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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say this is the consequence of having guns widely available to the population at large. Just as you have to put up with people dying from road accidents if you allow cars, and there's probably a few psychos out there who would use their cars as weapons. If you want a universal right for people to have guns, then you have to put up with the fact that a small minority are going to choose to use their guns in ways that damage society. To control that is to defeat the point of the 5th amendment in the first place.

    Whether it's a necessary evil, or a sign that guns should be banned is up for debate, but this is obviously going to pop up from time to time if guns are out there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    IMO, the greatest good would be to prevent all these potential deaths whilst putting a very reasonable limit on someone's freedom to wield weapons. The poster's example didn't really make sense anyway, it is legal to harm someone in self-defence.

    There are many freedoms which can be limited and indeed taken away for the greater good ('greater good' being an extremely ambiguous phrase). How can you possibly gauge what is a reasonable limit, while justifying the removal of individual freedoms in the name of what you think is best?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham22)
    people who are trained to decide who is likley (yes it is not an exact science) to be able to be trusted to have one.
    Pray, explain what this 'training' would include?

    no i would not be ok with you dictating, because you are just some random moron. where in that post did i say I would be the one deciding? i do not think i am qualified to say.
    And what do you think the qualifications must be?

    there is already as system in place in this country where people are assessed on their suitability for owning a gun. my dad has one. the last time he had to renew his license they sent a guy round to our house, and among other things, he deliberatley did things to try and anger my dad to see how he would react- if he was quick to anger, then it would show that he would not be suitable. (i don't actually know much about the process, this is just an example)
    What, so you think that just because someone becomes angry they are going to shoot another human being? :lolwut: We all own lethal weapons. Why aren't they trying to make us angry everytime we buy a kitchen knife, car or chainsaw?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    There are many freedoms which can be limited and indeed taken away for the greater good ('greater good' being an extremely ambiguous phrase). How can you possibly gauge what is a reasonable limit, while justifying the removal of individual freedoms in the name of what you think is best?
    A lot of things require licences. If you want to drive a car, you need to prove that you can do so responsibly and the same goes for a gun. It just happens that the amount of ways you can responsibly use a gun are limited for the average citizen. The only use for a gun is to kill.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Pray, explain what this 'training' would include?



    And what do you think the qualifications must be?



    What, so you think that just because someone becomes angry they are going to shoot another human being? :lolwut: We all own lethal weapons. Why aren't they trying to make us angry everytime we buy a kitchen knife, car or chainsaw?
    THERE IS ALREADY A SYSTEM IN PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY. read my post carefully.

    I, personally, do not know what the qualifications are that people who decide who should, and should not have a gun have. but there obviously is training and things these people (not you or i) must know in order to do their job. once again, i do not know myself, what these qualifications are.

    your last point is just stupid. i gave an example of my experience of the system. I said it was a MINOR point of what they test you on, to try and assess if you are suitable. if you have anger issues, you are more likley to lash out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    A lot of things require licences. If you want to drive a car, you need to prove that you can do so responsibly and the same goes for a gun.It just happens that the amount of ways you can responsibly use a gun are limited for the average citizen. The only use for a gun is to kill.

    The amount of ways you can responsibly use a knife are limited, the same goes for spear guns, chainsaws etc..etc.. However, i am yet to be overcome by the mass of knife wielding citizens turned maniacs firing spears at me. :dontknow:

    I want to get back to your original argument which was the greater good. How do you define this? After all it is a very ambigous term which can be twisted to any one ideology, i could even use it for my own gun legalisation argument.

    What i am interested in is how you can justify the removal of an individuals freedom in order to further your own perception of the greater good.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:


    This video is very interesting in regards to 'copycat' crimes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham22)
    THERE IS ALREADY A SYSTEM IN PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY. read my post carefully.

    And? :curious: I am arguing against the system.

    I, personally, do not know what the qualifications are that people who decide who should, and should not have a gun have. but there obviously is training and things these people (not you or i) must know in order to do their job. once again, i do not know myself, what these qualifications are.
    Yet you so confidently infer that there will be those qualified to decide? A rather fallacious assertion given you readily admit you have no idea what you are talking about?

    your last point is just stupid. i gave an example of my experience of the system. I said it was a MINOR point of what they test you on, to try and assess if you are suitable. if you have anger issues, you are more likley to lash out.
    Then i ask you again. Why do we not test for other items which can be used for lethal means? Kitchen knives, chainsaws, hammers, axes, spear guns etc..etc..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    a) Stupid gun laws.
    b) Stupid gun laws.

    Yeah, it's basically because of the gun laws.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    1. social inequalities

    2. very poor employment protection

    3. bizarre contract system for HE staff

    4. very easy access to a whole variety of firearms
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Its size and its gun culture.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The amount of ways you can responsibly use a knife are limited, the same goes for spear guns, chainsaws etc..etc.. However, i am yet to be overcome by the mass of knife wielding citizens turned maniacs firing spears at me. :dontknow:

    I want to get back to your original argument which was the greater good. How do you define this? After all it is a very ambigous term which can be twisted to any one ideology, i could even use it for my own gun legalisation argument.

    What i am interested in is how you can justify the removal of an individuals freedom in order to further your own perception of the greater good.
    The greater good is simply my interpretation of using the law to limit the most harm. The harm of stopping a man being able to kill on whim seems incomparable to the harm of indiscriminate killing sprees. Spears, knives and chainsaws all have other primary uses (sport, cooking, DIY etc.) and cannot be used to kill en masse with the same ease a gun could be. The primary use of a gun is to kill or seriously injure.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    And? :curious: I am arguing against the system.



    Yet you so confidently infer that there will be those qualified to decide? A rather fallacious assertion given you readily admit you have no idea what you are talking about?



    Then i ask you again. Why do we not test for other items which can be used for lethal means? Kitchen knives, chainsaws, hammers, axes, spear guns etc..etc..
    i so confidently infer that there ARE people that are qualified, because i know there are. i know this because i whatched my dad get assessed by the authority that deals with the matter. There are people in this country, right now, that are qualified to do this job.
    i actually said i don't know the ins and outs of exactly what they test you on, not that i was unsure if the system existed.

    we do not test on suitability for other items because kitchen knivrs, chainsaws, hammers and axes all have other uses other than to kill someone.

    it is not a perfect system, but its better than what theyve got going on in america.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    What's funny, well, not really funny but I'm sure you get what I mean, is that Germany has some of the tightest gun laws in Europe, yet it curiously also has the highest number of school shootings in Europe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MikeL230)
    Because they found out hamburger tax was rising.

    It is!???!?!?!? ARGFREGDSGDGSAHGR

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    The greater good is simply my interpretation of using the law to limit the most harm. The harm of stopping a man being able to kill on whim
    A man who is capable of killing with a firearm will usually do so regardless. What would you say to the argument that you are in fact disarming the law abiding majority of the population while leaving those who do not obey the law free to carry and use their weapons? How can you justify that in the pursual of the greater good.

    Also, using the law to limit the most harm has rather sinister implications if you ask me.

    Spears, knives and chainsaws all have other primary uses (sport, cooking, DIY etc.) and cannot be used to kill en masse
    Oh please, a primary purpose depends entirely on the situation. Your asssertion that spearguns are used primarily for sport smacks of double standards. Why can't a firearm be used primarily for sport?

    And even if we were to skip that argument, why can't a firearm be used in self defence? After all we have established above that no law will stop those who do not obey such things?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    why not just limit those who undergo a full psychological/mental etc. tests to show their....non craziness and then have to be proclaimed fully safe in a weapon (dis/reassemble blindfolded etc.) by military standards of safety...with checks of said individuals every 6mths...they can have it, no-one else can
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham22)
    i so confidently infer that there ARE people that are qualified, because i know there are. i know this because i whatched my dad get assessed by the authority that deals with the matter. There are people in this country, right now, that are qualified to do this job.
    So you say, yet you cannot explain what this job entails, nor what the qualifications are or what they were actually assessing etc..etc.. I could just as easily say, that there is nobody who can decide what is best for me besides myself.


    we do not test on suitability for other items because kitchen knivrs, chainsaws, hammers and axes all have other uses other than to kill someone.
    :curious: So do guns, a fact which you must accept lest you become a hypocrite.

    it is not a perfect system, but its better than what theyve got going on in america.
    How so?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    because they are frustrated fatties
    Offline

    1
    I was thinking the same thing
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 15, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.