Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Fear of crime in the UK and guns Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lampoon)
    Surely if you do not intend to risk killing another person you should not bring a gun out in a tense situation.

    A gun is only a threat if you intend to use it, if you don't then it is just a nicely cast piece of metal.

    I would also point out that gun crime is proportionally far higher in the US than in the UK, despite your assertion that criminals have the monopoly on guns here.
    Break that down into a state by state analysis. States who are harsh on guns are often the biggest culprits when it comes to gun crime.

    The point I was making to biggie is that you don't always have to use your gun. Just having it can prevent something from kicking off. Armed police bring guns into every situation of their work, and 99% of the time, the people they are after surrender without a shot being fired. I agree people should be prepared to shoot someone by the time they take out their gun, but that's not a guarantee that you will have to. Armed police are prepared to shoot anyone they point their guns at, but they hope and pray that the situation will resolve itself before they are forced to make that choice.

    An armed household is not an attractive target for a burglar. Though I expect this is where the people who watched a bit too much Rambo movies will chime in with the "I would just go into the house and kill all of the people with guns first" or other weird claims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    I really hope that is a joke, because what you talk about is very sick indeed. How the hell do you figure that shooting someone who is bigger than you is a think shooting someone would make everything better?
    That seems to be what you were implying.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Weapons of mass destruction don't kill people...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie)
    That seems to be what you were implying.
    That's not what I was saying at all. Nothing I said even remotely suggested that it would be better to just shoot anyone bigger than you. What I actually said was that a gun can help in those situations. Simply the presence of the gun is likely to deter someone.

    You would only shoot someone if they were an imminent deadly threat to you, not just because they are bigger than you. For goodness sake, please tell me you understand that?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Weapons of mass destruction don't kill people...
    The implication being that we should just hand them out to anyone who wants one? Are you out of your mind? :eek: :confused:

    I take it you are one of thee "if we let people have guns, then why not let them have nukes, there is absolutely no difference between them" people.

    I'll give you my answer to that - The difference lies in what is reasonable for self-defence and what is not. It's not reasonable common sense to let an individual have WMD for "self-defence". You aren't going to need it, and you can't even use it for self-defence. Common sense allows for light arms, not huge WMD.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    That's not what I was saying at all. Nothing I said even remotely suggested that it would be better to just shoot anyone bigger than you. What I actually said was that a gun can help in those situations. Simply the presence of the gun is likely to deter someone.

    You would only shoot someone if they were an imminent deadly threat to you, not just because they are bigger than you. For goodness sake, please tell me you understand that?
    If someone is threatening you with a gun the worst thing you can do is pull out another gun, that will only escalate the situation. Instead you should just cut your losses and leave, alive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair to the US, although their gun crime is much higher than ours, a lot of other crime compares well against ours. Our knife crime for example is much higher. It's no coincidence that crime is much higher in cities like Chicago where gun laws are strictest.

    I'm not pro-guns by the way, not at all, but I think it helps to look at both sides of the argument. Assault rifles are not weapons you need to defend your home from intruders, for example.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    I guess we need to ensure stable law-abiding people are the ones who are allowed guns
    How on earth would you do that though, just because someone hasn't got a criminal record, doesn't mean they're not a potential criminal. You could do extensive psychiatry tests, but even then there's no way of telling whether or not they might develop a dangerous mental health problem and become another mass murderer like the ones at Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lampoon)
    If someone is threatening you with a gun the worst thing you can do is pull out another gun, that will only escalate the situation. Instead you should just cut your losses and leave, alive.
    But now you're adding in more assumptions! We weren't talking about cases where someone is pointing a gun at you, I was talking about situations like a mugging or a house robbery. Simply the knowledge that the person has a gun will more than likely deter anyone from starting anything. I would advise against listening to people who come out with nonsense like "The other person will just get a gun and shoot you first". They never offer any evidence to support their rather weird claim that a mugger will instinctively escalate to committing murder rather than just moving on to an easier victim.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    But now you're adding in more assumptions! We weren't talking about cases where someone is pointing a gun at you, I was talking about situations like a mugging or a house robbery. Simply the knowledge that the person has a gun will more than likely deter anyone from starting anything. I would advise against listening to people who come out with nonsense like "The other person will just get a gun and shoot you first". They never offer any evidence to support their rather weird claim that a mugger will instinctively escalate to committing murder rather than just moving on to an easier victim.
    But how are they going to know that you have a gun? Are you going to tell them, put signs in your window, what?

    You have said yourself that criminals have the monopoly on guns, thus if someone does mug you or break into your house it is far more likely that they will be armed than you, and if their day to day business is violence and crime they will probably be more likely to use a gun than the average victim, whose day to day business is sitting behind a computer.

    Just out of interest have you ever been the victim (or perpetrator) of gun crime?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OP do you have any evidence that the US has lower crime rates and/or less fear of crime in general than the UK thanks to the presence of guns?

    Before you ask, I don't count "my friends in the uk don't feel safe but my freind in the US does" as evidence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lampoon)

    You have said yourself that criminals have the monopoly on guns, thus if someone does mug you or break into your house it is far more likely that they will be armed than you, and if their day to day business is violence and crime they will probably be more likely to use a gun than the average victim, whose day to day business is sitting behind a computer.
    What's funny is that criminals here don't have a "monopoly on guns" because it's not that easy to get hold of them. 99% of people breaking into your home or jacking your phone in the street will not have a gun, as they will in a country where they're legal to own.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lampoon)
    But how are they going to know that you have a gun? Are you going to tell them, put signs in your window, what?

    You have said yourself that criminals have the monopoly on guns, thus if someone does mug you or break into your house it is far more likely that they will be armed than you, and if their day to day business is violence and crime they will probably be more likely to use a gun than the average victim, whose day to day business is sitting behind a computer.

    Just out of interest have you ever been the victim (or perpetrator) of gun crime?
    They won't know for sure, but they will know it's possible you have one. And the cost to benefit ratio isn't worth it for the criminal. You might not be carrying, but the criminal doesn't know that. And he's risking his life if he decides to attack you.

    What I don't understand a change in the law would result in every criminal bringing a gun to every situation. If the level of risk is them getting shot and maybe killed whenever they mug someone or burgle a house, is it not more likely that a significant number of them will be deterred from doing it in the first place? I think so.

    I've not ever been a victim (or perpetrator, why would you you ask that?) of gun crime. Hope to see it continue that way, which is why I would like a change in the law.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arturo Bandini)
    What's funny is that criminals here don't have a "monopoly on guns" because it's not that easy to get hold of them. 99% of people breaking into your home or jacking your phone in the street will not have a gun, as they will in a country where they're legal to own.
    Again this assumption that criminals would bring a gun and escalate everything, instead of deciding not to risk it. What do you base it on?

    If a mugger grabs your phone now, he risks maybe getting a few bruises if you fight back. If he knows that you have a gun, and he risks getting shot if he tries to mug you then assault you if you fight him off, a huge number of criminals are going to decide the risk to reward ratio is no longer worth it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    Again this assumption that criminals would bring a gun and escalate everything, instead of deciding not to risk it. What do you base it on?

    If a mugger grabs your phone now, he risks maybe getting a few bruises if you fight back. If he knows that you have a gun, and he risks getting shot if he tries to mug you then assault you if you fight him off, a huge number of criminals are going to decide the risk to reward ratio is no longer worth it.
    Assuming your logic is correct and works in the real world (which it doesn't really, if you look at US crime rates), then it's a trade-off. Less petty crimes for more gun crimes. Do you really think that's a worthwhile trade-off?

    Also, if gun laws are loosened in the UK, and things go bad, what then? This isn't the kind of law you can experiment with - even if you re-tighten the gun laws, there already are guns in circulation. This is the problem that US states with tighter gun laws face; guns are no longer readily available to the public, yet there is a decent amount of guns already in circulation, such that if you go out of your way to get one, you probably will. This is why I don't think tightening gun laws in the US is a good idea, but it's best to keep the UK gun laws as is. For if things get ****ed up, there is unfortunately no way back.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by justinawe)
    Assuming your logic is correct and works in the real world (which it doesn't really, if you look at US crime rates), then it's a trade-off. Less petty crimes for more gun crimes. Do you really think that's a worthwhile trade-off?
    There wouldn't be "more" gun crimes, guns would just replace other weapons as the weapon of choice. So yeah you might have 100 gun deaths instead of 100 fatal stabbings. Technically that's an "increase in gun crime" but in reality, it means the same amount of crime, but a different weapon being used.

    Once again - Look at things on a state by state basis, and you see that the areas with very strict gun control laws are the biggest offenders. California, Chicago, DC.

    I agree with you that banning guns in the US is not an answer. Don't the idiots who are proposing an outright ban on all guns remember tragedies like Newtown and Virginia Tech? And instead of considering ways to try and prevent something like that happening in the future, they want to exploit the deaths of schoolchildren to further their selfish political aims. It seems some people have no shame.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I like being able to go to college or to the cinema without worrying about some gun wielding lunatic with a gun, thanks. I understand that criminals will still carry guns, but I am thankful we are tough on guns here. I don't want to live in a place like America.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    There wouldn't be "more" gun crimes, guns would just replace other weapons as the weapon of choice. So yeah you might have 100 gun deaths instead of 100 fatal stabbings. Technically that's an "increase in gun crime" but in reality, it means the same amount of crime, but a different weapon being used.
    Think about why guns would "replace other weapons as the weapon of choice", though. That's right - because it's far easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. Chances of escaping in a situation where someone is trying to stab you are far higher than if someone is trying to shoot you.

    Mass killings also aren't possible without guns. A guy with a gun can still pose a large threat to a big crowd, a guy with a knife can't really.

    Once again - Look at things on a state by state basis, and you see that the areas with very strict gun control laws are the biggest offenders. California, Chicago, DC.
    I believe I've already explained why this is so in my previous post.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    I like being able to go to college or to the cinema without worrying about some gun wielding lunatic with a gun, thanks. I understand that criminals will still carry guns, but I am thankful we are tough on guns here. I don't want to live in a place like America.
    I definitely agree with this. As an international student planning to study in the UK, this is the main thing that put me off going to the US instead.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by justinawe)
    Think about why guns would "replace other weapons as the weapon of choice", though. That's right - because it's far easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. Chances of escaping in a situation where someone is trying to stab you are far higher than if someone is trying to shoot you.
    What study do you base that on?

    (Original post by justinawe)
    I believe I've already explained why this is so in my previous post.
    I don't think you have. They have high gun crime because criminals have the monopoly on guns. That means they can commit crime with relative safety, being armed while knowing the victim isn't armed.

    When the victim MIGHT be armed....suddenly the situation changes. Even if the criminal himself has a gun and might win in a confrontation with an armed victim, the risk of is so much higher, which makes the crime so unattractive to the criminal. He will move onto easier targets.
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.