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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Never seen this before but it is a lot harder to get rid of sharp or blunt objects to hit people with. I mean if you banned any blunt object, what would that mean, I could be arrested for carrying a pen or maybe a bottle full of water.

    Guns are only really used for shooting others or protecting yourself. Blunt objects and sharp stuff have many other daily uses that are really useful.
    Offline

    18
    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? 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)



    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.
    You're being so illogical. No one actually said that?

    When looking at the individual you can argue that the method of committing a homicide is unimportant. But that is not what we are arguing, we are arguing that guns INCREASE the homicide rate, due to making for a more efficient weapon, that requires less interpersonal contact, and allows for more impulsive reactions.

    Your pretending we are making an invalid argument when no one even remotely went down the path you're suggesting. You're just making up your own illogical, counter arguments in order to protect your opinion :rofl:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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?
    Providing one incident is insufficient.


    Again, you're being illogical.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Can you explain to me why being killed by a gun is a bigger problem than being killed by a knife, being strangled to death or any other murder? Same with every other crime why does gun make it worse?
    Nobody says that a single murder committed with a gun is worse than a single murder committed with anything else. The purpose of banning guns (and other weapons that can do a lot of damage in very little time, like grenades or bombs) is simply to reduce the number of casualties when someone decides to go on an attack.

    The more difficult it is and the longer it takes to kill people with a particular weapon, the more opportunity there is for the attack to be stopped before a large number of people are killed. The police can arrive after just a couple of people are killed, instead of 50. Or indeed the attacker could even come to their senses and stop what they're doing early on before anyone gets hurt.

    If I charge into a shopping centre with a knife to stab people with or a rope to strangle people with, people will be able to run away very easily. Or they might be able to wrestle the weapon off me without as much fear of getting killed first. By the time the police come, it's unlikely that I'll have been able to kill more than a couple of people. But if I go in with a gun, by the time anyone is able to stop me, I could have killed scores of people. The Las Vegas shooter killed almost 60 people shooting from his hotel window. I doubt that he could have got as far as that if all he had was a knife. He was only able to do it because he had a gun.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Clearly not so poor given you're doing exactly what is being suggested in the image and treating gun crime as its own super special thing that has a unique solution to all other problems. Now, as for why homicide rates are so much higher in America than the UK there are a multitude of reasons which ultimately come together to the UK never having had particularly high homicide rates. If we look at recent firearms restrictions in the UK we get the 1968 firearms acts, and the 1997 acts neither of which were followed by decreases in homicide rates, even when we restrict it to gun homicides and in fact firearms related crime is still up on those before the 1997 act. We see a similar story in Australia where homicide rates didn't change after they implemented restrictions in the mid 90s, where a reduction in gun homicides was seen it was offset by other means; the assault weapon ban brought in under Clinton wasn't renewed party because there was no statistical change in homicide rates and in both Ireland and Jamaica homicide rates soared after guns were more strictly controlled.

    Even if we look within America itself there isn't even a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates:

    The correlation coefficient of that data set is 0.1

    And if we look solely at mass shootings the coefficient drops to -0.006 in the following:


    The first is DoJ data for 2012 and the second is for 2015 up to September.

    If we cross reference these with the guns and ammo list of best states for gun owners we come up with some interesting results, for instance New York is the worst state (DC is worse still but that isn't on our graphs) but has way higher homicide rates than the second best, Vermont despite having about half as many households with guns. New Jersey is barely better than New York but has even higher homicide rates. California, 5th worst state, it climbs higher still. Utah, 4th best for gun owners, one of the lowest homicide rates. New Hampshire, 10th best state, would be better if it weren't for Governor vetoes, pretty lax control, very easy to get a licence, lowest homicide rate in the country and one of the lowest for gun crime.

    Now if we go back to looking at the graphs how do you want to explain Delaware, very very low ownership rate yet by my reckoning 8th highest homicide rate (and some of the most restrictive gun laws in America) or Idaho, third highest ownership yet I make that 8th lowest homicide rate (it only comes out as 32nd best state but that's due to poor showings when it comes to use-of-force, in all other areas it does well)?

    And you know how I said earlier that DC was excluded, that might be so you can actually read the charts because the homicide rate in DC is all the way up in the 20s and it has absurdly tight to the point of until recently banning carrying guns in public, the second amendment basically didn't exist in DC until after Heller, and even now they try to make life as hard as possible for prospective gun owners.
    You were making sense until you mentioned DC. You mentioned gun ownership rate which was the right thing to Do, yet you didn't seem to know DC actually had the highest gun ownership rate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    Comparing the US in it's entirety to the UK is a poor argument. The US is effectively 50 different countries in one, each with wildly varying cultural, ethnic and socio-economic demographics, different rules and regulations etc. Areas such as New Hampshire, Vermont, the Pacific Northwest, for example have high gun ownership rates, liberal gun laws but low gun crime rates, comparable to any European nation. Whilst California, Illinois, Washington DC have much more restrictive gun laws, and higher gun and violent crime rates. It's not as black and white as you may think.

    I will also point out the overall gun homicide rate in the US is only around 3.6 per 100,000. Yes, fairly high compared to Europe, but considering we are talking about a country that has more guns than people, 3.6 is incredibly low, and it's absolutely nothing compared to most of it's neighours in South and Central America or the Caribbean. Take Jamaica for example, a country that has had a total ban on civilian gun ownership since the 1960s. Their gun homicide rate is 30.38 per 100,000. Mexico too has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and it's gun homicide rate is almost double that of the US, at 6.36 per 100,000.
    You have recycled a lot of very bad apologist arguments:

    1. You can't compare the US, a developed, rich country with law and order to Central American countries, which are developing countries, poor and not necessarily even politically stable. If we must compare only countries in the Americas, you can at most compare the US, Canada, Chile, Argentina, and the dependencies.

    2. Mexico has a constitution very similar to the US's, and thus it is not constitutionally possible to ban guns. Guns are legal, and actually very cheap.

    But that's not even the issue. Cars from the US to Mexico are not typically searched. As long as the US has relaxed gun laws, Mexico will always have guns.

    3. DC has so-called more restrictive gun laws, but only in the American sense. It has the highest gun ownership rate and the only reason why it's seen as "strict" is because of the laws on carrying one. They are an example of the danger of having guns.

    The difference between the US and Central America is that whilst the latter has organized criminals murdering people, the US has a lot of people who wouldn't normally be criminal murdering people.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Kinder eggs contain chocolate. The Mayans created chocolate. The Mayans are in Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, and Honduras.

    The people elected Trump to stop Mexicans from infiltrating the society.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I ran a few figures myself this morning: guns and ammo rankings, population density, GDP per capita, percentage of the population that is white and the outcomes we're too surprising and will probably get me called racist.

    Guns and ammo, excluding DC:

    With DC excluded we get a correlation coefficient of -0.3151 suggesting a weak negative correlation, include DC and this changes to 0.0049 no correlation

    Population density:

    Excluding DC R=-0.0484 (no correlation) and unsurprisingly throwing DC in really skews things and it goes right up to 0.7664

    Next up comes GDP per capita:

    R=-0.2414 (quite a weak negative correlation) which again unsurprisingly surges to 0.6158 (fairly strong positive) when DC is included

    And finally racial demographics:

    This is the only graph including DC and with DC included we get R=-0.4587 (-0.3702 without DC) so there is a negative correlation in there. If we instead just remove Hawaii this goes to -0.5795 (and excluding DC too we get -0.5331)

    So we see a weak negative correlation between gun rights and homicide rates for states, no correlation with population density, a weak negative correlation with GDP per capita, and a moderate to strong negative correlation with the white population.
    I'd like to see people actually address the complete lack of correlation between gun ownership rates in the US and homicide rates, seeing as it looks to be their thesis that gun ownership lies at the heart America's murder woes. We would at least expect some kind of correlation between guns per capita and homicides per capita in US jurisdictions.

    Anyhow, this could also be because most of the murders in the US (and Canada) aren't being committed by white conservatives buying their guns legally. Most murders are committed by young, disproportionately non-white men in urban areas who aren't exactly going through the proper channels to acquire their weapons (often black market handguns). So I don't think a blanket ban on firearms is suddenly going to make the murders stop. We'd likely see a gradual decrease in general gun-related deaths as the weapons are eventually confiscated, but I'm not as confident the overall homicide rates would drop to that of the UK's merely by banning legal gun ownership. There are some deeply ingrained societal issues in the US, particularly in poor urban areas (of which there are many).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    You're being so illogical. No one actually said that?

    When looking at the individual you can argue that the method of committing a homicide is unimportant. But that is not what we are arguing, we are arguing that guns INCREASE the homicide rate, due to making for a more efficient weapon, that requires less interpersonal contact, and allows for more impulsive reactions.

    Your pretending we are making an invalid argument when no one even remotely went down the path you're suggesting. You're just making up your own illogical, counter arguments in order to protect your opinion :rofl:
    Well people are suggesting that gun homicides are worse than non gun homicides because in the gun debate the supporters of greater restriction refuse to pay attention to overall stats instead cherrypick the gun homicide stats for the simple reason that it tells the story they want. If we look at overall homicide stats we see that more guns do not correlate with more, the only way to get the desired correlation is to restrict the weapon of choice to guns and ignore the fact that it is the criminals keeping the guns (only one gun homicide in the UK last year was with a licenced firearm) and there are other ways to kill people. If we're going to try to say that more guns->higher homicide rates at least try to back it up without cherry picking your stats to be the US+[insert European country with low homicide rates here].

    I would also suggest that you look at the UK data before saying that guns make killing people easier because over half of UK homicides have the apparent circumstances falling in the category of "Quarrel, revenge, or loss of temper" (although it doesn't break the three down) with about 20% of homicides having unknown circumstances.

    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    You were making sense until you mentioned DC. You mentioned gun ownership rate which was the right thing to Do, yet you didn't seem to know DC actually had the highest gun ownership rate.
    Odd, I've looked at several different lists and none of them put DC in first, not even the list that draws directly from the ATF's National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, on that basis it has the second highest per capita ownership, when based on surveying ownership DC drops right down near the bottom of the list; I've seen some figures as low as 5% but most push more towards 25% and that is well shy of the top spots which sit in the high 50s or low 60% (depending on which survey(s) you use.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Well people are suggesting that gun homicides are worse than non gun homicides because in the gun debate the supporters of greater restriction refuse to pay attention to overall stats instead cherrypick the gun homicide stats for the simple reason that it tells the story they want. If we look at overall homicide stats we see that more guns do not correlate with more, the only way to get the desired correlation is to restrict the weapon of choice to guns and ignore the fact that it is the criminals keeping the guns (only one gun homicide in the UK last year was with a licenced firearm) and there are other ways to kill people. If we're going to try to say that more guns->higher homicide rates at least try to back it up without cherry picking your stats to be the US+[insert European country with low homicide rates here].

    I would also suggest that you look at the UK data before saying that guns make killing people easier because over half of UK homicides have the apparent circumstances falling in the category of "Quarrel, revenge, or loss of temper" (although it doesn't break the three down) with about 20% of homicides having unknown circumstances.



    Odd, I've looked at several different lists and none of them put DC in first, not even the list that draws directly from the ATF's National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, on that basis it has the second highest per capita ownership, when based on surveying ownership DC drops right down near the bottom of the list; I've seen some figures as low as 5% but most push more towards 25% and that is well shy of the top spots which sit in the high 50s or low 60% (depending on which survey(s) you use.
    No one has said that gun homocides are worse than non gun homocides and you know that.

    What people have said is that a bad person with a gun can kill far, far more people far quicker and more easily witha a gun than he can with, say a knife.

    Therefore there should not be such easy and widespread access to guns. The more guns there are around in a society, the more events like Vegas happen.

    And unlike with say cars, there is no comparable benefit to society for ordinary people having such easy access to guns.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    Interesting you should say that because actually for the number of guns there are the UK is absolutely dreadful when it comes to public mass shootings (that is mass shootings excluding familicide and instances with other criminal activity involved, military activity, or collective violence) when compared to America. Over the last 40 years instances of public mass shootings have been fairly consistent at about 1 per 100m people per year (which also means about one per hundred million guns) if we compare that to the UK over the same period we're looking more in the region of one for every 10-20m guns per year, we've only had 3 but then we don't have many guns either. Alternatively we say that there have been 9 massacres in the UK over the same period (you don't have to roll back much further to get 12) which throw in population differences closes the gap even on a per capita basis.

    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.
    No, the point is that clamping down on one thing doesn't stop the end result, sure terrorists haven't shot people on the mainland but gun controls haven't stopped them going on a rampage, they simply find a different way: your solution to these problems is to ban things until they use something you aren't willing to ban as opposed to dealing with the root problem.

    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.
    But surely with nearly 2000 people killed every year on the streets of Britain it is a common sense proposal that we should make serious moves towards restricting and banning personal vehicles, why not start by banning vehicles in central London (not many people are killed there by cars but then nor are many people killed with rifles in America and people want to ban them), the underground and buses more than suffice, why does anybody need a car in central London? And here we are, there is no reason to allow people to have cars in central London (apart from the fact banning them is a needless practice) and yet nobody is interested in banning them, they find some justification. I imagine the same applies in most major cities so if we had enacted these "common sense" policies we could have stopped a number of mass killings in Europe.

    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.
    Want to guess what proportion of gun homicides in the UK are with licenced weapons between April 2009 and March last year (only introduced into the stats in 2009 and the 2017 data isn't due out until later this month)? 37 out of 246, and that includes the Cumbria shootings, remove them and it falls to 24/233, or 23/186 if we remove that year entirely (was a pretty bad year for gun homicides, more than 1 per million people)


    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.
    Ah, the standard UK-Australia double team, a double team that shows no statistically significant changes to homicide rates post ban (btw there are still about 25 guns in Australia for every 100 people) while Austria does just as well on the mass shooting front and has an even lower homicide rate despite being widely regarded as having some of the most lax gun laws in Europe, with handguns requiring a permit that is issued on a "shall issue" basis (the disqualifying characteristics being things like extremism and mental health issues, things even the right in America tend to support) with break action rifles, repeating rifles and break action shotguns available without need for a permit with licences required for semi automatic rifles and shotguns. Fully automatic weapons, some semi automatic rifles, pump action shot guns and short shot guns require further licencing that is rare to be given out. Hollow point ammo is freely available.

    By the logic used against America we should see rampant crime and mass shootings in Austria, but we don't, the same goes for most countries with high gun ownership and relatively relaxed controls, almost as if the guns aren't the problem.

    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.
    Except we do not have sensible gun laws, we have reactionary gun laws with no evidence to show any actual benefit from them, unless we classify fewer guns as a benefit in and of itself which is a rather authoritarian position

    If we want to stop events like the Vegas shooting happen, you need to stop people being able to access guns so easily.
    Surely you should be focusing on the 11,000 gun homicides last year (new FBI data has been published recently) and not just 58 of them, odd how you skirt around most things. Can you provide any evidence what so ever that stricter gun control reduces homicides when the UK does now show that, Australia doesn't, Ireland doesn't, Jamaica doesn't, the US with the assault weapon ban doesn't, nor does America on a state by state basis.

    In fact I'd go so far as to say that America has a homicide problem full stop given that the US homicide rate using "hands, fists, feet, etc" and "knives or cutting instruments" alone are almost as high as our overall rate, the "other weapons" category is almost as high as our overall rate as well, in fact in the US they are about 50% higher than the equivalent stat in the UK so even we we somehow managed to get rid of over 300m guns, and somehow stopped the criminals keeping hold of them, and assumed that gun homicides would be carried out with other weapons (I'm looking at you familicide and gang violence) the US homicide rate would STILL be nearly 50% higher than the UK, and that's with very generous assumption, in reality most of those familcides would still happen, and the gangs would keep their guns so most of those gang homicides would probably still be there, and there is still the Mexican border so if you wanted to go on a shooting spree you could probably get a gun from Mexico and suddenly we're in a position like the UK where we haven't dealt with the actual problems, just stopped people from doing things.

    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?
    Normally there is a case that can be made on that front, not always though

    As for the unanswered question, it will be the unarmed people, the ratio for unarmed : rifles is pushing 2:1
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No one has said that gun homocides are worse than non gun homocides and you know that.

    What people have said is that a bad person with a gun can kill far, far more people far quicker and more easily witha a gun than he can with, say a knife.

    Therefore there should not be such easy and widespread access to guns. The more guns there are around in a society, the more events like Vegas happen.

    And unlike with say cars, there is no comparable benefit to society for ordinary people having such easy access to guns.
    So if gun homicides are not worse than non-gun homicides why the constant fixation on gun homicide rates and dismissal of overall rates (and actually some people do say that gun homicide is magically worse and non gun irrelevant), other than it being the ONLY way to be able to draw the desired conclusion. I shall ask again for actual data to support your view and not "aw, but Vegas". Do you have any proof that the other 11,000 people who will probably be shot and killed this year will live otherwise?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So if gun homicides are not worse than non-gun homicides why the constant fixation on gun homicide rates and dismissal of overall rates (and actually some people do say that gun homicide is magically worse and non gun irrelevant), other than it being the ONLY way to be able to draw the desired conclusion. I shall ask again for actual data to support your view and not "aw, but Vegas". Do you have any proof that the other 11,000 people who will probably be shot and killed this year will live otherwise?
    You continue to try and divert the debate away from guns.

    With just an ounce of common sense you can appreciate the following statement;

    If the Vegas shooter did not have such easy access to guns (ie if he was not able to get hold of guns) then the chances of tens of people being killed like that and hundreds more injured, is significantly less.

    If you don't have guns, you can't shoot people. You make it as hard as possible for people to get guns, not as easy as possible.It's not a hard concept to understand. If people don't have guns, they can't shoot people.

    Obviously we should try and reduce non gun homicides and indeed we do. The laws on knives over recent years have become much stricter, for example. But again what is your argument here, that because people are killed by knives, that we should allow people to be killed by guns too?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Interesting you should say that because actually for the number of guns there are the UK is absolutely dreadful when it comes to public mass shootings (that is mass shootings excluding familicide and instances with other criminal activity involved, military activity, or collective violence) when compared to America. Over the last 40 years instances of public mass shootings have been fairly consistent at about 1 per 100m people per year (which also means about one per hundred million guns) if we compare that to the UK over the same period we're looking more in the region of one for every 10-20m guns per year, we've only had 3 but then we don't have many guns either. Alternatively we say that there have been 9 massacres in the UK over the same period (you don't have to roll back much further to get 12) which throw in population differences closes the gap even on a per capita basis.
    Again, you keep making this rather bizarre argument. That because some people are killed by guns, that we should make access to guns much easier so that more people can be killed by guns?


    No, the point is that clamping down on one thing doesn't stop the end result, sure terrorists haven't shot people on the mainland but gun controls haven't stopped them going on a rampage, they simply find a different way: your solution to these problems is to ban things until they use something you aren't willing to ban as opposed to dealing with the root problem.
    Another bizarre argument. Of course banning guns won't stop terrorism or all homocides. No one has said they will. However guns are clearly one of the most lethal and effective weapons at killing large amounts of people in a short amount of time. Guns make it easier for terrorists and bad people to commit mass murder.

    Of course we should also deal with the root of the problem, but we should be preventing people getting hold of guns so that they can't shoot people in the first place. If a person doesn't have a gun, they can't shoot someone.

    But surely with nearly 2000 people killed every year on the streets of Britain it is a common sense proposal that we should make serious moves towards restricting and banning personal vehicles, why not start by banning vehicles in central London (not many people are killed there by cars but then nor are many people killed with rifles in America and people want to ban them), the underground and buses more than suffice, why does anybody need a car in central London? And here we are, there is no reason to allow people to have cars in central London (apart from the fact banning them is a needless practice) and yet nobody is interested in banning them, they find some justification. I imagine the same applies in most major cities so if we had enacted these "common sense" policies we could have stopped a number of mass killings in Europe.
    I'm absolutely in favour of restricting use of motor vehicles for personal safety reasons and subsequently investing huge amounts into public transport systems so that less people need to use motor vehicles.

    Again though, car drivers don't fight tooth and nail against legislation designed to increase car safety. They also don't claim that not allowing someone a license until they are 17, or imposing speed limits, or imposing seatbelt laws violate their freedom etc.

    There is however, as mentioned a clear benefit for motor vehicles in large parts of the country, which there just is not for guns.

    Want to guess what proportion of gun homicides in the UK are with licenced weapons between April 2009 and March last year (only introduced into the stats in 2009 and the 2017 data isn't due out until later this month)? 37 out of 246, and that includes the Cumbria shootings, remove them and it falls to 24/233, or 23/186 if we remove that year entirely (was a pretty bad year for gun homicides, more than 1 per million people)
    Again, a bizarre argument. So because people are killed by guns in the UK, we should allow more guns?

    The vast majority of guns are not constructed illegally. They are either purchased legally or stolen from someone who purchased one legally. The more guns there are in a society, the greater the chance one ends up in the hand of a bad person.



    Except we do not have sensible gun laws, we have reactionary gun laws with no evidence to show any actual benefit from them, unless we classify fewer guns as a benefit in and of itself which is a rather authoritarian position
    Considering we have barely any gun crime and America have lots, I think we have very sensible gun laws. You do not and should not have a right to a gun. You don't need one and the drawbacks of ordinary people having guns, far outweigh the benefits.

    Fewer guns in a society is most certainly a benefit. Call it authoritarian if you like, I really don't care.

    Surely you should be focusing on the 11,000 gun homicides last year (new FBI data has been published recently) and not just 58 of them, odd how you skirt around most things. Can you provide any evidence what so ever that stricter gun control reduces homicides when the UK does now show that, Australia doesn't, Ireland doesn't, Jamaica doesn't, the US with the assault weapon ban doesn't, nor does America on a state by state basis.
    The UK has less guns and less gun crime, Australia too, Ireland too. If less people have guns, they can't shoot people. That's just common sense, unless you think you can shoot someone without a gun.

    Of course I'm concerned about all gun homicides which is why i'm in favour of a total ban on civilians owning guns.

    In fact I'd go so far as to say that America has a homicide problem full stop given that the US homicide rate using "hands, fists, feet, etc" and "knives or cutting instruments" alone are almost as high as our overall rate, the "other weapons" category is almost as high as our overall rate as well, in fact in the US they are about 50% higher than the equivalent stat in the UK so even we we somehow managed to get rid of over 300m guns, and somehow stopped the criminals keeping hold of them, and assumed that gun homicides would be carried out with other weapons (I'm looking at you familicide and gang violence) the US homicide rate would STILL be nearly 50% higher than the UK, and that's with very generous assumption, in reality most of those familcides would still happen, and the gangs would keep their guns so most of those gang homicides would probably still be there, and there is still the Mexican border so if you wanted to go on a shooting spree you could probably get a gun from Mexico and suddenly we're in a position like the UK where we haven't dealt with the actual problems, just stopped people from doing things.
    Right, so because Australia has a homicide problem, we should allow easy access to lots of guns?

    The good old gun lobby tactic.

    Step 1: 'let's give everyone guns'
    Step 2: 'We can't do anything about gun ownership because everyone has guns'.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    And unlike with say cars, there is no comparable benefit to society for ordinary people having such easy access to guns.
    In your view, but you have to understand that American society is different from ours in a few ways.

    For instance, an enormous landmass like the US is much more difficult to police than a small island like ours, including in how feasible it is to actually take and keep guns away from the population. In addition, a lot of people in the US live basically in the middle of nowhere. In safe, built-up England, I feel absolutely no need for a gun. I feel perfectly safe and have a police station reasonably close by. If I were moving to somewhere fairly rural in the US, however, I'm pretty sure one of my first trips would be to Walmart's guns and ammo aisle. It is quite reasonable for the American population to feel that it cannot rely on state authority to keep it safe in the same way as we in England mostly can, and this represents itself in a culture that insists on the continued availability of firearms.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    In your view, but you have to understand that American society is different from ours in a few ways.

    For instance, an enormous landmass like the US is much more difficult to police than a small island like ours, including in how feasible it is to actually take and keep guns away from the population. In addition, a lot of people in the US live basically in the middle of nowhere. In safe, built-up England, I feel absolutely no need for a gun. I feel perfectly safe and have a police station reasonably close by. If I were moving to somewhere fairly rural in the US, however, I'm pretty sure one of my first trips would be to Walmart's guns and ammo aisle. It is quite reasonable for the American population to feel that it cannot rely on state authority to keep it safe in the same way as we in England mostly can, and this represents itself in a culture that insists on the continued availability of firearms.
    Why does anyone ever need a semi-automatic gun though?

    I just think there's something rather cynical in gun enthusiasts insisting that the country be flooded with guns and then say 'there's nothing we can do about gun ownership because everyone has guns'.

    Guns are incredibly dangerous and their use should be strictly prohibited.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You continue to try and divert the debate away from guns.

    With just an ounce of common sense you can appreciate the following statement;

    If the Vegas shooter did not have such easy access to guns (ie if he was not able to get hold of guns) then the chances of tens of people being killed like that and hundreds more injured, is significantly less.

    If you don't have guns, you can't shoot people. You make it as hard as possible for people to get guns, not as easy as possible.It's not a hard concept to understand. If people don't have guns, they can't shoot people.

    Obviously we should try and reduce non gun homicides and indeed we do. The laws on knives over recent years have become much stricter, for example. But again what is your argument here, that because people are killed by knives, that we should allow people to be killed by guns too?
    I'm still waiting for any sort of evidence to back up your claims, you assert that if the second amendment were repealed tomorrow and most guns banned things like Vegas wouldn't happen. That is all you do, assert without evidence and rely on assumptions that the facts go against.

    Do you know what the latest theory on why Vegas happened is? Infamy, the shooter wanted to be remembered, hence why over a year was spent getting the weapons from different stores in different states and looking for various targets to try to break the record. The whole thing was meticulously planned and I doubt that if the federal government had a month ago demanded everybody to turn in their guns it wouldn't have happened because he is the sort of person who would have refused to and had their guns illegally, just like the killers of the 18 people who were killed with unlicenced firearms in the year to March 2016.

    It's interesting you bring up knives, do you know what has happened with homicides using sharp instruments over the last decade? Nominally they're down, proportionally they're unchanged suggesting that suggesting that this tightening of the law has been ineffective, knife homicides are down because homicides are down, just like guns in Australia.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Again, you keep making this rather bizarre argument. That because some people are killed by guns, that we should make access to guns much easier so that more people can be killed by guns?




    Another bizarre argument. Of course banning guns won't stop terrorism or all homocides. No one has said they will. However guns are clearly one of the most lethal and effective weapons at killing large amounts of people in a short amount of time. Guns make it easier for terrorists and bad people to commit mass murder.

    Of course we should also deal with the root of the problem, but we should be preventing people getting hold of guns so that they can't shoot people in the first place. If a person doesn't have a gun, they can't shoot someone.



    I'm absolutely in favour of restricting use of motor vehicles for personal safety reasons and subsequently investing huge amounts into public transport systems so that less people need to use motor vehicles.

    Again though, car drivers don't fight tooth and nail against legislation designed to increase car safety. They also don't claim that not allowing someone a license until they are 17, or imposing speed limits, or imposing seatbelt laws violate their freedom etc.

    There is however, as mentioned a clear benefit for motor vehicles in large parts of the country, which there just is not for guns.



    Again, a bizarre argument. So because people are killed by guns in the UK, we should allow more guns?

    The vast majority of guns are not constructed illegally. They are either purchased legally or stolen from someone who purchased one legally. The more guns there are in a society, the greater the chance one ends up in the hand of a bad person.





    Considering we have barely any gun crime and America have lots, I think we have very sensible gun laws. You do not and should not have a right to a gun. You don't need one and the drawbacks of ordinary people having guns, far outweigh the benefits.

    Fewer guns in a society is most certainly a benefit. Call it authoritarian if you like, I really don't care.



    The UK has less guns and less gun crime, Australia too, Ireland too. If less people have guns, they can't shoot people. That's just common sense, unless you think you can shoot someone without a gun.

    Of course I'm concerned about all gun homicides which is why i'm in favour of a total ban on civilians owning guns.



    Right, so because Australia has a homicide problem, we should allow easy access to lots of guns?

    The good old gun lobby tactic.

    Step 1: 'let's give everyone guns'
    Step 2: 'We can't do anything about gun ownership because everyone has guns'.
    Okay, so yet another post where you have provided no evidence what so ever to support your argument while talking specifically about gun crime rather than overall crime despite also claiming gun crime is not somehow more important while completely dismissing any evidence that runs contrary to your argument.

    You claim to oppose guns because it is societally beneficial but have no response to the evidence to the contrary and no evidence of your own.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Okay, so yet another post where you have provided no evidence what so ever to support your argument while talking specifically about gun crime rather than overall crime despite also claiming gun crime is not somehow more important while completely dismissing any evidence that runs contrary to your argument.

    You claim to oppose guns because it is societally beneficial but have no response to the evidence to the contrary and no evidence of your own.
    I'm really not sure how you are failing to understand a very simple concept.

    If people don't have guns, they can't shoot people. If the Vegas shooter was not able to get hold of guns, he wouldn't have been able to kill over 50 people and injured over 500 more as easily.

    He was able to get all those guns because of how easy it is to get guns in America. He would not have been able to do that in the U.K.

    Guns are one of the most effective and lethal weapons at killing huge numbers of people in a short amount of time, which few other objects are capable of. You therefore should restrict people's access to it.

    You don't need data to show that if someone doesn't have a gun, they can't shoot people.

    Of course getting rid of guns is societally beneficial. They barley provide a benefit and they cost thousands of lives per year.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm still waiting for any sort of evidence to back up your claims, you assert that if the second amendment were repealed tomorrow and most guns banned things like Vegas wouldn't happen. That is all you do, assert without evidence and rely on assumptions that the facts go against.

    Do you know what the latest theory on why Vegas happened is? Infamy, the shooter wanted to be remembered, hence why over a year was spent getting the weapons from different stores in different states and looking for various targets to try to break the record. The whole thing was meticulously planned and I doubt that if the federal government had a month ago demanded everybody to turn in their guns it wouldn't have happened because he is the sort of person who would have refused to and had their guns illegally, just like the killers of the 18 people who were killed with unlicenced firearms in the year to March 2016.

    It's interesting you bring up knives, do you know what has happened with homicides using sharp instruments over the last decade? Nominally they're down, proportionally they're unchanged suggesting that suggesting that this tightening of the law has been ineffective, knife homicides are down because homicides are down, just like guns in Australia.
    If there were no guns in America (bar special police units and possibly farmers), you wouldn't have anywhere near the amount of gun crime there.

    Gun enthusiasts really seem to find difficulty with the idea that if people like the Vegas shooter can not get hold of a gun, or rather an arsenal of guns, then such mass shootings do not happen or are at least far less likely to happen.

    It's not a difficult concept.

    The fewer guns there are in a society, the better. Ordinary people do not need guns and the threat they pose to other people, far outweighs any benefit they bring.

    Your argument seems to be that because gun enthusiasts have made sure everyone has a gun, that there are now too many guns to do anything about it. How convenient.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.