Turn on thread page Beta

Should guns be legal in the UK? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously not assualt rifles but should a citizen be able to defend himself with a handgun or shotgun? At first before you look into it people make the assumption of "guns means more gun related crime" But there are many benefits to having guns:
    -People will be able to defend their own property or themselves from any type of crime. The police are never around when crime actually occurs so a person needs to defend for themselves.

    -Criminals all have guns so at the moment all the Govt is doing is giving them a huge advantage over the innocent.

    -Apart from the US all the countries where guns are legal have lower crime rates.

    -The UK had a lower murder rate before guns were made illegal

    -The Government has no right to say you cant have a weapon? They are making the incorrect assumption that the only reason you would have a gun is for crime.

    -It would stop a lot of crimes on the streets if citizens all have weapons. You could say that the Taj Mahal takeover in india wouldn't have happened if the people inside had guns.

    -We are powerless to any corruption or takeover from our own government or others if that ever happened?

    All in all i feel that Govt cant say guns are illegal because you may commit a crime with them because that makes no sense whatsoever.
    What are your opinions (without saying people will just get shot a lot more often because that doesn't make sense just like normal people don't go around stabbing others for the sake of it)?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    There really isn't much difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun. If you want to go crazy and kill a whole bunch of people, you can do it with a semi-auto or an auto, it doesn't really make that much difference. At a guess I'd probably say I could kill more people on semi-auto than fully automatic in a lot of situations. Indiscriminate fire really isn't as huge a deal as some will make out.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay Riall)
    There really isn't much difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun. If you want to go crazy and kill a whole bunch of people, you can do it with a semi-auto just as easy as an auto. Indiscriminate fire really isn't as huge a deal as some will make out.
    Yeah what i meant was there isn't really much point in an automatic because if you tried shooting a burgular the bullets would end up going through walls for hundreds of metres and being too dangerous which is why i thought they shouldn't be legal as there isn't a point for them

    On the other hand shotguns would provide a perfect defence weapon as they fire a few metres.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lewis132)
    -Criminals all have guns so at the moment all the Govt is doing is giving them a huge advantage over the innocent.

    -Apart from the US all the countries where guns are legal have lower crime rates.

    -The UK had a lower murder rate before guns were made illegal

    -The Government has no right to say you cant have a weapon? They are making the incorrect assumption that the only reason you would have a gun is for crime.

    -It would stop a lot of crimes on the streets if citizens all have weapons. You could say that the Taj Mahal takeover in india wouldn't have happened if the people inside had guns.

    -We are powerless to any corruption or takeover from our own government or others if that ever happened?
    First point, I'd argue that the legalisation of firearms will result in more burglaries to obtain firearms and a greater proliferation of illegal firearms, something that is rife in the US despite laxer firearms laws.

    Secondly, our country is probably most culturally similar to the US out of all the countries on the planet, so I think legalisation of firearms would lead to a similar situation to the one they have there.

    Third point is correlation not causation, many factors have contributed to the increasing murder rate, the drugs trade, worse job opportunities for those lower down the social scale, increase in gang culture generally. i don't think any of it has a bearing on firearm legality.

    Fourth point, I'd say that there are certain situations in which an individual can be prohibited from owning an item if there is an overwhelming probability that that item will be used to harm another.

    This isn't the OK Coral, seriously, legalisation will increase the number of firearms on the streets and will increase the probability that robberies which were previous perpetrated either unarmed or with knives or baseball bats will be perpetrated with guns in the future.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Shooting a burglar is still killing someone you know
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lewis132)
    Yeah what i meant was there isn't really much point in an automatic because if you tried shooting a burgular the bullets would end up going through walls for hundreds of metres
    This isn't true. For a start they most definitely would not go through exterior walls or any sort of masonry. They would go through drywall, but they lose a huge amount of power when they do, especially if you're using a smaller 5.56 calibre round.

    (Original post by lewis132)
    and being too dangerous which is why i thought they shouldn't be legal as there isn't a point for
    Automatic weapons are definitely valuable for home defence. Don't the police at airports carry automatic weapons (MP5s I think) these days? You don't have to use it on auto either, you can choose betwee semi-auto and full auto at the flip o a lever.

    (Original post by lewis132)
    On the other hand shotguns would provide a perfect defence weapon as they fire a few metres.
    That's saw-offs. Full length shotguns can fire much further distances. I'm not sure whether it is clear at all which poses a greater threat out of an automatic weapon and a shotgun.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    no

    sorry not much else to say =/
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No.

    If guns were to be legal though, they should do what Chris Rock said. Make them like £50,000 for a bullet or something.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lewis132)
    -Apart from the US all the countries where guns are legal have lower crime rates.
    Have you got any proof of this? Because I really, really don't believe you.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    Shooting a burglar is still killing someone you know
    So we should allow a burglar to rob us, possibly attack us and not defend ourselves? If a burglar broke into my home and was threatening me or my family I would not hesitate to use lethal force to defend myself. As soon as a burglar puts himself in this situation he is taking his life into his own hands. I wouldn't take any chances in this situation. Arguing that you can defend yourself without a gun is silly since your ability to defend yourself is cut dramatically without access to a firearm.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Owning a gun, you are most likely to kill:

    Yourself
    Your family
    A complete stranger
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    yeh guns should be legal what does gun prohibition actually achieve? I say it deprives the innocent the right to protect themselves and their property whilst the criminals will still carry guns anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arturo Bandini)
    Have you got any proof of this? Because I really, really don't believe you.
    Switzerland
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nouvelle vague)
    Owning a gun, you are most likely to kill:

    Yourself
    Your family
    A complete stranger
    There's a fun statistic that in the US, if you're a gun owner, you're more likely to be shot with your own weapon by an intruder than you are to use the weapon to kill the intruder.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Mate, we have enough chavs in london stealing butcher knives from their mother's kitchen drawers. You really want hand guns to be accessible to them?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    Shooting a burglar is still killing someone you know
    depends where you shoot them
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neville 'Facking' Bartos)
    Switzerland
    Yeah, I'm not denying that there are any, but he said ALL apart from the US.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well we have no need for guns as there is nothing to hunt.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    First point, I'd argue that the legalisation of firearms will result in more burglaries to obtain firearms and a greater proliferation of illegal firearms, something that is rife in the US despite laxer firearms laws.
    Would burgularies decrease though due to the fsct thehomeowner inside has a firearm to defend with?

    Secondly, our country is probably most culturally similar to the US out of all the countries on the planet, so I think legalisation of firearms would lead to a similar situation to the one they have there.
    If starting introducing guns from scratch we are able to avoid many of the things that create the huge gun problems in the US such as overpormoting shooting ranges/war and battle (we know how patriotic the US is), the ease for anyone to get a gun from any shop, the types of guns etc.

    Third point is correlation not causation, many factors have contributed to the increasing murder rate, the drugs trade, worse job opportunities for those lower down the social scale, increase in gang culture generally. i don't think any of it has a bearing on firearm legality.
    All i know is that from the year guns were taken away there was a step up in murder rates and all previous years it had been fairly constant.

    Fourth point, I'd say that there are certain situations in which an individual can be prohibited from owning an item if there is an overwhelming probability that that item will be used to harm another.
    Yeah obviously there will be restrictions on who can have one but i'm on about the everyday family person.

    This isn't the OK Coral, seriously, legalisation will increase the number of firearms on the streets and will increase the probability that robberies which were previous perpetrated either unarmed or with knives or baseball bats will be perpetrated with guns in the future.
    But the crimes would have been commited regardless. Guns will help in the defence a lot more than the attack. Also guns are already easily available on the streets if anyone wants one. if a criminal wants to use a gun to kill someone then they can just nowadays the victim has no defence.
    ...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChunkymunkyDJC)
    Well we have no need for guns as there is nothing to hunt.
    The rationale for gun ownership in the US has very little to do with hunting...
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.