Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

B414 - Firearms Legalisation Bill

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    ....
    Except the basic premise of this argument would give greater, more effective means of killing individuals. And as Adorno states - crime is not a static thing; it rises and falls according to circumstances.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    It only takes a quick look at Switzerland to see that there is no correlation between violent crime and "liberal" gun laws and high gun ownership rates.

    Fun fact. Northern Ireland (contrary to popular perception) has the lowest murder rate in the UK. It also has the highest rate of legal gun ownership in the UK, drastically higher than England and Wales, and Scotland. It is also the only place in the UK where handguns and semi-automatics are still legal to own. Scotland on the other hand has the highest murder rate, but also the lowest rate of gun ownership.

    More guns =/= more crime.
    In Switzerland, however, it is compulsory to undergo basic military training. Therefore, owners will understand and respect gun ownership a lot more. I also doubt Switzerland has as big a gang culture as Britain does.

    Do you have a recent source for Northern Ireland having a lower crime rate than England and Wales? I have one from 2011 that puts it higher: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ja...owest-12-years. Of course you're probably right about Scotland, but again there is a big gang culture up there; do you think this problem is going to be helped by legalising firearms?

    Britain has one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world, do you seriously think this won't increase were firearms legalised? Even one extra life lost wouldn't be worth it, by a long shot.
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    A truly reckless bill idea. If you want to see more innocent people murdered in gun rampages perpetrated by people who should not have had free access to firearms, vote yes.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock_and_roll)
    I can't believe this bill would even be considered.

    It only takes a quick look at the US gun-crime rate to see that no good comes from firearm legalisation.
    What's more important, human life or Bob being able to show off his new killing toys?
    And I can't believe you're using the US as a basis for your argument when there are different countries (even European ones) that have legalized firearms yet don't have similar troubles as the US, heck even in some US states that have legalized guns, crime rate/gun homicidal rate is low.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    That folks with guns are not to be trusted. That folks who desire guns are not to be trusted either. So there's plenty to fear from folks like him without anyone taking threatening action.
    Where is the rationale in that? Do you extend the same sentiments to people who are involved in other weapon/combat oriented pursuits? Archery? Fencing? Re-enacting? Martial arts? Boxing? Knife collecting? Paintballing?

    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    It's a matter of trust rather than an issue of good versus evil, to be honest with you. Either way, this seems to be losing sight of the bill so I'll retire. However, in terms of your question ... violence does not have to be responded with violence. There are other ways including seeking to erradicate the circumstances in which violence might take place.
    I agree, but when the alternatives fail, a violent response may be the only solution. At that point i want to ensure that i am the one who comes out on top, and its very unlikely that i will be able to do that if i am unarmed.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    And I can't believe you're using the US as a basis for your argument when there are different countries (even European ones) that have legalized firearms yet don't have similar troubles as the US, heck even in some US states that have legalized guns, crime rate/gun homicidal rate is low.
    I wasn't, I was just using it as a comparison. It works both ways, you can't just pick and choose where legalisation has been successful and ignore where it hasn't. There are probably areas in the US where gun crime rates are low, but you only have to look at the run down areas to see what a disaster it is.

    The majority of murders in the US are also committed with firearms.

    Why do firearms need to be legalised? No matter how small it is, there will be an increase in gun crime due to it. The arguments against outweigh the arguments for (If there are any other than the silly libertarian notion of absolute freedom) so legalisation is unnecessary.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yeah all of the no.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Ideologically I'm a libertarian so this bill certainly does have appeal to me. And I like to keep an open mind about these sort of things.
    In theory I can understand the ideas for legalising gun ownership. If you think about it, gun ownership itself, on it's own, is a victimless crime. The act of owning a firearm doesn't hurt a soul.
    The problem that does arise from gun ownership is when people actually use those guns on innocent people. Obviously that isn't a victimless crime and this is the big problem. I am all for decriminalising victimless crimes, but guns create victims. If I go out and become some kind of crazy ass liberal heroin addict then I'm only hurting myself. If I go out, drive a car without a seatbelt I'm only hurting myself. I go over to Singapore and do some jay-walking I'm again only hurting myself. But if I go out, buy a gun and use it; either purposefully or non-purposefully, then I am taking away someone else's liberty, I'm forcefully taking their right to life without their say. No-one should have that power.
    This bill will make guns much more accessible to criminals than they are currently. Sure, criminals are gonna get guns regardless of the law, but removing the barriers can only really lead to gun usage increasing, and that means more deaths, and chances are it's not going to be the gun owners dying but just random people on the street.
    For that reason, I shall either abstain or vote no.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    Raul Moat being another example.
    Yes an example of illegal gun possession, lunatics will always get guns illegally regardless of the law. Legalising it just helps those who want to protect themselves or hunt with better guns.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock_and_roll)
    Britain has one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world, do you seriously think this won't increase were firearms legalised?.
    logically why would it? if someone wants a gun they will get one its not the hardest thing to do legal or not and equally if theyre going to kill someone theyre going to do it, what difference does it make if they use a gun or a knife as in the end it will happen.
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    (Original post by cl_steele)
    if someone wants a gun they will get one its not the hardest thing to do legal or not and equally if theyre going to kill someone theyre going to do it, what difference does it make if they use a gun or a knife as in the end it will happen.
    So yeah, we may as well legalise firearms to make it easier for that someone to do that. :rolleyes:
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    So yeah, we may as well legalise firearms to make it easier for that someone to do that. :rolleyes:
    really is that what you got out of what i said?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I am in support of relaxing the restrictions surrounding firearms, and in general support of the defense of ones castle part of the bill, but I believe section 2 needs to be made a little more conservative with regards to deadly force, and the 2)6)b) needs better clarification.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    And I can't believe you're using the US as a basis for your argument when there are different countries (even European ones) that have legalized firearms yet don't have similar troubles as the US, heck even in some US states that have legalized guns, crime rate/gun homicidal rate is low.
    Countries that still have liberal firearms policies are practically all states that have never had a problem with a high murder rate - murders aren't caused by guns, they are symptomatic of greater cultural problems (for example: vast economic inequality, disengagement of some communities, gang culture). Britain and the US are similar in the depth of these problems, the only difference is that guns are legal overthere and thus the damage that is done by these issues in society is greater - I can't believe you people can be so flippant about killing. If Britain were this fantasy land of homogenous middle class people, then relaxing gun laws would do less damage (i.e Switzerland and Canada). In reality we are far from here; our society has a different attitude towards guns, and this is not at all taken into account by this Act.

    It's still the truth that the TSR Libertarians are placing their belief in the mystical symbolism of owning weapons above the practical consequences of these weapons becoming more available in society: death.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    A much more reasonable means of defending ones home (the castle doctrine) would be to allow 'any reasonable force necessary to defend ones home' this may or may not include the use of weapons, both lethal and non-lethal.
    Rather than legalising firearms for the defence of ones home, why not clarify the legislation about HOW one can defend ones home. If a burglar comes into your home with a gun, should you be within your rights to fire upon that person?

    Also, perhaps other, non-lethal methods of self defence could be legalised in certain circumstances. Such as tasers and pepperspray.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    What difference does that make? We use water in pools, baths, showers etc. when we could choose not to. The point stands, though your understanding of it obviously does not.



    Once again, you've completely missed the point. I don't care that legal gun holders don't murder people. It's about normalisation and availability - when so many people legitimately own lethal weapons, it makes it so that criminals can find it easier to get guns - it's very easy to sell on guns and completely flood society with them (exactly what has happened in the USA) - exemptions become totally irrelevant as the black market merges with the legal one. Besides, if stripping 80,000,000 weapons off people prevented the current murders in the states that would 100% be worth it.

    And the presence of guns does cause gun crime. People kill people with guns, most of these deaths would not happen without the presence of guns - they provide a quick/easy way to kill people, knives, cars etc. just do not compare (also: if they were intended as weapons in themselves I would have nothing aganst banning them).



    If you think America is free, you're terribly misguided. What you're doing here is placing your abstract philosophy above the lives of those who suffer from gun crime. And don't say that this is about protection - guns are very rarely used in self-defence (even though people who own them are much more likely to be involved in crimes). Besides, there are non-lethal alternatives to guns for the same level of self-defence, I'm not going to list them.
    Frankly, there's not much reason to argue with someone that says "I don't care that legal gun holders don't murder people" and "stripping 80,000,000 people of their weapons would be 100% worth it".

    I believe in freedom, you clearly do not.

    But I do have a couple of points briefly.

    If you'd like to post the evidence for both the following statements "guns are very rarely used in self-defence (even though people who own them are much more likely to be involved in crimes)" it'd be appreciated. Mine is as already stated, 80million own guns legally in the states and are not involved in crimes every day, compared to a few thousand that are. I wouldn't say myself that this justifies a "much more likely to be involved in crime" statement. Quite the opposite, in-fact. Same goes for the UK, I know of very few cases of legal gun owners in the UK involved in gun crime, the figures as far as I'm aware stand at something around 0.001%, but I'd have to double check that. Yet despite this, you'd enforce your personal views on the large majority of legal, safe gun owners due to your own bias. I can't agree with that.

    You also stated "Besides, there are non-lethal alternatives to guns for the same level of self-defence, I'm not going to list them." Of course you're not going to list them, because there are none. You disproved your own argument there and then. If witness to or victim of gun crime, or any other violent crime, there's nothing else that will offer you the same level of safety, protection and self-defence as a gun. Feel free to disprove, I'm all ears.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I agree morally to the notion, but there's too much potential for something to go wrong/be abused, a reluctant abstention from me.

    On a side note, it's probably been mentioned already but...


    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    4 Short Title
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Blast That Mofo Act 2011.[/Field]
    2012?
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No, what an idiotic bill... wait, oh yeah, the name suggests that, doesn't it? :rolleyes:
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Love the short name for the bill but it's gotta be a no from me. Full legalisation of firearms is a bad idea.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Well it's not really about losing sight of the point but rather disagreeing on a point. Crime is not a static thing; it rises and falls according to circumstances: the more equal a society, the less crime there tends to be. Given we're talking about reducing the potential for violence and violent crime then it's not really about creating an authoritarian state but about creating a fair and equal one. In my view that means creating a social democratic state. There, I'm sure, we will disagree.
    I think you are naive if you honestly think we can ever fully eradicate crime.

    Yes, working toward a society where there is less crime is what we should be doing, but not at the expense of the victims of crime. Both the ability to defend oneself and the movement toward fairer society can be done at the same time.
Updated: February 25, 2012
New on TSR

Personal statement help

Use our clever tool to create a PS you're proud of.

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.