The Student Room Group

For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

Scroll to see replies

Reply 840
Original post by Selkarn
India is well known for it's authoritarian gun laws.


yup, yet its still possible for a civilian to legally acquire a handgun or semi automatic rifle over there.
Original post by Selkarn
You could go on forever, for an infinite amount of objects.. some things are obviously far more dangerous than the utility/usefulness they provide, whilst some things are obviously of huge usefulness, even if in very very rare cases they can be dangerous.


Yeah, and you use statistics to determine which things are simply too dangerous. Statistics are important. You have none.
Original post by Hardballer
so did bill brady and and he's still a gun grabbing authoritarian. Plenty of other countries enjoy high gun ownership and low crime, switzerland, finland, cyprus, france, norway, austria. Just about every one of these countries have private handgun ownership and austria lets you buy shotguns without registration. I don't think any of these countries have an overall higher murder rate than us.


Are you kidding me? I've already proven to you that Switzerland have a higher murder rate than us... Finland = 0.028 per capita, France 0.017, UK = 0.014. Couldn't find Austria.
The only ones lower that you mentioned were cyprus and norway.
In Norway they aren't allowed guns for self defense, it's for hunting and sport, which is allowed here, they also have very strict rules on storage and are not allowed to carry them on their person in public.
^ Essentially, there's not a huge difference in their laws to ours, except they allow hand guns (but with the same rules about not for self defense, etc).

So... Cyprus? A population of 1 million people... Hardly comparable both in numbers, and in social aspects.
Reply 843
Original post by Emaemmaemily
Are you kidding me? I've already proven to you that Switzerland have a higher murder rate than us... Finland = 0.028 per capita, France 0.017, UK = 0.014. Couldn't find Austria.
The only ones lower that you mentioned were cyprus and norway.
In Norway they aren't allowed guns for self defense, it's for hunting and sport, which is allowed here, they also have very strict rules on storage and are not allowed to carry them on their person in public.
^ Essentially, there's not a huge difference in their laws to ours, except they allow hand guns (but with the same rules about not for self defense, etc).

So... Cyprus? A population of 1 million people... Hardly comparable both in numbers, and in social aspects.


well finland and norway only have 5 million so whats your point? hows it not comparable in social aspects? they have around the same income as us in cyprus, actually slightly less on average, I'm confused to what you mean. and your stats are wrong

United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Original post by Hardballer
well finland and norway only have 5 million so whats your point? hows it not comparable in social aspects? they have around the same income as us in cyprus, actually slightly less on average, I'm confused to what you mean. and your stats are wrong

United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita


I got my Switzerland statistics from their government sources, I cited the source a while back so you can check it if you like...
Well Finland and Norway also are hard to compare because their societies are VERY different to ours, as well as the numbers. It's not about income at all, it's about how their society is run and their ideals (which are extremely different in general, the country is nothing like us).
That's why it makes things a bit shakey to compare... But either way, my point that actually almost all of the countries you mentioned have MORE murders than us is still valid.

Also, just realised. My stats on Switzerland before were on violent crime in general as well as violent crime involving a gun, not just murders. So including things like rape, muggings and attacks that don't necessarily completely kills someone (which is very much part of this debate), Switzerland is a lot worse.
Original post by Hardballer

United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita


You have quoted murder rates, which is just a tad misleading. Surely a more relevant figure would be gun homicides, which are three times higher in Switzerland, or accidental gun deaths, which are also three times higher?
Original post by GwrxVurfer


Switzerland is a country where the law pretty much mandates that every citizen keeps a service rifle at home. And yet, gun-related crime over there is incredibly low.


Compared to the USA, maybe. Gun-related homicides in Switzerland are treble those in England and Wales.
Original post by GwrxVurfer
First of all, calm down. I have not lied, and the proof is here for all users to see. You have provided what you call "statistics". I had already proven that higher gun ownership results in less gun-related murders due to the deterrence. Therefore your so-called "statistics" would raise suspicion amongst your anti-firearm friends.



You are hoplophobic. You have this, frankly alarming, irrational fear of firearms. You appear to be convinced that if guns were re-legalized then everyone with a gun would be out to "get you". Common sense dictates that a would-be murderer would use a cheap knife (already legal) as opposed to an expensive gun, as they would need to permanently destroy the murder weapon afterwards to prevent forensic examination.

Why are you so paranoid?



No they don't. This is to be expected from people like Emae. Once their flawed logic has been exposed, they resort to outright lies.

Switzerland is a country where the law pretty much mandates that every citizen keeps a service rifle at home. And yet, gun-related crime over there is incredibly low.

Oh wait, let me guess - "We're not counting Switzerland", or indeed anything else that exposes the fundamental flaws in your hoplophobic argument.


By the way - Hows your "I'm leaving the thread because I can't be bothered arguing with you" going? :wink:


You haven't proved that more guns reduces crime, because I provided plenty of stats (from difference sources, which I cited) that showed countries with looser gun laws almost all had higher violent crime rates. That is a fact.

I am not a hoplophobe, for christ's sake stop calling me that because you're pissing me off. Can't you debate without calling names? Can't you just discuss facts like I have been?
I am NOT SCARED OF GUNS!!! I used to use them regularly. So shut up.
I'm not convinced people will "get me", I've never said that. It's not about me personally, it's about society as a whole. I've proven that if we had looser guns laws there would be more gun crime and more innocent deaths, because ALL of the stats prove it!

How are all of the stats I provided lies? They're from nationmaster, wikipedia, and some government sources... They aren't lies. i didn't make them up, I GAVE THE SOURCE. Stop calling me a liar because you're really pissing me off.
Switzerland's gun crime rate is NOT low, because I proved that earlier too. Their violent crime rate is also higher. So yes, it counts... Towards my argument.

I was going to leave, yes... And I am considering it again because you are infuriating. All I've done is give several sources of information showing higher violent crime rates in countries that allow guns more loosly... The only argument you have is "you are a liar" instead of giving me some other sources to counter my argument? Pathetic.
Original post by Good bloke
Compared to the USA, maybe. Gun-related homicides in Switzerland are treble those in England and Wales.


thank god you are here... I am nearly pulling my hair out! :frown:
Original post by Emaemmaemily
thank god you are here... I am nearly pulling my hair out! :frown:


I'm not staying. I am unwatching the thread and I suggest you do the same.
Original post by Good bloke
I'm not staying. I am unwatching the thread and I suggest you do the same.


Yeah, it's pretty hard to believe sometimes :/
Reply 851
Original post by GwrxVurfer
By the way - Hows your "I'm leaving the thread because I can't be bothered arguing with you" going? :wink:


:rofl: more like "my authoritarian views have been exposed, therefore I'm going to slink off ashamedly"..

Original post by Emaemmaemily
Yeah, it's pretty hard to believe sometimes :/


Original post by Good bloke
I'm not staying. I am unwatching the thread and I suggest you do the same.


On their side, we have:

Adolf Hitler
Castro
Gaddafi
Stalin
Idi Amin
Mao Zedong
Pol Pot
Kim Jong-Il
Criminals

On our side, we have:

Gandhi
Orwell
Dalai Lama
Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison


All in all, there's no need to get so angry about it, we're just proposing giving people a little more freedom when it comes to what they want to spend their money on. You take a more authoritarian stance in this matter, we take a more liberal stance. No big deal. There's clearly no changing your opinion so it's pointless discussing it with you.
Original post by Selkarn
:rofl: more like "my authoritarian views have been exposed, therefore I'm going to slink off ashamedly"..





all, there's no need to get so angry about it, we're just proposing giving people a little more freedom when it comes to what they want to spend their money on. You take a more authoritarian stance in this matter, we take a more liberal stance. No big deal. There's clearly no changing your opinion so it's pointless discussing it with you.


No... I've proven and given my points a thousand times. I'm not "skulking off"... I just give up, you're ignoring the evidence.
I'm not angry that we both have very different views, neither of us will change... I'm angry that you keep ignoring the evidence I give. By all means, you can still disagree, but don't ignore the evidence.

Stop repeating that stupid list.
I. Give. Up. There's no debating with some people.
Reply 853
Original post by Emaemmaemily
No... I've proven and given my points a thousand times. I'm not "skulking off"... I just give up, you're ignoring the evidence.
I'm not angry that we both have very different views, neither of us will change... I'm angry that you keep ignoring the evidence I give. By all means, you can still disagree, but don't ignore the evidence.

Stop repeating that stupid list.
I. Give. Up. There's no debating with some people.


If, by evidence, you mean statistical evidence, then you are wrong, for I do not believe we have discussed any form of mathematical argument. I am well aware that if you give an AK47 to every single person in the country, gun crime will increase. I am equally aware that if you completely ban every single firearm, gun crime would fall. I am also aware that if you completely banned knives, knife crime would also fall. You cannot simply talk about numbers when the issue is liberty and freedom.

As for the emboldened part - indeed. But, as the thread title suggests, this is a thread for hoplophobes. In the other thread I made about guns here, it's refreshing to see that, based on the small number of people who have so far posted, your opinion is not shared, and most people prefer a liberal, anti-authoritarian stance on the matter.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Selkarn
If, by evidence, you mean statistical evidence, then you are wrong, for I do not believe we have discussed any form of mathematical argument. I am well aware that if you give an AK47 to every single person in the country, gun crime will increase. I am equally aware that if you completely ban every single firearm, gun crime would fall. I am also aware that if you completely banned knives, knife crime would also fall. You cannot simply talk about numbers when the issue is liberty and freedom.

As for the emboldened part - indeed. But, as the thread title suggests, this is a thread for hoplophobes. In the other thread I made about guns here, it's refreshing to see that, based on the small number of people who have so far posted, your opinion is not shared, and most people prefer a liberal, anti-authoritarian stance on the matter.


Nearly no-one in that thread agrees with you. :rolleyes:
Reply 855
The handgun ban was one of the most knee-jerk pieces of populist legislating I've seen in my lifetime.


I fully support the right of sane, non-criminals who wish to use guns for sport or agricultural whatevery to have them, but I'd rather not bulk those numbers out too much.


I completely disagree with banning guns outright, but I do believe that the system we have for rifles and shotguns is ideal and should be mimicked for pistols.


I love it when people can only see what they want to see.. :biggrin:
Original post by Selkarn
I love it when people can only see what they want to see.. :biggrin:

While I'm not really contributing to this thread (merely watching) three people out of the number of posters in a 45 page thread likely counts towards 'Nearly no-one'. Not to mention they refer to handgun control being too strict, rather than adopting your viewpoint entirely. Poster #2 and Poster #3 also seem to be fans of gun control with Poster #2 not wanting to bulk out numbers of guns and Poster #3 wanting pistols to be regulated as much as rifles and shotguns. Poster #1 I can't decipher, he condemns the handgun ban legislation as knee-jerk but doesn't offer alternatives so I'm not too certain in regards to his full viewpoint so he may fully support you.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 857
Look, Hardballer. I DO agree with you on weapons for shooting purposes, have fun with that. Hell, I'm even thinking about it. But I really don't believe the benefits of private gun ownership for 'efficient self-defence' outweigh the costs and consequences. Sorry.

What's the procedure for getting a shooting permit, while I'm on the subject?
Reply 858
Original post by Selkarn
India is well known for it's authoritarian gun laws. The terrorists knew they could simply waltz into one of the most populated cities in the entire world and simply start blasting. Nobody could shoot back. It's pretty much undeniable. You keep ranting on about irrelevant things, obviously just trying to hide the fact that your argument immediately crumbles when it's exposed for the Hitleresque stance that it is.



Godwins Law?
Reply 859
Original post by Templar49
Look, Hardballer. I DO agree with you on weapons for shooting purposes, have fun with that. Hell, I'm even thinking about it. But I really don't believe the benefits of private gun ownership for 'efficient self-defence' outweigh the costs and consequences. Sorry.

What's the procedure for getting a shooting permit, while I'm on the subject?


To get a firearms certificate you must apply to your local constabulary. You basically need to prove you have a reasonable safe place to shoot (member of a gun club, or going to become a member) or say own land.
You then need to purchase a gun safe and lock box. Safe holds the guns, lockbox holds the ammo. (lock box can be built into the safe). The safe is usually bolted to the floor (the safe puts most people off). You may have an interview at some point.

Type of gun can be a factor. Shotguns and .22 rimfires are good guns to apply for, they serve the purpose of hunting or sporting and wont raise any real concerns. Any bigger calibers are just expensive.

It can be a little bit costly, if its shooting for fun id look into getting an air rifle. Whilst those over 12ft/lbs power require a license (exact same license as above) sub 12ft/lbs dont and are accurate up to 60 yards before pellet drop is a bigger concern (about 2 inches pellet drop in .177 at 65 yards).

The cheapest air rifles you can get are generally only accurate out to 30 yards however thats enough for most people for 'plinking'. Good fun, cheap and relatively safe if you follow good gun practice...

If you have any more questions i can do my best to answer them?

Quick Reply

Latest