Our gun ownership laws must be relaxed; people must be able to protect themselves Watch

Hurr Durr
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 7 years ago
#41
Why are you all comparing us to the USA? Whilst we do have far stricter gun laws, Switzerland has a higher rate of gun ownership. It does not seem right to say gun ownership laws are the sole factor.

I reckon that what we need is not more or less restriction on obtaining firearms, but better (i.e. more fair) laws on protecting ourselves with said firearms, e.g. Castle Doctrine. Also, pistols should be legalized but heavily controlled (i.e. you must have had your license for at least 5 years, or something).
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#42
Report 7 years ago
#42
(Original post by Ronove)
Generally it's easier and quicker to kill someone with a gun rather than a KFC spork.
But would more people go out with the intent of murder? How many murders would be stopped by someone being able to defend themselves? How many murders would be stopped for fear of a firearm?

And although it is easier, a gun is not a tool of certain death.
0
reply
UnbreakableDimmy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#43
Report 7 years ago
#43
The US has lower crime rates than the UK?

Where on Earth did you get that idea from?

Even if we took US homicides with JUST guns into account, it would outnumber every single homicide in the UK by thousands annually.

"A-ha! But they're a bigger country!" you say. Well, yes, approximately five times the population. Gun homicides are well over ten times the entire homicide rate in the UK.

You're far more likely to shoot a family member than anyone else...
0
reply
lawology
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#44
Report 7 years ago
#44
(Original post by The Stig's student cousin)
Crims are more likely to have guns as it is anyway, alright maybe not your average house burglar but people with criminal records wouldn't be allowed them so this would cut that risk and perhaps to further cut the risk only allow someone with an income above a certain threshold to get a gun as they are more likely to have possessions that are worth protecting and less likely to burgal others.
Aren't poorer neighborhoods normally more affected by crime...?
0
reply
yamamotootsu
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 7 years ago
#45
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Anyone who wants to use a gun for unlawful purposes could easily attain one. And as I said, I have not seen any convincing evidence that shows relaxed gun laws = increased crime.
Listen, if people are allowed to carry guns in public it'll just cause more hysteria and fear. Not a pleasant experience.
0
reply
James1977
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#46
Report 7 years ago
#46
(Original post by The Stig's student cousin)
I do believe people should be allowed at least a handgun but only for use in the home as protection.

Morons who will terrorise people with guns will get them anyway so I don't wanna hear people saying it'll increase gun crime etc.
How will folk 'protect themselves' with a handgun?

Is it a case of sleeping with it under their pillow? If so, enjoy the rise in incidents of accidental discharges, escalation of family feuds to injuries/deaths involving gunshot and other incidents that happen when firearms are not secured appropriately in the home.

Then there is the fact that if you pull a tune on someone you'd better be prepared to use it (and face possible criminal charges afterwards) because otherwise Mr Professional Criminal who you've just caught climbing through your window at 0300 will likely either take it off you and beat you with it or if you are really unlucky, show you what the dangerous end of your 'safety blanket' is actually for.

Civilians who think they can pull the trigger on a human because they've shot at paper, plays or perhaps played a little paintball. Delusional at best, a danger to themselves and their families at worst.
0
reply
UnbreakableDimmy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#47
Report 7 years ago
#47
(Original post by Steevee)
But would more people go out with the intent of murder? How many murders would be stopped by someone being able to defend themselves? How many murders would be stopped for fear of a firearm?

And although it is easier, a gun is not a tool of certain death.
But nor is it a tool of certain defence either. We get all the cowboy self-appointed hero's in the US declaring "Anyone who tries to mess with me get's one between the eyes!", yet homicide is out of control, they're shooting their families and innocent people more than they're defending themselves, and chances are they aren't nearly as good with a gun as they'd like to imagine anyway.
0
reply
The Stig's student cousin
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 7 years ago
#48
(Original post by Captainmal)
Why give someone a weapon they can conceal? Why give someone a weapon that not only can but is designed to inflict lethal damage at all? Ffs if you're worried about home protection legalise tasers or heavy duty tranquilisers, you don't have to kill someone to protect your property or loved ones.
Its not about giving anyone anything, they will have to pas certain criteria to legally obtain the handgun thus minimizing the risk of someone taking it outside the home and concealing it people who want to do this already obtain guns.

Screw tasers a real gun is much more effective at subduing a would be intruder and if they die, so what? They shouldn't have broken in.
1
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#49
Report 7 years ago
#49
(Original post by Fonix)
There you go mate


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Americas murder rate is more than 3 times ours per capita according to this site. Wikipedia also agrees, but I don't like using it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate
That is a correlation but in now way describes cause and effect. There are huge differences in culture and even gun laws across different parts of the United States.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#50
Report 7 years ago
#50
(Original post by Ronove)
Generally it's easier and quicker to kill someone with a gun rather than a KFC spork.
That's not evidence.
0
reply
SpicyStrawberry
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#51
Report 7 years ago
#51
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Anyone who wants to use a gun for unlawful purposes could easily attain one. And as I said, I have not seen any convincing evidence that shows relaxed gun laws = increased crime.
You clearly don't live in the rough parts of Manchester then.

If any kid can get hold of a gun that easily there WILL be more crime. If you could just pull a knife out on someone like how it is today, the same will be done with guns. I don't understand why people don't see this.

Relaxing laws on gun ownership is just like a green light to any chav who think's they're smart for owning one and that will never be a good thing. They think Call of Duty is like being in the Army ffs. Imagine what they think they could do if they got hold of a real weapon, they would think it's a game.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#52
Report 7 years ago
#52
(Original post by yamamotootsu)
Listen, if people are allowed to carry guns in public it'll just cause more hysteria and fear. Not a pleasant experience.
Again, evidence?
0
reply
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#53
Report 7 years ago
#53
(Original post by Steevee)
The recoil is not so immense, and assuming the correct amunition and loaing it is not particularly prone to jams.

Still very simple to operate, it requires no special action to operate. It doesn't even have a select fire switch. So essentially, still very simple as it operates from a box magazine. Or drum, but normally box.

But I would agree, the AA-12 is similar to the Desert Eagle, in that it has no real life applications not done better by other arms. I have 4 years of rifle/gun experience. And a wide general knowledge of a great many firearms, although sadly, the ones I've gotten my hands on have been very limited.
Its recoil is one of the greatest in any one-man weapons there is. Sadly, this ruins it as a combat-efficient firearm.

The ammunition was correct, and the loading and cocking was done slowly with meticulous inspection as I'd never loaded one before. I cocked the handle through several times before loading it, and loosened one round from the chamber before operating it. It still jammed.

The weapon is solid, I agree. Easy to use and psychologically it makes a lot of nose, very quickly and does a tremendous amount of damage at very close range when using buckshot. However, its usefulness, as we've both said, is limited.

I hate these fools who think operating a Desert Eagle is similar to operating other handguns.

Sure, in comparison to a .44 Magnum, say a Raging Bull, then yes, recoil is similar. And the accuracy of both is terrible!

Its a heavy handgun, inaccurate, hard to clean and maintain, the rounds are expensive and it, like the AA-12 Automatic SS, is a weapon that isn't plausible to use when, as you say, there are other firearms that do the same job, better.

If you haven't had much experience in actually operating firearms, get yourself to some Gun Clubs. They are always looking for new members.
0
reply
flubadiblam
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#54
Report 7 years ago
#54
(Original post by isaqyi)
I firmly believe that in this country, people should be able to protect themselves from intruders, and our gun laws should be made to resemble those of the USA. In an earlier thread, I was arguing with a socialist but he was saying that he'd have no reservations about kicking down my front door and pawning my TV if he had no money himself. Now in this instance, I would have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the police to protect me. I think in cases like this, the case for gun ownership cannot be refuted. If I had a lot of angry socialists on the doorstep like the one I mentioned, the threat of a PCSO would do nothing, whereas if I came out with an AA-12 shotgun, that would be far more effective.

The USA also has a much lower overall crime rate than the UK, despite their more liberal gun laws.
Protect them selves against what? guns?
0
reply
Broderss
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#55
Report 7 years ago
#55
You will probably create more criminals by giving people guns. And more deaths or serious injuries. Many more of them.
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#56
Report 7 years ago
#56
(Original post by DH-Biker)
That would more then suffice.

Though, as you said finally, a demonstration test, that would need to be very well regulated by members of, ideally, a person with either military or lots of weapon's handling experience. Lots, of experience.

In addition, I would also seek for a person to be able to show me how to correctly maintain a firearm, how to disassemble and reassemble it. Correct cleaning procedures, correct safety checks, etc etc.

Once that's done, (say you had companies that would train groups at a time), then you'd be handed a certificate. Presenting this certificate at the counter of a firearms shop would allow the buying of one, and checks by police to ensure you had it.

Only then would a more lenient set of rules on firearms be applicable to this society.



In addition, as you may have hinted at there, anyone with a criminal record can't be allowed a firearm. Would you agree with that?

The only unfortunate downside to this is, where do we draw the line on what firearms we can possess?

No longer at the mercy of criminals, sure; would you be better with a firearm then them? Would your firearm boast a longer range, more stopping power and more accuracy?

If you had a handgun concealed in the glove compartment, what's to stop you dying at the hands of a criminal who's acquired a HK MP5 to spraying your car with 30 rounds of 9mm ammunition before you could reach it?

Criminals possessing higher grade weapons then those of the Police and Civilians is ultimately realistic now; giving everyone a gun completely throws leniency on gun laws to ****.
I pretty much agree with everything you've said, in the first part of your post anyway.

No criminals should have firearms. I agree.

I'd put a limit at semi-auto rifles, maybe take that to single shot, although I'm not even sure there. There aren't many self defense applications for a rifle, but I think rifles should be allowed, but that could my personel affiliation with them coming out. But pistols/handguns certainley should be allowed. They are the most reasonable weapon for self defense. I don't see a need for anything automatic really. Ideally I'd have very few restrictions on what firearms you can own. But equally I see that liberal Britain is very gunphobic and would never allow it. I would prefer to have laws like Montana, only slightly stricter on getting firearms.
0
reply
Fonix
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#57
Report 7 years ago
#57
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
That is a correlation but in now way describes cause and effect. There are huge differences in culture and even gun laws across different parts of the United States.
You're correct in the fact that we have a different culture in the UK to that of the US.

But it is termed "gun culture". I would argue that it is the legalisation of gun ownership within the US that this culture has developed around, not the fact that guns are used irresponsibly because of the culture. The guns create the arms race culture.

My thoughts anyway.
1
reply
iainthegreat
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#58
Report 7 years ago
#58
(Original post by zjs)
:sadnod:

The poor man's gone from the 'glory days' of this:



To this:

Ha, yeah love that vid. Well played sir. :yep:
0
reply
UnbreakableDimmy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#59
Report 7 years ago
#59
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Again, evidence?
There's clear, documented evidence that people carrying firearms are more likely to be shot, and people living in households with guns are more likely to be shot. This holds true even when all other factors are equal, such as income, ethnic group, even neighbourhoods.
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#60
Report 7 years ago
#60
(Original post by DH-Biker)
Its recoil is one of the greatest in any one-man weapons there is. Sadly, this ruins it as a combat-efficient firearm.

The ammunition was correct, and the loading and cocking was done slowly with meticulous inspection as I'd never loaded one before. I cocked the handle through several times before loading it, and loosened one round from the chamber before operating it. It still jammed.

The weapon is solid, I agree. Easy to use and psychologically it makes a lot of nose, very quickly and does a tremendous amount of damage at very close range when using buckshot. However, its usefulness, as we've both said, is limited.

I hate these fools who think operating a Desert Eagle is similar to operating other handguns.

Sure, in comparison to a .44 Magnum, say a Raging Bull, then yes, recoil is similar. And the accuracy of both is terrible!

Its a heavy handgun, inaccurate, hard to clean and maintain, the rounds are expensive and it, like the AA-12 Automatic SS, is a weapon that isn't plausible to use when, as you say, there are other firearms that do the same job, better.

If you haven't had much experience in actually operating firearms, get yourself to some Gun Clubs. They are always looking for new members.
Hmm, I have found a sharp clean **** works better on most firearms prone to jams, as it slams the first round home, stopping any gas issues and so on, but that's neither here nor there, seeing as I've not got any experience with the AA-12.

As for what I've fired. Numerous shotguns, single and double barrelled. Under-over and side by side. Also 2 pump actions. Various .22 rimfire rifles. A 7.62 target rifle. And the British, L98-A1, L98-A2, Light Support Weapon, General Purpose Machine Gun and L95-A2.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (125)
39.56%
No - but I will (17)
5.38%
No - I don't want to (20)
6.33%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (154)
48.73%

Watched Threads

View All