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

Rishz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#81
Report 7 years ago
#81
What about other alternatives?
Spoiler:
Show

1 Small Arms
1.1 Rifles
1.2 Submachine Guns
1.3 Machine Guns
1.4 Handguns
1.5 Grenades
1.6 Other
1.7 Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons
2 Artillery, including mortars
2.1 Anti-Tank Guns
2.2 Guns and Howitzers
2.3 Anti-Aircraft Artillery
2.4 Mortars
3 Vehicles
3.1 Light Tanks
3.2 Medium Tanks
3.3 Cruiser Tanks
3.4 Infantry Tanks
3.5 Other tanks
3.6 Self-propelled guns
3.7 Other Armoured Fighting Vehicles
3.8 Utility Vehicles
4 Aerial bombs
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#82
Report 7 years ago
#82
(Original post by Fonix)
Have you got any evidence for this. Your right, it does seem rather odd.
I thought I saw it on wiki. I'll get back to you.
0
reply
honoris
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 7 years ago
#83
I wasn't allowed to give you a rating, I realise that is because you also created the thread about the NHS.
You're either creating ridiculous threads on pupose, or your an uneducated idiot.
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#84
Report 7 years ago
#84
(Original post by DeanFoley)
No, I don't like to think I'm superior, and I don't believe insulting people is the best way to get your point across. Evidence does NOT show that you're better able to defend yourself with a gun, it in fact shows you exacerbate the situation and make worse outcomes far more likely.

People with guns are more likely to get shot, and that is a fact, not opinion.

Cars are a poor analogy, anyway. Guns are designed to kill people, cars are not.
Show me this evidence please.

And if you don't have a gun, there is no way to defend yourself.

And yet which kill more every year? In the US, in 2007.

41,059 deaths by car.

30,000 (approx.) deaths by gun. but around 10,000 of those were suicides. Only around 750 were accidental. We don't get how the figures are related to crime from my source.

Gun statistics from the CDC, car statistics from Wikipedia
0
reply
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#85
Report 7 years ago
#85
(Original post by Steevee)
Ahh I see. I was under the impression it was quite a clean running weapon? :confused: And it's single piece body design was supposed to follow the legacy of the AK47 in that it required minimal cleaning to operate? Guess I just swallowed the sale line

I have to say, my favourite to fire so far is the L98-A2. It's a Cadet specific varient of the SA80, converted to only be a semi-auto. It's nice and simple to use, but has a nice oomph to it I have to say, I've never been a massive fan of machine guns and support weapons, I'd rather have a rifle anyday

Most of the weapons I've got to fire have been through the Army Cadets, the gun clubs near me don't have much on offer sadly. Only Air Rifle/Pistol and a few 9mm varients of pistols and submachine guns, but they require a years membership at £50 a year or so.
A brand new off the line one will run clean for around four months with daily usage. Then it starts to deteriorate rapidly. its the weapon's own force that is its undoing.
Yeah, you'll blow someone into one solid lump and a cloud of pinkmist with buckshot and close-range, similarly a solid-slug will go through a cinderblock and four more at about one-hundred meters. Which is similar to many hard-hitting rifles. That's its comparable round-penetration. Which is impressive.
The force knocks around components, shatters the actual shells and rounds can break away into pieces. As I said, its powerful and will stop anything; but its hard to keep in a top-notch working state, and very cumbersome too.

With a weapon like the SA-80, and its variants, you've got to admire the nice "mold" it has to the user. Even firing it is nice, smooth and clean. An admirable weapon that would be perfect to teach civilians with in this "training and proficiency" thing.

£50 a year, I'm afraid, is about your average. You should look into BASC, though:

British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

If you can put up with the rhetoric and crap some of them spew, its a good organisation that provides strong levels of hunting, firearms and maintenance training.

Its good, for what it is. :yep:
0
reply
UnbreakableDimmy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#86
Report 7 years ago
#86
(Original post by Steevee)
Show me this evidence please.

And if you don't have a gun, there is no way to defend yourself.

And yet which kill more every year? In the US, in 2007.

41,059 deaths by car.

30,000 (approx.) deaths by gun. but around 10,000 of those were suicides. Only around 750 were accidental. We don't get how the figures are related to crime from my source.

Gun statistics from the CDC, car statistics from Wikipedia
Look back on the previous page, you'll find I already posted the study. Here it is again though:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nd-killed.html

And again, cars are a very poor analogy. They are designed as a form of transport, which have vast, far-reaching effects on every aspect of our lives, economically, environmentally, etc. The sole purpose of guns is to kill another human being.

I'm well aware that cars kill people. But that doesn't justify gun ownership.
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#87
Report 7 years ago
#87
(Original post by DH-Biker)
True, they are an optimum weapon, as are handguns, for such a situation as someone attacking you, however.

Meh, people see what they show in films and deduce that all weapon-operators are insane criminals or vigilantes that want to kill everyone.
When in fact, its a respectable past-time, a popular culture and it provides a lot of income for America, and could do the same here.

This is very true. Proficiency would go up on the civilian side, also, as being taught by said companies would require a record check. More people with skill in firearms vs criminals learning in back alleys and rural areas. It'd work out.
I know, it's sad.

I find it funny, how the same liberal, left types (oops, fufilling a stereotype here ) will tell you you're ignorant about Islam, or Communism and so on if you criticise it. And yet, are so ready to believe the myths around firearms. It's sad really.

And as an American friend said to me. 'I'd be far more scared by a single Marine with a .22 plinker than 5 gang members with AK47's.' And it's so true, it all comes down to training.
0
reply
SpicyStrawberry
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#88
Report 7 years ago
#88
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
EVIDENCE!? Crime is caused by upbringing and environment. Not the availability of guns. People will always commit crimes, but banning members of society from defending themselves will surely increase fear and injustice?

This is obviously subjective; hence I’ve tried to avoid getting into it.
Evidence for this? There is no cause and effect link between upbringing and crime, there are other factors as well, so we can all ask for evidence for our views, not just you. Take a look at news articles based on knife crime that show you introducing legal guns will replace this, and more people will be killed/severely wounded as a result because, if in the wrong hands, guns can cause a lot of damage. Take Dunblane as an example.

You simply do not need to own a lethal gun to defend yourself. There are classes in self defence/martial arts for this. Chances are if you have a gun and either have no idea how to use it or are too weak or unfortunate to get a safe distance away from the intruder, the gun will be turned on you anyway. It would be ridiculous to legalise them.
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#89
Report 7 years ago
#89
(Original post by DH-Biker)
A brand new off the line one will run clean for around four months with daily usage. Then it starts to deteriorate rapidly. its the weapon's own force that is its undoing.
Yeah, you'll blow someone into one solid lump and a cloud of pinkmist with buckshot and close-range, similarly a solid-slug will go through a cinderblock and four more at about one-hundred meters. Which is similar to many hard-hitting rifles. That's its comparable round-penetration. Which is impressive.
The force knocks around components, shatters the actual shells and rounds can break away into pieces. As I said, its powerful and will stop anything; but its hard to keep in a top-notch working state, and very cumbersome too.

With a weapon like the SA-80, and its variants, you've got to admire the nice "mold" it has to the user. Even firing it is nice, smooth and clean. An admirable weapon that would be perfect to teach civilians with in this "training and proficiency" thing.

£50 a year, I'm afraid, is about your average. You should look into BASC, though:

British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

If you can put up with the rhetoric and crap some of them spew, its a good organisation that provides strong levels of hunting, firearms and maintenance training.

Its good, for what it is. :yep:
Ahh, I see

Hmm, I shall have a look. The problem with my local guns clubs is they only seemed to have anything worth firing 2 or 3 times a year.

(Original post by DeanFoley)
Look back on the previous page, you'll find I already posted the study. Here it is again though:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nd-killed.html

And again, cars are a very poor analogy. They are designed as a form of transport, which have vast, far-reaching effects on every aspect of our lives, economically, environmentally, etc. The sole purpose of guns is to kill another human being.

I'm well aware that cars kill people. But that doesn't justify gun ownership.
You should read your own source, it says itself it's inconclusive. And you;ve only provided to a link about a study, not an actual study.

And so you keep saying, and yet which kills more? Every year? All the statistics in the world wouldn't leave me as safe as a firearm.
1
reply
UnbreakableDimmy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#90
Report 7 years ago
#90
(Original post by Steevee)
Ahh, I see

Hmm, I shall have a look. The problem with my local guns clubs is they only seemed to have anything worth firing 2 or 3 times a year.



You should read your own source, it says itself it's inconclusive. And you;ve only provided to a link about a study, not an actual study.

And so you keep saying, and yet which kills more? Every year? All the statistics in the world wouldn't leave me as safe as a firearm.
I have read it thank you. It may be inconclusive, but it's still more than anything you've managed to come up with thus far.

Why is it those in favour of gun ownership constantly bring up the self-defence argument, ignore any evidence to the contray of it, yet while expecting endless mountains of evidence from the opposition, never have a single piece to cite themself?

If you're going to keep suggesting that firearms will protect you, then please; show some proof. Vehicle deaths are not proof that guns will protect you.

But hey, what do we know? We're just the "loony left" :cool:.
0
reply
Broderss
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#91
Report 7 years ago
#91
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Whether or not they are legal people will have guns and they will be able to use them on you.
People will, but not many. Increase the number of guns available and increase the availability of these guns and suddenly you create a huge threat for every single person in this country. If you can't see this you're a ****ing moron and deserve to get threatened by a gun and possibly shot in a few painful, not life threatening places on your body.
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#92
Report 7 years ago
#92
(Original post by DeanFoley)
I have read it thank you. It may be inconclusive, but it's still more than anything you've managed to come up with thus far.

Why is it those in favour of gun ownership constantly bring up the self-defence argument, ignore any evidence to the contray of it, yet while expecting endless mountains of evidence from the opposition, never have a single piece to cite themself?

If you're going to keep suggesting that firearms will protect you, then please; show some proof. Vehicle deaths are not proof that guns will protect you.

But hey, what do we know? We're just the "loony left" :cool:.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

There ya go. Simple.

And I don't ignore evidence. You say owning a gun makes it more likely to be shot. But equally, owning a gun gives you a defense from someone attacking you with any sort of weapon.

And I wasn't making that correlation. I was simpley saying, if you are so afraid of guns, because they kill a lot, should you not equally be terrified by cars? Which kill far more people, despite not being designed to kill?
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#93
Report 7 years ago
#93
(Original post by Broderss)
People will, but not many. Increase the number of guns available and increase the availability of these guns and suddenly you create a huge threat for every single person in this country. If you can't see this you're a ****ing moron and deserve to get threatened by a gun and possibly shot in a few painful, not life threatening places on your body.
That just isn't the case.



If we had strict licensing laws accompanied by strict enforcements of these laws then we would allow people the opportunity to defend themselves, but only if they are capable. This shouldn't increase your average crook from getting a gun.
0
reply
UnbreakableDimmy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#94
Report 7 years ago
#94
(Original post by Steevee)
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

There ya go. Simple.

And I don't ignore evidence. You say owning a gun makes it more likely to be shot. But equally, owning a gun gives you a defense from someone attacking you with any sort of weapon.

And I wasn't making that correlation. I was simpley saying, if you are so afraid of guns, because they kill a lot, should you not equally be terrified by cars? Which kill far more people, despite not being designed to kill?
If you read the study, you'd find that it shows people are even more likely to get shot when they have an oppourtunity to defend themselves. Starting a firefight doesn't make you safe.

The evidence you've cited is subjective; therefore, not simple. People can claim something would have happened all they want, that doesn't mean it would have happened. Not to mention that they're gun owners! Of course gun owners are going to paint gun pwnership in a positive light (the people surveyed, that is).

And you're continuing a fallacious argument with cars. Cars are irrelevant. If you want to have that debate, then start a thread about it. Cars have other effects on our lives, so deserve a far more in-depth analysis than a lazy comparison with guns.

Remember; an argument is irrespective of its arguer. If you believe people opposed to guns are inconsistent because they don't oppose something else, it doesn't matter. You still need to rebut the argument.
0
reply
UnbreakableDimmy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#95
Report 7 years ago
#95
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
That just isn't the case.



If we had strict licensing laws accompanied by strict enforcements of these laws then we would allow people the opportunity to defend themselves, but only if they are capable. This shouldn't increase your average crook from getting a gun.
The flaw there would be that confounding factors have not been accounted for, at least as far as can be told from what you've posted.
0
reply
v-zero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#96
Report 7 years ago
#96
(Original post by L i b)
Anyone daft enough to work upon the assumption that correlation implies causation, on the basis of one example alone, deserves to be thoroughly ignored.

If we're going to examine the US, it's worth noting that firearms regulation is generally a matter for the states not the federal government: the 15 states with the highest rates of gun-based homicides all have restrictive gun laws, whereas many of the states which do not don't have a significant problem with gun crime.
Ahahahahaha, that is just thick. Ever wonder why it is the richer states that allow relaxed gun laws? Well due to the fact that crime is simply lower in richer areas.
0
reply
Broderss
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#97
Report 7 years ago
#97
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
That just isn't the case.

[IMG ]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4914/0629nwrliptak.jpg[/IMG]

If we had strict licensing laws accompanied by strict enforcements of these laws then we would allow people the opportunity to defend themselves, but only if they are capable. This shouldn't increase your average crook from getting a gun.
That uses figures for murders by any method so is invalid. You need to look at murders specifically related to firearms to even begin to draw any valid conclusions.

It's like me saying countries in which a higher percent of the population owning motorcycles experience a higher mortality rate, then using figures of the total number of deaths in a country to back this up. Total deaths have no relation to deaths by motorcycles.
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#98
Report 7 years ago
#98
(Original post by DeanFoley)
If you read the study, you'd find that it shows people are even more likely to get shot when they have an oppourtunity to defend themselves. Starting a firefight doesn't make you safe.

The evidence you've cited is subjective; therefore, not simple. People can claim something would have happened all they want, that doesn't mean it would have happened. Not to mention that they're gun owners! Of course gun owners are going to paint gun pwnership in a positive light (the people surveyed, that is).

And you're continuing a fallacious argument with cars. Cars are irrelevant. If you want to have that debate, then start a thread about it. Cars have other effects on our lives, so deserve a far more in-depth analysis than a lazy comparison with guns.

Remember; an argument is irrespective of its arguer. If you believe people opposed to guns are inconsistent because they don't oppose something else, it doesn't matter. You still need to rebut the argument.
But you can't get anything but subjective evidence for this sort of thing. There is no clear cut way to know if someone would have been injured or killed had they not pulled a gun. And I think you'll find that the vast majority of times, you don;t start a firefight. It is a case of people being scared off by the gun, or a single shot into a criminal. Do you honestly think people use guns like they do in films? :rolleyes:

And perhaps, if you read what I'm saying then you;d understand my point. You argue that being afraid of guns is rational because they kill. Cars also kill, is it not therefore rational to be afraid of them?

And people that oppose gun ownership tend to be ignorant and afraid, not well informed or rational on the issue.
0
reply
UnbreakableDimmy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#99
Report 7 years ago
#99
(Original post by Broderss)
That uses figures for murders by any method so is invalid. You need to look at murders specifically related to firearms to even begin to draw any valid conclusions.

It's like me saying countries in which a higher percent of the population owning motorcycles experience a higher mortality rate, then using figures of the total number of deaths in a country to back this up. Total deaths have no relation to deaths by motorcycles.
A very valid point, and to add to it, it doesn't take into account the socioeconomic conditions, the actual enforcement of the law and the ability of the appropriate authorities to enforce it, the level of organised crime, or even size of communities.
0
reply
i'm cool yeah?
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#100
Report 7 years ago
#100
i gots a bat and a big ass knife
i'm good
wouldnt mind guns for recreational purposes

(by which i mean mass murder)
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! (446)
37.93%
No - but I will (88)
7.48%
No - I don't want to (80)
6.8%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (562)
47.79%

Watched Threads

View All
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