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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    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 the legality of guns reduces the crime rate?

    Those two statements contradict each other.
    They do, which is why I will correct my earlier statement: "in numerous countries (for example, Switzerland), gun rights clearly correlate with low crime levels."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suetonius)
    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.
    Not really. Kitchen knives have an important use, as do pencils. The preparation of food and writing. By this logic you could say I want to ban heavy blunt objects such as books, bricks, televisions, etc. because they have the potential to kill someone.

    A lot of things could potentially kill; that doesn't mean they should all be banned. But a gun? Its sole purpose is to kill or maim, and it is not useful in any other capacity. In the same way that the other poster tried to compare guns to bread, this can't be done.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    Not really. Kitchen knives have an important use, as do pencils. The preparation of food and writing. By this logic you could say I want to ban heavy blunt objects such as books, bricks, televisions, etc. because they have the potential to kill someone.

    A lot of things could potentially kill; that doesn't mean they should all be banned. But a gun? Its sole purpose is to kill or maim, and it is not useful in any other capacity. In the same way that the other poster tried to compare guns to bread, this can't be done.
    ^ Exactly.
    Being used for sport = ok.
    But generally, they are created for the sole purpose of harming or killing people, and so that is what they will cause.
    Someone else also made a comparison to cars... Cars are very useful, and actually almost essential in our society... Guns are not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suetonius)
    They do, which is why I will correct my earlier statement: "in numerous countries (for example, Switzerland), gun rights clearly correlate with low crime levels."
    Well, to be honest... I could easily say to you:

    In numerous countries, for example the USA, gun rights clearly correlate with high crime levels.

    Switzerland may have a lower crime rate than the UK, but you can't really say that is because guns are legal there. If guns being legal automatically reduced crime rates, then the USA would have less homicides per 100,000 of the population than this country. And that is not the case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    Not really. Kitchen knives have an important use, as do pencils. The preparation of food and writing. By this logic you could say I want to ban heavy blunt objects such as books, bricks, televisions, etc. because they have the potential to kill someone.

    A lot of things could potentially kill; that doesn't mean they should all be banned. But a gun? Its sole purpose is to kill or maim, and it is not useful in any other capacity. In the same way that the other poster tried to compare guns to bread, this can't be done.
    The presumption behind this is that all 'killing' is bad, and not 'useful'. On the contrary, the basic principle behind the Second Amendment is that the citizen has the ability to resist oppressive government (and I would take this further, and say that this can be extended to the principle of resisting an invading force). Killing in self-defence is obviously both an incredibly 'useful' and positive outcome too. Both of these are interconnected. The state has control over an extensive military force with the possession of firearms, and many in law enforcement are granted this same right. Do you mean to tell me that this state apparatus is infallible, and isn't vulnerable to the same external influences that other citizens are? Take, for example, Nidal Malik Hasan. A religious fanatic, who had been in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki (a jihadist mullah involved with AQAP in Yemen, and with connections to two of the 9/11 hijackers, and the Nigerian Christmas Day 2009 bomber). Hasan was a Major in the U.S. army at Fort Hood, and in November 2009 murdered, with his firearm, 13 of his colleagues, and injured almost 30 others. To permit such weapons to arms of the state just because they are arms of the state - yet not to the average, law-abiding citizen who would never dream of doing something like the above - is (a) completely hypocritical, and (b) incredibly dangerous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    Because if the government turned tyranical and used the army and police against us we could defend ourselves?
    :confused: You really think our government is going to turn tyranical?!?! maybe if the BNP came in..

    I mean after all only 200 million civilians were murdered by their own governments in the 20th centuary, and yes you can do alot apart from murder things, go educate yourself, ever heard of skeet shooting, target shooting?
    And yes you are correct they did, even in the 21st century. But come on, be realistic, when has any modern politician in the UK said that they are going to send the army out to kills us all? We are not going to have a civil war thanks to our [B]' democratic state ' - Need to be realistic. Don't need to educate myself thank you. I have heard of them but i was under the impression you rented guns out from the organisation you are shooting with.

    (Original post by Hardballer)
    short of having to kill 200 grizzly bears with your bare hands whilst they're handcuffed to acquire your certificate I can't imagine what would be harder. Ok maybe I exaggerate, but maybe you need to realise that taking guns off law abiding citizens won't make you safer.
    HAHAHAA! that made me laugh, i know how hard it actually is to get a shot gun licence. I know many people with shotguns due to being farmers or game keepers (which no i don't agree with)... I still think there should be stricter rules, for example, showing you can murder an animal within one shot, i.e in the head... And to not cause any suffering.
    (and yes, i know they use destructive conservation for 'pest' control, this is what i am talking about at this moment in time. And no, i don't agree, but it is more humain than setting hounds on the animals)...

    Plus I wasn't ever talking about taking guns from law abiding citizens. IMO taking ALL guns of the street the world would be a better place. Unfortunately that wont happen.

    Should take up scuba diving or something like that, a lot more relaxing and peaceful!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I honestly don't think people are reading what we've written at all, because I keep finding myself having to repeat everything I've already said to prove my point, again.
    I need to go to bed... No doubt I'll miss a really long argument while I've gone.

    I'll just part with this... We should not have the "right" to own a firearm. In the majority of places that guns are allowed to be owned by the general public, they have much higher crime rates in general, as well as gun related deaths. They do not mean that everyone can defend themselves at all.
    But, I need to sleep and can't type up all my reasons again. night.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suetonius)
    To permit such weapons to arms of the state just because they are arms of the state - yet not to the average, law-abiding citizen who would never dream of doing something like the above - is (a) completely hypocritical, and (b) incredibly dangerous.
    Well, this is kind of what I'm trying to say. Obviously that occurrence was extremely rare, and there just happened to be a mentally unstable, Islamic fundamentalist in the US Army who had access to that gun. If it is possible for someone like that to be present in the microcosm of the US Army, just think how many similar people there are in wider society. If guns were available to everyone, then there would be more deluded and murderous individuals like Hasan who would easily be able to do a similar thing.
    Offline

    0
    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?
    I posted my reasons in this very thread a while back. Not my problem if you can't be bothered to even read the thread first.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    I honestly don't think people are reading what we've written at all, because I keep finding myself having to repeat everything I've already said to prove my point, again.
    I need to go to bed... No doubt I'll miss a really long argument while I've gone.

    I'll just part with this... We should not have the "right" to own a firearm. In the majority of places that guns are allowed to be owned by the general public, they have much higher crime rates in general, as well as gun related deaths. They do not mean that everyone can defend themselves at all.
    But, I need to sleep and can't type up all my reasons again. night.
    I think there is just a lack of understanding of the other side's viewpoint, both from them and us. I can tell that there are some things we're saying that they don't agree with or understand where we're coming from, but at the same time I can't comprehend some of their arguments. Like, for example, why the illegality of guns is as much an injustice as if bread were to be made illegal.

    I'll be going to bed in a minute as well, probably my next post will be my last.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    Well, this is kind of what I'm trying to say. Obviously that occurrence was extremely rare, and there just happened to be a mentally unstable, Islamic fundamentalist in the US Army who had access to that gun. If it is possible for someone like that to be present in the microcosm of the US Army, just think how many similar people there are in wider society. If guns were available to everyone, then there would be more deluded and murderous individuals like Hasan who would easily be able to do a similar thing.
    So, in that case, are you willing to disband/disarm the military? The state has a greater monopoly on violence than any common criminal ever could. And has more firepower at that.

    We, therefore, don't only have the imbalance of criminals being able to get firearms by illicit means (while the average citizen is left defenceless). We also have the imbalance of government having the potential to coerce its populace with the threat of heavy weaponry.

    P.S. Once again. Your post reaffirms my position. The 'root cause' of Hasan's behaviour was not the possession of a gun. It was his religious fanaticism, and 'mental instability'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Selkarn, I had a look at your reasons for wanting to own a gun. Among other things, you wrote:

    (Original post by Selkarn)
    I would like some sort for self defence if anybody broke into my house (I currently have a knife next to my bed, yes I'm paranoid. That said, I would not simply shoot anyone, for example if I encountered a burglar I would simply point the gun at them and order them out of the house, then call the police)
    If guns were legal, again, the burglar would also have a gun. Meaning that if you were to pull out a gun yourself and "order them out of the house", they would shoot you. Either that or they would aim their own gun at you and you would shoot them in panic.

    The survivalist concept is a tricky one, because it obviously does not harm anyone else and I can see why you would get annoyed at not being able to own a gun which you could add to your kit. However, the safety of the population is more important I think than you being able to add a handgun to your survival kit. I don't mean to sound flippant, but that's how I see it. I wish there was some sort of way to screen people and ensure that guns could be made legal and distributed only to completely stable, good people (such as yourself), but in reality that can't be done. When you make guns legal you open up gun ownership to the entire public, which includes many people who should not be trusted with a gun.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    ]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..
    Nope dude, I want the right to have a gun in my own home and never carry it outside. Do you still deny me that right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does every pro-gun person in this thread carry a knife with them when they leave the house?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GaffeR04)
    Does every pro-gun person in this thread carry a knife with them when they leave the house?
    No, why?

    (I know exactly what you're going to say. You're going to say "well why do you need a gun" or some ****. But read what I'm actually saying - I don't care about taking guns outside, I just want a handgun to have on my property, and on private property, where nobody else would be affected.)


    I have a few reasons for wanting a handgun, for example, I am simply a gun enthusiast and love reading about how they work, I also love shooting targets, I would like some sort for self defence if anybody broke into my house (I currently have a knife next to my bed, yes I'm paranoid. That said, I would not simply shoot anyone, for example if I encountered a burglar I would simply point the gun at them and order them out of the house, then call the police), I would also like to have a collection of guns. I'm also a survivalist. I have something called a bug-out-bag/survival kit, in case something "goes wrong". My kit at the moment has things like multitools, blankets, warm clothing, lighter fluid, torches, water containers, matches and lighters, and books on survivalism, and I would love to add a small, proper handgun to it.

    Maybe some of my reasons are silly to you, maybe all of them are, but I, personally, would love to have a handgun for those reasons. I am a responsible citizen, no criminal record. I simply think it's a little extreme and totalitarian to simply ban them completely.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammy66)
    Don't need to educate myself thank you. I have heard of them but i was under the impression you rented guns out from the organisation you are shooting with.
    I used to rent out guns from the club but now I have my own when I got my shotgun certificate, and for the record its not a shotgun certificate thats hard to get its a firearms licence thats slightly harder to get, with an sgc the police need a good reason to refuse you, took me 4 months to get it though
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suetonius)
    So, in that case, are you willing to disband/disarm the military? The state has a greater monopoly on violence than any common criminal ever could. And has more firepower at that.
    War between nations is a different issue to citizens owning guns. Often, in a war (despite it being a horrible thing) there is produced at the end a clear winner. Usually, countries only go to war for important reasons (unless you are, like me, against Iraq and other such wars but that is not an argument against the military being armed, it is an argument against the government's decisions and motives for going to war which is an entirely different debate). Of course the military should be armed - this country and other countries need to have some method of standing up for themselves in the international arena. Two countries or alliances go to war over an issue, one side wins, issue is resolved.

    People owning guns for personal use is not the same. When two people get into a confrontation and try to shoot each other, there is no clear winner most of the time. Either both die, innocents are injured, or the one who is left alive goes to prison. Individuals shooting at each other is not comparable to war between countries.

    (Original post by Selkarn)
    We, therefore, don't only have the imbalance of criminals being able to get firearms by illicit means (while the average citizen is left defenceless). We also have the imbalance of government having the potential to coerce its populace with the threat of heavy weaponry.
    When I asked earlier, what reason is there for having a gun other than to shoot someone, you started your argument by saying you did not want a gun so that you could shoot someone. Over your last couple of posts the main point you have been making is that citizens need to defend themselves using guns... i.e. you want a gun so that you can shoot someone if it comes down to it?

    (Original post by Selkarn)
    P.S. Once again. Your post reaffirms my position. The 'root cause' of Hasan's behaviour was not the possession of a gun. It was his religious fanaticism, and 'mental instability'.
    Of course guns being made legal will not make the death rates rise in this country. Guns do not get up and murder people by themselves. What you are saying is true in that yes, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". But in making guns legal you would inevitably be giving a lot of unstable people such as Hasan easier means by which they could kill someone, which would make these people more likely to go on a spree.

    Hasan or other like minded people in society could not go on a murderous spree and claim 13 victims if they did not have a gun. Guns are not responsible solely for the murders that they are involved in, but they do enable the murderers to kill on a mass scale.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Nope dude, I want the right to have a gun in my own home and never carry it outside. Do you still deny me that right?
    Don't you understand that to get what you want, this would be the procedure:

    1. Make guns legal to the population at large.
    2. You then have one in the privacy of your own home, which you and I are both happy with since you are not going to murder anyone with it.

    All is fine and well, until you realise...

    3. In making guns legal, you have also made them available to a lot of people who are more malicious than yourself and will use them to commit crimes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Anyway, I'm going. This is one of these issues where people have fixed opinions, and neither side can convince the other.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wasn't aiming this at you Selkarn, just a general thought that, the argument of criminals carrying guns so us needing guns has come up a few times. It seems those who follow this line of thought must, in present, carry knives with them to protect themselves against criminals with knives. If you do not feel the need to do this, you should not feel the need for a gun. I'm only applying this to a particular argument, not all.

    As for the whole, lack of guns means we are slaves, as a criminal could i not say that by following laws i am being like a slave and as such justify my crimes as being an movement towards freedom and away from social controls imposed by past and present governments?

    I'm sure what i'm saying is flawed, it's purely out of curiosity.
 
 
 
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: April 21, 2011
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.