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

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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.
    Guns are a LOT more dangerous than a knife or a cricket bat. How many people rob a bank with a cricket bat? I can't believe you're even stupid enough to compare a cricket bat with a gun.

    Let's stop all this "formal" argument ********..

    I'm assuming you want to own a gun? So, why do YOU want to own a gun? I'm guessing you're not arguing for legalising guns just for the sake of it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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?
    Yes I would trust myself, but I would be worried if someone else trusted me. Other than not being a raving looney in a mental institute, I have given no evidence that I am trustworthy. I do not expect to be trusted and, as such, do not magically trust the rest of the British public. I wouldn't trust a random stranger to look after my house while I went on holiday, for example, so I wouldn't trust a stranger with my life either.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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.
    My grandfather in the states assures me that such checks are almost entirely a formality, and that gun purchase is as easy as buying anything else.

    (Original post by Aeolus)

    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
    But can you assert that these attacks would have happened had the attackers been not been able to secure a gun easily themselves? It's very difficult for anyone to get a gun in the UK. You seem to be under the impression that if you decide you're willing to break the law you'll suddenly find it easy to get a gun. This isn't the case no matter how many times newspapers try to shock us into believing so. Roughly one in 10,000 UK citizens is involved in any kind of firearm related crime per year, whereas your own statistics imply that one in every 1,000 Americans "almost certainly" required a firearm to safe their lives.

    Of course, as you say, comparisons don't account for much. But I don't see why you should be allowed to use statistics if I'm not. Firearms may save more lives than take, but the overall life being lost is still more. It's a case of creating more problems than solving.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GottaLovePhysics! :))
    Large amounts of ammo + large amounts of religion
    Interesting.

    Majority (if not all) of the pro-gun states in America happen to be mostly white populated and religious and they usually have some of the lowest gun crime/murder rate in America.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin_123)
    Guns are a LOT more dangerous than a knife or a cricket bat. How many people rob a bank with a cricket bat? I can't believe you're even stupid enough to compare a cricket bat with a gun.
    You are talking about criminals now, i was talking about law abiding citizens. If a criminal wanted to rob a bank with a gun he would do so illegally. That is why they are called 'criminals'. There are an estimated 4 million illegal firearms on the streets of Britain. It is the innocent British public who are prevented from having guns. Or are you implying that the minute one of these individuals gets his hands on a firearm he will become a mass murdering bank robber.

    Let's stop all this "formal" argument ********..
    Just because you are incapable of intellectual debate doesn't mean nobody else is.


    I'm guessing you're not arguing for legalising guns just for the sake of it?

    Im arguing for the rights of the individual and the responsibilities which inevitably arise when excersized.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blu3j4yw4y)
    Yes I would trust myself, but I would be worried if someone else trusted me. Other than not being a raving looney in a mental institute, I have given no evidence that I am trustworthy. I do not expect to be trusted and, as such, do not magically trust the rest of the British public.

    That defeats all the rubbish which you typed after it.

    I wouldn't trust a random stranger to look after my house while I went on holiday, for example, so I wouldn't trust a stranger with my life either.
    And yet you trust strangers with your life every sigle day you live it. You trust the strangers driving at high speeds when you are walking on the pavement, you trust the strangers who walk next to you not to suddenly attack you. You trust the strangers who serve you your food not to poison it, you trust the stranger who flies you on your holidays not to crash. etc..etc..

    Your argument above is ridiculous. You trust every stranger every day.


    My grandfather in the states assures me that such checks are almost entirely a formality, and that gun purchase is as easy as buying anything else.

    Your grandfather in the states is probably made up. But even so, the gun check argument can be defeated.. Vermont has almost no gun restrictions and is yet consistently ranked as one of the safest places to live in the world.


    But can you assert that these attacks would have happened had the attackers been not been able to secure a gun easily themselves? It's very difficult for anyone to get a gun in the UK.

    Again you type without knowing what you are talking about. There are an estimated 4 million illegal firearms in the UK. If you know the right pub or person to see you can walk in with a few hundred pounds and walk out with a gun.


    whereas your own statistics imply that one in every 1,000 Americans "almost certainly" required a firearm to safe their lives.Of course, as you say, comparisons don't account for much. But I don't see why you should be allowed to use statistics if I'm not. Firearms may save more lives than take, but the overall life being lost is still more. It's a case of creating more problems than solving.

    And you still have yet to explain Mexico, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the world while at the same time having some of the highest gun crime. I say again, 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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    That defeats all the rubbish which you typed after it.
    Explain?


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    And yet you trust strangers with your life every sigle day you live it. You trust the strangers driving at high speeds when you are walking on the pavement, you trust the strangers who walk next to you not to suddenly attack you. You trust the strangers who serve you your food not to poison it, you trust the stranger who flies you on your holidays not to crash. etc..etc..

    Your argument above is ridiculous. You trust every stranger every day.
    Fair point. Give you that one.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Again you type without knowing what you are talking about. There are an estimated 4 million illegal firearms in the UK. If you know the right pub or person to see you can walk in with a few hundred pounds and walk out with a gun.
    Do you live in the UK or the US? I'm curious.

    I don't feel the number of illegal firearms is really relevent. The UK government has already admitted that its control of firearm import is poor. This is not a matter for gun laws, this is a matter for improvement on customs and law enforcement.

    The fact is, guns are not realistic threat to the average UK citizen anyway. The majority of citizens will rarely, if ever, come into contact with any kind of firearm. Despite there being, supposedly, several million of the things in the country, less than fifty people died from them in 2008.

    Don't forget, it's wrong to assume illegal firearms are the only threat. It's a lot easier to accidently kill yourself and those around you with a gun than a knife. We shouldn't really be looking at just murder rates, but also inadvertent homocides as well.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    And you still have yet to explain Mexico, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the world while at the same time having some of the highest gun crime. I say again, 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.
    You said comparisons between country statistics are worthless and so I respected your opinion and made no attempt to explain Mexico.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blu3j4yw4y)
    Explain?
    You trust yourself. Whether anybody else trust you is irellevant. Is that going to affect you adversely if you own a firearm? Are you going to shoot somebody because they may not trust you. (When in fact they do, which relates to my point of how, in civil society everybody trust everybody in some way or another)


    Fair point. Give you that one.
    So, you inadvertently trust countless strangers everyday who posess all manner of ways of wounding or ending your llife. What makes you think that if they were owning or carrying a gun they would suddenly go absolutely mental and shoot you?

    Do you live in the UK or the US? I'm curious.
    The UK.

    I don't feel the number of illegal firearms is really relevent.
    Of course it is. Illegal firearms are used to commit crimes. I have yet to see a shooting in the paper carried out with one of the UK's many tens of thousands of legal firearms. :dontknow: Doesn't that say something about your average laaw abiding, gun owning citizen?

    The UK government has already admitted that its control of firearm import is poor. This is not a matter for gun laws, this is a matter for improvement on customs and law enforcement.
    The labour government has made gun laws, enforcement etc..etc.. With regards to firearms much more strict and tough since 99. Unsurprisingly the levels of gun crime have risen and continue to rise.

    The fact is, guns are not realistic threat to the average UK citizen anyway.The majority of citizens will rarely, if ever, come into contact with any kind of firearm. Despite there being, supposedly, several million of the things in the country, less than fifty people died from them in 2008.
    Thats not an argument for restricting the freedoms of the individual. Im sure that if we all lived in government barracks under constant surveillance with suits of cotton wool etc..etc.. The number of any deaths would fall drastically.

    Don't forget, it's wrong to assume illegal firearms are the only threat. It's a lot easier to accidently kill yourself and those around you with a gun than a knife. We shouldn't really be looking at just murder rates, but also inadvertent homocides as well.
    And? Irresponsibility should be punished for being just that. We don't restrict or ban automobiles because an irresponsible individual could kill tens of people at high speeds. We expect the individual to be responsible we trust them to be so and we punish when they aren't. Why should it be so different with guns?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sam I Am)
    Interesting.

    Majority (if not all) of the pro-gun states in America happen to be mostly white populated and religious and they usually have some of the lowest gun crime/murder rate in America.
    Please source this, I find that hard to believe.
    Here is some info to counter your argument consisting of prison statistics in america as it relates to religion and crime.
    http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You are talking about criminals now, i was talking about law abiding citizens. If a criminal wanted to rob a bank with a gun he would do so illegally. That is why they are called 'criminals'. There are an estimated 4 million illegal firearms on the streets of Britain. It is the innocent British public who are prevented from having guns. Or are you implying that the minute one of these individuals gets his hands on a firearm he will become a mass murdering bank robber.



    Just because you are incapable of intellectual debate doesn't mean nobody else is.





    Im arguing for the rights of the individual and the responsibilities which inevitably arise when excersized.
    I just meant that, we're not getting anywhere, it's TSR.. not a courtroom..

    ANYWAY...

    How about this:


    On this chart there is a VERY CLEAR trend that the more people in the country that owns gun the more gun crime there is in the country.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I dunno. Why are British people prone to being ugly?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin_123)
    I just meant that, we're not getting anywhere, it's TSR.. not a courtroom..

    ANYWAY...

    How about this:


    On this chart there is a VERY CLEAR trend that the more people in the country that owns gun the more gun crime there is in the country.

    I say again. 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.

    Otherwise, how would you explain Mexico, a country which has some of the strictest gun laws in the world yet one of the highest gun crime and murder rates. (I notice Mexico is not on the list)

    Or, how would you explain the state of Vermont? Which has virtually no gun restrictions and yet is consistently ranked as one of the safest places to live on Earth?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Meh, I'm one of the most cautious people I know of and somehow managed to get mugged by what I'd say 16-17 year olds at knife point twice in broad daylight..

    I reckon people's homes would be safer but the side-effects such as chavs having access to their law-abiding dad's gun probably wouldn't be worth it for me.. I already see them walking around with knives in their pants and cricket bats/dogs.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I say again. 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.

    Otherwise, how would you explain Mexico, a country which has some of the strictest gun laws in the world yet one of the highest gun crime and murder rates. (I notice Mexico is not on the list)

    Or, how would you explain the state of Vermont? Which has virtually no gun restrictions and yet is consistently ranked as one of the safest places to live on Earth?
    Ehm.. what? You still havn't explained it, sure there are a few exceptions..

    But there is a CLEAR trend, that countries that allow more people to have guns have a lot higher gun crimes. And countries that don't allow guns have a lot lower gun crimes..

    What excactly do you think will happen if anyone without a criminal record is allowed to buy a gun in the UK? What are you trying to achieve..?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin_123)
    But there is a CLEAR trend, that countries that allow more people to have guns have a lot higher gun crimes. And countries that don't allow guns have a lot lower gun crimes..
    Forget comparing completely different countries, there are far too many variables. Also, your table does not subtract the deaths and incidents which were accidents and suicides. Not to mention the fact that OBVIOUSLY the UK is going to have far fewer gun deaths, that is because there are fewer guns. :dunce:

    Im gonna copy and paste now.

    However if we were to compare the violent crime rates of Britain and the USA, In 1988 Britain had a violent crime rate of 420 per 100,000 people, far lower than the US rate of 620 per 100,000 people. However, since then all that has changed, and not for the better.

    In 2008, the US crime rate stood at 454 per 100,000, a decrease of 40 percent since 1991. During that time, the UK violent crime rate rose by more than 800% to a rate of over 4000 victims per 100,000 people.

    Britain had more than 2.5 million violent crimes in 2008. The United States, with a population 5 times that of the UK, had only 1.4 million violent crimes during the same period. This means that Britain has a crime rate that is more than 8 times that of the United States.


    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html
    http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk/me...une%202007.pdf

    Surely with our lack of guns we should be far below them?


    In 2006 the United States had around 30,000 deaths from firearms, of those 55 percent were suicides. Around 650 gun deaths were classed as "accidental" and around 12,000 were homicides. Despite the fact that they only make up between 7 and 8 percent of the population, almost half of all violent crime in the USA is carried out by young black males. Black males also make up half of all murderers (and victims) in the United States. Most of these are killed using illegally held weapons in poor, run down areas during gang or drug-related activity.

    If gang related violence is removed from the murder statistics, the US has a murder rate that is actually not far from the overall murder rate of the United Kingdom.



    Lets keep gun crime figures local to the United States. How do you explain the fact that the states which have liberal/no gun restrictions have a lower gun crime/murder rate than those states with the strictest gun laws?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Not to mention the fact that OBVIOUSLY the UK is going to have far fewer gun deaths, that is because there are fewer guns. :dunce:
    You just said "UK have less guns = obviously fewer gun deaths".. do oyu understand that making it easier to get a gun means that more people will own guns which according to what you just said will increase gun deaths. Ehm, I think you just lost the whole argument.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    How do you explain the fact that the states which have liberal/no gun restrictions have a lower gun crime/murder rate than those states with the strictest gun laws?
    There are a lot of other variables, such as maybe the cities that have made guns more accessible did so because they allready had low gun crimes, there are a lot of other things..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This honestly is something that makes me a little embarrassed and sad to be American. Who knows why there has been so many University shootings here. Maybe they were just fed up with life thinking it wasn't treating them fairly. I was also very disappointed about the shootings at the Military base in Texas.

    I think the US does place way too much emphasis on our 'right to bear arms' and the ones who are for it, are often obnoxiously adament about it. It's hard to ignore the facts presented in the topic about the US having such a high rate of crimes involving guns. Most gun owners (I guess) are stable and always have safety in mind, but maybe the problem is I don't think we need to pass a mental aptitude test to apply for a gun licence. Do we? So those unstable individuals who are prone to getting fed up, can get a gun as well.

    To my knowledge, there was no connection between all the campus shootings right? So another could happen on any day, at any University even just from copycat criminals seeking notoriety or something..:eek: See, this is one reason why I want to go back to University in England.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin_123)
    You just said "UK have less guns = obviously fewer gun deaths".. do oyu understand that making it easier to get a gun means that more people will own guns which according to what you just said will increase gun deaths. Ehm, I think you just lost the whole argument.
    :facepalm2: More guns = more gun crime is obvious. In the same way that knives being legal = more knife crime. But i notice you handily ignored the rest of the statistics. Such as the fact that Britains violent crime rate is 8 TIMES that of the USA. Despite the fact that guns are legal in the USA. Not to mention:

    Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S. has continued to increase, the US murder rate actually decreased by 44 percent between 1991 and 2008.

    Gun sales increased following the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and then increased again after the election of US President Barack Obama.

    The rape rate has decreased by 30 percent since 1991, the robbery rate by 46 percent and the aggravated assault rate by 36 percent, with violent crime rates continuing to drop each year.

    Concealed carry has helped make the US much safer than it was 20 years ago.

    In fact, the more people that acquire legally held guns, the lower the murder rate drops. The reason for this is very simple, armed citizens deter criminals.


    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html
    http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk/me...Sales%20Up.pdf

    How do you explain this if guns = crime?
    Offline

    1
    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!

    Hunting is still huge (very much) in the U.S...As much as we pollute, we still got lots of forests and undeveloped lands full of animals.

    You buy guns to protect yourself from petty criminals, psychos, murderers, rapists, as well as your government.

    We are not a f*cking Banana Republic where there is a new constitution written by an ideological dictator after each coup.
 
 
 
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.