• 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 in the UK

Thorr said:
To clarify, this is not a common type of crime in the UK - in fact I have not heard of any instances of this, certainly not in the last 10 years. I’d be keen to see the proof otherwise.

As for the UK gun laws, we responded to the Dunblane shooting but taking appropriate steps to ensure it never happened again - these measures have proven effective. In comparison, what measures has the US taken to stop school shootings, and how effective have those measures been?

Whilst you accept these murders as statistically normal, then nothing will be done.
Click to expand...

Kind of like how you never hear how an overwhelmingly large number per capita of rapes are committed by Muslims in the UK.
 
Sweden said:
The most common type of crime in the UK is 'hate crime. The outlawing of anything resembling freedom of speech is far more an attack on liberty than anything to do with guns.

Blasphemy? Hate Crime Investigation for Joke Prayer to 'Aladdin' in Muslim Prayer Room

In should be noted that the 'prayer rooms' provided in UK hospitals and other public place in the UK are notionally there for 'all faiths'. Actually they have been taken over by Muslims who now see them as their property.
Just another example of the creeping Islamisation that the US has yet to experience.
Click to expand...

And most "Hate Crime" in Europe are committed by Muslims against Jews. And most of those are committed without firearms.
 
Casca XV said:
And most "Hate Crime" in Europe are committed by Muslims against Jews. And most of those are committed without firearms.
Click to expand...

In reality yes, officially no. One wrong 'like' on twitter and one can be in real trouble for 'Islamophobia'. But endless and routine Jew hatred in the many hundreds of Saudi funded mosques throughout Europe is willfully ignored by the authorities.
 
Casca XV said:
Kind of like how you never hear how an overwhelmingly large number per capita of rapes are committed by Muslims in the UK.
Click to expand...

In Sweden such info simply does not exist. The official line is this: "The ethnic or religious status of offenders is not recorded". This is the finest example around of 'turning a blind eye'.
 
Sweden said:
The most common type of crime in the UK is 'hate crime. The outlawing of anything resembling freedom of speech is far more an attack on liberty than anything to do with guns.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/05/11/man-investigated-praying-aladdin-muslim-prayer-room/

In should be noted that the 'prayer rooms' provided in UK hospitals and other public place in the UK are notionally there for 'all faiths'. Actually they have been taken over by Muslims who now see them as their property.
Just another example of the creeping Islamisation that the US has yet to experience.
Click to expand...

this is factually untrue and easily checked. also, if you'd bother to even read the biased as **** Bretibart article you linked, you'd see that most instances like this don't result in criminal charges, and are therefore NOT "hate crime". they have a "hate instance" category, where they investigate all reported instances of POSSIBLE hate crimes and discrimination, but most of those do not result in charges.

the actual most common crimes in the UK are "criminal damage and arson" and "fraud" (those are their exact categories), along with things like vehicle theft and burglary, which are about half as common as the other two.
 
nekrodev said:
this is factually untrue and easily checked. also, if you'd bother to even read the biased as **** Bretibart article you linked, you'd see that most instances like this don't result in criminal charges, and are therefore NOT "hate crime". they have a "hate instance" category, where they investigate all reported instances of POSSIBLE hate crimes and discrimination, but most of those do not result in charges.

the actual most common crimes in the UK are "criminal damage and arson" and "fraud" (those are their exact categories), along with things like vehicle theft and burglary, which are about half as common as the other two.
Click to expand...

Good points.
 
yankintx said:
It was part of my job while deployed, I was Air Force. Carrying a gun is not a normal daily task in my career field. Look, I said I support the Second, and I will continue to do so. In my personal life I choose not to, but if others want to by all means go for it. I dont ask others why they carry a gun, its their buisness, as it is mine why I choose not to own a firearm. Believe it or not, there are lots of folks out there who are not gun huggers but support the Second Amendment as written.
Click to expand...

Alright I respect your choice. But as for being in the Air Force, if you serve in any of the four branches there is always the chance that you might be expected to carry and use guns. My dad was also in the Air Force and at one time he was stationed in France and he just had a desk job and there was no action but there was the possibility of action and if there was my dad would've been given a rifle and sent to the front line. So I don't see why anybody with an aversion to guns would want to be in any of the four branches, unless they were drafted.
 
Thorr said:
As for the UK gun laws, we responded to the Dunblane shooting but taking appropriate steps to ensure it never happened again - these measures have proven effective. In comparison, what measures has the US taken to stop school shootings, and how effective have those measures been?
Click to expand...

The USA is starting to allow faculty and staff in some schools to carry guns if they've got carry permits, that is a good first step. Also some schools are starting to have "active shooter drills" the same way they have fire drills. We do need more armed faculty and staff just like we need more armed pilots in airplanes although they have to be very specialized.

Thorr said:
Whilst you accept these murders as statistically normal, then nothing will be done.
Click to expand...
We are not accepting them as such and we are trying to reduce them, preferably to zero. We are taking steps to reduce them as mentioned above.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Show me your source for your claim of London being safe. Last I heard they beat out NYC in murders.
Click to expand...

Obviously you missed this post so let me help you find it:

Phys251 said:
1. Never understood why cons single out Chicago's homicide rate when year after year, St. Louis's and New Orleans's--both of which are in red states--are consistently higher.

2. Speaking of homicide rates. By your own numbers, London, which had 8.8 million people in 2017, had a homicide rate of 1.1/100k in the same year. That's slightly higher than that of Boise, Idaho. Maybe you also think Boise is a dangerous place? ;)
Click to expand...

You should try to convince us that Boise is a dangerous place, if you're being intellectually honest, which we all know you aren't. :)
 
Phys251 said:
How many people die due to gun violence in the UK per year? Asking for a friend.
Click to expand...

If you are suggesting that fewer people are killed due to "gun violence" in the UK because of a ban on citizens being allowed to lawfully own guns. I must disagree. It is due to fewer guns being possessed by those that would commit murder.

If you think because this works in the UK we must adopt similar laws in the US I am afraid you are mistaken. First you must get the 300-500 million firearms out of the possession of the citizens. Until you can, no sale.
 
CLAX1911 said:
If you are suggesting that fewer people are killed due to "gun violence" in the UK because of a ban on citizens being allowed to lawfully own guns. I must disagree. It is due to fewer guns being possessed by those that would commit murder.

If you think because this works in the UK we must adopt similar laws in the US I am afraid you are mistaken. First you must get the 300-500 million firearms out of the possession of the citizens. Until you can, no sale.
Click to expand...

So there need to be fewer guns? I agree! :)
 
CLAX1911 said:
If you think because this works in the UK we must adopt similar laws in the US I am afraid you are mistaken. First you must get the 300-500 million firearms out of the possession of the citizens. Until you can, no sale.
Click to expand...

Even if it did work here that does not mean we should do it. We are not the UK. We have not been the UK ever since 1776. As such we do not want to be like them and we do not want to follow their examples.
 
Phys251 said:
So there need to be fewer guns? I agree! :)
Click to expand...

One of the reasons why there is not much chance for any compromise is this

1) Gun rights advocates almost entirely agree with the following premises

a) guns in the hands of honest or law abiding Americans are generally create positive benefits for society

b) guns in the hands of the mentally ill, or criminally inclined, create a deleterious impact on society

c) changes in laws should promote a and discourage b.

2) Most anti gun rights advocates-or gun restrictionists believe the following

a) guns the hands of law abiding people are at best neutral and in most cases, problematic for society

b) guns in the hands of the mentally ill and those criminally inclined create a deleterious impact upon society.

c) the voting patterns of pro gun advocates also creates problems for society by opposing politicians who seek to decrease b

d) laws that decrease b are needed and in many cases, so are laws that decrease a

While both sides agree with proposition b-we gun rights advocates won't support laws that either intentionally, or collaterally, negatively impact a. Over the years, more and more gun restrictionists are targeting law abiding gun ownership, rather than merely seeing it as collateral damage.
 
TurtleDude said:
One of the reasons why there is not much chance for any compromise is this....
Click to expand...

Another reason is that so many of the most prominent gun control advocates are blatantly dishonest about their goals and their means to achieve them.
 
Tlrmln said:
Another reason is that so many of the most prominent gun control advocates are blatantly dishonest about their goals and their means to achieve them.
Click to expand...

I doubt any of the democratic party politicians who constantly scream for gun bans, are primarily motivated by an anti crime agenda. It is all about pandering to low wattage voters who demand simple and quick solutions to issues that currently occupy their minds and to harass their political enemies. When you analyze their proposals, based on those two goals, their "solutions" make sense in achieving their real goals.
 
Lets see - UK 0.2 gun-death for every 10.2 in the US. Maybe the OP can explain that...

gun-death-rates-chart.jpg
 
Media_Truth said:
Lets see - UK 0.2 gun-death for every 10.2 in the US. Maybe the OP can explain that...
Click to expand...

I see a whole bunch of countries on that cherry-picked list with higher intentional death rates than the US. What does it matter if a gun is used?
 
DebateChallenge said:
Become they passed any real gun control? There has been gun control for as long as there have been guns.
Click to expand...

Do tell. What gun control laws did the UK have in 1915?
 
DebateChallenge said:
The USA is starting to allow faculty and staff in some schools to carry guns if they've got carry permits, that is a good first step. Also some schools are starting to have "active shooter drills" the same way they have fire drills. We do need more armed faculty and staff just like we need more armed pilots in airplanes although they have to be very specialized.


We are not accepting them as such and we are trying to reduce them, preferably to zero. We are taking steps to reduce them as mentioned above.
Click to expand...

How effective have those steps proven to be?
 
DebateChallenge said:
Here is a video that talks about the kind of gun control they've got in the UK and why it does more harm than good. As for me, as far as Im concerned what they do in the UK is their business. I do not live there and it is not my country so I don't care if they want to make their country more dangerous by implementing stricter gun control just as I don't care if the Spanish want to run with bulls which results in people getting killed. But this video points out how more gun control is dangerous and also why we will never have the kind of gun control in the USA that there is in the UK.
YouTube
Click to expand...

Firstly, the march was a bunch of toffs. A part of the problem with the UK is that these toffs own most of the land and think that they have some God given right to do whatever they like.

Secondly, there's a lot of stuff about "tradition", which is the fox hunting. A cruel sport that the rich have never managed to get over it being banned. Most people in the UK think it's barbaric. It gets banned.

The country isn't more dangerous because of banning guns at all. The murder rate in the UK is 1/5th the rate of the US. Ironically crime is going up now because the Tory government (the representatives of the posh toffs) has been defunding the police, sports, education and the like.
 
Tlrmln said:
I see a whole bunch of countries on that cherry-picked list with higher intentional death rates than the US. What does it matter if a gun is used?
Click to expand...

Gee, let's see. What a tough question :roll:

Only the fact that somebody can be killed or severely injured from 10 feet away, 10 meters away, 100 meters away, without any physical contact whatsoever. When you become Superman, and figure out how to dodge a bullet, ask me this question again. Until then, all you have is FALSE rhetoric.
 
Media_Truth said:
Gee, let's see. What a tough question :roll:

Only the fact that somebody can be killed or severely injured from 10 feet away, 10 meters away, 100 meters away, without any physical contact whatsoever. When you become Superman, and figure out how to dodge a bullet, ask me this question again. Until then, all you have is FALSE rhetoric.
Click to expand...


If public safety was really the issue with those of you who want to restrict gun ownership, why are your solutions never directed at the people who cause the vast majority of gun violence? You do know that what you stated about firearms, is what makes them useful for women or older folk for self defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom