Turn on thread page Beta

Why is America prone to university mass muderings? watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    because they're all nuts
    Offline

    2
    Due to relaxed gun ownership laws,instead of coming on an internet forum moaning about their lifes or just blogging it,they go to town with a .9 mm on their classmates.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    I honestly can't believe Americans still believe in the right to bear arms.
    What about the Swiss?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Large amounts of ammo + large amounts of religion
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    And who is to decide which can be trusted? You? :upyours: This is what i say to your judgement.
    There is no way of knowing who can be trusted with guns, therefore, don't let anyone have them.
    Offline

    1
    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.
    Hmm, guns aren't as difficult to get hold of as you may think, especially with the Eastern European migration and the channel tunnel .etc. I know for a fact criminal gangs in Bradford use them, and I bet I could ask my less law abiding former classmates and playmates to get hold of guns if I wanted.....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin_123)
    There is no way of knowing who can be trusted with guns, therefore, don't let anyone have them.
    Insert...

    Knives
    Chainsaws
    Free Speech
    Cricket Bats
    Spades
    Petrol
    Methane
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    People in this thread are 'tards.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Insert...

    Knives
    Chainsaws
    Free Speech
    Cricket Bats
    Spades
    Petrol
    Methane
    Knives are NEEDED for cooking.
    Chainsaws are NEEDED for cutting down trees.
    Free Speech is NEEDED for a democracy.
    Cricket Bats are NEEDED for playing cricket.
    Spades are NEEDED for digging.
    Petrol is NEEDED for driving.
    Methane is NEEDED for fuel.

    GUNS ARE NOT NEEDED, THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR THEM APART FROM BEING MADE SPECIFICALLY AS A WEAPON. THE DAYS OF HUNTING ARE OVER, SO DONT DARE USE THAT!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    A combination of everyone being allowed guns, and them having a large number of people and universities.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anoneemous)
    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
    I am concerned.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There is a bit of a gun culture in Britain, actually. I once (inadvertently) signed up for one of these upper class day-out things that involved clay pigeon shooting, fishing, etc... and I was extremely alarmed by how familiar the other kids were with firearms. Most of their parents owned some form of gun and I was the only one in the group who'd never fired one before.

    I don't know much about guns, I don't know what kind they were or how/why their parents had them(I hope it was legal), but I was bloody well terrified the whole time I was around them. They discussed guns like toys and when it came to the pigeon shooting they seemed absurdly comfortable around them. I'm sorry, but I'd never been more glad guns aren't available to the general public in my life.

    I can't imagine why any law-abiding citizen would want a gun. Yes, you do get stabbings in this country, but at least you have a chance with someone with a knife. If you generally stay a few feet away from shifty looking people you'll probably be fine. If you are attacked, you can get away from someone with a knife, someone with a gun will just shoot you in the back.

    Not to mention, if you're in a situation where someone pulls a gun on you, you aren't going to have time to pull yours out. It's only really of use if you're doing the attacking, or the person attacking you doesn't have a gun themselves. Which, if you have access to them easily on a nation-wide scale, isn't likely.

    I'm sorry, but I'm so thankful they aren't allowed here. I would be very worried if people trusted me with a gun. I know I'm not a murderer, but I've never proved that to anyone so I don't think I should be allowed a weapon until I've proved I can be trusted with it. I shouldn't be able to just claim I'm a nice person and have everyone believe me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People can still get guns illegally and shoot down innocent people, just because they've been denied the job.

    Finland also has cases such as these - students, younger people shooting with no serious reason in schools, shopping centres etc...
    USA are simply bigger and therefore give more opportunity for the media to feed the people with such shocking stories.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I suppose there's always the argument that when gun's are outlawed only outlaws have guns.

    At the same time though, outlaws make up a significantly small percentage of the general public, and it's a lot easier for John Q Public to inadvertently join them when he's packing heat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin_123)
    There is no way of knowing who can be trusted with guns, therefore, don't let anyone have them.

    So i take it you are all for banning everything which is even remotely harmful? (Knives,tools,cars etc..) After all there is no way of knowing? :curious:

    I know that i can be trusted. And i do no disservice to my fellow citizens when i say that they to are capable of responsibility. Unfortunately you do not seem to trust even yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin_123)
    Knives are NEEDED for cooking.
    Chainsaws are NEEDED for cutting down trees.
    Free Speech is NEEDED for a democracy.
    Cricket Bats are NEEDED for playing cricket.
    Spades are NEEDED for digging.
    Petrol is NEEDED for driving.
    Methane is NEEDED for fuel.

    GUNS ARE NOT NEEDED, THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR THEM APART FROM BEING MADE SPECIFICALLY AS A WEAPON. THE DAYS OF HUNTING ARE OVER, SO DONT DARE USE THAT!
    Target shooting? Sport? Self Defense?

    You become a hypocrite if you allow a cricket bat for cricket or a javelin for throwing etc.. but ban guns for shooting. You are guilty of double standards by labeling a guns only use as being to kill, yet allowing a variety of uses for a knife, of which the same thing could easily be said.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Target shooting? Sport?

    You become a hypocrite if you allow a cricket bat for cricket or a javelin for throwing etc.. but ban guns for shooting.
    People have already said that there doesn't need to be an outright ban on guns. What there should be is stricter laws and regulations.

    You can get certain guns in the UK if you are a marksman. The difference is you actually have to pass several regulations and tests in order to get them. You can't walk up to the counter and buy them. You also can't walk down the street with your gun.

    The UK hasn't "banned" guns. They've put in place a situation wherein they are of little to no threat to the vast majority of civilians
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blu3j4yw4y)
    People have already said that there doesn't need to be an outright ban on guns. What there should be is stricter laws and regulations.

    You can get certain guns in the UK if you are a marksman. The difference is you actually have to pass several regulations and tests in order to get them. You can't walk up to the counter and buy them. You also can't walk down the street with your gun.

    What, in your eyes is wrong with the gun being bought for self defence?

    The UK hasn't "banned" guns. They've put in place a situation wherein they are of little to no threat to the vast majority of civilians

    Apart from the fact that the vast majority of civilians have been rendered almost completely unarmed wheras the criminal minority, to whom laws do not apply are given a huge advantage?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What, in your eyes is wrong with the gun being bought for self defence?
    Nothing in itself. But there's nothing wrong with a lot of bad things in theory.

    The main problem arises in practise. The guns aren't always bought for self-defence intent and they aren't always sold to people responsible and sensible enough to look after them safely


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Apart from the fact that the vast majority of civilians have been rendered almost completely unarmed wheras the criminal minority, to whom laws do not apply are given a huge advantage?
    In UK the average number of deaths involving guns are around 400-500. In America the number is 10,000.

    Sources:

    UK:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm

    USA:
    http://crime.suite101.com/article.cf..._united_states

    http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol....Self%20Defense

    (Aware these apply to different years, but I do believe the statistic has remained roughly the same.)

    Now, of course statistics can be interpreted in certain ways. But to me, x20 times the number of deaths in a country with only x5 the population does not indicate safer civilians.

    Don't forget. Be caught carrying a gun in the UK and you will be arrested. You actually have to injure or kill someone with the gun first in America to get in trouble.

    And a gun is not realistic self defence against someone else with a gun. Unless you walk down the street pointing it at random people who look shifty. Be honest, if someone has a gun and wants to attack you, they will shoot you before you have the chance to even think about drawing yours.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blu3j4yw4y)
    The main problem arises in practise. The guns aren't always bought for self-defence intent and they aren't always sold to people responsible and sensible enough to look after them safely
    Neither is anything else which may be construed as lethal or dangerous. Yet the individual is trusted and given the respsonsibility. The vast majority of law abiding citizens can own lethal objects and not become complacent mass murderers. Why do you feel that firearms would present any different a situation?

    I take it you can trust yourself, that you are responsible enough to own and learn how to handle a firearm? Why do you withold that trust from the rest of the British public? Is there some evidence which shows they cannot be trusted? That they are not responsible?


    In UK the average number of deaths involving guns are around 400-500. In America the number is 10,000.
    These stats are useless, as is the comparison. Mexico in contrast to both has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and yet has one of the highest gun crime rates. In any part of the world, you will find that armed violence is not linked to the number of legally held guns owned by decent law-abiding taxpayers that obey no smoking laws and pay traffic tickets. It's linked to the number of illegal guns owned by criminals, who don't obey gun laws no matter how strict they are.

    In contrast we can at least consider the fact that when comparing the crime and gun crime rates of states with liberal gun laws and states with strict gun laws, it is the states with liberal gun laws who come out on top as safer places to live, with Vermont a state with virtually no gun restrictions being considered one of the safest places to live in the world.

    Don't forget. Be caught carrying a gun in the UK and you will be arrested. You actually have to injure or kill someone with the gun first in America to get in trouble.
    No, you understand that police can ask you to provide a liscense etc.. It's not so simple as buy a gun carry a gun.

    And a gun is not realistic self defence against someone else with a gun. Unless you walk down the street pointing it at random people who look shifty. Be honest, if someone has a gun and wants to attack you, they will shoot you before you have the chance to even think about drawing yours.

    Rubbish..

    In the United States, guns are used around 2,500,000 times each year in self-defence.

    Of these instances, 15% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.

    Even if the figures are exaggerated, and only 500,000 people actually defend themselves with guns each year, this still amounts to more than 75,000 lives saved annually, which is more than 6 times the amount of murders committed each year using guns.

    In 83% of these successful gun defences, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defence.

    Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

    Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a 1000 instances is the attacker killed.

    Firearms are actually used much more often to save lives than to take lives.



    http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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 protests make a difference in political decisions?
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.