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

Kinder eggs are banned in the US...but guns aren't! Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I'm no gun expert, but I read online in US sources that the bump stocks as good as turned them into automatics and are perfectly legal - therefore my post was accurate.
    No it wasn't. As i said the law is quite clear a bump stock in no way/shape/form constitutes an automatic weapon. It allows you to fire at unprecedented speeds for a semi but it is not an automatic weapon in the eyes of the law.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    No it wasn't. As i said the law is quite clear a bump stock in no way/shape/form constitutes an automatic weapon. It allows you to fire at unprecedented speeds for a semi but it is not an automatic weapon in the eyes of the law.
    I'm sure the thousands of people directly affected by this latest massacre will be comforted by your distinction between pseudo-automatics and actual automatics.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I'm sure the thousands of people directly affected by this latest massacre will be comforted by your distinction between pseudo-automatics and actual automatics.
    oh don't be so petty. You have an issue with American gun law loop holes? take it up with them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Having studied forensic psychology, and reading academic study upon study centred around this very thing, and given the reasons I provided earlier as to why guns provide a more efficient weapon to which you completely ignored, yes I am.

    Unless you can come up with some significant other behavioural characteristic that would explain the US homicide being 4 times as much as the UK, other than access to guns? Despite the link I showed you earlier showing the stark contrast in homicide by shooting in the US, and UK?

    Just sit back a minute, and observe how amazing the mind is. That because of your world view and bias, you are persistently ignorant to the very obvious fact that guns offer an efficient tool to homicide. Isn't it amazing how your brain can ignore the blatant, because it simply does not want to accept reality?

    I'd have so much more respect for you if you accepted that guns pose a threat, but think they are still worthwhile in society for such and such reason. But to argue that they pose no more of a threat than a knife, or do not increase the likelihood of homicide in anyway, just makes it impossible for me to respect you.
    THANK YOU. It blows my mind how stupid the pro guns people on TSR are being here. They've basically convinced themselves all weapons are equally dangerous.



    The only arguments i see for it are the public can protect themselves. Ffs the US is averaging 1 mass shooting a day. On how many of those occasions has someone from the public pulled out a gun and stopped it?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucabrasi98)
    THANK YOU. It blows my mind how stupid the pro guns people on TSR are being here. They've basically convinced themselves all weapons are equally dangerous.



    The only arguments i see for it are the public can protect themselves. Ffs the US is averaging 1 mass shooting a day. On how many of those occasions has someone from the public pulled out a gun and stopped it?
    Quite a few people have justified allowing guns because people were killed in Nice with a truck.

    I really don't get it.
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Pretty sure one of the band members who was playing at the concert changed his mind on being pro guns. Because he realised they are utterly useless in situations like that.

    Self-defence is the most proposterous reason for not banning guns.

    As Jim Jefferies said: "I like my guns, don't take them away from me" isn't the best argument, but it's the only one they've got.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Unfortunately all the statistics attempting to be pro gun in this thread have shown is that America is full of *******s who want to kill each other. I suppose in such a situation you may as well give them guns so they at least don't waste to much time doing it.

    As for the arguments as to why Americans should have guns, considering the best guns in most situations where they're considered good are the ones with the most restriction, it's just completely nonsensical.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I feel like there should be more gun restrictions laws and more regulations because other countries ban guns after horrific mass shootings yet we haven't.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    I don't understand what point you are making. Are you suggesting that homicide by shooting is higher in the UK than the US?
    If not what point are you making?
    The point is that what people use to kill other people is not the important fact, the fact people are killed is. Why, say, is it worse for somebody to be shot dead than stabbed to death, either way they are dead? There is a simple reason and that is the "guns are bad m'kay" argument only works when you look solely at gun crime, when looking at the broader picture the arguments simply collapse (if they didn't then you'd be able to make a coherent argument without declaring non gun deaths irrelevant)

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    This guy purchased all his weapons with ease and legally. He bought adaptors that turned them into automatic weapons, also legally.
    It only costs tens of thousands of dollars and to be on a federal register after very thorough background checks at both local and federal levels to purchase the necessary parts or a grandfathered fully automatic weapon. It isn't even legal to fix grandfathered automatic weapons yourself, unless of course it is using a grandfathered part, also setting you back perhaps tens of thousands of dollars.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The point is that what people use to kill other people is not the important fact, the fact people are killed is. Why, say, is it worse for somebody to be shot dead than stabbed to death, either way they are dead?
    For the very simple reason that a person couldn't kill 59 people and injure 527 others in such a short amount of time with a knife.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Because a person can kill 59 people and injure a further 527 in the space of a few minutes with a bat, rope or knife can't they?



    It's almost like you're intentionally making bad arguments.

    If a person wants to harm themselves by smoking or drinking, then that's one thing, they choose to do that. If a person wants to harm others then that's a whole different thing. When you eat fast food, you choose to take on that risk. A person who's shot does not choose to take on the risk of others having a gun. People who eat fast food pose a risk to their own health, people with guns pose a risk to the health of others.

    'AH BUT SMOKING CAN HARM OTHERS!' I hear you say. Yes, true, which is exactly why we have a smoking ban in public places to reduce the effects of second hand smoke and generally we aim to deter people from smoking.

    There's a clear difference between undertaking an action in the knowledge it poses a risk to yourself and undertaking an action that poses a risk to other people. I would have thought someone of your intellect would understand that.
    Nah, just 86 people in 5 minutes with a truck

    Okay then, so I were a gun owner, and what gun should be irrelevant whether it be a 2mm Kolibri or a light machine gun at this point at least and I'm a responsible owner with any safety that may exist being on when not firing, the weapon and ammo are both stored very securely and separately, it's well maintained to minimise the risk of some sort of accident, and let's say we go so far as to disable the weapon in some way when not in use. This gun is used at the range and solely at the range, how much of a risk does that pose?

    Okay then, now let's narrow that down to something like a 9mm, it's primarily used down the range, it isn't disabled when not in use and is stored loaded but without a round chambered, or alternatively unloaded but with a full magazine stored with it. It's kept locked securely in the bedroom so if somebody breaks in during the night it is readily accessible instead of having a baseball bat by the bed, how much of a risk does that pose?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I'm no gun expert, but I read online in US sources that the bump stocks as good as turned them into automatics and are perfectly legal - therefore my post was accurate.
    Right, which ones? Read the NRA website and you will see them being made out as not a massive deal, read the Huffington Post and they will turn anybody into a terminator who wished to massacre millions.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This argument keeps being made, bizarrely.

    So because 86 people were killed with a truck, we should allow people to have semi-automatic guns that they can kill 59 and injure 527 people with?
    What logic is that? People should have guns because lots of people were killed with a truck.....?

    Clearly motor vehicles provide an eminent benefit to society, that guns simply do not come close to doing and the functioning of a society is much more dependant on its populations ability to get from a to b, far more so than it is on individuals having guns. Though if we had an amazing public transport system, i'd be happy for restrictions on motor vehicles. I'd also be happy for there to be much stronger restrictions on who can drive vehicles such as trucks.

    This notion that because people were killed with a truck, that we should allow people to have guns, is so ridiculous that it's staggering to think it's used in serious discourse.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IamJacksContempt)
    Pretty sure one of the band members who was playing at the concert changed his mind on being pro guns. Because he realised they are utterly useless in situations like that.

    Self-defence is the most proposterous reason for not banning guns.

    As Jim Jefferies said: "I like my guns, don't take them away from me" isn't the best argument, but it's the only one they've got.
    Similarly there are those out there who are fervently in favour of gun control until they do the research such as this former fivethirtyeight writer who realised that the none of the gun control proposals actually deal with the problems faced by America. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.4652fce002e6

    And Politico had the research director from the Minnesota Department of Corrections that actually the research does not support their views, as well as pointing out that there should be more research. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/04/mass-shootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678?cmpid=sf

    At the end of the day the best argument in favour of the second amendment is that there isn't a strong argument against it that doesn't have better solutions that represent a slight watering down of the second amendment. The "assault weapon" (a name chosen to stir emotions) ban didn't do anything, nor did bans elsewhere in the world, effective suspension of the second amendment in places like DC don't stop it having sky high homicide rates and the more Chicago does to try to stop people having guns the more people there are getting shot.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    This argument keeps being made, bizarrely.

    So because 86 people were killed with a truck, we should allow people to have semi-automatic guns that they can kill 59 and injure 527 people with?
    What logic is that? People should have guns because lots of people were killed with a truck.....?

    Clearly motor vehicles provide an eminent benefit to society, that guns simply do not come close to doing and the functioning of a society is much more dependant on its populations ability to get from a to b, far more so than it is on individuals having guns. Though if we had an amazing public transport system, i'd be happy for restrictions on motor vehicles. I'd also be happy for there to be much stronger restrictions on who can drive vehicles such as trucks.

    This notion that because people were killed with a truck, that we should allow people to have guns, is so ridiculous that it's staggering to think it's used in serious discourse.
    Wait, but weren't you saying that guns are a problem because they can kill lots of people quickly if somebody wants to whereas this cannot be done by other means, and then when other things are presented bah they have other uses. Just went on Amazon and found ammonium nitrate based fertilisers, should they be banned too without specific licence? Actually knives aren't really needed either, not sharp ones at least, we could have everything provided already cut up
    and so clearly we would have about 200 fewer homicides each year, right? (in the year ending March 2016 there were 213 homicides using a knife or sharp instrument).

    Anyhoo, how much risk is being posed in the two scenarios given or are you going to disregard that because it's too painful to say "next to none"?

    I've just dug out the crime statistics again and had to chuckle. Out of all 5182 offences recorded by the police reported where a firearm was reported to have been used (excluding air weapons) 1431 were imitation firearms and 2157 were with handguns (57.5% of the 3751 left after removing imitations). I thought we banned handguns to the point that even the olympic shooting team has to train abrad and yet 60% of crimes using actual firearms use handguns, and over 50% of homicides.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Why do we concern ourselves with another country's problems? Shouldn't we be focusing on our own?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Wait, but weren't you saying that guns are a problem because they can kill lots of people quickly if somebody wants to whereas this cannot be done by other means, and then when other things are presented bah they have other uses. Just went on Amazon and found ammonium nitrate based fertilisers, should they be banned too without specific licence? Actually knives aren't really needed either, not sharp ones at least, we could have everything provided already cut up
    and so clearly we would have about 200 fewer homicides each year, right? (in the year ending March 2016 there were 213 homicides using
    a knife or sharp instrument).
    Again, this argument is bizarre.

    Clearly you should do what you can to reduce the likeliness of events like the Vegas shooting happening and prevent people from carrying out mass murder. Clearly guns make events like last Sunday far more likely than knives would do. That's just a fact.

    Each item should be judged on its own merits, taking into account the benefits and drawbacks they bring to a society. Obviously we could prevent most if not all traffic related deaths if we banned motor vehicles. But clearly the functioning of a society is reliant on people getting from a to b. It isn't reliant on ordinary civilians having guns. As i've said though, if we improve public transport to the degree that motor vehicles would no longer be needed, that would be wonderful.

    Guns are not needed in the same way, clearly. Of course selected police units and the army should have them, and maybe there's even an argument for farmers, like they do here. But there's just absolutely no need for the general public to have them or be able to access them so easily.
    But you're argument that 'we should have guns because people were killed by a truck' is illogical. People die from trucks so we should let more people die from guns?

    Although one crucial distinction with motor vehicles though, is that there is no car owners association who resist safety legislation. They don't go crazy when you have mandatory seatbelt laws or ensure that drunk people are not allowed to drive. We accept we need speed limits, as well as the need to have a driving license. We accept that those who drive dangerously or without a license are punished. We do not, as the gun enthusiasts do, resist any attempt to make cars safer.

    The simple fact is this; without guns, the Vegas incident would not have happened. And unlike with cars, there is no convincing and indisputable benefit that the public having access to semi-automatic guns brings to society. There is no benefit to the public having guns that outweighs the drawbacks of huge numbers of innocent people losing their lives at a concert. Society can and quite clearly does function in places in which the public at large do not have access to guns.

    I've just dug out the crime statistics again and had to chuckle. Out of all 5182 offences recorded by the police reported where a firearm was reported to have been used (excluding air weapons) 1431 were imitation firearms and 2157 were with handguns (57.5% of the 3751 left after removing imitations). I thought we banned handguns to the point that even the olympic shooting team has to train abrad and yet 60% of crimes using actual firearms use handguns, and over 50% of homicides.
    Again, the argument is totally ridiculous. So because certain people here have managed to get hold of handguns, that we should basically allow everyone to have a handgun and make accessibility to them really widespread?

    Why not just allow everyone to have acid then? Given that some people are obtaining it, we may as well let everyone have it, right?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Again, this argument is bizarre.

    Clearly you should do what you can to reduce the likeliness of events like the Vegas shooting happening and prevent people from carrying out mass murder. Clearly guns make events like last Sunday far more likely than knives would do. That's just a fact.

    Clearly though, each item should be judged on its own merits, taking into account the benefits and drawbacks they bring to a society. Obviously we could prevent most if not all traffic related deaths if we banned motor vehicles. But clearly the functioning of a society is reliant on people getting from a to b. It isn't reliant on ordinary civilians having guns. As i've said though, if we improve public transport to the degree that motor vehicles would no longer be needed, that would be wonderful.

    Guns are not needed in the same way, clearly. Of course selected police units and the army should have them, and maybe there's even an argument for farmers, like they do here. But there's just absolutely no need for the general public to have them or be able to access them so easily.
    But you're argument that 'we should have guns because people were killed by a truck' is illogical. People die from trucks so we should let more people die from guns?

    Although one crucial distinction with motor vehicles though, is that there is no car owners association who resist safety legislation. They don't go crazy when you have mandatory seatbelt laws or ensure that drunk people are not allowed to drive. We accept we need speed limits, as well as the need to have a driving license. We accept that those who drive dangerously or without a license are punished. We do not, as the gun enthusiasts do, resist any attempt to make cars safer.

    The simple fact is this; without guns, the Vegas incident would not have happened. And unlike with cars, there is no convincing and indisputable benefit that the public having access to semi-automatic guns brings to society. There is no benefit to the public having guns that outweighs the drawbacks of huge numbers of innocent people losing their lives at a concert. Society can and quite clearly does function in places in which the public at large do not have access to guns.



    Again, the argument is totally ridiculous. So because certain people here have managed to get hold of handguns, that we should basically allow everyone to have a handgun and make accessibility to them really widespread?
    You keep asserting that without the second amendment something like Vegas would not happen. Try telling that to ISIS, or the IRA, or Al-Quaeda. Tell that to the people of London, Manchester, Paris, Nice, New York, Manchester.

    You keep asserting there is an essential need to get from a to b but also state that this does not have to be done through widespread private vehicle ownership.

    You keep saying that getting rid of the second amendment would reduce homicide rates but never provide evidence to back it up.

    You suggest that mass shootings are common in America because the second amendment is a thing, but don't explain why the UK had very few mass shootings before and between our various bans, there have only been 3 mass shootings carried out by civilians in the UK and there is still one ever few years in Australia.

    On a state level the best indicator of how high or low the homicide rate will be is not how tight or lax the gun laws are, it's not rich or poor the state is, it's not how many guns there are, it's actually how many black people the are, at which point the question becomes "why is this the best indicator?" and more relevant to the discussion at hand given your hypotheses "why is it not guns". The answer is the same reason why we has 14 people killed in 2015/16 with handguns despite the 1997 acts: gangs. It's not all of the problem in America but about a 7th of all homicides in America are gang related, it's part of why so many black kids are killing each other.

    Which do you think is responsible for more homicides in America : rifles or unarmed people, and how much worse do you think it is?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You keep asserting that without the second amendment something like Vegas would not happen. Try telling that to ISIS, or the IRA, or Al-Quaeda. Tell that to the people of London, Manchester, Paris, Nice, New York, Manchester.
    I have not said it would definitely not happen, I have said it would be far less likely to happen. If a person cannot get hold of guns so easily, the chances of events like Vegas happening are far less. That's why you have fewer mass shootings in the UK or even France than you do in the USA.

    Of course there have been terrorist incidents carried out, but I'm really not sure what you're arguing here. That because there have been terrorist incidents, we should make it really easy for anyone to get hold of guns so more can happen? The aim should be to reduce the chance of events like Vegas happening and clearly, restricting access to guns and making it near impossible, or at least far more difficult to get them, would do just that.

    You keep asserting there is an essential need to get from a to b but also state that this does not have to be done through widespread private vehicle ownership.
    Of course, it would be wonderful if public transport systems were so good that private transport systems were no longer required. But we are not at that stage.

    Motor vehicles, currently, have an indisputable benefit to the functioning of a society. Indeed they are necessary, or as close to being necessary as anything else. The public having access to guns just is not. If there was some serious benefit to society of gun ownership, then maybe you could argue that despite the drawbacks, overall they were a benefit. But that's just not the case.

    Also, people don't resist attempts to make transport safer, like they do with gun ownership.


    You keep saying that getting rid of the second amendment would reduce homicide rates but never provide evidence to back it up.
    If people such as the Vegas shooter cannot get hold of semi-automatic guns as easily, then events like the Vegas shooting do not happen. If a gunman can't get a gun, they can't shoot people. That's just logic.


    You suggest that mass shootings are common in America because the second amendment is a thing, but don't explain why the UK had very few mass shootings before and between our various bans, there have only been 3 mass shootings carried out by civilians in the UK and there is still one ever few years in Australia.
    I do keep saying that, because mass shootings are common there. The UK has very strong gun laws, which are well enforced and very few mass shootings. The same with Australia. It's not enough to have gun legislation, you need a state that's willing to enforce it.

    So if there was a genuine attempt across the USA to ban guns, which was enforced well, there would be a difference. What benefit does the public having semi-automatic guns have?


    On a state level the best indicator of how high or low the homicide rate will be is not how tight or lax the gun laws are, it's not rich or poor the state is, it's not how many guns there are, it's actually how many black people the are, at which point the question becomes "why is this the best indicator?" and more relevant to the discussion at hand given your hypotheses "why is it not guns". The answer is the same reason why we has 14 people killed in 2015/16 with handguns despite the 1997 acts: gangs. It's not all of the problem in America but about a 7th of all homicides in America are gang related, it's part of why so many black kids are killing each other.

    Which do you think is responsible for more homicides in America : rifles or unarmed people, and how much worse do you think it is?
    Guns make it very easy for people to kill lots of other people in a short amount of time. They also do not bring any convincing benefit to a society that outweighs the devastation they cause. They should be banned. The USA should adopt sensible gun laws, like we have in the UK.

    If we want to stop events like the Vegas shooting happen, you need to stop people being able to access guns so easily.

    The normal response by gun supporters to a tragedy is that 'this could have been averted if the victims had guns'. How would the victims having guns have helped when the shooter was a quarter of a mile away and 32 floors up in a hotel?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds like an EPQ question to me.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.