Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Bahahaha, look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/7688826.stm ...


    Bryan told police he had never seen a gun - but they found this picture
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tory Dan)
    Well perhaps if students were allowed to conceal carry then people would have a chance to stop criminals use take open abuse to 'gun free zones'.
    Exactly right, if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would wager that obesity is more dangerous to your average American than guns.

    The right to bear arms to protect yourself, your family and your property is a good idea in my opinion, as the criminals will find ways of getting all the guns they want anyway, just like they do with drugs. It also serves as a deterrent to the government, so that they do not get too heavy handed with police state style authority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moitessier)
    But it will reduce acccess, in terms of raising both the monetary cost and practical effort required to acquire a weapon.
    Has banning cocaine prevented people from using it?

    No. They simply resort to the black market instead. If you know where to go, procuring cocaine is not difficult (not talking from experience).

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The general thrust of your argument is correct, but any proposed solution to gun problems can't merely be addressed from a social angle. A genocidal desire and access to effective weapons are two seperate prerequisites for the kind of incidents we are talking about here.
    We already know that violent individuals are easily able to access illegal firearms should they so desire. I previously posted 13 news articles from the BBC website all from October and early November. That works out as a shooting every 2-3 days in the UK. If my memory serves, there were about 23,000 gun crimes committed in the UK last year (not just murder, but also smuggling, illegal possession, armed robbery, etc.) The reality is that the police simply do not know how many illegal firearms are in the UK, but it is estimated by many that there are more illegal than legal firearms.

    The government has already stringently regulated people's access to firearms, but it has done nothing to stem the flow into Britain. L i b is correct in saying that the next step which needs to be taken is to confront the societal factors inducing violence, rather than controlling (unsuccessfully) the weapons used to perpetrate the violence.

    Indeed, somebody was shot near Glasgow this morning: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/7727595.stm. The only reason he survived was because the shooter couldn't hit a cow's arse with a spade.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Your assertion that there are high rates of firearm ownership in rural areas is a stereotypical and false view of the countryside. Farmers may have a need for guns, but not many others do, and even so rates of gun ownership in the British countryside come nowhere near to approaching rates of gun ownership in most US states.
    L i b is correct. The rural counties have far more FACs (and particularly shotgun certificates) on issue than do the more urban counties. I know for a fact that Cheshire Constabulary (from knowing people who work in the Firearms Department there) currently have on issue 16,500 FACs and SGCs - one of the highest figures in the country. Most are issued to farmers who need to shoot foxes and and the occasional gypsy stealing crops.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Its patently false that children in this country outside of this London don't stab each other, as the links posted by ConservativeNeophile demonstrate, and as Dunblane demonstrates.
    What does Dunblane have to do with anything? The Dunblane massacre was perpetrated by a loony adult who, under the Firearms Act 1968 (Section 21, if you want to give it a cursory read), should never have been granted an FAC in the first place. Had the Chief Constable of the county police force listened to doctors' and the local policeman's warnings that Hamilton was an unstable man, he would have had his FAC revoked and firearms confiscated. Hamilton had never before visited a gun range before the Dunblane massacre - he lied on his FAC application form, but the Chief Constable never bothered to check with the range, which he was legally obligated to do. He was not eligible for to possess firearms under the laws as they stood in 1996. The massacre was exploited for political gain by hoplophobics like Gordo McBroon and Jack Straw - both of whom are totally bereft of any firearms knowledge, as demonstrated in their speeches to Parliament at the time of passing the Firearms Amendment (No. 2) Act in 1997.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    We have plenty of behavioural problems with British teenagers; I would think this is self-evident from the chav culture we have and from the number of recent stabbings involving secondary school kids
    And none of these kids should have firearms in their possession. But some do:



    Let's not forget the infamous case of Rhys Jones and the .455 either...

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    It is false that people get guns from improper storage; this is a minor issue. Much more important is the black market. If people can easily obtain firearms, it is easy for them to sell these firearms on for a profit. If you can throttle the source of guns, you can make guns much harder to obtain, as the price is driven up: its a matter of simple economics.
    --> If you control gun supply, its harder for people to get guns, and the negative effects of firearms are reduced irrespective of the social position. Obviously we aren't that successful at controlling firearms in this country at the moment, but its still an improved situation to what you have in the U.S.
    I agree with your first part - the main focus should be to stem the flow of firearms from Eastern Europe. The government apparently is not capable of doing that, however.

    Regarding the second part, you do realise that most firearms used in "gangsta" shootings in the U.S. are actually obtained illegally, right? You don't really think criminals walk into a gun store to purchase their firearms, do you?

    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    How do you really know for sure? Something that is rarely mentioned is that, in the US statistics, unlike the British ones, manslaughter (and other lesser charges) is included in the murder rate. This makes it very hard to compare the US murder rate to the murder rates in other countries. I think the real murder rates are a lot closer than people think.
    I recall reading not too long ago that 55% of the 30,000 or so gun deaths in the U.S. are actually suicides. You may be able to criminalise the possession of firearms, but it is somewhat harder to ban railways, aspirin and tall buildings. Those suicides would occur no matter what.

    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    The problem with knives is that you can't take to the streets and fight your government with a knife if it becomes too powerful and oppressive.
    True. You also cannot repel invading armies (Nazi Germany vs. Switzerland and U.S. vs. Japan during WWII) when the populace are armed with nothing more powerful than a hedge trimmer.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    You certainly cannot cure either of the two problems absolutely, which is why you need to attack the problem from both sides rather than simply going for social solutions of dubious effectiveness. ie, not putting all your eggs in one basket
    How well is controlling the influx of illegal firearms going?

    Not too well, clearly. Time to try basket #2.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by conservativenucleophile)
    ...
    Your sentence by sentence rebuttal makes your analysis unclear, but whilst I agree that the UK isn't doing that well at controlling illegal firearms at the moment and that more emphasis needs to be placed on stemming the flow of firearms into the UK, it does not follow that gun control is completely ineffective.
    Even though our gun control hasn't been totally effective as you correctly point out, we would still have a lot more guns in the country were we to allow legal possession of handguns by citizens for self-defence, ala US.
    More guns in the country = lower prices on the black market = more people getting possession of guns who shouldn't = more deaths from gun related violence.

    The point is that any sensible policy needs to follow BOTH baskets - or, as you correctly point out, 3 baskets. Attacking underlying social problems, attacking the influx of illegal firearms and attempting to control gun ownership domestically.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burninginme)
    There is something about American society and social structure that is causing lots of kids to feel hopeless, seriously depressed and isolated.
    Maybe they're ungrateful for what they have, millions of kids in the world don't get the chance to have any sort of education and don't have the oppurtunities as most of the US kids, yet there are a few kids in amercia who are self-centred enough to massacre their schoolmates because they're depressed. I know I sound harsh, but it just annoys me that there are kids that go through alot more **** with bugger all support and get through it, yet the kids who carry out all these shootings think they've got it so incredibly bad they must do these things, that its the only way to reach out. /rant

    Although maybe they aren't the only ones to blame.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Yay. Yet another person trying to decide what everyone else can and cannot do or can or cannot own.

    Hows about you go to china, they don't allow you to do or own much. Or maybe germany under the third reich?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Your sentence by sentence rebuttal makes your analysis unclear
    Fair point. If you want to read a better (in my opinion, anyway) piece on how I consider firearms should be licensed in Britain: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...3&postcount=50

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    but whilst I agree that the UK isn't doing that well at controlling illegal firearms at the moment and that more emphasis needs to be placed on stemming the flow of firearms into the UK, it does not follow that gun control is completely ineffective.
    Well, gun control is not totally ineffective and I don't think for a second there should be NO gun laws (see above). But what it does show is that those who are willing to commit violent crime will always be able to source a firearm one way or another. Even if we were to cut off ALL movement of goods and people in and out of the country - totally isolate ourselves from the rest of the world - people would still be able to build their own firearms. Anybody with access to metalworking equipment and a decent knowledge of firearms can build themselves a bangstick. Despite what many antis believe, Smith & Wesson does not have super-specialist equipment or magical powers which allow it to produce their fine range of revolvers. Revolvers are just lumps of metal with a few basic moving parts.

    So no, we'll never be able to block the flow of illegal firearms into Britain. All we are doing is allowing criminals in possession of these illegal firearms to have access to better weaponry than normal citizens (bar those holding firearms certificates, anyway).

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Even though our gun control hasn't been totally effective as you correctly point out, we would still have a lot more guns in the country were we to allow legal possession of handguns by citizens for self-defence, ala US.
    Guns alone are not the problem. It is the people in possession of them which create the problem.

    Regarding handguns, there are already plenty of handguns available on the black market. Many, if not all, of the crimes to which I posted URLs on the first page of this thread were perpetrated with handguns. Short of obtaining a Section 5 FAC - which is bloody difficult - nobody can own a handgun legally. All handguns in private hands in this country are on British soil illegally. Criminals already have access to handguns; by criminalising handguns in this country, you only cut off supply to law-abiding citizens.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    More guns in the country = lower prices on the black market = more people getting possession of guns who shouldn't = more deaths from gun related violence.
    Do you know how cheaply one can obtain their very own shiny sawn-off shotgun in Britain? Is it:

    a) £500
    b) £250
    c) £100
    d) £50
    e) £20?

    How 'bout handguns?

    a) £500
    b) £250
    c) £100
    d) £50
    e) £20

    Answers on a postcard, please.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The point is that any sensible policy needs to follow BOTH baskets - or, as you correctly point out, 3 baskets. Attacking underlying social problems, attacking the influx of illegal firearms and attempting to control gun ownership domestically.
    We already control legal gun ownership. The true gun enthusiasts have long demonstrated their ability to possess firearms without danger to the general public.

    We already attempt to curtail the influx of firearms into the country. Sure, some get stopped, but with the number of illegal firearms in the country estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands, Customs & Excise clearly aren't terribly efficient.

    That leaves us with the third option: Societal problems.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amanda)
    (1) Obama isn't going to fix stupid people.
    (2) We have guns, you have knives.

    Miami = the South London of Florida.
    really? i felt really safe when i went there. but then again i was on south beach which is probably very different to the downtown area.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elziebelzie)
    really? i felt really safe when i went there. but then again i was on south beach which is probably very different to the downtown area.
    Yep, just like how you'd probably feel safer in Manhattan than the Bronx.. but Manhattan is only 1 out of 5 boroughs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    hmm maybe i wont go study in the US after all :s
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.