Turn on thread page Beta

B1335 - Handgun Ownership and Regulation Bill 2018 watch

    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Anything can be used for mass murder, look at the terror attacks in London
    If you attack a crowd which these mass shootings tend to include happening then it’s not really that much harder.

    There are plenty of legal guns in the uk already and it’s not law abiding citizens using them to commit homicide it’s people who are already criminals using illegally held guns to terrorise the unarmed public.

    It’s already possible to get guns illegally which is what your point talks about kids doing.
    Let's stick some number of this, between April 2002 and March 2016 over 50,000 offences were recorded by police in which handguns were reportedly used as the principal weapon
    In 5-6000 of these cases the weapon was fired, but in about 40,000 cases it was merely used for intimidation (compare this to imitation firearms where these rates would be flipped). In the year ending March 2016 14 of these were fatal (and a further 254 caused injury and 7654 over the whole period)

    Annoyingly the particular data table I'm after which gives registered vs unregistered weapons for firearms homicides is not one I have saved, but it consistently shows over 90% unregistered rate, with the exception of 2010, and with registered firearms it does not discriminate between who is using it so in theory they could all have been illegal use.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Actually sharp instruments are the biggest killers in the UK, more than twice as many homicides with sharp instruments than unarmed, two and a half times in the US

    Actually you will find that gun homicides made up a very significant portion of homicides in Australia, and still do


    It's a triviality that more guns= more gun deaths, but then it has to be asked: why is it worse for a gun homicide to be committed than any other given the evidence points to the homicides being committed either way (if this weren't the case then we would have seen an accelerated reduction in homicide rates given that the other methods would be unchanged)

    As for knife crime in London, this is a false equivocation given that there is no regulatory change with knives, you're looking at a very narrow data set (a couple of years in one place) and it would be inaccurate to say that rates have fallen
    Australia has not had mass shootings since the change. And from that chart I can see a very clear decrease.

    Gun laws are designed to reduce gun homicides. That's it. If gun homicides decrease as a result, that's a positive. You cant ask why any other type of homicide is better because the precedent is that guns and knives/other weapons are actual alternatives. They're not. Theyre both different in nature of execution and theres no evidence to suggest that stricter gun laws leads to an increase in other types of homicide.

    I can also flip it. why are you so against increased gun laws, because thats suggesting guns are a better way to die than knives.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    Australia has not had mass shootings since the change. And from that chart I can see a very clear decrease.

    Gun laws are designed to reduce gun homicides. That's it. If gun homicides decrease as a result, that's a positive. You cant ask why any other type of homicide is better because the precedent is that guns and knives/other weapons are actual alternatives. They're not. Theyre both different in nature of execution and theres no evidence to suggest that stricter gun laws leads to an increase in other types of homicide.

    I can also flip it. why are you so against increased gun laws, because thats suggesting guns are a better way to die than knives.
    If gun deaths decrease slightly (that chart seems to suggest its following a downward trend that had already started), then if there aren’t alternatives why didn’t the murder homicide rate decrease significantly instead just followed the same trend?

    The evidence is the homicide rate, if the overall homicide rate doesn’t drop but there are less of 1 type of homicide then how does it stay the same if no other type of murder rate increases?

    How is saying it makes no difference if you are killed by a gun or a knife (or anything else) saying it’s better to be killed by a gun?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I am aware.



    You do reaslise that compared to guns, knives and cars are almost innocuous. Unless you're a Marvel superhero, impacts from attacks like the Las Vegas shooting wouldn't have been felt on such a large scale with a knife or car.

    I am a passive supporter of gun law relaxation, an impression felt from the lack of my responses here. Despite that being the case, I genuinely don't understand why gun proponents like yourself make a link between cars/knives and guns like they're similar. Furthermore, the amount of guns in the UK amount to roughly 1.8 million and when you consider the size of our population referring to the amount of guns our there as 'plenty' - at least, to me - appears dishonest.
    Because banning guns doesn’t reduce the homicide rate.

    When we are getting into the definition of a word like ‘plenty’ instead of actually tackling the point that it’s illegal guns being used not legal guns it just turns into a pointless discussion, do you have anything on the point I was making?

    There has been at least one knife attack with 30+ deaths and over a 100 injured in China and in japan there was this not quite Vegas but it’s more fatalities than the parklands shooting based on the last numbers I have seen, so knife attacks can be deadly even if you aren’t a superhero.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Because banning guns doesn’t reduce the homicide rate.
    What? I know.

    (Original post by joecphillips)
    When we are getting into the definition of a word like ‘plenty’ instead of actually tackling the point that it’s illegal guns being used not legal guns it just turns into a pointless discussion, do you have anything on the point I was making?
    I'm attempting to tackle an assertion you had made. That anything could be used in a mass murder and through doing so comparing guns to, say, knives and cars.

    (Original post by joecphillips)
    There has been at least one knife attack with 30+ deaths and over a 100 injured in China and in japan there was this not quite Vegas but it’s more fatalities than the parklands shooting based on the last numbers I have seen, so knife attacks can be deadly even if you aren’t a superhero.
    What you've not read is that those murders were carried out in a care facility to victims that were in their sleep.

    I could have killed the same amount by smothering them with a pillow. What are you going to say next? That pillows are just as dangerous as guns?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    Australia has not had mass shootings since the change. And from that chart I can see a very clear decrease.

    Gun laws are designed to reduce gun homicides. That's it. If gun homicides decrease as a result, that's a positive. You cant ask why any other type of homicide is better because the precedent is that guns and knives/other weapons are actual alternatives. They're not. Theyre both different in nature of execution and theres no evidence to suggest that stricter gun laws leads to an increase in other types of homicide.

    I can also flip it. why are you so against increased gun laws, because thats suggesting guns are a better way to die than knives.
    Going to source data the top graph is dodgy in that pre ban it has HUNDREDS of homicides that are not on the official statistics, looking at the offical stats we see the same trend happening with hands and feet:

    What hand and feet regulation caused that? We also see knife/sharp implement bucking the trend and not actually decreasing at all

    We also have a comparison between the gun homicide and overall homicide in the US where the former is correlated to gun ownership but the latter is not. The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that non gun homicide is also correlated to ownership, unless you can explain how it is that overall homicide can be largely unaffected when gun homicide falls.

    There are two options to explain why gun control has no effect on homicide rate trends, either the regulations do nothing to prevent gun homicides (in which case it's regulation for the sake of regulation) or alternatively other forms of homicide go up to compensate for the decrease/accelerated decrease/slowed increase in gun homicide rates. Choose which one you want.

    You can flip it but the argument doesn't really work when you're not trying to say that x decreases y. Being shot is no better or worse than being stabbed, or bludgeoned, or strangled, or anything else. I'm against increased gun control and some of the existing gun control because the evidence points to it being regulation for the sake of regulation, that is that there is no positive outcome unless fewer guns is seen as inherently positive, and regulation for the sake of regulation should be avoided.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    People will always find a way to murder others if they have that mindset. I never said the problem wasn't murder. My point is guns serve no purpose other than destruction. For that reason, I see no reason to legalise them.
    The murder rate in Mexico is many, many times that in the US. Only a few of those homicides are committed with firearms however. The land area of the entire Uk [both irelands, isle of man, shetland, etc] is about 10% smaller than Nevada. The population is about [last i checked], about 1.8 times that of California. A more realistic comparison of homicide rates would be to compare 1.8 times the California rate to the Uk. Doubt my statistics? Consult the FBI crime data base, or your national statistics register, as appropriate.

    How would you explain the facts that EVERY state and municipality that legalized 'shall issue' - i.e. requiring the issuance of concealed carry permits to non-felony convicted, law abiding citizens in the US, saw a reduction in many crime rates, including homicide, armed robbery, felonious assault, and burglary. These reductions have persisted ever since 'concealed carry' was made legal for honest citizens. Obviously, since criminals will pay absolutely NO attention to your silly laws, the only people affected are the honest, law abiding ones. By arming some of them, you obviously stack the deck (to a limited degree) against the criminals, because the honest citizens can now match the criminals force with equal force. The prospect of being shot - regardless of how remote - has (according to convicted felons) proven a considerable deterrent against burglaries and armed robberies, because; "Hey, man - i don't wanna be shot"!! Cheers.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rabbit2)
    How would you explain the facts that EVERY state and municipality that legalized 'shall issue' - i.e. requiring the issuance of concealed carry permits to non-felony convicted, law abiding citizens in the US, saw a reduction in many crime rates, including homicide, armed robbery, felonious assault, and burglary. These reductions have persisted ever since 'concealed carry' was made legal for honest citizens.

    Obviously, since criminals will pay absolutely NO attention to your silly laws, the only people affected are the honest, law abiding ones. By arming some of them, you obviously stack the deck (to a limited degree) against the criminals, because the honest citizens can now match the criminals force with equal force. The prospect of being shot - regardless of how remote - has (according to convicted felons) proven a considerable deterrent against burglaries and armed robberies, because; "Hey, man - i don't wanna be shot"!! Cheers.
    You seemed to have missed my point. Guns have no purpose other than the threat of destruction, and destruction itself. You've provided nothing to counter that.

    It is not for me to explain statistics that I was not a part of creating, from a foreign country and culture that I am not familiar with, nor wish to be.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "your silly laws" since I personally have no laws of my own, and I do not pretend to speak on behalf of anyone but myself.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    You seemed to have missed my point. Guns have no purpose other than the threat of destruction, and destruction itself. You've provided nothing to counter that.

    It is not for me to explain statistics that I was not a part of creating, from a foreign country and culture that I am not familiar with, nor wish to be.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "your silly laws" since I personally have no laws of my own, and I do not pretend to speak on behalf of anyone but myself.
    I would think that 'your silly laws' meaning would be obvious: Specifically: "All you law abiding citizens are prohibited from owning or possessing weapons to defend yourselves with. All you criminals can be armed to the teeth, with anything you can buy down in the nearest alley [probably from the same people you are buying your illegal drugs from]." If you criminals are caught with weapons, you will be leniently dealt with - probably involving probation. You 'law abiding types' will be severely dealt with - involving jail sentences, regardless of your not having a previous criminal record. [You DO know what 'law abiding types' means, don't you, or do i have to define that too???
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rabbit2)
    I would think that 'your silly laws' meaning would be obvious: Specifically: "All you law abiding citizens are prohibited from owning or possessing weapons to defend yourselves with. All you criminals can be armed to the teeth, with anything you can buy down in the nearest alley [probably from the same people you are buying your illegal drugs from]." If you criminals are caught with weapons, you will be leniently dealt with - probably involving probation. You 'law abiding types' will be severely dealt with - involving jail sentences, regardless of your not having a previous criminal record. [You DO know what 'law abiding types' means, don't you, or do i have to define that too???
    Okay so you're assuming that I am a fan of the UK law and as a result it should be attributed to be "mine". You assume wrong.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Going to source data the top graph is dodgy in that pre ban it has HUNDREDS of homicides that are not on the official statistics, looking at the offical stats we see the same trend happening with hands and feet:

    What hand and feet regulation caused that? We also see knife/sharp implement bucking the trend and not actually decreasing at all

    We also have a comparison between the gun homicide and overall homicide in the US where the former is correlated to gun ownership but the latter is not. The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that non gun homicide is also correlated to ownership, unless you can explain how it is that overall homicide can be largely unaffected when gun homicide falls.

    There are two options to explain why gun control has no effect on homicide rate trends, either the regulations do nothing to prevent gun homicides (in which case it's regulation for the sake of regulation) or alternatively other forms of homicide go up to compensate for the decrease/accelerated decrease/slowed increase in gun homicide rates. Choose which one you want.

    You can flip it but the argument doesn't really work when you're not trying to say that x decreases y. Being shot is no better or worse than being stabbed, or bludgeoned, or strangled, or anything else. I'm against increased gun control and some of the existing gun control because the evidence points to it being regulation for the sake of regulation, that is that there is no positive outcome unless fewer guns is seen as inherently positive, and regulation for the sake of regulation should be avoided.
    You still don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that other homicides are irrelevant. If you can prove people are switching from guns to other forms, then maybe we can talk. But the fact that overall homicides are falling is affected by too many other variables such as growing incomes, growth of the middle class and gentrification etc etc.

    There's an awful lot of waffle that ignores my points here to be honest. Gun control has an affect on gum homicides. That's something even this graph you pulled out proves too, as well as basic logic.

    You also cannot throw the idea that regulation for the sake of regulation is not necessary. You think that's libertarian, it's just anarchism. Being shot is no better, you're right, so why not make it harder for people to kill with a gun? Once again, you need to PROVE using logic why people are switching from guns to knives. If someone was hypothetically going to kill someone with a gun, but no longer had that gun, they may not necessarily use another means of killing. Because guns are weapons designed to kill and serves no other purpose.

    The evidence does not support you. Drop that load of crap. Mass shootings and gun homicides decrease with increased regulation. Saying "homicides are decreasing anyway" just shows you dont seem to understand that there are too many external factors that affect overall homicide rates, especially when guns already make up a small proportion of killings. I've said this many times, and yet you have not said otherwise.

    You're not arguing or providing rebuttal. You ignore my core points and waffle on in an attempt to wear me down. I have stuff to do and I will not be continuing this argument if you reply with another fallacious load of crap.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    You still don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that other homicides are irrelevant. If you can prove people are switching from guns to other forms, then maybe we can talk. But the fact that overall homicides are falling is affected by too many other variables such as growing incomes, growth of the middle class and gentrification etc etc.

    There's an awful lot of waffle that ignores my points here to be honest. Gun control has an affect on gum homicides. That's something even this graph you pulled out proves too, as well as basic logic.

    You also cannot throw the idea that regulation for the sake of regulation is not necessary. You think that's libertarian, it's just anarchism. Being shot is no better, you're right, so why not make it harder for people to kill with a gun? Once again, you need to PROVE using logic why people are switching from guns to knives. If someone was hypothetically going to kill someone with a gun, but no longer had that gun, they may not necessarily use another means of killing. Because guns are weapons designed to kill and serves no other purpose.

    The evidence does not support you. Drop that load of crap. Mass shootings and gun homicides decrease with increased regulation. Saying "homicides are decreasing anyway" just shows you dont seem to understand that there are too many external factors that affect overall homicide rates, especially when guns already make up a small proportion of killings. I've said this many times, and yet you have not said otherwise.

    You're not arguing or providing rebuttal. You ignore my core points and waffle on in an attempt to wear me down. I have stuff to do and I will not be continuing this argument if you reply with another fallacious load of crap.
    I've noticed you're not part of a party so would you like to join the Mhoc and join a party?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    I've noticed you're not part of a party so would you like to join the Mhoc and join a party?
    Id love to! how do I go about this?
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    Id love to! how do I go about this?
    Hi if you’re interested https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=2443718 post on here clarifying some of your economic and social views and if you have any preference for which party to join ( we currently have 6: Libertarians, Conservatives, Labour, Liberal, National Conservatives and Socialists)
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    Id love to! how do I go about this?
    See this post (ignore the emojis, wasn't written by me).
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    You still don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that other homicides are irrelevant. If you can prove people are switching from guns to other forms, then maybe we can talk. But the fact that overall homicides are falling is affected by too many other variables such as growing incomes, growth of the middle class and gentrification etc etc.

    There's an awful lot of waffle that ignores my points here to be honest. Gun control has an affect on gum homicides. That's something even this graph you pulled out proves too, as well as basic logic.

    You also cannot throw the idea that regulation for the sake of regulation is not necessary. You think that's libertarian, it's just anarchism. Being shot is no better, you're right, so why not make it harder for people to kill with a gun? Once again, you need to PROVE using logic why people are switching from guns to knives. If someone was hypothetically going to kill someone with a gun, but no longer had that gun, they may not necessarily use another means of killing. Because guns are weapons designed to kill and serves no other purpose.

    The evidence does not support you. Drop that load of crap. Mass shootings and gun homicides decrease with increased regulation. Saying "homicides are decreasing anyway" just shows you dont seem to understand that there are too many external factors that affect overall homicide rates, especially when guns already make up a small proportion of killings. I've said this many times, and yet you have not said otherwise.

    You're not arguing or providing rebuttal. You ignore my core points and waffle on in an attempt to wear me down. I have stuff to do and I will not be continuing this argument if you reply with another fallacious load of crap.
    The absurdity of "all that matters is gun homicide" can be addressed with one simple hyperbolic hypothetical: if you have two otherwise equal countries a country with 1 gun homicide and no non gun homicides would be superior to one with no gun homicides but a million non gun homicides. It is an absurd position that is only used because to look at the wider picture completely destroys the argument. There is a reason why the fact that the measures in question do nothing overall is swatted away rather than tackled head on.

    Removing regulations that are there for the sake of being there is not anarchistic, that would be removing regulations whether they're justified or not, I'm rather interested in justifying why a hypothetical regulation that objectively does nothing should be maintained simply for the sake of it.

    As for why people are using knives rather than guns? I have a very simple and logical proposition: because they can still easily get hold of a knife, if I wanted to kill somebody I wouldn't really care whether I'm shooting them in the chest or stabbing them in the neck, the effect is the same

    In terms of looking at continuing trends it's interesting how you say about how there are lots of external factors, consequently the more complex solution is the better one, contrary to Occam's Razor. Which presents the simpler solution: that pre existing trends continued despite regulation, or that the preexisting trend would have stopped and that the regulations completely counteracted this. I'm interested to hear what it is that caused this stopping of the trend given it was not solely in Australia it happened, the same was seen in New Zealand, America, Canada, France, Italy and is wholly consistent with what we know of the relationship between crime and economic conditions.

    You can dismiss it all as "fallacious crap" if you want, it would fit entirely with your position so far which is to dismiss any evidence against you as fallacy or otherwise not worth listening to instead of considering the argument at hand and actually explaining why it is that guns should be banned for the sake of keeping people alive when the evidence points to this not being the case.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The absurdity of "all that matters is gun homicide" can be addressed with one simple hyperbolic hypothetical: if you have two otherwise equal countries a country with 1 gun homicide and no non gun homicides would be superior to one with no gun homicides but a million non gun homicides. It is an absurd position that is only used because to look at the wider picture completely destroys the argument. There is a reason why the fact that the measures in question do nothing overall is swatted away rather than tackled head on.

    Removing regulations that are there for the sake of being there is not anarchistic, that would be removing regulations whether they're justified or not, I'm rather interested in justifying why a hypothetical regulation that objectively does nothing should be maintained simply for the sake of it.

    As for why people are using knives rather than guns? I have a very simple and logical proposition: because they can still easily get hold of a knife, if I wanted to kill somebody I wouldn't really care whether I'm shooting them in the chest or stabbing them in the neck, the effect is the same

    In terms of looking at continuing trends it's interesting how you say about how there are lots of external factors, consequently the more complex solution is the better one, contrary to Occam's Razor. Which presents the simpler solution: that pre existing trends continued despite regulation, or that the preexisting trend would have stopped and that the regulations completely counteracted this. I'm interested to hear what it is that caused this stopping of the trend given it was not solely in Australia it happened, the same was seen in New Zealand, America, Canada, France, Italy and is wholly consistent with what we know of the relationship between crime and economic conditions.

    You can dismiss it all as "fallacious crap" if you want, it would fit entirely with your position so far which is to dismiss any evidence against you as fallacy or otherwise not worth listening to instead of considering the argument at hand and actually explaining why it is that guns should be banned for the sake of keeping people alive when the evidence points to this not being the case.
    I feel like you're either wilfully ignorant or just incapable of arguing.

    Let me break it down for you:

    - Stricter gun laws lead to fewer gun homicides and mass shootings.

    -Your extreme analogy of countries doesnt prove anything. It just shows you think we believe gun laws will miraculously get rid of all homicides. And the fact that you resorted to such an extreme hypothetical is just telling of how flimsy your argument is and that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for an argument.

    - Gun laws tackle gun homicide. That's it. Saying that gun laws are ineffective because it does not reduce overall homicide is, again, ignoring a multitude of other factors. A point you seem to not understand and refute.

    - Guns are weapons designed solely to kill, and requires a pulling of the trigger. It's far more effective and knives are require a more personal interaction to kill, is more humanised, which is why they arent necessarily direct substitutes. Knives also serve many other uses.

    - Even if potential killers use knives instead of guns, that's not an argument against gun laws. As long as fewer people are dying with guns, that's a success. Knives can be tackled through more stop and search and restrictions on large knives, like in China.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    I feel like you're either wilfully ignorant or just incapable of arguing.

    Let me break it down for you:

    - Stricter gun laws lead to fewer gun homicides and mass shootings.

    -Your extreme analogy of countries doesnt prove anything. It just shows you think we believe gun laws will miraculously get rid of all homicides. And the fact that you resorted to such an extreme hypothetical is just telling of how flimsy your argument is and that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for an argument.

    - Gun laws tackle gun homicide. That's it. Saying that gun laws are ineffective because it does not reduce overall homicide is, again, ignoring a multitude of other factors. A point you seem to not understand and refute.

    - Guns are weapons designed solely to kill, and requires a pulling of the trigger. It's far more effective and knives are require a more personal interaction to kill, is more humanised, which is why they arent necessarily direct substitutes. Knives also serve many other uses.

    - Even if potential killers use knives instead of guns, that's not an argument against gun laws. As long as fewer people are dying with guns, that's a success. Knives can be tackled through more stop and search and restrictions on large knives, like in China.
    There we go, you refused to answer very simple questions because they don't support your position. Let's cut it down to two , one simple and one hard:
    Which hypothetical is better?
    What caused the end of the downward trend in homicide rates in Australia after the buyback?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    There we go, you refused to answer very simple questions because they don't support your position. Let's cut it down to two , one simple and one hard:
    Which hypothetical is better?
    What caused the end of the downward trend in homicide rates in Australia after the buyback?
    I'll answer (these irrelevant questions that in principal has nothing to do with this argument) as soon as you've addressed my core points that ive had to repeat more than 3 times yet you ignore.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Caesar333)
    I'll answer (these irrelevant questions that in principal has nothing to do with this argument) as soon as you've addressed my core points that ive had to repeat more than 3 times yet you ignore.
    The first question is wholly related to your "core argument", if you say that the million dead is better then you just confirm that you blindly are opposed to guns no matter what effect they have, if you say the one then you've dealt with it yourself and accepted that the method of killing is less important than whether somebody lives or dies.
    The second question deals with your absurd assertion that trends consistent with much of the rest of the world and the relationship between economic conditions and crime are irrelevant because there are other factors involved and instead propose the more complex explanation is superior, answering the question solidly wins you that one.

    Given you clearly failed to read the notes of the bills, or pretty much any of the debate including in response to your own reasoning let's go through it again:

    For your first 3 points they are irrelevant and specifically look at statistics that support your position rather than the wider picture, the goal should not be to reduce one section of a particular crime statistic, it should be to reduce the whole statistic, whether somebody is stabbed, shot, strangled, or bludgeoned they're still dead, the wife and kids aren't going to go "well at least they weren't shot". Further we saw an increase in crimes involving a firearm post ban, further firearms used for homicides are near universally not licenced, in other words the law has done jack and gun homicides increased post ban:


    Next we get that guns are solely to kill, if that were the case then clay pigeon shooting wouldn't be a thing and shooting definitely wouldn't be involved in either the Summer or Winter Olympics, and shooting ranges would not exist as we generally know them, in exactly the same vein bows and arrows exist "solely" to kill people and yet as far as I can find are complete unlicenced.

    As for the last point see rebuttal 1, you're basically just saying yet again "looking at homicide as a whole is irrelevant to dealing with homicide rates"
 
 
 
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.