandalized. So I started packing my gun in my hand between my car and my front door for all to see while I was talking out loud to myself saying nonsense like "killin' some mutherfucker fuckin' with me". Nothing happened after that and the local thugs were afraid to even make eye contact with me or talk while I was around.
The couple next door knew me well and got a big kick out of it. It was my "Nobody messes with the crazy man with the gun" philosophy. It worked, and parents actually started policing their own kids around the place and not letting them run wild because I would stand in the window with my gun watching kids if they were around my car.
I never had to brandish my weapon at anyone or do anything illegal. I just carried it where it was visible.
Last edited by Major_Spittle (2006-05-27 15:04:47)
Yes this is true, You are 100 percent Right, but I never had any formal training in Firearms myself so I don't feel i would be qualified to teach them. Plus I can be disorganized and don't trust myself to keep them secure ( All the time ) when I lived alone it was not and issue.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Hmm. This is definately where I differ in opinion. I'd feel safer having my kid(s) know guns inside and out, with target shooting experience under their belt. That way, guns wouldn't be such a stigma to them that they'd be tempted to smuggle one to school or play with them at a friend's house just to be "cool." I never knew any kid to bring a circular saw or a power drill to class just to be cool. Guns need to be viewed as a tool, not some romanticized forbidden object.Horseman 77 wrote:
I do not have a gun "Now 'and don't want one in my house when I move into it ( kids ) but I would not attempt to tell someone else how to think.
That being said, I would keep my guns under lock and key. Who knows what their friends would do if they came over to my place?
You are quoting from the Kleck Study.Vilham wrote:
haha thats classic, you americans take the piss, your like 'i own a gun for my protection' You do realise that you are more likly to get killed by your own gun than actually stop a criminal. .
It actually reads " Gun owners are more likely to hurt a Loved one "
You will notice it doesn't say Family member or any other Legal term.
That's because Family member is a closely defined legal term, "Loved one" is not.
According to the Kleck Study.
The two drug dealers " knew each other " so they fall into the "Loved one" category when one kills the other.
Also to achieve this statistic they needed to add all Police shootings
under the guise that They "Knew" the victim.
The kleck study has been totally discredited as is the statistics it produced.
In the USA Gun owners kill 9 times more armed felons Than police do.
This does not mean Grandma Smith on Pleasant Lane. Home town, USA killed a prowler.
( Although this does happen. Ask my Ex Wife.)
It means Drug dealer 1 killed Drug dealer 2. Not the police!
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-27 16:26:03)
Which means guns have less reason to avoid killing.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
A gun can't be sued for malpractice.
Do you even know the meaning of the word veracity? If I'd been using it to counter, I would have said "Hey, look at this website, and you'll know you're wrong". Instead I asked to know how accurate it is. Which, other than commenting on the quote (useful, but not exactly relevant in the grand scheme of things).unnamednewbie13 wrote:
But wonderful, counter with a blatantly one-sided anti-gun website.
Heh, I'm not surprised that you didn't spot it.Horseman 77 wrote:
The "where's Waldo" Reader checks in.mikkel wrote:
Amazingly, it was necessary for you to be able to comprehend the concept, which I'm not even sure you have.Horseman 77 wrote:
Maybe I should close this topic, I have found myself arguing with someone who is Reading and Quoting from
" Where's Waldo "
It has become surreal. Roflmao
The mark of a good man is to concede when he has lost. I guess you aren't one of those. It was fun debating with you, although I really wish you could have held your ground a little longer.
Debate takes two viable points of view. You didn't bring yours. Get back to us when you do.
Now go find Waldo.
It's cute how you get all upset and offended after proclaiming that you didn't believe in unwarranted insults and didn't make yourself out to be superior to others. It's kinda like debating with a kid. Take away his argument and he gets sad and mean. Also good to see that you couldn't reply to my post. When get back to us when you can.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-28 02:10:01)
and as i said, in england we dont have these problems, now that means one of the following:Major_Spittle wrote:
Having a gun stops lots of crime and stops lots of criminals. How many people have been mugged while packing a gun on their hip???? How many homes are broken into when they know someone is home and armed???? How many times has someone been cased and they make it a point to show they are packing a gun and the criminals go away????Vilham wrote:
haha thats classic, you americans take the piss, your like 'i own a gun for my protection' You do realise that you are more likly to get killed by your own gun than actually stop a criminal. Here in england we dont need to protect ourselves, our police actually do their jobs and protect us. America is a joke on democracy.specops10-4 wrote:
I am lucky to be in the US, soon in the UK they will take away pens and pencils and make everyone use crayons...
All these laws are getting me worried, I really do not care about gun laws or knife laws, but soon all the criminals will have weapons "illegally" while us law abiding people give up our stuff and have little to defend ourselves...
I don't hear about many campsite thefts during hunting season, but you hear about it all the rest of the year.
The fact is that guns stop a lot of crimes that they aren't given credit for or people don't even know about.
When I first moved into an apartment in a bad part of a town in Oregon I had my Bar-B-Que stolen and my car vandalized. So I started packing my gun in my hand between my car and my front door for all to see while I was talking out loud to myself saying nonsense like "killin' some mutherfucker fuckin' with me". Nothing happened after that and the local thugs were afraid to even make eye contact with me or talk while I was around.
The couple next door knew me well and got a big kick out of it. It was my "Nobody messes with the crazy man with the gun" philosophy. It worked, and parents actually started policing their own kids around the place and not letting them run wild because I would stand in the window with my gun watching kids if they were around my car.
I never had to brandish my weapon at anyone or do anything illegal. I just carried it where it was visible.
1. Its because your allowed to own guns that their is so much of this crime in america.
2. Theres something fundamentally wrong with the way you are brought up and the way your culture runs, and dont try to claim poverty as the richest country in the world.
3. Something different that i cant personally think of but feel free to think of one yourself.
I personally think its your allowance of guns that makes people so used to them that you dont notice the problems that they cause.
Now tbh the best way to stop crime is a supportive community that realy reduces crime, and that is exactly what the knife amnesty is for.
Well actually i wasnt quoting that at all, its a fact based on statistics, guns that arent used in wars are more likely to hurt someone as an accident that on purpose.Horseman 77 wrote:
You are quoting from the Kleck Study.
It actually reads " Gun owners are more likely to hurt a Loved one "
You will notice it doesn't say Family member or any other Legal term.
That's because Family member is a closely defined legal term, "Loved one" is not.
1. No that's not it, we have always had guns and the british used too until they outlawed them.Vilham wrote:
and as i said, in england we dont have these problems, now that means one of the following:Major_Spittle wrote:
Having a gun stops lots of crime and stops lots of criminals. How many people have been mugged while packing a gun on their hip???? How many homes are broken into when they know someone is home and armed???? How many times has someone been cased and they make it a point to show they are packing a gun and the criminals go away????Vilham wrote:
haha thats classic, you americans take the piss, your like 'i own a gun for my protection' You do realise that you are more likly to get killed by your own gun than actually stop a criminal. Here in england we dont need to protect ourselves, our police actually do their jobs and protect us. America is a joke on democracy.
I don't hear about many campsite thefts during hunting season, but you hear about it all the rest of the year.
The fact is that guns stop a lot of crimes that they aren't given credit for or people don't even know about.
When I first moved into an apartment in a bad part of a town in Oregon I had my Bar-B-Que stolen and my car vandalized. So I started packing my gun in my hand between my car and my front door for all to see while I was talking out loud to myself saying nonsense like "killin' some mutherfucker fuckin' with me". Nothing happened after that and the local thugs were afraid to even make eye contact with me or talk while I was around.
The couple next door knew me well and got a big kick out of it. It was my "Nobody messes with the crazy man with the gun" philosophy. It worked, and parents actually started policing their own kids around the place and not letting them run wild because I would stand in the window with my gun watching kids if they were around my car.
I never had to brandish my weapon at anyone or do anything illegal. I just carried it where it was visible.
1. Its because your allowed to own guns that their is so much of this crime in america.
2. Theres something fundamentally wrong with the way you are brought up and the way your culture runs, and dont try to claim poverty as the richest country in the world.
3. Something different that i cant personally think of but feel free to think of one yourself.
I personally think its your allowance of guns that makes people so used to them that you dont notice the problems that they cause.
Now tbh the best way to stop crime is a supportive community that realy reduces crime, and that is exactly what the knife amnesty is for.Well actually i wasnt quoting that at all, its a fact based on statistics, guns that arent used in wars are more likely to hurt someone as an accident that on purpose.Horseman 77 wrote:
You are quoting from the Kleck Study.
It actually reads " Gun owners are more likely to hurt a Loved one "
You will notice it doesn't say Family member or any other Legal term.
That's because Family member is a closely defined legal term, "Loved one" is not.
2. Getting warmer.
3. Here you go, we have immigrants in this country. Lots of immigrants. Some illegal immigrants. Racial violence and gangs. Lots of drugs brought in by open boarders. Massive drug problems. Weak drug laws.
NONE OF WHICH WILL GO AWAY EVEN IF YOU COULD DISARM THE CITIZENS AND CRIMINALS. they would just carry knives, sharp pencils, sling shots, rocks, bats, wet noodles, .... you name it.
wet noodles...lol
dont laugh at a sack of ramen
dont laugh at a sack of ramen
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-05-28 13:34:13)
Would I be wrong to not take the statment below as an insult? this was your very first response to me.mikkel wrote:
Heh, I'm not surprised that you didn't spot it.Horseman 77 wrote:
The "where's Waldo" Reader checks in.mikkel wrote:
Amazingly, it was necessary for you to be able to comprehend the concept, which I'm not even sure you have.
The mark of a good man is to concede when he has lost. I guess you aren't one of those. It was fun debating with you, although I really wish you could have held your ground a little longer.
Debate takes two viable points of view. You didn't bring yours. Get back to us when you do.
Now go find Waldo.
It's cute how you get all upset and offended after proclaiming that you didn't believe in unwarranted insults and didn't make yourself out to be superior to others. It's kinda like debating with a kid. Take away his argument and he gets sad and mean. Also good to see that you couldn't reply to my post. When get back to us when you can.
So you think I am Cute ? please back off that train of thought. Debating with a kid ? Yes it has been trying and Yes I am glad you did finally see my point. You don't seem to have anything to add of your own just some pre-pubescent fixation on me and my opinions. You would do well to list your own observations if and when you make one. Until that day comes at least try and come up with your own material. Now go " find Waldo ".mikkel wrote:
You'd be rather ignorant to think that.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-28 14:20:36)
The Statistics produced in " The Kleck Study" is where that well known often touted " Fact " comes from.Vilham wrote:
Well actually i wasnt quoting that at all, its a fact based on statistics, guns that arent used in wars are more likely to hurt someone as an accident that on purpose.Horseman 77 wrote:
You are quoting from the Kleck Study.
It actually reads " Gun owners are more likely to hurt a Loved one "
You will notice it doesn't say Family member or any other Legal term.
That's because Family member is a closely defined legal term, "Loved one" is not.
Sorry, I didn't mean you were quoting directly, But that factoid has been floating around for a while
and it has been proven false. It is just not a valid claim in the USA anyway.
Another Falsified Stat to come out of " the Kleck study " is " Children's death by guns number one leading cause "
The Kleck study listed any person killed by a gun under 24 years of age to be a child. Even gang members.
The medical community in the USA uses 12 and under as a child. over 13 I believe they view as adolescent. adulthood starts at 18 years.
The insurance company's list pools as the number 1 lethal threat to children, considering how few homes have pools in the USA I think that is a remarkable statistic. Fire is a close second.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-28 14:05:18)
Heh, see your point? I saw it the second you posted it, and it's still just as invalid. Perhaps that's why you still haven't replied to my last post on the topic, and instead stick to these pathetic attempts to avoid having to actually answer it. I'm sorry, but this kind of behaviour is just entirely too pathetic. It feels to me like I'm debating with a 12 year old.Horseman 77 wrote:
Would I be wrong to not take the statment below as an insult?mikkel wrote:
Heh, I'm not surprised that you didn't spot it.Horseman 77 wrote:
The "where's Waldo" Reader checks in.
Debate takes two viable points of view. You didn't bring yours. Get back to us when you do.
Now go find Waldo.
It's cute how you get all upset and offended after proclaiming that you didn't believe in unwarranted insults and didn't make yourself out to be superior to others. It's kinda like debating with a kid. Take away his argument and he gets sad and mean. Also good to see that you couldn't reply to my post. When get back to us when you can.So you think I am Cute ? please back off that train of thought. Debating with a kid ? Yes it has been trying and Yes I am glad you did finally see my point. You don't seem to have anything to add of your own just some pre-pubescent fixation on me and my opinions. You would do well to list your own observations if and when you make one. Until that day comes at least try and come up with your own material. Now go " find Waldo ".mikkel wrote:
You'd be rather ignorant to think that.
Come back to me when you can actually counter my points instead of childishly trying to ridicule your way out of it. If you can't, I'm afraid you aren't mature enough for these kinds of discussions.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-28 14:23:31)
Sticks and stones may break my bones.......
Oh wait, do we have to ban those too?
Oh wait, do we have to ban those too?
The poor little tyke still has yet to add a thought or observation of his own.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-28 14:41:37)
Poor little Horseman still has to reply to my post full of points countering his.
Edit: Hey look, I'll post it again for you on this page.
Edit: Hey look, I'll post it again for you on this page.
mikkel wrote:
This is only becoming circular because you fail to get the point, and instead get stuck on what you've just posted. If you honestly believe that I'm insulting you, I think you should stand back and take a look at it from a neutral perspective, because I have never once insulted you, no matter how much you want to believe that.Horseman 77 wrote:
This has become Circular, Cancel the insults. Please as it doesn't further your point.Only if the current prisons exceed their capacity.Horseman 77 wrote:
Here I list the things that happen when you aggressively fight crime and make arrests and some fairly obvious observations about crime
you say are " only in my head "
1.The biggest Common denominator is the criminal. True or False ?
You have to build prisons. True or False ?Not necessarily.Horseman 77 wrote:
So you have to raise taxes. True or False ?I'm sure people would rather have prisons in their neighbourhoods than violent criminals on their streets.Horseman 77 wrote:
No one wants them ( prisons ) built in their neighborhood. True or False ?False. Perhaps where you come from, that would be true, but in Europe, prisoners don't whine like that.Horseman 77 wrote:
Then the people who are in jail say they are being discriminated against. etc. True or False ?
Now if you had comprehended my previous post fully, you would see that I have already accounted for all of those "points". You argue that aggressively fighting crime has too much administrative overhead. Listen, Horseman, the whole point of having laws is that you need them in order for society to function. If you need a quick solution to an urgent problem, this is what you do. I don't see how you can justify keeping violent criminals on the street with saying that it would be too much hazzle to put them in jail. Saying that completely goes against the entire point of having jails and laws in the first place.If you really think that you can compare knives to marijuana, I don't think that you're even considering the differences. You cannot stab anyone with marijuana. Marijuana does not spawn violent crime. Knives kill people, and are extremely dangerous for police officers. Knives spawn violent crimes.Horseman 77 wrote:
When they made smoking Marijuana illegal, People who smoked it became a new class of criminal.
True or False ?
Honestly, you're comparing a hallucinogenic to an edged weapon. I don't get why you expect me to take that seriously.No, that's you saying how it will be.Horseman 77 wrote:
address this separately
" At the best it will accomplish nothing " Example .--Horseman 77 wrote:
Will a Dangerous demented or Criminal type turn in a weapon because it is a crime to carry one?
Yes or No? please be honest!mikkel wrote:
Use your head. Look at what you quoted.Horseman 77 wrote:
So will a criminal or mentally, dangerously, deranged type turn in their bad knives?
You realize this is just so much fluff, right?It's being criminalised.The link shown http://uk.news.yahoo.com/24052006/344/u … r-way.html explains how people in the uk have got until June 30th to hand any knives over to the authorities without facing punishment for possession.mikkel wrote:
Those laws will ultimately be there for your protection. It's a lot harder to find Waldo if all the people on the page are wearing Waldo outfits.specops10-4 wrote:
I am lucky to be in the US, soon in the UK they will take away pens and pencils and make everyone use crayons...
All these laws are getting me worried, I really do not care about gun laws or knife laws, but soon all the criminals will have weapons "illegally" while us law abiding people give up our stuff and have little to defend ourselves...Now who was it again that was making this argument circular? You're asking the same questions over and over, ignoring that they've already been answered.mikkel wrote:
Horseman 77 wrote:
it just dosen't seem to me that the people who pull out knives and threaten others will entertain the notion of turning them in. Normal people don't walk around with a knife, So it will acomplish little. One would think that law makers would have more realistic goals in mind.The point in doing this is that people with knives will be easier to prosecute because just having the knife on you will be a crime in itself. Think two steps ahead.mikkel wrote:
Use your head. Look at what you quoted.Horseman 77 wrote:
So will a criminal or mentally, dangerously, deranged type turn in their bad knives?
You realize this is just so much fluff, right?
It's being criminalised.In the short term, and passive "criminals". There's a huge difference, and you really shouldn't blur the lines to make it seem like you're right. If you were, your argument itself should prove that sufficiently.Horseman 77 wrote:
" at the worst it will make more criminals" You already acknowledged this.Well I'm glad that you can tell me how my mind works. Firstly, as said above, I have not once insulted you, and neither have I implied that you thought yourself to be superior to me. I guess you came by that conculsion yourself.Horseman 77 wrote:
I dislike people who cast about unwarranted insults, I made that clear but I never said or even implied I was Superior to you, you came to this conclusion by yourself. I believe I have yet to insult you.
Honestly, stick to the topic instead of feeling targeted by me spelling out what your arguments mean.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-28 14:46:53)
Your point of view has a fantasy feel to it.
We are talking about combating serious crime.
Where crime is a real issue, prisons are already full to capacity.
Empty prisons is a problem where? I never heard of a place tearing down their prisons because they don't have any criminals to put in them.
In my experience that opposite is true. Prisons are so full that they are releasing criminals ( early ) for lack of space.
We all know New projects cost money. Politicians want to spend money on positive projects, Medical Research, Arts, Education and things that give them a positive view to their constituents.
No politician wants to be the "One Who made More Prisons."
Our prisoners all claim they are being persecuted and all claim to be political prisoners.
" They are in jail because the police profiled them, etc." because of this phenomena
Our police are not even allowed to profile Young Middle Eastern looking men at airports even though all the 911 hijackers were young middle eastern men.
No community ever wanted a prison or even mental health hospital built near them, to say they would is pure fantasy. It drives down property values. It makes for an unsavory element walking the streets. If you are not aware of this It is not my fault.
The "please turn in your Knife or Gun " campaigns are comical to the rank and file police officers who deal with the criminal element every day.
I think I feel a new poll coming on. If you like, I will write it and word it with your approval just so no one feels the questions are Leading, Slanted or biased.
Deal ?
We are talking about combating serious crime.
Where crime is a real issue, prisons are already full to capacity.
Empty prisons is a problem where? I never heard of a place tearing down their prisons because they don't have any criminals to put in them.
In my experience that opposite is true. Prisons are so full that they are releasing criminals ( early ) for lack of space.
We all know New projects cost money. Politicians want to spend money on positive projects, Medical Research, Arts, Education and things that give them a positive view to their constituents.
No politician wants to be the "One Who made More Prisons."
Our prisoners all claim they are being persecuted and all claim to be political prisoners.
" They are in jail because the police profiled them, etc." because of this phenomena
Our police are not even allowed to profile Young Middle Eastern looking men at airports even though all the 911 hijackers were young middle eastern men.
No community ever wanted a prison or even mental health hospital built near them, to say they would is pure fantasy. It drives down property values. It makes for an unsavory element walking the streets. If you are not aware of this It is not my fault.
The "please turn in your Knife or Gun " campaigns are comical to the rank and file police officers who deal with the criminal element every day.
I think I feel a new poll coming on. If you like, I will write it and word it with your approval just so no one feels the questions are Leading, Slanted or biased.
Deal ?
See where you are coming from but seeing as England has almost as large an immigrant to population ratio if not larger seeing as nearly ever middle eastern and african that can comes to our country to escape their own, that said its kinda of a poor attitude to blaim immigrants.Major_Spittle wrote:
1. No that's not it, we have always had guns and the british used too until they outlawed them.
2. Getting warmer.
3. Here you go, we have immigrants in this country. Lots of immigrants. Some illegal immigrants. Racial violence and gangs. Lots of drugs brought in by open boarders. Massive drug problems. Weak drug laws.
NONE OF WHICH WILL GO AWAY EVEN IF YOU COULD DISARM THE CITIZENS AND CRIMINALS. they would just carry knives, sharp pencils, sling shots, rocks, bats, wet noodles, .... you name it.
PS. England banned guns to all people about 200-300 years ago if they werent used for hunting.
We can still own guns.Thats why farmers become farmors for the chick chick pooooooow.Vilham wrote:
See where you are coming from but seeing as England has almost as large an immigrant to population ratio if not larger seeing as nearly ever middle eastern and african that can comes to our country to escape their own, that said its kinda of a poor attitude to blaim immigrants.Major_Spittle wrote:
1. No that's not it, we have always had guns and the british used too until they outlawed them.
2. Getting warmer.
3. Here you go, we have immigrants in this country. Lots of immigrants. Some illegal immigrants. Racial violence and gangs. Lots of drugs brought in by open boarders. Massive drug problems. Weak drug laws.
NONE OF WHICH WILL GO AWAY EVEN IF YOU COULD DISARM THE CITIZENS AND CRIMINALS. they would just carry knives, sharp pencils, sling shots, rocks, bats, wet noodles, .... you name it.
PS. England banned guns to all people about 200-300 years ago if they werent used for hunting.
Shotties are about the limit. The incidents in Hungerford and Dunblane put paid to almost all previously legal firearms and that wasn't very long ago - certainly not 200 years ago.
Was your crime higher 200-300 years ago??? Are farmers gunning each other down???Vilham wrote:
See where you are coming from but seeing as England has almost as large an immigrant to population ratio if not larger seeing as nearly ever middle eastern and african that can comes to our country to escape their own, that said its kinda of a poor attitude to blaim immigrants.Major_Spittle wrote:
1. No that's not it, we have always had guns and the british used too until they outlawed them.
2. Getting warmer.
3. Here you go, we have immigrants in this country. Lots of immigrants. Some illegal immigrants. Racial violence and gangs. Lots of drugs brought in by open boarders. Massive drug problems. Weak drug laws.
NONE OF WHICH WILL GO AWAY EVEN IF YOU COULD DISARM THE CITIZENS AND CRIMINALS. they would just carry knives, sharp pencils, sling shots, rocks, bats, wet noodles, .... you name it.
PS. England banned guns to all people about 200-300 years ago if they werent used for hunting.
Yeah you live on an a not so big Island. Easier to keep drugs and Illegal Immigrants out.
And don't tell me about poor attitude and Blame, I LIVE HERE. I can look around and state the facts all I want. You spent much time in the US???? Ever seen who is in a US prison??? Ever been in the bad part of town to see who and what is going down???? You can kiss my black ass attitude because I know what I am talking about when it comes to American society and crime, I don't need someone in England to tell me how it is.
And if there is a genuine need for more prisons, there is no sane argument for why more shouldn't be built, unless you value money higher than human lives.Horseman 77 wrote:
Your point of view has a fantasy feel to it.
We are talking about combating serious crime.
Where crime is a real issue, prisons are already full to capacity.
Empty prisons is a problem where? I never heard of a place tearing down their prisons because they don't have any criminals to put in them.
In my experience that opposite is true. Prisons are so full that they are releasing criminals ( early ) for lack of space.
But any politician wants to be "the one who got the violent criminals off the streets"Horseman 77 wrote:
We all know New projects cost money. Politicians want to spend money on positive projects, Medical Research, Arts, Education and things that give them a positive view to their constituents.
No politician wants to be the "One Who made More Prisons."
Again, this whining about profiling and prisoners complaining about discrimination really isn't prevalent in many other places than the US. Prisoners have more of an if you do the crime, you do the time mentality here. This is often because most all longer-term prisoners have private cells with bathrooms, real beds and TVs in their rooms.Horseman 77 wrote:
Our prisoners all claim they are being persecuted and all claim to be political prisoners.
" They are in jail because the police profiled them, etc." because of this phenomena
Our police are not even allowed to profile Young Middle Eastern looking men at airports even though all the 911 hijackers were young middle eastern men.
I actually live about half a mile from a prison. The common concensus here is that it's better to have a prison than to have them walking the streets.Horseman 77 wrote:
No community ever wanted a prison or even mental health hospital built near them, to say they would is pure fantasy. It drives down property values. It makes for an unsavory element walking the streets. If you are not aware of this It is not my fault.
I can assure you that many police officers around these parts are very thankful for these kinds of prohibitions. It makes their job easier in that they don't have to waste time or deal with people claiming their weapons to be for peaceful uses, and makes it easier for them to get criminal elements off of the streets. That's the point of the law in the first place, and these prohibitions are often, if not always made upon police reports or requests.Horseman 77 wrote:
The "please turn in your Knife or Gun " campaigns are comical to the rank and file police officers who deal with the criminal element every day.
I'm not so much concerned about polls. What I'm trying to say is that these laws are in place for a reason, and that it really is not to be dismissed. I realise that having lived in a country where most people can and do carry guns all your life can make these ideas seem unreal, especially with the many lobbyists lobbying against stricter gun control, but coming from a country where carrying these weapons is a rarity, you can certainly tell that these laws do indeed work. While the UK law is very strict compared to others, I have no doubt that it will decrease the number of crimes involving knives greatly, as I have seen and lived with similar bans all my life and experienced the effect of them.Horseman 77 wrote:
I think I feel a new poll coming on. If you like, I will write it and word it with your approval just so no one feels the questions are Leading, Slanted or biased.
Deal ?
All societies are different, and what seems absurd in one might seem brilliant in another. All I'm asking is that you don't dismiss this possibility.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-29 01:42:47)
I think the initial backlash against law-abiding citizens would be too harsh in the USA for this to be a feasible option. Sure, eventually the crime will be reduced, but most likely not past a point that society is already at. I'd agree that issues with drugs inside the US tend to be more apparent and widespread than they are elsewhere. And with drug trafficking comes the accompanying weapons trafficking.
I live in the UK. I used to own 2 handguns. I enjoyed target practice and practical pistol shooting competions.
Then just because the Dunblane Police failed to do their job correctly and a nutter killed a bunch of kids the government gave in to a stupid knee jerk reaction and banned them all. Stupid.
Now because a few stupid kids carry knives they are banning them too. I knda see a point in banning carrying of them but putting up an amnesty and expecting teenagers or the sort of criminals who will carry them regardless of any laws is plain stupid.
Its nothing short of a PR exersize and should be treated as such, in the press for a day and forgotten.
Then just because the Dunblane Police failed to do their job correctly and a nutter killed a bunch of kids the government gave in to a stupid knee jerk reaction and banned them all. Stupid.
Now because a few stupid kids carry knives they are banning them too. I knda see a point in banning carrying of them but putting up an amnesty and expecting teenagers or the sort of criminals who will carry them regardless of any laws is plain stupid.
Its nothing short of a PR exersize and should be treated as such, in the press for a day and forgotten.
But there's no ban on owning knives is there, just carrying them?
This debate has gone well of topic, in the UK there is a serious knife problem, it's not criminal's carrying them it is kid's
Every week you hear about kid's getting stabbed to death because they looked at someone the wrong way at school, it's not a matter of protecting yourself, the amnesty is to hopefully stop children carrying knives.
If there not carrying knives they cant use them, the recent gun amnesty pulled in allot of weapon's.
If the amnesty saves one life then it is worth it.
Every week you hear about kid's getting stabbed to death because they looked at someone the wrong way at school, it's not a matter of protecting yourself, the amnesty is to hopefully stop children carrying knives.
If there not carrying knives they cant use them, the recent gun amnesty pulled in allot of weapon's.
If the amnesty saves one life then it is worth it.