[TimHuak]

This is coming from someone who used to be pretty anti gun. I believed Britain had a good system in place and that the gun control was effective. I then decided to do some research and found it really interesting. I have taken an objective look at guns and gun control. I have read just about every book from strong anti gun books calling for a ban on all firearms to strongly pro gun redneck books calling for every citizen to be armed to the teeth and everything inbetween. As well as this Ive read a fair number of studies.

Firstly I would consider the laws which exist a violation of your freedom but after researching this topic pretty extensively I would say they are ineffective and illogical. They seem to come about as knee jerk reactions to paticular often tragic events and I have not seen any evidence of them being effective.

Politicians and most of the media have a bias against guns and most of the British public have been indoctrinated to believe (including myself) that guns are bad and guns cause crime and all sorts of other things.

Before you start shouting the same old anti gun arguments and telling me all about your "common sense" try actually doing some research. I will give you some guidance

Websites

1) http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/...6_1_screen.pdf

This is not even the best explanation Ive ever seen but its pretty good. Only 117 pages and it will give you a start. I havent actually read it all because I dont need to as IVe researched this in much more depth than the book goes into.

2) http://www.guncite.com/

3) www.gunpolicy.org

This is useful for some statistics but it isnt too consistent and I have questioned how reliable some sources are

Books

1) "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" (UK specific)
2) Does the trigger pull the finger? (UK specific)
3) More Guns Less Crime (You must get the 2010 version and not the earlier versions)
4) The Bias Against Guns
5) Can Gun Control Work?
6) Pretty much anything by the criminologist "Gary Kleck". Gary Kleck also has a number of very interesting studies published. You can find them online for free.

A lot of the authors who write these books actually come from anti gun backgrounds.

This is just a start.

3 more things

1) No I personally do not want to own a gun right now. I am not an American either. I come from an anti gun background.

2) These are not good arguments. I will get them out the way here in the 1st post

- I feel safe and dont need a gun
- Look at America they have loose gun control and their homicide rate is much higher than ours
- America America America
- Britain has quite strict gun control and we have hardly any gun homicides
- Crime isnt a problem in the UK
- America

3) If you have actually done some kind of research on this subject, maybe read some books or studies (please tell me which ones) and have been objective about it then please convince me I am wrong. Also I would appreciate an answer to the following questions

- Do you think the 1997 Firearm act has been effective, was it sensible in the first place and do you have anything to back this up with?
- Same as above but for the 1988 Firearm act
- Do you really agree with tasers/stun guns/pepper spray being section 5 weapons? (This is the category which includes explosives and RPGs)
- Do you really think that gun control is a solution to crime. Do you not feel like the answer lies elsewhere?

EDIT: To what appears to be a slightly hostile anti gun crowd, my mind is open. If you can convince me the firearm legislation in Britain has been effective in this country and maybe even show me some evidence of this then I will be open to change.

[Spaz Man]

We have the freedom to ban guns. We exercise that right through democracy. The pro-gun freedom argument is ridiculous and a poor excuse.

[chancellorroberts]

Should something which only has a purpose to harm/kill be legal? Answer that.

[robin22391]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
We have the freedom to ban guns. We exercise that right through democracy. The pro-gun freedom argument is ridiculous and a poor excuse.

i never voted on that or gave consent whatsoever.

it seems orwellian doublespeak to say that.

the freedom to do as you are told.

[robin22391]

(Original post by chancellorroberts)
Should something which only has a purpose to harm/kill be legal? Answer that.

yes

as long as the ratio of killing power isnt as large as a missile or nuke....

[Spaz Man]

(Original post by robin22391)
i never voted on that or gave consent whatsoever.

it seems orwellian doublespeak to say that.

the freedom to do as you are told.

Don't insult the memory of Eric Arthur Blair over an issue such as this. Of everything you could have possibly chosen. Guns. Really?

I'm pretty sure that internet censorship and the monitoring of communications by the new National Crime Agency is the real threat to freedom here, not banning guns.

[Swanbow]

In South Africa guns are a pretty regular thing to own and all part of the culture, even my family who weren't exactly gun nuts owned an Elephant gun. It isn't the licensed weapons that are an issue, it's the unlicensed and illegal ones which are used to commit crime. Personally I do like guns, but in the United Kingdom one has to argue about whether there is actual need for less strict gun control. It's not as if your home is at risk of armed burglary every night, and those who need weapons for a practical reason such as pest control in rural areas are usually afforded a license. In America and South Africa a lot of people own rifles for hunting, but in the United Kingdom it seems to be the preserve of the rich. My personal opinion is that the gun legislation in this country is spot on. Tighter restrictions on guns doesn't equal a direct drop in crime rates, truth be told crime and murders are always going to happen, if not by the bullet then by the blade.

[TimHuak]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
We have the freedom to ban guns. We exercise that right through democracy. The pro-gun freedom argument is ridiculous and a poor excuse.

A poor excuse for what?

I dont understand your point. We have the freedom to ban interracial and gay marriage. Do you think if this happened we would not be violating the freedom of those who want to wish to take part in either of these?

You have the freedom to vote for the laws you want but these laws people have voted for are violating my freedom to choose.

Even if you dislike the freedom point I make, if you have done some research into gun control you will realise most of it is not effective and a lot is not logical.

(Original post by chancellorroberts)
Should something which only has a purpose to harm/kill be legal? Answer that.

Well guns are not banned completely in the UK, in certain situations you can aquire a firearm. I am for reforming gun control in the UK.

[Spaz Man]

(Original post by TimHuak)
A poor excuse for what?

I dont understand your point. We have the freedom to ban interracial and gay marriage. Do you think if this happened we would not be violating the freedom of those who want to wish to take part in either of these?

You have the freedom to vote for the laws you want but these laws people have voted for are violating my freedom to choose.

Even if you dislike the freedom point I make, if you have done some research into gun control you will realise most of it is not effective and a lot is not logical.



Well guns are not banned completely in the UK, in certain situations you can aquire a firearm. I am for reforming gun control in the UK.

We have parliamentary soveriegnty in the UK. If you want to live in a country full of gun nuts who end up shooting eachother more than any hypothetical enemy, go live in the USA.

[RollerBall]

So, basically, your argument against anti-firearms is that they're uninformed, right?

Yet you demonstrate no further understanding yourself. Instead, you make a list of critical books and links (to quite clearly pro-firearm websites. Inherent bias much?) and then say that you can't use a bunch of counter arguments because you say so? You don't put forward a single point yourself nor any argument then using evidence to back it up. Instead you've thrown a bunch of evidence at the wall and expect it to stick.

You win at debating!

[Architecture-er]

As far as I know, I can't get shot by a gun that doesn't exist.

So frankly, I couldn't give a toss if you wanted to walk around like a hard boi - the police have to respond to situations completely differently if a weapon is involved, especially a firearm. There's no need for members of the public to own a gun, so why the **** should they.



Oh, and I love how, to make sure your argument can't receive any criticism, you quickly mention all the valid counterarguments and say they aren't valid, whilst giving no reason whatsoever. Honestly

[Suetonius]

If individuals in the police and military are allowed to wield guns - and if criminals are able to possess guns through the black market - then I should be allowed to own one too. This isn't even a debatable point as far as I'm concerned.

[robin22391]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
Don't insult the memory of Eric Arthur Blair over an issue such as this. Of everything you could have possibly chosen. Guns. Really?

I'm pretty sure that internet censorship and the monitoring of communications by the new National Crime Agency is the real threat to freedom here, not banning guns.

there are many issues to cover

freedom to bear arms is a smart addition to any country, a gun behind every blade of grass.

there was a time in this country when the police were equal to any other and did not call us civilians, a time when the pm was just an ordinary public servant who's life was no more important than mine....things change...and id rather have this country ready to face any domestic or foreign threat.

in northern ireland you can have a pistol, i cant see why this could not be allowed in the rest of the uk.

rather strict control than banning guns.

[Annoying-Mouse]

If we want to ban guns because they're dangerous and increase crime rates then we might as well start being consequentialist about everything. If biometric identity cards decrease crime rates, what's the problem? The government abusing them? What's to stop the government abusing gun laws? How are we supposed to protect ourselves in the case of a civil war or revolution? There are are states/countries that have guns and have high-crime rates. There are countries/states that have guns and have low-crime rates. What does this tell you? We can't reduce things to one factor, so the correlation between gun and crime rates is pointless.

[ste_mc_efc]

The vast majority of people with stances on the vast majority of topics worthy of debated haven't done their research.

[Spaz Man]

(Original post by robin22391)
there are many issues to cover

freedom to bear arms is a smart addition to any country, a gun behind every blade of grass.

there was a time in this country when the police were equal to any other and did not call us civilians, a time when the pm was just an ordinary public servant who's life was no more important than mine....things change...and id rather have this country ready to face any domestic or foreign threat.

in northern ireland you can have a pistol, i cant see why this could not be allowed in the rest of the uk.

rather strict control than banning guns.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

[robin22391]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
We have parliamentary soveriegnty in the UK. If you want to live in a country full of gun nuts who end up shooting eachother more than any hypothetical enemy, go live in the USA.

do you think someone who owns or wants to own a gun is a gun nut....i suppose all our farmers are gun nuts who shoot each other then....

[Spaz Man]

(Original post by robin22391)
do you think someone who owns or wants to own a gun is a gun nut....i suppose all our farmers are gun nuts who shoot each other then....

No I mean people who love guns even more than other far more important rights. The NRA didn't give a second thought about the attack on the 4th amendment by the NAA.

[Dranzer]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
If we want to ban guns because they're dangerous and increase crime rates then we might as well start being consequentialist about everything. If biometric identity cards decrease crime rates, what's the problem? The government abusing them? What's to stop the government abusing gun laws? How are we supposed to protect ourselves in the case of a civil war or revolution? There are are states/countries that have guns and have high-crime rates. There are countries/states that have guns and have low-crime rates. What does this tell you? We can't reduce things to one factor, so the correlation between gun and crime rates is pointless.

Simple - we don't have guns thus we can't shoot each other.

[TimHuak]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
We have parliamentary soveriegnty in the UK. If you want to live in a country full of gun nuts who end up shooting eachother more than any hypothetical enemy, go live in the USA.

If you actually understood the gun problem in the USA or you wouldnt have such misinformed views about the USA or gun control in general.

If I really wished to live in a country with more relaxed gun control then the USA would definitely not be my only option.

(Original post by RollerBall)
So, basically, your argument against anti-firearms is that they're uninformed, right?

Yet you demonstrate no further understanding yourself. Instead, you make a list of critical books and links (to quite clearly pro-firearm websites. Inherent bias much?) and then say that you can't use a bunch of counter arguments because you say so? You don't put forward a single point yourself nor any argument then using evidence to back it up. Instead you've thrown a bunch of evidence at the wall and expect it to stick.

You win at debating!

Yes that is an argument of mine because when I speak to anti gun people a vast majority of them have not done very much research into the area.

Youre dismissing the sites without even reading them

gunpolicy.org = a website displaying statistics around the world relevant to gun crime. How is that a pro gun website?

guncite = a website which presents evidence from criminologists from around the world discussing various issues surrounding gun control backed by the studies they have done.

guninfo = an ebook published online which has a source for every single fact and statistic it presents.

If anything appears pro gun on these websites then that would be because of the research they have done. If anything appears anti gun on these websites then that would be because of the research being presented

If you want to visit a strongly pro gun website go to "armbritain.com", if you wish to visit a strongly anti gun website google "The Gun Control Network".

I dont have much of a reason to be biased. I was anti gun last year and I dont even want to own a firearm right now in my life. I also wish to see drugs legalized but I dont want to use drugs. Ive read plenty of anti gun books and plenty of strongly pro gun books.

The authors of the books I posted all take an obective look at the gun problem in those paticular books.

I thought it would be pretty obvious why you wouldnt use the arguments I posted. I will explain when I wake up if you really need me to do that.

night night