Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Even if you're pro-guns, why on earth are automatic rifles available in America? Watch

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    the AR-15 semi-automatic is the nutter's choice of firearm...

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orl...digree-n590581
    correlation doesnt equal causation
    someone looking to kill lots of people are gonna use the best gun they can find.
    If they couldn't get an AR15 they would get the next best thing.
    would it be better if they wielded only pistols?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JK11)
    correlation doesnt equal causation
    someone looking to kill lots of people are gonna use the best gun they can find.
    If they couldn't get an AR15 they would get the next best thing.
    would it be better if they wielded only pistols?
    of course it would... the number of victims would be far lower.

    :facepalm2:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    That's blatantly wrong.
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    You believing there were 300 school shootings this year (hint: there havent been 300 school shootings in all of American history) evidences why arguing with liberals about guns is like arguing with little children.
    In 2015 there was 372 mass shootings in the US, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870. Normally people confuse mass and school shooting stats, of which there were 64 school shootings in the US during 2015.

    However including non mass shootings you had 13,286 deaths in the US due to guns and 26,819 injuries. 60% of all homicides are due to guns.

    (Original post by Themini)
    Its pretty simple, make it illegal. America doesn't want to do it based on an economic perspective because a lot of their revenue comes from the production of guns, warfare, military and defence contracts which is why their economy picked up far quicker than us with the crisis in the ME

    Note: second amendment states citizens have the right to bare arms.

    Most argue its their constitutional right.

    Its an amendment to begin wit. Why cant they change it? There are 30+ amendments lol...like the abolishment of slavery.
    Well you also have the idea of *with our guns we can fight a future corrupt government* :facepalm:

    The problem no-body is even trying to ban guns in the US..... they're simply trying to restrict who can buy guns, background checks etc. People again dislike this due to the idea of *future corrupt governments can refuse guns to their opponents*

    It's crazy that the FBI can place a known potential terrorist on a no fly list, survey them, refuse them to leave the country.... but can stop them from buying semi automatic weapons. Then they claim that more guns means people can better defend themselves..... however simply owning guns doesn't stop the shootings in the first place and extremely few, if any, shootings are stopped by civilians with guns.

    it basically grinds down to americans wanting uneducated, unstable and potentially unstable people to keep buying their boom boom sticks.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ubiquitousking)
    you're focusing on an error he made. It wasn't school shootings, but mass shootings. (Apparently many of which are school shootings -- I'd need a source for that)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...hundreds-dead/

    Old but pretty much illustrates his point (minus the school bit). There have been much more since then.

    Better source: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/n...a-gun-violence
    that article by the guardian is manipulative as ****. lying with statistics 101
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ubiquitousking)
    Proof? Show me counter statistics by a non-biased source.
    Btw you can cross-reference the original source on which the article is based (it was made last year, in case you're wondering) and the other source I also gave.
    I just had a brief look at that website and I am genuinely shocked at what it shows. I thought the whole "The USA has mass shootings everyday" was just an exaggeration but the fact that there have been 19 deaths due to mass shootings since the start of the month, excluding Orlando, is staggering.

    If we scaled the occurrences down to the UK's population size, it would mean that there would have been 3 mass shootings in the same time period.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR3wpzbvTHI
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ubiquitousking)
    Proof? Show me counter statistics by a non-biased source.
    Btw you can cross-reference the original source on which the article is based (it was made last year, in case you're wondering) and the other source I also gave.
    Im not talking about the data itself. Im talking about the representation of the data. It's designed to evoke an emotion. The guardian clearly has an agenda.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JK11)
    correlation doesnt equal causation
    someone looking to kill lots of people are gonna use the best gun they can find.
    If they couldn't get an AR15 they would get the next best thing.
    would it be better if they wielded only pistols?
    My favourite example given on a so called US news show (more like talkshow) was "if they ban guns kids in schools will do what they did in the UK, they'l just start stabbing people instead"

    Ignoring the point more stabbings already take place in US schools than the UK and the fact it would be pretty hard to stab over 100 people, killing 50 of them akin to what happened the other night.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    of course it would... the number of victims would be far lower.

    :facepalm2:
    yes but now we are on slippery slope of which the bottom is the ban of all guns.
    "if the dude had a knife instead of a pistol he would've killed even less people." etc etc etc
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    In 2015 there was 372 mass shootings in the US, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870. Normally people confuse mass and school shooting stats, of which there were 64 school shootings in the US during 2015.

    However including non mass shootings you had 13,286 deaths in the US due to guns and 26,819 injuries. 60% of all homicides are due to guns.



    Well you also have the idea of *with our guns we can fight a future corrupt government* :facepalm:

    The problem no-body is even trying to ban guns in the US..... they're simply trying to restrict who can buy guns, background checks etc. People again dislike this due to the idea of *future corrupt governments can refuse guns to their opponents*

    It's crazy that the FBI can place a known potential terrorist on a no fly list, survey them, refuse them to leave the country.... but can stop them from buying semi automatic weapons. Then they claim that more guns means people can better defend themselves..... however simply owning guns doesn't stop the shootings in the first place and extremely few, if any, shootings are stopped by civilians with guns.

    it basically grinds down to americans wanting uneducated, unstable and potentially unstable people to keep buying their boom boom sticks.
    The FBI definition of mass shooting, which is the definition used to support statistics elsewhere in the world, is >4 people killed in a single incident. Leftist news outlets have now expanded this definition to include all people injured among other things, giving us ridiculous statistics such as 300 "mass shootings" per year. Most of these incidents are in fact nothing more than everyday gang-on-gang shooting incidences, restricted to small urban centres, which don't even make the news and liberals don't care in the slightest about. The plummeting murder rate also tells us that these incidences are decreasing year on year in the US, while concealed carry permits skyrocket.

    The actual number of psychopath spree-killings of innocent people, such as this nightclub shooting or Sandy Hook style school shootings, number in the single digits per year. It's easy to mislead unintelligent readers by sensationalist statistics, but a little digging and you'll find the reality is nothing like what is portrayed in the MSM.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    The FBI definition of mass shooting, which is the definition used to support statistics elsewhere in the world, is >4 people killed in a single incident. Leftist news outlets have now expanded this definition to include all people injured among other things, giving us ridiculous statistics such as 300 "mass shootings" per year. Most of these incidents are in fact nothing more than everyday gang-on-gang shooting incidences, restricted to small urban centres, which don't even make the news and liberals don't care in the slightest about. The plummeting murder rate also tells us that these incidences are decreasing year on year in the US, while concealed carry permits skyrocket.

    The actual number of psychopath spree-killings of innocent people, such as this nightclub shooting or Sandy Hook style school shootings, number in the single digits per year. It's easy to mislead unintelligent readers by sensationalist statistics, but a little digging and you'll find the reality is nothing like what is portrayed in the MSM.
    clap clap clap clap (no im not shooting)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    7/7 happened in Britain, where, you know, guns are banned. 9/11 didn't involve any guns either. Banning guns doesn't prevent terrorist attacks happening
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Automatic rifles are not freely available for sale. You're a liberal who is frightened of guns, so any firearm which is big and scary looking is an "assault rifle" in your book, but this is ignorant of actual firearm classifications.
    same argument can be made against semi-auto rifles also.

    having said that the stats of all gun killings show that gun owning society in usa is a failed experiment ie there have been more shooting killings of ppl in usa than american solders in war zones in last 30 years
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    7/7 happened in Britain, where, you know, guns are banned. 9/11 didn't involve any guns either. Banning guns doesn't prevent terrorist attacks happening
    Nor does non restrictive gun sales.... however since the UK restricted the sale of firearms (not banned), we've hardly had any school shootings, sprees, rampages or mass shooting. You could probably count the amount in the UK in the last twenty years on one hand.

    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    The FBI definition of mass shooting, which is the definition used to support statistics elsewhere in the world, is >4 people killed in a single incident. Leftist news outlets have now expanded this definition to include all people injured among other things, giving us ridiculous statistics such as 300 "mass shootings" per year. Most of these incidents are in fact nothing more than everyday gang-on-gang shooting incidences, restricted to small urban centres, which don't even make the news and liberals don't care in the slightest about. The plummeting murder rate also tells us that these incidences are decreasing year on year in the US, while concealed carry permits skyrocket.

    The actual number of psychopath spree-killings of innocent people, such as this nightclub shooting or Sandy Hook style school shootings, number in the single digits per year. It's easy to mislead unintelligent readers by sensationalist statistics, but a little digging and you'll find the reality is nothing like what is portrayed in the MSM.
    Well you yourself seem to refer to Rampage killings.... Spree killing in of itself refers more to multiple locations.

    Anyhoo ignoring this month, seeing recent events may skew it a tad.... last month saw 35 mass shootings (note they don't actually require to kill people by some definitions but still at least 4 victims), with 131 people wounded and 42 people killed.

    By comparison the UK has roughly on average 56 deaths a year due to gun crime with 15.4 injured a year. If the US' population was the size of the UK's, it would have 2,200 deaths per year. Concerning murders Americans are roughly 40-50 (depends on the year) times more likely to be killed by guns and 50 times to be killed by guns in general.

    And again to address the issue, you don't need to 'ban' guns. All you need to do is restrict the sale of them, restrict how they're carried in public, restrict self defence to handguns etc. We all know how ingrained gun culture is to Americans, but a bit of common sense goes a long way.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    I am pro-full gun control as in the UK, but even if America is to retain its right to bear arms, why is this not limited to basic handguns only? Why are automatic rifles available for sale? What possible purpose could buying an automatic rifle serve?
    Because the right to keep and bear arms is specifically and historically related to militia service, which means a "rifleman's" weapon (semi-automatic rifles) have to be available to vindicate that right,

    The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution wasn't added to allow people to go hunting or target shooting. It was added to ensure the people could have ready access to the sort of firearms necessary to conduct warfare.

    I personally think the 2nd Amendment is excessively lax, and that it prevents sensible gun reforms. But also keep in mind that constitutional amendments are very difficult to achieve, so it's not a simple process of just passing some legislation to change it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    7/7 happened in Britain, where, you know, guns are banned. 9/11 didn't involve any guns either. Banning guns doesn't prevent terrorist attacks happening
    Hahahaha.

    Guns aren't banned. They never have been. You can own upto and including a .50 BMG.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I can see the need for gun reform but lets be honest here, he went to that club intending to meet Allah and get his seventy virgins. If he didn't have guns he would have worn a vest and killed just as many if not more.
    France has strict gun controls what happened there?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Why are they necessary when a hand gun will do for self-defence?
    Perhaps because of the inaccuracy of a handgun?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I understand the logic of allowing assault rifles under the second amendment, even though I disagree with it. If the second amendment is intended to prevent the rise of a tyrannical and dictatorial government, then it would probably partially defeat the purpose of it to ban AR15s and allow hunting rifles, which, although they definitely serve the purpose, are generally not primarily intended for use on human beings. Doesn't make the lack of regulation facilitated by the 2nd amendment any less ridiculous, but does mean that conceding a ban on assault weapons would provide a potential contradiction to part of the NRA's argument. (Still, if the 2nd amendment is intended to prevent the rise of a tyrant, might be slightly self defeating for the NRA to endorse Trump)
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Guns don't kill people without people operating them. It is illegal to shoot somebody so making it illegal to own a gun isn't really a barrier. Anybody who want's a gun even here in the UK can most likely get one. There have been multiple armed raids in the UK since Dunblane. and there are reportedly over 2 million guns in circulation here!

    So this leads me onto America and that somebody mentioned over 300 mass school shootings! Yes it is far easier for people to buy a gun there, although assault rifles are not easy to get hold of. In many shootings including the latest Florida Club mass killing an Assault Rifle was apparently used. How the gunman got hold of this gun I don't know? My guess is that he got in illegally?

    So, without a mass shooting in the UK since Dunblane, due to a ban on guns, even though many guns still exist and are available if somebody needed one, why is it that America suffers from many mass shootings where banned Auto Assault Rifles are being used?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 24, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.