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

TSR Libertarian Party Question Time - Ask A Porcupine! Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam_1999)
    joecphillips

    First all there is the simple common sense argument: legalizing handguns means there are more guns in circulation. More guns = more shootings. Imagine if we have a population of 100,000 people and there are say 500 gun owners. This may result in 50 shootings. If we double the number of gun owners, we double the number of shootings.
    Your own hypothetical situation with no evidence . Another logical fallacy. This point is not valid.

    (Original post by Adam_1999;71142252

    Now let us look at real figures. Read this: [url
    )

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control[/url]

    The first graph of gun crimes in england and wales does show a rise in between 2005 and 2005 - I don't know why - but gun crime has plummeted since then to a level which is approximately half that of the period 1990 to 1995. Are you really telling me that legalising guns will result in gun crime levels staying the same?
    You are still not refuting the points provided.


    Did the handgun ban reduce the homicide rate?
    No
    Did the handgun ban reduce firearm homicide rate?
    No


    (Original post by Adam_1999;71142252

    Now let us look at real figures. Read this: [url
    )

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control[/url]

    The first graph of gun crimes in england and wales does show a rise in between 2005 and 2005 - I don't know why - but gun crime has plummeted since then to a level which is approximately half that of the period 1990 to 1995. Are you really telling me that legalising guns will result in gun crime levels staying the same?
    hurr durr " I don't know why", I shall tell you why there is no correlation between guns and homicide. And yes I am telling you exactly that.
    The hang gun ban did not cause lower homicide rates( they actually increased), this shows there is no correlation.
    I don't think you read your own article. The articles graph on hand guns supports my argument is similar to the one I have provided.

    Mike Wells, secretary of the Sportsman’s Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, set up in 1996 to counter public pressure for a ban on handguns, said politicians had been driven by a need to show they were doing something but their actions did nothing to stop the criminal use of guns. “It never, never has any effect.

    From your own article^^ , he was absolutely right.

    Your own article states the following:
    Mark Mastaglio, an expert on firearms who worked for the Forensic Science Service for 20 years, said there was no evidence that the ban on handguns after Dunblane had done anything to cut the criminal use of firearms. “It was very rare that there was ever leakage from the licensed gun owners to the criminal fraternity.

    Crime statistics in the years after the ban was introduced appear to support the theory that it had little impact. Gun crime rose sharply, to peak at 24,094 offences in 2003/4. After that the number of crimes in which a firearm was involved fell consistently, to 4,779 offences in 2013. In the year ending September 2015 the


    As the point we are discussing is hand guns but your own article goes on to discuss the example of Germany which supports our case.

    Basically your own article confirms there is no correlation

    (Original post by Adam_1999)
    Cast your minds back to dunblane, where thomas hamilton killed 16 5 and 6 year year olds with HIS LEGALLY HELD COLLECTION OF HANDGUNS. Do you want to more kids dead in school shootings? Would that spice up your day?
    Emotional appeal.This is not really a point.

    Globally the USA is an outlier and global trend actually suggest that more guns = lower homicide
    There is no correlation globally and even within the USA itself there is no correlation.

    http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Screen-Shot-2014-03-31-at-Monday-March-31-3.17-AM.png

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam_1999)
    Gun crime vs knife crime has nothing to do with this. I was merely making the point that less guns = less murders by guns. Do you have any evidence to prove that banning guns will increase knife crime? I find the notion that the lives saved by banning guns will cancelled out by an increase in knife crime ridiculous.

    Yeah, the emotion thing has been mentioned to me before, but the idea of excluding emotion completely when making an argument is wrong for me anyway. I made that emotional appeal because I meant it. If you don't believe in your arguments and you don't imbue them with that belief, the argument is no longer an argument. You aren't here because a cold part of your mind has concluded that legalising guns is good, you are here because you are passionate about your beliefs.

    I included the Dunblane example because the perpetrator had committed that crime because he had handguns which he owned legally.

    You want me to name another mass shooting? The hungerford massacre in 1987 which killed 16 innocent people. The firearms amendment act that followed it banned semi automatic rifles, but it didn't ban handguns. If it had, Dunblane would not have happened.
    Naming shootings is not an argument , appealing to emotion is not a valid argument. Stick to the facts and prove there is a correlation.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Your whole argument is gun crime = worse than all others, can you explain why that is?
    Please point me to where I said that knife crime is preferable to gun crime. How did you infer that?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam_1999)
    Gun crime vs knife crime has nothing to do with this. I was merely making the point that less guns = less murders by guns. Do you have any evidence to prove that banning guns will increase knife crime? I find the notion that the lives saved by banning guns will cancelled out by an increase in knife crime ridiculous.

    Yeah, the emotion thing has been mentioned to me before, but the idea of excluding emotion completely when making an argument is wrong for me anyway. I made that emotional appeal because I meant it. If you don't believe in your arguments and you don't imbue them with that belief, the argument is no longer an argument. You aren't here because a cold part of your mind has concluded that legalising guns is good, you are here because you are passionate about your beliefs.

    I included the Dunblane example because the perpetrator had committed that crime because he had handguns which he owned legally.

    You want me to name another mass shooting? The hungerford massacre in 1987 which killed 16 innocent people. The firearms amendment act that followed it banned semi automatic rifles, but it didn't ban handguns. If it had, Dunblane would not have happened.
    Look at the homicide rate banning handguns did not lower it because the murders that took place with guns were just committed with something else.

    Facts don't care about feelings, you can make the right choice or you can make one that makes you feel better rarely are they the same thing.

    That is true but in all the time that the uk has existed how many school shootings like that have occurred here? Dunblane was used by you like it is in America by the anti-gun lobby saying think about the children, it would be a good thing if you could argue your point without standing on the graves of the victims of that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam_1999)
    Please point me to where I said that knife crime is preferable to gun crime. How did you infer that?
    You are talking about gun crime in a vacuum, I'm not denying gun crime will increase it will but as the homicide rate shows it did not reduce homicide so can you please explain how repealing something that didn't reduce the homicide rate will increase the homicide rate? If not then the only logical conclusion is one is worse than the other
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    This whole "status quo=perfection, liberty is :innocent::innocent::innocent::innocent:" argument is an interesting one especially when it comes to dictators. It's also the problem with looking at something at face value, ultimately that means looking at it in accordance with ingrained biases and on an emotional basis rather than looking at evidence. In many respects it is somewhat reminiscent of the de Tocquville quote on equality vs liberty (Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.) however it being shifted to changing nothing vs liberty, to you it seems liberalisation is bad unless it can be demonstrated to be specifically good as opposed to liberalism being good unless demonstrated specifically bad, which is a bizarre state of mind to me for somebody who lives in a country that can truly call itself a liberal democracy that has never fallen to the dictators
    Not so. Generally speaking I believe in liberty by default and if this were the 1950's and you presented this evidence I would probably oppose changing that staus-quo. In this case I am simply not somebody who is an absolutist. I don't look at that chart and seek to correct an injustice done decades ago, I look at that chart and treat the world as it is (I.e. Near enough to what I desire).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Prove human nature exists?

    And they are clearly appeals to emotion. Obviously because they frame it around 'you'.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    A couple of things: first directing an argument towards an individual to appeal to their self interest does not necessarily invalidate the argument as you wish it to.

    Secondly, prove to me human nature doesn't exist, in that I mean that this is much like an argument as to whether God(s) exist(s) or not in that with current knowledge and understanding it is impossible to prove either way, at which point you have to argue from the basis of which is more probable, the answer being some form on inherent human nature, as this is the simplest way to explain why in the vast majority of cases it does not matter what one's geographical location in the world is, what their society is like, how they were brought up etc.

    (Original post by Adam_1999)
    joecphillips

    First all there is the simple common sense argument: legalizing handguns means there are more guns in circulation. More guns = more shootings. Imagine if we have a population of 100,000 people and there are say 500 gun owners. This may result in 50 shootings. If we double the number of gun owners, we double the number of shootings.
    And we're off to a great start, dealing with hypotheticals rather than the evidence at hand, and I see you're quickly going to move on to the "and look at America, the one country in the world I think fits my view on the matter", so let us not look at hypotheticals and instead look at hard data (and this is as much the "we're not America" side of things as anything else. If we take a look at the House of Commons Library briefing paper from 13/07/16 found here we get all sorts of information from 2002 to 2015, the most important part being found on page 7, giving us a breakdown of the crimes by weapon type and shows that firearms crimes are overwhelmingly committed using illegal or imitation weapon, in other words those who legally possess firearms are on the whole safe with them and those who go through the rigmarole of licencing are unlikely commit an offense, those who are likely to commit and offense are going to have a gun illegally whether they can have them legally or not. We also see from the tables only one death, and 50 injuries for every 100,000 legally owned guns, if we apply the filter used above we get that right down to 1 death and 50 injuries for every million legal guns.

    We further get that gun crime is overwhelmingly criminal on criminal (read gang v gang) according to the National Crime Agency, crime which is beyond the law to begin with, and if we aren't kidding ourselves would be knife crime if it weren't gun crime

    OK! I made those numbers up to illustrate my simple common sense point: more guns equals more shootings.

    Now let us look at real figures. Read this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...do-gun-control

    The first graph of gun crimes in england and wales does show a rise in between 2005 and 2005 - I don't know why - but gun crime has plummeted since then to a level which is approximately half that of the period 1990 to 1995. Are you really telling me that legalising guns will result in gun crime levels staying the same?
    There are two comments to be made here, first we get that strangely the BBC also using home office data get a different graph, but before we share that it's worth looking at the other point which is: why chose 1990 as the start date? simple, before then there were far fewer firearms offences. I'll actually add a third now and point out that the guardian graph starts at 5, very deliberate because it makes it look like the number has gone from 10k to 25k to a few k, not 10k to 25k to 7k, you look at that graph and assume the base is zero. Now that's out of the way let's look at a different graph from the same data set courtesy of the BBC:



    Now, if we compare this to the Commons Library Briefing we can see where the discrepancy comes from: so as to make it look worse the guardian includes air firearms, the BBC only uses non-air firearms (which I hope you agree is the more relevant). This taken with the rest of the commons brief, as it has a few more years of data, shows that in reality non-air firearms related crime is about on par with late inter-ban levels, and and several times the rate of crime before the 1988 Act. Once again your side of the argument is having to present data not relevant to the argument to try to create statistics that fit your argument.


    We have to remember that many of those gun incidents are air rifles or guns loaded with blanks (see http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...7#.WQDjtjPTXqA). Let us look at a more accurate metric of how effective banning guns - homicides due to guns.

    Look at the graph showing gun homicides in Scotland. If we draw a line of best fit of that graph and ignore the period 2004 to 2006 which seems anomalous, we see that there has been a clear decrease in murders where a gun was used.
    You seem to be quite good at presenting evidence contrary to your case, this time we look at the testimony given below the graph, let's take a few choice quotes:

    "Mark Mastaglio, an expert on firearms who worked for the Forensic Science Service for 20 years, said there was no evidence that the ban on handguns after Dunblane had done anything to cut the criminal use of firearms."

    We also, once again, get this idea that gun crime is mostly illegal guns anyway in the next sentence:

    " “It was very rare that there was ever leakage from the licensed gun owners to the criminal fraternity. Most guns used by criminal are either illegally imported or converted weapons. And that remains the case today,” said Mastaglio."

    And then the explanation as to why the rate fell in the noughties:

    " there was also poor policing of gang areas, and poor ballistics records and analysis. Both were addressed in the early 2000s, when there was a huge decline in gun crime,"

    You're looking simply and the correlation and ignoring the causation.

    On another note, can anybody here point me to a chief constable of major police force who has said that legalizing handguns will not affect gun crime? Can you find anybody on our police forces who think that legalising guns will have no effect on gun crime?
    The difficulty here comes in finding the correct search to use, so I shall instead refer you to the above, with plenty more out there, where the authorities openly admit that the ban did basically nothing since the problems are not with legal owners but illegal owners, and I also put to you a need to justify why gun crime is inherently worse than knife crime, which tends to be the replacement for gun crime rather than no crime

    Cast your minds back to dunblane, where thomas hamilton killed 16 5 and 6 year year olds with HIS LEGALLY HELD COLLECTION OF HANDGUNS. Do you want to more kids dead in school shootings? Would that spice up your day?
    And now we get a clear appeal to emotion, would you like to tell me when the last school shooting was before Dunblane? How about we go for mass shootings in general carried out by a private individual, how many of them have we had?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Not so. Generally speaking I believe in liberty by default and if this were the 1950's and you presented this evidence I would probably oppose changing that staus-quo. In this case I am simply not somebody who is an absolutist. I don't look at that chart and seek to correct an injustice done decades ago, I look at that chart and treat the world as it is (I.e. Near enough to what I desire).
    In other words you don't believe in liberty as the default, you believe in the status quo as the default. If you really believed in liberty as the default you would wish to correct such injustices, alas the status quo is the way to be, so it is only an injustice if the reversal is actively beneficial, liberty is not a benefit in and of itself.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    In other words you don't believe in liberty as the default, you believe in the status quo as the default. If you really believed in liberty as the default you would wish to correct such injustices, alas the status quo is the way to be, so it is only an injustice if the reversal is actively beneficial, liberty is not a benefit in and of itself.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Fair point. At any rate i don't feel the two are incompatible though (and indeed it's not terribly hard to procure a weapon now).

    I must say though, i never thought you believed in liberty as default.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This summer I think I'm going to build a pistol, lots of YouTube tutorials on how
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The main argument for legalising handguns is self-defence. One of the most common scenarios which pro gun campaigners cite is armed burglary and burglary in general. In fact, this scenario is the only possible way in which a person could use a firearm in self-defense. Any other way requires a person to carry a gun with them at all times, but this would not be possible, even under pre 1997 laws.

    I want to look at the numbers. The total number of domestic burglaries in England and Wales in 2010/2011 (year ending in June) was approximately 750,000 (extrapolated from graph in section 11 figure 9. See: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ences-burglary). According to the Daily mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rticle-1245417), 23,000 people were attacked by the burglar during a burglary. (23000/750000) x 100 = 3.1% chance of you being attacked by a burglar if your house is robbed. This number is small but considerable. Now, according to this article (https://thecrimepreventionwebsite.co...burglary-risk/), is a 2.5% chance, on average, you could be burgled. 0.025 x 0.031 x 100 = 0.0775% chance that you could, at random, be attacked if you are burgled.

    That number is tiny. It certainly doesn't justify legalising handguns. Even if we did, where is your evidence that it would reduce this number? You are very good at giving philosophical arguments about how guns makes us safer, about how everyone has the right to self defense, but you cannot back up your claims with evidence.

    joecphillips Jammy Duel
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It pleases me to welcome the following individuals to the party:

    julen
    superhuman98
    navarre
    evian1232
    masterwam
    cactusstarbright
    batgirl98

    Kudos to Fleky and QQ for their recruiting!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    It pleases me to welcome the following individuals to the party:

    julen
    superhuman98
    navarre
    evian1232
    masterwam
    cactusstarbright
    batgirl98

    Kudos to Fleky and QQ for their recruiting!
    Qq?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    It pleases me to welcome the following individuals to the party:

    julen
    superhuman98
    navarre
    evian1232
    masterwam
    cactusstarbright
    batgirl98

    Kudos to Fleky and QQ for their recruiting!
    :hat2:
    Glad I could help , we will be a force to be reckoned with next parliament. It is finally good to be in party who appreciate me and my efforts. #liber majority
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Qq?
    For the list!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Greetings,

    Due to events in my personal life that will hinder my TSR abilities over the course of the next month and especially in June, and the failure of Labour to hold a timely election, I will be stepping down as leader of the Libertarians immediately. In the days following this announcement, and election for my replacement will take place, and I will remain neutral.

    Whoever is selected I am confident will do a great job in the position, as those individuals who have put their names forward are each competent and credible in their own ways. PetrosAC please remove any special forum powers I have, god knows I didn't use any of them

    In the interim, the party will be governed as a socialist utopia (dystopia) with each member owning, but simultaneously not owning, an equal stake in the operations and management, or lack thereof, until a replacement is installed. Of course I am just kidding, I'd rather like our party to survive and our members not go hungry.

    Ta ta!
    - Andrew
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    In the interim, the party will be governed as a socialist utopia
    Can I join the Libers plz
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    Greetings,

    Due to events in my personal life that will hinder my TSR abilities over the course of the next month and especially in June, and the failure of Labour to hold a timely election, I will be stepping down as leader of the Libertarians immediately. In the days following this announcement, and election for my replacement will take place, and I will remain neutral.

    Whoever is selected I am confident will do a great job in the position, as those individuals who have put their names forward are each competent and credible in their own ways. PetrosAC please remove any special forum powers I have, god knows I didn't use any of them

    In the interim, the party will be governed as a socialist utopia (dystopia) with each member owning, but simultaneously not owning, an equal stake in the operations and management, or lack thereof, until a replacement is installed. Of course I am just kidding, I'd rather like our party to survive and our members not go hungry.

    Ta ta!
    - Andrew


    Good luck with whatever you're doing over the next month, and make sure you come back to the House asap
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    Can I join the Libers plz
    Not only that, we will make you a supreme dictator.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    Greetings,

    Due to events in my personal life that will hinder my TSR abilities over the course of the next month and especially in June, and the failure of Labour to hold a timely election, I will be stepping down as leader of the Libertarians immediately. In the days following this announcement, and election for my replacement will take place, and I will remain neutral.

    Whoever is selected I am confident will do a great job in the position, as those individuals who have put their names forward are each competent and credible in their own ways. PetrosAC please remove any special forum powers I have, god knows I didn't use any of them

    In the interim, the party will be governed as a socialist utopia (dystopia) with each member owning, but simultaneously not owning, an equal stake in the operations and management, or lack thereof, until a replacement is installed. Of course I am just kidding, I'd rather like our party to survive and our members not go hungry.

    Ta ta!
    - Andrew
    Wow, just suddenly abandoning the party because it suits you. What kind of despicable.... :ninja2:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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.

Updated: November 17, 2017
  • 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?
  • 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.