This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Help with Edexcel AS level politics question
- What are your favourite rock/metal bands?
- St. Andrews vs LSE: Which to pick?
- What is the biggest issue you want your chosen uni to stand up for?
- Can someone please grade this for me?
- Desire for net zero referendum growing among public, poll finds
- Went 34 in a 30 past a speed gun
- Mini roundabout U turn
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- criminology
- Road to Gold: Physics Olympiads
- Forced marriage
- Law degree without A Levels
- Hess law and combustion
- Lawyers in NGOs
- Where do you stand on the political spectrum (compass)? – Take a quiz here!
- manchester/cardiff/leeds/sheffield/birmingham
- thoughts on 19 yo girl dating 17yo guy??
- Crush during flight
- Qualifying Law Degree / Non qualifying law degree for External student
Will the UK ever reverse it's authoritarian gun laws?
Scroll to see replies
Gun crime across Europe, where firearms are, broadly speaking, illegal or highly controlled, is substantially lower than it is in the United States where firearms are generally freely available.
This isn't up for debate, nor should it be. I believe that most firearms should be banned.
I'm generally a pretty "liberal" guy when it comes to banning things - I think most, possibly all, drugs should be legalised because unless you look at drugs from a utilitarian POV they can only harm the individual, but firearms were explicitly designed to hurt other people effectively and efficiently. We should control the supply of knives and guns because it is the sensible thing to do to maintain law and order. Look at our murder rate - less than half of that of the United States, and homicide by firearm is only about 5% of all murders in the UK IIRC.
No guns - gun control works as evidenced by the dichotomy across the Atlantic.
This isn't up for debate, nor should it be. I believe that most firearms should be banned.
I'm generally a pretty "liberal" guy when it comes to banning things - I think most, possibly all, drugs should be legalised because unless you look at drugs from a utilitarian POV they can only harm the individual, but firearms were explicitly designed to hurt other people effectively and efficiently. We should control the supply of knives and guns because it is the sensible thing to do to maintain law and order. Look at our murder rate - less than half of that of the United States, and homicide by firearm is only about 5% of all murders in the UK IIRC.
No guns - gun control works as evidenced by the dichotomy across the Atlantic.
Original post by Fusilero
Since you're a Liberal I hope you're also a fan of the democratic process. The majority of people in this country elect politicians who take a pro-gun control stance. There's no significant pressure to reverse the gun control law and public opinion swings towards gun control every time there's gun related violence. I agree with your principle but as long as we're a Liberal Democracy and the majority of the population are happy with gun control then gun control we shall have. That's not a bad thing, Liberal Democracies are good even when they sometime legislate in the opposite of your personal opinion. If they always legislated in line with your opinion then either A) You're a dictator or B) You're a sycophant.
The Nazis were also elected democratically too. Doesn't mean liberals like me can't fight against it
Original post by Selkarn
The Nazis were also elected democratically too.
Due to fear of the SA, political, physical and social intimidation, and manipulating the political system, not through legitimate democratic means.
The Nazis were only able to gain a hold in the Reichstag because they didn't think their own brand of PR through properly and it allowed minority parties to flood out the SDP.
Do not compare Nazi Germany to hypothetical futures for other countries.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Selkarn
The Nazis were also elected democratically too. Doesn't mean liberals like me can't fight against it
They were democratically elected but they also played with the electoral laws, banned political parties, had SA thugs use intimidation of all sorts, a flawed constitution, power-play between old Junkers trying maneuver their way back into power using Hitler and a senile President which gave them the access to power with only 33% or so of the popular vote. The consensus on all sides of the democratic fence in the United Kingdom is for gun-control so it's not a minority trying to enforce their views on the population. Both you and proponents of gun-control can make valid claims to being liberals.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Selkarn
Anyone who endorses gun control is endorsing a Nazi policy which allowed them to slaughter 6+ million Jews. *shakes head* authoritarians..
Anyone who endorses gun control is endorsing a Nazi policy which allowed them to slaughter 6+ million Jews. *shakes head* authoritarians..
Gun control was already previously enforced in Germany by the Weimar Republic but the Nazi's did benefit from the laws. Further restriction were placed on guns, especially on Jewish populations.
Obviously if the original laws had not been put in place by the Weimar republic and instead laws similar to America were in place, then there would of been more reactive anti-nazi protests involving guns. How this would of effected the Nazi's in coming to power, or how quickly they would of been overthrown or possibly how little history would of changed is debatable.
However, going against the grain, i can see i possibly do posses different views towards guns than most people here.
Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom
- friedrich hayek
- friedrich hayek
Many times people have voted in tyrannical governments which have inflicted many cruelties upon their people. In my opinion, one way to help prevent governments descending into tyrannies would be to legalise guns. Common gun ownership would provide the people with more power and a greater voice to disagree with the government. Needless to say, everyone would like to live in a completely gun free world, but i would say that i am pessimistic and that it will never happen
Original post by zedbrar
Gun control was already previously enforced in Germany by the Weimar Republic but the Nazi's did benefit from the laws. Further restriction were placed on guns, especially on Jewish populations.
Obviously if the original laws had not been put in place by the Weimar republic and instead laws similar to America were in place, then there would of been more reactive anti-nazi protests involving guns. How this would of effected the Nazi's in coming to power, or how quickly they would of been overthrown or possibly how little history would of changed is debatable.
However, going against the grain, i can see i possibly do posses different views towards guns than most people here.
Many times people have voted in tyrannical governments which have inflicted many cruelties upon their people. In my opinion, one way to help prevent governments descending into tyrannies would be to legalise guns. Common gun ownership would provide the people with more power and a greater voice to disagree with the government. Needless to say, everyone would like to live in a completely gun free world, but i would say that i am pessimistic and that it will never happen
Obviously if the original laws had not been put in place by the Weimar republic and instead laws similar to America were in place, then there would of been more reactive anti-nazi protests involving guns. How this would of effected the Nazi's in coming to power, or how quickly they would of been overthrown or possibly how little history would of changed is debatable.
However, going against the grain, i can see i possibly do posses different views towards guns than most people here.
Many times people have voted in tyrannical governments which have inflicted many cruelties upon their people. In my opinion, one way to help prevent governments descending into tyrannies would be to legalise guns. Common gun ownership would provide the people with more power and a greater voice to disagree with the government. Needless to say, everyone would like to live in a completely gun free world, but i would say that i am pessimistic and that it will never happen
Indeed, true words.
As stated by http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/ :
Without guns in the hands of the people, all the other freedoms are easily negated by the State. If you disagree with that statement, ask yourself if the Nazis could have gassed millions of Jews, had the Jews been armed with rifles and pistols--there weren't enough SS troops to do the job. Lest we forget, in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months.
Why do we need guns exactly?
I don't understand when people say it restricts our freedom, restricts our freedom to do what? Kill?
Now i'd rather a gun was locked and stored in a different place to the key, that the ammo had to be accounted for, that you had to be licensed.
If someone steals from your house call the police, we don't have self-defense laws anyway.
So in essence privately owned guns here should simply be used for legal recreational uses and i don't believe that our policies are an example of authoritarianism.
I don't understand when people say it restricts our freedom, restricts our freedom to do what? Kill?
Now i'd rather a gun was locked and stored in a different place to the key, that the ammo had to be accounted for, that you had to be licensed.
If someone steals from your house call the police, we don't have self-defense laws anyway.
So in essence privately owned guns here should simply be used for legal recreational uses and i don't believe that our policies are an example of authoritarianism.
Original post by Jordenfruitbat
Well isn't that what you see the gun as a point for? Why do we need them? The truth is we don't. It's not about having a choice of owning one no one particulary needs one and they are dangerous and cause crime, so why should they be legalised?
Guns cause crime? And i suppose pens cause spelling mistakes, right?
Somewhat off-topic, but am i the only one who finds it disturbing that gun-control advocates support total civilian disarmament, but not disarmament of government forces and agencies? Frankly governments are the last institutions on Earth i would trust with arms of any sort.
Original post by Unknown?
I don't want to be shot by chavs carrying a desert eagle so no thankyou.
Whos to say that couldnt happen anyway? Guns are not particularly difficult to get hold of on the black market. Anyone who is willing to commit murder is clearly not going be fazed by some gun legislation. Or he could just stab you, run you over in his car or even beat you over the head with a large rock, the weapon is irelevant at the end of the day, murder is murder.
The point im trying to make is, killing and violence will always happen as long as people have the desire and motive to do so, no amount weapon legislation can stop that and you are deluding yourself if you think it can.
Original post by Greenlaner
Guns cause crime? And i suppose pens cause spelling mistakes, right?
Somewhat off-topic, but am i the only one who finds it disturbing that gun-control advocates support total civilian disarmament, but not disarmament of government forces and agencies? Frankly governments are the last institutions on Earth i would trust with arms of any sort.
Somewhat off-topic, but am i the only one who finds it disturbing that gun-control advocates support total civilian disarmament, but not disarmament of government forces and agencies? Frankly governments are the last institutions on Earth i would trust with arms of any sort.
Of course they cause more crime....? :/ If someone is carrying a gun with them and a fight goes off or something, they are obviously could easily just get their gun out and shoot someone. It might sound stupid but it does happen, same reason as when people are carrying a knife about they are more likely to use it. People will still kill each other of course without them being legal, but legalising guns is just saying its ok to carry around a lethal weapon.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Jordenfruitbat
Original post by Jordenfruitbat
Of course they cause more crime....? :/ If someone is carrying a gun with them and a fight goes off or something, they are obviously could easily just get their gun out and shoot someone. It might sound stupid but it does happen, same reason as when people are carrying a knife about they are more likely to use it. People will still kill each other of course without them being legal, but legalising guns is just saying its ok to carry around a lethal weapon.
what a retarded argument, because just throw away their lives like that
Original post by Greenlaner
Somewhat off-topic, but am i the only one who finds it disturbing that gun-control advocates support total civilian disarmament, but not disarmament of government forces and agencies? Frankly governments are the last institutions on Earth i would trust with arms of any sort.
Somewhat off-topic, but am i the only one who finds it disturbing that gun-control advocates support total civilian disarmament, but not disarmament of government forces and agencies? Frankly governments are the last institutions on Earth i would trust with arms of any sort.
This! This is exactly what i was trying to get at. People seem to think that guns only protect people from people and thus invalidates the argument. What about guns for protecting people from tyrannical governments?
I don't see guns as a need for protecting property, rather a means for protecting democracy.
Original post by zedbrar
This! This is exactly what i was trying to get at. People seem to think that guns only protect people from people and thus invalidates the argument. What about guns for protecting people from tyrannical governments?
I don't see guns as a need for protecting property, rather a means for protecting democracy.
I don't see guns as a need for protecting property, rather a means for protecting democracy.
How are they going to protect democracy and against what? Are you suggesting that as soon as they're legal, everybody grabs a gun, heads to Westminster and takes out anyone they consider to be a fascist? That's anarchy not freedom. But if it's not the politicians who are attacking democracy, who are you going to use the newly-legalised guns on?
Legalising guns only means more idiots with firearms. There are plenty who have them now legally through licencing.
The whole 'protection' debate (like against intruders) is stupid - if you have a gun, it's likely the person who you're defending yourself against will too. We live in a stable country too, it's not like we need guns.
The whole 'protection' debate (like against intruders) is stupid - if you have a gun, it's likely the person who you're defending yourself against will too. We live in a stable country too, it's not like we need guns.
Original post by kingsholmmad
How are they going to protect democracy and against what? Are you suggesting that as soon as they're legal, everybody grabs a gun, heads to Westminster and takes out anyone they consider to be a fascist? That's anarchy not freedom. But if it's not the politicians who are attacking democracy, who are you going to use the newly-legalised guns on?
No i am not saying that. I posted a quote earlier...
Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom
- friedrich hayek
- friedrich hayek
People voted themselves into many dictatorships in the world. Government's which have promised much but given little. The Weimar Republic created laws to prevent common ownership of firearms. This was somewhat helpful for the Nazi's when they starting attacking minority groups whom had little to defend themselves with.
By owning guns, people can more easily overthrow dictatorships. The people in North Korea do not posses firearms. They have no power at all to fight against the corrupt government or army. Anarchy is the absence of any form of political authority. By enabling the possession of firearms, the politcal authority is being counter-balanced by preventing the government from being too powerful. If only government organisations such as the army own guns, what power do the people have if the government turns into a dictatorship?
Original post by zedbrar
By owning guns, people can more easily overthrow dictatorships. The people in North Korea do not posses firearms. They have no power at all to fight against the corrupt government or army. Anarchy is the absence of any form of political authority. By enabling the possession of firearms, the politcal authority is being counter-balanced by preventing the government from being too powerful. If only government organisations such as the army own guns, what power do the people have if the government turns into a dictatorship?
That seems to be implying that most of the population (presumably not convicted criminals, the mentally unstable or children) should have an absolute right of access to offensive weapons on the off chance of a change in the political landscape. Firstly, as long as we maintain a political system, as now, that ensures a relatively strong opposition, the dictatorship you so greatly fear cannot happen. Secondly, you cannot legalise guns and tell people that they must only use them for political purposes. If you legalise guns, you must accept all the consequences, you can't choose to ignore a rise in violent deaths simply because people aren't using guns the way you want them to.
As someone who genuinely shoots for a hobby and has even shot competitively, I can safely say that YES I think that the UK gun laws are slightly outdated and YES I would like the UK to relax its gun laws if just for us hobbyists.
However, NO I do not think that the UK will reverse its gun laws. They used to be more relaxed but due to a bloke going on a pistol rampage a while back, pistols were outlawed. Now with people like Raoul Moat there is no chance of the UK reversing its policies anytime soon.
Just on a side note, the England olympic pistol shooting team has to train abroad due to UK laws, and that new firearms laws had to be passed specifically for the 2012 olympics. When some people say the UK should change their firearms laws, it isn't for defense or whatever. Its because they actually partake in a hobby which is becoming harder to pursue due to restrictive UK laws.
However, NO I do not think that the UK will reverse its gun laws. They used to be more relaxed but due to a bloke going on a pistol rampage a while back, pistols were outlawed. Now with people like Raoul Moat there is no chance of the UK reversing its policies anytime soon.
Just on a side note, the England olympic pistol shooting team has to train abroad due to UK laws, and that new firearms laws had to be passed specifically for the 2012 olympics. When some people say the UK should change their firearms laws, it isn't for defense or whatever. Its because they actually partake in a hobby which is becoming harder to pursue due to restrictive UK laws.
Original post by Selkarn
Nope, not for whatever he wants. But I fight for his liberty, freedom and choice to buy e.g. a handgun if she or he so wants to.
I'm liberal and pro-freedom
I'm liberal and pro-freedom
What an earth do you want a gun for? To protect yourself? No you don't need it for that because crime isn't out of control here. To kill wild bears? No because we don't have them here. It seems you just want to be able to buy guns just for the sake of it. And comparing a law not allowing guns to the Nazis is just over the top. I'm sure there are many laws the Nazi's had that are currently used in Western democracies.
Related discussions
- Help with Edexcel AS level politics question
- What are your favourite rock/metal bands?
- St. Andrews vs LSE: Which to pick?
- What is the biggest issue you want your chosen uni to stand up for?
- Can someone please grade this for me?
- Desire for net zero referendum growing among public, poll finds
- Went 34 in a 30 past a speed gun
- Mini roundabout U turn
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- criminology
- Road to Gold: Physics Olympiads
- Forced marriage
- Law degree without A Levels
- Hess law and combustion
- Lawyers in NGOs
- Where do you stand on the political spectrum (compass)? – Take a quiz here!
- manchester/cardiff/leeds/sheffield/birmingham
- thoughts on 19 yo girl dating 17yo guy??
- Crush during flight
- Qualifying Law Degree / Non qualifying law degree for External student
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official: King's College London A101 EMDP 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1003
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 2 minutes ago
Website issue - Sorry, there is an issue with our service messageLast reply 9 minutes ago
University of Portsmouth Dental Hygiene and Dental Therapy interviewLast reply 9 minutes ago
When do I have to pay my first year tuition or deposit for Kingston uniLast reply 10 minutes ago
Official University of Bristol Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
University of OXford Postgraduate and Graduate funding 2022Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadTrending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
