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

Do you think guns should be legal in the UK after a background check ? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    Who's to say it wouldn't have happened sooner (or more frequently) had it been easier to obtain guns?
    you could also say that it could have been prevented, that argument goes both ways
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountMonteCristo)
    you could also say that it could have been prevented, that argument goes both ways
    Correct. So why make guns legal then?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    Correct. So make guns legal then?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Yes. People who live in cities perhaps don't realise this, but out here in the countryside, if a violent thug breaks into my home and I call the police, it will be half an hour before they arrive due to the simple logistics of getting them here. The thug has plenty of time to kill or seriously injure me and my family, cause serious damage, steal our valuables and get away. Obviously it goes without saying that not all types of gun should become legal and an extensive background and circumstances check should be conducted before the granting of a gun license, together with perhaps an annual mental health assessment by a psychiatrist for all gun licenseholders, to prevent another Dunblane, but it's not fair that I shouldn't be able to defend myself because background and health check laws weren't stringent enough and so some whackjob committed a massacre.
    If a violent thug breaks into your home and you go for a gun, he's much more likely to retaliate or preempt with violence than if you don't pull a gun. Drawing a firearm makes the situation kill-or-be-killed when it really doesn't have to be. The average thug is only after your TV. Owning a gun puts you in more danger if your home is broken into; it doesn't make you safer.

    And chances are your residence won't be broken into at all. Your gun will sit around the house, putting you and your family at much higher risk of death by suicide or accident.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountMonteCristo)
    That was supposed to say 'Why make guns legal?'
    Silly me
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    That was supposed to say 'Why make guns legal?'
    Silly me


    If majority of the population owned a gun. Do you think that if someone is trying to break into a house then it would make them think and consider the risk of even doing it ?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Yes if it was like how the Swiss do it.

    No if you're thinking the American way
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountMonteCristo)
    If majority of the population owned a gun. Do you think that if someone is trying to break into a house then it would make them think and consider the risk of even doing it ?
    Surely this person who is considering breaking into the house will also own a gun then? So what difference does it make?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    Oh, so if random, untrained pedestrians had guns that would have stopped a trained gunman from killing anyone, and definitely not resulted in more death :yep:
    130 people died in Paris. Mumbai, which is similarly disarmed, had 164 deaths.

    The obvious solution is for there to be a large proportion of well-trained men who can defend the homeland against terrorists. The police state has proven itself repeatedly incapable of doing so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    Surely this person who is considering breaking into the house will also own a gun then? So what difference does it make?
    That their life is directly in danger ? So breaking into a house right now he is not risking his life at all. At worse he might get stabbed (hehe still bad) and the owner will call the police. The burglar putting his life at risk.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    The obvious solution is for there to be a large proportion of well-trained men who can defend the homeland against terrorists. The police state has proven itself repeatedly incapable of doing so.
    Sigh.

    I'm not going to bother, you clearly can't see how stupid an idea this is.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    130 people died in Paris. Mumbai, which is similarly disarmed, had 164 deaths.

    The obvious solution is for there to be a large proportion of well-trained men who can defend the homeland against terrorists. The police state has proven itself repeatedly incapable of doing so.
    Wouldn't what you describe be by definition a police state.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountMonteCristo)
    If majority of the population owned a gun. Do you think that if someone is trying to break into a house then it would make them think and consider the risk of even doing it ?
    Doesn't stop crime in America, it just makes crime more lethal.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    Every male member of the household should be conscripted or sent to social services, like in Germany. Then, after those who graduate from the army have a family, they should be required to own and maintain an assault rifle for the defence of their household and community.

    Further, defence laws need to be changed so that maiming and killing in self-defence and defence of property are not punishable.

    However the UK has the opposite mentality. I think if or when mass civil unrest happens, people will start thinking very differently.
    Absolutely not. It should not be legal to kill someone to stop them nicking a telly.

    Giving people killing machines with no other practical purpose is a bad idea. No guns= no one getting killed by guns. Not to mention that if you have guns, kids get hold of them play soldiers and shoot someone or themselves.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountMonteCristo)
    That their life is directly in danger ? So breaking into a house right now he is not risking his life at all. At worse he might get stabbed (hehe still bad) and the owner will call the police. The burglar putting his life at risk.
    And yet it makes no difference in America. If this burglar breaks into a house whilst they are asleep (I doubt someone would storm into a house during broad daylight when everyone is awake), then the family's ownership of a gun does not put them in a better position. They are sleeping. And even if they do wake up, the burglar has a gun. They are on the same boat.

    Point is, the gun laws in USA is hardly making it a safer place and so I fail to see why it would make a significant difference in Britain.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Absolutely not. It should not be legal to kill someone to stop them nicking a telly.

    Giving people killing machines with no other practical purpose is a bad idea. No guns= no one getting killed by guns. Not to mention that if you have guns, kids get hold of them play soldiers and shoot someone or themselves.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    no guns doesn't necessarily equal not getting killed by guns. If a criminal wants to get a gun he will. There are many was to get a gun illegally so if a criminal wants one he will get it.

    A person owning a gun should not let kids play with it. Gun should be locked away. Plus why limit guns just because one in 10 million cases some idiot will not handle it well and give it to his kids.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountMonteCristo)
    no guns doesn't necessarily equal not getting killed by guns. If a criminal wants to get a gun he will. There are many was to get a gun illegally so if a criminal wants one he will get it.

    A person owning a gun should not let kids play with it. Gun should be locked away. Plus why limit guns just because one in 10 million cases some idiot will not handle it well and give it to his kids.
    In most cases where kids get hold of guns, parents have locked it up, hidden it etc. The kids still come across it and shoot someone.

    In countries where owning a gun is illegal,fewer people own guns and fewer people are killed by them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountMonteCristo)
    no guns doesn't necessarily equal not getting killed by guns. If a criminal wants to get a gun he will. There are many was to get a gun illegally so if a criminal wants one he will get it.

    A person owning a gun should not let kids play with it. Gun should be locked away. Plus why limit guns just because one in 10 million cases some idiot will not handle it well and give it to his kids.
    And you make it so much easier for criminals to get one with lax gun regs.

    Because it isn't 1 in 10 million idiot that gives it to his kid, its the suicides, the gang violence, the accidents, the mass shootings on average every two months.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    And yet it makes no difference in America. If this burglar breaks into a house whilst they are asleep (I doubt someone would storm into a house during broad daylight when everyone is awake), then the family's ownership of a gun does not put them in a better position. They are sleeping. And even if they do wake up, the burglar has a gun. They are on the same boat.

    Point is, the gun laws in USA is hardly making it a safer place and so I fail to see why it would make a significant difference in Britain.
    Well if you look at the stats then in the uk. There are 1143 burglaries per 100k people. If you compare it with a state like texas which as very relaxed gun laws it has 627 burglaries per 100k people.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati...ences-burglary

    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    Ban: knives, cars, baseball bat, chairs, hammers, hands, feet, football and rugby boots, men in general, glass, china, ladles, alcohol, any other drugs which can be overdosed on, windows, stairs..
    I don't see the comparison...
    There is a pretty great difference between those, and an item optimised for the killing of living beings. Also, those items all have primary functions which aren't to kill.
    You can defend yourself against all of those to a fair degree assuming you're physically capable or with others. A gun, not so much.
    You don't need guns if others don't have guns, as a general rule. Or at least, problems in small areas would become much more widespread. Look at the US - which isn't a particularly good role model (for practically anything).
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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

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.