To those of you who seriously think gun control is an ideal to strive for...

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I ask a serious question; in the wake of these numerous mass killing incidents in France over the past year and a half, has your opinion evolved in any way?

    What we have seen is that despite strict gun laws, terrorists or criminals who are seriously motivated to commit atrocities, will find a way to acquire firearms and other weapons and do so. Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan attack proved that beyond question.

    Yesterdays incidient showed us that even if an individual did not possess a firearm, they are still more than capable of committing mass murder. Over 80 individuals dead - more than any lone wolf mass shooting in history.

    How can any rational person still believe that laws which will solely apply to the law abiding and not to anyone of criminal intent, are a good idea?

    I would like to hear the justification behind this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    as a libertarian, I believe in the same kind of gun control as cars - if you're operating a potentially killer vehicle then you'll need to prove to some basic degree that you're probably not going to kill people. same with guns - same with any kind of serious/blatantly killer instrument. I wouldn't let a psycho have a driver's license if they might flip out and run people over, and I wouldn't allow psychopaths to purchase guns either from that logic. other than that, I'm very much live and let live - lowering the driving age is fine, for example, and having the age for purchasing/owning a gun *could* be lower than 18 too. banning guns is a ****ing ludicrous idea, just so it's clear - banning guns is nothing but taking away guns from the innocent and de facto leaving them to the criminals and the psychos. but to make it doubly clear - gun controls i.e. background checks are NOT unreasonable or against the principles of liberty. background checks will allow people to own guns without the state/non-owners having too much to worry about because there will be some confidence in that system that allows for almost free and full gun ownership to exist in the first place.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm perfectly happy to live in a country which enjoys 2% of America's gun deaths, relative to population.

    Deaths from terror attacks, that theoretically could have been prevented by armed civilians (but probably not), don't even come close to compensating for that.

    Remember that the vast majority of gun deaths come from suicides, and IIRC a study a few years back showed that something like 80% of people who attempt suicide do not go on to actually commit another suicide. So preventing those immediate deaths via guns saves many, many lives.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ban assault trucks, limit their fuel tank sizes, automatic vehicles don't have legitimate civilian uses.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    I ask a serious question; in the wake of these numerous mass killing incidents in France over the past year and a half, has your opinion evolved in any way?

    What we have seen is that despite strict gun laws, terrorists or criminals who are seriously motivated to commit atrocities, will find a way to acquire firearms and other weapons and do so. Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan attack proved that beyond question.

    Yesterdays incidient showed us that even if an individual did not possess a firearm, they are still more than capable of committing mass murder. Over 80 individuals dead - more than any lone wolf mass shooting in history.

    How can any rational person still believe that laws which will solely apply to the law abiding and not to anyone of criminal intent, are a good idea?

    I would like to hear the justification behind this.

    The vast majority of shootings of innocent people are not carried out by "terrorists or criminals who are seriously motivated to commit atrocities and will find a way to acquire firearms". Most criminals are not sophisticated enough to manage this.

    Most shootings are either suicides, accidental deaths, responses to perceived rather than actual threats (i.e. belief that someone else has a gun and could shoot you), carried out in the heat of the moment as crimes of passion, or are carried out with a firearm rather than anything else simply because firearms are easily available.

    Additionally, even when seriously motivated terrorists and criminals are determined to procure guns no matter what, arming the public usually doesn't result in many lives being saved. For example, civilians can legally carry guns in the US but that didn't save anybody from being killed in the Orlando shootings. It simply meant that the shooter was able to get a gun more easily than he otherwise could have.

    Plus, since countries such as the UK and Australia introduced their gun control measures, homicide rates dropped significantly as a result. So ultimately, if our main priority is reducing the number of innocent lives lost, I can't see how gun control has been a bad thing.*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Gun control is a load of bullsh*t. Without gun control the Nice terrorist could have been taken down immediately with minimal damage to civilians.

    We should all be able to defend ourselves by any means possible, and with gun control we are all just sitting ducks.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Most shootings are either suicides, accidental deaths, responses to perceived rather than actual threats (i.e. belief that someone else has a gun and could shoot you), carried out in the heat of the moment as crimes of passion, or are carried out with a firearm rather than anything else simply because firearms are easily available.
    Hold on a minute there, we're gonna need some statistics to back this up. Firstly, are you talking about shootings or deaths? I assume you meant gun deaths.

    You are correct in saying that suicides make up the biggest proportion of gun deaths, but I hope you can see this is a mental health problem, not a methodology problem. S.Korea has the 2nd highest suicide rate in the world (well over double that of the US) and guns are near totally banned; suicides are carried out primarily via ingestion of pesticides. People who want to kill themselves, will kill themselves, gun or no gun.

    You're plainly wrong about accidental gun deaths. According to the CDC there were 591 accidental gun deaths in 2011 (most recent year I can find data for) - this is a tiny proportion of the 30,000+ gun deaths there are.

    Of the 9000 or so gun homicides which occur in the US every year, the vast majority are gang related shootings.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Additionally, even when seriously motivated terrorists and criminals are determined to procure guns no matter what, arming the public usually doesn't result in many lives being saved. For example, civilians can legally carry guns in the US but that didn't save anybody from being killed in the Orlando shootings. It simply meant that the shooter was able to get a gun more easily than he otherwise could have.
    The Orlando nightclub was a gun-free zone by state law. Every school, mall and movie theater that has suffered a mass shooting in recent memory has been a designated gun-free zone. Essentially, areas which guarantee defenseless victims and 10-15 minutes of uninterrupted killing until police (read: men with guns) arrived on the scene.

    CCW holders use their firearms to defend themselves from threats every single day in the US; mid-range estimates put the number of defensive gun uses at 1 million per year. Soon after the Orlando incident a shooting outside another nightclub was stopped by an armed citizen - of course this barely made the news. The reason you didn't hear about armed citizens stopping any of the major shootings in recent years is because, you guessed it, they were not permitted to be armed. Gun laws affect the law abiding, not those of criminal intent.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Plus, since countries such as the UK and Australia introduced their gun control measures, homicide rates dropped significantly as a result. So ultimately, if our main priority is reducing the number of innocent lives lost, I can't see how gun control has been a bad thing.*
    This part is somewhere between sketchy and outright false.

    Australias homicide rate was on a downward trend in the years prior to the '96 gun buyback, and essentially continued directly along that same trend following the ban. There was actually a small spike directly after the ban.





    The UK homicide rate skyrocketed following the ban. Only now, 20 years later, is it back down to pre-ban levels.





    Most importantly, let's see what's going on in the US with their crime rates:

    Murder rate:
    1980: 10.2 per 100,000
    1990: 9.4
    2000: 5.5
    2010: 4.8

    Violent crime rates:
    1980: 597 per 100,000
    1990: 730
    2000: 506
    2010: 403

    http://www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/Search/Cr...atebyState.cfm

    A more than halving of homicide over 30 years. During this time, gun ownership has increased significantly in the US with Concealed Carry rights expanding from 8 States in 1980 to 41 States in 2010.


    The statistics don't quite support the argument you presented (read: they show the opposite).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevey396)
    Gun control is a load of bullsh*t. Without gun control the Nice terrorist could have been taken down immediately with minimal damage to civilians.

    We should all be able to defend ourselves by any means possible, and with gun control we are all just sitting ducks.
    Based on what evidence?

    Civillians with guns only end such events in extremely rare circumstances. Stats consistently show gun ownership actually increases the chance of an individual being shot in such events.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    Based on what evidence?

    Civillians with guns only end such events in extremely rare circumstances. Stats consistently show gun ownership actually increases the chance of an individual being shot.
    Good luck fighting a crazed gunman with your bare hands then.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevey396)
    Good luck fighting a crazed gunman with your bare hands then.
    ..... and got any stats to support your original statement?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevey396)
    Gun control is a load of bullsh*t. Without gun control the Nice terrorist could have been taken down immediately with minimal damage to civilians.
    If it's that simple, why doesn't this happen for every one of the US's weekly mass killings?

    All these idiots that think they'd be heroes and take down the killers with their own guns would be in for a bit of a shock if they ever found themselves in such a situation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    If it's that simple, why doesn't this happen for every one of the US's weekly mass killings?

    All these idiots that think they'd be heroes and take down the killers with their own guns would be in for a bit of a shock if they ever found themselves in such a situation.
    Well for one the Orlando gay club was probably full of liberals who are anti-gun anyway. The only reason they couldn't defend themselves was due to them falling for stupid lefty propaganda.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    If it's that simple, why doesn't this happen for every one of the US's weekly mass killings?

    All these idiots that think they'd be heroes and take down the killers with their own guns would be in for a bit of a shock if they ever found themselves in such a situation.
    The majority of major US mass shootings; Orlando, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine etc. occurred in areas where the keeping of a firearm is explicitly prohibited. That is, even if the State allowed Concealed Carry, those particular venues had laws against carrying a gun. Law abiding citizens follow laws, and thus did not bring their gun onto the property.

    That wasn't difficult.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevey396)
    Well for one the Orlando gay club was probably full of liberals who are anti-gun anyway. The only reason they couldn't defend themselves was due to them falling for stupid lefty propaganda.
    So what about the other 238 mass shootings this year?

    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    The majority of major US mass shootings; Orlando, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine etc. occurred in areas where the keeping of a firearm is explicitly prohibited. That is, even if the State allowed Concealed Carry, those particular venues had laws against carrying a gun. Law abiding citizens follow laws, and thus did not bring their gun onto the property.

    That wasn't difficult.
    Colorado Springs? Chattanooga? Charleston? I can't really be bothered going through all the mass shootings in the US because there are hundreds every year, but to claim that the majority occur where possession of firearms is prohibited is completely untrue.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    So what about the other 238 mass shootings this year?
    U


    Colorado Springs? Chattanooga? Charleston? I can't really be bothered going through all the mass shootings in the US because there are hundreds every year, but to claim that the majority occur where possession of firearms is prohibited is completely untrue.
    Yes, guns prohibited at all three, if you did a little Googling.

    I'm going to suggest a radical idea to you: Criminals prey on the defenseless, and nothing supports a criminals agenda more than when either the government or a private organisation categorically guarantees defenseless victims.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    The majority of major US mass shootings; Orlando, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine etc. occurred in areas where the keeping of a firearm is explicitly prohibited. That is, even if the State allowed Concealed Carry, those particular venues had laws against carrying a gun. Law abiding citizens follow laws, and thus did not bring their gun onto the property.

    That wasn't difficult.
    Many of which are schools and crowded bars, of course the keeping of firearms is prohibited in these venues, do you really think it's a good idea to allow 100s of drunk people in a tightly packed bar or club firearms is a good idea, how on earth would that be more safe?

    This whole let everyone have more guns and reduce controls mentality is just insane.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevey396)
    Good luck fighting a crazed gunman with your bare hands then.
    Untrained civilians trying to fight back in the heat of the moment would be shot before they find the target. Leave it to the professionals cause you'd just make things worse.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevey396)
    Good luck fighting a crazed gunman with your bare hands then.
    Most criminals aren't crazed gunmen - they're basically just people, and they're only after your valuables. If you cooperate, you'll pretty much be safe. If you draw a firearm, on the other hand, it becomes kill-or-be-killed for the criminal, and at that point you may well be shot. This accounts for why even when statistics are restrained to crime situations only, carrying a gun puts you at more risk of injury or death than not carrying a gun.

    I read that somewhere reputable, but I now can't remember where; if you'd like me to try and find it again, I'm happy to. Or feel free to look for it yourself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    I ask a serious question; in the wake of these numerous mass killing incidents in France over the past year and a half, has your opinion evolved in any way?

    What we have seen is that despite strict gun laws, terrorists or criminals who are seriously motivated to commit atrocities, will find a way to acquire firearms and other weapons and do so. Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan attack proved that beyond question.

    Yesterdays incidient showed us that even if an individual did not possess a firearm, they are still more than capable of committing mass murder. Over 80 individuals dead - more than any lone wolf mass shooting in history.

    How can any rational person still believe that laws which will solely apply to the law abiding and not to anyone of criminal intent, are a good idea?

    I would like to hear the justification behind this.
    He did actually possess a firearm from what I read. Just didn't really use it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    I ask a serious question; in the wake of these numerous mass killing incidents in France over the past year and a half, has your opinion evolved in any way?

    What we have seen is that despite strict gun laws, terrorists or criminals who are seriously motivated to commit atrocities, will find a way to acquire firearms and other weapons and do so. Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan attack proved that beyond question.

    Yesterdays incidient showed us that even if an individual did not possess a firearm, they are still more than capable of committing mass murder. Over 80 individuals dead - more than any lone wolf mass shooting in history.

    How can any rational person still believe that laws which will solely apply to the law abiding and not to anyone of criminal intent, are a good idea?

    I would like to hear the justification behind this.
    It's not about cutting out all deaths, it's about reducing the risk.

    Studies, which have controlled for numerous socioeconomic factors and robbery rates, meaning that cultures of violence, particularly in the US South, were controlled for too, have found that US states “with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children.”

    In addition, they have not only found a positive correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide rates, but found such a correlation for gun homicides, but not for non-gun homicides, meaning that it was gun-homicides that were driving the overall homicide rate up.

    A 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis came to similar conclusions.

    Will more guns lead to more self-defence? The evidence suggests not. There is no correlation between overall crime rates and gun ownership rates: if guns were regularly used to deter criminals, we should see such a correlation. The Harvard School of Public Health have conducted extensive research into this issue and have found that guns are used far more often to intimidate than they are used for self-defence.

    Similarly, a 1998 study by other researchers concluded that “guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.”

    And, far from being a deterrent, possession of a gun may actually be more dangerous for a victim – a 2009 study by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that gun owners were over four times more likely to be shot in an assault than those who were not in possession of a gun.

    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    I read that somewhere reputable, but I now can't remember where; if you'd like me to try and find it again, I'm happy to. Or feel free to look for it yourself.
    Yeah, see above.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 10, 2016
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.

Today on TSR
Poll
Who would you vote for in an early general election?
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

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