Currently Online 
| ConservagameR said: Well if a lot of strict laws aren't working already, more stricter laws from a federal level are quite unlikely to make a difference. It may reduce those types of crimes criminals are committing, but they're more likely to change tactics or types of crime before becoming honorable citizens. So the problem would just shift. I'd assume someone would be more likely to pull a knife than a gun. A knife is easier to carry and hide plus it's quiet. You don't have to point and shoot it either, you just stab which can be done quite inconspicuously. Shooting gives a reasonable opportunity to be missed assuming it's not point blank so they have distance and can get away easier, where as nobody is going to throw a knife at you. They're going to walk right up to you and jab you, likely a bunch of times, and are unlikely to miss. I'd rather have a gun to defend against a gun than a knife to defend against a knife. Being totally defenseless is a bad situation all around, unless you're well trained. Less guns doesn't necessarily look to mean a great reduction either though. Like with the schools, it seems many problems need to be dealt with all at once. |
If knives (or hammers etc.) were really as deadly as guns, people wouldn't bother getting guns to commit their crimes. This is such a ridiculous take I have to assume you're taking the piss.
