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

Is the Swiss approach to guns better? Watch

  • View Poll Results: The best gun control system?
    UK
    45
    71.43%
    US
    5
    7.94%
    Switzerland
    7
    11.11%
    Other(please state)
    3
    4.76%
    Canada
    3
    4.76%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    Some good arguments, I'm not convinced that the overall crime rate will stay the same, however. Do you think a firearm would make violence easier?
    It could do, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.


    (Original post by pjm600)
    As a separate point, is there a need for firearms for personal safety in the UK?
    I believe there is, I'd feel safer with one.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    By allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns, you are leveling the playing field. They allow a much smaller and physically weaker person to fight back against a person who could be much stronger, outnumber them, or be using a weapon that , heaven forbid! is illegal!

    Firearms also prevent anywhere between 800,000 and 2 million crimes a year in the USA, because most criminals flee at the sight of a gun; they want an easy target, not a gunfight.

    I also would feel safer, as I don't feel confident with my current ability to protect myself, and the police are minutes away when seconds count.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tibbs735)
    I'm probably going to get torn apart for posting this on TSR, but I'm very pro-gun.

    I think that the right for people to keep and bear arms, as well as forming militias is up there with the right to free speech, free press and a fair trial. I think self defense is a universal right.

    I support a system where to buy a gun you must show valid ID, and have your name checked against a list of the mentally unstable, or those serving a sentence or otherwise deemed to be a danger to society, and if you are clean, you can buy what you want.

    I don't think that access to guns is the problem, rather it is the society and culture of a particular country. E.g, we used to have no gun laws in the UK, but virtually no gun crime. Mexico and lots of south American countries have very restrictive gun laws, but very high murder rates with guns, Mexico especially. It's the anti-gun, democrat controlled cities in the US that have the highest gun crime rates. This is why I think that there is very little correlation between ownership of firearms and gun crime rates. After all, the murder rate has been consistently falling after they got rid of their assault weapons ban, and allowed CCW permits ( though I am not implying a direct connection.)

    I think that if you genuinely want to reduce crime and prevent mass shootings, and you are not mounting your own malicious, 1984-esque crusade against gun owners, there are solutions that don't involve targeting the law abiding and can work for everyone. Like focusing on why someone would want to shoot up a school or theater or why someone feels the need to kill someone over a handful of money.

    The issues are the economy and mental health. Leave gun owners alone.
    Well said mate!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tibbs735)
    By allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns, you are leveling the playing field. They allow a much smaller and physically weaker person to fight back against a person who could be much stronger, outnumber them, or be using a weapon that , heaven forbid! is illegal!

    Firearms also prevent anywhere between 800,000 and 2 million crimes a year in the USA, because most criminals flee at the sight of a gun; they want an easy target, not a gunfight.

    I also would feel safer, as I don't feel confident with my current ability to protect myself, and the police are minutes away when seconds count.
    Well said, especially in urban areas where fear of crime is high
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    Well known to the criminal who has prior knowledge a crime is about to take place. Better off to shoot the people in question while you have the element of surprise. I hate this argument its desperate and has no basis in real life.
    Simply firing at the mass shooter is severely disrupts there intended path of destruction and breaks their fantasy of ultimate control, which can sometimes cause them to surrender or kill themselves right there.

    Average number of deaths in a mass shooting stopped by a civilian or person on the scene with a gun: 2.3
    Average number of deaths " but stopped by police when they eventually turn up:
    18.25
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone else vote for the US for the irony?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hormonal)
    Did anyone else vote for the US for the irony?
    Their system works better than ours, and that's saying something. I am of course referring to the system in place in states like Idaho and Montana, as opposed to places like New Jersey and DC.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tibbs735)
    Their system works better than ours, and that's saying something. I am of course referring to the system in place in states like Idaho and Montana, as opposed to places like New Jersey and DC.
    It was between the US, UK and Switzerland, not separate states.

    That's like me saying, oh, London has a relatively high gun rate, but let's compare my county (where gun crime hasn't happened for god knows how long) instead.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hormonal)
    It was between the US, UK and Switzerland, not separate states.

    That's like me saying, oh, London has a relatively high gun rate, but let's compare my county (where gun crime hasn't happened for god knows how long) instead.
    I see what you're saying but it would be wrong to say the US has one set of laws like the UK does because it varies greatly from state to state.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tibbs735)
    Simply firing at the mass shooter is severely disrupts there intended path of destruction and breaks their fantasy of ultimate control, which can sometimes cause them to surrender or kill themselves right there.

    Average number of deaths in a mass shooting stopped by a civilian or person on the scene with a gun: 2.3
    Average number of deaths " but stopped by police when they eventually turn up:
    18.25
    He was talking about home invasions not mass shootings.

    I still think you have over simplified that, the country with the highest rate of gun ownership still suffers from mass shooting in a way the county with very low gun ownership hasn't since the mid 90's. The stat may be true, but the argument is the best way is to remove the guns from the situation all together. Something that been working far better here than protecting yourself with a gun in the US has.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tibbs735)
    Their system works better than ours, and that's saying something. I am of course referring to the system in place in states like Idaho and Montana, as opposed to places like New Jersey and DC.
    The stats by state don't back that up, its still higher than the UK, without taking things like population density and crime into account. If you remove the effects of gang violence in LA when calculating figures you would have to remove the same effects with London. Idaho against Cornwall or something might be more appropriate than side by side.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    He was talking about home invasions not mass shootings.

    I still think you have over simplified that, the country with the highest rate of gun ownership still suffers from mass shooting in a way the county with very low gun ownership hasn't since the mid 90's. The stat may be true, but the argument is the best way is to remove the guns from the situation all together. Something that been working far better here than protecting yourself with a gun in the US has.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Actually, our murder rate with guns has been steadily increasing since the bans. We've also had more than one incident involving someone going crazy and killing others before killing themselves. We have an overall violent crime rate higher than the US per capita. My point is that our gun laws aren't working, and they are not preventing gun crime. They just make life hard for people who enjoy shooting and want to stay safe.

    In the real world, you cannot simply remove the guns. You seem to have this attitude that guns are like the thorn stuck in the metaphorical lions paw, and that removing the guns with your magic wand will suddenly stop people from mugging each other breaking into each others houses and ignoring the law. So no, it has not been working far better here.

    I hope you never have to put your protectionist mindset to the test; you will probably regret being so anti-self defense as someone inflicts harm on you or someone you care about.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tibbs735)
    Actually, our murder rate with guns has been steadily increasing since the bans. We've also had more than one incident involving someone going crazy and killing others before killing themselves. We have an overall violent crime rate higher than the US per capita. My point is that our gun laws aren't working, and they are not preventing gun crime. They just make life hard for people who enjoy shooting and want to stay safe.
    No it initially increased then fell. We had 58 in 2011 compared to 197 in 97. If you adjust that for population that would come out at 290 deaths well below the 13,000 in the US. Violent crime doesn't equal gun crime, so I don't see why they are being compared first of all. Plus I'm guessing you got those from some dodgy source without checking, in the US violent crime has a much narrower definition than the UK, only 4 crimes, so the figures aren't side by side.

    In the real world, you cannot simply remove the guns. You seem to have this attitude that guns are like the thorn stuck in the metaphorical lions paw, and that removing the guns with your magic wand will suddenly stop people from mugging each other breaking into each others houses and ignoring the law. So no, it has not been working far better here.
    We have being doing it pretty effectively in multiple European countries. You cannot completely remove them, that doesn't mean the only option is a free for all.

    I hope you never have to put your protectionist mindset to the test; you will probably regret being so anti-self defense as someone inflicts harm on you or someone you care about.
    I'm not anti self defence at all, quite the opposite, I'd prefer not to need to defend myself. As I stated earlier, US gun laws mean as a law abiding citizen you are more likely to get shot, than as a law abiding citizen in the UK, that's how much safer you are.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    I think we should be advanced enough in modern society to handle guns without the "oh evil dirty weapons of doom!" hysteria that's all too common.

    An armed society is a polite society. People talk about feeling safe in the UK - But those same people instantly think that an abandoned backpack in a train station is a terrorist bomb, they think that a hooded person has a knife and wants their wallet, they think that every verbal argument will turn into a physical one. Is that really the attitude of a society that feels safe, or one that feels scared?
    So... It's OK for me to have my own hydrogen bomb then?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    No it initially increased then fell. We had 58 in 2011 compared to 197 in 97. If you adjust that for population that would come out at 290 deaths well below the 13,000 in the US. Violent crime doesn't equal gun crime, so I don't see why they are being compared first of all. Plus I'm guessing you got those from some dodgy source without checking, in the US violent crime has a much narrower definition than the UK, only 4 crimes, so the figures aren't side by side.

    We have being doing it pretty effectively in multiple European countries. You cannot completely remove them, that doesn't mean the only option is a free for all.

    I'm not anti self defence at all, quite the opposite, I'd prefer not to need to defend myself. As I stated earlier, US gun laws mean as a law abiding citizen you are more likely to get shot, than as a law abiding citizen in the UK, that's how much safer you are.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-a-decade.html
    That's what I was referring to
    I do not understand how the laws increase the likelihood of being shot. Your ability to defend yourself is the only thing that stops said criminal or even the state from simply exerting their will onto you, which may include robbery, injury or death.
    To be honest, I would rather live in a society where I am largely free to do as I please, as long as I am not harming anyone else, at the cost of a slight increase in danger. These crucial freedoms are won with blood and lost very easily. You are willing to trade a little liberty for some promised security; you deserve neither and shall inevitably lose both.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tibbs735)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-a-decade.html
    That's what I was referring to
    I do not understand how the laws increase the likelihood of being shot. Your ability to defend yourself is the only thing that stops said criminal or even the state from simply exerting their will onto you, which may include robbery, injury or death.
    To be honest, I would rather live in a society where I am largely free to do as I please, as long as I am not harming anyone else, at the cost of a slight increase in danger. These crucial freedoms are won with blood and lost very easily. You are willing to trade a little liberty for some promised security; you deserve neither and shall inevitably lose both.
    Well said!

    Nazi Germany had strict gun laws too!
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    So... It's OK for me to have my own hydrogen bomb then?
    No, obviously not. You cannot use a hydrogen bomb in self defense without endangering innocents. There are no scenarios where you could use that in self defense. Handguns and rifles are far superior in any conceivable scenario.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tibbs735)
    No, obviously not. You cannot use a hydrogen bomb in self defense without endangering innocents. There are no scenarios where you could use that in self defense. Handguns and rifles are far superior in any conceivable scenario.
    OK then. I guess it's OK for me to carry small bombs then according to you? I can make sure that they'll only "hurt" the attacker...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tibbs735)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-a-decade.html
    That's what I was referring to
    I do not understand how the laws increase the likelihood of being shot. Your ability to defend yourself is the only thing that stops said criminal or even the state from simply exerting their will onto you, which may include robbery, injury or death.
    To be honest, I would rather live in a society where I am largely free to do as I please, as long as I am not harming anyone else, at the cost of a slight increase in danger. These crucial freedoms are won with blood and lost very easily. You are willing to trade a little liberty for some promised security; you deserve neither and shall inevitably lose both.
    As I've already said those stats are gun crime, not just standard shootings. They include air guns, holding up a post office with a BB gun, and whole host of things. As for the likelihood, it's simple figures more people get shot per head in the country with guns than the one without. 290 vs 13000 is not a slight increase by any stretch of the imagination, and if you feel that way move then US and be safe. I'm not trading liberty, I would never carry a gun for any reason other than defending myself. If I had a free pass to carry a gun tomorrow I wouldn't feel the need. If we legalised guns tomorrow, I'd be getting my AR15 pronto. The presence of guns in common circulation necessitates the need to carry one. Great line but all the kids from Sandy Hook are enjoying that freedom right now aren't they, protected from the state and all. It's not the state I'm worried about its the nut case who just bought a rifle in ASDA, and my 12 gauge by my bed isn't going to protect me when he shoots me as I'm shopping.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    OK then. I guess it's OK for me to carry small bombs then according to you? I can make sure that they'll only "hurt" the attacker...
    Stop being silly- you know what Tibbs means!
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise 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.