Kinder eggs are banned in the US...but guns aren't!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Jammy Duel
And yet again, if an effective restriction on guns reduces crime levels then why is it not observable anywhere else in the world, is it that places like the UK, Australia, and Ireland did not have effective restrictions or is it that the argument is unsound.
And then to all of you you get a graph like this which doesn't compare the nice and conforming UK and US but scores of countries and shows countries with high ownership rates but low homicide rates (and similarly low ownership high homicide)
And yet again, if an effective restriction on guns reduces crime levels then why is it not observable anywhere else in the world, is it that places like the UK, Australia, and Ireland did not have effective restrictions or is it that the argument is unsound.
And then to all of you you get a graph like this which doesn't compare the nice and conforming UK and US but scores of countries and shows countries with high ownership rates but low homicide rates (and similarly low ownership high homicide)
I don't understand what point you are making. Are you suggesting that homicide by shooting is higher in the UK than the US?
If not what point are you making?
From the Fox morning show:
"How do you hate someone who’s killed 59 people? Because he’s not Muslim. He wasn’t known to be mentally ill, he doesn’t kneel for the anthem, he’s just a rich white guy who shot people at a country music concert. How do you hate him? There’s nothing to hate.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/10/04/trevor-noah-blasts-fox-newss-clueless-coverage-of-the-las-vegas-shooting/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ccdf6ebd04cc
"How do you hate someone who’s killed 59 people? Because he’s not Muslim. He wasn’t known to be mentally ill, he doesn’t kneel for the anthem, he’s just a rich white guy who shot people at a country music concert. How do you hate him? There’s nothing to hate.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/10/04/trevor-noah-blasts-fox-newss-clueless-coverage-of-the-las-vegas-shooting/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ccdf6ebd04cc
Original post by Twinpeaks
I don't understand what point you are making. Are you suggesting that homicide by shooting is higher in the UK than the US?
If not what point are you making?
If not what point are you making?
Why is the weapon relevant? Homicide doesn’t drop just because a gun gets banned
Original post by 27FT
Possession of a gun shouldn't in anyway be considered a right. The police are there to protect you in situations so they should be the only ones able to have a gun in their possession. I'm sorry but considering how easily people can have access to guns isn't right, there's a reason school shooting for example is such a big deal in America because kids can find ways to possess a gun. The fact that more people die because toddlers and young children somehow are left alone with a gun nearby than by a terrorist attack in the US should be looked into and
dealt with immediately.
dealt with immediately.
The police are not bodyguards, it is impossible for them to protect everybody at all times. 99% of the time if you fall foul of a violent crime, the police will not be there to help you, you will be on your own. This is why the right to self defence exist, because your protection is ultimately your own responsibility. Thus should we not also be allowed the neccessary tools required to effectively defend ourselves? I myself live in a very rural area and the nearest police station is nearly 10 miles away. If some thug smashes his way into my house one night, am I supposed to just sit and wait 20 minutes for the police to arive and just pray he doesn't murder me and my family during that time? Nah, I'm getting my crossbow out (a gun would be far more useful, but since we are currently denied the right to own a gun for protection, I have to make do with medieval weaponry).
Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not in favour of allowing any random idiot to walk into Sainsburys and buy a rifle no questions asked. I believe guns should be treated in a similar way to cars (a machine that can be equally as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands). Like with driving, those who wish to possess guns should recieve a mandatory period of training and have to pass various tests before being granted a licence. From that point on, licence holders should be free to possess most types of civilian firearms for any lawful purpose.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea that only the state should possess arms. There are only two countries on Earth I know of where this is actually the case, North Korea and China.
Original post by Wōden
The police are not bodyguards, it is impossible for them to protect everybody at all times. 99% of the time if you fall foul of a violent crime, the police will not be there to help you, you will be on your own. This is why the right to self defence exist, because your protection is ultimately your own responsibility. Thus should we not also be allowed the neccessary tools required to effectively defend ourselves? I myself live in a very rural area and the nearest police station is nearly 10 miles away. If some thug smashes his way into my house one night, am I supposed to just sit and wait 20 minutes for the police to arive and just pray he doesn't murder me and my family during that time? Nah, I'm getting my crossbow out (a gun would be far more useful, but since we are currently denied the right to own a gun for protection, I have to make do with medieval weaponry).
Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not in favour of allowing any random idiot to walk into Sainsburys and buy a rifle no questions asked. I believe guns should be treated in a similar way to cars (a machine that can be equally as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands). Like with driving, those who wish to possess guns should recieve a mandatory period of training and have to pass various tests before being granted a licence. From that point on, licence holders should be free to possess most types of civilian firearms for any lawful purpose.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea that only the state should possess arms. There are only two countries on Earth I know of where this is actually the case, North Korea and China.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not in favour of allowing any random idiot to walk into Sainsburys and buy a rifle no questions asked. I believe guns should be treated in a similar way to cars (a machine that can be equally as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands). Like with driving, those who wish to possess guns should recieve a mandatory period of training and have to pass various tests before being granted a licence. From that point on, licence holders should be free to possess most types of civilian firearms for any lawful purpose.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea that only the state should possess arms. There are only two countries on Earth I know of where this is actually the case, North Korea and China.
Guns should in no way be treated like cars. Cars are beneficial, their purpose is to provide quick transport. Yes, there are accidents but the vast majority of these are unintentional and usually caused if the driver was under drug or alcohol influence or not paying attention. The aim of guns is to kill. No one should be given the liberty to hold a weapon that destructs society. If guns are banned then criminals will also have a harder time to access these as well rendering the person to have a gun as a right of self defence unnecessary. Guns promote violence and violent crime it serves no way to hinder it.
Original post by joecphillips
Why is the weapon relevant? Homicide doesn’t drop just because a gun gets banned
What on earth? You just asked why is the weapon relevant? Possibly because some weapons are more effective than others? Possibly because some weapons allow for greater interpersonal between the perpetrator and victim, meaning the person can kill more with less effort, with less contact? Maybe because some weapons are more efficient than others to the extent where they can lead to impulsive reactions, versus a more effortful reaction which is more likely to be inhibited by the person?
Are you that idiotic?
As I said already, an effective ban would reduce level of homicides without a doubt. I can't believe you people are so willing to twist your mind to convince yourself that there is no difference between a gun and a butter knife, in regards to efficiency of killing.
Weird.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Twinpeaks
What on earth? Why is the weapon relevant? Possibly because some weapons are more effective than others? Possibly because some weapons allow for greater interpersonal between the perpetrator and victim meaning the person can kill more with less effort, with less contact? Are you that idiotic?
As I said already, an effective ban would reduce level of homicides without a doubt. I can't believe you people are so willing to twist your mind to convince yourself that there is no difference between a gun and a butter knife, in regards to efficiency of killing.
Weird.
As I said already, an effective ban would reduce level of homicides without a doubt. I can't believe you people are so willing to twist your mind to convince yourself that there is no difference between a gun and a butter knife, in regards to efficiency of killing.
Weird.
Prove your claim that “an effective ban would reduce level of homicides without a doubt.” because the uk, Ireland and other countries suggest the opposite
Original post by joecphillips
Prove your claim that “an effective ban would reduce level of homicides without a doubt.” because the uk, Ireland and other countries suggest the opposite
The UK suggests the opposite? Wtf?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/16/gun-violence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/
The US homicide rate is 4.9 per 100,000, and the UK is 0.9 per 100,000?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Twinpeaks
The UK suggests the opposite? Wtf?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/16/gun-violence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/
The US homicide rate is 4.8 per 100,000, and the UK is 0.9 per 100,000?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/16/gun-violence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/
The US homicide rate is 4.8 per 100,000, and the UK is 0.9 per 100,000?
Yet when handguns were banned in the uk the rate went up
Also back up your claim with proof, you have not shown any proof
The Americans are flapping about North Korea and Iran getting nuclear weapons when it has been categorically proven that nuclear weapons REDUCE war.
The joke is, Kim's regime and the Iranians kill people all the time with all sorts of different ways and the Americans don't bat an eyelid, but killing people with nukes....oh we gotta ban them.
Some people just like banning things.
The joke is, Kim's regime and the Iranians kill people all the time with all sorts of different ways and the Americans don't bat an eyelid, but killing people with nukes....oh we gotta ban them.
Some people just like banning things.
Original post by joecphillips
Yet when handguns were banned in the uk the rate went up
Also back up your claim with proof, you have not shown any proof
Also back up your claim with proof, you have not shown any proof
What has that to do with anything? My argument is that guns increase homicide.
Your only counter is that a historical ban increases gun use, but this has no relevance to my argument. It's an entirely different issue.
Did making cannabis illegal reduce cannabis use?
Again, for the third time, an effective restriction would reduce gun use, but that's often not the case.
I'm amazed you didn't know the differences in homicide rates in the US to UK. Not only is it well known, but it's common sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Original post by Twinpeaks
What has that to do with anything? My argument is that guns increase homicide.
Your only counter is that a historical ban increases gun use, but this has no relevance to my argument. It's an entirely different issue.
Did making cannabis illegal reduce cannabis use?
Again, for the third time, an effective restriction would reduce gun use, but that's often not the case.
I'm amazed you didn't know the differences in homicide rates in the US to UK. Not only is it well known, but it's common sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Your only counter is that a historical ban increases gun use, but this has no relevance to my argument. It's an entirely different issue.
Did making cannabis illegal reduce cannabis use?
Again, for the third time, an effective restriction would reduce gun use, but that's often not the case.
I'm amazed you didn't know the differences in homicide rates in the US to UK. Not only is it well known, but it's common sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I know the difference, are you really putting the entire difference down to guns?
The evidence from countries doing what you suggest shows that homicide increases it does not decrease
Original post by joecphillips
Yet when handguns were banned in the uk the rate went up
Also back up your claim with proof, you have not shown any proof
Also back up your claim with proof, you have not shown any proof
Repeating the same trite point ad nauseam doesn't make it true. We have already established the homicide rate went up in 2000 three years after the ban.
Also the number of guns in the UK went up from the years 1997 to 2000. From 4,904 to 7,471.
Guns can never be banned. If they are, it'd just be another prohibition but this time with guns instead of alcohol.
Original post by joecphillips
I know the difference, are you really putting the entire difference down to guns?
The evidence from countries doing what you suggest shows that homicide increases it does not decrease
The evidence from countries doing what you suggest shows that homicide increases it does not decrease
Having studied forensic psychology, and reading academic study upon study centred around this very thing, and given the reasons I provided earlier as to why guns provide a more efficient weapon to which you completely ignored, yes I am.
Unless you can come up with some significant other behavioural characteristic that would explain the US homicide being 4 times as much as the UK, other than access to guns? Despite the link I showed you earlier showing the stark contrast in homicide by shooting in the US, and UK?
Just sit back a minute, and observe how amazing the mind is. That because of your world view and bias, you are persistently ignorant to the very obvious fact that guns offer an efficient tool to homicide. Isn't it amazing how your brain can ignore the blatant, because it simply does not want to accept reality?
I'd have so much more respect for you if you accepted that guns pose a threat, but think they are still worthwhile in society for such and such reason. But to argue that they pose no more of a threat than a knife, or do not increase the likelihood of homicide in anyway, just makes it impossible for me to respect you.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Acend1992
guns are part of their culture and shown to reduce crime.
look at chicago. gun crime is the highest and guns are illegal there.
the problem is automatic weapons. not even shotguns or handguns are that problematic.
look at chicago. gun crime is the highest and guns are illegal there.
the problem is automatic weapons. not even shotguns or handguns are that problematic.
1]What..?
2] In fairness Automatic weapons are insanely hard to get in America, it makes getting a hunting rifle in this country look piss easy.
Banning guns would not change cultural attitudes. Everyone would still posses guns as seen in Mexico by the alarming gun homicide rates.
Cultural attitudes towards guns are quite different in the UK and US making it hard to draw comparisons.
Cultural attitudes towards guns are quite different in the UK and US making it hard to draw comparisons.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Because a person can kill 59 people and injure a further 527 in the space of a few minutes with a bat, rope or knife can't they?
Original post by Jammy Duel
Don't forget drinking and smoking, far bigger killers, prohibition has to be brought back (it was so successful last time) and tobacco must be outlawed, and let's not forget suicide, if we ban that people will definitely stop killing themselves and tens of thousands will live longer. Heart disease is also a massive killer, about a quarter of deaths IIRC so ban fast food and let's save hundreds of thousands!
It's almost like you're intentionally making bad arguments.
If a person wants to harm themselves by smoking or drinking, then that's one thing, they choose to do that. If a person wants to harm others then that's a whole different thing. When you eat fast food, you choose to take on that risk. A person who's shot does not choose to take on the risk of others having a gun. People who eat fast food pose a risk to their own health, people with guns pose a risk to the health of others.
'AH BUT SMOKING CAN HARM OTHERS!' I hear you say. Yes, true, which is exactly why we have a smoking ban in public places to reduce the effects of second hand smoke and generally we aim to deter people from smoking.
There's a clear difference between undertaking an action in the knowledge it poses a risk to yourself and undertaking an action that poses a risk to other people. I would have thought someone of your intellect would understand that.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Twinpeaks
Having studied forensic psychology, and reading academic study upon study centred around this very thing, and given the reasons I provided earlier as to why guns provide a more efficient weapon to which you completely ignored, yes I am.
Unless you can come up with some significant other behavioural characteristic that would explain the US homicide being 4 times as much as the UK, other than access to guns? Despite the link I showed you earlier showing the stark contrast in homicide by shooting in the US, and UK?
Just sit back a minute, and observe how amazing the mind is. That because of your world view and bias, you are persistently ignorant to the very obvious fact that guns offer an efficient tool to homicide. Isn't it amazing how your brain can ignore the blatant, because it simply does not want to accept reality?
I'd have so much more respect for you if you accepted that guns pose a threat, but think they are still worthwhile in society for such and such reason. But to argue that they pose no more of a threat than a knife, or do not increase the likelihood of homicide in anyway, just makes it impossible for me to respect you.
Unless you can come up with some significant other behavioural characteristic that would explain the US homicide being 4 times as much as the UK, other than access to guns? Despite the link I showed you earlier showing the stark contrast in homicide by shooting in the US, and UK?
Just sit back a minute, and observe how amazing the mind is. That because of your world view and bias, you are persistently ignorant to the very obvious fact that guns offer an efficient tool to homicide. Isn't it amazing how your brain can ignore the blatant, because it simply does not want to accept reality?
I'd have so much more respect for you if you accepted that guns pose a threat, but think they are still worthwhile in society for such and such reason. But to argue that they pose no more of a threat than a knife, or do not increase the likelihood of homicide in anyway, just makes it impossible for me to respect you.
For your own sake i'd give up trying to talk sense into him.
The arguments gun enthusiasts make are rather predictable:
(1) 'But people die from knives too!' -
Umm, okay so because some people are stabbed, it makes sense to allow hundreds more people to be shot to death? Also, a person can not kill that many people in such a short amount of time with a knife.
(2) 'People die from guns in countries which ban them like France!'
Umm okay, so if people (though significantly less people) are killed in countries which ban guns, it makes sense for there to be millions more guns?
(3) 'But we need guns to stop bad people with guns killing people!'
Okay, so what use would the crowd having guns have been in Vegas when the shooter was a quarter of a mile away and 32 floors up in a hotel?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Napp
2] In fairness Automatic weapons are insanely hard to get in America, it makes getting a hunting rifle in this country look piss easy.
2] In fairness Automatic weapons are insanely hard to get in America, it makes getting a hunting rifle in this country look piss easy.
This guy purchased all his weapons with ease and legally. He bought adaptors that turned them into automatic weapons, also legally.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
