Unpopular opinion - I'm pro gun; try to convince me why I shouldn't be.
It is rather sad to see that most liberals portray pro-gun activists as heartless thugs who don't care about the lives of people in any country. That couldn't be further away from the truth; no matter what side of the political spectrum you are, I think we all care about the lives of innocent people. But I feel that the left are more ill-informed on the issue.
Stricter gun control WILL NOT help. Prove to me otherwise.
(Let's keep this debate civil).
Stricter gun control WILL NOT help. Prove to me otherwise.
(Let's keep this debate civil).
Scroll to see replies
Original post by anonymous_1947
It is rather sad to see that most liberals portray pro-gun activists as heartless thugs who don't care about the lives of people in any country. That couldn't be further away from the truth; no matter what side of the political spectrum you are, I think we all care about the lives of innocent people. But I feel that the left are more ill-informed on the issue.
Stricter gun control WILL NOT help. Prove to me otherwise.
(Let's keep this debate civil).
Stricter gun control WILL NOT help. Prove to me otherwise.
(Let's keep this debate civil).
First of all, which country do you live in?
Some may have different opinions depending on which country you are talking about.
Guns are machines for killing people, and they have no other function. The person a gun owner is most likely to shoot with their gun is themselves; the second most likely is their spouse; the third most likely is a member of their immediate family. Buying a gun does not protect you - it puts you at further risk.
Even in, for example, a situation where your home is being burgled, owning a gun still makes you more likely to be killed, not less. A burglar is still basically a human being who won't pointlessly kill you with no provocation. Pulling a gun on them, though, makes it kill-or-be-killed.
Even in, for example, a situation where your home is being burgled, owning a gun still makes you more likely to be killed, not less. A burglar is still basically a human being who won't pointlessly kill you with no provocation. Pulling a gun on them, though, makes it kill-or-be-killed.
(edited 6 years ago)
Stricter gun control in the UK generally isn't worthwhile as we don't have much of a gun crime problem to begin with, and our laws are already suitably strong to prevent too much gun crime from happening.
In terms of existing controls, the statistics show clearly the correlation between high levels of gun control and reduced levels of gun crime (including accidental shooting incidents). There is very little evidence to suggest that more lax gun laws would help to reduce gun-related injuries or deaths (or injuries and deaths in general).
About the only thing gun control doesn't appear to have an impact on is the suicide rate. If someone wants to go down that route then access (or lack thereof) to a weapon doesn't seem to make a big difference, so there's no argument to make for or against gun law in this regard.
In terms of existing controls, the statistics show clearly the correlation between high levels of gun control and reduced levels of gun crime (including accidental shooting incidents). There is very little evidence to suggest that more lax gun laws would help to reduce gun-related injuries or deaths (or injuries and deaths in general).
About the only thing gun control doesn't appear to have an impact on is the suicide rate. If someone wants to go down that route then access (or lack thereof) to a weapon doesn't seem to make a big difference, so there's no argument to make for or against gun law in this regard.
You should watch Healthcare Triage's four videos on youtube which are called "guns and public health". They are very interesting as they were made by a doctor who doesn't try to persuade anyone of anything but studies the subject through the lens of facts and statistics, with the sole concern of analysing how gun laws affect the population as a whole. Watching them is really worth your time.
All of the recent terror attacks in the UK could have been prevented if a brave man had drawn his firearm and shot.
There is no argument in favour of restricting gun ownership. Only libtard cucks who hate personal freedom and love big government oppose gun ownership.
There is no argument in favour of restricting gun ownership. Only libtard cucks who hate personal freedom and love big government oppose gun ownership.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html
do you really think that 1300 children's lives is a price worth paying to support a 1791 amendment to a 1787 document, written when home firearms were typically muskets with a range of 100 yards ?
do you really think that 1300 children's lives is a price worth paying to support a 1791 amendment to a 1787 document, written when home firearms were typically muskets with a range of 100 yards ?
Original post by Dez
Stricter gun control in the UK generally isn't worthwhile as we don't have much of a gun crime problem to begin with, and our laws are already suitably strong to prevent too much gun crime from happening.
In terms of existing controls, the statistics show clearly the correlation between high levels of gun control and reduced levels of gun crime (including accidental shooting incidents). There is very little evidence to suggest that more lax gun laws would help to reduce gun-related injuries or deaths (or injuries and deaths in general).
About the only thing gun control doesn't appear to have an impact on is the suicide rate. If someone wants to go down that route then access (or lack thereof) to a weapon doesn't seem to make a big difference, so there's no argument to make for or against gun law in this regard.
In terms of existing controls, the statistics show clearly the correlation between high levels of gun control and reduced levels of gun crime (including accidental shooting incidents). There is very little evidence to suggest that more lax gun laws would help to reduce gun-related injuries or deaths (or injuries and deaths in general).
About the only thing gun control doesn't appear to have an impact on is the suicide rate. If someone wants to go down that route then access (or lack thereof) to a weapon doesn't seem to make a big difference, so there's no argument to make for or against gun law in this regard.
If anything, we need effective agencies that checks legal firearms holders' eligability of owning firearms and if nessecary they confiscate them if they are concerned that a person could use a weapon in order to harm others.
There already has been a few incidents were the police didn't confiscate weapons from induviduals who were planning to harm others.
Move to America then
Original post by Economics Legend
All of the recent terror attacks in the UK could have been prevented if a brave man had drawn his firearm and shot.
There is no argument in favour of restricting gun ownership. Only libtard cucks who hate personal freedom and love big government oppose gun ownership.
There is no argument in favour of restricting gun ownership. Only libtard cucks who hate personal freedom and love big government oppose gun ownership.
Or every attack would have killed 10x as many as the terrorists would have used a firearm instead of a knife. And having a bunch of random people on the street pulling guns and shooting in a panic is not a situation I can see ending positively.
Original post by stoyfan
First of all, which country do you live in?
Some may have different opinions depending on which country you are talking about.
Some may have different opinions depending on which country you are talking about.
I live in the UK; though I am relatively educated on the situation in the USA where people are calling for stricter gun laws (which I obviously disagree with)!
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
Guns are machines for killing people, and they have no other function. The person a gun owner is most likely to shoot with their gun is themselves; the second most likely is their spouse; the third most likely is a member of their immediate family. Buying a gun does not protect you - it puts you at further risk.
Even in, for example, a situation where your home is being burgled, owning a gun still makes you more likely to be killed, not less. A burglar is still basically a human being who won't pointlessly kill you with no provocation. Pulling a gun on them, though, makes it kill-or-be-killed.
Even in, for example, a situation where your home is being burgled, owning a gun still makes you more likely to be killed, not less. A burglar is still basically a human being who won't pointlessly kill you with no provocation. Pulling a gun on them, though, makes it kill-or-be-killed.
But wouldn't you agree that guns act as an effective deterrence when in a problematic situation?
You talk about suicides? Yes in the USA for example, there is a huge problem in regards to this issue. Approximately 56% of suicides in the USA is carried out by a firearm. However as tragic as it may be, if one wants to commit suicide, unfortunately, they will inevitably find other ways to take their own life.
Furthermore, only 9% of firearms owned there is because of the threat of burglary or threat, and not to sound rather impertinent, but so what?
Original post by Emerald777O
Move to America then
And what is that suppose to mean? I love the country where I am currently living, and just because I don't agree with some of the laws, doesn't mean I want to move.
Original post by Volibear
Don't expect your gun to protect you when you get shot in the back of the head.
Hypothetical situations my won't change my mind
Original post by the bear
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html
do you really think that 1300 children's lives is a price worth paying to support a 1791 amendment to a 1787 document, written when home firearms were typically muskets with a range of 100 yards ?
do you really think that 1300 children's lives is a price worth paying to support a 1791 amendment to a 1787 document, written when home firearms were typically muskets with a range of 100 yards ?
Here we go again, emotional scaremongering at its very best. Of course, I care about children's lives; I care about all innocent lives! But stricter gun control isn't going to stop our children from getting killed. Manchester? London bridge? Westminister?
And that musket argument has been rebutted numerous times; just look at political commentator Steven Crowder's video on it, where actual facts are stated.
The original reason for having guns in civilian hands is completely irrelevant in the modern world, they clearly make it easier to kill people than not having them, the level of training required to use them effectively is more than the vast majority of civilians is likely to ever undertake... tbh I struggle to see an argument for them.
Original post by Dheorl
The original reason for having guns in civilian hands is completely irrelevant in the modern world, they clearly make it easier to kill people than not having them, the level of training required to use them effectively is more than the vast majority of civilians is likely to ever undertake... tbh I struggle to see an argument for them.
Maybe we need them from a threat from a tyrannical government and given this current political climate, that doesn't sound too far-fetched.
Level of training? If you have ever purchased a gun, you would know the regulations that you would have to undergo to get your hands on one.
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
Guns are machines for killing people, and they have no other function. The person a gun owner is most likely to shoot with their gun is themselves; the second most likely is their spouse; the third most likely is a member of their immediate family. Buying a gun does not protect you - it puts you at further risk.
Even in, for example, a situation where your home is being burgled, owning a gun still makes you more likely to be killed, not less. A burglar is still basically a human being who won't pointlessly kill you with no provocation. Pulling a gun on them, though, makes it kill-or-be-killed.
Even in, for example, a situation where your home is being burgled, owning a gun still makes you more likely to be killed, not less. A burglar is still basically a human being who won't pointlessly kill you with no provocation. Pulling a gun on them, though, makes it kill-or-be-killed.
In my state, nearly all homeowners (and renters) own weapons. They can do so, with no permit required (except in a few cities), so long as they only 'carry' in their own 'cutterage' - which is defined as the area immediately around their own residence or place of business (if they own a store or bar). The burglary rate here, is much lower than the Uk, because criminals (most of them) are not idiots. Since it is common knowledge that most home residents are armed, the burglars go elsewhere, and either burgle businesses at night (when, presumably they are unoccupied), or indulge in other forms of 'non-contact' crime: car theft, larceny, other things. The incidence of 'hot burglaries' - those performed when the premises is occupied, is MUCH higher in the Uk. because of this. According to the Independent [Uk newspaper], the Burglary rate for the Uk is 1,157.7 per 100k, whilst the US is 714.4. This is nearly double. The robbery rate is 188.7 per 100k in the Uk, and 146.4 in the US. Many interviews with convicted criminals have revealed that the criminals would avoid robbing or burgling someone that they thought MIGHT be armed. There therefore is a 'halo' effect from gun owners. If 20% or 30% of the customers of a given store are armed, the protection extends to many of the other customers, because with 'shall issue' concealed carry permits (which are available in most of the US), there is no way to tell who is armed, and who is not. Police officers, and many other ppl [court magistrates, sheriffs, bailiffs, bail enforcement officers, and others] are required to have a weapon within arms reach 24/7. This effectively puts them 'on duty' 24 hrs a day, and permits them to take action on criminals they encounter whilst running their normal errands. Just as with normal police work, 99% of these 'encounters' involve not even drawing their weapons - a set of handcuffs normally will do. In extremis, they end up holding the perp(s) at gunpoint, until backup arrives, and they can 'hand over' the collar to whoever is on duty. They thereby hold down the crime rate (contributing to the lower US statistics cited above), and avoid doing the paper work, and going to court when the perp(s) have a hearing. Everything to recommend it!!! Cheers.
Original post by anonymous_1947
Maybe we need them from a threat from a tyrannical government and given this current political climate, that doesn't sound too far-fetched.
Level of training? If you have ever purchased a gun, you would know the regulations that you would have to undergo to get your hands on one.
Level of training? If you have ever purchased a gun, you would know the regulations that you would have to undergo to get your hands on one.
So when the tanks are rolling down the street and the gunships are circling overhead, you're going to start plinking at them with your .38 special?
And in the USA, because guns are legal they're so widespread that the regulations are almost impossible to uphold. When you have multiple guns in every house, and they're changing hands at car-boot sales, on craigslist etc, the regulations mean nothing. Even buying a gun in a registered store only requires a background check. No evidence of suitable training is required.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 ?
