Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A slight deviation from the usual standard: I'll list all the points that you make, then start a poll later, once we've collected enough information. It feels like a more informed (and organised) way of doing things. Probably less of those head-against-wall moments, too.

    Feel free to post anything, but consider that unless convincing evidence and examples are provided by the end for statistical claims, I won't stick them on the poll list. A bit on the moral libertarian vs. safety arguments would be good, too.

    Some of the issues I've started off with are from the other threads, but I don't have time to read every post again. Could the authors please provide their sources again so they can be included here?

    Existing laws
    Strict Licensing
    Strict containment regulations (seperate steel boxes for guns and ammunition)
    Automatic licensing ban on anyone who has spent more than three years in prison

    Fully automatic weapons are banned (1920's)
    Semi-automatic weapons are banned (1980's)
    Handguns are banned (1997)
    Leaving shotguns, rifles and air weapons

    Gun freedom?

    + Citizens may need to protect themselves from state tyranny:
    ++ i.e. Armenian genocide, Soviet Union, Nazi germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia genocides all took place after/during gun control
    --- Untrained civilians with small arms have little chance against well-trained western armies with aircraft, artillery, etc.
    -- Might actually make violent revolution more likely
    -- Developed nations hardly ever become dictatorships
    +++ Checks and balances can and are bieng revoked democratically, as we speak (Such as Detention without trial)

    + Citizens may need to protect themselves from terrorists:
    -- A planned terror attack involving weapons would most likely overpower anything the public would carry
    -- Terror attacks are rare

    - Adequate law enforcement:
    -- The police are rarely more than 10 minutes away
    -- Britain doesn't have a frontier/libertarian history/culture like the rural US

    - Gun ownership and murder rates tend to correlate internationally:
    -- Highest murder rates in lawless areas (Parts of Africa and Latin America)
    -- Higher murder rate in the US than Switzerland
    +++ US gun crime tends involve ethnic minorities not as common in other countries
    -- Higher murder rates in Switzerland than the UK
    -- Very low murder rate in Japan, with the strictest controls

    + Gun ownership and murder rates correlate differently in the UK:
    ++ Gun crime has increased by ~40% every year since the handgun ban in 1997/8
    --- Britain still has one of the lowest murder rates in the world

    Possible poll choices will be:

    Complete control (i.e. Replicas too)
    More control (i.e. Ban shotguns, airguns)
    Leave things as they are (Handgun ban, strict license and conditions for others)
    More rights (i.e. Legalise handguns)
    Complete freedom (i.e. Discount M1A Abrams in Morrisons)
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by JonD)
    A slight deviation from the usual standard: I'll list all the points that you make, then start a poll later, once we've collected enough information. It feels like a more informed (and organised) way of doing things. Probably less of those head-against-wall moments, too.

    Feel free to post anything, but consider that unless convincing evidence and examples are provided by the end for statistical claims, I won't stick them on the poll list. A bit on the moral libertarian vs. safety arguments would be good, too.

    Some of the issues I've started off with are from the other threads, but I don't have time to read every post again. Could the authors please provide their sources again so they can be included here?

    Existing laws
    Strict Licensing
    Strict containment regulations (seperate steel boxes for guns and ammunition)
    Automatic licensing ban on anyone who has spent more than three years in prison

    Fully automatic weapons are banned (1920's)
    Semi-automatic weapons are banned (1980's)
    Handguns are banned (1997)
    Leaving shotguns and air rifles

    Gun freedom?

    + Citizens may need to protect themselves from state tyranny (i.e. Dictators):
    -- Might actually make violent revolution more likely
    -- Developed nations hardly ever become dictatorships

    + Citizens may need to protect themselves from terrorists:
    -- A planned terror attack involving weapons would most likely overpower anything the public would carry
    -- Terror attacks are rare

    - Adequate law enforcement:
    -- The police are rarely more than 10 minutes away
    -- Britain doesn't have a frontier/libertarian history/culture like the rural US

    - Gun ownership and murder rates tend to correlate internationally:
    -- Highest murder rates in lawless areas (Parts of Africa and Latin America)
    -- Higher murder rate in the US than Switzerland
    +++ US gun crime tends to be from ethnic minorities not as common in other countries
    -- Higher murder rates in Switzerland than the UK
    -- Very low murder rate in Japan, with the strictest controls

    + Gun ownership and murder rates correlate differently in the UK:
    ++ Gun crime has increased by ~40% every year since the handgun ban in 1997/8
    --- Britain still has one of the lowest murder rates in the world

    Possible poll choices will be:

    Complete control (i.e. The state, too)
    More control (i.e. Ban shotguns, airguns)
    Leave things as they are (Handgun ban, strict license and conditions for others)
    More rights (i.e. Legalise handguns)
    Complete freedom (i.e. Discount M1A Abrams in Morrisons)
    Hmm, i tihnk as we have it now is fine, though a bit more of a crackdown on bb handguns too.
    Shotguns/hunting rifles i think are fine, they are rarely used in crime and even when they are they aren't easily concealable like a handgun is.
    I actually now accept that america NEEDS some gun freedoms in some areas (though i dispute that they should be allowed to purchase some of the high powered weapons thats they can, nor that people in the cities should be allowed guns).

    On an aside, I think(have argued this with the yanks more than once ) you should look at the gun crime figures again. of that 40% increase what is the percentage rise or fall of the use of HANDGUNS in crime [ie NOT converted imitation guns/converted bb guns]
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Impressive effort. Appreciated. Protection from state tyranny the key issue for me.

    Mugabe orders surrender of firearms. link
    Dave Kopel article from National Review about gun control and genocide. link

    abstract
    "In the 20th century, every government that has perpetrated genocide has disarmed its victims first. This suggests that — although disarmament does not cause genocide — disarmament is the sine qua non of genocide. The history of eight genocides in the 20th century committed against unarmed victims is laid out in terrifying detail in Lethal Laws, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. A new article in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, by Stephen Halbrook (a constitutional attorney with a 3-0 record before the U.S.Supreme Court), details how German firearm laws disarmed the nation's Jews."

    Plus the pure and essential freedom to do whatever I like as long as I'm not bothering anyone else. I shoot and would like to use a far greater variety of weapons than currently allowed. Nice guys like me wouldn't be the problem.

    We all know who would.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey quick question: what does the BB in BB Handgun stand for? Can anyone tell me?
    Thanks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How exactly is "protection from state tryanny" a relevant consideration for us in the UK?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Random one)
    Hey quick question: what does the BB in BB Handgun stand for? Can anyone tell me?
    Thanks
    Ball bearing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Random one)
    Hey quick question: what does the BB in BB Handgun stand for? Can anyone tell me?
    Thanks
    'Ball Bearing'. The type of ammunition used.

    I feel gun laws should stay the same.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    How exactly is "protection from state tryanny" a relevant consideration for us in the UK?
    Add protection from complacent idiots to my reasons...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Add protection from complacent idiots to my reasons...
    Very funny.

    Now, can you actually answer my question? How exactly is "protection from state tryanny" a relevant consideration for us in the UK?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    Hmm, i tihnk as we have it now is fine, though a bit more of a crackdown on bb handguns too.
    Do you know if the law stretches to BB guns, or just firearms?

    Shotguns/hunting rifles i think are fine, they are rarely used in crime and even when they are they aren't easily concealable like a handgun is.
    I actually now accept that america NEEDS some gun freedoms in some areas (though i dispute that they should be allowed to purchase some of the high powered weapons thats they can, nor that people in the cities should be allowed guns).
    Why do you think they need more gun freedom?

    On an aside, I think(have argued this with the yanks more than once ) you should look at the gun crime figures again. of that 40% increase what is the percentage rise or fall of the use of HANDGUNS in crime [ie NOT converted imitation guns/converted bb guns]
    I can't find the statistics for gun crime and the murder rates are not reliable to go by (Spot the year influenced by Dr. Shipman!). If the claim isn't backed up, I'll scratch it off.
    Edit: Got that from wikipedia's article on Guns and Crime, seems there's no source there, either.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Very funny.

    Now, can you actually answer my question? How exactly is "protection from state tryanny" a relevant consideration for us in the UK?
    Do you think the UK is immune from tyranny?

    It sounds a bit difficult to grasp at first, since we can't possibly imagine Tony Blair siezing the throne with force. However, in future it's possible that our country could be transformed into a police state - during disaster, reform, coup or invasion. Think how entrenched a future dictator could be with ID cards, DNA databases, huge bureacracy and a disarmed population that couldn't oppose him.

    This argument is stronger in the US, since gun control would have meant no War of Independance, but weaker over here since we've been living in a peaceful country for centuries.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    Do you think the UK is immune from tyranny?
    Nope. That's not why I don't see how it's relevant to us (or any nation with a developed army, really).

    Basically, would you agree it's a fair assumption to make that Tony Blair or whoever would only even consider attempting such a coup with the backing of our armed forces? If so, what exactly are citizens armed with a guns really going to do against a well trained, well equipped army? That's why I don't see how it's relevant to us, unless we're planning on relaxing laws to the extent where citizens get the chance to own their own armies..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Considering the increase in gun crime in this country it seems that there is no real direct link between gun law and the crime comitted with firearms. As i pointed out on another thread, Washington has the toughest gun laws in the USA, yet it also has the highest gun crime figures. This says to me that those with illegal guns will still use them no matter what the law is.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by JonD)
    Do you know if the law stretches to BB guns, or just firearms?


    Why do you think they need more gun freedom?


    I can't find the statistics for gun crime and the murder rates are not reliable to go by (Spot the year influenced by Dr. Shipman!). If the claim isn't backed up, I'll scratch it off.
    Edit: Got that from wikipedia's article on Guns and Crime, seems there's no source there, either.
    hmm, if you have a look in past threads (im going now else i'd do it myself) on guns featuring myself and prob the yanks (douglas, psychic etc) i'm sure I'll have posted the BCS stats which show guncrime using real handguns has gone down quite a bit (tho may have levelled out a bit now), whereas immitation crime has gone up.

    And rural areas of america need more gun freedo (note i think they should be allowed shotguns, but see no need for anyone t have handguns anywhere) because cops are often a long way away if help is needed. they need to be able to protect themselves and their families.

    same doesnt apply to the more populated areas.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    Considering the increase in gun crime in this country it seems that there is no real direct link between gun law and the crime comitted with firearms. As i pointed out on another thread, Washington has the toughest gun laws in the USA, yet it also has the highest gun crime figures. This says to me that those with illegal guns will still use them no matter what the law is.
    number of fatailities from guns has fallen drastically, due in part because real guncrime has fallen, and instead imitation weapons (which are far less lethal) are being used.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ArthurOliver,

    There are as many exceptions to gun control leading to genocide as examples. Most of western europe has introduced gun control legislation since the war, yet there has not been a genocide in any of those countries since. Japan, Australia, Canada also have stricter regulations than they did.

    I think the backdrop is important: This gun control is implemented in an attempt to make society more civilised, by placing the responsibility on the polcie force rather than the citizen, while reducing crime rates and accidental deaths; whereas the others were implemented by dictatorial regimes that surprised nobody when they started mass murdering.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    imitation weapons maybe used but that is mostly by 2 bit criminals that are very low on the foodchain. It might also be worth remembering that blank firers and deactivated firearms can be modified to fire real ammunition as was highlighted by a case at the end of last year in the UK.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We definetely do not need to make guns legal. Survived for centuries with the same form of goverment and without bloody revolutions. No need to change that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Nope. That's not why I don't see how it's relevant to us (or any nation with a developed army, really).
    The first point is good. Private armies have been illegal in this country since the Magna Carta, and legalised firearms to stem state tyranny implies citizens should be allowed to organise to defend themselves. Such a law was put in place to make revolution less likely, and it seems to have worked [Seems I'm wrong]. Though, in dark times, people wouldn't hesitate to form their own army, if it is a matter of life or death. There would be no shortage of people.. but where would they get their weapons if gun control meant the only ones in the country were owned by the people they intend to fend off?

    Basically, would you agree it's a fair assumption to make that Tony Blair or whoever would only even consider attempting such a coup with the backing of our armed forces? If so, what exactly are citizens armed with a guns really going to do against a well trained, well equipped army? That's why I don't see how it's relevant to us, unless we're planning on relaxing laws to the extent where citizens get the chance to own their own armies..
    Not Tony Blair, which is why I said it would be laughable to suggest that. Though, through hardship like another Great Depression or a major war, the military may decide to sieze power; a government may decide to revoke democracy; the queen may go mad and decide to cut off the head of every newborn.

    As for "What exactly are citizens armed with a guns really going to do against a well trained, well equipped army?", ask the Americans of the 1770's.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    The first point is good. Private armies have been illegal in this country since the Magna Carta, and legalised firearms to stem state tyranny implies citizens should be allowed to organise to defend themselves. Such a law was put in place to make revolution less likely, and it seems to have worked [Seems I'm wrong]. Though, in dark times, people wouldn't hesitate to form their own army, if it is a matter of life or death. There would be no shortage of people.. but where would they get their weapons if gun control meant the only ones in the country were owned by the people they intend to fend off?


    Not Tony Blair, which is why I said it would be laughable to suggest that. Though, through hardship like another Great Depression or a major war, the military may decide to sieze power; a government may decide to revoke democracy; the queen may go mad and decide to cut off the head of every newborn.

    As for "What exactly are citizens armed with a guns really going to do against a well trained, well equipped army?", ask the Americans of the 1770's.
    The disparity between the weapons owned by citizens and the weapons owned by "well trained, well equipped [armies]" has changed beyond all recognition from the 1770s to the present day. Back then, it essentially worked out as guns vs. guns (I know I'm probably over-generalizing massively, but you get where I'm going). Now it would be guns vs. tanks, helicopters, smart bombs, airforces, et. al. That's why I fail to see how the idea of citizens retaining arms to protect themselves from state tyranny is relevant.

    What do you think, ArthurOliver? Presumably there's a flaw in my logic, as you seemed to be lambasting me as some sort of moron with my head in the sand before?
 
 
 

3,083

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

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.