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

Why is America prone to university mass muderings? watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    3 kills is hardly a killing spree.

    It would only get me a UAV on call of duty
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham22)
    no it isn't.

    we can still defend ourselves. just buy a baseball bat or a large angry dog.

    no ones going to execute a masacre with either of those things.
    You ******* idiot criminal comes in your house with a gun or a knife a baseball bat isn't really the best tool for an execution

    I think we should all be asking the question why isn't Britain prone to mass murders at uni maybe that's why we aren't a super power because we are weak

    You hear about a fight or argument at college/uni here but in America mans bearing arms

    One day you're having a lecture the next you're walking in with pockets full of ammunition killing people up close just imagine how much of a rush you must get
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ......such prejudice in this thread, it makes me sick how y'all trivialize a tragic event
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    More guns, more media coverage, and not to forget NWO psycho breeding programs.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anoneemous)
    You ******* idiot criminal comes in your house with a gun or a knife a baseball bat isn't really the best tool for an execution
    Not to mention he'd probably be charged if he dared to defend himself against the criminal.

    British law
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bslforever)
    3 kills is hardly a killing spree.

    It would only get me a UAV on call of duty
    Unless you have the 1 less kill streak reward
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Texan88)
    ......such prejudice in this thread, it makes me sick how y'all trivialize a tragic event
    not to mention the rude and completely inaccurate comments about the United States of America
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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.
    If an ordinary man (in terms of job, status etc.) decides he wants to go out, get a gun and kill en masse, in the UK he wouldn't be able to do that. If I wanted to go out now and get a gun, I wouldn't know where to start. The law would stop me from killing indiscriminately and with ease.

    Yes, this disarms the vast majority. Yes, this makes it more difficult the majority to kill and maim. I don't condone the unreasonable restriction of liberty in return for security (e.g. anti-terror laws) but I fail to see the real benefits of gun legalisation.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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?
    You can obtain a gun licence in the UK for sporting purposes.

    If the only way guns could be used would be to defend onself, then I wouldn't have a problem. It seems safer to restrict the availability of guns for both the man attacking and the man defending.

    I don't see why the law wouldn't stop most people from obtaining a gun in order to kill.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    Not to mention he'd probably be charged if he dared to defend himself against the criminal.

    British law
    Exactly, we both sound like we read the sun lol
    But it is true someone attempts to steal from you or breaks into your house you should be allowed to bury them in the back garden
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anoneemous)
    not to mention the rude and completely inaccurate comments about the United States of America
    People that haven't lived here or experienced the laws have no leg to stand on when it comes to dealing with such things. Need to pull the head out of the ground and realize the nanny state isn't the only way to get things done...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    I fail to see the real benefits of gun legalisation.
    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    If an ordinary man (in terms of job, status etc.) decides he wants to go out, get a gun and kill en masse, in the UK he wouldn't be able to do that.

    Of course he would be able to. There are an estimated 4 million illegal firearms on Britains streets. There is a pub not far from my cousins house in which you could walk in with a couple of hundred pounds and walk out with a pistol. It's not as uncommon as you seem to believe. Despite our many gun laws, gun crime has been rising. Yet in the USA states with liberal gun laws have lower gun crime than states with strict gun laws. Rights almost always bring about far greater levels individual and social resoponsibility compared to forced obedience.


    If the only way guns could be used would be to defend onself, then I wouldn't have a problem. It seems safer to restrict the availability of guns for both the man attacking and the man defending.
    But as i pointed out above, criminals are labeled such because of their tendency to disobey and ignore such laws. You therefore put the law abiding civilian in danger and at a great disadvantage to the armed criminal. Thats not even taking into account laws protectingg the innocent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    If an ordinary man (in terms of job, status etc.) decides he wants to go out, get a gun and kill en masse, in the UK he wouldn't be able to do that. If I wanted to go out now and get a gun, I wouldn't know where to start. The law would stop me from killing indiscriminately and with ease.
    But these will have been planned for months not just some quick decision and so they would find it easy to find guns in the UK it really isn't that hard and its not even expensive
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    x
    Then wouldn't cracking down on illegal firearms make more sense than freely legalising them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Texan88)
    People that haven't lived here or experienced the laws have no leg to stand on when it comes to dealing with such things. Need to pull the head out of the ground and realize the nanny state isn't the only way to get things done...
    Yeah **** off you and stop being negative about their rights it's people like you who are going to **** it all up for when i live there or become emerged as just planet Earth ruled by america ( yeah you know we've all watched futurama) it's inevitable people
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    5 x the population of UK
    We have guns

    Do the math.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hey, it's a thread where people who think of themselves as being liberal throw out insulting generalisations because it's America. Wooo.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    Then wouldn't cracking down on illegal firearms make more sense than freely legalising them?
    Hasn't that been what the Labour government have tried to do since 99 when they banned all handguns etc.. Yet gun crime continues to rise along with the amount of illegal firearms. The same goes for Mexico, which has some of the harshest gun laws in the world, of course i accept the socio economic variables yet it just goes to show that there will always be a cirminal element which can acquire weaponry. A fact which detracts from whatever justification one may give for removing the freedoms of law abiding individuals.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nice to see people have Neg'd me for this thread.
    Thanks guys!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Hasn't that been what the Labour government have tried to do since 99 when they banned all handguns etc.. Yet gun crime continues to rise along with the amount of illegal firearms. The same goes for Mexico, which has some of the harshest gun laws in the world, of course i accept the socio economic variables yet it just goes to show that there will always be a cirminal element which can acquire weaponry. A fact which detracts from whatever justification one may give for removing the freedoms of law abiding individuals.
    Isn't that more to do with violence amongst gangs? Even though innocent bystanders do get shot if everyone in the uk was allowed to have guns the amount of kids shooting eachother would be quite ridiculous.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.