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

Gunman reportedly takes hostages at bowling alley in Nuneaton Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If we take the USA's system, in order for the government to be a tyranny whom the public needs guns to defend from, the following would need to happen;

    (1) The public would have to vote in a leader, whom they hadn't suspected would be a tyrant
    (2) The public would then have to also vote in a congressional majority of people who support said tyrant
    (3) The Supreme Court Justices would have to replaced with those who support the tyrant
    (4) The tyrannical leader would have to keep the loyalty of the police and armed forces

    I.e, it is not going to happen. The USA has a ruthlessly effective system of checks and balances.

    The comparison to fascist regimes in the 1920s and 30s is rather useless. Not least because countries like Germany and Italy at the time had nothing like the constitutional framework and solidity of a country like the USA or UK. There is no reason to have guns 'just in case', because it is not going to happen.

    The British system has prevented tyrannies for centuries. It is one of the strongest legal and judicial systems out there. There is absolutely no reason to doubt it at all.

    But even if we accept the tyranny argument, why stop at guns? If there is a genuine threat of tyranny, why not let the public have their own tanks and war planes? Why only give them guns?
    You’re still either struggling to read or wilfully ignoring me. I have said “clearly we’re never going to agree on the tyranny part, how about addressing my other arguments in support of private gun ownership” and “the right to bear arms is qualified right, it’s limited...”
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    You’re still either struggling to read or wilfully ignoring me. I have said “clearly we’re never going to agree on the tyranny part, how about addressing my other arguments in support of private gun ownership” and “the right to bear arms is qualified right, it’s limited...”
    It is relevant though, clearly. If someone is going to argue that people in the USA need guns to prevent tyranny, it shows they aren't really interested in engaging in substantive debate given how absurd the claim is.

    I want to know how the USA becomes a tyranny... are the public going to vote in a tyrant and then vote in a tyrannical congress who then votes in a tyrannical Supreme Court. Meanwhile keeping control of the armed forces?

    But the crucial point is this; the only way that America could become a tyranny is if they were to vote in tyrants. If the public vote in tyrants then why would they need guns, given they wanted them voted in?

    I don't agree to disagree. I don't agree that someone of your intellect could seriously consider the argument that Americans need guns to prevent tyranny, as convincing.

    With regards to the second amendment, it was written at a time when the capability, range and type of guns are nothing like they are today. The law should evolve with time.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It is relevant though, clearly. If someone is going to argue that people in the USA need guns to prevent tyranny, it shows they aren't really interested in engaging in substantive debate given how absurd the claim is.

    I want to know how the USA becomes a tyranny... are the public going to vote in a tyrant and then vote in a tyrannical congress who then votes in a tyrannical Supreme Court. Meanwhile keeping control of the armed forces?

    But the crucial point is this; the only way that America could become a tyranny is if they were to vote in tyrants. If the public vote in tyrants then why would they need guns, given they wanted them voted in?

    I don't agree to disagree. I don't agree that someone of your intellect could seriously consider the argument that Americans need guns to prevent tyranny, as convincing.

    With regards to the second amendment, it was written at a time when the capability, range and type of guns are nothing like they are today. The law should evolve with time.
    Okay we agree to disagree. Give one reason as to why private gun ownership should be banned
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Okay we agree to disagree. Give one reason as to why private gun ownership should be banned
    There is considerably more gun crime and mass shootings in the USA that allows gun ownership in comparison to countries which do not allow it. Which seems like a fairly large reason to disallow it.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Okay we agree to disagree. Give one reason as to why private gun ownership should be banned
    The fact you 'disagree' that they don't need guns to protect themselves from the government is quite alarming.

    Can you explain the circumstances of how such a situation could possibly arise?

    I don't 'agree to disagree'. I don't agree that someone of your intellect could hold that view with any degree of sincerity.

    Because I don't think ordinary members of the public should have access to such a dangerous and lethal weapon.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Evidence?

    As I've already said, estimates tend to start at around 500,000 for the number of defensive uses of firearms each year.
    Scientific American recently looked at this:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The fact you 'disagree' that they don't need guns to protect themselves from the government is quite alarming.

    Can you explain the circumstances of how such a situation could possibly arise?

    I don't 'agree to disagree'. I don't agree that someone of your intellect could hold that view with any degree of sincerity.
    You seem to be keen to ignore the fact that tyrannical governments have existed all over the world. As I have continually said, it’s highly unlikely to happen in the US but seeing as you can’t show a net negative of private gun ownership continuing, why not allow people to have firearms just in case?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Because I don't think ordinary members of the public should have access to such a dangerous and lethal weapon.
    You’ve made that clear but you haven’t explained why.

    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    There is considerably more gun crime and mass shootings in the USA that allows gun ownership in comparison to countries which do not allow it. Which seems like a fairly large reason to disallow it.
    Gun ownership has gone up whilst murder has gone down; studies suggest that less than 20% of gun crime is committed with legally possessed guns.

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Scientific American recently looked at this:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/
    Their article is looking at whether guns are an effective deterrent to crime, not trying investigate how often they’re used defensively. They’re happy to cite the same 2015 CDC report that says guns are used defensively 500k+ a year. Banning private gun ownership may lower crime but as of right now I’m yet to see sufficient evidence that that is the case. The evidence that does exist is nowhere near strong enough to warrant the enormous civil unrest and loss of life that would be caused
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Their article is looking at whether guns are an effective deterrent to crime, not trying investigate how often they’re used defensively.
    It also covers the latter aspect and its rarity.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    It also covers the latter aspect and its rarity.
    Interesting that the methodology used to create figures for the prevalence of crime, and essentially reporting as fact, isn’t good enough to establish the number of times s firearm is used defensively.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    You seem to be keen to ignore the fact that tyrannical governments have existed all over the world. As I have continually said, it’s highly unlikely to happen in the US but seeing as you can’t show a net negative of private gun ownership continuing, why not allow people to have firearms just in case?
    Mostly in countries without law and order, and with no history of democracy and a judicial and legal system nowhere near as secure and effective as that of the USA.

    Plus, in some of the examples you gave, the public actually voted the tyrant in. So why would the public need guns to protect themselves from a tyrant that they've voted in?

    There is no 'just in case' because it is not going to happen. You may as well say they should have guns just in case aliens invade. It's not even nearly convincing as justification to say 'just in case' when it is not going to happen.

    Do you think we should have guns in Britain just in case?



    Gun ownership has gone up whilst murder has gone down; studies suggest that less than 20% of gun crime is committed with legally possessed guns.
    Overall murder or murder from guns? Because gun homicides have certainly risen. Again the legal/non-legal argument is irrelevant. The prevalence of legal guns makes it far, far more likely that guns will be acquired illegally as you have far more guns in circulation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Mostly in countries without law and order, and with no history of democracy and a judicial and legal system nowhere near as secure and effective as that of the USA.
    America has absolutely no history of democracy as its a representative republic, not a democracy. That's made abundantly clear by the founding fathers, James Madison in particular. In a country of 300,000,000 people 538 of them decide who the next president is.

    By what measure are you defining the American legal system as 'secure' and 'effective'?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Plus, in some of the examples you gave, the public actually voted the tyrant in. So why would the public need guns to protect themselves from a tyrant that they've voted in?
    In one of the examples I gave the tyrant was elected, that doesn't mean he wasn't a tyrant. He ended democratic process, killed political dissidents and created a cult of personality.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    There is no 'just in case' because it is not going to happen. You may as well say they should have guns just in case aliens invade. It's not even nearly convincing as justification to say 'just in case' when it is not going to happen.
    It's incredibly unlikely as I've said but you can't definitely say it won't ever happen. There are lots of things that happen everyday that seem incredibly unlikely.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Do you think we should have guns in Britain just in case?
    The two countries are not remotely comparable on the issue of guns. Also, as you've ignored a dozen times, I've given other reasons as to why private gun ownership should not be banned in the US despite the fact that the burden isn't on me to do so.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Overall murder or murder from guns? Because gun homicides have certainly risen.
    Wrong
    https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/c...-1993-and-2013
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#4d1c2e6b3f7c

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Again the legal/non-legal argument is irrelevant. The prevalence of legal guns makes it far, far more likely that guns will be acquired illegally as you have far more guns in circulation.
    You seem very sure of this despite having no evidence to back it up. If gun private gun ownership was banned a black market would inevitably pop up, no one can know what impact that would have on the number of guns.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    America has absolutely no history of democracy as its a representative republic, not a democracy. That's made abundantly clear by the founding fathers, James Madison in particular. In a country of 300,000,000 people 538 of them decide who the next president is.

    By what measure are you defining the American legal system as 'secure' and 'effective'?
    The public would have to vote in a tyrannical president, vote in a tyrannical congress and have the president and congress appoint a tyrannical Supreme Court. All while keeping the army and security services on side.

    It's not going to happen. The checks and balances of the US system are ruthlessly effective. They make it incredibly difficult to get controversial legislation passed given the number of hurdles and institutions that can prevent it (Presidential Veto, Congress vote, Supreme Court). The chances of a tyrant taking over all branches of government is about as close to zero as you can get.



    It's incredibly unlikely as I've said but you can't definitely say it won't ever happen. There are lots of things that happen everyday that seem incredibly unlikely.
    If it's incredibly unlikely then it's a weak justification. I can't think of things that happen every day that are as incredibly unlikely as all three branches of the US government being taken over by tyrants.

    The two countries are not remotely comparable on the issue of guns. Also, as you've ignored a dozen times, I've given other reasons as to why private gun ownership should not be banned in the US despite the fact that the burden isn't on me to do so.
    If anything the US has stronger safeguards than the UK when it comes to tyranny. In the UK, a PM with a majority can pretty much legally pass anything they want, given that our Supreme Court has no strike down power and we do not have 'constitutional laws' that require super majorities to be amended.

    The institutions of government are much more separate in the US. A president does not have control of their congressional party in the same way a Prime Minister has control of their parliamentary party.





    You seem very sure of this despite having no evidence to back it up. If gun private gun ownership was banned a black market would inevitably pop up, no one can know what impact that would have on the number of guns.
    The more guns in circulation, the easier it is to get a gun.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The public would have to vote in a tyrannical president, vote in a tyrannical congress and have the president and congress appoint a tyrannical Supreme Court. All while keeping the army and security services on side.

    It's not going to happen. The checks and balances of the US system are ruthlessly effective. They make it incredibly difficult to get controversial legislation passed given the number of hurdles and institutions that can prevent it (Presidential Veto, Congress vote, Supreme Court). The chances of a tyrant taking over all branches of government is about as close to zero as you can get.
    That's not true, the last step would be the only one necessary. If a president could exercise absolute control over the military and police forces they could very easily control the country.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If it's incredibly unlikely then it's a weak justification. I can't think of things that happen every day that are as incredibly unlikely as all three branches of the US government being taken over by tyrants.
    The chance of any individual human being born seems less likely
    http://www.businessinsider.com/infog...ve-2012-6?IR=T

    But you can't show a net negative of people owning guns. It's like saying I shouldn't be able to buy insurance against dying in an elevator simply because it's unlikely. Yes both me dying in an elevator and the US being taken over by a tyrannical government are unlikely but you can't (or at least to this point haven't been able to) show that society is harmed by me buying insurance or Americans legally owning guns. Once you can start giving actual reasons as to why private gun ownership should be banned in the US then we can entertain this idea. At the moment we're having this argument in reverse, if you want guns to be banned the burden is on you to put forward reasons as to why and it is for me to refute those. At this moment in time the opposite is happening.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If anything the US has stronger safeguards than the UK when it comes to tyranny. In the UK, a PM with a majority can pretty much legally pass anything they want, given that our Supreme Court has no strike down power and we do not have 'constitutional laws' that require super majorities to be amended.

    The institutions of government are much more separate in the US. A president does not have control of their congressional party in the same way a Prime Minister has control of their parliamentary party.
    Okay and your trying to make the point that that means if Americans need guns to protect themselves from tyranny then so do we. What you're still choosing to ignore is:
    1. I've already given you more reasons that the tyranny argument as to why private gun ownership should remain legal in the US
    2. Creating a US style gun law here is going into the unknown, just like banning gun ownership in the US would be. In both situations you don't know if people will be safer or in more danger.

    As I've said a million times we're clearly never going to agree on the tyrant point, it's entirely speculative and thus I am finished debating it. Your refusal to stop going on about it shows you're clearly passionately interested I'd recommend some further reading that challenges your view point, here's a start for you:
    http://time.com/4690676/donald-trump-tyranny/
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ald-trump.html
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/...uckley-review/
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ob...rticle/2536888

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The more guns in circulation, the easier it is to get a gun.
    Still no evidence to back up your assertion, repeating something without evidence doesn't make it any more true. I've continued this despite you failing to answer the questions I posed some days ago. If you'd like to continue feel free to answer those questions and start actually providing some evidence for your assertions.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    That's not true, the last step would be the only one necessary. If a president could exercise absolute control over the military and police forces they could very easily control the country.
    'Very easily'. Sigh. For starters congress controls the money strings so they could prevent any money going to the President's administrations and the military.

    It's not so much likely but pretty much close to zero. So unlikely that you don't need a 'just in case'.

    As I've said a million times we're clearly never going to agree on the tyrant point, it's entirely speculative and thus I am finished debating it.
    I don't agree to disagree.
    For an intelligent person such as yourself to use the tyrant argument as a justification really is bizarre. It's such a poor argument, by any measure. The chances of a tyranny taking over the US government to the extent that the public needs guns are pretty much non-existent. It's not going to happen.

    I'm sure you'll say 'you can't be completely sure' but you could equally say that you can't be completely sure that Elvis won't rise from the grave and perform on stage again. There's a difference between not being completely sure that something won't happen; and the chances of something happening being so infinitesimally small to impossible, that they're not worth even considering. The tyrant in the USA argument falls within the latter category.


    If you accept that the tyrant argument is not a justification for gun ownership, I will address the other points because ultimately the argument hinges on 'Americans needs guns to stop tyranny'. The other arguments have been added since.
 
 
 
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.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.