Will the UK ever reverse it's authoritarian gun laws?

Watch
This discussion is closed.
ukr-nffc
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#61
Report 9 years ago
#61
guns don't kill people, rappers do

ban rappers

/thread
0
Selkarn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#62
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#62
(Original post by silverbolt)
thats all right i value your inane babble as less that valid so i guess it balances out.

My apologies i forgot to add the sarcasm smile/note in my last post.
You're mad because someone is going against your authoritarian viewpoint.
1
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#63
Report 9 years ago
#63
(Original post by kingsholmmad)
That, I fear, is part of the problem. No government these days is going to legalise gun ownership without seeing it as a form revenue generation. Which means licensing. Which means it would be the government who carried out (and kept records of) individual's mental stability. Since you want guns to be a political tool, it follows that the government would, at the same time, test (and keep records of) your political stability / status. By what measure is that reducing governmental power and authoritarianism?
The government would probably turn it into a revenue generation scheme. I disagree however that the infomation gained by the government would give any clarification of the persons political stuatus. Many ardent supporters of government in America gun owners and many anti-government anarchist also or a general recreational shooter. The Government can pretty much already gain enough information on peoples political status anyway.

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
Well, yes. If the political situation were different, circumstances would be different. But it isn't. And they aren't.
I am not saying that the political situation is such and such and that we need guns. I'm saying that this is a precautionary measure in case such and such did occur. The fact that recession and famines and wars often happen without prediction and their resultant effects can't be mitigated it, it is wise not to assume that they wont just happen.

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
You just don't know people. The majority of gun usage probably would be reactive but that still leaves a minority (possibly quite sizeable) usage that would be offensive not defensive. In addition to that, the reactive users would be, by definition, violently reactive. If you're going to have a gun, you're going to use it, otherwise why have it? It's pointless having it purely to be a threat because, if you're not going to use it, it's no threat.

As far as the "political usage" angle goes, that just doesn't wash. I absolutely, unreservedly guarantee that most blokes who would buy your newly-legalised guns would be doing so with the express aim of committing a crime or of showing it off to their mates. Big flash guns would become designer accessories in the way that big flash cars, mobiles, gadgets etc have become. The truth is there are a lot less blokes who sit around muttering, "Come the glorious day, brother" like Citizen Smith than there are blokes who sit around boasting, "Look at the size of me weapon, I'm well 'ard".
Some people would say the same about knives. I believe alot of these so called reactive users of guns are bred by societal issues which can be solved. One major reason for gun crime in america i believe i due to their prison system which breads hardened criminals. If you don't have a prison system that breads hardened, then surely that would have a greater effect on crime. The fact that a minority of people can't use guns responsibly, it shouldn't eradicate the large majority of people's right to bear arms. Having a prison system based more upon rehabilitation rather than incarceration would help reduce the number of hardened criminals.
0
Selkarn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#64
(Original post by Addzter)
I'm not sure I'd want the UK to change it's gun laws, considering we have one of the lowest rates of homicide with a firearm on the planet.
That statistic means nothing. I'll show you why:

Country A:

5 homicides with a firearm/per 1million people/month
500 homicides with a knife/per 1million people/month

Country B:
10 homicides with a firearm/per 1million people/month
100 homicides with a knife/per 1million people/month

I know where I and virtually everyone else would rather live, based on those figures.
0
Selkarn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#65
(Original post by Boobies.)
Gun laws are relaxed enough in this country. If you want a gun, its easy enough to get a license.
Actually it's impossible to get a handgun
0
Die mk2
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#66
Report 9 years ago
#66
Why do we want to reverse our strict gun laws?
Surely it's common sense; less lethal weapons in the country = less deaths from those weapons
0
Leon Trotsky
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#67
Report 9 years ago
#67
(Original post by Selkarn)
That statistic means nothing. I'll show you why:

Country A:

5 homicides with a firearm/per 1million people/month
500 homicides with a knife/per 1million people/month

Country B:
10 homicides with a firearm/per 1million people/month
100 homicides with a knife/per 1million people/month

I know where I and virtually everyone else would rather live, based on those figures.
Knife crime is a separate issue. Just because levels of knife crime are relatively high and gun crime are low doesn't mean we should legalise firearms to even the numbers out. If there were two serial killers on the loose and we caught one, and the second serial killer suddenly began killing even more people, it doesn't mean we should release the first one.
0
karateworm
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#68
Report 9 years ago
#68
"Ok guys, things aren't going too well at the moment. What shall we do?"

"I know, let's arm the population!"
0
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#69
Report 9 years ago
#69
(Original post by Selkarn)
You're mad because someone is going against your authoritarian viewpoint.
And you're mad because someone is going against your anti-authoritarian viewpoint. It's a vicious circle that can only be resolved by one man:

Image
0
kingsholmmad
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#70
Report 9 years ago
#70
(Original post by zedbrar)
The government would probably turn it into a revenue generation scheme. I disagree however that the infomation gained by the government would give any clarification of the persons political stuatus. Many ardent supporters of government in America gun owners and many anti-government anarchist also or a general recreational shooter.
Yes but that's because they had their guns before they had their current government. Legalising guns over here would not give the same circumstances as exist in America. We have a different culture with different attitudes and we would treat guns differently. And not in a good way.


The Government can pretty much already gain enough information on peoples political status anyway.
Certainly they can but the point I was making was that you have this idea that the guns would only (or primarily) be used as political tools or for political purposes. By definition that means that anyone using a gun must be politically active and therefore either a threat or an asset to the government. The government would therefore be extremely stupid not to find out which side of the fence each gun-owner was on and they would make it a lot harder for those who could be a threat to get guns.


I am not saying that the political situation is such and such and that we need guns. I'm saying that this is a precautionary measure in case such and such did occur. The fact that recession and famines and wars often happen without prediction and their resultant effects can't be mitigated it, it is wise not to assume that they wont just happen.
I'm doing my best to treat your views with due respect
but you're making it very hard for me. Arming the populace on the off chance that there might be a revolution is about like introducing conscription on the off chance that N Korea invades. Yes, it's a possibility but, in truth, there are several more realistic alternatives that have to be considered.

Some people would say the same about knives. I believe alot of these so called reactive users of guns are bred by societal issues which can be solved.
Yes, they could be but they haven't been. The most important point that I think you're missing is that if you legalise guns, you do it in the real world. As it exists now. Not as you would like it to exist.


One major reason for gun crime in america i believe i due to their prison system which breads hardened criminals. If you don't have a prison system that breads hardened, then surely that would have a greater effect on crime.
Yes but, again, you're trying to introduce guns into a world which you would like to see happening. I'd like it if there were fewer hardened criminals too, but that's not the way it is. If you introduce guns into society, you introduce them into the society we've got, not the society you want.


The fact that a minority of people can't use guns responsibly, it shouldn't eradicate the large majority of people's right to bear arms.
A gun licence isn't like a driving licence or an artistic performing licence. Not letting anybody have a performing licence because a few people can't sing would be stupid. Not giving the general public access to guns because a minority can't be trusted with them actually saves lives.


Having a prison system based more upon rehabilitation rather than incarceration would help reduce the number of hardened criminals.
I expect it would but, as I say, it's no good legalising guns and hoping that society turns out all right. First you have to create the society that you're suggesting and then think about legalising guns although, if you did succeed in creating your sort of society, you would probably find that guns were superfluous anyway.

Oh, and on a seperate note, I may not be a political nazi but I am definitely a grammar nazi so it's "would have", not "would of" and it's "breed" not "bread". Bread is what I had for lunch.
1
Selkarn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#71
(Original post by Addzter)
Knife crime is a separate issue. Just because levels of knife crime are relatively high and gun crime are low doesn't mean we should legalise firearms to even the numbers out. If there were two serial killers on the loose and we caught one, and the second serial killer suddenly began killing even more people, it doesn't mean we should release the first one.
I'm just saying that firearm homicide rates on their own mean absolutely nothing.
0
kingsholmmad
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#72
Report 9 years ago
#72
(Original post by Selkarn)
I'm just saying that firearm homicide rates on their own mean absolutely nothing.
Oh be fair, they are quite relevant to firearms. Granted, they shouldn't be taken in isolation but they are relevant.

Anyway, never mind that, I want to know what you're going to do with your gun when you've got it, I mean who are you going to be using it on?
0
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#73
Report 9 years ago
#73
(Original post by kingsholmmad)
Yes but that's because they had their guns before they had their current government. Legalising guns over here would not give the same circumstances as exist in America. We have a different culture with different attitudes and we would treat guns differently. And not in a good way.
I think you are taking a very pessimistic view towards the people

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
Certainly they can but the point I was making was that you have this idea that the guns would only (or primarily) be used as political tools or for political purposes. By definition that means that anyone using a gun must be politically active and therefore either a threat or an asset to the government. The government would therefore be extremely stupid not to find out which side of the fence each gun-owner was on and they would make it a lot harder for those who could be a threat to get guns.
Guns have always been and will always be used for recreational purposes. I am saying that they also have political importance as well. I see both as equally fit reasons to allow guns. Therefore, anyone owning a gun is not a political rebel, but could be a sportsman. The government would find it somewhat difficult to draw the line between the two.

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
I'm doing my best to treat your views with due respect
but you're making it very hard for me. Arming the populace on the off chance that there might be a revolution is about like introducing conscription on the off chance that N Korea invades. Yes, it's a possibility but, in truth, there are several more realistic alternatives that have to be considered.
We both disagree with each and hold our own opinions. That is the whole pint of the debate section. If everyone agreed with each other there would be no need for this section. The whole point of this thread was to encourage debate upon the topic of firearms. I've not once said that gun ownership is to be forced upon people. It is people's choice whether to own a gun or not. Consciption doesn't involve a choice. One involves a government allowing citizens to make a choice, the other is the government dictating what the citizens should do.

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
Yes, they could be but they haven't been. The most important point that I think you're missing is that if you legalise guns, you do it in the real world. As it exists now. Not as you would like it to exist. Yes but, again, you're trying to introduce guns into a world which you would like to see happening. I'd like it if there were fewer hardened criminals too, but that's not the way it is. If you introduce guns into society, you introduce them into the society we've got, not the society you want.
But see you are blaming guns for the crime and not the society that created the people whom abused their guns. Yes we may not be in this ideal society, but change is possible and i don't see no reason why we shouldn't improve our prison system, ignoring the debate of guns.


(Original post by kingsholmmad)
A gun licence isn't like a driving licence or an artistic performing licence. Not letting anybody have a performing licence because a few people can't sing would be stupid. Not giving the general public access to guns because a minority can't be trusted with them actually saves lives.
Huh? So what you are saying is that not letting anybody have a driving licence because a few people can't drive would be stupid? Not giving the general public access to cars because a minority can't be trusted with them actually saves lives.

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
I expect it would but, as I say, it's no good legalising guns and hoping that society turns out all right. First you have to create the society that you're suggesting and then think about legalising guns although, if you did succeed in creating your sort of society, you would probably find that guns were superfluous anyway.

Oh, and on a seperate note, I may not be a political nazi but I am definitely a grammar nazi so it's "would have", not "would of" and it's "breed" not "bread". Bread is what I had for lunch.
Whatever....firstly, i have had 2 hours sleep so obviously i am not going to be writing perfect. Secondly, i don't really care as this is not a thread about grammar. Maybe you might also want take note of all the times i have typed the word 'I' without capitalising it?
0
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#74
Report 9 years ago
#74
(Original post by kingsholmmad)
Oh be fair, they are quite relevant to firearms. Granted, they shouldn't be taken in isolation but they are relevant.

Anyway, never mind that, I want to know what you're going to do with your gun when you've got it, I mean who are you going to be using it on?
The Police at the start, then the houses of parliament, then the capitalist fat cats and then we transform Great Britain into a loose federation of Anarcho-Syndicalist Communes. :holmes:

In all seriousness I suspect Selkarn wants the gun for a notion of 'Self Defence'.
0
Selkarn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#75
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#75
(Original post by kingsholmmad)
Oh be fair, they are quite relevant to firearms. Granted, they shouldn't be taken in isolation but they are relevant.

Anyway, never mind that, I want to know what you're going to do with your gun when you've got it, I mean who are you going to be using it on?
Who said I want a gun?
0
Selkarn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#76
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#76
Image

The current anti-gun agenda in the UK is caused by the upper classes wanting to subjugate the lower classes. They fear an uprising which could only occur with an armed population, so they deprive them of weaponry. It's classism, authoritarianism, and illiberal.
0
Benstep
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#77
Report 9 years ago
#77
(Original post by Fusilero)

In all seriousness I suspect Selkarn wants the gun for a notion of 'Self Defence'.
I suspect he gets bullied quite a bit and wants to go on a school shoot.
0
Selkarn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#78
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#78
(Original post by Benstep)
I suspect he gets bullied quite a bit and wants to go on a school shoot.
:rofl::rofl: damn, how did you know.. :rolleyes:
0
kingsholmmad
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#79
Report 9 years ago
#79
(Original post by Selkarn)
Who said I want a gun?
Well, if you don't want a gun, why put the country through the time, cost and grief that would be needed to legalise guns? This is not the part of our law in greatest need of the most urgent attention; let it be.
0
HistoryRepeating
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#80
Report 9 years ago
#80
(Original post by gingerrama)
It's pretty much the same thing with drugs; if we legalise them, everyone will stop using them. Right?

Anyway OP, compare gun crime rates in the US and in Britain. QED
Drugs are very different. Its pretty uncommon for someone to use drugs to deliberately assault another person. The main function of drugs is personal enjoyment, not committing crimes against others.

Legalising drugs would cause an increase in drug use, and rightly so - its a cheap and extremely enjoyable activity with very manageable risks, but it would cause a decrease in drug -abuse- if done right, as people would find it vastly easier to get help, and taxation could fund huge amounts.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (58)
13.39%
Virtual campus tours/open days (99)
22.86%
Live streaming events (39)
9.01%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (41)
9.47%
A uni comparison tool (99)
22.86%
An in-person event when available (97)
22.4%

Watched Threads

View All