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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Stupid comparisons.

    Cars - provide a major benefit. Allow people to travel, allows people to get to work. Benefits the country.
    Also cases of people intentionally killing others with there car are very very few and far between if any at all.


    Smoking + Alcohol - When you have those you damage yourself. When you have a gun you endanger others.


    So you feel safer that everyone has a gun than if no one had a gun? How bizarre.

    How come there are fewer deaths from guns, illegal or not in the UK than the US?
    That is not what will happen though the bad guys will still get guns and events like the Minnesota mall stabbing would of been a lot worse as the good guy who stopped it wouldn't be able to stop it.

    You seem to think making something illegal means it won't happen
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    There is no way you don't realise how silly these comparisons are.
    It's a typical tactic of gun enthusiasts. If anyone calls for guns to be banned or restricted they make out that they are a massive hypocrite unless they want to ban anything that has ever killed someone.

    They fail to see that each case must be judged on its own merits, weighing up the benefits with the drawbacks and assessing whether the drawbacks can be adequately dealt with.

    11,000 people are murdered each year using guns and apparently I'm a hypocrite because I don't want to ban people buying matchsticks? Bizarre logic.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's a typical tactic of gun enthusiasts. If anyone calls for guns to be banned or restricted they make out that they are a massive hypocrite unless they want to ban anything that has ever killed someone.

    They fail to see that each case must be judged on its own merits, weighing up the benefits with the drawbacks and assessing whether the drawbacks can be adequately dealt with.

    11,000 people are murdered each year using guns and apparently I'm a hypocrite because I don't want to ban people buying matchsticks? Bizarre logic.
    Do you not care about someone's right not to be knocked over?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    That is not what will happen though the bad guys will still get guns and events like the Minnesota mall stabbing would of been a lot worse as the good guy who stopped it wouldn't be able to stop it.

    You seem to think making something illegal means it won't happen
    The bad guys don't get hold of guns anywhere near as much here do they?

    Should we not ban possessions of grenades or tanks then because bad guys will just end up getting them anyway?

    Your initial point was that the airport would be safer if everyone had a gun. That's ludicrous.

    What about the nightclub in Florida? Would that be safer if everyone had a gun? Hundreds of drunk people in a crowded club with guns, what could possibly go wrong?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The bad guys don't get hold of guns anywhere near as much here do they?

    Should we not ban possessions of grenades or tanks then because bad guys will just end up getting them anyway?

    Your initial point was that the airport would be safer if everyone had a gun. That's ludicrous.

    What about the nightclub in Florida? Would that be safer if everyone had a gun? Hundreds of drunk people in a crowded club with guns, what could possibly go wrong?
    Once agin Britain isn't exactly comparable to the USA.

    You can buy a tank in the uk but nice try.

    There is a reason that public mass shootings happen in areas guns aren't allowed.

    Yes it would have been safer not ideal but when someone who wants to commit mass murder turns up I would rather have someone to stop them, like what happened in Minnesota where the only person who dies was the attacker

    You have to leave your utopian vision and see the real world.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Do you not care about someone's right not to be knocked over?
    Such a typical, tenuous point.
    Of course I do. Which is why I support the strong enforcement of road safety laws and favour sanctions for those who break them by driving too fast or dangerously.

    It's also why I favour things like traffic lights.


    You've made some truly awful analogies, but that one tops the lot.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Once agin Britain isn't exactly comparable to the USA.

    You can buy a tank in the uk but nice try.

    There is a reason that public mass shootings happen in areas guns aren't allowed.

    Yes it would have been safer not ideal but when someone who wants to commit mass murder turns up I would rather have someone to stop them, like what happened in Minnesota where the only person who dies was the attacker

    You have to leave your utopian vision and see the real world.

    Yes, that reason is because America is a country in which it is incredibly easy to get a gun. I'd rather no one had a gun apart from the army and specially trained police units.
    It's far, far harder to commit mass murder with a knife than a gun.
    Once again, your solution to a mass shooting is more guns.


    Should everyone in a nightclub have a gun? Why will you not answer this question?
    I'd hardly call the UK a 'utopian vision'. We manage fine with no guns...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Such a typical, tenuous point.
    Of course I do. Which is why I support the strong enforcement of road safety laws and favour sanctions for those who break them by driving too fast or dangerously.

    It's also why I favour things like traffic lights.


    You've made some truly awful analogies, but that one tops the lot.
    It's funny you have claimed:
    That you care about people's rights so much you want to remove them
    That the only way to top people being shot is banning guns and opposed being stricter with the current laws yet you believe that enforcing laws can stop road deaths.

    You do not like guns so you are applying a double standard
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    It's funny you have claimed:
    That you care about people's rights so much you want to remove them
    That the only way to top people being shot is banning guns and opposed being stricter with the current laws yet you believe that enforcing laws can stop road deaths.

    You do not like guns so you are applying a double standard
    I'm starting to think you are an anti-gun activist pretending to be a gun loony.

    Let's go through your ridiculous points.

    1.) 'That you care about people's rights so much you want to remove them'

    I have very clearly stated that I don't believe that people should have the right to a gun. You don't believe that people should have the right of free movement to anywhere they want, for example. It is perfectly legitimate to support certain 'rights' and oppose others.

    Just as you oppose the right of free movement, I oppose the right of gun ownership. The reason I do so is because I value higher the right to not be shot and not live in fear of being shot. When one right impinges on another, you make a judgement call as I have done here.

    2.) That the only way to top people being shot is banning guns and opposed being stricter with the current laws yet you believe that enforcing laws can stop road deaths.

    Comparing motor vehicle use to gun use is incredibly stupid and I have explained why several times. Your problem is that you never read what anyone writes. So please read this.

    When discussing whether something should be allowed or banned, you take each case on its individual merits. You weigh up the advantages with the disadvantages and consider how easily the disadvantages could be mitigated.

    With motor vehicles, there are very few intentional homocides. There are thousands of intentional homocides using a gun.
    Motor vehicles clearly provide a massive benefit for society. Without them the country wouldn't function properly. Guns do not provide a massive benefit to society. A society can easily exist without gun ownership, as the UK does. It could not easily exist without motor vehicles.

    Finally, it is possible to minimise any unintentional damage caused by motor vehicles by having strict road laws, plenty of red lights and lots of crossing points for pedestrians. You also have to pass a test to drive.

    The problem is that any time anyone proposes gun restrictions, as Obama did, the gun lobby goes crazy. It is incredibly difficult to regulate, rules on ownership are incredibly loose and it is very easy for individuals who should not have guns, to get hold of them. Guns provide barely any benefit and cause such massive devastation. In the UK we have barely any guns and barely any gun crime. In the USA they have lots of guns and lots of gun crime. For some reason you'd prefer the latter to the former.

    There is no double standard. It is simply weighing up the benefits and drawbacks of each.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Well, that's just anti-Americanism, isn't it?

    From the point of view of the pro-gun people, this is something enshrined, not in law, but in the constitution of the country. It's not a option or a privilege, but a right stemming from the foundation of the nation. That's compelling stuff. This isn't like changing the speed limit on the motorway, it's major constitutional stuff.

    From a practical perspective, they would also say - the US is a very large country with many very remote rural areas - how do people in these areas in very remote locations protect themselves from crime and violence when calling the police isn't practical?
    Circular logic. 'We should be allowed guns because we are allowed guns'.

    The US Constitution was written hundreds of years ago. Back when they needed guns to protect them from government. Clearly that is not the case anymore and to think it is, is pure paranoia.

    You may say it is 'compelling stuff' but personally I regard the right of innocent school children in Sandy Hook not to be butchered to death as far more compelling. Just as I regard the right of innocent civilians in a club not to be killed more compelling than the right to have a gun.

    I'd have a different view if there were serious safety restrictions, such as banning guns in public places and being thoroughly tested before being allowed to buy a gun. But instead, it pretty much seems like buying a gun is about as difficult as buying a packet of chewing gum.

    I don't see how you can hold that the right for people to have a gun is more compelling than the right of people not to be brutally murdered.

    Some people on this thread however seem to suggest that the answer to gun crime is more guns. Great. So gun crime isn't caused by people having guns, it's apparently caused by there not being enough guns...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    My cousin and her boyfriend left the airport just a short while after the shooting began couldn't imagine what would have happened if they stayed any bit longer.

    It amazes me that there are NO flags for mentally disabled people carrying firearms in airports, or in general. I'm not a fan of repealing the second amendment or anything, but the lack of proper control is ridiculous.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rissanicole14)
    My cousin and her boyfriend left the airport just a short while after the shooting began couldn't imagine what would have happened if they stayed any bit longer.

    It amazes me that there are NO flags for mentally disabled people carrying firearms in airports, or in general. I'm not a fan of repealing the second amendment or anything, but the lack of proper control is ridiculous.
    Don't be silly. Everyone knows that the answer to gun crime is more guns.
    If only everyone in the airport had a gun then everyone would have been much safer.

    Just as if everyone in nightclubs had guns, then everyone would be much safer.

    I used to think that the cause of gun crime was guns but apparently i'm wrong and the real cause of gun crime is not enough guns...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rissanicole14)
    My cousin and her boyfriend left the airport just a short while after the shooting began couldn't imagine what would have happened if they stayed any bit longer.

    It amazes me that there are NO flags for mentally disabled people carrying firearms in airports, or in general. I'm not a fan of repealing the second amendment or anything, but the lack of proper control is ridiculous.
    Had he been diagnosed with a mental illness? I know he went to get an evaluation but if he hadn't been diagnosed they couldn't stop him as it would have been a civil rights violation
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Don't be silly. Everyone knows that the answer to gun crime is more guns.
    If only everyone in the airport had a gun then everyone would have been much safer.

    Just as if everyone in nightclubs had guns, then everyone would be much safer.

    I used to think that the cause of gun crime was guns but apparently i'm wrong and the real cause of gun crime is not enough guns...
    I've thought about it from this perspective before, but what about if there were no guns in the hands of these crazy people in the first place? There would have been no bloodshed.

    More guns in the population = greater chance of them being misused.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rissanicole14)
    I've thought about it from this perspective before, but what about if there were no guns in the hands of these crazy people in the first place? There would have been no bloodshed.

    More guns in the population = greater chance of them being misused.
    THANKYOU. FINALLY SOMEONE WITH COMMON SENSE.

    I've been debating with people on here who are adamant that the solution to gun crime is to give everyone a gun. They seem to think airports would be safer if everyone there had a gun.

    They think ngihtclubs would be safer if everyone there had a gun.

    I remember after the Sandy Hook massacre, gun enthusiasts argued that the teachers should have guns. Oh well that's a great idea, bring deadly weapons into classrooms full of children. What happens when a teacher goes crazy and they have a gun? The gun enthusiasts would then probably say that the problem was that the children didn't have guns.

    No matter how many people are murdered by guns. No matter how brutal the massacre, the response of gun fanatics is always 'we need more guns!'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Had he been diagnosed with a mental illness? I know he went to get an evaluation but if he hadn't been diagnosed they couldn't stop him as it would have been a civil rights violation
    I understood he had gotten a mental evaluation and was discharged from the military for "unsatisfactory performance", I don't know if he was diagnosed with anything though. That's an important point to consider I hadn't thought of; with the current system that is probably what made purchasing the gun possible. I just think his past encounters should have raised more concern/further investigation when he purchased the firearm.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rissanicole14)
    I understood he had gotten a mental evaluation and was discharged from the military for "unsatisfactory performance", I don't know if he was diagnosed with anything though. That's an important point to consider I hadn't thought of; with the current system that is probably what made purchasing the gun possible. I just think his past encounters should have raised more concern/further investigation when he purchased the firearm.
    I agree, there are a few problems with the system here, I think that most other states this wouldn't of happened but alaska has the second loosest gun laws in the USA.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    THANKYOU. FINALLY SOMEONE WITH COMMON SENSE.

    I've been debating with people on here who are adamant that the solution to gun crime is to give everyone a gun. They seem to think airports would be safer if everyone there had a gun.

    They think ngihtclubs would be safer if everyone there had a gun.

    I remember after the Sandy Hook massacre, gun enthusiasts argued that the teachers should have guns. Oh well that's a great idea, bring deadly weapons into classrooms full of children. What happens when a teacher goes crazy and they have a gun? The gun enthusiasts would then probably say that the problem was that the children didn't have guns.

    No matter how many people are murdered by guns. No matter how brutal the massacre, the response of gun fanatics is always 'we need more guns!'.
    This is so sad but true :rofl:

    They'd advocate having child-sized guns for all the children to protect themselves against the other children with guns.

    The logical solution would clearly be to carry a gun to protect yourself against every other person in society with a gun.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
    I'm also confused as to how whenever there is a mass shooting, the answer is apparently 'more guns!'

    I always thought that the 11,000 gun related deaths a year were because people had guns. How silly, apparently it's because there aren't enough guns.
    If you make the declaration that guns are for shooting people and only people then all those things must be people, the subset "is a person" of the set of "all things on earth" is the same as the set, or certainly an incredibly large sub set of.

    I thought those people run over last year were run over because people have cars, shall we ban cars? Clearly hatchets need banning too, there is no need for a hatchet and they are definitely used to kill people. Isn't it odd that of all the tools used to kill people the only one anybody wants to restrict is guns, they will sit back and ignore the other 80%, and act as if somebody didn't have a gun there would not be the deaths, especially when suicide stats get thrown into the mix to try to inflate numbers. Suppose I wanted to kill my mother and didn't care if I were caught (so that removes a need to think it through to avoid being caught and/or found guilty), if I had a gun a would straight up shoot her, easy even if messy, but not having that gun doesn't stop me, like most I know plenty of ways to kill people without a gun, the simplest would be to walk downstairs and get a knife, or to strangle her, or try to provide for an overdose of a highly toxic readily available drug, which has the added bonus of the potential to frame as suicide. Not having the gun does not stop the crime, it changes the mechanism.

    Or how about telling us about what has happened in places like the UK, Ireland, Jamaica, and Australia when it comes to crime rates and rates of crimes using firearms since restrictions have been brought in (I'll give you a hint, at best you get nothing).

    And if you compare homicide rates, or gun homicide rates, to gun ownership across the world (or just the richer parts of it to lessen the socioeconomic effects) you're going to find, at best, no strong correlation. While the big spikes in the following graph are the likes of Honduras, the wealthier data points have to throw into question the hypothesis that more guns=more crime, palces like Norway have the same homicide rates as those like Japan despite having gun ownership orders of magnitude greater:


    And it seems that literally your only defence against the statement "almost all rampage shooting incidents are in gun free areas" is to say that if nobody legally had guns it wouldn't happen (even though you know that to be false)
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If you make the declaration that guns are for shooting people and only people then all those things must be people, the subset "is a person" of the set of "all things on earth" is the same as the set, or certainly an incredibly large sub set of.

    I thought those people run over last year were run over because people have cars, shall we ban cars? Clearly hatchets need banning too, there is no need for a hatchet and they are definitely used to kill people. Isn't it odd that of all the tools used to kill people the only one anybody wants to restrict is guns, they will sit back and ignore the other 80%, and act as if somebody didn't have a gun there would not be the deaths, especially when suicide stats get thrown into the mix to try to inflate numbers. Suppose I wanted to kill my mother and didn't care if I were caught (so that removes a need to think it through to avoid being caught and/or found guilty), if I had a gun a would straight up shoot her, easy even if messy, but not having that gun doesn't stop me, like most I know plenty of ways to kill people without a gun, the simplest would be to walk downstairs and get a knife, or to strangle her, or try to provide for an overdose of a highly toxic readily available drug, which has the added bonus of the potential to frame as suicide. Not having the gun does not stop the crime, it changes the mechanism.

    Or how about telling us about what has happened in places like the UK, Ireland, Jamaica, and Australia when it comes to crime rates and rates of crimes using firearms since restrictions have been brought in (I'll give you a hint, at best you get nothing).

    And if you compare homicide rates, or gun homicide rates, to gun ownership across the world (or just the richer parts of it to lessen the socioeconomic effects) you're going to find, at best, no strong correlation. While the big spikes in the following graph are the likes of Honduras, the wealthier data points have to throw into question the hypothesis that more guns=more crime, palces like Norway have the same homicide rates as those like Japan despite having gun ownership orders of magnitude greater:


    And it seems that literally your only defence against the statement "almost all rampage shooting incidents are in gun free areas" is to say that if nobody legally had guns it wouldn't happen (even though you know that to be false)
    This is typical of gun enthusiasts . Try and change the conversation to cars or cigarettes to imply that anyone who supports banning guns but not everything else that has ever killed anyone is somehow being hypocritical...
    When debating whether something should be banned or not you weigh up the advantages and disadvantages. Cars and motor vehicles allow a society to function. If there were no motor vehicles the country would virtually stand still.
    Societies can easily function without gun ownership. The UK does.
    Hence why people want to ban guns, which bring no benefit but not cars which bring a massive benefit...

    Point of information by the way, I have not included suicide stats in the figures for homocide at any point.

    The simples facts are these: in the UK we have barely any guns and barely any gun crime. In the USA they have a lot of guns and a lot of gun crime.

    Whatever technical or philosophical PR clever argument you try and spin, the simple fact remains that the more guns there are in circulation, the more chance of people using them to kill others.

    Of course people kill people. But a gun is by and large the easiest and most efficient way to kill a large amount of people quickly. With a knife there is more chance you would get overpowered, that wouldn't happen with a gun or is at least less likely.

    What's utterly depressing is that every time a mass shooting happens your response is 'they need more guns'.

    Great, so would our airports be safer if everyone had a gun? Would our nightclubs be safer if everyone in there had a weapon?

    When the Sandy Hook massacre happened the gun lobby claimed that the teachers should have guns. Great, let's have dangerous weapons in a classroom with children then? What happens when a rogue teacher goes crazy with a gun? No doubt you'll claim that the kids should have had guns to stop them...


    It's the most ludicrous argument and you regularly make it. That gun crime is apparently not caused by high levels of guns but rather because there isn't enough guns?

    Maybe in some countries like Switzerland it can work where their population isn't full of raging lunatics but with tens of thousands of homocides each year, as well as thousands of injuries and many tens of thousands more deaths related to guns, it is clear that it cannot work in the USA.

    And trying to compare guns and cars, when one very clearly is important for a society to function while the other is not is a ludicrous comparison.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • 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.