Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadheer_Ishak)
    Sorry, I called the wrong fallacy. Should be "nice slippery slope". A slippery slope fallacy is when you say, if we allow A to happen, consequently Z will happen therefore we shouldn't allow A to happen.

    The problem with this is that you avoid debating the the issue at hand and instead shift the attention to baseless extreme hypotheticals, which you did do.

    Prove what any of your saying is true. Cite some scientific studies or something. Otherwise that was nothing other than an emotion based argument with no factual credibility.
    Nope wrong fallacy again. I haven't said X will lead to Y in that context. If my comments constitute a slippery slope then it is impossible to have any kind of discussion involving consequences. For a slippery slope I need to say that the argument if taken further and applied to other situations will cause problems. I said no such thing, I gave real consequences of applying this idea to this situation which is the basis of a perfectly sound argument.

    The pro gun group have said that guns would make criminal and innocents equal, I gave an explanation as to why criminals would still have an advantage. If you want examples look at knife crime. Currently it is easy to carry a concealed knife without getting caught. If people felt threatened it would be easy for them to take their own weapon. This should mean that there is no knife crime, yet it still exists. Why? because of the reasons I gave earlier. People intent on cause harm will always be a danger to innocents however evenly balanced they are because they chose when to act and are therefore better prepared and will break boundaries normal people won't. Our best hope is to minimise the damage they do when they inevitably act. We cannot prevent all criminals from committing crime but we can limit their opportunities to less harmful ones.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadheer_Ishak)
    Banning certain types of firearm don't mean anything. The firearms still available you could easily commit massacres with, there is no point restricting certain types of weapons because it isn't making anybody safer at all. You are just negatively affecting the law abiding shooter.
    So why not have fully automatic then? Why does any country have any restrictions? That also doesn't account for people who think there should be a complete ban on all civilian guns.

    Why shouldn't we have semi-auto rifles or pistols? I don't understand. We can have semi-automatic shotguns filled with 12g slugs but we can't have semi-auto rifles? Why? It was a complete knee jerk reaction punishing everybody for the actions of one person.
    The actions of one person could affect everyone seriously, but the consequences of a ban affect a relative few in a limited fashion. You argument is also not a solid one, its just points to a good reason to ban semi automatic shotguns. Its doesn't make the semi automatic rifle position anymore valid. The question then become, why do you need a semi automatic shotgun?

    Semi-automatics should not of been banned at all, if you look at the statistics rifles are the least used weapon in criminal activities.
    They are also difficult to acquire compared to handguns or shotguns.

    They are just too big and bulky for criminals to waste time with them.
    That doesn't seem to be the case in the US, plenty of gun crime including massacres like the Batman screening used semi automatic rifles. Sandyhook and such show criminals interested in killing large number of people don't see them as a waste of time. Its come round again, what can you not do with a bolt action rifle in a sporting sense that you can with a semi automatic?

    They prefer small concealable pistols you can just tuck into your waistband and these small concealable pistols they opt for are not usually legally acquired ones, they are illegal unlicensed ones.
    Which is one of the reasons handgun are banned, to restrict the supply to illegal weapons. Legals guns are also one theft or loss away from becoming illegal, the legal supply increases the illegal supply.

    Taking the privilege away from law abiding citizens to own one doesn't stop the criminals from getting one.
    The statistics for gun related killings, the use of imitation firearms, the surge in conversion of imitation weapons suggests otherwise. Restriction is doing a pretty good job of just that.

    I just don't understand why guns specifically are singled out and demonized.
    Because not all guns have the same traits, some are more suitable for criminals and mass murder than others, some are less useful in sporting situations. There isn't equally weighting for the civilian use of all guns anymore than there is all weapons. Some guns are singled out and demonised by society for the same reason some guns are singled out and praised by the military, they are far more suited to killing a large number of people quickly than others and provide little other advantage.

    There is like 30 odd shootings a year, mostly with illegal guns used in gangland murders.
    That doesn't mean that we should just accept a US system with a number much higher than that. Gun restrictions have seen that number fall, and all measures are intended to see it fall more so. The aim is to reduce the number of illegal weapons used to commit crime not add to it with legals ones too.

    Thousands die every year from smoking, alcohol, obesity, road accidents, knives etc. and nothing is done about that,
    Because their are no restrictions on smoking or alcohol sales? The Gov doesn't launch serial obesity campaigns for the public and in schools? We don't have speed cameras and limits, and driving licences and points? Knife crime in London hasn't been a police priority with stop and search, there are no restrictions on the carrying of a knife? You can't just say nothing is done and make it true, all kinds of measures are taken in all those cases.

    yet when someone kills a couple people with a gun there is uproar and calls for them to be banned.
    Because I've seldom hear of someone killing a couple of people with obesity. There is always uproar when someone kills someone else whether that be with a gun, a knife or drunk driver in a car. However the question, why do normal people need cars in the first place has a pretty simple answer, a shotgun doesn't, that is why the spotlight falls on the instrument and whether it could be banned or how we determine access to such firearms.

    It is just ridiculous. You can tell these people who call for gun bans do not care about their "if we can just save one life we gotta ban this" bull**** because all the other things that kill way more they don't even pay attention to. They have an agenda.
    The basic gun ban logic is, the state has a duty towards its citizens safety, the enjoyment of a small few doesn't over rule that. When the enjoyment of a few threatens the safety of others that is then reviewed. That is the nature of society beyond just guns, whether that is drink driving, drug use, or dangerous dogs the same logic carries through.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    So why not have fully automatic then? Why does any country have any restrictions? That also doesn't account for people who think there should be a complete ban on all civilian guns.

    The actions of one person could affect everyone seriously, but the consequences of a ban affect a relative few in a limited fashion. You argument is also not a solid one, its just points to a good reason to ban semi automatic shotguns. Its doesn't make the semi automatic rifle position anymore valid. The question then become, why do you need a semi automatic shotgun?

    They are also difficult to acquire compared to handguns or shotguns.

    That doesn't seem to be the case in the US, plenty of gun crime including massacres like the Batman screening used semi automatic rifles. Sandyhook and such show criminals interested in killing large number of people don't see them as a waste of time. Its come round again, what can you not do with a bolt action rifle in a sporting sense that you can with a semi automatic?

    Which is one of the reasons handgun are banned, to restrict the supply to illegal weapons. Legals guns are also one theft or loss away from becoming illegal, the legal supply increases the illegal supply.

    The statistics for gun related killings, the use of imitation firearms, the surge in conversion of imitation weapons suggests otherwise. Restriction is doing a pretty good job of just that.

    Because not all guns have the same traits, some are more suitable for criminals and mass murder than others, some are less useful in sporting situations. There isn't equally weighting for the civilian use of all guns anymore than there is all weapons. Some guns are singled out and demonised by society for the same reason some guns are singled out and praised by the military, they are far more suited to killing a large number of people quickly than others and provide little other advantage.

    That doesn't mean that we should just accept a US system with a number much higher than that. Gun restrictions have seen that number fall, and all measures are intended to see it fall more so. The aim is to reduce the number of illegal weapons used to commit crime not add to it with legals ones too.

    Because their are no restrictions on smoking or alcohol sales? The Gov doesn't launch serial obesity campaigns for the public and in schools? We don't have speed cameras and limits, and driving licences and points? Knife crime in London hasn't been a police priority with stop and search, there are no restrictions on the carrying of a knife? You can't just say nothing is done and make it true, all kinds of measures are taken in all those cases.

    Because I've seldom hear of someone killing a couple of people with obesity. There is always uproar when someone kills someone else whether that be with a gun, a knife or drunk driver in a car. However the question, why do normal people need cars in the first place has a pretty simple answer, a shotgun doesn't, that is why the spotlight falls on the instrument and whether it could be banned or how we determine access to such firearms.

    The basic gun ban logic is, the state has a duty towards its citizens safety, the enjoyment of a small few doesn't over rule that. When the enjoyment of a few threatens the safety of others that is then reviewed. That is the nature of society beyond just guns, whether that is drink driving, drug use, or dangerous dogs the same logic carries through.
    I do not argue for American style gun laws, I do believe we should have strict licensing procedures but I also believe that semi-auto rifles and handguns should not of been banned over what one person done out of hundreds of thousands of gun owners, that is all.

    We have low gun death rates not because we restricted certain types of firearms being owned, we have low gun death rates because we have such a strict licensing procedure it weeds out all the wrongdoers who would misuse their firearms.

    I remember hearing though about either the 1986 massacre or the 1996 one (I forget which) that the gunman was previously known to the police because workmates had reported him to the police about bringing his guns into work and brandishing them at people and the police ended up taking away his guns, but then eventually gave them back for whatever reason. So one of them massacres is definitely down to a policing error, they should of never given them back and it wouldn't of happened, yet they pinned it on the "evil guns" doing.

    Also gun deaths aren't the fault of guns, it is people that are bad, not lifeless metal objects, they are merely a tool. Back in the 30's there where very little restrictions and for many years after that time the licensing procedures was lax, yet hardly anybody got killed even with all that easy access to weapons.

    I guess society just went to **** in general..

    Also my point about knives and cars and **** is that they kill a lot more people than licensed guns do so why aren't they being banned? It is just hypocritical that the anti-gunners let deaths elsewhere slide whilst going berserk over a couple caused by a gun.

    Also before you say "blah blah blah you need to own a car, you don't need to own a gun etc." I just want to say; if something that is not supposed to kill, kills far more by miles than an evil scary baby killing gun, then don't you think that they are just far too dangerous for us peasants to be operating?

    I mean a simple motor vehicle kills more per year than a so called machine of death (gun).. that is just too dangerous for us to be owning, right? Just because you don't want to walk to work, you'll let cars continue to be owned resulting in the deaths of thousands per year? That is pretty messed up man.. and you'll let knives continue to be owned as well? Just because you want to chop your carrots you'll let over a hundred people a year be stabbed to death? Just buy them pre-chopped in a can, mate. You don't need to own a knife, think of the children why don't you? Hand all your knives in immediately at the local police station, I know I'll be!

    That was just satire btw, but it is still factually correct ya know? Something that isn't supposed to kill, kills more than something that is, little too dangerous right? I know only a minority of drivers do something stupid and kill people, but it is ridiculous to punish the majority for what a few idiots do, that is why we don't ban cars altogether. I just find it hypocritical that they done the opposite with guns though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aoide)
    Nope wrong fallacy again. I haven't said X will lead to Y in that context. If my comments constitute a slippery slope then it is impossible to have any kind of discussion involving consequences. For a slippery slope I need to say that the argument if taken further and applied to other situations will cause problems. I said no such thing, I gave real consequences of applying this idea to this situation which is the basis of a perfectly sound argument.

    The pro gun group have said that guns would make criminal and innocents equal, I gave an explanation as to why criminals would still have an advantage. If you want examples look at knife crime. Currently it is easy to carry a concealed knife without getting caught. If people felt threatened it would be easy for them to take their own weapon. This should mean that there is no knife crime, yet it still exists. Why? because of the reasons I gave earlier. People intent on cause harm will always be a danger to innocents however evenly balanced they are because they chose when to act and are therefore better prepared and will break boundaries normal people won't. Our best hope is to minimise the damage they do when they inevitably act. We cannot prevent all criminals from committing crime but we can limit their opportunities to less harmful ones.
    You said something about if people can carry guns for self-defence, instead of getting stabbed, they'll get shot because the criminal will somehow obtain one too? That is how I understood it. You pretty much mean if we allow people to carry firearms for self-defense (a) consequently criminals would somehow pass the vigorous licensing procedure and get a gun too (z) so therefore we shouldn't allow (a) to happen and instead walk around defenseless and just let criminals stab us to death instead because that is somehow a better demise to getting shot to death. Alright m8.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I would feel a lot less safe in my house if there was a gun in it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadheer_Ishak)
    You make the assumption that because someone isn't attacking you with a gun, then you won't need a gun to defend yourself from them.. that is pretty poor logic to be fair. If someone comes at you with a bladed or blunt object and is trying to hack your face off or smash your head in, how are you supposed to effectively defend yourself with your bare hands? You are just going to get cut to pieces and your bones smashed. Not a very nice demise.

    Also nice slippery slope.
    Chances are if guns are more readily available, he wouldn't be coming at you with a bladed/blunt object. He'd have shot you by then
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadheer_Ishak)
    You said something about if people can carry guns for self-defence, instead of getting stabbed, they'll get shot because the criminal will somehow obtain one too? That is how I understood it. You pretty much mean if we allow people to carry firearms for self-defense (a) consequently criminals would somehow pass the vigorous licensing procedure and get a gun too (z) so therefore we shouldn't allow (a) to happen and instead walk around defenseless and just let criminals stab us to death instead because that is somehow a better demise to getting shot to death. Alright m8.
    Criminals would easily get guns. You only need to look at country which have legalised firearms to see that tests don't work. Many criminals look just like everyone else, either the tests must be too strict for average people to get guns or criminals will also get them. It might stop obvious violent offenders getting them but once some criminals get guns they will sell them to those who can't. Guns aren't a practical defence to more guns. If someone pulls a gun out and shoots you out of the blue the fact you also have one is useless. If you know about it before hand you could act but the same could be said of knives- you can stay out of knife range. Given both weapons are at their worst when you can't predict them it just comes down to would you rather be caught unaware by a knife attack of a gun attack.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadheer_Ishak)
    I do not argue for American style gun laws, I do believe we should have strict licensing procedures but I also believe that semi-auto rifles and handguns should not of been banned over what one person done out of hundreds of thousands of gun owners, that is all.
    I didn't say you did, I'm asking for your justification. If the increased ability of a semi automatic weapon to kill large numbers of people quickly is not relevant in terms of safety because other weapons already can, why don't we legalise automatic weapons, under the same strict procedures. Your argument for the legalisation of a semi auto rifle so far is still valid for a Browning 50 cal.

    We have low gun death rates not because we restricted certain types of firearms being owned, we have low gun death rates because we have such a strict licensing procedure it weeds out all the wrongdoers who would misuse their firearms.
    Not really, any normal person can get a gun in 6 months or less if you are in a rural area. Certificates last for 5 years, plenty of time to develop mental illness or such. I could quiet easily acquire a firearms licence should I wish. The rules aren't particularly strict at all, I don't have a criminal record, I don't have a history of mental illness and could justify my ownership at present or with a membership of my local gun club. Its pretty much the minimum level.

    I remember hearing though about either the 1986 massacre or the 1996 one (I forget which) that the gunman was previously known to the police because workmates had reported him to the police about bringing his guns into work and brandishing them at people and the police ended up taking away his guns, but then eventually gave them back for whatever reason. So one of them massacres is definitely down to a policing error, they should of never given them back and it wouldn't of happened, yet they pinned it on the "evil guns" doing.
    You've used one example to brush aside hundreds of others. The bottom line is legal gun owners do commit crime, that is stone cold fact. The system is not infallible and it cannot predict future behaviour of individuals.

    Also gun deaths aren't the fault of guns, it is people that are bad, not lifeless metal objects, they are merely a tool.
    Yes, and seeing as we can't predict the actions of people we generally limit their ability to commit large amounts of a damage. Just because I carry a knife doesn't mean I'm going to stab someone, but I'm still not allowed to carry one because it reduces the chance I would if I wanted. I could get caught, I might not have it with me, the knife I wanted was restricted for sale, or other such reasons all reducing the chance of me committing a crime and limiting the scope of that crime.

    Back in the 30's there where very little restrictions and for many years after that time the licensing procedures was lax, yet hardly anybody got killed even with all that easy access to weapons.
    Really because I seem to remember an era where the police had problems being confronted by gangs with automatic weapons with prohibition. Its one the reasons for the rise of the regulation of automatic weapons in the US, the use of the Tommy gun by gangsters. We had a similar phenomena in the mid 20th century in London where the police we outgunned. Homicide in the US in 1930 was 9 per 100k, its less than 5 for all homicide today. Thats also considering gun ownership in the US has risen over the years, as the NRA like to point out.

    I guess society just went to **** in general..
    Crime levels in most places have fallen over time. The US crime level is about a low as it has been since the post war economic boom.

    Also my point about knives and cars and **** is that they kill a lot more people than licensed guns do so why aren't they being banned? It is just hypocritical that the anti-gunners let deaths elsewhere slide whilst going berserk over a couple caused by a gun.
    Because if the idea of banning a car would effectively render us a 3rd world nation economically, and banning knives would making eating and food prep very difficult. Not problems encountered with guns. We also do restrict those things, and do ban things. Certain knives are banned, certain cars are not road legal and their a restrictions on operating. Certain guns are also banned. We have limits in the same was there is not a blanket ban on guns due to people needing them for pest control or sport.

    Also before you say "blah blah blah you need to own a car, you don't need to own a gun etc." I just want to say; if something that is not supposed to kill, kills far more by miles than an evil scary baby killing gun, then don't you think that they are just far too dangerous for us peasants to be operating?

    I mean a simple motor vehicle kills more per year than a so called machine of death (gun).. that is just too dangerous for us to be owning, right? Just because you don't want to walk to work, you'll let cars continue to be owned resulting in the deaths of thousands per year? That is pretty messed up man.. and you'll let knives continue to be owned as well? Just because you want to chop your carrots you'll let over a hundred people a year be stabbed to death? Just buy them pre-chopped in a can, mate. You don't need to own a knife, think of the children why don't you? Hand all your knives in immediately at the local police station, I know I'll be!

    That was just satire btw, but it is still factually correct ya know? Something that isn't supposed to kill, kills more than something that is, little too dangerous right? I know only a minority of drivers do something stupid and kill people, but it is ridiculous to punish the majority for what a few idiots do, that is why we don't ban cars altogether. I just find it hypocritical that they done the opposite with guns though.
    I think you are creating your own reality with regard to knives and cars to suit your argument. We don't just accept deaths in either case, we are constantly having more and more restrictions to limit the deaths in both cases.

    Despite all this you still haven't actually addressed my opening point which was any change is going to need to be justified. What is the justification for the lifting of a ban on a semi automatic rifle. Who needs are not currently met by the limits and how is that worth any potential risk?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainingmen)
    There hasn't been a school shooting since 1996, the US has had 31 since Columbine. Guns on their own can cause no good or bad, but the more guns there are the more likely they are to be used incorrectly
    I agree with you, but if you watch Bowling for Colombine (Michael Moore's film) you'll notice that they have no gun control in Canada either and yet the murder rate is minimal there. He basically pointed to the fact that the US is a nation built on fear, hence why they always have tried to look the other way when it comes to gun control and scapegoat some other target whenever there is a large scale shooting such as video games, Marilyn Manson, some religion rah rah rah
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aoide)
    Criminals would easily get guns. You only need to look at country which have legalised firearms to see that tests don't work. Many criminals look just like everyone else, either the tests must be too strict for average people to get guns or criminals will also get them. It might stop obvious violent offenders getting them but once some criminals get guns they will sell them to those who can't. Guns aren't a practical defence to more guns. If someone pulls a gun out and shoots you out of the blue the fact you also have one is useless. If you know about it before hand you could act but the same could be said of knives- you can stay out of knife range. Given both weapons are at their worst when you can't predict them it just comes down to would you rather be caught unaware by a knife attack of a gun attack.
    How are you supposed to protect yourself from a knife though if they just come up behind you and plunge it into your neck? You're gone either way. You previously said yourself criminals find it hard to get guns currently, there is over 2 million legal guns held in the UK, the criminals just aren't getting their hands on them because the people who are allowed to own them store them very securely and usually have good home security to prevent break ins, in the first place. So I don't think it likely criminals will steal guns en-mass if we suddenly allow restricted types to be owned again.

    Anyhow.. I am not too sure why I responded to your post initially anyway.. I don't believe concealed carry is right just yet for Britain anyway. I can really understand people wanting to conceal carry firearms in the rougher parts of the world, I just don't think Britain is that rough *yet* for people to need firearms as their last line of defence. I feel you should be allowed pepper spray or something though and the law shouldn't come down so harshly on the victims of crime who may or may not go a bit overboard on their attackers and get locked up themselves under the current state of things however.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 9MmBulletz)
    Chances are if guns are more readily available, he wouldn't be coming at you with a bladed/blunt object. He'd have shot you by then
    Criminals don't just shoot you dead on the spot then loot your corpse, this isn't call of duty. They don't even do that in Africa. They'll hold you up and take money from you then try to leave. They may be criminals but they don't really want to have to take somebodies life and risk even longer in prison if they get caught, they'll want the process to go as smoothly as possible and just get away with your cash.

    You wouldn't just draw your concealed carry on them when they was standing right in front of you, you'd make some little distraction like throw your wallet to the floor then when they bend down to pick it up draw your gun, or when they are reaching over the counter taking money from your open till you drawn your gun when they are distracted, then you'll have the upper hand.

    There are plenty of CCTV videos on the internet of shop owners and customers drawing their firearms on robbers to stop robberies, just watch some of them and you'll see there are a lot of times when thefts are stopped by a good guy with a gun.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadheer_Ishak)

    Also nice slippery slope.
    (Original post by Nadheer_Ishak)
    Nice slippery slope.


    Neither of these posts were slippery slope arguments. A slippery slope argument would be something like 'if we start allowing people to have guns, next thing you know we'll be letting them have nuclear bombs'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FreedomCostsTax)
    In my opinion, there is no real reason why we shouldn't be able to own a firearm, for self defense.

    Statistics show that in the UK: A rape is reported every 6 minutes, every 30 minutes someone is robbed at knifepoint, a house is broken into every two minutes and on average two women a week are murdered as a result of domestic violence.

    People should be able to fully defend themselves and their families.

    What are your thoughts?
    I think it's a matter of context - what goes in one country doesn't necessarily go in another. Switzerland has more guns per capita than almost any country, and yet gun crime there is negligible. It's also worth mentioning that a large number of these guns are owned by men for military duty. Perhaps this engenders a sense of responsibility in gun ownership, or maybe its connection with the crime rates is better explained by criminals' knowledge that the victims could well be armed with assault rifles.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    I didn't say you did, I'm asking for your justification. If the increased ability of a semi automatic weapon to kill large numbers of people quickly is not relevant in terms of safety because other weapons already can, why don't we legalise automatic weapons, under the same strict procedures. Your argument for the legalisation of a semi auto rifle so far is still valid for a Browning 50 cal.

    Not really, any normal person can get a gun in 6 months or less if you are in a rural area. Certificates last for 5 years, plenty of time to develop mental illness or such. I could quiet easily acquire a firearms licence should I wish. The rules aren't particularly strict at all, I don't have a criminal record, I don't have a history of mental illness and could justify my ownership at present or with a membership of my local gun club. Its pretty much the minimum level.

    You've used one example to brush aside hundreds of others. The bottom line is legal gun owners do commit crime, that is stone cold fact. The system is not infallible and it cannot predict future behaviour of individuals.

    Yes, and seeing as we can't predict the actions of people we generally limit their ability to commit large amounts of a damage. Just because I carry a knife doesn't mean I'm going to stab someone, but I'm still not allowed to carry one because it reduces the chance I would if I wanted. I could get caught, I might not have it with me, the knife I wanted was restricted for sale, or other such reasons all reducing the chance of me committing a crime and limiting the scope of that crime.

    Really because I seem to remember an era where the police had problems being confronted by gangs with automatic weapons with prohibition. Its one the reasons for the rise of the regulation of automatic weapons in the US, the use of the Tommy gun by gangsters. We had a similar phenomena in the mid 20th century in London where the police we outgunned. Homicide in the US in 1930 was 9 per 100k, its less than 5 for all homicide today. Thats also considering gun ownership in the US has risen over the years, as the NRA like to point out.

    Crime levels in most places have fallen over time. The US crime level is about a low as it has been since the post war economic boom.

    Because if the idea of banning a car would effectively render us a 3rd world nation economically, and banning knives would making eating and food prep very difficult. Not problems encountered with guns. We also do restrict those things, and do ban things. Certain knives are banned, certain cars are not road legal and their a restrictions on operating. Certain guns are also banned. We have limits in the same was there is not a blanket ban on guns due to people needing them for pest control or sport.

    I think you are creating your own reality with regard to knives and cars to suit your argument. We don't just accept deaths in either case, we are constantly having more and more restrictions to limit the deaths in both cases.

    Despite all this you still haven't actually addressed my opening point which was any change is going to need to be justified. What is the justification for the lifting of a ban on a semi automatic rifle. Who needs are not currently met by the limits and how is that worth any potential risk?
    Well if you look at the statistics, pretty much nobody ever dies at the hands of a fully automatic weapon in America because they are purely a novelty. An AR-15 can cost you $1,000 or so. The military model M-16 which is exactly the same as the AR-15, except it is capable of fully-automatic fire costs you $15,000 just for the addition of a mode of fire that you won't even be able to control because there is so much recoil.

    There hasn't actually been a single death from a fully-automatic gun in the US that was held in civilian hands. I think the only person who has killed someone with a fully-automatic gun was a police officer who went on a mini-rampage before he was shortly killed himself, many years ago.

    This is because they cost so damn much for nothing extra. The only people who can afford them are people who are very rich and have nice lifes, these are the types who don't go on rampages. There are people who own .50 cal machine guns, mini guns, anti-aircraft guns in the US and they have never killed anybody. So in that regard, it doesn't really matter if we allow fully-automatics to be owned because they cost so damn much just for a novelty fire mode so nobody buys them.

    So basically you are saying, because we can't predict when someone might snap and develop a mental illness we should just ban X just in case someone MIGHT do something a bit naughty? So why stop with firearms? Why don't we just ban everything that can kill people? Very hypocritical that you just single out firearms.

    Pistol ownership justification - All forms of target shooting you can do with a rifle are pretty much done with a pistol as well, except at shorter distances. Our Olympic pistol shooting team actually has to travel to a different country to train because they can't even do it here, this is just ridiculous.

    Rifle ownership justification - You don't even need one. There is no real argument for rifles to be limited in anyway. They are not favoured by criminals at all. They was banned completely off the back of the actions of one person who done something stupid with his in the whole history of them being owned so then they was banned for everybody for all eternity over the actions of one idiot.

    We don't ban cars when thousands of idiots every year kill somebody in one, we don't ban knives when hundreds of idiots every year stab someone to death, we don't ban blunt objects like hammers and bats when hundreds of idiots every year beat somebody to death with them, so why then did we ban semi-auto rifles over the action of ONE idiot in the whole history of semi-auto rifles being owned. You punished hundreds of thousands of people for the actions of ONE person. It is like banning muslims because some of them blew up a bus and some trains - it is just ridiculous.

    Even so, have you ever fired the mutilated rifles they let you own? It doesn't even feel like a real gun anymore, it is just crippled. You have some massive handle sticking off the side that you have to interrupt your concentration with by pulling it back every other shot to manually load a round, it just ruins the fun of shooting it. Although some manufacturers have added like a thumb switch that you just flick to load the next round and if practised with you can kind of get up to the same speeds of semi-auto, but it just doesn't feel the same.

    Another reason why the semi-auto rifle ban was dumb is because they didn't get rid of semi-auto shotguns as well at the same time. So a big ass semi-auto shotgun that fires 3 ounce 12g solid slugs filled into a 30 round drum magazine is safe to own (lol) yet a little AR chambered in .223 is just too dangerous for a mere peasant to have in semi-auto? Just doesn't make sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Neither of these posts were slippery slope arguments. A slippery slope argument would be something like 'if we start allowing people to have guns, next thing you know we'll be letting them have nuclear bombs'.
    Well he made the assumption that if we suddenly let gun owners add a certain type of firearm to their collection, criminals then would suddenly also get that firearm even though he said himself that criminals find it hard to get guns even with 2 million + legal ones being owned, so how would they suddenly get guns now just because a restriction on what the law abiding citizens who evidently aren't getting their guns nicked en-mass is lifted? If they weren't getting their guns nicked before, it wouldn't happen after either. Maybe I did use the slippery slope fallacy wrong, but it did seem to me like he was jumping to an extreme hypothetical emotion based conclusion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadheer_Ishak)
    Criminals don't just shoot you dead on the spot then loot your corpse, this isn't call of duty. They don't even do that in Africa. They'll hold you up and take money from you then try to leave. They may be criminals but they don't really want to have to take somebodies life and risk even longer in prison if they get caught, they'll want the process to go as smoothly as possible and just get away with your cash.

    You wouldn't just draw your concealed carry on them when they was standing right in front of you, you'd make some little distraction like throw your wallet to the floor then when they bend down to pick it up draw your gun, or when they are reaching over the counter taking money from your open till you drawn your gun when they are distracted, then you'll have the upper hand.

    There are plenty of CCTV videos on the internet of shop owners and customers drawing their firearms on robbers to stop robberies, just watch some of them and you'll see there are a lot of times when thefts are stopped by a good guy with a gun.
    But if both sides have a gun, it nullifies everything because what if a gang of armed men run into a store. The "good guy with a gun" is helpless
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by 9MmBulletz)
    But if both sides have a gun, it nullifies everything because what if a gang of armed men run into a store. The "good guy with a gun" is helpless
    What kind of store are you talking about? If it was just a corner shop or mini supermarket and more than two people tried to stick it up, then they wouldn't make any money between themselves. If it was a big retailer, then the armed robbers would be taking a risk of running into security guards and god knows how many members of the public who may also be armed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 9MmBulletz)
    But if both sides have a gun, it nullifies everything because what if a gang of armed men run into a store. The "good guy with a gun" is helpless
    Wouldn't you too rather have a gun instead of all the power being completely in the criminals hand? At least then you might be able to do something if the criminal takes his eyes off you for a second and diverts his attention elsewhere giving you the time to draw your gun from under the counter or whatever.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    One vital point to remember about guns in the UK is that legally held, licensed guns make absolutely no contribution to gun crime. It is illegally held guns which cause gun crime, and gun laws like the extremely misguided handgun ban did not improve this. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals today, even though they were banned in the 1990s for no good reason.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.