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

Unpopular opinion - I'm pro gun; try to convince me why I shouldn't be. Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone should be sterilised.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymous_1947)
    Sorry.. I do not know if hypothetical is exactly the correct word to use. I was just replying to a post that was something along the lines with "try using your gun when someone shoots you in the back of your head" implying that guns are practically useless;something which I vehemently disagree.
    Many arguments in debates and discussions are hypothetical. It is through them that we explore possible outcomes. Hypotheticals are essential in our understanding of many things.

    Btw I'm not one of those brianless idiots like you did say at some point, while also commenting on religion or something like that (I'm Sikh btw, so you probably hate me even more)! 😂
    I don't think I've called religious people "brainless idiots". It is religion (specifically the Abrahamics) that I am opposed to, not religious people as a whole. I always make the point of clarifying the difference between the ideology and the individual, who must be judged on their actual words and deeds not on their (usually) culturally acquired label.

    I don't have much of an issue with Sikhism and non with any individual Sikhs (thus far. If you continue to insist that strict gun controls are not necessary, that may change!)

    I'm open minded and willing to change if I feel that there is a compelling argument, right now I don't feel that just yet.
    It seems rather that you have the preconception that there is no connection with easy availability of guns and increased gun deaths, and are not really interested in changing that position, regardless of the clear and obvious evidence from a variety of sources.

    To turn things about, why do you think that strict gun controls are a bad thing?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yaboi)
    Everyone should be sterilised.
    Or at least homogenised.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    You are 1.27 times more likely to be stabbed in the UK than in the US.
    You are 35 times more likely to be shot dead, over 4 times more likely to be murdered, and 7 times more likely to be assulted with injury in the US than in the UK.
    What was your point again?

    Is restricting the access of such people to firearms a good idea or a bad idea?

    Not before they go on the rampage. Most of the US's worst mass killings were committed by people with no, or only minor criminal records.

    All the arguments used against strict gun controls in the US were used by the gun lobby in Australia in 1996, after the port Arthur massacre. The government went ahead and introduced strict controls and a compulsory buyback of existing guns anyway. Since then not one mass shooting and a drop in the murder rate. Even people who were vociferous opponents of the new laws at the time now admit that their arguments were flawed and based on emotion and self-interest rather than any logic or the need to deal with a problem.
    Actually according to a report (2009) which had research gathered by numerous organisations such as the EU commission and the United Nations, the violent crime rate in the UK affected 2036 people per 100,000; in the USA it was 466

    If ISIS want to inflict harm on people, if they find it harder to purchase a gun, they will inevitably find other ways (i.e. vehicles and knifes... sound familiar?). Unfortunately, it isnt going to stop them.

    Ahhh, Australia. Every anti - gun liberal tells me about this. Well here you go...

    While gun violence did go down, every other form of violence went up; how weird is that?!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Nothing to do with guns though.
    What? It has everything to do with guns. If America had gun control they could be as safe as the UK.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymous_1947)
    Actually according to a report (2009) which had research gathered by numerous organisations such as the EU commission and the United Nations, the violent crime rate in the UK affected 2036 people per 100,000; in the USA it was 466
    Not really true though. When the actual figure for like-for-like crimes are compared, the US comes out as experiencing higher levels of crime in everything except knife crime, where the UK is slightly higher.
    https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

    If ISIS want to inflict harm on people, if they find it harder to purchase a gun, they will inevitably find other ways (i.e. vehicles and knifes... sound familiar?). Unfortunately, it isnt going to stop them.
    So because it is possible to circumvent controls there is no point in having them.
    Do you take this approach to all legislation?

    Ahhh, Australia. Every anti - gun liberal tells me about this. Well here you go...

    While gun violence did go down, every other form of violence went up; how weird is that?!
    Firstly, would you rather be punched or shot?
    Well, there you go!

    Second, the rate of increase in other violent crime did not change after gun controls were introduced. It was increasing before and continued increasing at the same rate after. Introducing strict gun controls did not have an effect on the rate of increase in violent crime.

    Lastly, rates of violent crime have been decreasing and are now lower than they were when guns were banned, but guns have not been reintroduced - how weird is that?!
    Or maybe it isn't weird at all because there are some other factors involved?

    It is a simple and demonstrable fact - fewer guns lead to fewer shootings. To argue against this is to deny reality. I can understand why American gun nuts with private arsenals are against gun control (as Jim Jeffries put it "I ****ing like guns! Don't take my guns!" ), but it is bewildering why anyone else would try to claim that reducing ownership of and access to guns will not reduce the number of shootings.
    Truly bewildering. Perhaps you dream of moving to America and owning some guns? Maybe you have shares in Smith and Wesson? I really have no idea.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    What? It has everything to do with guns. If America had gun control they could be as safe as the UK.
    I was playing at being a pro-gun person.
    Of course it has everything to do with guns.

    (Guilty as charged under Poe's Law)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I'd be all for guns being legal, provided they're not sold to roadmen and people of the sort. Any people with law impediments, heavy alcohol users, drug users, etc shouldn't be allowed them. Only safe people who would actually use the gun for self-defense when it's very necessary should be allowed them.

    Distinguishing these people is the challenge, though. I just feel like people should be allowed to wield a gun without having to specifically go into the army and get extensive licences and experience with it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gQuyzs7xmE
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    When you give stupid people guns, they kill. Simple as that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Not really true though. When the actual figure for like-for-like crimes are compared, the US comes out as experiencing higher levels of crime in everything except knife crime, where the UK is slightly higher.
    https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

    So because it is possible to circumvent controls there is no point in having them.
    Do you take this approach to all legislation?

    Firstly, would you rather be punched or shot?
    Well, there you go!

    Second, the rate of increase in other violent crime did not change after gun controls were introduced. It was increasing before and continued increasing at the same rate after. Introducing strict gun controls did not have an effect on the rate of increase in violent crime.

    Lastly, rates of violent crime have been decreasing and are now lower than they were when guns were banned, but guns have not been reintroduced - how weird is that?!
    Or maybe it isn't weird at all because there are some other factors involved?

    It is a simple and demonstrable fact - fewer guns lead to fewer shootings. To argue against this is to deny reality. I can understand why American gun nuts with private arsenals are against gun control (as Jim Jeffries put it "I ****ing like guns! Don't take my guns!" ), but it is bewildering why anyone else would try to claim that reducing ownership of and access to guns will not reduce the number of shootings.
    Truly bewildering. Perhaps you dream of moving to America and owning some guns? Maybe you have shares in Smith and Wesson? I really have no idea.
    Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, and I will blame myself entirely for that. Yes, there need to be stricter regulations regarding who gets hold of one, but it's not the gun that creates the danger itself, it's the individual that makes the danger. So blaming the gun for the danger is simply nonsensical and utterly erroneous.

    Blanket gun bans do not work... and Australia is a perfect example of that. As well as a huge surge in contact crime victimisation rates (btw Australia ranked the highest out of seventeen highly advanced, industrialized countries such as England, France, Spain etc.) That can be backed up by the study conducted by the Dutch ministry of justice in 2001 when talking about victimisation in 1999; 3 years after the gun ban.

    Even in recent years, the gun ban has been rubbish at doing its actual job; getting guns off the street!! Between 2010-2015, there have been 37,000 gun licences handed out, a jump from 177,675 to 215,462 (Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ure-blame.html)

    In states such as New South Wales, gun ownership has gone up by a tenth. (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gun-owners...30-ginwzw.html) In 22 of the state's 600 postcodes, registered guns OUTNUMBERED people... sound pretty alarming, huh?

    Apart from the fact that "there did not appear to have an increase in gun-related crime that related to the increase in licences" - Detective Superintendent Mick Plotecki. Maybe America needs to take some notes, but having guns doesn't necessarily mean more gun-related deaths.

    Would I rather be stabbed or shot? Neither. And as we have proved that "more guns=more deaths" is not exactly true... well that argument is completely out the window.

    And nah, despite what you may think, I'll stay in the UK for now. Don't get me wrong, I love this place, and just because the British law and I have a few disagreements doesn't mean I hate this place; not by any stretch of the imagination.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymous_1947)
    Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, and I will blame myself entirely for that. Yes, there need to be stricter regulations regarding who gets hold of one, but it's not the gun that creates the danger itself, it's the individual that makes the danger. So blaming the gun for the danger is simply nonsensical and utterly erroneous.

    Blanket gun bans do not work... and Australia is a perfect example of that. As well as a huge surge in contact crime victimisation rates (btw Australia ranked the highest out of seventeen highly advanced, industrialized countries such as England, France, Spain etc.) That can be backed up by the study conducted by the Dutch ministry of justice in 2001 when talking about victimisation in 1999; 3 years after the gun ban.

    Even in recent years, the gun ban has been rubbish at doing its actual job; getting guns off the street!! Between 2010-2015, there have been 37,000 gun licences handed out, a jump from 177,675 to 215,462 (Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ure-blame.html)

    In states such as New South Wales, gun ownership has gone up by a tenth. (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gun-owners...30-ginwzw.html) In 22 of the state's 600 postcodes, registered guns OUTNUMBERED people... sound pretty alarming, huh?

    Apart from the fact that "there did not appear to have an increase in gun-related crime that related to the increase in licences" - Detective Superintendent Mick Plotecki. Maybe America needs to take some notes, but having guns doesn't necessarily mean more gun-related deaths.

    Would I rather be stabbed or shot? Neither. And as we have proved that "more guns=more deaths" is not exactly true... well that argument is completely out the window.

    And nah, despite what you may think, I'll stay in the UK for now. Don't get me wrong, I love this place, and just because the British law and I have a few disagreements doesn't mean I hate this place; not by any stretch of the imagination.
    OK, fine.
    You think that more gun controls = more shootings, and less gun control = fewer shootings, and that this is a good reason for not introducing stricter gun controls, despite the evidence from countries with stricter gun controls compared to countries with easier gun access.

    Whatever.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    OK hick boy put down yo gun
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    What? It has everything to do with guns. If America had gun control they could be as safe as the UK.
    UK doesn't share a border with a third world country.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Ffs... :rolleyes:
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    UK has had 1 mass shooting in the past 20 years. America has had 273+ mass shootings this year.
    Switzerland had 1 mass shooting in the past 100 years.

    - 3rd highest gun ownership in world.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    Switzerland had 1 mass shooting in the past 100 years.

    - 3rd highest gun ownership in world.
    Actually 2 in the past 20 years
    Anyway, most of those guns are kept by those who did military service, and the gun laws are far tighter than those in the US. Guns are far harder to purchase in Switzerland.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Actually 2 in the past 20 years
    Anyway, most of those guns are kept by those who did military service, and the gun laws are far tighter than those in the US. Guns are far harder to purchase in Switzerland.
    According to wikipedia it's 1, but ok.

    Why is it always that US gun laws (which differ massively by state btw) have to be the only way?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    According to wikipedia it's 1, but ok.

    Why is it always that US gun laws (which differ massively by state btw) have to be the only way?
    Wikipedia has two examples of mass shootings in Switzerland, both of which took place in the last twenty years:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...in_Switzerland

    Mass shootings are very much an American phenomenon, especially when compared to other Western countries. America's gun crime rate and murder rate is far higher than any developed European country or Australia or Canada- no other country even compares. And America also happens to have the highest rate of gun ownership and the most relaxed gun laws out of any western country. Time and time again we see mass shootings where the perpetrator had bought high-powered assault weapons legally without any problem. So how can you say that it is not the easy availability of high powered rifles and ammunition that causes such high rates of gun violence, unheard of anywhere else in the Western world? The problem is so obvious it seems almost ridiculous when I hear Americans try to pretend like there's no problem with gun laws.

    The question is- why don't we see these mass shootings in the UK at the rate we see them in the US, even when adjusting for population sizes? Why don't we see them in Germany? Why not Canada? Would Stephen Paddock have been able to carry out the attack he carried out in Las Vegas in London, for example? The answer is most likely no.

    And the fact that gun laws differ by state does not matter. There are no borders between states. One can easily buy weapons at a gun show in Texas or Nevada and transport them to California without checks.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh what I find really ridiculous is a couple of the guns which are a) best for home defence and b) hardest to carry out mass shootings with, are some of the higher regulated types of gun.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.