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

Gunman reportedly takes hostages at bowling alley in Nuneaton Watch

    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Hey, the controls are supposed to stop these things, and gun crimes, but apparently we still have THOUSANDS of such crimes a year, but hey who would ever have thought a criminal wouldn't care about the law
    What a retarded argument by you.
    Without gun control then wed have many thousands more of such crimes.

    All he has is a sawn off shotgun rather than automatic rifles.

    Its a domestic, so hardly a master criminal.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Been ongoing for 4 houra, still no idea of what it actually is on NEWS :rolleyes:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Rather predictable comment from you.

    Clearly the answer to this would be to allow everyone to have a gun.. right? Just like the answer to acid attacks is to let everyone carry acid and the answer to knife crimes is to let everyone carry a knife in public?

    Because apparently the fact that a few gun crimes happen here, is a justification for allowing everyone to have a gun so far more can happen... Logic.
    I’m not sure why you think that’s the suggestion he’s making. What he’s clearly alluding to is that even with strict gun control laws bad people still get their hands on guns.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I’m not sure why you think that’s the suggestion he’s making. What he’s clearly alluding to is that even with strict gun control laws bad people still get their hands on guns.
    Sure, but the chances of it happening are reduced.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Hey, the controls are supposed to stop these things, and gun crimes, but apparently we still have THOUSANDS of such crimes a year, but hey who would ever have thought a criminal wouldn't care about the law
    Except that most of the guns used in crimes were stolen legally bought firearms. You could argue that a total ban of firearms would make it even harder for criminals to obtain firearms.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Sure, but the chances of it happening are reduced.
    Because there’s no way anyone would possibly illegally own a gun
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    That boy must be brave to walk back inside, knowing that anything could happen.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Should we also make it legal to carry acid? After all people are going to do it anyway, so why not make it legal and easily accessible?
    It is legal....
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Because there’s no way anyone would possibly illegally own a gun
    It is possible, but it is incredibly hard to get one illegally.

    It is quite possible that he might be a registered gun owner who bought a shotgun legally but idk.

    Either way, the police's response was pretty damn swift.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Hey, the controls are supposed to stop these things, and gun crimes, but apparently we still have THOUSANDS of such crimes a year, but hey who would ever have thought a criminal wouldn't care about the law
    You're right, I agree 100%. We should step up gun control measures because as this demonstrates, they aren’t effective enough!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The police have pinned him down.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    The police have pinned him down.
    source?

    EDIT: Nvm, BBC gave an update on the hostage crisis. It is over, apparently there were no casualties.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Because there’s no way anyone would possibly illegally own a gun
    I didn't say it was impossible. I said the chances are reduced. And the more 'legal' guns there are in a country, the greater the chance of a nutter getting hold of one either legally or illegally.

    Clearly you can not completely prevent a nutter getting hold of a gun, but you should aim to make it as difficult as possible so as to reduce the chances of him getting one. There's a reason why events like the Vegas shooting happen reasonably regularly in the USA and are rather rare here.

    But the argument seems to be 'even when guns are banned bad people can still sometimes get guns' so we should not have gun control. That's a reason for better enforcement, not for looser restrictions on who can own a gun.

    We don't, for example, say 'even though theft is illegal, thefts still happen so we may as well make it legal' do we?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    For people comparing U.K. Gun violence to US gun violence. The UK's last mass shooting was in 1996. The USA had 3 mass shootings yesterday.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Police have stormed the bowling ally apparently, shots heard.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMR2017)
    For people comparing U.K. Gun violence to US gun violence. The UK's last mass shooting was in 1996. The USA had 3 mass shootings yesterday.
    Switzerland's only recent mass shooting was in 2001 and that's a country with incredibly high gun ownership. It's not as simple as US vs UK.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I didn't say it was impossible. I said the chances are reduced. And the more 'legal' guns there are in a country, the greater the chance of a nutter getting hold of one either legally or illegally.
    What makes you so sure? Using terms like 'nutter' creates a very vague argument. The number of legal guns also increases the chances of someone using a gun to defend themselves/others, estimates on usage for defence range from a few hundred thousand to a few million per year.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Clearly you can not completely prevent a nutter getting hold of a gun, but you should aim to make it as difficult as possible so as to reduce the chances of him getting one. There's a reason why events like the Vegas shooting happen reasonably regularly in the USA and are rather rare here.
    Events like Las Vegas are not regular at all, only three other attacks in US history have killed even half as many people as Las Vegas. Furthermore what regulation in the UK would have prevented Stephen Paddock from buying a gun and shooting people? There was nothing in his past that would have prevented him from buying a gun, there are no regulations on the maximum magazine size as for bump stocks I haven't seen anything to suggest they're illegal. The only difference, as far as I'm aware, is that there is a limit on the size of round for semi automatic weapons.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    But the argument seems to be 'even when guns are banned bad people can still sometimes get guns' so we should not have gun control. That's a reason for better enforcement, not for looser restrictions on who can own a gun.
    I don't think anyone says there should be no gun control, it seems to be a bit of a straw man argument. The problem is you need to be able to show that removing guns will lower crime. Most studies show that the guns used in crimes are illegally owned and studies estimate that there are large numbers of defensive uses of firearms. While I'm not arguing that guns make people safer, it seems that people assume removing legal guns will make people safer

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    We don't, for example, say 'even though theft is illegal, thefts still happen so we may as well make it legal' do we?
    That argument is often used with abortion. I don't really see the relevance to your argument, no one is saying 'mass shootings happen so we may as well legalise them'. The argument is on whether banning guns will make people safer.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    What makes you so sure? Using terms like 'nutter' creates a very vague argument. The number of legal guns also increases the chances of someone using a gun to defend themselves/others, estimates on usage for defence range from a few hundred thousand to a few million per year.



    Events like Las Vegas are not regular at all, only three other attacks in US history have killed even half as many people as Las Vegas. Furthermore what regulation in the UK would have prevented Stephen Paddock from buying a gun and shooting people? There was nothing in his past that would have prevented him from buying a gun, there are no regulations on the maximum magazine size as for bump stocks I haven't seen anything to suggest they're illegal. The only difference, as far as I'm aware, is that there is a limit on the size of round for semi automatic weapons.



    I don't think anyone says there should be no gun control, it seems to be a bit of a straw man argument. The problem is you need to be able to show that removing guns will lower crime. Most studies show that the guns used in crimes are illegally owned and studies estimate that there are large numbers of defensive uses of firearms. While I'm not arguing that guns make people safer, it seems that people assume removing legal guns will make people safer



    That argument is often used with abortion. I don't really see the relevance to your argument, no one is saying 'mass shootings happen so we may as well legalise them'. The argument is on whether banning guns will make people safer.
    If people don't have guns, they can't shoot people. Your obsession with whether people have guns legally or illegally is rather redundant. The more guns there are in a society, whether legally or illegally, the easier it is for someone with bad intentions to get hold of one. Besides, he bought the guns legally. It's rather depressing that a man can buy semi-automatic guns legally, shoot dead 50+ people and injure 400 and yet a great deal of people think there's no problem with guns in America worth dealing with, or worse that the answer is to give people more guns.

    If you have semi-automatic guns being bought and sold legally, the chances of someone getting hold of one illegally are much higher as there are more guns in circulation. The more guns that can be purchased legally, the more easily they can be sold on or stolen illegally. The chances of any individual being able to collect semi-automatic guns in the UK, like the Vegas shooter used are far lower than they are in the states, because guns here, whether legally or illegally are so much harder to get hold of.

    That's why cases of individuals going on shooting sprees with guns are far rarer here than they are in the states. When was the last time there was a mass shooting here in which scores of people were killed, in the same way as happened with the Vegas shooter or in Orlando?

    Sure, you can't stop every case but that's not an excuse to not stop as many as you can. You've gone for the 'good guy with a gun fallacy' which again is rather strange. Using that principle, should we allow everyone to carry acid to protect themselves from acid attacks, or knives to protect themselves from knife attacks? Of course not. Yet this delusion exists when it comes to guns. The UK seems to manage perfectly fine without ordinary people having guns, why can the USA not?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMR2017)
    For people comparing U.K. Gun violence to US gun violence. The UK's last mass shooting was in 1996. The USA had 3 mass shootings yesterday.
    Was Derrick Bird in 2010 not a mass shooting? Genuine q.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Well done for ignoring all of the questions I put to you and ignoring every counter point to what you’ve said below.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If people don't have guns, they can't shoot people. Your obsession with whether people have guns legally or illegally is rather redundant. The more guns there are in a society, whether legally or illegally, the easier it is for someone with bad intentions to get hold of one.
    There are likely millions of illegally owned guns in the US, if you ban guns these millions of guns still exist and are all in the hands of criminals. The vast majority of crimes committed with a gun are committed using an illegally held gun. Reports estimate, even at the low end, hundreds of thousands of defensive uses of firearms in the US every year. If you ban guns the people who use guns defensively no longer have guns but criminals still do and this is before we even consider the huge black market that would open up and how many guns that would put into circulation.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Besides, he bought the guns legally. It's rather depressing that a man can buy semi-automatic guns legally, shoot dead 50+ people and injure 400 and yet a great deal of people think there's no problem with guns in America worth dealing with, or worse that the answer is to give people more guns.
    As I asked previously, can you point to a law that would have prevented that here? You can buy semi automatic rifles in the UK, there’s no limit on magazine capacity and as far as I’m aware bump stocks aren’t illegal. We have very strict gun control yet Stephen Paddock could still have bought a semi automatic rifle, bought a large magazine and a bump stock and shot people here.

    As for not thinking there’s a problem; put forward a suggestion on how the law can be changed and I’m happy to consider it.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If you have semi-automatic guns being bought and sold legally, the chances of someone getting hold of one illegally are much higher as there are more guns in circulation. The more guns that can be purchased legally, the more easily they can be sold on or stolen illegally.
    I would, to some extent, agree but as I’ve already said there are already likely millions of illegal guns in circulation, a pretty big black market would arise as America clearly has an appetite for guns so that number would only grow. The difference is only criminals would have guns do the number of defensive uses would drop but the majority of firearm related crime already involves an illegal weapon so there’s no reason to think that would significantly drop.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The chances of any individual being able to collect semi-automatic guns in the UK, like the Vegas shooter used are far lower than they are in the states, because guns here, whether legally or illegally are so much harder to get hold of.
    Correct me if I’m wrong but he only uses two of the guns? As I’ve already said there is no law to prevent a person in this country buying a semi automatic rifle, a large magazine and, as far as I can tell, a bump stock. So which law would have prevented him doing that here?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    That's why cases of individuals going on shooting sprees with guns are far rarer here than they are in the states. When was the last time there was a mass shooting here in which scores of people were killed, in the same way as happened with the Vegas shooter or in Orlando?
    So what you’re saying is because we have less gun crime it must be because of our laws, have you never heard the ‘correlation doesn’t imply causation’ maxim?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Sure, you can't stop every case but that's not an excuse to not stop as many as you can.
    Even with our strict laws you can’t point to a law that would have stopped Stephen Paddock.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You've gone for the 'good guy with a gun fallacy' which again is rather strange. Using that principle, should we allow everyone to carry acid to protect themselves from acid attacks, or knives to protect themselves from knife attacks? Of course not. Yet this delusion exists when it comes to guns.
    Well I don’t think you need a weapon that matches the threat exactly, the idea that the average person can defend themselves with a gun holds up regardless of what weapon an attacker has. Also when have I said someone should be able to ‘carry’ a gun? I’ve said that in the US it’s necessary to own a gun because of how gun crime is (what’s betting you pick up on this and choose to ignore me saying previously that most gun crime is carried out with illegal weapons).


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The UK seems to manage perfectly fine without ordinary people having guns, why can the USA not?
    Because there aren’t millions of illegal guns in the UK
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 28, 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.

  • Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • 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.