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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Simple question what kills people a gun or a person?
    When a young child shoots someone to death accidentally, do we arrest the child and give them the death penalty; or do we take away the gun?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    The second amendment states that it's for "a well regulated Militia" but let's just assume it meant every private citizen including mentally ill people and babies.
    You do know it is against federal law for mentally ill people to buy a gun
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    The US has a much higher murder rate compared to all other developed countries.

    It's also much easier to obtain a gun illegally when there are legal guns everywhere. If I want to buy a gun from someone, I need to actually know some drug cartel or whatever; if an American wants to buy a gun from someone, they could just ask their neighbours.
    Chicago has the strictest gun laws of any metro area in the US. Consistently the highest deaths. California has the strictest of any state, exceedingly high gun deaths. Even if you think the Second Amendment is daft, getting each other off about how civilised we all are for not having guns is pointless because firearm ownership is so prolific in the US is can't be reversed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Be consistent should we ban things that can be used to murder someone?
    Because not everyone would have a gun but when you put up a sign saying gun free zone you might as well just put on the sign saying shoot people here
    Be consistent should we let private citizens own nuclear bombs?

    It goes both ways, you know. You can apply "consistency" to smaller items but others could point to the bigger things.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You do know it is against federal law for mentally ill people to buy a gun
    Yes, but as you can see from this very case, they can still own one as long as they purchased it before they've gone mad.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    When a young child shoots someone to death accidentally, do we arrest the child and give them the death penalty; or do we take away the gun?
    Nice argument but can you name me 1 state where a young child can buy a gun.

    By young child I assume you mean under 10?

    And in the USA it depends as children older than 6 can be arrested.

    Here a 8 year old was arrested http://thefreethoughtproject.com/aut...hool-outburst/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Yes, but as you can see from this very case, they can still own one as long as they purchased it before they've gone mad.
    Yes and I've said that they need to sort that out not take everyone's guns away from them
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Chicago has the strictest gun laws of any metro area in the US. Consistently the highest deaths. California has the strictest of any state, exceedingly high gun deaths. Even if you think the Second Amendment is daft, getting each other off about how civilised we all are for not having guns is pointless because firearm ownership is so prolific in the US is can't be reversed.
    I agree that it can't be reversed and I'm just grateful the US exists so whenever I dislike anything about where I'm living, I can be glad that I'm not living in the US at least.

    But that's irrelevant. I don't even care about Americans shooting each other. Just here to debate the issue itself.

    To respond to what you said:

    There are no border checks between states, and so individual state laws are meaningless, let alone individual cities' laws. As mentioned, in a normal country, I'd need to know someone in the gang or drug cartel to get hold of a gun; in the US, in the worst scenario you can just travel to another state.

    As for whether "strict" gun laws work, one thing people forget is that "strictness" in the US is very different. People say DC is very strict and still they have the highest gun deaths per capita, but they are "strict" only because they ban open carrying of guns. In reality, their "strict" gun laws did not stop a 24% gun ownership. It's similar for California.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Nice argument but can you name me 1 state where a young child can buy a gun.

    By young child I assume you mean under 10?

    And in the USA it depends as children older than 6 can be arrested.

    Here a 8 year old was arrested http://thefreethoughtproject.com/aut...hool-outburst/
    I said accidentally. When it's intentional, both killed. When it's accidental, the gun did. And babies shooting people have happened: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.859ea5c10789

    Nice diversion, but whether they're allowed to buy a gun is irrelevant. You asked if the gun or the person was to blame.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    I agree that it can't be reversed and I'm just grateful the US exists so whenever I dislike anything about where I'm living, I can be glad that I'm not living in the US at least.

    But that's irrelevant. I don't even care about Americans shooting each other. Just here to debate the issue itself.

    To respond to what you said:

    There are no border checks between states, and so individual state laws are meaningless, let alone individual cities' laws. As mentioned, in a normal country, I'd need to know someone in the gang or drug cartel to get hold of a gun; in the US, in the worst scenario you can just travel to another state.

    As for whether "strict" gun laws work, one thing people forget is that "strictness" in the US is very different. People say DC is very strict and still they have the highest gun deaths per capita, but they are "strict" only because they ban open carrying of guns. In reality, their "strict" gun laws did not stop a 24% gun ownership. It's similar for California.
    If you cross state lines to buy a gun it has to go throw a federally firearm licensed dealer and it must comply with the laws of both states
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    Maybe you could tell me why Mexico has far more gun crime than the US despite having much stricter gun laws?
    Because that's not true?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate
    United States - 10.54
    Mexico - 7.64

    Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    I said accidentally. When it's intentional, both killed. When it's accidental, the gun did. And babies shooting people have happened: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.859ea5c10789

    Nice diversion, but whether they're allowed to buy a gun is irrelevant. You asked if the gun or the person was to blame.
    In the situation you mentioned it would be neither the child or the gun it would be the negligent parent who let the child get the gun, your link shows this as they arrested them

    Also wikihow shows you how to make a gun http://m.wikihow.com/Make-a-Real-Gun
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    In the situation you mentioned it would be neither the child or the gun it would be the negligent parent who let the child get the gun, your link shows this as they arrested them
    Did they arrest them without taking away the gun? If neither the baby nor the gun was the problem, surely arresting the parents would've done the trick already?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Did they arrest them without taking away the gun? If neither the baby nor the gun was the problem, surely arresting the parents would've done the trick already?
    The police do take evidence and the gun when someone has been shot it is pretty handy for the case and it depends on the state whether the gun owners could get it back, if it was the 2 arrested they won't as that is also against the law to own it.

    You gave me a choice of do we hold the child or the gun was held accountable and I answered neither of them, so you have moved the goalposts.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Because that's not true?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate
    United States - 10.54
    Mexico - 7.64

    Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year
    Yes if you include suicides and unintentional. I think it's fairly obvious that people here are talking about homicides.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    Yes if you include suicides and unintentional. I think it's fairly obvious that people here are talking about homicides.
    In that situation it's about
    USA 3.85
    Mexico 7.2

    Just without suicides
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The police do take evidence and the gun when someone has been shot it is pretty handy for the case and it depends on the state whether the gun owners could get it back, if it was the 2 arrested they won't as that is also against the law to own it.

    You gave me a choice of do we hold the child or the gun was held accountable and I answered neither of them, so you have moved the goalposts.
    I didn't move the goalpost. All along it was the same - who do we hold responsible? You said the parents. If it's only the parents and neither the child nor the gun, then only the parents would be dealt with. In this case, it's both the parents and the gun, as it is in basically any other case.

    Otherwise, once someone's served their sentence or paid the fine, they should be given their gun back.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    I didn't move the goalpost. All along it was the same - who do we hold responsible? You said the parents. If it's only the parents and neither the child nor the gun, then only the parents would be dealt with. In this case, it's both the parents and the gun, as it is in basically any other case.

    Otherwise, once someone's served their sentence or paid the fine, they should be given their gun back.
    No the sentence includes the fact they can not own a gun in the future, just like if a teacher is caught sleeping with a student they are not given their job back after their sentence they are banned from teaching
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    Yes if you include suicides and unintentional. I think it's fairly obvious that people here are talking about homicides.
    Then to answer your question, it's because Mexico is a developing country with a higher murder rate in general, one that's fueled by a weaker rule of law and corruption. 54% of all homicides in Mexico were carried out by firearms, compared to 60% in the US. This means homicide is a bigger problem in Mexico, but with stricter gun laws, the result is that firearms-related homicide is a bigger problem in the US.

    You may want to remember that most of firearms-related crimes in Mexico have to do exclusively with the drug cartels in very selected pockets, something that's not the same in the US. You may also want to know that the Mexican constitution likewise give residents a right to keep arms.

    This is without mentioning the fact that a part of the Mexican firearms-related murders has to do with the US's gun laws themselves - Mexicans got their guns from the US, to sell drugs consumed mostly by Americans. Without the US producing so many guns, it would have been more difficult and costly for Mexican cartels to have them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    No the sentence includes the fact they can not own a gun in the future, just like if a teacher is caught sleeping with a student they are not given their job back after their sentence they are banned from teaching
    And why should that be a part of the sentence if the gun had nothing to do with it?

    If a teacher sleeps with a student, the teacher is not banned from having a bed or having sex with anyone else in the future. This is because sex and the bed themselves were not to blame. Or the condom or whatever tool they used during their sex.

    Then you may say because it's because the problem is with the choice of partner. In which case you should point to a case of rape and how rapists are not banned from ever having sex again. It's clear that the problem was seen to be with the person, but not whatever tool, including the penis or the vagina or the mouth or the hand, they used.

    But when it's gun-related, the gun is taken away because even though you don't want to admit this, the gun has been seen as a responsible part as well. If, as you say, murder doesn't have to be conducted with a gun and all other potential weapons are the same, then this person should also have been banned from using any other potential weapon. But that's not the case.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.