Turn on thread page Beta

B1335 - Handgun Ownership and Regulation Bill 2018 watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You mean like the uk who banned handguns and the homicide rate increased?
    Give me the courtesy of replying to the entirety of my point. Im not going to give you replies only for you to lazily and pathetically (in typical TSR right wing fashion) pick and choose which parts to reply to.

    Also dont pose stupid and fallacious questions, just like this silly question. Make a point.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    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
    This thread is a sh*tshow that thinks the issue with guns is homicide rates. Regulating guns leads to less violence and deaths related to guns, in particular mass shootings. Correlation=/=causation. And there's too many variables and external factors that affect homicide rates. The best way of isolating them is to focus on gun related crimes.

    In other words, this entire thread is just a bunch of irrelevant strawmans. It's a classic case of the right wing thinking there's any added legitimacy when you go against the status quo.

    The NRA has bought out congress through giving out millions to people like John mccain and Marco Rubio. It's an incredibly powerful organisation that's protected by the constitution and the 2nd amendment. Changing the constitution is virtually impossible.

    The reason why background checks is not done properly is because Trump needs the support of the republicans in congress.
    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.
    Can’t comment on studies research and data you don’t supply.

    More of an ad hominem than any actual point

    It seems most of the polls come just after shootings maybe that has an impact.

    Proof of your nra claim please.

    Actually make an argument I can respond to please.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Can’t comment on studies research and data you don’t supply.

    More of an ad hominem than any actual point

    It seems most of the polls come just after shootings maybe that has an impact.

    Proof of your nra claim please.

    Actually make an argument I can respond to please.
    https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21...-carry-states/

    - Right to carry guns leads to higher rate of violent crime

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN0XP0HG

    - An example e.g. australia

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...do-gun-control

    - 4 Examples here.

    That's plenty. Although there's more too.

    The point was that americans believe its a right?


    NRA donating millions to congress members : https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-senators.html

    There. Debunked.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21...-carry-states/

    - Right to carry guns leads to higher rate of violent crime

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN0XP0HG

    - An example e.g. australia

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...do-gun-control

    - 4 Examples here.

    That's plenty. Although there's more too.

    The point was that americans believe its a right?


    NRA donating millions to congress members : https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-senators.html

    There. Debunked.

    Of course, knowing how simple minded you are im not expecting much.
    I don’t know who you are, I don’t think we’ve interacted before this thread but if you want me to respond then quit with your insults, I haven’t insulted you in this debate so why are you so obsessed with ad Homs?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I don’t know who you are, I don’t think we’ve interacted before this thread but if you want me to respond then quit with your insults, I haven’t insulted you in this debate so why are you so obsessed with ad Homs?
    Nice to see you've conceded. No need to apologise.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    Nice to see you've conceded. No need to apologise.
    I have not conceded, your nra argument is terrible as politicians also get donations from the public so have the public bought them?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I have not conceded, your nra argument is terrible as politicians also get donations from the public so have the public bought them?
    Dont compare the NRA to the public. The NRA have a clear agenda, the public dont, simply they support the politician.

    Also, they dont in the millions. If one individual person donates millions, then maybe they did buy them.

    You also have not acknowledged that the NRA spends millions lobbying congress, so its pretty evident theyre influential. Why else is it that the general public want tighter gun laws?

    Anyway, reply to the entirety of my point and I am happy to continue to refute you.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Violent self-defence is something to be tolerated to such an extent as it is necessary, it isn't something to be encouraged. We shouldn't be literally encouraging citizens to bring a gun to a knife fight.

    I'm not sure what relevance the homicide rate has to escalation – there doesn't need to be a death for a situation to be unnecessarily escalated. There are a vanishingly small number of situations in modern Britain where throwing a gun into the mix would be of any benefit.
    Well, the thing is, of course, you don't have to. Here, nearly all homeowners (and renters) have a weapon. Consequently, the home burglary rate is extremely low. I have read several interview results, in which long-term criminals were asked about burglary (of homes), and replied that they weren't crazy, they didn't want to be shot.

    Investigating the 'halo effect' of 'shall issue' laws in the US, reveals that the incidence of home burglary, armed robbery, and felonious assault, in areas that have passed 'shall issue' concealed carry laws shows a significant drop in such crimes. If only 1% of the people on the street in your vicinity is armed, the thugs are reluctant to attack you, because they can't tell if YOU are armed. This is called the "halo effect". Uncertainty protects the unarmed.

    You can probably put yourself in the position of some occasionally employed truck driver, that gets off on beating his ex-wife to a pulp, and then finds out that she's gotten a concealed carry permit & is occasionally armed now. Even though you weigh 300+ lbs, and she weighs 110, her having the means to protect herself now, equalizes the battle. After a moment's thought, you probably will decide to not bother her any more. Cheers.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rabbit2)
    Well, the thing is, of course, you don't have to. Here, nearly all homeowners (and renters) have a weapon. Consequently, the home burglary rate is extremely low. I have read several interview results, in which long-term criminals were asked about burglary (of homes), and replied that they weren't crazy, they didn't want to be shot.

    Investigating the 'halo effect' of 'shall issue' laws in the US, reveals that the incidence of home burglary, armed robbery, and felonious assault, in areas that have passed 'shall issue' concealed carry laws shows a significant drop in such crimes. If only 1% of the people on the street in your vicinity is armed, the thugs are reluctant to attack you, because they can't tell if YOU are armed. This is called the "halo effect". Uncertainty protects the unarmed.

    You can probably put yourself in the position of some occasionally employed truck driver, that gets off on beating his ex-wife to a pulp, and then finds out that she's gotten a concealed carry permit & is occasionally armed now. Even though you weigh 300+ lbs, and she weighs 110, her having the means to protect herself now, equalizes the battle. After a moment's thought, you probably will decide to not bother her any more. Cheers.
    And the potential burglar and wife-beater can both far more easily get their hands on a gun to aid them in their exploits too.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    And the potential burglar and wife-beater can both far more easily get their hands on a gun to aid them in their exploits too.
    I know it’s not a great example (its old and there’s probably statistics which are more up to date and it’s america) but in America the burglars are also less likely to do it while you are at home

    “Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing.‘
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/p...s-dungeon.html

    hot means a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    For clarity, deterrence principles being that if someone has a gun you're less likely to commit crimes against them?
    Yes.

    (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.
    So can we have the evidence you refer to rather than "it exists"?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)



    So can we have the evidence you refer to rather than "it exists"?
    Post 84.
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Yes.
    Deterrence principles doesn't undermine my logic of guns not having a point other than destruction. Having a gun might deter other people from trying to do you harm. But that's still not a purpose of having a gun as far as I'm concerned.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21...-carry-states/

    - Right to carry guns leads to higher rate of violent crime

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN0XP0HG

    - An example e.g. australia

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...do-gun-control

    - 4 Examples here.

    That's plenty. Although there's more too.

    The point was that americans believe its a right?


    NRA donating millions to congress members : https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-senators.html

    There. Debunked.
    Right, okay, so why is gun homicide more important than overall homicide? That's what 3 of the 4 links do by looking purely at gun homicide rates. It's almost a given that when there are significantly more guns there are going to be more gun homicides, however it does not mean there will be more homicides. There is a reason that the gun homicide figures are used rather than overall figures and that is that the same trends do not appear when looking at the overall homicide rates.

    If we take Australia for example we get the overall homicide rate decline continuing pre-existing trends:


    And this was also a global trend, the same thing happened in America without such controls:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Nay - this bill does not make things better. I do not believe this bill is the way to go.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vitiate)
    Nay - this bill does not make things better. I do not believe this bill is the way to go.
    Do you believe that criminals should have the advantage on law abiding citizens?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Right, okay, so why is gun homicide more important than overall homicide? That's what 3 of the 4 links do by looking purely at gun homicide rates. It's almost a given that when there are significantly more guns there are going to be more gun homicides, however it does not mean there will be more homicides. There is a reason that the gun homicide figures are used rather than overall figures and that is that the same trends do not appear when looking at the overall homicide rates.

    If we take Australia for example we get the overall homicide rate decline continuing pre-existing trends:


    And this was also a global trend, the same thing happened in America without such controls:
    Guns are not the primary cause of homicides. More people die by fists than any other sort of weapon. For example, 1 person a week dies in the UK because of domestic violence.

    Overall homicide rates are a silly way of looking at it due to the weak link between gun laws and overall rates, since guns already make up only a portion of homicides. There is however a stronger link between gun laws and regulation and homicides related to guns.

    London has an issue with knife crime, but would it be fair to say that thats not true because overall homicide rates are decreasing? Of course not.

    The first link is also the main one, which is about violent crime in general.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    Guns are not the primary cause of homicides. More people die by fists than any other sort of weapon. For example, 1 person a week dies in the UK because of domestic violence.

    Overall homicide rates are a silly way of looking at it due to the weak link between gun laws and overall rates, since guns already make up only a portion of homicides. There is however a stronger link between gun laws and regulation and homicides related to guns.

    London has an issue with knife crime, but would it be fair to say that thats not true because overall homicide rates are decreasing? Of course not.

    The first link is also the main one, which is about violent crime in general.
    So homicide remains the same if you ban guns but we should ban guns to stop homicide?

    If you ban guns and the homicide occurs with a knife instead is that an improvement?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So homicide remains the same if you ban guns but we should ban guns to stop homicide?

    If you ban guns and the homicide occurs with a knife instead is that an improvement?
    Homicide decreases, assuming all other factors are constant.

    The burden of proof is now on you to prove banning guns means people switch to other methods to kill.
 
 
 
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
The home of Results and Clearing

2,541

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

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.