|
Post by thehothead on Aug 11, 2012 9:28:36 GMT
Jayram I am as normal as the next man but I can tell you, some things get my goat more than others. Given a situation ANYONE is able to kill someone. It is so easy to get yourself into a situation where something like this can happen, look at someone the wrong way, tread on someone's foot, push someone, a wrong word said. It doesn't have to be you who starts the drama either.
You could end up simply trying to defend yourself and ... you've killed someone. Now, you might argue that you can walk away, but thats rubbish. If you see someone harassing another person who clearly cannot defend themselves you would step in I'm sure, who is to say after a struggle .. a gun goes off or a knife gets plunged - not your's but their's and it is YOU standing in the dock accused of murder.
Or someone tosser hits your car, totally their fault, they blame you and get aggressive, you have your mother, daughter or child in the car and try to protect them and .... you end up in court for murder because the guy hit his head and died .. or something.
I'd argue that many killers are/were just ordinary people who found themselves on the wrong side of the track.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 11, 2012 9:52:35 GMT
Jayram I am as normal as the next man but I can tell you, some things get my goat more than others. Given a situation ANYONE is able to kill someone. It is so easy to get yourself into a situation where something like this can happen, look at someone the wrong way, tread on someone's foot, push someone, a wrong word said. It doesn't have to be you who starts the drama either. You could end up simply trying to defend yourself and ... you've killed someone. Now, you might argue that you can walk away, but thats rubbish. If you see someone harassing another person who clearly cannot defend themselves you would step in I'm sure, who is to say after a struggle .. a gun goes off or a knife gets plunged - not your's but their's and it is YOU standing in the dock accused of murder. Or someone tosser hits your car, totally their fault, they blame you and get aggressive, you have your mother, daughter or child in the car and try to protect them and .... you end up in court for murder because the guy hit his head and died .. or something. I'd argue that many killers are/were just ordinary people who found themselves on the wrong side of the track. Yeah I agree with that, but I am suggesting that many of the people who do get wound up and aggressive in certain situations would be MUCH more careful about causing confrontation if they knew the person they were picking on might very well blow their head off. I think we'd cut road rage for example by a HUGE percentage overnight. Danger is natural and healthy in my view - and survival instincts dictate how you behave. Where there are no consequences that really hurt, anarchy reigns. It's why the thugs of today are happy to kick a person to death. The survival instincts I talk about are the basis of the study by the gentleman being interviewed in the link I provided. It's not a cut and dried issue, and I am not suggesting that I even have an answer - I don't think there should be unconstrained ownership of guns - I just think it's a big leap to suggest that guns themselves are the issue.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 11, 2012 10:06:59 GMT
You're missing the point Jayramfootball.
The reason gun crime is such a problem in the US is precisely because of the ease of availability of guns. To the point where teenage girls carry handguns in their school bags to 'protect' themselves from other gun toting teenagers.
Do you see the irony in that ?
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 11, 2012 12:03:35 GMT
Jayram I agree with you there. Using the road rage example I am careful to pick and choose who I rage at, call it being calculated. Thats not to say I pick on women and people smaller than me though LOOOOL.
Last weekend I went to a club and this knobhead was in the queue in front of me .. and he let in about 5 people that he knew. I was fuming, so I grabbed the arm of the girl I was with and pushed in front of the lot of them. Another guy saw what I did and said "nice move" but I was still fuming about the previous queue jumping so I responded in an aggressive manner - when I knew full well the guy was only joking with me.
To cut a long story short I was up in his face but I had taken things so far that I would've looked like a complete knut if I had backed down. He claimed he was going to the club and "his boys" were already there so I'd better watch myself. We kinda left is at that and I had a wave of regret hit me - I had behaved so OTT and it wasn't necessary. Luckily the guy's missus made a little joke and I smiled and then apologised for being a knut.
I can honestly say though .. I have seen that EXACT situation turn into someone getting stabbed or shot .. and for what ? It is so easy for these scenarios to come up and as smart as I am and as aware as I am of the consequences ... they still happen.
I actually stopped going to certain clubs/events because the chances of getting into drama kept increasing. Bravado kicks in once these boys are in a group and they get egged on by their mates and they simply don't think of the consequences.
If we are allowed to own guns for self defence nothing will stop people from taking those guns out of their home then the little gun problem we have turns into a big gun problem. We have to allow the police to do their job without adding to their problems. Its not an ideal situation but we can't allow it to get out of control.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 11, 2012 14:49:34 GMT
You're missing the point Jayramfootball. The reason gun crime is such a problem in the US is precisely because of the ease of availability of guns. To the point where teenage girls carry handguns in their school bags to 'protect' themselves from other gun toting teenagers. Do you see the irony in that ? No I do not see the irony sensi. The researcher I linked seems to suggest that guns act a s deterrent to the very people who would use them to commit crime if they know that their 'victims' are also carrying. The deaths by firearms per country compared to the number of firearms in circulation appears to be far less correlated than you would expect also.
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 11, 2012 15:45:29 GMT
an example .... do you remember the case of the farmer who lived remotely and kept having burglaries? One night 2 gypsies oops travellers, broke in and started up the staircase. the farmer was in bed but had a shotgun. He fired and unknown to him one of them abandoned by the other died in a nearby garden/field. Do you think they would have broken in if they thought a homeowner would shoot them? Or do you think burglars will start carrying, just in case they find themselves in a gun fight? This is the argument for a deterrent. The law is hopeless.
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 11, 2012 16:05:23 GMT
I think they would be carrying .. they would NOT be deterred. People smuggle drugs in countries that imprison you for life. Some states carry the 3 strikes rule in the US.
Criminals would simply become more ruthless because they know the risk they are taking is higher. Aggravated burglary becomes burglary with murder. Every criminal will plead "self defence" because the other person attacked THEM first.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 11, 2012 16:20:58 GMT
I think they would be carrying .. they would NOT be deterred. People smuggle drugs in countries that imprison you for life. Some states carry the 3 strikes rule in the US. Criminals would simply become more ruthless because they know the risk they are taking is higher. Aggravated burglary becomes burglary with murder. Every criminal will plead "self defence" because the other person attacked THEM first. I think there ARE many hardened criminals that would still commit the crime, but many of those already have guns. I think a lot of the lesser criminals - opportunists - would find the risk too great and therefore we would see crime drop in every area, but not of course wiped out.
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 11, 2012 16:29:42 GMT
home burglaries would stop. We have had 3 - all druggies doing crazy things to feed their habit. One now dead, another in mental care - don't know about the other loser. Serious criminals don't use licensed firearms - banning will make no difference whatsoever. As sensi says at least reducing numbers and ease of buying HAS to help reduce the times they are used.
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 11, 2012 16:49:03 GMT
Yeah I can see it going in either direction. The opportunist/soft criminal "may" be scared into not taking the risk - or they might come better prepared than they would ordinarily.
No idea what direction it might go in .. to be honest it could be a bit of both .. which would leave us in the same place lol.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 11, 2012 16:54:59 GMT
Yeah I can see it going in either direction. The opportunist/soft criminal "may" be scared into not taking the risk - or they might come better prepared than they would ordinarily. No idea what direction it might go in .. to be honest it could be a bit of both .. which would leave us in the same place lol. I think that's why its such a difficult subject. Once the discussion started I started doing some research on it. It's possible to find as many arguments for guns as against guns - and of course counter arguments galore. One other consideration is other weapons. Knives are just as dangerous and can be used in a less obvious way to kill, and are much harder to track. Ultimately this argument becomes one not about weapons but about human nature and the mind set of our society.
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 11, 2012 17:34:28 GMT
the burglar who died (of a cocktail the police told us) had done 200 similar within 10 mile radius - it took 3 or 4 court appearances ( him a plasterer (ha ha) in a suit (naive magistrates) before he got put away - 3 months later he's at it again same m.o.. Another small sentence and yes he's at it again. Finally chokes on his own vomit - guess what we cheered when we heard. A copper told us hands in front of face- 'so did we at the station' - you've no idea the misery he inflicted on people and us trying get him put away. Legalise drugs for these losers- speed up the death process.
|
|
|
Post by ALTBOULI on Aug 11, 2012 20:52:00 GMT
Its interesting that people bring culture and environment into the topic because there is argument to defend each side when you do this. Taking a stable place like Britain and adding guns would almost certainly damage the stability somewhat, for example imagine the London rioters with guns. The police had enough trouble putting down the riots when these people were not well armed. In a situation like this it could create complete anarchy and destabilise the environment around London and the other places effected, at the bear minimum I could see the number of lives lost rising considerably if the rioters had guns.
At the same time a lot of these third world countries have very little stability so it would be logical to have one or more guns for protection. Imagine living in a place like Mexico were there is considerable amount of abductions and murders each day. The police force all almost non existent so a gun would be most certainly be required for everyday life in that particular environment.
I am still highly against having weapons such as guns but dependent on the environment, guns or other weapons may be a necessity however in this country they are not needed and I would feel far safer with the gun restrictions in place than not having the restrictions
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 11, 2012 23:17:42 GMT
But isn't it about up bringing and what you EXPECT and don't expect.
Guns are standard in Jamaica - I don't think they are legal but I know lots of people have them, so you learn to live with it so it becomes standard. But we are not used to that life here and most people would never touch a gun so to introduce them into an environment that isn't used to them would be carnage. If a law was passed here tomorrow that said guns were legal, I doubt most people would get a gun simply because you could have one. But as soon as people took advantage, the criminals, they would run riot and be out of control .. at that point when people fear for their lives everyone would need a gun for protection.
|
|
|
Post by ALTBOULI on Aug 11, 2012 23:28:29 GMT
That’s my point HotHead, we are used to living in a stable society without guns and suddenly having guns could destabilise this society, this was the point I was trying to make and the reason I mentioned the London riots. In a place like Mexico were armed thugs can try to abduct one of your loved ones or try and kill you its only natural to carry a gun because having guns is now firmly in the culture of that nation.
|
|