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

How the right allow terrorists to get hold of weapons. Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessBO$$)
    How is right for anyone to have a weapon?
    More gun control laws should enforced.
    Because not everyone is crazed murderer. Gun control works in the UK just fine.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    Calling it a common sense example doesn't make it anything more than what it is, something you just made up. If we can just start making things up then the universe destroying catapult is also a valid example of what might happen.
    Just because you try to make an unrealistic claim, does not reduce the realistic possibility in my examples.

    If you wish me to respond to your catapult rhetoric, I am not out of touch with reality so I won't. I would prefer to wait till that happens, then I would comment. I promise.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Because not everyone is crazed murderer. Gun control works in the UK just fine.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This is beacause NO ONE has guns in the UK. Except a few who may be a police. There may be some hooligans in the UK who have a gun. But they are like 1 in 10,000.
    Whilst in America the chances are more like 1 in 150. (not kiddin. probs more)
    Stricter GUN controls should be enforced! Protect people of America. It is an amendmant to have the right to LIVE!
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Because making guns illegal certainly stopped both the Paris and Brussels attacks...
    The US has had 133 mass shootings in 2016 so far...

    The entirety of Europe, by comparison has had 20 'rampage killings' in 16 years.

    The definitions are a little different but such a huge difference suggests that the US has a VERY serious problem with mass murder, especially with guns.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Because not everyone is crazed murderer. Gun control works in the UK just fine.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well said

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The reason the American people are so against gun control is because they view a gun as a usable tool and that shooting someone is a perfectly reasonable solution to a problem. I have little more than anecdotal evidence but there was an incident where a man deliberately drove into the back of another car out of anger (this is in the US). The majority of comments on the story said that the person who got hit ought to have got out his gun and shot the offending driver.

    Here in the UK, few people would consider shooting someone, possibly fatally, as the best and first option to almost any scenario.

    EDIT: The justification that those advocating shooting the guy gave was that the act of deliberately crashing into a another car is the use of a deadly weapon which could have killed someone. Therefore it is acceptable to retaliate with a firearm.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessBO$$)
    This is beacause NO ONE has guns in the UK. Except a few who may be a police. There may be some hooligans in the UK who have a gun. But they are like 1 in 10,000.
    Whilst in America the chances are more like 1 in 150. (not kiddin. probs more)
    Stricter GUN controls should be enforced! Protect people of America. It is an amendmant to have the right to LIVE!
    Apart from the 3.4 million privately owned firearms...

    Evidently you don't know what you are talking about.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by trumpisbae2)
    HucktheForde


    You idolise Anjem Choudary?

    You should be ashamed of yourself!

    DONALD TRUMP WILL CLEANSE THE EARTH OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU!
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    Well said

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    HucktheForde I know
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    OK, so it's easier, that's subjective. You have to learn how to use a weapon first, how to reload it in the dark, how to aim it and how to burst fire, how to hit center mass etc. etc.

    Seems much easier to start a fire at the exits, maybe block the fire exit with a high sided vehicle so no one inside will notice then set a timed fire on the roof exit and man the entrance fire yourself, if you were suicidal.

    The argument that this scenario would have be less severe or not happened at all (if automatic weapons were illegal) is completely un-falsifiable and by extension unprovable, it's completely outside the sphere of rational discourse and into the realm of make believe. People are still likely to die from this atrocity and others are politicizing their suffering to forward their agendas.

    Sure, in some situations automatic weapons make shooting sprees easier for certain individuals, it seems highly plausible that a number of disasters would have been less severe were these weapons not available to the pubic, but in this particular case, it's just not a tenable position. If you think it is, prove it.
    Learning how to use a weapon when there are an abundance of shooting ranges to do so aswell as tutelage doesn't seem hard. You dont need to know how to hit centre mass... you are firing into a densely packed crowd of 350 people.. you can close your eyes and think of England and still amass dozens of casualities.

    Ok so we start a fire and go grab our big van we park it up outside the main entrance.. now what? Do you think you can go and grab 3 more high sided vehicles to block fire exits, patio exits whilst civilians and bouncers are attacking you? I cant believe you are doubling down here, just admit you didnt think it through and are wrong.

    The existence of god is unfalsifiable therefore there is no rational discourse or argument that can be put either way.. said nobody ever.

    This dude may have hijacked an F-35 jet from his local Florida military base when he realised he couldnt get an AR-15 and amassed a 1000 kills with the jet instead. This theory is completely unfalsifiable therefore dont bother arguing against it therefore his access to guns actually saved hundreds of lives.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Learning how to use a weapon when there are an abundance of shooting ranges to do so aswell as tutelage doesn't seem hard. You dont need to know how to hit centre mass... you are firing into a densely packed crowd of 350 people.. you can close your eyes and think of England and still amass dozens of casualities.

    Ok so we start a fire and go grab our big van we park it up outside the main entrance.. now what? Do you think you can go and grab 3 more high sided vehicles to block fire exits, patio exits whilst civilians and bouncers are attacking you? I cant believe you are doubling down here, just admit you didnt think it through and are wrong.

    The existence of god is unfalsifiable therefore there is no rational discourse or argument that can be put either way.. said nobody ever.

    This dude may have hijacked an F-35 jet from his local Florida military base when he realised he couldnt get an AR-15 and amassed a 1000 kills with the jet instead. This theory is completely unfalsifiable therefore dont bother arguing against it therefore his access to guns actually saved hundreds of lives.
    You seem to be missing the point, the burden of proof isn't on me. You are claiming that the situation wouldn't have been so bad or might not have happened if stricter gun laws were in place. Are you not ?

    I am saying the situation could have been equally worse, he might have chosen a different venue and a different means that would have been equally as devastating.

    Nobody can know, and anyone claiming to know is a bald faced liar.In this situation (to use the god analogy) you are the theist and I am the skeptic, I am not claiming to know anything, you are. Prove it or don't.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    You seem to be missing the point, the burden of proof isn't on me. You are claiming that the situation wouldn't have been so bad or might not have happened if stricter gun laws were in place. Are you not ?

    I am saying the situation could have been equally worse, he might have chosen a different venue and a different means that would have been equally as devastating.

    Nobody can know, and anyone claiming to know is a bald faced liar.In this situation (to use the god analogy) you are the theist and I am the skeptic, I am not claiming to know anything, you are. Prove it or don't.
    Glad you have abandoned your argument which i take it as admittance your theory that burning the place whilst barring all exits is just as easy as murdering them with an assault rifle which was the whole crux of our argument. There is ZERO burden of proof on me, it is on you .... here is your post

    "lol, the problem was that he was suicidal in his want to murder homosexuals, stopping him from owning a gun wouldn't have stopped this from happening.

    It's as if you're arguing the situation would be OK if he just drove through a crowd of people waiting in line to get into the bar, or if he had leveled the building with a suicide bomb or car bomb.

    Idiot."


    Pay attention to the first paragraph of your post. Burden of proof is on me...? yet i have successfully shown you why your bombing alternative is not feasible and therefore my initial post that guns made this atrocity worse you have not in anyway detracted from or successfully argued against.

    By all means treble down on your "He would have just bombed with the same success" argument. If not, be a reasonable and intelligent poster and admit you were wrong
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Glad you have abandoned your argument which i take it as admittance your theory that burning the place whilst barring all exits is just as easy as murdering them with an assault rifle which was the whole crux of our argument. There is ZERO burden of proof on me, it is on you .... here is your post

    "lol, the problem was that he was suicidal in his want to murder homosexuals, stopping him from owning a gun wouldn't have stopped this from happening.

    It's as if you're arguing the situation would be OK if he just drove through a crowd of people waiting in line to get into the bar, or if he had leveled the building with a suicide bomb or car bomb.

    Idiot."

    Pay attention to the first paragraph of your post. Burden of proof is on me...? yet i have successfully shown you why your bombing alternative is not feasible and therefore my initial post that guns made this atrocity worse you have not in anyway detracted from or successfully argued against.

    By all means treble down on your "He would have just bombed with the same success" argument. If not, be a reasonable and intelligent poster and admit you were wrong
    You seem to be misrepresenting my position and have a serious misunderstanding about how the debating process works, let me elaborate.


    My rejection of your claim is due to lack of supporting evidence. We have previous examples of people doing far more damage and killing far more people without automatic weapons, for example the 9/11 bombers had box cutters, so not only do you not have any supporting evidence, we have evidence that supports a contradictory position to yours. That the same level, or greater, of terrorism can be achieved by people without access to automatic weapons if they have the suicidal drive.

    Now, because I am rejecting your claim it doesn't mean I am championing a counter claim, what you seem to be thinking is that I have to disprove your position before you have demonstrated it to be true, it's called shifting the burden of proof.

    Hypothetically, anything could have happened if he had not had access to automatic weapons. He might have chosen a different target, he might have been more successful or been caught or given up and taken up knitting. We simply cannot know, you cannot know and neither can I. You are claiming to know, so demonstrate the claim to be true or have it rejected by me and anyone else with half a brain.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    You seem to be misrepresenting my position and have a serious misunderstanding about how the debating process works, let me elaborate.


    My rejection of your claim is due to lack of supporting evidence. We have previous examples of people doing far more damage and killing far more people without automatic weapons, for example the 9/11 bombers had box cutters, so not only do you not have any supporting evidence, we have evidence that supports a contradictory position to yours. That the same level, or greater, of terrorism can be achieved by people without access to automatic weapons if they have the suicidal drive.

    Now, because I am rejecting your claim it doesn't mean I am championing a counter claim, what you seem to be thinking is that I have to disprove your position before you have demonstrated it to be true, it's called shifting the burden of proof.

    Hypothetically, anything could have happened if he had not had access to automatic weapons. He might have chosen a different target, he might have been more successful or been caught or given up and taken up knitting. We simply cannot know, you cannot know and neither can I. You are claiming to know, so demonstrate the claim to be true or have it rejected by me and anyone else with half a brain.
    FIRST POST BETWEEN US...

    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    lol, the problem was that he was suicidal in his want to murder homosexuals, stopping him from owning a gun wouldn't have stopped this from happening.

    It's as if you're arguing the situation would be OK if he just drove through a crowd of people waiting in line to get into the bar, or if he had leveled the building with a suicide bomb or car bomb.
    Idiot.
    The burden of proof is on YOU which you have tried to shift onto me after i reasonably tried to engage with your claim.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    The US has had 133 mass shootings in 2016 so far...

    The entirety of Europe, by comparison has had 20 'rampage killings' in 16 years.

    The definitions are a little different but such a huge difference suggests that the US has a VERY serious problem with mass murder, especially with guns.
    If this figure is true then it's difficult to see how people can justify the continued distribution of firearms to the public in the US. My only thoughts are that perhaps the population has been flooded by guns for so long that banning future purchase of them would actually cause more problems. It would seem that in some instances guns have become embedded in the fabric of what it is to be American. So many people both own and are trained to use a firearm and this leaves those without said ownership and training at a major disadvantage.

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    The reason the American people are so against gun control is because they view a gun as a usable tool and that shooting someone is a perfectly reasonable solution to a problem....

    Here in the UK, few people would consider shooting someone, possibly fatally, as the best and first option to almost any scenario.
    ^ This is the issue for me really. When upwards of 70% of society are already potentially deadly, how can you feel safe knowing you have no firearms. It's not a problem here in the UK because we have never had anywhere close to the numbers of firearms readily accessible over the decades let alone the will to actually use them on others. It's not part of our way of thinking. If you have an altercation over here you're not necessarily afraid that you could be gunned down... maybe stabbed but rarely does getting shot pass through your mind unless you're in a really bad area.

    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Because not everyone is crazed murderer. Gun control works in the UK just fine.
    This further goes towards my point. As improbable as it sounds, perhaps there is truth to this comment. I'm an advocate for Gun Control Laws but I worry that it just won't work in the US because of the mentality. It would seem that every citizen is a potential killer. Now I know that every human is a potential killer, but with the gun culture in America and their enthusiasm to actually use said guns so deeply embedded within their society I genuinely feel that (in contrast to the public over here) they are all potential murderers. Less guns is definitely a great leap forwards... however, with their mentality and nonchalant attitude towards pulling the trigger I feel like those who were able able to source firearms illegally would still use them on others. It's just ingrained. They are desensitised to violence as a result of gun crime... They've seen it everyday for 250+ years. Even with Gun Control in place, how do you take away the guns from everyone in such a massive country? How do you assure those who surrender their guns that they will be safe from those who refuse or those criminals that will always have access to them?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    You seem to be misrepresenting my position and have a serious misunderstanding about how the debating process works, let me elaborate.


    My rejection of your claim is due to lack of supporting evidence. We have previous examples of people doing far more damage and killing far more people without automatic weapons, for example the 9/11 bombers had box cutters, so not only do you not have any supporting evidence, we have evidence that supports a contradictory position to yours. That the same level, or greater, of terrorism can be achieved by people without access to automatic weapons if they have the suicidal drive.

    Now, because I am rejecting your claim it doesn't mean I am championing a counter claim, what you seem to be thinking is that I have to disprove your position before you have demonstrated it to be true, it's called shifting the burden of proof.

    Hypothetically, anything could have happened if he had not had access to automatic weapons. He might have chosen a different target, he might have been more successful or been caught or given up and taken up knitting. We simply cannot know, you cannot know and neither can I. You are claiming to know, so demonstrate the claim to be true or have it rejected by me and anyone else with half a brain.
    I have already addressed that but you prefer to avoid talking about it. None of whatever alternative you claim is both easier to carry out and more damaging than assault rifles. Read back.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    There were around 3,000 deaths caused in the 9/11 terrorist attack and that (rightly or wrongly) was the justification for sending troops to Afghanistan.

    There are around 33,0000 gun-related deaths annually in the USA and that apparently is insufficient justification to ban or restrict the sale of guns.

    The mind boggles.
    Starting to think Donald Trump is a perfect fit for them.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Apart from the 3.4 million privately owned firearms...

    Evidently you don't know what you are talking about.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    First of all these are virtually all either long barrelled weapons, the vast majority shotguns, or single shot antiques. The kind of weapon reduces the propensity for harm. The armed robber's traditional weapon, the sawn off shotgun, is a reaction to the difficulty of obtaining pistols and ammunition even before Hungerford and Dunblane.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    First of all these are virtually all either long barrelled weapons, the vast majority shotguns, or single shot antiques. The kind of weapon reduces the propensity for harm. The armed robber's traditional weapon, the sworn off shotgun, is a reaction to the difficulty of obtaining pistols and ammunition even before Hungerford and Dunblane.
    You are being very naive about this.

    Unless the common man has ready access to AK-47s how are we going to defend ourselves when some nutter decides to conduct a massacre by bludgeoning with a decommissioned flintlock?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-block...ts-buying-guns

    The latest terrorist that killed all those LGBT people was known by the FBI. The government could astop him boaring a plane but could not stop him form buying a gun.

    Sort your **** out right wingers.
    This is not necessarily about who buys the guns but who will regulate their purchase. Suggesting that the state should be responsible for setting the criteria by which guns can be given to an individual is counter intuitive.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    There were around 3,000 deaths caused in the 9/11 terrorist attack and that (rightly or wrongly) was the justification for sending troops to Afghanistan.

    There are around 33,0000 gun-related deaths annually in the USA and that apparently is insufficient justification to ban or restrict the sale of guns.

    The mind boggles.
    Starting to think Donald Trump is a perfect fit for them.
    I didn't know guns were sentient beings.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    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

    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.