Turn on thread page Beta

Why do people oppose gun laws? watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Surely our experience of the last couple of years in this country is that mass killing does not require legal firearms. You can kill just as many defenceless people with a van or a kitchen knife.

    Islamic terrorists have murdered scores of people in this country with vehicles, and scores of people in continental Europe with illegal firearms. Legally held weapons would appear to be irrelevant.

    If terrorists simply adapt to laws preventing them from legally obtaining firearms - why would anyone believe that a potential school shooter wouldn't simply do the same?

    Restriction of certain types of firearms might be desirable, but it is not solving the problem that is being asked.
    Comparing the US and country's with strict gun control, the difference in mass shooting numbers is substantial. I don't know how many were legally owned guns in the mass shootings but if guns are readily available to be purchased or with a greater number in circulation, easier to get one's hands on - that certainly increases the chance of such a shooting.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ax12)
    We do have guns.
    Yes, but you can't carry them on your person at any time or else they are illegally obtained.

    So not really.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chichaldo)
    Comparing the US and country's with strict gun control, the difference in mass shooting numbers is substantial. I don't know how many were legally owned guns in the mass shootings but if guns are readily available to be purchased or with a greater number in circulation, easier to get one's hands on - that certainly increases the chance of such a shooting.
    There is simply too much to debate, and the problem is the whole issue has become hijacked by people wanting to make emotional political points - blaming "Republicans" and all sorts of bizarre claims.

    The starting point has to be - "what are you actually suggesting?"

    What does gun control mean to you? Does in mean restrictions on some types of firearms, restrictions on purchase, or are you looking at a total ban on civilian held firearms?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Put yourself in the position of someone living in the United States - a society saturated with firearms - where your perception is that criminals are generally armed.

    Your perception will be that if your legal firearms are removed, you will become figurative cattle to any criminal who will be completely unaffected by a ban on firearms.

    Also, put yourself in the mentality of someone who is wedded to the idea of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is there to protect people from tyranny. This may seem bizarre to us - but they don't see it like that. It seems circular to us, but the sort of oppression they fear would be something like the Federal government moving to take people's weapons away - and they have these weapons for that very reason. The larger rationale (which I think has some merit) would be that if they would remove one Constitutional Freedom, there is nothing preventing them removing others.

    Assume for a second that all legal firearms were removed. There would probably still be school massacres - although sure, there would probably be fewer - but every single day the news would be saturated with reports of murder, home invasion, rape and so on and the implication would be that people were left defenceless. A society can't tolerate that kind of constant barrage of bad news. It would be like getting rid of speed limits or making all drugs legal here- regardless of the long term, the short and medium term would be intolerable and political suicide.
    Honestly, an absolutely fantastic summary.

    Just to add to this, the UK and America have completely different geographies. Here, if you live in the countryside, emergency services can generally reach you pretty quickly. In America, such a vast open country, if someone breaks into your home at night, you will not see emergency services for at least 1-2 hours.

    Now ask yourself, if you're in that position, would you feel safer with or without a gun? Cattle in a house or at least somewhat defensible?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    The scenarios are too terrible to contemplate. If a school shooter is forced to use different tactics, who is to say how lethal they would become? Lock themselves in a classroom with 30 6 year olds and a knife? Drive a van through a sportsday? Set fire to a school? You don't know. You're assuming that murderers are not capable of adaptation.

    All this also assumes that a person with such intent would not simply obtain an illegal firearm.
    There's a thing called Statistical likelihood. These things are possible, however:

    'Setting fire to a school' - extremely unlikely it would go unnoticed. Fire alarm?

    'Driving a van through a sportsday' - Sportsdays are usually held in fields away from roads or in halls, it would be pretty obvious if a car was heading towards you. - Very unlikely

    'Lock themselves in a classroom with 30 6 year olds and a knife?' - Would take a lot of effort and planning to walk unnoticed through a school. - Very Unlikely and history says it almost never happens in the UK.

    Way easier to just pick up a gun and go for it. That's likely and US statistics show it. UK gun crime will never be zero, but it's far, far lower than the US.

    I will concede that Vans are becoming more of a weapon recently, however even then. The London bridge attacks are dwarfed by the recent US School shootingin terms of death toll. Bollards have been put up on London Bridge.

    With Vans, you have to have a learners permit, licence, proficiency test, not to mention insurance. There are several layers of complexity with it that again decrease the likelihood of someone going to the bother of actually doing all that.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    There's a thing called Statistical likelihood. These things are possible, however:

    'Setting fire to a school' - extremely unlikely it would go unnoticed. Fire alarm?

    'Driving a van through a sportsday' - Sportsdays are usually held in fields away from roads or in halls, it would be pretty obvious if a car was heading towards you. - Very unlikely

    'Lock themselves in a classroom with 30 6 year olds and a knife?' - Would take a lot of effort and planning to walk unnoticed through a school. - Very Unlikely and history says it almost never happens in the UK.

    Way easier to just pick up a gun and go for it. That's likely and US statistics show it. UK gun crime will never be zero, but it's far, far lower than the US.

    I will concede that Vans are becoming more of a weapon recently, however even then. The London bridge attacks are dwarfed by the recent US School shootingin terms of death toll. Bollards have been put up on London Bridge.

    With Vans, you have to have a learners permit, licence, proficiency test, not to mention insurance. There are several layers of complexity with it that again decrease the likelihood of someone going to the bother of actually doing all that.
    Unlikely doesn't mean not gonna happen.
    We shouldn't settle for probably not gonna happen instead of not gonna happen at all.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    There's a thing called Statistical likelihood. These things are possible, however:

    'Setting fire to a school' - extremely unlikely it would go unnoticed. Fire alarm?

    'Driving a van through a sportsday' - Sportsdays are usually held in fields away from roads or in halls, it would be pretty obvious if a car was heading towards you. - Very unlikely

    'Lock themselves in a classroom with 30 6 year olds and a knife?' - Would take a lot of effort and planning to walk unnoticed through a school. - Very Unlikely and history says it almost never happens in the UK.

    Way easier to just pick up a gun and go for it. That's likely and US statistics show it. UK gun crime will never be zero, but it's far, far lower than the US.
    School shooters do exactly this. They walk through schools shooting people. Why would it be more difficult with a knife than with a gun?

    I will concede that Vans are becoming more of a weapon recently, however even then. The London bridge attacks are dwarfed by the recent US School shootingin terms of death toll. Bollards have been put up on London Bridge.
    This is a nonsense. Environmental measures like bollards are pointless. You cannot protect people from vehicular attacks with bollards - the killer will just switch to an alternate target. The queue at Madame Tussauds, or any one of a million other soft targets in the country.

    The main issue is proliferation. A gun attack in any country - even the US is relatively difficult to do - because not everyone has a gun, ammunition or the ability to use them. Pretty much everyone can drive a car.

    With Vans, you have to have a learners permit, licence, proficiency test, not to mention insurance. There are several layers of complexity with it that again decrease the likelihood of someone going to the bother of actually doing all that.
    Are you actually a serious person?

    Let's say I'm a terrorist in the UK or Israel, or a person intent on vehicular homicide in the US.....you think I'm going to be concerned with insurance for the car or van I'm going to use to murder people with?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    They care more about their enjoyment of guns than the lives of innocent people. It really is that simple.
    it's so much more complicated than that. it's hard for us to emphatise because guns aren't in our culture but they are DEEPLY culturally attached to guns and they dont want to give in to evil nutters and letting them 'win' by losing their gun rights.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    Yes, but you can't carry them on your person at any time or else they are illegally obtained.

    So not really.
    This has no bearing whatsoever.

    Take the Florida shooting - the killer used a rifle. Concealed carry would have been impossible and also have required a CC permit, and open carry is not allowed in Florida.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Radioactivedecay)
    Unlikely doesn't mean not gonna happen.
    We shouldn't settle for probably not gonna happen instead of not gonna happen at all.
    "Unlikely doesn't mean not gonna happen."

    Correct. However at the same time, graphite doesn't spontaneously convert into diamond. It potentially could, however, the gibbs free energy is positive and therefore makes it unbelievably unlikely to happen under normal conditions. It's as close to zero chance of happening as it gets. We call this 'impossible'.

    Just because something can happen doesn't mean it is likely to. Maths.

    "We shouldn't settle for probably not gonna happen instead of not gonna happen at all."

    You can never stop crime at 100%. In the same way that Physicists can never be 100% accurate with their calculations. There'll always be a small amount of gun and knife violence. Which is why statistics are used. You can only reduce it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    This has no bearing whatsoever.

    Take the Florida shooting - the killer used a rifle. Concealed carry would have been impossible and also have required a CC permit, and open carry is not allowed in Florida.
    Yes, in the US. Not all states have banned and removed their guns, that's part of the problem.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    Yes, in the US.

    I'm talking about the UK.
    You're saying that you can't carry a gun here. Well, you can't carry a gun in Florida - but he did.

    This is the heart of the issue. What exactly is it that you want? Restrictions on guns, or a ban on all guns?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    School shooters do exactly this. They walk through schools shooting people. Why would it be more difficult with a knife than with a gun?



    This is a nonsense. Environmental measures like bollards are pointless. You cannot protect people from vehicular attacks with bollards - the killer will just switch to an alternate target. The queue at Madame Tussauds, or any one of a million other soft targets in the country.

    The main issue is proliferation. A gun attack in any country - even the US is relatively difficult to do - because not everyone has a gun, ammunition or the ability to use them. Pretty much everyone can drive a car.



    Are you actually a serious person?

    Let's say I'm a terrorist in the UK or Israel, or a person intent on vehicular homicide in the US.....you think I'm going to be concerned with insurance for the car or van I'm going to use to murder people with?
    Ah the old 'Ad hominem'.

    It's all about likelihood. Maybe they're not bothered, those things make the vehicle far harder to obtain though. It would require theft.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    You're saying that you can't carry a gun here. Well, you can't carry a gun in Florida - but he did.

    This is the heart of the issue. What exactly is it that you want? Restrictions on guns, or a ban on all guns?
    Not all states have banned and removed their guns, that's part of the problem.

    Total ban on all firearms and forced removal if necessary. Sure it would be hard, maybe even impossible. It would statistically decrease crime levels if done properly though.

    All you have to do is compare UK and US gun crime levels per capita to see the enormous difference.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    America gun laws have always just seemed so unbelievably moronic to me. Not just for the number of guns allowed, but for the inconsistent restrictions put in place. Ask any gun loving American why they need their gun and the majority will say personal defence. So then why are sawn off shotguns and silencers banned? Neither are going to be of any help in any of the shootings recently, but they're both brilliant things to have for home defence. (Yes, I realise they can both be obtained with a permit, but why should they be stricter than any other type of gun?)

    What's the easiest way to mow down crowds of people? Automatic weapons, so ban those sure... but then allow the use of bump stocks, which accomplish exactly the same thing?

    If they really insist on keeping guns, then whatever, it's their own countrymen being shot, but at least put some more sensible restrictions in.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    Not all states have banned and removed their guns, that's part of the problem.

    Total ban on all firearms and forced removal if necessary. Sure it would be hard, maybe even impossible. It would statistically decrease crime levels if done properly though.

    All you have to do is compare UK and US gun crime levels per capita to see the enormous difference.
    You're trying to reduce an incredibly complex issue to a simple decision.

    For a start - legality or not of firearms has no bearing on homicide rates - the largest determinant is the size of the urban population. Some states with very liberal gun ownership have the lowest gun homicide rates.

    I do accept that your argument is a valid one - which is better than most people, who just harp on about gun control but have no actual proposal.

    However- what you are suggesting is madness. Removing legal guns totally from the US is lunacy, and a recipe for anarchy and probably hugely increased levels of violence.

    Firstly -look at Australia. Banned firearms, only 1/3 of them were ever handed in - a total waste of time and money. The gun homicide rate in Australia fell slower over the same time period than it did in the US. How does that get explained?

    Second - "forced removal" ok - what you are suggesting here is seriously the precursor to civil war. No jokes. It really is. If you have armed people who believe they have a right enshrined in the Constitution to bear arms, and you try to take those arms by force - you are fulfilling their definition of tyranny. There would be unprecedented violence on an enormous scale. This would also have no effect whatsoever on the millions of illegally held weapons. So you would be penalising the law abiding and having no effect on criminals.

    Third - let's say you were successful in removing all legal weapons. How would you even begin to count the on going cost of people who become victims of crime because they have no means to protect themselves?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)

    Also, put yourself in the mentality of someone who is wedded to the idea of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is there to protect people from tyranny. This may seem bizarre to us - but they don't see it like that. It seems circular to us, but the sort of oppression they fear would be something like the Federal government moving to take people's weapons away - and they have these weapons for that very reason. The larger rationale (which I think has some merit) would be that if they would remove one Constitutional Freedom, there is nothing preventing them removing others.
    There's already precedent for amendments to the constitution to be revoked - the 18th amendment bans alcohol, the 21st reverses it. The 2nd amendment was, until relatively recently, seen as protecting the right of the individual states to armed militias, rather than for individuals to arm themselves. In any case, in the instance of civilians vs the government, the government has a lot more powerful hardware at its disposal!

    The reality is that there are lots of terrible arguments in favour of gun ownership, because people are more concerned about keeping their guns than reducing levels of violence. Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle in the USA and it's unlikely that situation could be reversed. Some of the posts in this thread about police response times and the like are nonsense - I've spent three years living in America and never felt the need to carry a weapon.

    I should probably add that I'm not actually averse guns, I was in the military and have done a reasonable amount of shooting. However, the situation in America is just lunacy.

    This video shows a pro-gun lobbyist nicely tie himself up in knots...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    There's already precedent for amendments to the constitution to be revoked - the 18th amendment bans alcohol, the 21st reverses it. The 2nd amendment was, until relatively recently, seen as protecting the right of the individual states to armed militias, rather than for individuals to arm themselves. In any case, in the instance of civilians vs the government, the government has a lot more powerful hardware at its disposal!

    The reality is that there are lots of terrible arguments in favour of gun ownership, because people are more concerned about keeping their guns than reducing levels of violence. Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle in the USA and it's unlikely that situation could be reversed. Some of the posts in this thread about police response times and the like are nonsense - I've spent three years living in America and never felt the need to carry a weapon.

    I should probably add that I'm not actually averse guns, I was in the military and have done a reasonable amount of shooting. However, the situation in America is just lunacy.

    This video shows a pro-gun lobbyist nicely tie himself up in knots...

    This is the biggest problem with the debate. Too many people are virtue signalling and doing the usual thing of conflating anyone who disagrees with them with a whole bunch of negatives.

    I am personally indifferent to guns. If handguns were legal in Britain again, I very much doubt I would seek to own one.

    However, this is completely different from believing that there is a brainlessly simple solution to gun violence in the US - which in true political fashion is the suggestion. The suggestions from celebrity and concerned parties that there is a simple solution to this is utterly moronic.

    This number of weapons cannot be simply removed. It's impossible. The closest analogue I can think of would be getting rid of the NHS. There would be widespread civil disorder, violence and the fall of the government.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    There is simply too much to debate, and the problem is the whole issue has become hijacked by people wanting to make emotional political points - blaming "Republicans" and all sorts of bizarre claims.

    The starting point has to be - "what are you actually suggesting?"

    What does gun control mean to you? Does in mean restrictions on some types of firearms, restrictions on purchase, or are you looking at a total ban on civilian held firearms?
    In my ideal world I would have a complete ban, disadvatages far outweigh the advantages imo
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Because their right to carry a gun is more important than a child's right to feel safe in school.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.