Turn on thread page Beta

US gun law watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    The US gun laws are a mess. If you were the age of 18 and wanted to buy a beer you would have to wait until you were 21 but if you wanted to shoot 17 people in cold blood you could buy a gun from the local gun store and start shooting.
    It’s hardly just gun laws that are that way; you can join the military before you can have sex in certain states and you can be killed in combat before you’d be eligible to play in the NBA/NFL.

    (Original post by Drewski)
    If, and only if, you've been trained in how to use them.

    And even then, not very.



    The NYPD, a force put under incredible pressure due to massive focus in the 90s and 00s, made the shooting accuracy of its members public.

    It's 18%.

    And these are people who are trained to fire well under extreme pressure and use tactics.

    The average member of public? You've got no hope. You're far more of a liability. All you'll do is get yourself killed in the process - and most likely another innocent person too.
    If someone with a gun breaks into your house it’s still better to have a gun than to not have one. While the police may have accuracy issues in a home invasion you’re talking about very close quarter shooting so the accuracy is likely to go up. Not only that but your statistic is either wrong or outdated:

    ‘According to a 2008 analysis of NYPD firearms discharge data done by the New York Times, between 1996-2006 officers hit their intended target about 34 percent of the time.’

    ‘The Times reported that in 2006-2007, Los Angeles police officers hit their targets between 27 and 29 percent of the time, respectively. There is no reliable national data on hit ratio.’
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    While the police may have accuracy issues in a home invasion you’re talking about very close quarter shooting so the accuracy is likely to go up
    No, it's actually going to go down.

    When experiencing extreme stress like that your body will flood with adrenaline, causing you to shake. Those trained in weapons and tactics may be able to control and negate the effect, but rank amateurs don't stand a chance. By far the most likely result of confronting a home invader with a firearm is having them take that firearm from you.

    I was in the armed forces, I've seen it happen and been trained by those who know the score.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    If someone with a gun breaks into your house it’s still better to have a gun than to not have one. While the police may have accuracy issues in a home invasion you’re talking about very close quarter shooting so the accuracy is likely to go up. Not only that but your statistic is either wrong or outdated:

    ‘According to a 2008 analysis of NYPD firearms discharge data done by the New York Times, between 1996-2006 officers hit their intended target about 34 percent of the time.’

    ‘The Times reported that in 2006-2007, Los Angeles police officers hit their targets between 27 and 29 percent of the time, respectively. There is no reliable national data on hit ratio.’
    but if there were stricter gun laws surely there would be a far lower chance of someone breaking into your house with a gun. (see aforementioned reasoning)?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    No, it's actually going to go down.

    When experiencing extreme stress like that your body will flood with adrenaline, causing you to shake. Those trained in weapons and tactics may be able to control and negate the effect, but rank amateurs don't stand a chance. By far the most likely result of confronting a home invader with a firearm is having them take that firearm from you.
    1. Around 60% of gun owners have received ‘formal’ training - it’s reasonable to imagine that when you also include informal training that number goes up.
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.t...-training/amp/
    2. Where’s the evidence to back up your last sentence?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BDE)
    but if there were stricter gun laws surely there would be a far lower chance of someone breaking into your house with a gun. (see aforementioned reasoning)?
    Why? The overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with illegally possessed weapons, I don’t see how taking legally owned guns away addresses that. All your left with is a situation where only criminals have guns.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I just believe banning in guns from not just the general public but also from the police as well. Here’s an interesting article I found and I hope this may help in this entire debate: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8216301.html. (The source compares hows different countries enforced their legislation of gun law.)
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    1. Around 60% of gun owners have received ‘formal’ training - it’s reasonable to imagine that when you also include informal training that number goes up.
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.t...-training/amp/
    2. Where’s the evidence to back up your last sentence?
    Seen on a US news show. Trying to find citation.

    But first part also known from personal experience with weaponry and weapon training.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Seen on a US news show. Trying to find citation.

    But first part also known from personal experience with weaponry and weapon training.
    I’d be interested to see that as I was reading something saying that gathering any reliable data on ‘home invasions’ is difficult.

    I don’t doubt that adrenaline impacts your ability to shoot but the accuracy of the police was misquoted, it’s actually nearer 30% and 60% of Americans have had formal training
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I’d be interested to see that as I was reading something saying that gathering any reliable data on ‘home invasions’ is difficult.

    I don’t doubt that adrenaline impacts your ability to shoot but the accuracy of the police was misquoted, it’s actually nearer 30% and 60% of Americans have had formal training
    30% is still shocking, and that formal training is not going to be anything like as regular or as rigorous as police or armed forces training. With emphasis on the regular.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    30% is still shocking, and that formal training is not going to be anything like as regular or as rigorous as police or armed forces training. With emphasis on the regular.
    I know that and I’m not claiming the average person will be as good a shot as a soldier/police officer but shooting at close range is easier and the majority of Americans have had some training in using a gun
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BDE)
    So lots of the students from the Florida school where there was the awful shooting are marching on Washington to demand for change to us gun law. I think this is great news but what about you? What do you think should happen with US gun law and why, and what do you think will happen ultimately?
    I also think it's great news that the students are trying to do something about this - who better to do it than the students themselves?

    As much as I think that guns should be banned, ultimately I think it will be a very long time until this happens. The NRA, who completely oppose such changes in gun laws have too much influence in politics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by So-Sarah)
    the same way that you could drive a van into people, yet they are not banned
    try again please
    Yes people can use a van to kill people but thats not the point! Cars are used by bad people to kill. Guns are made to kill!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 14kem)
    I also think it's great news that the students are trying to do something about this - who better to do it than the students themselves?

    As much as I think that guns should be banned, ultimately I think it will be a very long time until this happens. The NRA, who completely oppose such changes in gun laws have too much influence in politics.
    Agreed, I've read that the nra have "donated" an awful lot of money to trump, effectively as a bribe.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I believe that there are some big things to take into consideration. People already have guns in their power, and government cannot control that. But this children should be heard. There are a lot of different measures that can be applied to the gun law. I think that kidd having easy access to guns in their houses is a big problem. Just details as making it obligatory to keep guns shut down in safe boxes that only open with finger prints (kidd can easily hack numbers). But is also about changing minds. Changing the way in which guns at home are perceived and what is their ultimate and main purpose. DEFENSE.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Are you honestly trying to compare a van - a mainstay of the economy and work force and most assuredly not simply a tool of death to a firearm, which is only a tool of death?
    A firearm is a tool of defence, deterrent, just as the nuclear weapon is.

    IN fact, most times, a firearm actually creates PEACE
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by So-Sarah)
    A firearm is a tool of defence, deterrent, just as the nuclear weapon is.

    IN fact, most times, a firearm actually creates PEACE
    Do you have any statistics to prove that "most of the time, a firearm actually creates PEACE"?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by So-Sarah)
    A firearm is a tool of defence, deterrent, just as the nuclear weapon is.

    IN fact, most times, a firearm actually creates PEACE
    What an absolute load of rubbish.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by So-Sarah)
    IN fact, most times, a firearm actually creates PEACE
    The fact that america has a grossly high number of gun related deaths relative to the rest of the world shows that it isn't the case here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43138544

    An interesting read, particuarly in hearing the student's direct perspectives.
    What do you guys think about trump planning on banning the so called 'bump stocks'. Whilst it's great news, the sceptical side of me feels it's just for him to be able to say he's done something towards stricter gun control - a comfortable middle ground for him by somewhat reducing the number of calls for stricter gun control whilst still being able to recieve the 'generous sponsership' from the National Riffle Association.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BDE)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43138544

    An interesting read, particuarly in hearing the student's direct perspectives.
    What do you guys think about trump planning on banning the so called 'bump stocks'. Whilst it's great news, the sceptical side of me feels it's just for him to be able to say he's done something towards stricter gun control - a comfortable middle ground for him by somewhat reducing the number of calls for stricter gun control whilst still being able to recieve the 'generous sponsership' from the National Riffle Association.
    While the banning of any tool capable of increasing the lethality of a firearm so signficantly and cheaply can only be a good thing, this is Trump banning something that really should already have been banned (for those unaware, a bump stock allows a semi-automatic firearm to fire at speeds well in the range of an automatic weapon) as a token gesture without actually addressing the underlying issue- american schoolkids aren't going to feel a whole lot safer just because a gunman can no longer kill them with quite the same level of terrifying efficiency. He's trying to do the bare minimum in the hopes of appeasing opponents without ruffling the feathers of his supporters.
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources

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.