Awesome_Paul Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Matt and Samuel will know what im talking about, but maybe not others. Tony Blair wants to lower the age to 17 at which young people can receive long prison sentences for possessing a gun. Do you think this is right Many Gang wars have been breaking out in London, Manchester and most are under the current 21 age limit to receive a long sentence. There have been random shootings going on by this gang, whether they are in a gang or not. In London only this month there has been 4 fatal shootings, which 3 of them were Teenagers and 2 out of the 3 were shot in their own home ! and a 28 year old man was shot dead in Hackney on saturday. Mr Blair also said US-style surveillance of the homes of people suspected of possessing guns or trading in them will also be considered. The shootings are taking anywhere, getting out of your car, going into your own home. The Lib Dem leader quoted ""no quick fixes to the problem. Rather than new laws we need more police and more effective policing," The Articel is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6372717.stm So what do you think, would lowering the age to 17, so some of these members would get a long time sentence or wouldn't this solve things?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie_Penguin Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 I think it might help, but when someone wants to do the wrong thing, they will do it no matter what. The law needs to get so much tougher, like let's say a life prison sentence for whoever shoots someone. That way people might think twice before doing something. And of course NO EXCEPTIONS. The law tends to lower sentences and be unfair so many times. So yes I think since the age of 15 we're pretty much aware of what's wrong and what's right and we should all accept the consequences or our actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lightning Strike Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 I think it might help, but when someone wants to do the wrong thing, they will do it no matter what. The law needs to get so much tougher, like let's say a life prison sentence for whoever shoots someone. That way people might think twice before doing something. And of course NO EXCEPTIONS. The law tends to lower sentences and be unfair so many times. So yes I think since the age of 15 we're pretty much aware of what's wrong and what's right and we should all accept the consequences or our actions. Life for shooting someone?! That's absurd! What if the person is trying to self-defend? No, although there have been lots of murder recently in London, they generally occur in very low-end neighbourhoods, which justifies the differences between races and rivalry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome_Paul Posted February 18, 2007 Author Share Posted February 18, 2007 yeah but its not only London, even manchester is involved, Moss side and Longsight is just as bad. and this could add to the debate http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6374171.stm BBc managed to talk to one of the young gangsters, he was wearing a bullet proof vest and on a dirtbike. i these quotes are just interesting (from the link above) Is there a feeling among gang members that they will never be caught because local people are too scared to talk to the police? "No, it's not like that. Everyone knows that if you commit crime, you've gotta do the time. But the majority of people are willing to take that risk. You get me? It's either you do this, or your life gets took." and this is very interesting Why did you join a gang? "It's just pressure out on the streets... even if you don't want to do it, you get dragged in. When you start getting shot at, what can you do?" i think they not after to join a gang, its join a gang or be shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie_Penguin Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Life for shooting someone?! That's absurd! What if the person is trying to self-defend? No, although there have been lots of murder recently in London, they generally occur in very low-end neighbourhoods, which justifies the differences between races and rivalry. Shooting someone intentionally that is. Obviously for self-defense is very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome_Paul Posted February 18, 2007 Author Share Posted February 18, 2007 Life for shooting someone?! That's absurd! What if the person is trying to self-defend? No, although there have been lots of murder recently in London, they generally occur in very low-end neighbourhoods, which justifies the differences between races and rivalry. I agree with L:ife for shotting someone, it would show that you shalln't go unpunished. but don't foget Life doesn't always mean life, its a minimum of __ years then if your good you can be let out. but if your shooting someone in defense, you should be locked away but only for a few years, self defense or purpose, they need to know that shooting is never the way to solve things, maybe if you shootthem in the foot so the killer can't move or die, that would be alright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 In America, if you shoot someone intentialy you might not get more than 20 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strategos Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 You MIGHT not. Key word there. You might get life, or in some states, execution. But referring to the topic, I support that it should be lowered to 15 because of the reasons listed in the 1st topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Dan. Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 A great DVD to watch on this topic is Bowling For Columbine, by Michael Moore and co. It tells a great tale about the Americans and their love of guns, compared to the amount of ownership in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie_Penguin Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 you mean of SOME americans...cuz not every american likes guns... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I refuse to use any gun, besides a paintball gun :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome_Paul Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 A great DVD to watch on this topic is Bowling For Columbine, by Michael Moore and co. It tells a great tale about the Americans and their love of guns, compared to the amount of ownership in Canada. I sen that film, the film about the 2 kids who just walks into school one day and starts shooting everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webpixie Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I agree with L:ife for shotting someone, it would show that you shalln't go unpunished. but don't foget Life doesn't always mean life, its a minimum of __ years then if your good you can be let out. but if your shooting someone in defense, you should be locked away but only for a few years, self defense or purpose, they need to know that shooting is never the way to solve things, maybe if you shootthem in the foot so the killer can't move or die, that would be alright actully in Texas.. if someone breaks in you can shoot them to protect yourself.. for legal reasons(not talking morally just legeally) you are better off to just kill them then shoot them in the foot.. looks like they are trying to change it even more so however.. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=176654 i am glade i dont live in a state where if someone starts a fight with you you are allowed to fight back to protect yourself..in some if you fight back you goto jail too A great DVD to watch on this topic is Bowling For Columbine, by Michael Moore and co. It tells a great tale about the Americans and their love of guns, compared to the amount of ownership in Canada. but the same types of shootings do happen in canada too, i remember all my friends from up there talking about it everywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome_Paul Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 i was watching one dvd (in my film class, we did a topic of guns in america) in canada i think, most people own guns so they leave their front door unlocked, the person actually went to a front door, and could open it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webpixie Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 well that goes by area tho, i live in an apartment in an area piza places wont deliver after sundown so so try to keep the door locked however we dont worry about it too much until we goto bed. but even people in houses in nice aeras dont often lock their doors until night time when they gotobed... and im refering only to those people i know of course but i know a widevariety of people.. so im not sure how the keepingyour door locked or not has a relivance oh and just for the record of this convo no i dont own a gun(and dont really want to), tho i do have friends that do. of course they are kep in a gun safe as there are kiddies in the house ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie_Penguin Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Yea and actually in New Jersey and New York some people do leave their doors unlocked. I don't remember where I heard this, but on the news a long time ago there was a woman who got robbed at gun point and she actually managed to take the gun and shot the guy everywhere and he almost died. Guess who went to jail? Yes, the woman did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webpixie Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Yea and actually in New Jersey and New York some people do leave their doors unlocked. I don't remember where I heard this, but on the news a long time ago there was a woman who got robbed at gun point and she actually managed to take the gun and shot the guy everywhere and he almost died. Guess who went to jail? Yes, the woman did. the main reaon why for that one is probly becuase she shot more then once(excessive force), altho there is the temporary insanity deffense route, laws are fickle and not always fair for situations. also depending where it happened at the point that she got the gun away from him she then hada lethal weapon and he didnt so that probly got taken into account too.. reasons why its good to know the laws of your state and self deffence incase you ever get in a situation HOPFULLY you can havethe right of mind to know what you can and cant do but most of those situations your dont really have time to think that indepth and just gotta do first things you can think of to protect yourself.. i know i personally would be pathetic in any such circumstance.. me and the real world dont seem to get along. I love you my little bubble world, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chipmonker Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Before I begin, I'd like to thank all you all that are posting in the debate forums so it's not dead and all that jazz. Kudos to you :laughingsmiley: So for the record, I do not believe it should be illegal for persons to possess guns (rifles, handguns, shotguns - not assault rifles and the likes). It is no strech of the imagination to realize that my household does possess numerous guns. Therefore, that position allows for me to disagree with Britian in general. No one should be put away for long term sentences for possessing a gun. That's just stupid. Everyone should have the right to protect themselves. However, that is extremely different if they use that gun in a criminal act... Anyway, 'bout your question Vivi, IMHO, putting laws on guns control doesn't do jack squat. If gangs are wanting to own and use guns even if there is a jail sentence, they are. I think it is a general consensus over there that you would get in trouble for gang violence guns or no. I would agree with this quote, "Rather than new laws we need more police and more effective policing." Or even better yet, education :yes: the main reaon why for that one is probly becuase she shot more then once(excessive force), altho there is the temporary insanity deffense route, laws are fickle and not always fair for situations. also depending where it happened at the point that she got the gun away from him she then hada lethal weapon and he didnt so that probly got taken into account too.. reasons why its good to know the laws of your state and self deffence incase you ever get in a situation HOPFULLY you can havethe right of mind to know what you can and cant do but most of those situations your dont really have time to think that indepth and just gotta do first things you can think of to protect yourself.. i know i personally would be pathetic in any such circumstance.. me and the real world dont seem to get along. I love you my little bubble world, lol <_< That man was asking for it when he broke into the house. It's a shame that that court didn't realize that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webpixie Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 <_< That man was asking for it when he broke into the house. It's a shame that that court didn't realize that. yea i know(altho she didnt say that it was a break in, just a hold up i know in texas this would make the situation diffrent as far as i know) i cant belive every time i hear of someone breaking into a place getting hurt and then sueing whomever owns that place >.< arg this is all why in tx, shoot once and shoot to kill... (if someone is breaking into your house anyways) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original Luna Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Yes, and I think they should make gun possessing have heavier penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie_Penguin Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 But if they want to make it legal, they would have to make sure the person who owns it is sane enough with no criminal record at least. Seriously, you don't want some druggie to purchase 20 weapons. Or what they can do is open a policy that says you are only allowed to use the weapon in case of a big emergency and until that time it should be lock in a special glass case. You know like an extinguisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome_Paul Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 haha it be pretty funny, but true. even with no criminal records it should have to have a series of interviews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie_Penguin Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 wait if they make guns legal, does that mean crazy ppl can buy guns for their babies and then if something happens, they'll be like :guiltysmiley: my baby did it o_O ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Dan. Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Well, i wouldn't mind seeing the sale of submacine guns and such banned. They're not for hunting, they're not for sel-defence like a 9mm or a S+W, so why sell them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome_Paul Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 dunno, don't they sell the ones that fire blank/pellets then collectors buy them, my friend collects guns, but he would never ever use them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts