Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Why doesn't the UK ban knives?
Well it's actually against the law to carry a knife in public, as well as other items concealed about one's person such as hammers etc.
Why doesn't the UK ban knives?
Well it's actually against the law to carry a knife in public, as well as other items concealed about one's person such as hammers etc.
Pass a law that requires that all citizens twenty years old and upward must carry a loaded firearm and at least 20 rounds of amunition whenever they are not in their home. This solution will make for a safer and freer country.
Would that make things better or worse? Consider. Now you have a lot of people carrying guns. A person who gets angry about something might grab their gun and point it at somebody. Everybody else grabs their guns and then somebody misfires. When the bullets have finished flying, are more people dead than may have been if that one angry person had only been able to yell rather than grab a gun.
There was a period in American history where a large percentage of the population did openly carry fire arms and there is a reason why that is no longer allowed.
But you're still allowed those terrible, weapon like, jagged teeth, no? lain:
Never heard of her.
:rotfl: You are a blind fool.
From those that knew him closely....
"As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy." - Caitie Parker
Not that it means anything, but he appears to be Republican:url]htt p://i 5.photobu cket.com/ albums/y1 63/zappais frank/jll rsc.jp g[/url]ETA: It's possible that it was a fake.
I don't think that guns (either banning them or forcing everyone to carry them) are the answer. They're simply a non-issue. If everybody had guns, but nobody wanted to kill anyone, then nobody would get shot (except, perhaps, accidently or something like that). If nobody had guns, but people still wanted to kill other people, I assure you, they'd find a way without guns.
If you want to prevent violent crime, then you have to get rid of its motivations, and that tends to be stuff like poverty and a lack of education, feelings of social isolation, etc.
We very seriously could cut down on crime...by making sure that everyone (without exception) has a certain quality of life, and this can be done through welfare programs, minimum wage laws, etc. I also think that the government fully should fund secondary education.
When people get relegated to the back burners of society, that's when violent crimes happen. Just look at the guy's background: wiki link.
Yet it turns out the guy was a flaming lefty so blaming Palin is obviously in error.
The things you outline may have some impact Trad....but I don't think they will have as much as you think. A nut is a nut no matter what his socio-economic position. Out of all the things you outline I can only see increased awareness of mental health issues and increased opportunites for treatment as having any real impact. Even then it will still be nominal. Nuts don't usually seek treatment because.....well, they're nuts. :idunno:
A friend of mine lived in Switzerland for a couple of years. She said, just about every adult there has a gun. I was reading up on their gun laws and requirements. I think that there policies are quite sane, responsible and practical.
One "saying" they have is; that the Swiss don't have an army, they are an army. Just about everyone is required to serve throughout their adult life, but for rather short time periods, but with continuous training, throughout their lives.
You are more or less required to have a gun, except if you are a felon, and unless you are mentally unstable.
To answer the daily topic question, I would concur with genuineoriginal, and say the best way to help prevent these tragedies, would be to require every individual to carry a gun.
To do that we should begin to adopt the Swiss method, and require all adults to be part of the National Guard, in essence, and learn, to use weapons safely. At the same time the ones with mental problems would be tested, and weeded out.
Not a perfect system, but it works well in a small country like Switzerland where most of the power resides in the hands of the local governments, and citizenry.
As most of us conservatives understand, the major problem with the USA is the gigantic, powerful, and over-reaching, federal government, and to a lesser degree, the state governments.
I think most government decisions involving everyday life, should be at the county and city levels.
I based my suggestion on what I learned when I studied Switzerland for a high-school report many years ago.
hmm you should of studied harder.
There a strong restriction on carrying guns in switzerland!
An army issue rifle stored at home and used for national service is very different that a personal, pistol owned by the individual and carried on their person for personal saftey.
The resaerch wasnt hard to do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
So can we put this gun nuts wet dream to bed now? (worried about his mixed metaphores)
I'll open up just by saying anything we do to make any other such events less likley will mean someone somewhere will loose some rights.
I'd would argue for much tighter gun control, because the altrenative is tighter people control, which to my mind is a greater price to pay.