• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun control sure works NOT

Manc Skipper said:
Keep it simple. Your odds are 25/1 to be shot rather than me. One of many reasons for me to be glad I'm not you.
Click to expand...
Well, there's "simple" and there's "simplistic" - you favor the later.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Keep it simple. Your odds are 25/1 to be shot rather than me. One of many reasons for me to be glad I'm not you.
Click to expand...

You can't simply extend the overall rate of incidence into the probability of that action to a single member of the population. Every person living in America doesn't have the same odds of being shot.
 
Xelor said:
Nirvana fallacy




Although the UK has some of the strictest handgun control laws on the planet, ne'er do wells yet have sought ways to circumvent them, and nobody in their right mind, on either side of gun control, thought they wouldn't. Nonetheless, comparing UK gun deaths before and after the Dunblane-driven changes to UK gun laws appears to have materially attenuated the incidence of involuntary gun deaths.


That's what the legislation was intended to do; thus it has worked.
Click to expand...


Xelor said:
...No School Shootings in the United Kingdom Since Handguns Were Banned?

DebateChallenge said:
Banning handguns is not what stopped school shootings in the UK since school shootings aren't done with handguns, they're done with rifles or shotguns or long guns of some sort.
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...
Red:
Boy, you have gall!

When addressing me on a topic I've researched or that is in my "wheelhouse," you'd do well not to rely solely on what one thinks be so. One is well advised to check one's facts and context before uttering so much as pea turkey squat. I am the wrong person with whom to do otherwise, for remarking to me sans portfolio will garner one little but an unvarnished explication of one's hubris and intellectual indolence.
Do not underestimate me by thinking that all that I reference and remark upon is all of which I'm aware on a given matter, most especially one as narrow and well understood as the evolution of handgun control law in the UK.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Well you can still get long guns in the UK and even handguns if they're over a certain length, but as for not having school shootings in the UK it is not because of their ban on small firearms. As I said before school shootings are done with long guns not handguns. So even if they not only ban but totally eliminate all handguns from the UK there is no reason somebody couldn't shoot up a school there with a long gun. So if there are no school shootings in the UK it is not because of their ban on handguns.
Click to expand...
I dont really follow your train of thought. The UK didnt have a lot of school shootings but the most (in)famous of them WAS the Dunblane shooting where the shooter DID use handguns. Historically, most mass shootings in the US including school shootings have involved handguns.

I would agree that there isnt much correlation to the ban in the UK since there werent many mass school shootings prior to the ban. In the UK there has really been as many after (the Cumbria Shootings) as there were before (Hungerford). Cumbria involved rifles and a shotgun. Hungerford involved rifles and handguns.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont really follow your train of thought. The UK didnt have a lot of school shootings but the most (in)famous of them WAS the Dunblane shooting where the shooter DID use handguns. Historically, most mass shootings in the US including school shootings have involved handguns.

I would agree that there isnt much correlation to the ban in the UK since there werent many mass school shootings prior to the ban. In the UK there has really been as many after (the Cumbria Shootings) as there were before (Hungerford). Cumbria involved rifles and a shotgun. Hungerford involved rifles and handguns.
Click to expand...

Cumbria involved a 5 shot bolt action .22 rifle and a double barrel shotgun, to be precise.
 
noonereal said:
God Bless that logic because in school you get and F.
Click to expand...

Generally when posting to point out someone's poor thinking, it behooves one to ensure there are no errors in one's own post.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont really follow your train of thought. The UK didnt have a lot of school shootings but the most (in)famous of them WAS the Dunblane shooting where the shooter DID use handguns. Historically, most mass shootings in the US including school shootings have involved handguns.

I would agree that there isnt much correlation to the ban in the UK since there werent many mass school shootings prior to the ban. In the UK there has really been as many after (the Cumbria Shootings) as there were before (Hungerford). Cumbria involved rifles and a shotgun. Hungerford involved rifles and handguns.
Click to expand...

The Dunblane shooting was an anomaly in that handguns were the primary weapons. Even though shooters might often carry handguns when they engage in school shootings usually their primary weapon is a long gun of some sort. So with the exception of the Dunblane shooting there is no indication that in school shootings that any of the murder victims died from being shot with handguns or if handguns were ever fired or used by the shooter in the course of the shooting even if they were being carried.

As you said, there never was much in the way of school shootings before the ban or after it, so therefore the level of gun control does not affect school shootings.
 
DebateChallenge said:
The Dunblane shooting was an anomaly in that handguns were the primary weapons. Even though shooters might often carry handguns when they engage in school shootings usually their primary weapon is a long gun of some sort. So with the exception of the Dunblane shooting there is no indication that in school shootings that any of the murder victims died from being shot with handguns or if handguns were ever fired or used by the shooter in the course of the shooting even if they were being carried.

As you said, there never was much in the way of school shootings before the ban or after it, so therefore the level of gun control does not affect school shootings.
Click to expand...
Just be accurate in your statement. You cant argue against 'handguns being used in school shootings' when handguns are in fact being used in school shootings.
 
VanceMack said:
Just be accurate in your statement. You cant argue against 'handguns being used in school shootings' when handguns are in fact being used in school shootings.
Click to expand...

But they're not, with the exception of Dunblane there is no evidence to suggest that handguns are used in school shootings even if they're carried.
 
DebateChallenge said:
But they're not, with the exception of Dunblane there is no evidence to suggest that handguns are used in school shootings even if they're carried.
Click to expand...
VA Tech

Now stop...you arent helping yourself.
 
DebateChallenge said:
But they're not, with the exception of Dunblane there is no evidence to suggest that handguns are used in school shootings even if they're carried.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Handgun was mentioned 34 times. You can delve into the footnotes for any of the shootings to get details where the type of gun used isn't listed in the Wiki article. The vast majority of school shootings aren't mass shootings and the shooters are using handguns.
 
bongsaway said:
Yes, ask google.
Click to expand...

You made the claim, it's up to you to provide the evidence. FYI, I did researched it and no, gun control in UK and the like didn't reduced gun deaths.
 
Brief History of Gun Laws in the UK
  • 1700s and before (includes discussion of non-gun weapons)
  • 1903 Pistols Act
    • Forbade pistol sales to minors and felons
    • Required one have a gun license to buy firearms they intended to carry outside their home
  • 1920 Firearms Act
    • Britons could only buy guns if they had a "good reason" for owning one.
    • Certificate system (extant even today) initiated.
  • 1936 Firearms Act, amended again in 1937
    • Short barrelled shotguns and fully automatic firearms outlawed
    • Safe storage requirement enacted (current status)
  • 1946 -- Self-defense no longer recognized as good reason for owning firearms
  • 1988 Firearms Act -- updates catalyzed by Hungerford shooting
    • Semi-automatic centerfire rifles banned
    • Pump-action rifles banned
    • Shotguns that can hold more than two shells at once require a Firearms Certificate
    • Applicants for a Shotgun Certificate required to show they have a "good reason" for owing a shotgun
      • Active members of shooting clubs, recreational hunters, and pest control in a farming context are deemed good reasons
  • 1997 --> Dunblane happened and it seems folks here are familiar with the terms of that update to the Firearms Act, so I won't repeat it.

A big cultural gap exists between how Britons respond to gun violence and how Americans do. Britons upon a big gun violence event's occurrence act; they don't wait for another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, etc. to happen before they take legislative action to try to attenuate the incidence of such violence. Too, though 19th century Brits and Americans seemed to be of similar minds about gun use/possession, sometime between then and the late 20th century (to the present) people's attitudes seem to have diverged.

To wit, from what I've found, the UK had a mass shooting in 1987 and another in 1996. In contrast, I don't know how far back one must go to find a ten-year span in the US that had only two or fewer mass shootings. I know between January 1, 2013 to February 15, 2018 there were, on average, a mass shooting on nine of every ten days. When scads of people are getting involuntarily shot and killed or injured that frequently, there's not much I'd be unwilling to try in order to attenuate the incidence of the involuntary gun deaths and injuries.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Here we have a shooting in the UK which has some of the strictest gun control in the world. So this just goes to show the ineffectiveness of gun control.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/hitma...crime-boss-mr-big-caught-by-gps-running-watch
Click to expand...


If I was to post a story of people being shot dead in Los Angeles, USA, I'd be met with a tirade of abuse that it was gang related anyway so who cares.

No-one says that violence doesn't exist in the UK and yes criminals can get guns if they want them badly enough.


Here's another story:


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-46917399


A man in my home county of South Yorkshire gunned down in his local pub.


Now does anyone think, for the remotest second that the people of the UK are going to rise up and demand free access to guns because of this ?

No.

Because the UK, although a violent place, has very low levels of gun crime. What makes these stories hit the headlines is because of how uncommon they are.


And whilst US mass shootings run at almost one per DAY, UK mass shootings run as ONE since 1996.
 
Oh, look, another thread where people ignore key differences between countries such as socio-economic opportunity and population density.

I bet someone is arguing that banning a thing reduces death by that thing. Moronic.

Have fun chasing your tails :D
 
Wayne Jr said:
I bet someone is arguing that banning a thing reduces death by that thing. Moronic.
Click to expand...

Just look at how death from cocaine and heroin has been reduced since they've been banned.
 
Xelor said:
Britons upon a big gun violence event's occurrence act; they don't wait for another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, etc. to happen before they take legislative action to try to attenuate the incidence of such violence.
Click to expand...

That's because Britain never did have much in the way of criminal violence that involves guns although they do have criminal violence. There never has been much in the way of mass shootings or any kind of shootings in Britain. Dunblane was an anomaly. If you were to have the same kind of gun laws in the UK that you've got in Pennsylvania the number of shootings in the UK would probably remain the same. But you would still have your every day stabbings, bombings, and vehicular assaults in the UK that are quite the craze over there.

And legislative action is taken in the USA to stop criminal violence and that includes criminal use of guns. There is legislative movement to allow trained faculty and staff to be armed. There is legislative action to have more armed security in certain public places, not just schools but bars, clubs, movie theaters, ect. Unfortunately there is also legislative action that opposes that so its a bit slow, but that's how it is when you've got a country that works on checks and balances like the USA.
 
TurtleDude said:
one of his first posts on DP was calling guns "penis extensions" or something to that effect.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory, especially considering the fact that lots of women own and use guns and that in particular during the Obama administration that number has tremendously risen.
 
Bullseye said:
The old "but mommy, all the other kids are doing it" argument - mom never bought, and neither do most thinking people.
Click to expand...
Who cares what your mom bought. Gun control works. So let's do it.
 
bongsaway said:
False. There are roughly fifty to sixty gun deaths a year in the u.k. Conversely in america we have one hundred and sixty times the gun deaths that the u.k. has. Tell Japan, Australia and Norway nothing can be done and see if they agree. Gun control does work, it's the gun owners who disagree.
Click to expand...

You mean the gun owners that never have nor ever would do the type things for which you justify punishing them because someone else did it? I thought you progressives were against judging and applying things to the vast majority of a group because such a small number did something wrong. Guess that only applies to things you support.

Stop blaming the gun unless you can provide a video of one growing arms/legs, walking to where it fires, and pulling its own trigger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom