Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Heh.. Try explaining that to 6 million dead Jews who would be here today if they had resisted the government imposing strict gun regulation on them :rolleyes:
    Some of the Jews being armed wouldn't have stopped hitler. Do you know how far his army got?!
    It's stupid to think having a couple of guns will protect you from something as huge and dramatic as that.

    There is next to no possibility of that happening in the UK, at this time... Therefore, the cons of making society a lot more dangerous and causing a lot more deaths isn't justified.
    Offline

    4
    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
    I hold a gun license myself and I stand by the gun laws in our country. In fact they should be stricter. This sad event just illistrates how our laws need tightening. Geting rid of the laws, laws which ensure that competent and hopefully mentally stable individuals are able to hold firearms rather than (as we can see in this case) immature youths who clearly don't understand the consequences of their actions, is totally illogical.

    Look at the mortality rates from gun crime in the US compared to the UK:
    http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sc.pdf
    14 in 2002 in the UK compared to 9,369 in the US in the same year. Thats 0.02 per 100 000 people in the UK compared to 3.25 per 100 000 people in the US.

    I use a gun for clay pigeon shooting, and game sports, same as you. However, the data and evidence stands; free rights to firearms is an unreliable method of controlling gun crime.

    Most firearms mortalities in the UK are the result of imported illegal firearms, such as hand guns which were probably used in this case. Getting rid of the laws that govern firearms would be illogical.
    I wonder if the shooter had a licence for his gun, yeh......****ing.......right
    It says in the article that the culprits were 'aged between 14 and 17' so although by law they can hold a firearms certificate, I doubt that they would be able to show good reason for holding one, and 'self defence' certainly isn't a good reason.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Some of the Jews being armed wouldn't have stopped hitler. Do you know how far his army got?!
    It's stupid to think having a couple of guns will protect you from something as huge and dramatic as that.

    There is next to no possibility of that happening in the UK, at this time... Therefore, the cons of making society a lot more dangerous and causing a lot more deaths isn't justified.
    Guerrilla fighting is a hugely effective deterrent.. in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months.
    If the Jews had resisted the stricter gun laws, the job would have undeniably been much more difficult for Hitler. It's all fine and dandy for you in your (I'm guessing) cushy White middle class lifestyle, but can you imagine people who may have lost relatives in Nazi germany, and the knowledge that if they had resisted gun laws, they would still be alive, and yet they are faced with authoritarians such as yourself to further clamp down on guns? I see extreme gun laws as Hitler's last legacy. I particularly follow JFPO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership).



    PFO is noted for producing materials (bumper stickers, posters, billboards, booklets, videos, etc.) with messages that equate gun control with totalitarianism. The most famous of these are the "All in favor of Gun Control raise your right hand" materials, which features a drawing of Hitler giving a Nazi salute.[2] The organization also attempts to prove that genocide is linked to gun control, by showing that most countries where genocide has taken place have also had gun control.[3]
    All in all.. I believe in freedom, and have trust with society that liberalising gun laws slightly won't cause chaos, no more than introducing a minimum wage caused mass-unemployment. The liberty of the individual must be defended to the last step, and I will always fight totalitarians and authoritarians such as yourself, tooth and nail, to defend that liberty.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Banning something from the majority just because of a tiny minority is anti-freedom, period.



    :rofl: this is possibly the stupidest thing I ever read.. who else is going to implement gun laws? The fairies?

    Ultimately: what you are recommending is increasing the control that the government has over people by controlling guns. I, on the other hand, am proposing a relaxation of the government rules, to a less harsh, and less interfering stance. Hence, you are pro-government control. This is undeniable.
    Clearly you don't understand the idea of a balanced argument.
    Emaemmaemily puts up a fair point. The right to public safety and freedom to walk the street without your head being blown off is, I would think, quite a fundemental right. Just putting Emaemmaemily down by saying this is the, and I quote, 'stupidest thing I have ever read' is in itself a stupid thing to write. It shows you need to read some more if that is the stupidest thing you have ever read.

    Controlling guns is not the government controlling our freedom, yes maybe we arent free to go out and get a gun but to be honest very few people really need a gun. If you're that bothered about owning a gun for self defence, go live in America, or go to self defence classes (they'll be substantially cheaper to be honest).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    or go to self defence classes (they'll be substantially cheaper to be honest).
    no they're not! a can of pepper spray costs $10, dozens of martial arts classes on the other hand would be substantialy more and probably less effective
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    It says in the article that the culprits were 'aged between 14 and 17' so although by law they can hold a firearms certificate, I doubt that they would be able to show good reason for holding one, and 'self defence' certainly isn't a good reason.
    yeh because thats how black youths in London get hold of their firearms right? they apply for an FAC, provide 2 excellent referees and then ask their feo politely for a variation for a mac 10 :rolleyes:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    no they're not! a can of pepper spray costs $10, dozens of martial arts classes on the other hand would be substantialy more and probably less effective
    haha, fair doo's, don't buy pepper spray.

    surely having more people with firearms on the street increases the likelyhood of them being used, then ultimately you needing more self defence precautions?.

    Anyway, in the UK we have one of the lowest mortality rates from firearms in the world and public opinion backs strict UK laws. In fact, the gun licensing act is currently under review and will probably become stricter. So, although you may speak out, it is doubtful these laws will be relaxed any time soon.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    The right to public safety and freedom to walk the street without your head being blown off
    Yeah, this is the difference between us Libertarians and you anti-freedom authoritarians following your Nazi-esque ideology. You have no trust in society. Any liberalisation of anything causes a knee jerk reaction. Slightly liberalise gun control laws? THE STREETS ARE CHAOS!!!

    Go back to your Tory-voting, Mail-reading, immigration-tutting middle class lifestyle. I know your kind exactly, and as said before, I will always fight your kind for the liberty of the individual.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    In fact, the gun licensing act is currently under review and will probably become stricter.
    won't make the slightest difference to illegal gun crime, this was proven after the government tightened laws after 1997, you sound like another brainwashed sheep
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Yeah, this is the difference between us Libertarians and you anti-freedom authoritarians following your Nazi-esque ideology. You have no trust in society. Any liberalisation of anything causes a knee jerk reaction. Slightly liberalise gun control laws? THE STREETS ARE CHAOS!!!

    Go back to your Tory-voting, Mail-reading, immigration-tutting middle class lifestyle. I know your kind exactly, and as said before, I will always fight your kind for the liberty of the individual.
    I am in no part anti-freedom, I'm just looking at the evidence. Knee jerk reaction against liberalism, im a blinking Liberal Democrat!

    To be honest you clearly have no grip on the issue. Just relating every person who opposes your view to the Nazis is utterly idiotic, in fact its offensive.

    Get a grip. A; I wouldn't vote Tory if my life depended on it. I'm a Liberal Democrat.
    B: wouldn't wipe my behind with the mail if it was offered to me, I read The Independent (generally non-biased news)

    C: Immigration has been beneficial to many parts of the UK, look back into our history far enough and you will find that all of us decend from outside the UK anyway.

    My 'Kind' as you put it believe in looking at the evidence and forming a balanced and rational argument. Something you seem to be missunderstanding. The facts remain that the UK has one of the lowest mortality rates from firearms, and we have some of the strictest gun laws, coincidence?. UN data supports this. I'd like to see all your sourced, evidenced data and statistics on why you oppose this please!. Calling myself or anyone else who goes against you a Nazi is not an acceptable answer by the way
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    I am in no part anti-freedom, I'm just looking at the evidence. Knee jerk reaction against liberalism, im a blinking Liberal Democrat!

    To be honest you clearly have no grip on the issue. Just relating every person who opposes your view to the Nazis is utterly idiotic, in fact its offensive.

    Get a grip. A; I wouldn't vote Tory if my life depended on it. I'm a Liberal Democrat.
    B: wouldn't wipe my behind with the mail if it was offered to me, I read The Independent (generally non-biased news)

    C: Immigration has been beneficial to many parts of the UK, look back into our history far enough and you will find that all of us decend from outside the UK anyway.

    My 'Kind' as you put it believe in looking at the evidence and forming a balanced and rational argument. Something you seem to be missunderstanding. The facts remain that the UK has one of the lowest mortality rates from firearms, and we have some of the strictest gun laws, coincidence?. UN data supports this. I'd like to see all your sourced, evidenced data and statistics on why you oppose this please!. Calling myself or anyone else who goes against you a Nazi is not an acceptable answer by the way
    Then either you're voting for the wrong party, or the "Liberal" Democrats are misnamed. Because it's completely false for anyone to call themselves liberal but be authoritarian on one single issue. I didn't call you Nazi - I said you are following a Nazi-esque ideology. Read more here http://jpfo.org/

    As Franklin said: They who can give up liberty to obtain a little safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.. I believe in trusting people, and not simply banning anything that could technically harm somebody else.. A shotgun gives me utility and can harm somebody else, same goes for a handgun.. one is outright banned, the other isn't..
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Then either you're voting for the wrong party, or the "Liberal" Democrats are misnamed. Because it's completely false for anyone to call themselves liberal but be authoritarian on one single issue. I didn't call you Nazi - I said you are following a Nazi-esque ideology. Read more here http://jpfo.org/

    As Franklin said: They who can give up liberty to obtain a little safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.. I believe in trusting people, and not simply banning anything that could technically harm somebody else.. A shotgun gives me utility and can harm somebody else, same goes for a handgun.. one is outright banned, the other isn't..
    I still need statistics though. You haven't provided me with any to support your view. And a quote, for me, isn't evidence.
    The liberal democrats will never be completely liberal in your eyes, anyone in governments is bound to be authoritarian, thats the whole point in a government, to govern. In fact governments rarely govern in the west, it all tends to be to do with 'the markets', the media and the economy.
    Wishing for public safety is not a nazi-esque ideal at all. It's a perfectly reasonable and rational wish. I respect that you have views different to mine, but if you are going to call my principles nazi-esque I want some bonefied evidence that your view is also valid. I provided you with my evidence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    I still need statistics though. You haven't provided me with any to support your view. And a quote, for me, isn't evidence.
    The liberal democrats will never be completely liberal in your eyes, anyone in governments is bound to be authoritarian, thats the whole point in a government, to govern. In fact governments rarely govern in the west, it all tends to be to do with 'the markets', the media and the economy.
    Wishing for public safety is not a nazi-esque ideal at all. It's a perfectly reasonable and rational wish. I respect that you have views different to mine, but if you are going to call my principles nazi-esque I want some bonefied evidence that your view is also valid. I provided you with my evidence.
    Um, I fail to see which "evidence" or "statistics" you want me to provide.. the defence of liberty isn't really a mathematical one.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Um, I fail to see which "evidence" or "statistics" you want me to provide.. the defence of liberty isn't really a mathematical one.
    I do defend liberty, the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to live, the right to work, the right to be safe.
    However I don't believe anyone really needs the right to own a firearm. That's all, it goes against the fundemental rights to be safe and to live (although you could counteract it with self defence I suppose). We abolished the death penalty in the UK because it was flawed. Just handing the ability to decided someones right to life in the name of 'self defence' into the hands of everyone would also be morally and ethically flawed. Why should you be able to decide if someone should live or die at the end of your gun?. No one should be able to make that decision, no one. To believe you have the right to make that decision in the name of self-defence shows you put yourself morally above everyone else which is incorrect and wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    I do defend liberty, the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to live, the right to work, the right to be safe.
    However I don't believe anyone really needs the right to own a firearm. That's all, it goes against the fundemental rights to be safe and to live (although you could counteract it with self defence I suppose). We abolished the death penalty in the UK because it was flawed. Just handing the ability to decided someones right to life in the name of 'self defence' into the hands of everyone would also be morally and ethically flawed. Why should you be able to decide if someone should live or die at the end of your gun?. No one should be able to make that decision, no one. To believe you have the right to make that decision in the name of self-defence shows you put yourself morally above everyone else which is incorrect and wrong.
    Well, if I got a handgun then I would store it carefully and gain utility from it, in whatever way that may be (shooting a target in my back garden, for example). Nobody else in society would be negatively affected by me owning that gun, the only net gain would be positive. However, I cannot, because someone, somewhere, might get a handgun and use it wrongly. Off the top of my head (these figures may be wrong but I hope they are broadly correct) the UK had 70,000 handgun owners in 1997, but because of 1 single person using it wrongly in a tragic event, the other 69,999 lost their liberty to own a handgun. I believe that taking away the liberty of the majority, just because of the actions of a tiny minority, is not good action. We do not ban Islam because a few Muslims are terrorists, we do not imprison all black people because a few are criminals, and so on, and yet, we ban all handguns because of the actions of a tiny, tiny minority.

    I believe the root cause of hoplophobic opinion is held in the definition of the word itself - it's a phobia. There is an obvious link that people interested in guns want gun law liberalisation, whilst those with no interest want gun laws strengthened, and as the latter are in the majority, we are simply seeing classic tyranny of the majority - "I personally have no interest in it, and there's an absolutely tiny chance that it will affect me" - these 2 factors combine to cause hoplophobia.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Well, if I got a handgun then I would store it carefully and gain utility from it, in whatever way that may be (shooting a target in my back garden, for example). Nobody else in society would be negatively affected by me owning that gun, the only net gain would be positive. However, I cannot, because someone, somewhere, might get a handgun and use it wrongly. Off the top of my head (these figures may be wrong but I hope they are broadly correct) the UK had 70,000 handgun owners in 1997, but because of 1 single person using it wrongly in a tragic event, the other 69,999 lost their liberty to own a handgun. I believe that taking away the liberty of the majority, just because of the actions of a tiny minority, is not good action. We do not ban Islam because a few Muslims are terrorists, we do not imprison all black people because a few are criminals, and so on, and yet, we ban all handguns because of the actions of a tiny, tiny minority.

    I believe the root cause of hoplophobic opinion is held in the definition of the word itself - it's a phobia. There is an obvious link that people interested in guns want gun law liberalisation, whilst those with no interest want gun laws strengthened, and as the latter are in the majority, we are simply seeing classic tyranny of the majority - "I personally have no interest in it, and there's an absolutely tiny chance that it will affect me" - these 2 factors combine to cause hoplophobia.
    May I remind you I have a gun license, yet I support more restriction. I have no problem with the ownership of firearms for the purposes of sport, or countryside management. I just oppose the use of guns for self defence.

    May I remind you that a hand gun is not a human either. Well, tyranny of the majority it may be, but alas that is known as a democracy my friend, something which I'm sure your liberal views will support.

    I'm afraid I'd love to stop and chat but I have more important an pressing things to catch up on. The law will hopefully never become more relaxed. The evidence supports more restriction and thank fully the government has to work on an evidence based approach for the important things in society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    I have no problem with the ownership of firearms for the purposes of sport, or countryside management.
    So you support my right to buy a handgun and shoot a target for sport? Or is that an exception you take an authoritarian stance on?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    So you support my right to buy a handgun and shoot a target for sport? Or is that an exception you take an authoritarian stance on?
    Same old, same old...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    Same old, same old...
    It's a simple yes/no question which I see you've completely avoided, because you're starting to come to terms with your authoritarian stance on the issue. Pathetic :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Cyprus, 1 in 3 people own a firearm http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cyprus
    its still a very safe country, I'm quarter greek cypriot by the way
 
 
 
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.