For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Hardballer
alot of britains criminals have guns anyway 
No not really... Only a ridiculously small minority. Hardly any crimes are commited with guns here. If they were made legal for the public, almost all of them would be.
Original post by Hardballer
has strict gun laws really worked in this country?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371371/Stockwell-shop-shooting-Girl-5-critical-condition-gunman-fires-indiscriminately.html
**** no they haven't, we need our right to bear arms now, how was anyone on this street meant to defend themselves? and how does making it harder for law abiding sports shooters like me prevent shootings like this? I wonder if the shooter had a licence for his gun, yeh......****ing.......right
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371371/Stockwell-shop-shooting-Girl-5-critical-condition-gunman-fires-indiscriminately.html
**** no they haven't, we need our right to bear arms now, how was anyone on this street meant to defend themselves? and how does making it harder for law abiding sports shooters like me prevent shootings like this? I wonder if the shooter had a licence for his gun, yeh......****ing.......right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.
In short, yes, yes the gun laws have worked very well.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Emaemmaemily
No not really... Only a ridiculously small minority. Hardly any crimes are commited with guns here. If they were made legal for the public, almost all of them would be.
why though? we would probably have a background check system like the US as well, so no fugitives can obtain one legally
Original post by bj_945
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
In short, yes, yes the gun laws have worked very well.
In short, yes, yes the gun laws have worked very well.
As I've said I don't care about gun homicides but overall homicides, now go compare UK and Switzerland overall homicides
Original post by Hardballer
As I've said I don't care about gun homicides but overall homicides, now go compare UK and Switzerland overall homicides
Have you been to Switzerland?
They don't cross the road til the man goes green. And none of the bikes are locked up.
You couldn't choose a more extreme example. They are literally the most law-abiding people in the world. I used to live there, and our neighbours dobbed us into the police for mowing the lawn on a Sunday (apparently illegal).
Benchmark it against other crimes like theft and rape, and you'll see what I mean.
You go and compare USA vs UK overall homicide rate. In fact I'll do it for you:
UK-1.4/100,000
US-5.4/100,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
You've found one example that bucks the trend with Switzerland, and that's because Switzerland overall has the lowest crime rate in the world. Wealth and an (almost terrifyingly) law-abiding culture produces that.
Basically mate, no-one's denying that other things have an influence on homicide rates as well as gun legislation. But they are certainly a factor, and as we can see from statistics, places where gun access is easier have higher homicide rates. There are, as with most trends, a few anomalies, but generally it holds true.
I don't think this is a particularly complicated debate-if you're bringing up libertarian ideals, which are just philosophies and can't be argued about objectively, it gets complicated. But as far as pure statistics go the picture is fairly clear.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Hardballer
why though? we would probably have a background check system like the US as well, so no fugitives can obtain one legally
Yes, but when guns are already in the country legally they are much easier to obtain illegally.
Only gun distributers would have to run a background check (if we mimic the USA's policies). For example, anyone can buy a gun from a gun fair in the USA (which are very frequent everywhere) without a background check having to be run... Hence why so many criminals in the USA still have guns. There's no way of tracing these.
Original post by Emaemmaemily
Yes, but when guns are already in the country legally they are much easier to obtain illegally.
Only gun distributers would have to run a background check (if we mimic the USA's policies). For example, anyone can buy a gun from a gun fair in the USA (which are very frequent everywhere) without a background check having to be run... Hence why so many criminals in the USA still have guns. There's no way of tracing these.
Only gun distributers would have to run a background check (if we mimic the USA's policies). For example, anyone can buy a gun from a gun fair in the USA (which are very frequent everywhere) without a background check having to be run... Hence why so many criminals in the USA still have guns. There's no way of tracing these.
well here we have a stricter system, when I bought a shotgun it had to be registered and every time I sell it I have to notify the authorities, but what if we used the same licencing system as here but also allowed for self dfence that way? theres around 700,000-800,000 legal firearms owners at the moment
Original post by Foo.mp3
Guns don't kill people, gunpowder does. Derp 
gunpowder propels the object that hits you and wounds or kills you
Original post by Hardballer
well here we have a stricter system, when I bought a shotgun it had to be registered and every time I sell it I have to notify the authorities, but what if we used the same licencing system as here but also allowed for self dfence that way? theres around 700,000-800,000 legal firearms owners at the moment
Because then anyone can get one... And like I said if they are made legal and in common use, they will be very easy to get ahold of illegally by criminals.
And I don't think self-defense is a good reason, as I've already explained. It just means your attackers will have a gun too, rather then something less lethal and harder to use effectively like now.
Original post by Emaemmaemily
Because then anyone can get one...
anyone without a criminal record and a legitimate reason can get one now
I'm just saying that if we allowed conceal carry as well as using it for sports shooting
Original post by Hardballer
anyone without a criminal record and a legitimate reason can get one now
I'm just saying that if we allowed conceal carry as well as using it for sports shooting
I'm just saying that if we allowed conceal carry as well as using it for sports shooting
"Legitimate reason" doesn't cover most people.
Yes, I'm talking ab out being allowed to conceal weapons too, that's what this is based on.
Original post by Emaemmaemily
"Legitimate reason" doesn't cover most people.
if 50 million people in the country wanted to get a shotgun for clay shooting they could, if 50 million people wanted to join a rifle club for six months and then apply for an fac for getting a rifle for target shooting they could
It's three months, and may be waived by the chief of police in some circumstances, for example if you've held an FAC for vermin shooting or been a long-term clay/pheasant shooter. Assuming you have the money (club membership, NRA membership, plus the FAC and SGC fees) and are not a 'prohibited person' which basically means you haven't been jailed for more than three months, you SHOULD find it very little trouble to acquire a firearms certificate. On the other hand, 'policy' rather than actual legal restrictions, governs the issue process quite a bit, and can put up a lot of obstacles. It's never been easy, but it's never been harder than it is right now, and it's not ALL that hard now. It's just frustrating, and most people have never tried it, hate it, or can't be bothered.
Original post by bj_945
Have you been to Switzerland?
They don't cross the road til the man goes green. And none of the bikes are locked up.
You couldn't choose a more extreme example. They are literally the most law-abiding people in the world. I used to live there, and our neighbours dobbed us into the police for mowing the lawn on a Sunday (apparently illegal).
Benchmark it against other crimes like theft and rape, and you'll see what I mean.
You go and compare USA vs UK overall homicide rate. In fact I'll do it for you:
UK-1.4/100,000
US-5.4/100,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
You've found one example that bucks the trend with Switzerland, and that's because Switzerland overall has the lowest crime rate in the world. Wealth and an (almost terrifyingly) law-abiding culture produces that.
Basically mate, no-one's denying that other things have an influence on homicide rates as well as gun legislation. But they are certainly a factor, and as we can see from statistics, places where gun access is easier have higher homicide rates. There are, as with most trends, a few anomalies, but generally it holds true.
I don't think this is a particularly complicated debate-if you're bringing up libertarian ideals, which are just philosophies and can't be argued about objectively, it gets complicated. But as far as pure statistics go the picture is fairly clear.
They don't cross the road til the man goes green. And none of the bikes are locked up.
You couldn't choose a more extreme example. They are literally the most law-abiding people in the world. I used to live there, and our neighbours dobbed us into the police for mowing the lawn on a Sunday (apparently illegal).
Benchmark it against other crimes like theft and rape, and you'll see what I mean.
You go and compare USA vs UK overall homicide rate. In fact I'll do it for you:
UK-1.4/100,000
US-5.4/100,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
You've found one example that bucks the trend with Switzerland, and that's because Switzerland overall has the lowest crime rate in the world. Wealth and an (almost terrifyingly) law-abiding culture produces that.
Basically mate, no-one's denying that other things have an influence on homicide rates as well as gun legislation. But they are certainly a factor, and as we can see from statistics, places where gun access is easier have higher homicide rates. There are, as with most trends, a few anomalies, but generally it holds true.
I don't think this is a particularly complicated debate-if you're bringing up libertarian ideals, which are just philosophies and can't be argued about objectively, it gets complicated. But as far as pure statistics go the picture is fairly clear.
So because we don't "behave" as well as the swiss we should be stripped of our human right to self defence? remember I'm referring to the bigger picture here, theres a reason why germany didn't invade switzerland during world war 2, noone ****s with switzerland. all we had was the poorly armed homeguard as well as our regular army
Original post by Hardballer
So because we don't "behave" as well as the swiss we should be stripped of our human right to self defence? remember I'm referring to the bigger picture here, theres a reason why germany didn't invade switzerland during world war 2, noone ****s with switzerland. all we had was the poorly armed homeguard as well as our regular army
Your arguments just don't hold water; you are spouting utter nonsense and certainly haven't made a coherent case in favour of liberalisation of the gun laws. Nobody has stripped you of your right to self defence. It is perfectly legal to defend yourself with proportional force in the UK, just as it is in the USA. Given that, here, the criminal probably won't have a firearm, you won't need one for that purpose. There are several reasons why Germany didn't invade Switzerland, and gun control wasn't a factor. Britain also wasn't invaded, so what dubious conclusion about gun control are you going to draw from that?
Original post by Hardballer
if 50 million people in the country wanted to get a shotgun for clay shooting they could, if 50 million people wanted to join a rifle club for six months and then apply for an fac for getting a rifle for target shooting they could
Yes but the point is no-one wants to go clay shooting, or join a club... It doesn't apply to the general majority of people, and no one does that. Plus there are restrictions on it about exactly how they should be stored etc.
We are talking about them being allowed to be used for self-defense by the general public, and being allowed to be carried around, which is a whole different story.
See my previous points.
Original post by Good bloke
Given that, here, the criminal probably won't have a firearm, you won't need one for that purpose.
what the hell do you mean probably won't? those 14 year old kids had guns in the article did they not? I'm glad you're so quick to rely on luck and faith in the mercy of criminals. what about knives? how we meant to defend ourself against a knife? its not like we can even own cs spray or stun guns so how we meant to defend ourselves against a knife attack if we can't even carry a similiar object around without being charged with possessing an offensive weapon
what planet you on bro? Germany tried to invade Britain, it was called the battle of britain
Original post by Emaemmaemily
Yes but the point is no-one wants to go clay shooting, or join a club... It doesn't apply to the general majority of people, and no one does that. Plus there are restrictions on it about exactly how they should be stored etc.
I know, I've had to go through this procedure, but thanks for reminding me. True not everyone wants to take up shooting as a sport but it doesn't help with the media demonising it constantly
I don't see how some people can't understand.
In our kinds of societies (those of the USA, UK, and other western countries) gun posession directly links to higher gun crime, and higher deaths caused by fire-arms.
USA - Homocides with firearms = 46%, that's 2.97 per capita of pop. Their over-all homocide rate is high too, 7.13 per capita.
England & Wales (cos that's how it's recorded by the UN) - Homocides with firearms = 8%, 0.12 per capita. (only higher than singapore and slovenia). Our over-all homocide rate is also lower, 1.45.
Switzerland have a completely different society to ours, so I don't know why people are trying to compare them. The country is run differently, people's ideals and morals are different, etc... Even though it's irrelevent when comparing to us, their homocide rate is still higher (1.52 per capita,) with the percentage of firearms being used for murder at 37%.
Statistics aside... If guns are allowed to be carried and concealed by the public, this just means that the criminals will have guns too (where almost all don't now). It means your chance of escape from any encounter like this is reduced dramatically to almost nothing compared to now, and so makes the streets actually more dangerous.
That's not even bringing into account accidental deaths (which are a big factor in the USA also).
It seems pretty clear to me. American's live (mostly) under some illusion that by having guns they have their "right to defend themselves" and so are safer... When it's making their country actually more dangerous to live in (generally speaking), and means just about any confrontation can turn extremely dangerous/fatal.
We still have the right to defend ourselves in the UK... And seeing as criminals will almost definitely not have a gun, that's much easier to do here.
We should probably be allowed pepper spray and stuff again, but that's a seperate issue.
In our kinds of societies (those of the USA, UK, and other western countries) gun posession directly links to higher gun crime, and higher deaths caused by fire-arms.
USA - Homocides with firearms = 46%, that's 2.97 per capita of pop. Their over-all homocide rate is high too, 7.13 per capita.
England & Wales (cos that's how it's recorded by the UN) - Homocides with firearms = 8%, 0.12 per capita. (only higher than singapore and slovenia). Our over-all homocide rate is also lower, 1.45.
Switzerland have a completely different society to ours, so I don't know why people are trying to compare them. The country is run differently, people's ideals and morals are different, etc... Even though it's irrelevent when comparing to us, their homocide rate is still higher (1.52 per capita,) with the percentage of firearms being used for murder at 37%.
Statistics aside... If guns are allowed to be carried and concealed by the public, this just means that the criminals will have guns too (where almost all don't now). It means your chance of escape from any encounter like this is reduced dramatically to almost nothing compared to now, and so makes the streets actually more dangerous.
That's not even bringing into account accidental deaths (which are a big factor in the USA also).
It seems pretty clear to me. American's live (mostly) under some illusion that by having guns they have their "right to defend themselves" and so are safer... When it's making their country actually more dangerous to live in (generally speaking), and means just about any confrontation can turn extremely dangerous/fatal.
We still have the right to defend ourselves in the UK... And seeing as criminals will almost definitely not have a gun, that's much easier to do here.
We should probably be allowed pepper spray and stuff again, but that's a seperate issue.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- can you put in your own earring straight after it has been pierced
- Rust trial: Armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was 'sloppy' before Alec Baldwin gun fired
- Anyone like punk rock (green day RHCP blink 182 ect)
- edexcel alevel English lit predictions 2023
- A Level Literature Coursework; Catch-22
- 2023 Edexcel English Lit A Level
- UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules
- english shooting an elephant
- GCSE Year 10 - Speaking & Listening Examination
- Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election
- Help with bioinformatics
- english literature edexcel a level
- firing a cannon
- Can someone please grade this for me?
- Radiography Reading lists 2024
- Do better when I ignore A-Level teachers.
- 2023 Edexcel English Lit A Level - Predictions
- Went 34 in a 30 past a speed gun
- Edexcel A Level English Literature Paper 3 (9ET0 03) - 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
2023 ** Borders and Enforcement, Crime & Compliance - ICE - Immigration OfficersLast reply 21 minutes ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 39 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 50 minutes ago
Government Social Research Placement interview questionsLast reply 56 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Standard Chartered Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 hour ago
narrowly missing offer conditionsTrending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
