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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Where did I say everyone should have a gun in the airport? I have said gun free zones are basically a sign saying shoot here.

    See my point about gun free zones above.

    I'm saying the state shouldn't be able to take away people's rights except in very narrow circumstances.

    You seem to assume that gun=murder which is wrong.
    You have suggested people's right to drive is more important than their right not to be murdered.
    Very weak arguments. Why do you never read what people write? I've addressed each point you have made several times.

    As for gun free zones - you were suggesting that. It's why you mentioned it. You were clearly implying that if people had guns there that the tragedy wouldn't happen. Ergo you support everyone having a gun in an airport and a nightclub.

    As for 'taking away people's rights'. You want to take away people's right to free movement. I want to take away the right to have a gun. No one believes humans should have unlimited rights. If government taking away a certain 'right' makes people a lot safer and benefits society then of course I support it.

    And finally, I have very clearly outlined the difference between guns and cars. But I'll do it once more:

    1.) The overall benefit of motor vehicles is tremendous. There is no overall benefit to society of having a gun.

    2.) Motorists are more than happy to abide by strict laws to improve safety, gun supporters are not.

    3.) The amount of murders by motor vehicle is incredibly low. It's incredibly high for guns.

    For each item you weigh up the advantages and disadvantages and make a decision. It really is that simple. Guns bring no advantage to a society and cause sheer devastation. Therefore they should be banned. It's that simple.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You do know it is against federal law for mentally ill people to buy a gun
    Yet this person acquired a gun legally and murdered five people. And rather than blame the lack of regulations on who can buy a gun, you blame the fact that everyone else didn't have a gun.

    Pathetic.
    Offline

    15
    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

    Also wikihow shows you how to make a gun http://m.wikihow.com/Make-a-Real-Gun
    And if there were no guns which the parent could negligently let their child get then innocent people wouldn't be killed needlessly.

    But of course, your solution as always is 'more guns'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    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.
    You have him at check mate with this point. He will have one of three responses:

    1.) he won't reply
    2.) He will reply, totally ignoring what you said and making a generic 'the state shouldn't take away people's rights' claim

    3.) He will divert the debate and try to make out that unless you want to ban people from eating bananas (or something ludicrous) then you cannot ban guns. He loves to make very tenuous links.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You do know it is against federal law for mentally ill people to buy a gun
    No it isn't. It is illegal for people who have been adjudicated as a mental defective or who have been committed to a mental institution to buy a gun.

    Leaving aside issues with the comprehensiveness of databases of this information, only a small proportion of the mentally ill will ever fall within these definitions.
    Offline

    18
    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.
    Suicides are still relevant, though. Studies have shown a strong link between gun ownership and suicide rates. It's far easier to impulsively and successfully kill yourself with a gun than it is by any other means. You can reduce suicide rates by reducing the number of guns.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Where did I say everyone should have a gun in the airport? I have said gun free zones are basically a sign saying shoot here.
    Yeah because airports hardly have anyone with a gun. Those police and CBP people I see are imaginary.

    'The only thing which can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun' - this is such a terrible argument. It doesn't address the issues at all.

    It doesn't address the fact that even with a number of armed people around, shots will be fired and a number of innocent people will die before the shooter is taken down.

    It doesn't address the issue that you're placing a burden on normal civilians to step up and get involved in an event as frightening and dangerous as a mass shooting in a public area.

    It doesn't address the simple fact that all of this wouldn't be an issue with sensible gun control laws.

    You're basically conceding that there is an issue with guns. However rather than sort it out, you'd rather arm more people and let individuals take care of themselves when shootings happen. Happy in the knowledge that this will result in innocent lives lost.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)

    'The only thing which can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun' - this is such a terrible argument. It doesn't address the issues at all.

    This guy had a gun when he was on patrol on the streets of Iraq with the Puerto Rico National Guard.

    He had a gun in the arrivals area of Fort Lauderdale Airport yesterday.

    Is he a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun?

    How do I know whether the millions of other Americans with guns are good guys or bad guys?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    How do I know whether the millions of other Americans with guns are good guys or bad guys?
    Well indeed.

    I saw someone carrying a gun for just the third time last Tuesday. It is unsettling - and seemed to attract some glances from other people. I have no idea whether that person is one of the good guys or not. And it isn't as if I can just take a few steps back, or cross the street, to get out of his way.

    I guess that the pro gun lobby would suggest I get a gun myself and pre-emptively shoot him. Because I know I'm a good guy.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    You seem to be ignoring the fact that YOU are the one who wants the change, it is YOU stipulating more guns=more death, I shall quote part of a paper I read last night on the matter (Harvard publication no less) which included this in its conclusion:

    "Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra."

    With the following being the footnote to go with it:

    "(1) Those who propose to change the status quo bear the burden of proving that change is a good idea; (2) those who propose a new policy bear the burden of proving that the policy is a good idea; and (3) in a free society those who propose to abolish a personal liberty passionately valued by millions bear the burden of proving that abolishment is a good idea."

    Go on then, if more guns=more dead then why does Japan and Norway have the same homicide rate despite Norway having orders of magnitude more guns? Why is it that our rates didn't go down after 1997? Why did Australia's not go down? Why did Ireland's and Jamaica's go up? Why has the US homicide rate halved in the last two decades despite higher gun ownership? Why did the federal assault weapon ban have no statistically significant effect on mass shootings (the reason it was brought in and the reason it was not renewed)? Why the homicides are disproportionately in urban areas where guns are less prevalent when more guns=more homicides?

    Shall we go for a selective and probably spurious correlation here: gun ownership has gone up 50% over the last 20 years, homicides are down 50%, and all crimes counted as "violent crimes" by the FBI are also down over the last 20 years. Conclusion: more guns=less crime.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yet this person acquired a gun legally and murdered five people. And rather than blame the lack of regulations on who can buy a gun, you blame the fact that everyone else didn't have a gun.

    Pathetic.
    I have said it is a problem but I don't agree with collective punishment


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    And if there were no guns which the parent could negligently let their child get then innocent people wouldn't be killed needlessly.

    But of course, your solution as always is 'more guns'.
    You are right the kid wouldn't of been shot if they didn't have a gun but if a number of other things happened then the other child would not of been injured at all

    My answer isn't more guns my answer is don't take everyone's guns away.

    Your answer is you are innocent I don't care so you are going to be punished.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You have him at check mate with this point. He will have one of three responses:

    1.) he won't reply
    2.) He will reply, totally ignoring what you said and making a generic 'the state shouldn't take away people's rights' claim

    3.) He will divert the debate and try to make out that unless you want to ban people from eating bananas (or something ludicrous) then you cannot ban guns. He loves to make very tenuous links.
    At the point when people are saying inanimate objects are responsible for people's action that is wrong last time I checked people are responsible for their actions.

    It is taken off them as they have proven that they can not handle it properly just like you can have your car taken off you.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You seem to be ignoring the fact that YOU are the one who wants the change, it is YOU stipulating more guns=more death, I shall quote part of a paper I read last night on the matter (Harvard publication no less) which included this in its conclusion:

    "Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra."

    With the following being the footnote to go with it:

    "(1) Those who propose to change the status quo bear the burden of proving that change is a good idea; (2) those who propose a new policy bear the burden of proving that the policy is a good idea; and (3) in a free society those who propose to abolish a personal liberty passionately valued by millions bear the burden of proving that abolishment is a good idea."

    Go on then, if more guns=more dead then why does Japan and Norway have the same homicide rate despite Norway having orders of magnitude more guns? Why is it that our rates didn't go down after 1997? Why did Australia's not go down? Why did Ireland's and Jamaica's go up? Why has the US homicide rate halved in the last two decades despite higher gun ownership? Why did the federal assault weapon ban have no statistically significant effect on mass shootings (the reason it was brought in and the reason it was not renewed)? Why the homicides are disproportionately in urban areas where guns are less prevalent when more guns=more homicides?

    Shall we go for a selective and probably spurious correlation here: gun ownership has gone up 50% over the last 20 years, homicides are down 50%, and all crimes counted as "violent crimes" by the FBI are also down over the last 20 years. Conclusion: more guns=less crime.
    Spin spin spin.

    In Britain there are hardly any guns and hardly any gun crime. The opposite is true in America. What you are trying to assert is that if nobody had a gun, that there would somehow be more gun crime. Yeah, that's logical.

    Whatever clever arguments you make about Honduras, Japan or any other random country the simple, logical fact is that if there were no guns in America, there would be far less gun crime.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    My answer isn't more guns my answer is don't take everyone's guns away.

    Your answer is you are innocent I don't care so you are going to be punished.
    Your answer is for there to be more guns, which is why you commented on the fact that this was a gun free zone (which it wasn't). Now you are backtracking on that.
    If everyone had a gun, there would be far more, not far less tragedies. Imagine in a busy public place if there is a bad man with a gun and all of a sudden 100 bystanders pull out their gun to shoot him. Imagine how many innocent people would be caught up in the cross fire.

    You are also asking individuals to put themselves into very dangerous situations.
    If taking away people's guns means that lots innocent people aren't murdered and there is no great drawback to society then of course I support it.



    At the point when people are saying inanimate objects are responsible for people's action that is wrong last time I checked people are responsible for their actions.

    It is taken off them as they have proven that they can not handle it properly just like you can have your car taken off you.
    You keep reiterating the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' point but it doesn't make it any less nonsense.

    Of course people kill people. But a gun makes it incredibly easy for people to kill lots of other people in a short space of time. You are basically giving people who want to kill others an ideal weapon for doing so. I want to make it harder, where possible, for people to kill others, not easier.

    It's far easier to kill people with a gun than it is with a lighter or matchstick.

    And of course people are killed by cars, but society badly needs motor vehicles to function. If cars were banned, everything would grind to a halt. That simply isn't the case for guns.

    Thus we can prevent a great deal of murders without there being a serious detriment to society by banning guns.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Your answer is for there to be more guns, which is why you commented on the fact that this was a gun free zone (which it wasn't). Now you are backtracking on that.
    If everyone had a gun, there would be far more, not far less tragedies. Imagine in a busy public place if there is a bad man with a gun and all of a sudden 100 bystanders pull out their gun to shoot him. Imagine how many innocent people would be caught up in the cross fire.

    You are also asking individuals to put themselves into very dangerous situations.
    If taking away people's guns means that lots innocent people aren't murdered and there is no great drawback to society then of course I support it.





    You keep reiterating the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' point but it doesn't make it any less nonsense.

    Of course people kill people. But a gun makes it incredibly easy for people to kill lots of other people in a short space of time. You are basically giving people who want to kill others an ideal weapon for doing so. I want to make it harder, where possible, for people to kill others, not easier.

    It's far easier to kill people with a gun than it is with a lighter or matchstick.

    And of course people are killed by cars, but society badly needs motor vehicles to function. If cars were banned, everything would grind to a halt. That simply isn't the case for guns.

    Thus we can prevent a great deal of murders without there being a serious detriment to society by banning guns.
    Airport carry is illegal in Florida so it was a gun free zone.

    But that isn't what happens as jammy has pointed out banning guns hasn't reduced murder rates here or Australia and the rate increased in Ireland and Jamaica.

    You are right it is the gun at fault the shooter here should be let free as it is the gun that is responsible.

    Not everything would grind to a halt if there was no cars people would adapt and there are plenty of other ways to travel.

    Fix the violence and gang culture predominantly in the inner cities and that will prevent murders without punishing innocent people
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Airport carry is illegal in Florida so it was a gun free zone.
    But he was entitled to have the gun in his checked baggage. It only became illegal when he took it out. You might as well say that it is illegal to have a gun from the moment you fire it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    But he was entitled to have the gun in his checked baggage. It only became illegal when he took it out. You might as well say that it is illegal to have a gun from the moment you fire it.
    The point is the area that the shooting happened was another gun free zone as the law does not allow terminal carry

    People who followed the law were not allowed to handle a gun in the terminal but the law doesn't deter those who are willing to break it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pikachū)
    "Multiple people" have been shot dead by a lone gunman at Fort Lauderdale airport in Florida, say officials.
    The airport said there was an "ongoing incident" at the baggage claim area in Terminal 2.
    Barbara Sharief of Broward County Mayor's office said a gunman was in custody.
    Hundreds of people were standing on the tarmac as dozens of police cars and ambulances rushed to the scene.
    Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said in a tweet: "I'm at the Ft. Lauderdale Airport. Shots have been fired. Everyone is running."


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38535699
    damn sad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Airport carry is illegal in Florida so it was a gun free zone.
    It is legal to have one in checked baggage. Therefore legal to carry it. Next.

    But that isn't what happens as jammy has pointed out banning guns hasn't reduced murder rates here or Australia and the rate increased in Ireland and Jamaica.
    I can tell you with absolute certainty that if the shooter did not have the gun, he would not have shot five people dead. I don't see how Jamaica is connected to that and bringing it up is simply a diversion tactic by you.

    You are right it is the gun at fault the shooter here should be let free as it is the gun that is responsible.
    I have said clearly that the person is responsible several times. But having a gun allowed them to commit the murder, which otherwise would have been much more difficult.

    Not everything would grind to a halt if there was no cars people would adapt and there are plenty of other ways to travel.
    This is up there with your most ridiculous arguments. Are you seriously arguing that guns are as important to the functioning of a society as motor vehicles? Are you really saying that?

    However, if you want to invest massively in public transport, to make the system so incredibly amazing that we don't need cars, then i'd probably be supportive.
    As it stands however, we very much do need cars. Far more than we need guns.

    Fix the violence and gang culture predominantly in the inner cities and that will prevent murders without punishing innocent people
    You know what would fix it? Stop them getting guns in the first place. You know how we stop people getting guns so easily? We ban them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The point is the area that the shooting happened was another gun free zone as the law does not allow terminal carry

    People who followed the law were not allowed to handle a gun in the terminal but the law doesn't deter those who are willing to break it
    So the fact that the area was a gun free zone is what caused the mass murder?

    So everyone in the airport should have a gun. Yeah that will things much safer....

    You really must be on a wind up.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It is legal to have one in checked baggage. Therefore legal to carry it. Next.



    I can tell you with absolute certainty that if the shooter did not have the gun, he would not have shot five people dead. I don't see how Jamaica is connected to that and bringing it up is simply a diversion tactic by you.


    I have said clearly that the person is responsible several times. But having a gun allowed them to commit the murder, which otherwise would have been much more difficult.



    This is up there with your most ridiculous arguments. Are you seriously arguing that guns are as important to the functioning of a society as motor vehicles? Are you really saying that?

    However, if you want to invest massively in public transport, to make the system so incredibly amazing that we don't need cars, then i'd probably be supportive.
    As it stands however, we very much do need cars. Far more than we need guns.



    You know what would fix it? Stop them getting guns in the first place. You know how we stop people getting guns so easily? We ban them.
    No not next: http://crimeresearch.org/2017/01/sho...gun-free-zone/
    It is a gun free zone despite you trying to say no it isn't

    You say less guns=less murder when in many countries banning guns has not reduced the murder rate, Jamaica is one example of where your failed logic has been enacted.

    Except once again you more guns=more murder idea has been proven false in a lot of countries.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    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

    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.