Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Well to suggest a gun has no other purpose than to shoot your classmates or any innocent people for that matter is ridiculous. Guns have uses beyond killing people. Besides, the point I was responding to was that you shouldn’t be able to get something that can kill so many people so easily, the overall utility wasn’t mentioned.

    Can you clarify what you mean by ‘assault rifle’, it’s quite a vague term that I suspect is used to make people have particular thoughts about the weapon. The real meaning of assault rifle is a selective fire rifle which is, of course, illegal in the US for virtually all civilians (unless you’re rich and can afford an automatic weapon registered before the ban).

    In 2016 General Motors spent $8.5m lobbying and the Alliance of Automobile Manufactures spent nearly $7.5m whilst the NRA spent just over $3m so that’s wrong; the car industry spends far more lobbying than the gun industry.

    What difference would it make if people had a pistol instead of a rifle? The overwhelming majority of murders and ‘mass shootings’ are carried out using semi automatic pistols. Add to that you can buy high capacity pistol magazines
    Poor comparison.

    Whenever there is something that has the potential to kill huge numbers of people, the benefits and drawbacks should be weighed to determine how necessary that item is.

    A country like America could not survive without cars, neither could Britain really. If the public cannot get from A to B then society cannot function properly in today's world. I would however be in favour of improving public transport so cars become less and less necessary.

    On the other hand, a society can definitely function without easy access to guns. The UK does, as do many, many others. You don't need a gun. Sure people can use them for recreational activities, but that it isn't a necessity like getting from a to b is.

    Plus as mentioned, the car lobbies don't object like crazy to motor laws which make the roads safer, like speed limits or the age at which a person can drive or wearing a seatbelt etc.

    The main difference is how you can turn a semi-automatic into a machine gun and fire 400-800 rounds per minute. Why should they be legal?

    Though I am in favour of banning all guns, or at least restricting them to the extent that the UK does.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    Cherry picking can be done both ways, Austria is a poster child for liberal gun laws, a country in which hollow point rounds are freely available and self defence is a good enough justification to have a gun yet mass shootings don't happen and they have a very low homicide rate. Similarly California, despite low ownership rates and strict gun control have had 23 mass shootings, similarly in the New England and New York, 18 by my count again despite strict laws and low ownership meanwhile many of the high ownership states and lax gun control states have very few or even none, even after accounting for population they remain very low. If we look at Texas, which has a bit of a reputation, we find only 14 shootings over the same time span despite barely being smaller than the other two regions examined. Florida and Georgia taken together only have 12, again lax control and higher ownership and again a similar population

    (Original post by Dheorl)
    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.
    They aren't, very little is banned the federal government just put massive costs on things, or sometimes not so massive, the tax stamp for a silencer is only $200, same for sawn off shotguns, registration with the ATF and $200.

    Same goes for automatic weapons, strictly speaking not banned but to legally own one you're looking upwards of $10,000, bump stocks come with trade offs, and Trump is pushing to ban them anyway
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Poor comparison.

    Whenever there is something that has the potential to kill huge numbers of people, the benefits and drawbacks should be weighed to determine how necessary that item is.

    A country like America could not survive without cars, neither could Britain really. If the public cannot get from A to B then society cannot function properly in today's world. I would however be in favour of improving public transport so cars become less and less necessary.

    On the other hand, a society can definitely function without easy access to guns. The UK does, as do many, many others. You don't need a gun. Sure people can use them for recreational activities, but that it isn't a necessity like getting from a to b is.

    Plus as mentioned, the car lobbies don't object like crazy to motor laws which make the roads safer, like speed limits or the age at which a person can drive or wearing a seatbelt etc.

    The main difference is how you can turn a semi-automatic into a machine gun and fire 400-800 rounds per minute. Why should they be legal?

    Though I am in favour of banning all guns, or at least restricting them to the extent that the UK does.
    Completely and utterly illegal, in fact such conversions were part of the series of offences by the Branch Davidians that lead to the Wako Siege
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)

    They aren't, very little is banned the federal government just put massive costs on things, or sometimes not so massive, the tax stamp for a silencer is only $200, same for sawn off shotguns, registration with the ATF and $200.

    Same goes for automatic weapons, strictly speaking not banned but to legally own one you're looking upwards of $10,000, bump stocks come with trade offs, and Trump is pushing to ban them anyway
    Yes, as I mentioned in a later post. Irrelevant to the point being made though.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Completely and utterly illegal, in fact such conversions were part of the series of offences by the Branch Davidians that lead to the Wako Siege
    I assumed based on the RoF mentioned he's referring to bump stocks.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    The statistical likelihood of some nutcase obtaining a gun would decrease dramatically if guns are made illegal, and forcefully removed. That's not to say you'll get them all but you'll get most, if you do it right (the Aussies didn't). In the US, you can pretty much walk into Walmart and buy a gun, as long as you have a licence (in most states).

    ......

    The UK would descend into chaos if Guns were allowed. England would have US-style school shootings and N.I could have more sectarian violence than it has already.

    Absolutely no way.
    Making guns completely illegal is a stupid idea that completely screws over those who use them for legitimate purposes.

    And the UK has plenty of legal guns. The number of gun owners is well into the hundreds of thousands, possibly even approaching a million (can't remember exactly, it's been a while since I looked at the figures). They have licenses for them so they can go shooting with them. And we have virtually no problems caused by legal gun ownership.

    Can we please stop with A) this knee-jerk "ban guns" crap that seems to pop up regularly and which completely ignores the needs of legitimate gun users as if they don't exist and B) this misconception that we in the UK completely banned guns.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    I assumed based on the RoF mentioned he's referring to bump stocks.
    Which is about as much a machine gun as an AR-15 is an assault rifle. People who act as if bump stocks make semi automatics like their fully automatic equivalents seriously overestimate them, for a start the top end of the 400-800 is still lower than the fully automatic variants, these rates of fire ignore reloading times, just down at the 400 RPM you're looking at nearly half the time spent reloading, they are probably oblivious to the fact that bump stocks mean the gun isn't being fired as intended meaning there can be problems with the firing mechanism including increased chances of misfires and "jamming" and a loss of accuracy greater than automatic fire in an actual automatic weapon
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which is about as much a machine gun as an AR-15 is an assault rifle. People who act as if bump stocks make semi automatics like their fully automatic equivalents seriously overestimate them, for a start the top end of the 400-800 is still lower than the fully automatic variants, these rates of fire ignore reloading times, just down at the 400 RPM you're looking at nearly half the time spent reloading, they are probably oblivious to the fact that bump stocks mean the gun isn't being fired as intended meaning there can be problems with the firing mechanism including increased chances of misfires and "jamming" and a loss of accuracy greater than automatic fire in an actual automatic weapon
    I have no idea why you're ranting at me about this, but seeing as you did...

    RoF for a gun always ignores reload times, that's standard practise. Even if not identical performance a bump stock puts it very much in the same ball-park as the full-auto equivalent weapons assuming perfect performance, and most mass shooters go armed with multiple guns, which largely negates the jamming problems that can be experienced. Accuracy is completely irrelevant when firing into a classroom, movie theatre or nightclub.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    America is a quite unique place so it's not so relevant to compare it to other places.

    Law abiding US Citizens don't see why they should accept having their guns taken away because some criminals want to kill people with guns.

    The suggestion they don't care about the victims is a delusion and a desperate projection. They just don't see why they should have to give up their guns. Won't that just concentrate the guns in the hands of the criminals away from the good people?

    Also, they think they have a right to own a gun for the people to protect themselves against a potentially tyrannical government.

    You have to deal with these cultural beliefs if you want to tackle this problem. Just smearing those pro-gun people as uncaring about victims of shootings will not get you anywhere, except perhaps to make you feel a bit superior.

    Make your choice.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    So are you saying the military should just use knives rather than wasting money on firearms?
    The thought process that brought you to ask that question really must be something special.

    1. Knives would be a reasonable substitute were firearms not available. The military are not restricted as to their use of firearms.

    2. Armies have weapons. Schoolchildren do not. If an army goes to war with knives it will get beaten. The Imperial Japanese Army slaughtered untold thousands of civilians just with shovels or bayonets. Would they have used the same weapons against the Allied armies? Of course not.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Poor comparison.

    Whenever there is something that has the potential to kill huge numbers of people, the benefits and drawbacks should be weighed to determine how necessary that item is.

    A country like America could not survive without cars, neither could Britain really. If the public cannot get from A to B then society cannot function properly in today's world. I would however be in favour of improving public transport so cars become less and less necessary.

    On the other hand, a society can definitely function without easy access to guns. The UK does, as do many, many others. You don't need a gun. Sure people can use them for recreational activities, but that it isn't a necessity like getting from a to b is.
    And I don’t disagree with anything you said but you’re adding to what someone else said: they didn’t bring up necessity or utility they simply spoke about easy to something capable of killing so many people. Had they added more context to their point I wouldn’t have commented on it.

    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Plus as mentioned, the car lobbies don't object like crazy to motor laws which make the roads safer, like speed limits or the age at which a person can drive or wearing a seatbelt etc.
    1. What’s sensible is subjective, what ‘sensible’ proposals have the NRA fought?
    2. So you think these car lobbies are spending money out of the goodness of their hearts? They, like every other lobby are looking out for the interests of those they represent.

    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    The main difference is how you can turn a semi-automatic into a machine gun and fire 400-800 rounds per minute. Why should they be legal?
    You can bump fire a handgun.

    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Though I am in favour of banning all guns, or at least restricting them to the extent that the UK does.
    Well first you say ban rifles but allow pistols now you’re essentially saying the opposite? I’m not sure how many times it has to be repeated: most crime involving firearms involve illegal firearms, how does banning them help that?

    You also neglected to explain what you meant by assault rifle or was the bump fire piece above your distinction?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    And I don’t disagree with anything you said but you’re adding to what someone else said: they didn’t bring up necessity or utility they simply spoke about easy to something capable of killing so many people. Had they added more context to their point I wouldn’t have commented on it.
    Well i've given you the justification why one things that kills a lot of people should be banned, whereas another should not.

    1. What’s sensible is subjective, what ‘sensible’ proposals have the NRA fought?
    2. So you think these car lobbies are spending money out of the goodness of their hearts? They, like every other lobby are looking out for the interests of those they represent.
    The NRA rejects every attempt at making it harder to purchase a gun. They oppose and campaign against background checks as well as against the banning of Assault Rifles.


    The car lobbies do not campaign against road safety laws.

    Well first you say ban rifles but allow pistols now you’re essentially saying the opposite? I’m not sure how many times it has to be repeated: most crime involving firearms involve illegal firearms, how does banning them help that?

    You also neglected to explain what you meant by assault rifle or was the bump fire piece above your distinction?
    The illegal/legal argument is a poor one. Guns are manufactured legally. The more legal guns there are, the easier it will be to illegally acquire guns.

    Say I buy a gun legally and give it to a 16 year old. The 16 year old has acquired the gun illegally but clearly, the fact that I could buy it legally has allowed it to happen.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    Making guns completely illegal is a stupid idea that completely screws over those who use them for legitimate purposes.

    And the UK has plenty of legal guns. The number of gun owners is well into the hundreds of thousands, possibly even approaching a million (can't remember exactly, it's been a while since I looked at the figures). They have licenses for them so they can go shooting with them. And we have virtually no problems caused by legal gun ownership.

    Can we please stop with A) this knee-jerk "ban guns" crap that seems to pop up regularly and which completely ignores the needs of legitimate gun users as if they don't exist and B) this misconception that we in the UK completely banned guns.
    I will concede that it would be next to impossible to get rid of all the US's guns, as much as I'd like to.

    However the guns in the UK have to be kept locked and in a safe/with the police until required for recreation. That is vastly different to carrying a concealed weapon on your person like in the US. So technically, yes guns are legal in the UK but they are so controlled you may as well call it illegal.

    I still believe it should be kept that way and the US should at least bring their Gun control measures up higher.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    However the guns in the UK have to be kept locked and in a safe/with the police until required for recreation. That is vastly different to carrying a concealed weapon on your person like in the US. So technically, yes guns are legal in the UK but they are so controlled you may as well call it illegal.
    Well no, because it's not illegal.

    You have to store your guns and ammunition securely, in a safe secured to the wall of your own home. You can take them out and use them whenever you want, as long as you're abiding by other laws like having landowner/farmer permission.

    UK gun laws are strict, but people do seem to overstate just how strict they are.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    As someone who has spent a few years in the US before moving back, I agree with Trinculo 100%. +1
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    Well no, because it's not illegal.

    You have to store your guns and ammunition securely, in a safe secured to the wall of your own home. You can take them out and use them whenever you want, as long as you're abiding by other laws like having landowner/farmer permission.

    UK gun laws are strict, but people do seem to overstate just how strict they are.
    Section 19 of the Firearms Act:
    A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) he has with him in a public place a loaded shotgun or loaded air weapon, or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm”

    Yeah, so you have to have a very good excuse and proof for using one. 'Just going for a walk about town', probably wouldn't cut it.

    The act also has made most semi-automatic weapons illegal to own bar special cases (Police can carry pistols). 5 yrs prison for possessing an unlicenced pistol.

    Most weapons are illegal, bar a few very tightly controlled rifles and shotguns of set magazine size.

    To get the licence, you have to have huge background checks and good reasons for owning one.

    So again, you may as well consider guns illegal.

    That's why the UK homicide rate is so low.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    Section 19 of the Firearms Act:
    A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) he has with him in a public place a loaded shotgun or loaded air weapon, or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm”

    Yeah, so you have to have a very good excuse and proof for using one. 'Just going for a walk about town', probably wouldn't cut it.

    The act also has made most semi-automatic weapons illegal to own bar special cases (Police can carry pistols). 5 yrs prison for possessing an unlicenced pistol.

    Most weapons are illegal, bar a few very tightly controlled rifles and shotguns of set magazine size.

    To get the licence, you have to have huge background checks and good reasons for owning one.

    So again, you may as well consider guns illegal.

    That's why the UK homicide rate is so low.
    You should not consider guns illegal, because they're not. They're illegal to own without a license and you need to have good reason to have them in a public place. So they're illegal if you have them illegally or use them illegally.

    That's like saying "we may as well consider cars illegal, you have to take loads of lessons and then pass tests and take out insurance to be able to drive one on your own, and you have to obey the law while driving".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    You should not consider guns illegal, because they're not. They're illegal to own without a license and you need to have good reason to have them in a public place. So they're illegal if you have them illegally or use them illegally.

    That's like saying "we may as well consider cars illegal, you have to take loads of lessons and then pass tests and take out insurance to be able to drive one on your own, and you have to obey the law while driving".
    By that measure though nothing is illegal. Even killing someone isn't illegal under certain mitigating circumstances...

    Gun laws in this country are strict enough that the majority of weapons are restricted to the point of being useless, if not actually illegal. Many of the gun based murderers in America only broke the law the moment they got the gun out and opened fire. For comparison in this country the shooting club I was part of had to have all the guns in a van and a car following it with the ammo to not get in trouble with the police.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    By that measure though nothing is illegal. Even murder isn't illegal under certain mitigating circumstances...

    Gun laws in this country are strict enough that the majority of weapons are restricted to the point of being useless, if not actually illegal. Many of the gun based murderers in America only broke the law the moment they got the gun out and opened fire. For comparison in this country the shooting club I was part of had to have all the guns in a van and a car following it with the ammo to not get in trouble with the police.
    Murder is by definition illegal
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I don't understand it. If people have less access to weapons, there is going to be fewer attacks with that weapon. Austrailia before their ban had high gun attack rates, but they have dropped dramatically afterward. It shouldn't be this easy to buy something that could kill so many.
    Okay gun control in the USA is much more about left vs right than over here in the U.K. The right fundamentally believes that citizens have the right to defend themselves from government tyranny (2nd amendment).

    The people that oppose these gun control laws fear that disarming the people will lead an uprising of government tyranny. I pose you this question: Why do you think Chairman mao gave Chinese citizens 2 weeks to hand over their weapons to the state or face the death penalty?

    So there was no resistance from the people! We know about mao don't we??

    What ever way you look at it, you must appreciate other perspectives
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.