This discussion is closed.
Gladstone1885
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 years ago
#21
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Is this a record word count?!?!?!

Posted from TSR Mobile
That could be a record punctuation count
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#22
Report 3 years ago
#22
(Original post by Kay_Winters)
Formatting is off? The notes seem to be at the top, not below the bill. In any case I am firmly in favour of the current restrictions, and we say it is a great equaliser, yet in massacers around the World, not just the US, we don't see would be or actual shooters shot down by those they are aiming at, rather we see people who may otherwise have not been able to access guns killing and maiming innocent people.

Also this bill doesn't take into account the time and money it would cost to retrain and arm the police force in this Country to use and carry firearms themselves in case of aggression by a member of the public carrying a firearm.
That is because law abiding citizens don't take guns into places it is illegal to take guns i.e. Nightclubs and airport terminals in Florida, where a good guy was allowed to have a gun (i think Minnesota) their was 0 casualties and the attacker was shot
0
Quamquam123
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#23
Report 3 years ago
#23
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Okay, gun crime is the only crime that matters then?

Explain?
I didn't say that either. What I did say was that I believe the legalisation of firearms would lead to more gun-related crimes.
0
Gladstone1885
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#24
Report 3 years ago
#24
In defense of the United States, I would point out that although our gun crime rate is much higher, our violent crime rate is actually much lower. Just as well we have far more major metropolitan areas which is where the majority of crime is committed.
0
PetrosAC
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 3 years ago
#25
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Okay, gun crime is the only crime that matters then?



Explain?
Look at the huge number of school shootings and gun crime you have in the United States compared to in the UK
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#26
Report 3 years ago
#26
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Nay. You only have to look at the states to realise how bad an idea this is.
Yes the places with strict gun laws (Chicago) have a low murder rate compared to places with few gun laws like New Hampshire
0
ByronicHero
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 years ago
#27
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Nay. You only have to look at the states to realise how bad an idea this is.
It's like you didn't even read the notes
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#28
Report 3 years ago
#28
(Original post by Gladstone1885)
In defense of the United States, I would point out that although our gun crime rate is much higher, our violent crime rate is actually much lower. Just as well we have far more major metropolitan areas which is where the majority of crime is committed.
Also your home burglaries occur more often when nobody is home compared to here where violent criminals break in while people are home
0
Nirvana1989-1994
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 years ago
#29
Nay-and why are women put in the same category as 'vulnerable people'? Weird.
2
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#30
Report 3 years ago
#30
(Original post by Kay_Winters)
Formatting is off? The notes seem to be at the top, not below the bill. In any case I am firmly in favour of the current restrictions, and we say it is a great equaliser, yet in massacers around the World, not just the US, we don't see would be or actual shooters shot down by those they are aiming at, rather we see people who may otherwise have not been able to access guns killing and maiming innocent people.

Also this bill doesn't take into account the time and money it would cost to retrain and arm the police force in this Country to use and carry firearms themselves in case of aggression by a member of the public carrying a firearm.
Aye, the 'good guy with a gun' argument is completely hollow. Everyone might think they're Jason Bourne but in reality in a high pressure situation against a would be mass shooter/terrorist all you're going to do is get yourself killed if you attempt to engage them - you may also endanger the lives of those around you and there's a solid chance that you yourself will accidentally shoot an innocent person. The ability to shoot at a target in controlled conditions as a sport does not transfer easily to a life-or-death situation. We must not feed this dangerously naive notion that would swiftly get people killed.

http://harvardpolitics.com/united-st...-guy-gun-myth/
0
ByronicHero
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 3 years ago
#31
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
How many illegal immigrants could I shoot if this bill was passed?
There will be a weekly allowance.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#32
Report 3 years ago
#32
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Look at the huge number of school shootings and gun crime you have in the United States compared to in the UK
Counter cases: Norway , Serbia, Switzerland, Canada, Germany. All have very high gun ownership and very low homicide rates.

Or how about the violent crime rates (remember crime is possible without a gun) which is lower in the US, even when you factor out different classifications.

Or Jamaica, where the banning of guns was followed with increased homicide and violent crime rates (with the same happening in the likes of the UK, Ireland, and Australia to a lesser extent)
0
Elizabeth II
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 years ago
#33
Nay. Absolutely not.
1
ByronicHero
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#34
Report 3 years ago
#34
(Original post by Paracosm)
Nay. Absolutely not.
Any reason? Or is this another implacable opposition...?
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 3 years ago
#35
(Original post by ByronicHero)
Any reason? Or is this another implacable opposition...?
Remember that the vast majority are capable of, at most "Aye, no, abstain"
0
Elizabeth II
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#36
Report 3 years ago
#36
(Original post by ByronicHero)
Or is this another implacable opposition...?
You know me so well, it's like you never left.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#37
Report 3 years ago
#37
(Original post by Paracosm)
You know me so well, it's like you never left.
Irrelevant conversation, please move it to the bar.
0
Elizabeth II
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#38
Report 3 years ago
#38
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
Irrelevant conversation, please move it to the bar.
Will do. :yy:
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#39
Report 3 years ago
#39
Aye, everyman deserves the right to defend himself from criminals and potential government oppression; in the event of a future dystopia I want my grandchild to be able to stand up and say no.

This should be heavily regulated of course, with mental health assessments required before you can obtain a gun license and no automatic or assault weapons - sidearms only
1
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 3 years ago
#40
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Excellent

Posted from TSR Mobile
Good, now join the libertarians already! We could use an MP to make legalisation easier to pass for the rest of the term, which aspects are the so-called "deal breakers" as you call them?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (677)
33.68%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (856)
42.59%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (386)
19.2%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (91)
4.53%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise