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

B1103 – Firearms Bill 2017 Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Right, and we can't have the same higher ownership here already?

    You still haven't explained why the more guns=more homicide mantra only applies to the UK and US, why it doesn't apply to all the previously listed countries, something tells me the police won't let you have a gun in the UK for defence. And even if we remove the 80% gang related homicides we still get is being significantly higher than the UK, and still higher than the US, the poster child of the anti gun lobby.
    The fact is that there are many factors that effect in homicide (e.g presence of gangs,. The gun ownership is one of those factors.

    You may boast about how some countries may have high gun ownership and a low homicide rate but but there are also countries which have a high gun ownership and a high homicide rate. Therefore although you may be quick to conclude that the reason why country A has a low homicide rate is because they have high gun ownership, you must also take into account of other factors. For example the reason why country A has a low homicide rate isn't just because they have a high gun ownership but also it is because they will only allow you to own a firearm if you pass certain tests (like DBS check) and you compete a course (which is the case in Canada and Norway).

    Whilst the Bill may ask for some sort of vetting... the measures taken by other countries that you mentioned (such as Canada and Norway) are more advanced.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stoyfan)
    The fact is that there are many factors that effect in homicide (e.g presence of gangs,. The gun ownership is one of those factors.

    You may boast about how some countries may have high gun ownership and a low homicide rate but but there are also countries which have a high gun ownership and a high homicide rate. Therefore although you may be quick to conclude that the reason why country A has a low homicide rate is because they have high gun ownership, you must also take into account of other factors. For example the reason why country A has a low homicide rate isn't just because they have a high gun ownership but also it is because they will only allow you to own a firearm if you pass certain tests (like DBS check) and you compete a course (which is the case in Canada and Norway).

    Whilst the Bill may ask for some sort of vetting... the measures taken by other countries that you mentioned (such as Canada and Norway) are more advanced.
    So, what are the extra factors at work given in the UK the '97 bans have had no long term downward effect on homicides, in Jamaica it's been a long term upwards trend? Why is it that yo justify gun control the advocates only ever look at the effect of a ban on gun homicide rather than overall homicide? Why the federal assault weapon ban wasn't renewed on the basis it didn't do anything?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    The effect of this bill on gun crime is completely unknown given the inability to compare the U.K. to other nations in different situations and with different levels of legality of firearm ownership. To suggest that it would either increase or decrease crime would be naive, which is not the point. The point is liberty and the right to self defense.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What is it with people suggesting that gun homicide is the only thing to consider and that all other crimes are seemingly irrelevant?

    I also ask you: before Dunblane when was the last mass shooting? 1987 before that? 1966. Before that? No earlier than 1842.
    I realise what I've done there. I accept the fact that my argument wasn't very strong. Saying or pointing out the fact that guns kill people is to a certain extent void and I reckon a decent argument could be made that the liberalisation of current laws wouldn't change or have any drastic increase in crimes.

    I've just seen joecphillips comment. I agree with you on that after a bit of digging. See this - http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/. We already had a low homicide rate before the ban. Arguing therefore that the introduction of relaxed gun laws increasing crime rates would be unsophisticated at the least.

    What can I say lads? You've made me think much differently on an issue I was adamant about.

    There are some things to consider though. At the moment, there seems to be strong public support for the tight laws surrounding gun laws - how would you somewhat alleviate this. It's also valid to suggest that the prevalence of guns could potentially make people feel less safe - how would you reassure the public in such a case?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I realise what I've done there. I accept the fact that my argument wasn't very strong. Saying or pointing out the fact that guns kill people is to a certain extent void and I reckon a decent argument could be made that the liberalisation of current laws wouldn't change or have any drastic increase whatsoever when talking about gun crimes.

    I've just seen joecphillips comment. I agree with you on that after a bit of digging. See this - http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/. We already had a low homicide rate before the ban. Arguing that the introduction of relaxed gun laws increasing crime rates would be unsophisticated at the least.

    What can I say lads? You've made me think much differently on an issue I was adamant about.

    There are some things to consider though. At the moment, there seems to be strong public support for the tight laws surrounding gun laws - how would you somewhat alleviate this. It's also valid to suggest that the prevalence of guns could potentially make people feel less safe - how would you reassure the public in such a case?
    You deal with it via educating people and tackling the indoctrination. It's the same with healthcare, people shout "look at America", what needs doing is to turn around and say " America is an anomalous data point ", look at the data with ALL countries and show the weak negative correlation (in reality no real correlation), for instance:

    1484606359341.jpg

    And wait for the proponents of gun control to shift the argument to gun ownership vs gun homicide

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You deal with it via educating people and tackling the indoctrination. It's the same with healthcare, people shout "look at America", what needs doing is to turn around and say " America is an anomalous data point ", look at the data with ALL countries and show the weak negative correlation (in reality no real correlation), for instance:

    1484606359341.jpg

    And wait for the proponents of gun control to shift the argument to gun ownership vs gun homicide

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, a sensible response. With regulation and mental health assessments briefly outlined by Connor27 there's pretty much nothing to warrant being against the bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Well, a sensible response. With regulation and mental health assessments briefly outlined by Connor27 there's pretty much nothing to warrant being against the bill.
    Try telling that to all the people who believe in the UK/ US dichotomy

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So, what are the extra factors at work given in the UK the '97 bans have had no long term downward effect on homicides, in Jamaica it's been a long term upwards trend? Why is it that yo justify gun control the advocates only ever look at the effect of a ban on gun homicide rather than overall homicide? Why the federal assault weapon ban wasn't renewed on the basis it didn't do anything?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That is something you should think about. Can be because of police cuts or competency.
    Here are some stats:
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...apter2homicide

    As you can see 2015's is lower than 1997's. You may wonder why 2003 has such a large spike but that is probably because that many people died from Harold Shipman's murders. Which isn't related to the gun debate.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I support the right to own a handgun for self defence however I think this bill should ban ownership of military style rifles
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.

    1) "intentional homicide" needs to be defined.
    2) only firearm assault rates are relevant
    3) source?
    4) correlation != causality, most of the other evidence indicates firearm legalisation is bad for crime (I can't be bothered to look for sources for you, but see almost any report from a source which doesn't have a pre-existing ideological commitment to gun ownership)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, it's ridiculous that people are unable to defend themselves and their property because a few idiots use firearms inappropriately. Guns are no more dangerous than cars.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'm leaning towards an nay but I'll abstain.

    Ownership of firearms should be heavily regulated. People should pass some type of psychological,emotional and physical test of sorts. To prevent some deranged psychopath from having access to it and people are properly trained in the firearm.

    Maybe increase age restrictions like being over 21 years old to have a gun. I think it be good to have a high VAT on guns to prevent to many people buying it. Maybe limit it to just handguns only, don't want people walking around with assault rifles lol



    Posted from OtherWorld
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ATW1)
    Aye, it's ridiculous that people are unable to defend themselves and their property because a few idiots use firearms inappropriately. Guns are no more dangerous than cars.
    They are two very different things. One is for killing people and animals, the other is for transportation.I can't see how you can make such a statement considering guns are designed to kill things (theorfore they are very dangerous) whilst car's purpose is not to kill people.

    Also I don't get it why you said people can't defend themselves, of course they can!. They can get a rolling pin, a knife or basicallly anything else to defend themselves. The point is that the criminal also doesn't have a firearm because it is so hard to obtain one. As a result the criminal doesn't have the advantage (in that sense) since he isn't using a gun..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay.

    1) "intentional homicide" needs to be defined.
    2) only firearm assault rates are relevant
    3) source?
    4) correlation != causality, most of the other evidence indicates firearm legalisation is bad for crime (I can't be bothered to look for sources for you, but see almost any report from a source which doesn't have a pre-existing ideological commitment to gun ownership)
    Whats the point of legalizing them? I don't see the point. It won't make thing better ( or perhaps slightly better) and could make things significantly worse. Its risk reward ratio , I don't see a big reward.


    The number of murders and killings in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level in nearly 30 years, Office for National Statistics figures show. Police recorded 550 homicides in 2011-12, 88 fewer than the previous year and the lowest number since 1983.

    More recent figures(2015)
    Over recent years, the number of currently recorded homicides has shown a general downward trend and the number for the year ending March 2015 (518) was the lowest since 1983 (482).


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...d-wales-police

    Personally I'm happy with this and don't think guns would make it better.
    Nay.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Whats the point of legalizing them? I don't see the point. It won't make thing better ( or perhaps slightly better) and could make things significantly worse. Its risk reward ratio , I don't see a big reward.


    The number of murders and killings in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level in nearly 30 years, Office for National Statistics figures show. Police recorded 550 homicides in 2011-12, 88 fewer than the previous year and the lowest number since 1983.

    More recent figures(2015)
    Over recent years, the number of currently recorded homicides has shown a general downward trend and the number for the year ending March 2015 (518) was the lowest since 1983 (482).


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...d-wales-police

    Personally I'm happy with this and don't think guns would make it better.
    Nay.
    Personally I support gun ownership on moral grounds; to defend myself from crime and potential government oppression, a reduced crime rate would just be an added bonus (but obviously that doesn't equate to just giving out guns to anyone, we should still have mental health assessments, and regulation and no automatic or assault weapons.)

    Ask yourself this: if you were on a train that experienced a random terrorist attack; wouldn't you rather have a gun to pop the **** and save everyone on the train? Or would you rather try and physically subdue him and risk being stabbed?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Whats the point of legalizing them? I don't see the point. It won't make thing better ( or perhaps slightly better) and could make things significantly worse. Its risk reward ratio , I don't see a big reward.


    The number of murders and killings in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level in nearly 30 years, Office for National Statistics figures show. Police recorded 550 homicides in 2011-12, 88 fewer than the previous year and the lowest number since 1983.

    More recent figures(2015)
    Over recent years, the number of currently recorded homicides has shown a general downward trend and the number for the year ending March 2015 (518) was the lowest since 1983 (482).


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...d-wales-police

    Personally I'm happy with this and don't think guns would make it better.
    Nay.
    Note guns weren't banned when the uk had the lowest homocide rate in history and then look and see homocide went up after the gun ban
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay.

    1) "intentional homicide" needs to be defined.
    2) only firearm assault rates are relevant
    3) source?
    4) correlation != causality, most of the other evidence indicates firearm legalisation is bad for crime (I can't be bothered to look for sources for you, but see almost any report from a source which doesn't have a pre-existing ideological commitment to gun ownership)
    Firearm assault rates are the only relevant thing?

    So let's take the extreme case, suppose all non firearm related crime ended, but firearm crime doubled as a consequence of such a bill, are you saying after is worse than before?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Firearm assault rates are the only relevant thing?

    So let's take the extreme case, suppose all non firearm related crime ended, but firearm crime doubled as a consequence of such a bill, are you saying after is worse than before?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The point is that it's absurd to try and claim there's any sort of causation with changes in non-firearm assault rates.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The point is that it's absurd to try and claim there's any sort of causation with changes in non-firearm assault rates.
    So felons saying they would target an unarmed man over an armed one doesn't suggest a causal link? I guess there's also no causal link between intoxication and being a victim of crime either.

    Do you have even a correlation, with a causal link optional, that more guns=more crime?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    AYE

    "… the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
    – Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, 1850
 
 
 
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: January 23, 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.