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

Broderss
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#101
Report 7 years ago
#101
(Original post by v-zero)
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.
That has no bearing on anything whatsoever. All it means is richer states in America also have less gun crime. There's nothing you can conclude from this and there's not necessarily any correlation between the two.

I don't know what you're trying to prove with this statement. Care to explain?
0
reply
Ocassus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#102
Report 7 years ago
#102
(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.
You are building red gems faster than ISA. :lolwut:
0
reply
v-zero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#103
Report 7 years ago
#103
(Original post by Broderss)
That has no bearing on anything whatsoever. All it means is richer states in America also have less gun crime. There's nothing you can conclude from this and there's not necessarily any correlation between the two.

I don't know what you're trying to prove with this statement. Care to explain?
Poorer states with high crime levels have increased the stringency of their firearm regulations in an attempt to reduce violent crime levels. Richer states which already had lower levels of crime due to the fact that people in general want for less, due to being on average richer, see no reason for creating new, harsher legislation.
1
reply
UnbreakableDimmy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#104
Report 7 years ago
#104
(Original post by Steevee)
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.
Exactly, you can't get more than subjective evidence. But objective evidence, that accounts for confounding factors, has shown a few times now that all other things being equal, firearms have a negative impact. Gun owners claiming guns saved their lives, or objective studies with appropriate controls? Well, clearly I'm just irrational and ignorant for supporting the latter.

Nice stereotyping, by the way (yes, I know you said tend). Well gun ownership supporters tend to be arrogant vigilantes .

And perhaps if you read what I'm saying, you'll understand that cars are still irrelevant. But for the record, it is perfectly rational to be afraid of a moving car. That's why we wait until none are around to cross the road.
0
reply
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#105
Report 7 years ago
#105
(Original post by Steevee)
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.
I'm Left Wing, but I believe if people want to, they should have the freedom to own firearms, providing they know how to operate them. I'm a Liberal, and thusly believe in such freedoms; if you want to threaten one's freedom in a robbery, prepare to be robbed of your own freedom to live when they swing up a firearm in protection.

But there really shouldn't be such a stigma around firearms. Bloody foolish people have criticized them as evil implements; yeah, in the wrong hands, I fully agree.
You put that firearm in the hands of a Police Officer, the picture changes, and s/he prevents a robbery.

I would also be scared of a Marine. I know several; though they themselves are scared of our Royal Marine Commandos. Always remember that.
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#106
Report 7 years ago
#106
(Original post by DeanFoley)
Exactly, you can't get more than subjective evidence. But objective evidence, that accounts for confounding factors, has shown a few times now that all other things being equal, firearms have a negative impact. Gun owners claiming guns saved their lives, or objective studies with appropriate controls? Well, clearly I'm just irrational and ignorant for supporting the latter.

Nice stereotyping, by the way (yes, I know you said tend). Well gun ownership supporters tend to be arrogant vigilantes .

And perhaps if you read what I'm saying, you'll understand that cars are still irrelevant. But for the record, it is perfectly rational to be afraid of a moving car. That's why we wait until none are around to cross the road.
But the point is you cannot get objective information for that side of the argument. So you would dismiss any benifit because you cannot get objective, and unbiased evidence from the other side? How would you measure such a thing? It's impossible, but to say it is irelavent is rubbish. And you're objective study completley ignores any factor of life saving, and says in itself it is irrelavent and proves nothing. And yet you still hold that as a good study to provide as evidence. I'd say a study who's own authors admit is inconclusive is only as reliable as a study taken on a subjective matter.

Eugh. Forget it, clearly you aren't getting it.

But you're crossing the road analogy is flawed. It would be similar to saying you wouldn't jump infront of a gun as it is fired.
0
reply
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#107
Report 7 years ago
#107
(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.
This too, is a recurring factor.

BASC is good in the sense it retains certain areas with certain arsenals for training, certificate purposes, etc.

Still, I would like to see such Associations as BASC leading the way in "teaching" people to respect firearms. In fact, they really already do; were gun laws to become more lenient, they would to a far greater extent. :cool:
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#108
Report 7 years ago
#108
(Original post by DH-Biker)
I'm Left Wing, but I believe if people want to, they should have the freedom to own firearms, providing they know how to operate them. I'm a Liberal, and thusly believe in such freedoms; if you want to threaten one's freedom in a robbery, prepare to be robbed of your own freedom to live when they swing up a firearm in protection.

But there really shouldn't be such a stigma around firearms. Bloody foolish people have criticized them as evil implements; yeah, in the wrong hands, I fully agree.
You put that firearm in the hands of a Police Officer, the picture changes, and s/he prevents a robbery.

I would also be scared of a Marine. I know several; though they themselves are scared of our Royal Marine Commandos. Always remember that.
Ahh, I was quoting an American, I fully agree our Royal Marines are superior. Americans may have the best equiptement, but our guys have the best training. And the reputation the Gurkha's have with the US soldiers who've worked with them, I'm surprised anyone wants to fight them
0
reply
Rascacielos
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#109
Report 7 years ago
#109
(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.
Agreed generally, although the big issue I can see with that is people not judging correctly when it is acceptable to use a gun for self-defence. So I'd say that, yes guns should be more widely available, but you should have to show that you can handle it in the correct manner beforehand. If I had a gun, I'd like to know where the best place to shoot someone to injure, rather than kill, is if someone was burgling my house, for example.
0
reply
UnbreakableDimmy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#110
Report 7 years ago
#110
(Original post by Steevee)
But the point is you cannot get objective information for that side of the argument. So you would dismiss any benifit because you cannot get objective, and unbiased evidence from the other side? How would you measure such a thing? It's impossible, but to say it is irelavent is rubbish. And you're objective study completley ignores any factor of life saving, and says in itself it is irrelavent and proves nothing. And yet you still hold that as a good study to provide as evidence. I'd say a study who's own authors admit is inconclusive is only as reliable as a study taken on a subjective matter.

Eugh. Forget it, clearly you aren't getting it.

But you're crossing the road analogy is flawed. It would be similar to saying you wouldn't jump infront of a gun as it is fired.
If you read that study, it'll show you that when the victim can defend themself with a firearm, they're more likely to be shot. I'd say that isn't ignoring the self-defence side of things. An inconclusive but well-conducted, objective study is superior any day to a subjective, flawed one.

But you keep bringing up the same old tired self-defence argument that's been brought into question. So apparently you aren't getting it.

And since guns have no other use, but cars do, then your analogy is infinitely flawed. By the way, it's "your".
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#111
Report 7 years ago
#111
(Original post by DeanFoley)
If you read that study, it'll show you that when the victim can defend themself with a firearm, they're more likely to be shot. I'd say that isn't ignoring the self-defence side of things. An inconclusive but well-conducted, objective study is superior any day to a subjective, flawed one.

But you keep bringing up the same old tired self-defence argument that's been brought into question. So apparently you aren't getting it.

And since guns have no other use, but cars do, then your analogy is infinitely flawed. By the way, it's "your".
Apologies for the grammer mistake, I'm tired.

Then tell me, how would you go about conducting an objective study of the impact of firearms on stopping crimes? Because I think you'll find, it's quite difficult.

But it is the main argument for firearms, the only one likely to be acknowledged by your type. I mean, they are also used for a large amount of sport and hunting. But when ever that is brought up you tend to get the 'But they kills people!!!!!' response.
0
reply
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#112
Report 7 years ago
#112
(Original post by Steevee)
Ahh, I was quoting an American, I fully agree our Royal Marines are superior. Americans may have the best equiptement, but our guys have the best training. And the reputation the Gurkha's have with the US soldiers who've worked with them, I'm surprised anyone wants to fight them
Yeah, as was I. Well, passing along their views.

Still, its nice to still feel respectable in terms of military power.

And I agree; I'm proud that the Gurkha's are renowned. They deserve every bit of it.

Gotta say, not liking that DeanFoley guy...

He's another one who's like those that are convinced every gun-toting person is a criminal maniac. :rolleyes:
1
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#113
Report 7 years ago
#113
(Original post by v-zero)
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.
Indeed, which rather makes my point for me - gun crime is a product of social problems, not how liberal or authoritarian one decides to make one's gun laws. That was precisely the issue which I was intending to make clear.

You make the division one of wealth: in fact, that's far, far, far too simplistic. It is a huge number of social factors.
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#114
Report 7 years ago
#114
(Original post by DH-Biker)
Yeah, as was I. Well, passing along their views.

Still, its nice to still feel respectable in terms of military power.

And I agree; I'm proud that the Gurkha's are renowned. They deserve every bit of it.

Gotta say, not liking that DeanFoley guy...

He's another one who's like those that are convinced every gun-toting person is a criminal maniac. :rolleyes:


So true, they are fearsome. I've met a few and they are such nice guys, but equally having seen them in action in training excersises, scary stuff indeed.

Ahh, I agree :cool:
0
reply
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#115
Report 7 years ago
#115
(Original post by Rascacielos)
Agreed generally, although the big issue I can see with that is people not judging correctly when it is acceptable to use a gun for self-defence. So I'd say that, yes guns should be more widely available, but you should have to show that you can handle it in the correct manner beforehand. If I had a gun, I'd like to know where the best place to shoot someone to injure, rather than kill, is if someone was burgling my house, for example.
The best place?

The kneecap, avoiding the thigh, as you have a chance of hitting that artery there that always results in death. I assume this is the same with all arteries, though...

The hips, just below the ribs, shoulders, lower legs; there are many places designated as "Incapacitation" areas. These tend to be the same as with hand-to-hand combat, with the exception in the former being the kidneys, in hand-to-hand, kidney punches will incapacitate someone very effectively. Shooting them, whilst clearly incapacitating them, is also likely to introduce dangerous toxins to the body, as well as severe bloodloss.
0
reply
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#116
Report 7 years ago
#116
(Original post by Steevee)


So true, they are fearsome. I've met a few and they are such nice guys, but equally having seen them in action in training excersises, scary stuff indeed.

Ahh, I agree :cool:
Wholeheartedly agree.

I should probably introduce myself into this argument, but I can't be arsed reading back through four pages of his sources, claims, etc. :cool:
1
reply
Rascacielos
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#117
Report 7 years ago
#117
(Original post by DH-Biker)
The best place?

The kneecap, avoiding the thigh, as you have a chance of hitting that artery there that always results in death. I assume this is the same with all arteries, though...

The hips, just below the ribs, shoulders, lower legs; there are many places designated as "Incapacitation" areas. These tend to be the same as with hand-to-hand combat, with the exception in the former being the kidneys, in hand-to-hand, kidney punches will incapacitate someone very effectively. Shooting them, whilst clearly incapacitating them, is also likely to introduce dangerous toxins to the body, as well as severe bloodloss.
Thanks for that info. I'll remember that next time someone burgles my house.

Still, if I were allowed a firearm, I [and most others] could probably do with some practice before trying it out in real life. At the moment, I think my shooting someone just below their ribs might fairly easily turn into shooting them through the heart, which would probably get me into a bit more trouble.
0
reply
UnbreakableDimmy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#118
Report 7 years ago
#118
(Original post by Steevee)
Apologies for the grammer mistake, I'm tired.

Then tell me, how would you go about conducting an objective study of the impact of firearms on stopping crimes? Because I think you'll find, it's quite difficult.

But it is the main argument for firearms, the only one likely to be acknowledged by your type. I mean, they are also used for a large amount of sport and hunting. But when ever that is brought up you tend to get the 'But they kills people!!!!!' response.
Taking a suitable population sample, accounting for any conflicting factors such as location, socioeconomic status, ethnicity as much as is possible, then returning after an alloted set of time and seeing the outcomes; if guns protect people from crime, then the outcomes of gun owners should be better. So are they? Or are they indeed, more likely to be shot?

Of course, there will always be an element of chance, but appropriate statistical processing can minimise the impact of this.

I have to say, I've never seen anyone who opposes gun ownership say "but they kills". Attempting to portray your opponents as stupid is poor practice.

Our economy isn't intrinsically linked to gun ownership, and anyway, seeing as guns have been shown to kill people, I don't see what the flaw is. They have no other purpose but to kill.
0
reply
wavey93
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#119
Report 7 years ago
#119
(Original post by Seasick Steve)
It's Ok OP, Osama is dead now; he won't hurt you now.
:rofl:
0
reply
DC Doberman
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#120
Report 7 years ago
#120
Just thought I'd pop in before bed as an American gun owner. I don't necessarily think that Britain should adopt the USA's gun policies, but I will say that guns are lots of fun, and that's really all that matters. I've owned and regularly used a gun I bought when I was 12 years old with my paper boy money. I've never got into any trouble, or put myself or anyone else in any danger. I just bought one because it's fun to shoot stuff (inanimate objects, I'm not a hunter), and my parents were totally fine with that; I usually rode my bike into the hills to shoot unsupervised. And I have nothing but fond memories of guns.

The point is, people that think that guns are 'made to shoot people' have completely and utterly lost all perspective. Guns are fun. They can be dangerous, but so can most things people do outside of their living rooms. You're really missing out...
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