Yay more politics.
So, if someone shoots with a gun, and they shoot another person, and that other person dies, the person with the gun committed a crime. We can all agree with that. But, which is the source of the crime? The gun, or the criminal?
What the president(U.S. president i.e. Obama), and many politicians here think, is that the gun is what causes the crime. So, remove the second amendment, which allows guns, and therefore crimes shouldn't exist. But, what about in England (or UK? correct me if I'm wrong please!) they commit crimes with knives. Bloody knives (literally!) are restricted there, along with guns. Since people couldn't commit crimes with guns there, they start using knives. Then knives are restricted. What next, sporks and heavy cast iron frying pans!? Lawl probably.
Anyways, before we get too off track, if you make a law that makes guns illegal or hard to obtain (which Obama is trying), people will still have guns. Mainly criminals. It's called the black market. You can't stop them entirely, or much at all even, unless you literally go house to house and melt them all. Like, criminals don't gaf if something's illegal because they're just gonna do whatever they want in the end. So why will it make a difference?? Yeah, if you remove guns it'll save this/that possible future crime, but because the criminals won't have a gun in their hand, they'll use bombs or knives or idk cast iron frying pans (just an exmaple) to commit it, since they're gonna use whatever that causes death and destruction to do whatever stupid nutty plan they have. It's not the gun, that causes crimes, it's the person who pulls the trigger, or the criminal.
So, what's your opinion on this? Should guns be banned, or should the U.S. government spend more time and money trying to stop criminals themselves, regardless of the guns or bombs or frying pans (example again lol) they use?
So, if someone shoots with a gun, and they shoot another person, and that other person dies, the person with the gun committed a crime. We can all agree with that. But, which is the source of the crime? The gun, or the criminal?
What the president(U.S. president i.e. Obama), and many politicians here think, is that the gun is what causes the crime. So, remove the second amendment, which allows guns, and therefore crimes shouldn't exist. But, what about in England (or UK? correct me if I'm wrong please!) they commit crimes with knives. Bloody knives (literally!) are restricted there, along with guns. Since people couldn't commit crimes with guns there, they start using knives. Then knives are restricted. What next, sporks and heavy cast iron frying pans!? Lawl probably.
Anyways, before we get too off track, if you make a law that makes guns illegal or hard to obtain (which Obama is trying), people will still have guns. Mainly criminals. It's called the black market. You can't stop them entirely, or much at all even, unless you literally go house to house and melt them all. Like, criminals don't gaf if something's illegal because they're just gonna do whatever they want in the end. So why will it make a difference?? Yeah, if you remove guns it'll save this/that possible future crime, but because the criminals won't have a gun in their hand, they'll use bombs or knives or idk cast iron frying pans (just an exmaple) to commit it, since they're gonna use whatever that causes death and destruction to do whatever stupid nutty plan they have. It's not the gun, that causes crimes, it's the person who pulls the trigger, or the criminal.
So, what's your opinion on this? Should guns be banned, or should the U.S. government spend more time and money trying to stop criminals themselves, regardless of the guns or bombs or frying pans (example again lol) they use?