Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Because most criminals don't have guns at all... and making them legal means most of them WILL have them, making any attacks more dangerous and possibly fatal.
    What don't you understand? Criminals will always be able to get guns. I live in quite a rough area and I know for a fact that if I went to the quite shady pub 5 mins walk away and asked around a bit, I could get sorted for a handgun. But even though I want a gun, it's against the law. Criminals, by very definition, don't regard the law.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    has strict gun laws really worked in this country?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...iminately.html

    **** no they haven't, we need our right to bear arms now, how was anyone on this street meant to defend themselves? and how does making it harder for law abiding sports shooters like me prevent shootings like this? I wonder if the shooter had a licence for his gun, yeh......****ing.......right
    if we had guns, police need guns, criminals then will tend to caryy guns more, then the police will get bigger guns to combat this, then criminals get bigger guns, the chain goes on and on. its best to just cut it off to start with, we havnt needed them for the last 300 years why do we suddenly need them now? this is not america where they think they can go shooting anyone
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    So we have come in full circle? Like the OP, you are showing us a tragic story of gun crime and using it as a reason why MORE guns should be available? Way to reverse the 23 pages of discussion here. If you want an answer to your post, go back to the beginning and read the thread over again.
    If the Brazilian gov't didn't have such totalitarian gun control, then the killed might have been stopped and the childrens lives may have been saved. That is the truth, you cannot deny this.

    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    To address your question I have already stated that I do not see how more guns = less death. Even when well-meaning people or victims try to defend themselves or eachother, bystanders need to be taken into account. The killing power of a gun needs to be taken into account... the more guns involved in a violent situation, the more injuries or fatalities there will be.

    I could also say again what has been repeated in this thread multiple times; that you will probably provoke an attacker into shooting you more quickly if you withdraw a gun yourself. But that would be beating a dead horse.

    In addition, yes criminals will always have guns. But why not make it as hard as possible for them to obtain a gun? Why do you think that having people shoot back in response will help solve the situation and/or save anyone? If you heard a gunshot behind you, turned round and took out your weapon to try and subdue the criminal, how would you know who to shoot? What if you shot the wrong person? What if someone saw you with a gun and thought you were the criminal, and shot you? It really makes no sense. It is not logical to have people firing at eachother in public.
    I think you are confusing myself with someone else, because I haven't said anything about shooting back. If I had a gun on my possession and was mugged by someone with a gun, I would probably just give them the stuff. It's not worth it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Therefore, what you should have said is, "I'm liberal in some situations, but I'm authoritarian in others"

    I find your main argument extremely pathetic. It's the equivalent of saying that "you shouldn't eat bread, because you're making the choice for everyone else who think you shouldn't be able to eat bread". The truth is that, if I own a gun and store it in a safe place, in my home, in privacy, nobody else is affected. There is only a private boost to my utility. There is only a gain in utility to society.

    Criminals will always be able to get guns. So I find, denying them to law abiding citizens, is Totalitarian and quite frankly, the type of policy you'd expect in 1930s Nazi Germany, not modern day Europe.
    I'm going to try and put this as simply as possible.

    If you want to eat bread, go ahead. You can eat bread in the privacy of your own home and I don't have to see you doing it. If I don't want to eat bread, I simply won't buy it and/or eat it, and so for that reason it can be legal and I have no issue with that.

    Now guns... if you want to shoot a gun, go ahead. You can shoot a shotgun for hunting or recreational purposes in the privacy of the countryside if you have a license. However, if you want guns to be widely available to the public, that is where I have an issue. If guns are legal, guns are more likely to fall into the wrong hands. I am more likely to be shot, and that is not something I want to happen.

    To be honest, I find your approach to be very barbaric and irrational. "I want a gun so that if someone pulls one on me, I can shoot back wildly and cause others to be shot in the process, as well as getting myself killed and possibly killing my attacker." Don't you think it would be preferable to try and negotiate yourself out of that situation?

    In addition, as it stands you are very unlikely to be placed in a situation like that. If guns are made legal, you put yourself at much more risk of being held up by a gunman. If your primary concern is defending yourself from guns, then why would you advocate dishing them out to people who may use them to try and shoot you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ventura7)
    if we had guns, police need guns, criminals then will tend to caryy guns more, then the police will get bigger guns to combat this, then criminals get bigger guns, the chain goes on and on. its best to just cut it off to start with, we havnt needed them for the last 300 years why do we suddenly need them now? this is not america where they think they can go shooting anyone
    Remember this?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4451508.stm

    "The policewoman shot dead in Bradford on Friday was killed on her daughter's fourth birthday."

    Your argument is ridiculous. Like saying we should ban knives, because the police will need knives, then the criminals were need even bigger knives :rofl:

    Criminals will always be able to get guns, end of story. Thus law abiding citizens should be able to get them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    What don't you understand? Criminals will always be able to get guns. I live in quite a rough area and I know for a fact that if I went to the quite shady pub 5 mins walk away and asked around a bit, I could get sorted for a handgun. But even though I want a gun, it's against the law. Criminals, by very definition, don't regard the law.
    Why don't YOU understand?
    MOST criminals DON'T have guns, it is much harder for them to get one now then if they were legal... And it's been explained several times how more guns CAN NOT equal less deaths.
    Gun crime is the lowest almost in the world in the UK (I posted stats earlier today). Making them legal to carry around would obviously change this... I don't see how that would be a good thing.
    It means that ALL criminals will have guns, instead of a small minority, they will pretty much always have one, and any attack will be much more dangerous and more likely fatal then now.
    It's much easier to escape an attack from someone witha knife.

    More guns = more deaths, not less.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    If you want to eat bread, go ahead. You can eat bread in the privacy of your own home and I don't have to see you doing it. If I don't want to eat bread, I simply won't buy it and/or eat it, and so for that reason it can be legal and I have no issue with that.
    EXACTLY.. but I can simply change "bread" for "handgun" and you suddenly change your opinion.

    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    If you want to have a handgun, go ahead. You can have a handgun in the privacy of your own home and I don't have to see you doing it. If I don't want to have a handgun, I simply won't buy it and/or eat it, and so for that reason it can be legal and I have no issue with that.
    Even though me, having a handgun in the privacy of my own home, would not affect you AT ALL. You just want it banned because you are anti-liberal and pro-authoritarian, and simply because you may not have an interest in handguns, you force that opinion onto everyone.

    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    To be honest, I find your approach to be very barbaric and irrational. "I want a gun so that if someone pulls one on me, I can shoot back wildly and cause others to be shot in the process, as well as getting myself killed and possibly killing my attacker." Don't you think it would be preferable to try and negotiate yourself out of that situation?

    In addition, as it stands you are very unlikely to be placed in a situation like that. If guns are made legal, you put yourself at much more risk of being held up by a gunman. If your primary concern is defending yourself from guns, then why would you advocate dishing them out to people who may use them to try and shoot you?
    I am just going to copy and paste what I said from before, because you are clearly confused:

    I think you are confusing myself with someone else, because I haven't said anything about shooting back. If I had a gun on my possession and was mugged by someone with a gun, I would probably just give them the stuff. It's not worth it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Blaming gun crime on guns is like blaming spelling mistakes on pencils. Completely nonsensical.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Criminals will always be able to get guns, end of story. Thus law abiding citizens should be able to get them.
    Why? If you say you would never shoot a criminal who pulled a gun on you, then what use would it be to you to have a gun?

    The only reason I can think that anyone would want guns legal is so that they can shoot other people in self-defence. Why exactly do you want to be able to carry a gun for if you wouldn't shoot an attacker with it? For decoration?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Gun crime is a symptom of a problem, guns aren't the cause. Switzerland has very lax gun laws yet low crime rates.

    And no, it isn't a misconception regarding Switzerland.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    Why? If you say you would never shoot a criminal who pulled a gun on you, then what use would it be to you to have a gun?

    The only reason I can think that anyone would want guns legal is so that they can shoot other people in self-defence. Why exactly do you want to be able to carry a gun for if you wouldn't shoot an attacker with it? For decoration?
    To correct an obvious imbalance that exists. Criminals are easily able to attain guns on the black market, and in numerous countries (for example, Switzerland), gun rights clearly correlate with reduced crime levels.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    EXACTLY.. but I can simply change "bread" for "handgun" and you suddenly change your opinion.
    That is because guns and bread are clearly very different things, thus they warrant different opinions on their legalisation. Bread harms nobody, thus it is legal and nobody complains. Guns have the potential to be harmful in the hands of the wrong people, thus they are restricted and a lot of people support this. Why would I want to make bread illegal? There is no reason. Why would I want to keep guns illegal? Because I don't want to get ****ing shot. More guns equals higher chance of being shot. That is common sense.

    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Even though me, having a handgun in the privacy of my own home, would not affect you AT ALL. You just want it banned because you are anti-liberal and pro-authoritarian, and simply because you may not have an interest in handguns, you force that opinion onto everyone.
    You're right, if you were to have a gun in your own home and never carry it outside, that would not affect me. However, that is not what you want. You want the "right to bear arms" - people being able to walk the streets with guns. And that is an entirely different issue. Think of it this way... if bread was a lethal weapon and someone could use it to kill me, I would want its sale to be restricted in some way. You also cannot call me pro-authoritarian, because that is not what I am. I simply believe that regarding this particular issue, it is not logical to legalise guns.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    And the anti-gun brigade in this thread has made no original argument that objects to the right in itself. It's all well and good to bring these arguments up, but pretty much all of them are directly concerned with gun control, and not the fundamental right for a citizen to own a firearm.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suetonius)
    To correct an obvious imbalance that exists. Criminals are easily able to attain guns on the black market, and in numerous countries (for example, Switzerland), gun rights clearly correlate with reduced crime levels.
    I gave statistics earlier showing the the homocide rate (especially rates involving guns) is actually fairly high in Switzerland compared to here. It's low-ish, but 37% of homocides occure from gun crime there.
    But Switzerland is a very different country to the UK, with very different ideals and societies, it's not comparable to the UK at all in that sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suetonius)
    To correct an obvious imbalance that exists. Criminals are easily able to attain guns on the black market, and in numerous countries (for example, Switzerland), gun rights clearly correlate with reduced crime levels.
    People being allowed guns does not deter criminals. The USA is a much cited example in this thread. If someone wants to shoot you, they will probably shoot you anyway. It's just that if you have a gun, not only will you get shot but they will get shot too, and so will innocent bystanders. As it stands, guns are not the weapon of choice for criminals in the UK, so the chances of you being shot are very slim. With legalisation, those chances increase greatly. Guns will be the criminal's weapon of choice and you will be much more likely to get shot.

    You say that "criminals have guns" as though every single criminal in the UK will use a gun on you. The truth is, only a small minority of criminals in the UK use guns. Why? Because they are illegal and harder to obtain than other weapons such as knives. As a result criminals tend to use knives primarily in this country. Why would you want to give them easy access to a more dangerous weapon?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suetonius)
    And the anti-gun brigade in this thread has made no original argument that objects to the right in itself. It's all well and good to bring these arguments up, but pretty much all of them are directly concerned with gun control, and not the fundamental right for a citizen to own a firearm.
    Because I don't believe there is a "fundamental right" for a citizen to own a firearm, for reason's I've mentioned before... so I'm discussing why I think that, which includes why I think they shouldn't be legal for the general public to carry.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    I gave statistics earlier showing the the homocide rate (especially rates involving guns) is actually fairly high in Switzerland compared to here. It's low-ish, but 37% of homocides occure from gun crime there.
    But Switzerland is a very different country to the UK, with very different ideals and societies, it's not comparable to the UK at all in that sense.
    The main problem is that, in countries which permit the right to bear arms, the question of crimes that might alternatively have occurred by other means (knives, saws, strangling etc.) is completely unfalsifiable. Where 37% of homicides may have involved guns, what's to say that the overall crime rate would not be significantly higher otherwise?

    Your last point does nothing but reaffirm our arguments. The 'root cause' of the problem isn't gun ownership. It is the depravity of specific individuals.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suetonius)
    The main problem is that, in countries which permit the right to bear arms, the question of crimes that might alternatively have occurred by other means (knives, saws, strangling etc.) is completely unfalsifiable. Where 37% of homicides may have involved guns, what's to say that the overall crime rate would not be significantly higher otherwise?

    Your last point does nothing but reaffirm our arguments. The 'root cause' of the problem isn't gun ownership. It is the depravity of specific individuals.
    The problem is that making guns easily accessable, and legal to carry around, makes the streets more dangerous. It means criminals are more likely (almost definitely) to have a gun when they attack you, rather then a knife... This means it's almost impossible to escape, and much more likely to be fatal (to you, them, and/or passers by).
    The USA is a good example, because of the current levels of guns crime and how it happens there, and because their society is so similar to ours (compared to Switzerland which is incredibly different).
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    People being allowed guns does not deter criminals. The USA is a much cited example in this thread. If someone wants to shoot you, they will probably shoot you anyway. It's just that if you have a gun, not only will you get shot but they will get shot too, and so will innocent bystanders. As it stands, guns are not the weapon of choice for criminals in the UK, so the chances of you being shot are very slim. With legalisation, those chances increase greatly. Guns will be the criminal's weapon of choice and you will be much more likely to get shot.

    You say that "criminals have guns" as though every single criminal in the UK will use a gun on you. The truth is, only a small minority of criminals in the UK use guns. Why? Because they are illegal and harder to obtain than other weapons such as knives. As a result criminals tend to use knives primarily in this country. Why would you want to give them easy access to a more dangerous weapon?
    That's essentially like saying, "we should ban kitchen knives because they're a more 'dangerous weapon' than a sharp pencil". Terrible argument. It's like saying that our rights as citizens should be undercut because of the damage they could cause relative to other things. But, I repeat the simple point I made earlier: all of the points you raise can be tackled with the implementation of gun control. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suetonius)
    The main problem is that, in countries which permit the right to bear arms, the question of crimes that might alternatively have occurred by other means (knives, saws, strangling etc.) is completely unfalsifiable. Where 37% of homicides may have involved guns, what's to say that the overall crime rate would not be significantly higher otherwise?
    So you're saying that nobody can really discern whether crime rates are affected by the legality of guns?

    If so, how can you say in an earlier post that guns being legal reduces the crime rate?

    Those two statements contradict each other.
 
 
 
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: April 21, 2011
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.