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 Good bloke)
    The first and most obvious benefit of a society in which nobody can legally own a gun is that nobody can die or be injured from accidental gunshot wounding unless they illegally hold a weapon (in which case they deserve no sympathy). The USA suffers over a thousand such deaths annually, the UK almost none.
    Again, not so in Austria, and Austria is the far better comparison because this is basically a more regulated Austrian system. The UK is also culturally more similar to Austria than America and culture plays a MASSIVE role in America's problems.

    Next?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with 2015 Jammy Duel!

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I think you miss the point, most of us would rather not see every idiot on the street with a gun because all that leads to is more gun crime and more homicides. Would that "unarmed woman" be armed if guns were legal? Maybe, maybe not, would the assailant, quite probably. And you seem to think that the only way anybody can kill is with a gun... Do you even lift, bro?
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which is why the homicide rate in the states is 4.7 and in the UK is 1, Europe as a whole, 3 Canada, 1.6. Oh, and that European figure is massively skewed by eastern Europe, particularly Russia. I suppose I could then be harsher and point out that southern and central America, along with most of sub Saharan Africa also have astonishingly high homicide rates, you know, where it's redistricting easy to get a gun? And do you honestly believe that an elderly female is likely to own a gun and be able to use it? Call me ageist and sexist all you like, but all you're proposing is putting guns in the hands of people that don't need protecting and those who people need protecting from. Posted from TSR Mobile

    https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho...489049&page=11
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I agree with 2015 Jammy Duel!
    Me too. He has gone to the Dark Side.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Me too. He has gone to the Dark Side.
    I'm just not sure how anyone can look at the UK and deem that our problem is we don't have enough guns.

    There are few things that the left, right and centre could all agree on but the UK's policy on gun ownership is probably as close as it gets.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I'm just not sure how anyone can look at the UK and deem that our problem is we don't have enough guns.

    There are few things that the left, right and centre could all agree on but the UK's policy on gun ownership is probably as close as it gets.
    I'd go along with that and would that our add our (English) abortion law is pretty widely supported across the spectrum, with only religious wowsers and a few ultra-feminists wanting significant change.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I agree with 2015 Jammy Duel!






    https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho...489049&page=11
    You fished out a two and a half year old post....that is kind sad and does not contribute one bit. I hear Dianne Abbott used to have a lovely afro, like her hair my views can change, especially after a thorough look at the evidence on both sides rather than simply accepting whatever the media overlords say

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Me too. He has gone to the Dark Side.
    So you have no other benefits to not having guns other than accidental shootings which don't happen in the closest parallel and are theoretically "impossible" under the bill. That's great, so do I have your support or are you going for blind ideology?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You fished out a two and a half year old post....that is kind sad and does not contribute one bit. I hear Dianne Abbott used to have a lovely afro, like her hair my views can change, especially after a thorough look at the evidence on both sides rather than simply accepting whatever the media overlords say



    So you have no other benefits to not having guns other than accidental shootings which don't happen in the closest parallel and are theoretically "impossible" under the bill. That's great, so do I have your support or are you going for blind ideology?
    So you took all your views from the media in 2015? How interesting. Who's to say the 2020 Jammy Duel won't do another 180?

    The 2015 version of you spoke a lot more sense. I agree with him.

    Quite why anyone thinks that this country desperately needs more guns, I'm really not sure. We seem to be getting on rather fine without.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    So you took all your views from the media in 2015? How interesting. Who's to say the 2020 Jammy Duel won't do another 180?

    The 2015 version of you spoke a lot more sense. I agree with him.

    Quite why anyone thinks that this country desperately needs more guns, I'm really not sure. We seem to be getting on rather fine without.
    Do you agree with the following statement: individual liberties should only be infringed to protect the liberties of others? Or a statement along similar lines, I'm not going to get far because you clearly don't believe that, or are unwilling to look at any data that goes against your world view, just like Good Bloke, Caeser333, 04Mr, Tommyboy and all the rest
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Do you agree with the following statement: individual liberties should only be infringed to protect the liberties of others? Or a statement along similar lines, I'm not going to get far because you clearly don't believe that, or are unwilling to look at any data that goes against your world view, just like Good Bloke, Caeser333, 04Mr, Tommyboy and all the rest
    I don't accept the premise of your argument, that guns come under 'individual liberties'.

    If you should be able to own a gun for reasons of 'individual liberties' then why shouldn't you be able to own a tank or a warplane?

    What I do know is that this country does not have a problem with guns and introducing more guns into the society poses an absolutely needless risk of opening the door. We don't need it.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I don't accept the premise of your argument, that guns come under 'individual liberties'.

    If you should be able to own a gun for reasons of 'individual liberties' then why shouldn't you be able to own a tank or a warplane?
    The funny thing about that is you can own a tank....they're actually quite interesting when it comes to tax and can be quite cheap.

    And almost by definition the right to a firearm does fall under individual liberties, it's just a liberty that many, such as yourself, will happily give up on; in a world without governments regulating things and taking away people's rights you would absolutely have the right to own firearms, the premise is undeniable.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    and are theoretically "impossible" under the bill. That's great, so do I have your support or are you going for blind ideology?
    Lots of thing which are theoretically impossible actually happen. The problem with lethal weapons is that the consequences of such things can be fatal, as many children, parents, innocent knockers on doors and visitors have found out to their cost.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The funny thing about that is you can own a tank....they're actually quite interesting when it comes to tax and can be quite cheap.

    And almost by definition the right to a firearm does fall under individual liberties, it's just a liberty that many, such as yourself, will happily give up on; in a world without governments regulating things and taking away people's rights you would absolutely have the right to own firearms, the premise is undeniable.
    It doesn't fall under any objective definition because the idea of 'individual liberties' is a somewhat political and subjective concept. To the extent that some people claim paying any tax is destroying their liberty...or whatever. Without the government interfering and regulating things I could own chemical weapons too. Does that mean they are destroying my liberty by not letting me have chemical weapons?

    The simple question to ask is, 'is there a pressing reason why we need more guns in the UK?' and the answer is quite simply no.

    I can't see any tangible good whatsoever coming from your proposals but they do increase the risk of more gun crime by pouring more guns into a society.

    Why the heck do you even want a gun?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    It doesn't fall under any objective definition because the idea of 'individual liberties' is a somewhat political and subjective concept. To the extent that some people claim paying any tax is destroying their liberty...or whatever. Without the government interfering and regulating things I could own chemical weapons too. Does that mean they are destroying my liberty by not letting me have chemical weapons?

    The simple question to ask is, 'is there a pressing reason why we need more guns in the UK?' and the answer is quite simply no.

    I can't see any tangible good whatsoever coming from your proposals but they do increase the risk of more gun crime by pouring more guns into a society.

    Why the heck do you even want a gun?
    More gun crime? You mean like after the ban came in? rate surged and didn't return to pre ban levels for over a decacde, same for gun homicides, and overall homicides are unchanged, the last point is consistent globally and as such supporting the ban is basically supporting it for the sake of it, it doesn't make anybody safer it merely infringes upon people's rights for no tangible benefit. Just because you personally don't enjoy something doesn't mean an inability to enjoy it should be imposed on others, how would you feel if I fudged some statistics and made an emotionally driven argument to ban football in the name of public health, you're clearly a fan?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Lots of thing which are theoretically impossible actually happen. The problem with lethal weapons is that the consequences of such things can be fatal, as many children, parents, innocent knockers on doors and visitors have found out to their cost.
    Do you have any Austrian figures or are you going to rely on American figures which I suspect you don't even have, or even just stick with the good old fashioned emotional argument, winning arguments through emotional manipulation rather than facts.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    More gun crime? You mean like after the ban came in? rate surged and didn't return to pre ban levels for over a decacde, same for gun homicides, and overall homicides are unchanged, the last point is consistent globally and as such supporting the ban is basically supporting it for the sake of it, it doesn't make anybody safer it merely infringes upon people's rights for no tangible benefit. Just because you personally don't enjoy something doesn't mean an inability to enjoy it should be imposed on others, how would you feel if I fudged some statistics and made an emotionally driven argument to ban football in the name of public health, you're clearly a fan?
    The more guns you have in society, the easier you make access to them. The easier it is for them to end up in the wrong hands.

    There's just absolutely no reason why we need guns and mere 'enjoyment' is not a sufficient reason to start allowing such deadly weapons into society. Our gun laws are perfectly fine. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

    Why can't I own chemical weapons? Why is the government infringing my right to own them?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This has gone to cessation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Division!

    Clear the lobbies!
 
 
 
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.