Unpopular opinion - I'm pro gun; try to convince me why I shouldn't be.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Trapz99
UK has had 1 mass shooting in the past 20 years. America has had 273+ mass shootings this year.
Original post by Rabbit2
I have lived in 14 countries. In each of them it was just as easy as here to acquire a weapon. You buy them down in an alley, usually from the same people that you buy your illegal drugs from. Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would think that drug dealers, and those doing 'drive by's' would got to a gun shop, and fill out paperwork to buy a weapon legally. They're already convicted felons. Just filling out the paperwork [with the intent to buy a weapon] is ANOTHER felony, and would land them back in jail. Why in the world would they do that/??
One of me mates here in the cybercafe' is from Honduras. He has told me that in his country, if you see a car travelling on the road after dark, it is 99.95 likely that at least the driver has a handgun. It's almost as likely that one or more passengers has one too. He says that the incidence of road robberies is fairly low as a result - as nobody wants to be shot trying to rob an armed motorist. A gal from Mexico here, has told me nearly the same thing. Now, i don't think that 90% of the cars on the road here [D.C. area] at night have an armed driver. It might be 40%, but i don't think higher than that. The problem is, here, having a weapon in the car is considered 'carrying concealed', if it is accessible to the driver. If they pull a traffic stop, and find that, you are convicted of carrying concealed without a permit. That is usually a felony, and THEN you CANNOT get a permit. For that reason, people with a problem - a gail with an abusive BF or Ex, normally go get a permit, so they can carry legally. I don't know what the situation is in Honduras or Mexico. Next time i see one of them, i'll ask.
One of me mates here in the cybercafe' is from Honduras. He has told me that in his country, if you see a car travelling on the road after dark, it is 99.95 likely that at least the driver has a handgun. It's almost as likely that one or more passengers has one too. He says that the incidence of road robberies is fairly low as a result - as nobody wants to be shot trying to rob an armed motorist. A gal from Mexico here, has told me nearly the same thing. Now, i don't think that 90% of the cars on the road here [D.C. area] at night have an armed driver. It might be 40%, but i don't think higher than that. The problem is, here, having a weapon in the car is considered 'carrying concealed', if it is accessible to the driver. If they pull a traffic stop, and find that, you are convicted of carrying concealed without a permit. That is usually a felony, and THEN you CANNOT get a permit. For that reason, people with a problem - a gail with an abusive BF or Ex, normally go get a permit, so they can carry legally. I don't know what the situation is in Honduras or Mexico. Next time i see one of them, i'll ask.
Homicides involving a firearm in Honduras 66.64. per 100,000
in the UK it is 0.06.
That means its over 11000 times the rate of death by firearm in Honduras than the UK.
Not seeing the point in the rest of your post.
Original post by QE2
Nothing to do with guns though.
Its got everything to do with guns. Lower availability means lower rate of incidence.
Original post by Hirsty97
People talk about how many crimes are linked to guns but they don't know how many crimes have been prevented by guns
Also, the "guns for protection" argument is a myth that has been thoroughly debunked. If yo own a gun you are 4 times more likely to be shot to death than if you don't own one.
If you pull a gun in an armed confrontation you are 7 times more likely (iirc) to be shot than if you don't pull a gun.
Criminals in US are pro gun control
because if enforced it would lead to general disarmament among the law abiding population leaving them defenceless against criminals who obviously wouldn't care about turning their guns in.
Guess what?
Overall homicide, firearm homicide and robbery are all fell and are still lower than before the strict controls were enforced.
UK is different to the US though. Point is gun control in the US wouldn't work like people think.
Obviously - so why not the same approach to gun control?
Original post by Rabbit2
I have lived in 14 countries. In each of them it was just as easy as here to acquire a weapon. You buy them down in an alley, usually from the same people that you buy your illegal drugs from. Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would think that drug dealers, and those doing 'drive by's' would got to a gun shop, and fill out paperwork to buy a weapon legally. They're already convicted felons. Just filling out the paperwork [with the intent to buy a weapon] is ANOTHER felony, and would land them back in jail. Why in the world would they do that/??
One of me mates here in the cybercafe' is from Honduras. He has told me that in his country, if you see a car travelling on the road after dark, it is 99.95 likely that at least the driver has a handgun. It's almost as likely that one or more passengers has one too. He says that the incidence of road robberies is fairly low as a result - as nobody wants to be shot trying to rob an armed motorist. A gal from Mexico here, has told me nearly the same thing. Now, i don't think that 90% of the cars on the road here [D.C. area] at night have an armed driver. It might be 40%, but i don't think higher than that. The problem is, here, having a weapon in the car is considered 'carrying concealed', if it is accessible to the driver. If they pull a traffic stop, and find that, you are convicted of carrying concealed without a permit. That is usually a felony, and THEN you CANNOT get a permit. For that reason, people with a problem - a gail with an abusive BF or Ex, normally go get a permit, so they can carry legally. I don't know what the situation is in Honduras or Mexico. Next time i see one of them, i'll ask.
One of me mates here in the cybercafe' is from Honduras. He has told me that in his country, if you see a car travelling on the road after dark, it is 99.95 likely that at least the driver has a handgun. It's almost as likely that one or more passengers has one too. He says that the incidence of road robberies is fairly low as a result - as nobody wants to be shot trying to rob an armed motorist. A gal from Mexico here, has told me nearly the same thing. Now, i don't think that 90% of the cars on the road here [D.C. area] at night have an armed driver. It might be 40%, but i don't think higher than that. The problem is, here, having a weapon in the car is considered 'carrying concealed', if it is accessible to the driver. If they pull a traffic stop, and find that, you are convicted of carrying concealed without a permit. That is usually a felony, and THEN you CANNOT get a permit. For that reason, people with a problem - a gail with an abusive BF or Ex, normally go get a permit, so they can carry legally. I don't know what the situation is in Honduras or Mexico. Next time i see one of them, i'll ask.
And your claim that it is as easy to obtain a gun in the UK as it is in the US is just obvious nonsense!
Original post by Dheorl
I'm really failing to see what point you're trying to make this any of this.
Obviously troubled.
No one needs to be carrying a gun around in public in the US. It creates fear. People buy guns to be protected from guns. They need to be banned it's proven to lower gun crime and will stop others from feeling the need to be protected from guns with a gun.
Original post by 999tigger
Its got everything to do with guns. Lower availability means lower rate of incidence.
(I'm assuming you live in the UK)
Guns are weapons. There is no other way of describing them. Guns have been designed to kill, ingure, and harm. This is why the UK needs gun control; by giving someone a gun, you are giving them a way to kill. I'm not saying no one can ever own a gun, just that there are so many people who, when given a gun, are capable of murder(accidental or otherwise).
In UK law, there is no longer such thing as 'accidental discharge', any bullet which has been fired is now counted as deliberate, or neglectful discharge. This change happened because judges came to the conclusion that if you own a gun, it's your responsibility to make sure no one is harmed by it. There are people in this country who are not capable of taking responsibility, which is why they should be restricted from owning a gun (mentally ill, havent been taught proper gun management, etc). This is why there there should be restrictions on who can own a gun, and anyone who owns a gun should have to under go proper training, so they are completely aware of their responsibilities.
Gun control doesn't mean getting rid of all guns. Shooting for sport can still happen, but only in places that have been designed for it, where there is almost no risk of people being hurt. In this country, as long as you can prove that you are capable, you can go to a range, and shoot for sport.
One often used argument for pro-gun is that guns can be used to 'protect' people. Once you look at the facts, this simply isn't true. Negligent discharge results in many deaths of children in the US, as well as other family members. In cases of domestic abuse, women are at a much higher risk of being shot and killed. With gun control, petty criminals would have no access to guns, so there would be no need for a gun in the home.
One example of why a gun can't protect you, and why guns should not be accessible to people who are not capable of using it, is the recent Las Vegas massacre. Looking back on US history, there are other many cases like this.
Very simply, the UK needs gun control because there are people who are not capable of using guns responsibly, and gun control doesn't prevent people from protecting themselves, or shooting for sport.
Guns are weapons. There is no other way of describing them. Guns have been designed to kill, ingure, and harm. This is why the UK needs gun control; by giving someone a gun, you are giving them a way to kill. I'm not saying no one can ever own a gun, just that there are so many people who, when given a gun, are capable of murder(accidental or otherwise).
In UK law, there is no longer such thing as 'accidental discharge', any bullet which has been fired is now counted as deliberate, or neglectful discharge. This change happened because judges came to the conclusion that if you own a gun, it's your responsibility to make sure no one is harmed by it. There are people in this country who are not capable of taking responsibility, which is why they should be restricted from owning a gun (mentally ill, havent been taught proper gun management, etc). This is why there there should be restrictions on who can own a gun, and anyone who owns a gun should have to under go proper training, so they are completely aware of their responsibilities.
Gun control doesn't mean getting rid of all guns. Shooting for sport can still happen, but only in places that have been designed for it, where there is almost no risk of people being hurt. In this country, as long as you can prove that you are capable, you can go to a range, and shoot for sport.
One often used argument for pro-gun is that guns can be used to 'protect' people. Once you look at the facts, this simply isn't true. Negligent discharge results in many deaths of children in the US, as well as other family members. In cases of domestic abuse, women are at a much higher risk of being shot and killed. With gun control, petty criminals would have no access to guns, so there would be no need for a gun in the home.
One example of why a gun can't protect you, and why guns should not be accessible to people who are not capable of using it, is the recent Las Vegas massacre. Looking back on US history, there are other many cases like this.
Very simply, the UK needs gun control because there are people who are not capable of using guns responsibly, and gun control doesn't prevent people from protecting themselves, or shooting for sport.
In regards to stricter gun control not helping, I honestly believe it makes a difference - America has hundreds of mass shootings every year and very little gun control, whereas England has had 3 since 1988. Australia has had no gun control since banning them, too - guns are machines designed purely for killing.
Original post by QE2
Finland has a "leaky border" with Russia, (where guns are possibly even easier to aquire than in the US). It also has a low population density. It's firearm homicide rate is similar to the UK's and much lower than the US. Likewise Ukraine. And what about Turkey? Its gun homicide rate is less than a third that of the US. Large areas, isolated communities, leaky borders with Iran, Iraq and Syria. So what could the difference be? Oh yes. Strict gun controls! Whoda thunk it?
Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and Finland all have one thing Latin American countries generally don't have. Strong rule of law, the former three being authoritarian states at the complete opposite end of the spectrum to Latin America which are extremely disordered. If you struggle with this, just stick to whatever home country you were born it since this is all you're ever really going to understand.
Original post by Ganjaweed Rebel
Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and Finland all have one thing Latin American countries generally don't have. Strong rule of law, the former three being authoritarian states at the complete opposite end of the spectrum to Latin America which are extremely disordered. If you struggle with this, just stick to whatever home country you were born it since this is all you're ever really going to understand.
And are you seriously claiming that Russia and Turkey are prime examples of lawful countries with conscientious and law abiding citizenry and a lack of organised crime with the authorities in their pocket?
Really?
Original post by QE2
Why not?
Sorry.. I do not know if hypothetical is exactly the correct word to use. I was just replying to a post that was something along the lines with "try using your gun when someone shoots you in the back of your head" implying that guns are practically useless;something which I vehemently disagree.
Btw I'm not one of those brianless idiots like you did say at some point, while also commenting on religion or something like that (I'm Sikh btw, so you probably hate me even more)! 😂
I'm open minded and willing to change if I feel that there is a compelling argument, right now I don't feel that just yet.
Original post by QE2
No. All the evidence shows that Americans who own guns are around four times as likely to be shot as Americans who don't own guns.
Someone handing themself can't accidentally hang someone else as well.
Someone taking an overdose can't make a dozen other people take an overdose first.
Wrong. A Pew survey this year found that 67% of US gun owners own a gun for protection.
Also, your first claim was that they are an effective means of protection.
Someone handing themself can't accidentally hang someone else as well.
Someone taking an overdose can't make a dozen other people take an overdose first.
Wrong. A Pew survey this year found that 67% of US gun owners own a gun for protection.
Also, your first claim was that they are an effective means of protection.
With your first point, could that possibly be down to other factors as well; I doubt that there is one sole factor (I.e. they have a gun). Not every single thief or robber know that that a particular person owns a gun in the house. Perhaps people who tend to own a gun live in a location where there are higher crime rates; thus more likely to be affected by crime, whatever it may be.
Second point:I fail to see your point. Are you saying that people who commit suicide via firearm tend to harm others in the process? Sorry if I'm not quite getting your point.
Third point: "protection" could mean a myriad of things; not just theft.
Original post by QE2
We don't really need stricter gun controls in the UK. It is the US that is really the issue - and it is not a hypothetical that many US children are killed by guns.
So you are saying that any law from the past necessarily took into account all future advances in technology? lol!
It is utterly ridiculous to claim that the conditions which led to the 2nd amend are the same as they are today. They weren't even the same as they were when the Constitution was written a few years earlier FFS! That's why they felt they had to amend it!!!
Jeez. Arguing with gun nuts is just like arguing with religionists.
Also, it is fallacious to argue that people in the past could forsee technological advancements in the future. This is especially ironic regarding the gun lobby, who are often also Christian creationists. One of their arguments for creation is that we will never; a) discover the origin of the univers and b) descover the origin of life on earth. Their fundamental claim is that science and technology have reached their limit. Yet at the same time, this argument claims that men in the 18th century accepted that the future held things that were not possible at the time!
So you are saying that any law from the past necessarily took into account all future advances in technology? lol!
It is utterly ridiculous to claim that the conditions which led to the 2nd amend are the same as they are today. They weren't even the same as they were when the Constitution was written a few years earlier FFS! That's why they felt they had to amend it!!!
Jeez. Arguing with gun nuts is just like arguing with religionists.
Also, it is fallacious to argue that people in the past could forsee technological advancements in the future. This is especially ironic regarding the gun lobby, who are often also Christian creationists. One of their arguments for creation is that we will never; a) discover the origin of the univers and b) descover the origin of life on earth. Their fundamental claim is that science and technology have reached their limit. Yet at the same time, this argument claims that men in the 18th century accepted that the future held things that were not possible at the time!
When I used the word "hypothetical" I definitely wasn't talking about children getting shot.
Religionists? Not evrey religionist takes a literal stance on the story of creation. Don't get me wrong, I love making fun of literal Christian creationists , but 1.) though hard to believe, not every Christian is like that, and 2.) not everyone who is religious is Christian.
Maybe if you debate "illogical" religious people like me, I'll give you a run for your money because it looks like that the religious people that you have debated before weren't particularly great. And I don't blame you, there are a lot of people like that and trust me, I don't like being associated with those uneducated religious zealots!
Original post by anonymous_1947
With your first point, could that possibly be down to other factors as well; I doubt that there is one sole factor (I.e. they have a gun). Not every single thief or robber know that that a particular person owns a gun in the house. Perhaps people who tend to own a gun live in a location where there are higher crime rates; thus more likely to be affected by crime, whatever it may be.
Second point:I fail to see your point. Are you saying that people who commit suicide via firearm tend to harm others in the process? Sorry if I'm not quite getting your point.
Third point: "protection" could mean a myriad of things; not just theft.
Original post by QE2
This is possibly the biggest nonsense argument of them all!
First, who decides if a government is "tyrannical" or not? And by what means?
If the majority of US citizens voted for, and congress/senate enacted the repeal of the 2nd Amend and an absolute and immediate ban on weapons and the government attempted to enforce this, gun owners would no doubt see this as the action of a "tyrannical government", despite it being entirely constitutional and democratic.
Is a government without popular support which engages in campaign of misinformation, divisive rhetoric, subterfuge, restriction of the press and the scapegoating of certain groups the signs of a tyrannical government? And yet that government is supported by those very people who claim thay need guns to oppose it! The Trump administration is the most "tyrannical" in decades, but the gun lobby fully support it. Explain that.
Not in the US.
Remember that the UK does not need more gun control. Your arguments are only relevant to the US.
First, who decides if a government is "tyrannical" or not? And by what means?
If the majority of US citizens voted for, and congress/senate enacted the repeal of the 2nd Amend and an absolute and immediate ban on weapons and the government attempted to enforce this, gun owners would no doubt see this as the action of a "tyrannical government", despite it being entirely constitutional and democratic.
Is a government without popular support which engages in campaign of misinformation, divisive rhetoric, subterfuge, restriction of the press and the scapegoating of certain groups the signs of a tyrannical government? And yet that government is supported by those very people who claim thay need guns to oppose it! The Trump administration is the most "tyrannical" in decades, but the gun lobby fully support it. Explain that.
Not in the US.
Remember that the UK does not need more gun control. Your arguments are only relevant to the US.
I'll happily explain. I would use a dictionary definition to describe tyrannical; "unjustly cruel, harsh or severe".
Your point about repealing the second amendment, are you trying to say that pro-gun activists can't respect the democratic process? How ridiculous!
The Trump administration tryannical? Hey I dislike trump in regards to policies but could you name a few examples regarding his unjustly cruel behaviour?
Are you making a correlation between gun lobbyists and them supporting oppressive governments? Are you taking into consideration other countries and not just America with this particular issue?
Original post by anonymous_1947
Sorry.. I do not know if hypothetical is exactly the correct word to use. I was just replying to a post that was something along the lines with "try using your gun when someone shoots you in the back of your head" implying that guns are practically useless;something which I vehemently disagree.
Btw I'm not one of those brianless idiots like you did say at some point, while also commenting on religion or something like that (I'm Sikh btw, so you probably hate me even more)! 😂
I don't have much of an issue with Sikhism and non with any individual Sikhs (thus far. If you continue to insist that strict gun controls are not necessary, that may change!)
I'm open minded and willing to change if I feel that there is a compelling argument, right now I don't feel that just yet.
To turn things about, why do you think that strict gun controls are a bad thing?
Original post by Yaboi
Everyone should be sterilised.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 2 minutes ago
Litigation Caseworker Home Office 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
BT Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Application approved before evidence was able to be submittedLast reply 14 minutes ago
AQA Level 2 Further Maths 2024 Paper 1 (8365/1) - 11th June [Exam Chat]Last reply 16 minutes ago
March Riba part 2 Manchester vs SheffieldLast reply 23 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 29 minutes ago
Confused in undergrad final grade at University of GreenwichTrending
Last reply 1 hour ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 8 hours 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 1 week 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 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 8 hours 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 1 week 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 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
