Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Potiron)
    Unless I'm reading it wrong, it actually says "intentional gun deaths," which is slightly different to what you quoted. Most people wouldn't count an accident as an intentional gun death.

    And either way, there are lots of gun deaths; to the guy who's lying on the floor bleeding it doesn't really matter to him whether they meant to or not. I still quite like being far down the list.

    However, I believe Switzerland has quite a high suicide rate (presumably guns don't make you happy), and I would imagine that that has been included in the 'intentional deaths / 100000' figure, as it is one of the crucial stats the anti-gun lobby used before the recent referendum.

    If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.




    At least you can run away.
    Ah so it does, presumably then accidents wouldnt be included, my mistake. But my point still stands.

    On the topic suicide, yes Switzerland does have a high suicide rate, but so does Japan, infact irc they have the highest rate in the world.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentrepreneur)
    In the words of Benjamin Franklin

    Those that are willing to give up their liberty for security deserve neither



    Yeah absolute joke
    Benjamin Franklin et al gave up a lot of Civil Liberties in order to win the American War of Revolution.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawBore)
    As opposed to knife-wielding ones?
    You can outrun a knife
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Aw, not this stupid thread again :facepalm2:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Total school shootings in the UK: 2
    Total school shootings in the USA: >100
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Weapons being legal is not an issue, self defence as a reason for getting a licence is the issue.

    Before 97' handguns were legal, but virtually no legal handguns were used for crime seeing as you had to have a decent reason for having one and not be a lunatic. I would welcome the repeal of the anti-handgun legislation, it doesn't mean it would be easy to get one. Knife wielding chav would not be able to wander into Tesco and buy a Glock 17.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Legalising handguns would be great news....





















    for undertakers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why on Earth would you need a semi-automatic pistol?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What am I going to do with a gun? Hope I can draw a gun faster than the guy with a knife at my throat can stab me? Faster than the burglar who's got nothing to lose can shoot the gun in his hand?

    There is no one I can defend myself against that wouldn't have a similar weapon and be more ready to use it. Anyway you've got to be quite heartless and naive to accept a gun in sefl defense because the premise you are accepting is I have the right to kill or cause GBH to someone if I feel it is necessary or if I feel threatened. Which by the amount of disordered, mad or nasty human beings in the country is not a good premise to accept for anyone.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    That chart is the most biased, misleading piece of crap i have ever seen. Comparing only 19 countries out of 200+ is not exactly a good representative of global gun ownership rates to the gun death ratio, is it. :rolleyes:

    And that brings me onto my next point, that this chart only relates to "gun deaths". Now "gun deaths" include murder and manslaughter with firearms (not overall murders), but also accidents, suicides, fatal shootings carried out by the police, and lawful self defence killings. Gun death rates alone are not a good indicator of how dangerous or safe a country is.

    If you took those same countries in that chart, but this time compared the ratio of gun ownership to the overall murder rate (not just gun murders), or even serious violent crime rates, you would see a completely different layout. You will also find that there is virtually NO correlation between gun ownership and overall murder rates.
    But it completely refutes the claims you have just made? You said that places like Austria and Switzerland had higher gun ownership and lower gun killings which the graph suggest is just wishful lies on your part?

    I agree that blaming gun murder rates purely on ownership is a bit reductionist as surely other factors like poverty also play some part. However to say that it has no role is very naive, especially if you cannot be bothered to back up what seem like fairly ludicrous claims.

    Finally, can you not read? It says right there on the graphs which kind of gun deaths it is including? At a guess I would say that "Intentional Gun Deaths" include murder, some kinds of manslaughter and perhaps suicide?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hardleyouth)
    Look at America...enough said, guns are bad.
    uh guns are bad m'kay
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Weapons being legal is not an issue, self defence as a reason for getting a licence is the issue.

    Before 97' handguns were legal, but virtually no legal handguns were used for crime seeing as you had to have a decent reason for having one and not be a lunatic. I would welcome the repeal of the anti-handgun legislation, it doesn't mean it would be easy to get one. Knife wielding chav would not be able to wander into Tesco and buy a Glock 17.
    While it's true that we'd inevitably have decent regulation stopping chavs from wandering into tesco and getting strapped, there would be less stopping them from wandering into the house of Mr 'I-own-a-gun-to-defend-my-home' while he's in Butlins with the family and stealing a handgun worth more on the black market than his widescreen TV and his laptop combined.

    The demand for guns isn't like the demand for other black market items, it increases as saturation increases. If criminals know that most other criminals and targets aren't carrying guns, it's not essential for them to acquire guns to keep up and the risk of getting caught with a gun well outweighs the possible benefits of carrying one. As the number of gun owners rise and the penalties for unlawful gun ownership decrease, the risks of carrying guns goes down and criminals will want guns more urgently, pay more on the black market for them and create more demand for theft and smuggling.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hantheman)
    ...
    (Original post by py0alb)
    ...
    Target shooting mainly, humain killing of farm animals.

    There was no reason for them to be banned in the first place, it really has had no effect on anything crime related.

    The strict rules in getting a FAC would apply to pistols, no problem really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Target shooting mainly, humain killing of farm animals.

    There was no reason for them to be banned in the first place, it really has had no effect on anything crime related.

    The strict rules in getting a FAC would apply to pistols, no problem really.
    I don't see why you can't just use a rifle or shotgun. No-one goes hunting with a handgun, so why would you need to practice? I don't see anything that a handgun can do for you that a rifle cannot.

    You can't hide a rifle in your jacket pocket either. If handguns were legal, then you would never know who was carrying one. Even more problematic is that neither would the criminals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The semi-auto pistol is made for killing humans, nothing else.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kultist)
    While it's true that we'd inevitably have decent regulation stopping chavs from wandering into tesco and getting strapped, there would be less stopping them from wandering into the house of Mr 'I-own-a-gun-to-defend-my-home' while he's in Butlins with the family and stealing a handgun worth more on the black market than his widescreen TV and his laptop combined.

    The demand for guns isn't like the demand for other black market items, it increases as saturation increases. If criminals know that most other criminals and targets aren't carrying guns, it's not essential for them to acquire guns to keep up and the risk of getting caught with a gun well outweighs the possible benefits of carrying one. As the number of gun owners rise and the penalties for unlawful gun ownership decrease, the risks of carrying guns goes down and criminals will want guns more urgently, pay more on the black market for them and create more demand for theft and smuggling.
    First of all, there wouldn't be a Mr 'I-own-a-gun-to-defend-my-home' as self defence would not be a valid reason to hold a FAC, just as it isn't now. Theoretically you could get a firearm under one reason when in reality you want it for home defence, but seeing as they have to be kept in a safe that's bolted to the wall that has twin locks its not as practical as say, a rolling pin under the bed. Putting firearms in these safes makes them just about un-stealable too.

    (Original post by py0alb)
    I don't see why you can't just use a rifle or shotgun. No-one goes hunting with a handgun, so why would you need to practice? I don't see anything that a handgun can do for you that a rifle cannot.

    You can't hide a rifle in your jacket pocket either. If handguns were legal, then you would never know who was carrying one. Even more problematic is that neither would the criminals.
    Target shooting is a sport in its own right, my uncle used to do it before 97'.

    Handguns being legal does not mean people wandering about with them, a hefty jail term stopped people from doing that. Pre-handgun ban none of the things your talking about actually happened, I don't want to go to a US style free for all when it comes to firearms.



    Looking at the firearms crime stats (not including air weapons) crimes involving firearms went up from 5 million per year in 98' to 11 million in 05' then it fell again, but still not to the level in 98'. So the handgun ban had no effect what so ever apart from punishing perfectly law abiding people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilickbatteries)
    HURR DURR PROTECT OURSELVES HERP DERP

    Compare our gun crime rate to that of the USA.

    See benefits of gun control.

    Feel safe.
    Each year, guns are used over a million times in self-defence in the United States. Moreover, kindly look at Switzerland, a country with one of the highest per-capita gun ownership rates in the world yet with one of the lowest -- particularly gun- -- crime rates in the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    First of Looking at the firearms crime stats (not including air weapons) crimes involving firearms went up from 5 million per year in 98' to 11 million in 05' then it fell again, but still not to the level in 98'. So the handgun ban had no effect what so ever apart from punishing perfectly law abiding people.

    To start with, just because the crime numbers didn't fall doesn't imply the ban did nothing. It's a more likely scenario that they actually went a long way in preventing them rising even more dramatically.

    I couldn't give a monkeys that shooting things with handguns is a self-proclaimed "sport". If I decided that firing grenade launchers at pigs was a "sport", it still doesn't mean they should be legalised.

    Even with strict controls, there are still only cons and no pros to the argument of legalising handguns. Even if only one extra person gets shot, its not worth it just because a tiny minority of people aren't satisfied with shooting the wide range of guns already available.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    To start with, just because the crime numbers didn't fall doesn't imply the ban did nothing. It's a more likely scenario that they actually went a long way in preventing them rising even more dramatically.
    No, because the people who had legally held handguns did not commit crime with them.

    I couldn't give a monkeys that shooting things with handguns is a self-proclaimed "sport". If I decided that firing grenade launchers at pigs was a "sport", it still doesn't mean they should be legalised.
    Pistol shooting is an olympic event, one which team GB is quite good at despite having to leave the country to practice. A .22 target pistol is not a threat to the wider public

    Even with strict controls, there are still only cons and no pros to the argument of legalising handguns. Even if only one extra person gets shot, its not worth it just because a tiny minority of people aren't satisfied with shooting the wide range of guns already available.
    There was no difference what so ever after the banning of handguns, all it did was penalise law abiding people, that is wrong.

    I didn't neg you btw
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    That chart is the most biased, misleading piece of crap i have ever seen. Comparing only 19 countries out of 200+ is not exactly a good representative of global gun ownership rates to the gun death ratio, is it. :rolleyes:

    And that brings me onto my next point, that this chart only relates to "gun deaths". Now "gun deaths" include murder and manslaughter with firearms (not overall murders), but also accidents, suicides, fatal shootings carried out by the police, and lawful self defence killings. Gun death rates alone are not a good indicator of how dangerous or safe a country is.

    If you took those same countries in that chart, but this time compared the ratio of gun ownership to the overall murder rate (not just gun murders), or even serious violent crime rates, you would see a completely different layout. You will also find that there is virtually NO correlation between gun ownership and overall murder rates.
    That doesn't make any sense - why would we want to compare general murder rates when we're having a discussion on firearms? We don't have any need to include say knife-related deaths or murders resulting from someone being pushed off a building.

    Likewise, accidents and suicides probably fall in line, but whether they do or don't doesn't detract from the correlation between number of households bearing arms and firearm-related deaths. If you have sources for accidents, manslaughter, suicide and so forth, then bring them to the table; otherwise, don't speculate; the graph shows a clear correlation as a useful statistic.

    In terms of number of countries included, I completely agree, but would point out that many countries are unlikely to keep statistics on gun ownership and gun-related deaths.

    Although to be fair, it doesn't really seem appropriate to include every country - I can only imagine how the graph would change if we included Iraq and Zimbabwe. Likewise, an autonomous country like Greenland probably doesn't even receive shipments of weapons.
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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