Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
ArmyofOne said:Interestingly enough, if you lived in the U.K., you might soon become a criminal. According to the Telegraph:One MP recently warned that they were being used by criminal gangs as the preferred weapon of choice after guns.I find two things interesting about this claim (if true). First, it demonstrates what gun-rights advocates have claimed for a long time: taking away guns will only cause criminals to use a different tool to commit their crimes with. Second, notice the qualifier at the end of the sentence, "after guns"??? Aren't most guns illegal in the U.K.? How is it that they are still being used by criminals??? :think:
First of all, they already are banned from owning guns. But I would prefer that those who have a history of gun violence be in the dirt (approx. 6 feet, that is). That would certainly solve the problem of having to decide whether they should have access to firearms.
Yep, and because of that we certainly don't have the problem of automobiles being one of the biggest causes of death/injury in the U.S.
Oh, wait..... :doh:Most (if not all) states do require such (at least to be permitted to carry such weapons).
In response to the last question, almost never (which certainly punches a hole in much of the left's anti-gun rhetoric concerning "assault weapons"). As to the first claim, where do you find the evidence to support that claim? Don't get me wrong, it may be true, but I've had too many discussions with people that tend to pull their "stats" from nowhere to just accept such a claim at face value. I do know one thing though. For every murder that has been committed with a firearm in the U.S., their are dozens of murders, assaults, rapes, etc. that have been prevented with a firearm. Also, the communities that have passed legislation permitting the concealed carry of firearms have seen reductions in crime rates, while the few areas that have virtually outlawed the possession of firearms endure some of the highest crime rates in the nation (i.e. New York City, Washington, D.C.).
To me, this whole topic just boils down to a historical perspective. To blame firearms is to ignore the history of our nation. In other words, firearms are in no any way more accessible now then they were 100 years ago (when it was common for young kids to have their own weapon, and even take it to school with them), yet back then we did not have the problems concerning firearms that we now have. So it is irrational to place the blame on the particular tool that a criminal chooses.
The biggest mistake made by gun-control advocates is the attempt to create an environment in which people cannot commit crimes (which is impossible), as opposed to an environment in which people do not want to commit crimes (which is possible through a proper criminal justice system).While I realize that kmoney was being somewhat sarcastic in this comment, I believe it is true nonetheless. If there were a bunch of students/faculty that were "packing", do you you really think this nutcase would have even carried out his plan, let alone be as "effective" in killing so many people?kmoney said:
In addition, what happened at V.T. can be seen as a good illustration of Gun-Control: Students were not permitted to carry firearms on campus. Yet someone intent on murdering people was not concerned about breaking such a rule. The end result was a madman with a firearm, and a bunch of students/professors who were unarmed and at his mercy (and like most violent criminals, he offered none).
Excellent post!
Emphasis mine...great response.
