Turn on thread page Beta
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jarred)
    When guns come up in libertarian circles, it is at that point when they become self-satirizing of their own movement. Having the freedom to mutilate and murder people is not a power people should want nor need. How can this possibly be a positive movement for anyone in the country? Do you ever sit in your room twiddling your thumbs thinking of all the freedoms you want back from the government and think to yourself "****, I really wish I had a GUN right now"?
    Yes clearly we Libers are all very much narcissistic and wait around trying to get our rights to carrying guns back. Legalising personal handguns is highly unlikely to increase crime rates anyway... indeed most people who will have guns with mal-intent would likely not have obtained their guns legally and if they did, would show those ensuring measures are put in place aren’t doing a good enough job.
    And if the off chance there was a mass shooting, a civilian may be able to use their firearm for a force for good and help save lives. That potential is good enough justification for expanding our personal liberties
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    When guns come up in libertarian circles, it is at that point when they become self-satirizing of their own movement. Having the freedom to mutilate and murder people is not a power people should want nor need. How can this possibly be a positive movement for anyone in the country? Do you ever sit in your room twiddling your thumbs thinking of all the freedoms you want back from the government and think to yourself "****, I really wish I had a GUN right now"?




    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    No because I'm not qualified enough, nor read up enough on the issue to do so. Logically it should, that doesn't mean it will. Are you denying the logic?
    Logically it should, evidence says otherwise, raw logic loses to evidence
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I grew up with handguns, can honestly say this is a poor idea. People should be allowed to own handguns for sporting use, but IMO they should only be kept at a Section 5 approved range with secure storage that can be rented by members. They should never be allowed to leave the facility, except to be taken to a gunsmith, or transferred to a different range.

    If you feel like you need a handgun anywhere other than a target range, you probably shouldn't have one.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I asked first.
    thanks for confirming what I already suspected: read the notes
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Logically it should, evidence says otherwise, raw logic loses to evidence
    ....in your opinion.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    ....in your opinion.
    Really? You're trying to argue that what you think is a logical argument without evidence is more powerful than an argument that uses actual evidence to support it? The evidence overwhelmingly shows the logic is wrong.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Really? You're trying to argue that what you think is a logical argument without evidence is more powerful than an argument that uses actual evidence to support it? The evidence overwhelmingly shows the logic is wrong.
    No. You said that raw logic loses to evidence. I pointed out that that is just your opinion. It had nothing to do with the context of this bill.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    No. You said that raw logic loses to evidence. I pointed out that that is just your opinion. It had nothing to do with the context of this bill.
    Does logic which has little evidencial backing overpower a large body of evidence though? Just because it appears logical doesn't mean it is logical, and if it is logical that doesn't mean it's correct. When up against a large body of evidence to the contrary logic should be dismissed unless supporting evidence can be provided or the opposing evidence is broken down. Would you care to do one of those two things?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Does logic which has little evidencial backing overpower a large body of evidence though?
    That varies case-by-case. In this case, my opinion is no. You're welcome to differ.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Just because it appears logical doesn't mean it is logical,
    I agree
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    and if it is logical that doesn't mean it's correct.
    I disagree.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    When up against a large body of evidence to the contrary logic should be dismissed unless supporting evidence can be provided or the opposing evidence is broken down. Would you care to do one of those two things?
    No because I disagree that either of these things "should" have to happen.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    No because I disagree that either of these things "should" have to happen.
    And when the logical argument is countered with deterrence principles? Your argument from logic gets undermined leaving evidence against it against undermined logic. Does undermined logic counter evidence yet to be undermined?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    No because I disagree that either of these things "should" have to happen.
    This is a confusing response to Jammy’s one post... would you at all consider the evidence submitted by members thus far to support this bill? Considering we agree that logic loses to evidence, we can clearly see that hand guns have no affect on crime levels and thus haven’t got an argument presented thus far against them
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And when the logical argument is countered with deterrence principles? Your argument from logic gets undermined leaving evidence against it against undermined logic. Does undermined logic counter evidence yet to be undermined?
    For clarity, deterrence principles being that if someone has a gun you're less likely to commit crimes against them?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    That is your perspective of what guns are for; I believe that self-defence is exceptionally important and would feel a lot more comfortable if I had a gun in my house or those who's job is to protect other people had an effective means of defence on them. Equally, knives serve a purpose of destruction and can be used for murder (in fact, crime rates show they have fully replaced the role of guns). It is a positive movement for the country because homicide rates are proven to not be effected by the legality of firearms, and - despite the differences between liberals and libertarians - both should not lean on the side of criminalisation when the statistics are not in favour of it. In spite of your taunting, I believe you are the one that is being ridiculous and basing an argument on what the state should do purely because you don't like something all that much.
    I'd say the comparison with knives is not a fair one, because whilst they can be used as a weapon, I probably own my knife to slice up bread or chop vegetables. Knives are a tool that serve a purpose, a gun is a gun. It serves a purpose extremely efficiently: but it is only one purpose and that purpose is to kill. I am not saying we should ban all dangerous things as you suggest I am. But I do not think it is inconsistent nor arbitrary to ban something designed purely with the intention of danger.

    I am basing my argument on the fact that I think limiting the ability of people from killing each other is a pretty fundamental part of what the state should exist for.

    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    Yes clearly we Libers are all very much narcissistic and wait around trying to get our rights to carrying guns back. Legalising personal handguns is highly unlikely to increase crime rates anyway... indeed most people who will have guns with mal-intent would likely not have obtained their guns legally and if they did, would show those ensuring measures are put in place aren’t doing a good enough job.
    And if the off chance there was a mass shooting, a civilian may be able to use their firearm for a force for good and help save lives. That potential is good enough justification for expanding our personal liberties
    That potential is an absolutely terrible justification for expanding an ill-needed "liberty". How about no-one owns guns and there are no mass shootings to happen in the first place? I accept this is not as easy and just banning guns, but it surely has SOME effect, right? We might want to debate how profound such effect that is. But frankly, when I realized how stupid most of humanity is, I realized how terrified the prospect of them owning a firearm is.

    Again, on an individual basis, gun ownership makes it easier to kill someone - by design, actually. What I ask is why a civilized liberal society should want to provide this power to people?

    And on the last trope, an obligatory Twitter thread:
    https://twitter.com/markpopham/statu...57761427787777

    (Original post by mr T 999)




    Oh come on. Correlation is not causation. Most importantly, a lack of correlation is not lack of causation. I shouldn't have to explain this, but of course, you know that, I know that. We both know we could find plots that support each of our arguments. For instance there's this:


    So what do we believe? I'm inclined to say none of them. Statistics are too easily manipulated. I can take pretty much any data set, choose my own method of outlier elimination and show any conclusion I want. You can see this very well with the example I just gave. I could remove the US which naively looks like an outlier, and we'd see a very different correlation coefficient R^2. But again, one has to be careful with how they manipulate outliers, because sometimes they represent genuine extrema where the interesting conclusions occur. In this case, America is clearly one of them, because it is one of the best examples of a large western society with rampant gun ownership. But I am not going to base an entire argument on something so easily manipulated even by the most humble student of data analytics.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Why is it that the advocates of firearm bans always resort to emotional argument in the absence of evidence based argument?

    See the notes.
    The evidence stacks against you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    The evidence stacks against you.
    What evidence except emotion is against pro-gun people?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    I'd say the comparison with knives is not a fair one, because whilst they can be used as a weapon, I probably own my knife to slice up bread or chop vegetables. Knives are a tool that serve a purpose, a gun is a gun. It serves a purpose extremely efficiently: but it is only one purpose and that purpose is to kill. I am not saying we should ban all dangerous things as you suggest I am. But I do not think it is inconsistent nor arbitrary to ban something designed purely with the intention of danger.

    I am basing my argument on the fact that I think limiting the ability of people from killing each other is a pretty fundamental part of what the state should exist for.



    That potential is an absolutely terrible justification for expanding an ill-needed "liberty". How about no-one owns guns and there are no mass shootings to happen in the first place? I accept this is not as easy and just banning guns, but it surely has SOME effect, right? We might want to debate how profound such effect that is. But frankly, when I realized how stupid most of humanity is, I realized how terrified the prospect of them owning a firearm is.

    Again, on an individual basis, gun ownership makes it easier to kill someone - by design, actually. What I ask is why a civilized liberal society should want to provide this power to people?

    And on the last trope, an obligatory Twitter thread:
    https://twitter.com/markpopham/statu...57761427787777



    Oh come on. Correlation is not causation. Most importantly, a lack of correlation is not lack of causation. I shouldn't have to explain this, but of course, you know that, I know that. We both know we could find plots that support each of our arguments. For instance there's this:


    So what do we believe? I'm inclined to say none of them. Statistics are too easily manipulated. I can take pretty much any data set, choose my own method of outlier elimination and show any conclusion I want. You can see this very well with the example I just gave. I could remove the US which naively looks like an outlier, and we'd see a very different correlation coefficient R^2. But again, one has to be careful with how they manipulate outliers, because sometimes they represent genuine extrema where the interesting conclusions occur. In this case, America is clearly one of them, because it is one of the best examples of a large western society with rampant gun ownership. But I am not going to base an entire argument on something so easily manipulated even by the most humble student of data analytics.
    The idea that more guns = more guns used is common sense so your statistic is just common sense and true just like the statistics provided on the side of guns is true but looks at homicide as a whole which I would say is more important unless you believe firearm homicide is somehow worse than any other type
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    What evidence except emotion is against pro-gun people?
    Academic studies, research and data from other countries that imposed strict regulation on guns. You can find them online, you can look at UK or Australia + recent studies from Stanford too.

    The argument for pro-gun is that its a fundamental right for people. That's fair, its also why I dont take pro gun clowns born and bred in the UK seriously.

    The general consensus in America is for tighter gun regulations, that's what the people want. Except the NRA has bought congress out and donate millions to senates like Mark Rubio.

    I know you have a habit of making fallacious crappy arguments, i will not be replying to anything stupid. So try to be smart.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    Academic studies, research and data from other countries that imposed strict regulation on guns. You can find them online, you can look at UK or Australia + recent studies from Stanford too.

    The argument for pro-gun is that its a fundamental right for people. That's fair, its also why I dont take pro gun clowns born and bred in the UK seriously.

    The general consensus in America is for tighter gun regulations, that's what the people want. Except the NRA has bought congress out and donate millions to senates like Mark Rubio.

    I know you have a habit of making fallacious crappy arguments, i will not be replying to anything stupid. So try to be smart.
    You mean like the uk who banned handguns and the homicide rate increased?
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    Academic studies, research and data from other countries that imposed strict regulation on guns. You can find them online, you can look at UK or Australia + recent studies from Stanford too.

    The argument for pro-gun is that its a fundamental right for people. That's fair, its also why I dont take pro gun clowns born and bred in the UK seriously.

    The general consensus in America is for tighter gun regulations, that's what the people want. Except the NRA has bought congress out and donate millions to senates like Mark Rubio.

    I know you have a habit of making fallacious crappy arguments, i will not be replying to anything stupid. So try to be smart.
    Have you perhaps looked at the evidence presented in this thread, the situation of crimes before the 1997 act, and comparisons to other countries in the world, apart from the US? People like to say that the NRA have brought out Congress... without any plausible evidence suggesting that. I don’t think the system in the US needs to be changed too radically to ensure better judgement, rather it needs to review why it fails to sufficiently have background checks for those applying for gun licenses. In countries where personal firearms are not allowed, it appears that instead crime is either carried out differently... or firearms are obtained illegally ( black market or what not) it’s unsurprising that the US has had the most mass shootings in the world, given its size. If you could provide legitimate evidence against pro guns, that would be helpful
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: March 2, 2018
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

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

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