Should religion be an excuse for carrying daggers?

Yeah, you can only stop an action from happening before the event if you nip it in the bud, or let things happen and clean up after the mess...
"Please, sir! Pull the bullet out of the victim's head, stick it back in your gun and patch up the headshot. Then get down on your knees, hands behind your head..."

Yet to hear that from an active cop.

"To the point of which a wepon is pointed at someone" is an ideal that can only be resolved if authorities are at the scene, which in the real world isn't going to be that commonly. It's a straight "yay" or "niegh" for me in ownership.
 
Chaz said:
"To the point of which a wepon is pointed at someone" is an ideal that can only be resolved if authorities are at the scene, which in the real world isn't going to be that commonly.
Click to expand...
Exactly. So if (when there are no authorities in sight) the potential victim has a weapon of equal power to that of the potential perpetrator, the odds have been evened in the victim's favour. Especially if they can learn to use it well. Which again, they can't if it's banned.

It's very naive to think that crime can be prevented by placing general restrictions on the population, as those who don't care about one law probably won't care about another. Gangsters don't fight things out with their fists because guns are banned. They obtain guns illegally and are then even more powerful than the ordinary people who can't. Crime is prevented by lessening people's motivation and willingness to commit it in the first place. Help people out of poverty and they won't need to steal. Cultivate respect for others and they shouldn't commit assault or rape. The remaining ones who do can then be dealt with mercilessly, as they've had their chance.

I didn't mean to send this off topic, honestly. I just think it's one small issue in a much broader argument of "should the public be allowed weapons?" which for me is a resounding yes.
 
If only we could all carry guns, then our gun murder rate would be as low as the USA. Oh, wait....

When you get to the point where a weapon is pointed then its too late. You might be armed but if its not in your hand and ready then its next to useless. Just like the old west, first to draw usually wins. Owning a gun won't stop you getting carjacked if its in the glove box. It might get you killed as you try to reach for it though.

All the American dream has shown us is that the criminals just get bigger weapons and more desperate.
 
Teh **** does there relgion demand they carry a knife for? I'm all for headscarf tolerance and the like but there is no need for this silliness, might join the jedi religion and say I should be legally allowed to carry a sword around until lightsabers are invented.
 
I've never seen much of a point in protecting property at the possible expense of your life. Just take it, I'll claim on the insurance. Protecting your life at the possible expense of your life seems like a logical move though.

Thing is, the US doesn't exactly try to help out it's citizens in terms of stopping them from tuning to crime in the first place. Education needs to address these things, far more than it needs to address elementary algebra. Or French. we need a lot more non-judgemental personal and social development IMO; talking shops where children learn about themselves and their relationships to others. If people can be taught to respect each other as individuals who have the same rights, then everyone would be a lot safer. But by banning things, the government basically tells people that they don't have the same rights. They are inferior and not to be trusted, unlike their servants the army and police force.
 
Yes, two people getting shot would definitely be a less violent outcome. o_O I would much rather people be "basically told" the truth (that some people can't be trusted to act responsibly) than learn by being shot.
 
ayase said:
I've never seen much of a point in protecting property at the possible expense of your life. Just take it, I'll claim on the insurance. Protecting your life at the possible expense of your life seems like a logical move though.
Click to expand...

I don’t know, in my shoes I’d try to avoid the situation all together (cross the road or don’t go that way if I know there’s dodgy people about) but also knowing the hardship of replacing my fone, my ipod or something like that would be such a drag, I have only once had to stand my ground, went into town 3 years ago, it was about 8, xmas time and a guy walked over to me and started asking for money, I said I have none (but had my fone out) he put his hand on my shoulder and tried to put me in a headlock whilst telling me he has a knife and he’ll kill me if I don’t give him everything now. I could have backed down and gave him everything and cancelled out the risk of death, but instead I elbowed him in the ribs and gave him a uppercut, thankfully he let go and moments later my mates turned up and we told him where to go. If given the same situation again I’d do nothing different. My personal opinion on those who mug others is that their low lifes, and willing to injure or kill to survive, so if I don’t defend myself I’ll become a target for them. If people knew basic ways to defend themselves, muggings would probably drop.
 
Back
Top