• 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!

What is more important to you, life or guns?

Frigidweirdo said:
The "draconian gun control laws" didn't do that much at all.

The problem is you seem to think guns were awash in the UK before the 1997 gun law, and then lacking afterwards.

The UK has had gun laws for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...

Again if you can't prove what the homicides were higher before those draconian gun control laws were enacted then you can't say they actually worked when they already had a low amount of homicides to begin with.
 
jamesrage said:
Again if you can't prove what the homicides were higher before those draconian gun control laws were enacted then you can't say they actually worked when they already had a low amount of homicides to begin with.
Click to expand...

You keep using the word draconian - I prefer the word enlightened. Since our total ban on handguns, we have had no mass shootings like the one in Dunblane. There has been no great campaign to overturn the ban, and though many feared that there would remain a large number of unaccounted illegal firearms, the gun ban has not made things less safe, or easier for criminals.

Most in the UK look on the US in bemusement as to why despite numerous tragedies, you do nothing to try and solve your gun problem - particularly as the evidence from the UK and Australia clearly show how gun control can be effective in saving lives. But I agree that no one country is exactly the same as another, and the scale of the problem is far greater in the US, simply because of the number of firearms and the ease of availability. I also see those who are pro-gun dismissing every reasonable suggestion over gun control, claiming it won't work. Fine - everyone is entitled to an opinion. What I don't see is any counter suggestions of what will... Or maybe 40,000 deaths per year is not a problem?

Rest assured, we in the UK like living in safety with our "draconian" laws....
 
In reply to the OPs question.... life is the one and only correct answer. May I have my £5 now.
 
In 1996 when the laws were enacted, the number of gun related homicides in the UK was 84. In Australia, which also brought about gun control legislation, there were 104. By 2015, the number had dropped to 11 in the UK and 27 in Australia (approx 75-80% decrease). In comparison, from 1998 until 2017, the gun related homicide rate in the US INCREASED from 9257 to 14452 (approx INCREASE of 55%). Comparing the per capita rates for gun homicides is Australia 0.18, UK 0.02 and the US 4.46.

The question this raises is why did the rate significantly reduce in the UK and Australia whilst increasing in the US over the same period. Also, why is the per capita rate so much higher in the US?
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
What were the amount of homicides before 1920? Where they drastically higher before the Firearms act of 1920?
Click to expand...

I've already been over this. Read what I already posted.
 
apdst said:
Do you want to ban cars?
Click to expand...

Turtledude says this a bad analogy. But you want to use it, so I will ask the question. Driving a car requires a degree of skill, and therefore a license. When a car is sold, there is a title transfer. Let's do the same with guns. OK?
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Really? The link was already provided by you.

London murder rate overtakes New York's - BBC News

"So far in 2018, the Met Police has investigated 46 murders, compared with 50 in the US city."

But look

London murder rate 2018 - how many murders have there been so far & which city has the world'''s highest murder rate?

19 Dec 2018

"London's murder rate has overtaken New York's for the first time, with the Met Police launching 130 investigations in 2018"

So, in the first three months there were 46 murders in London. Then there were 130 in the whole year. So, that's 84 from April to the middle of December. 15 murders per month more or less during the year.

New York City Murders on the Rise in 2018, NYPD Data Shows - WSJ

"The city recorded 147 murders between Jan. 1 and June 30"

So, by the end of June, New York City would have more murders than London would have up to December 19th.

List of United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia

New York here has a murder rate of 3.39, only San Jose and San Diego in California have a murder rate lower of cities with 1 million people. LA with a population half the size has a murder rate of 7.01, Chicago of 2.7 million has 24.13.

How dangerous is your Borough? 20+ London crime statistics 2019

London's crime rate is increasing, hardly surprising seeing the cuts the Tories have put in place. They're literally demanding the police police the city and country without enough resources, and they've taken away programs like sport (around the Olympics in 2012) that helped keep kids off the streets.



"The number of knife crimes peaked in 2011/12 with over 14,000 incidents. This number fell from here down to a recent low of 9,700 in 2014/15.

Since then, knife crime in the capital has been on the rise, reaching 14,700 in 2017/18 – the highest levels in over 10 years. Find out below which boroughs have the highest count of knife crimes:"
Click to expand...

The gun toters continue with their ridiculous claims that guns make a country safer. That is utter nonsense, and data from around the world largely contradict that assertion. They should just be honest - this freedom results in more gun deaths in the US. Case closed!
 
Media_Truth said:
Turtledude says this a bad analogy. But you want to use it, so I will ask the question. Driving a car requires a degree of skill, and therefore a license. When a car is sold, there is a title transfer. Let's do the same with guns. OK?
Click to expand...
That is the way of such gun debate. They lure you in with arguments that you trivially defeat with any number of examples from every other aspect of life..be it harmful machinery or cars or whatever, none of which have as their principle design goal, to kill humans. When you defeat those arguments, they fall back on "but the 2nd no infringement!!". So it's a circle jerk. The best is when, once the stupid arguments are out of the way, when they fall back to "so tell me which policy you would implement that would solve this??" That's the real gem. Because if we had people who knew with certainty which laws have what outcomes, we'd be gods....you know, supernatural, able to see the future. Ignoring for a moment that we don't draft policy, that we support representatives who solicit think tanks and other experts or legislators to come up with policies, that we then support or reject. It's a **** show of nuttery for sure. MOAR GUNS = MOAR SAFE!! It's so stupid it hurts.
 
Media_Truth said:
Turtledude says this a bad analogy. But you want to use it, so I will ask the question. Driving a car requires a degree of skill, and therefore a license. When a car is sold, there is a title transfer. Let's do the same with guns. OK?
Click to expand...

Ok. What do you expect such regulations to accomplish?
 
Media_Truth said:
The gun toters continue with their ridiculous claims that guns make a country safer. That is utter nonsense, and data from around the world largely contradict that assertion. They should just be honest - this freedom results in more gun deaths in the US. Case closed!
Click to expand...

Mexico has stricter gun laws. Is it safer than the US?
 
apdst said:
Ok. What do you expect such regulations to accomplish?
Click to expand...

You're the one who used the car analogy. If cars and guns are similar, and both require a certain skill level to operate, why shouldn't both require licensing and deeds of transfer?
 
Media_Truth said:
Turtledude says this a bad analogy. But you want to use it, so I will ask the question. Driving a car requires a degree of skill, and therefore a license. When a car is sold, there is a title transfer. Let's do the same with guns. OK?
Click to expand...

How does training help prevent gun crimes and gun violence? For their purpose, point and pull the trigger is all they really need.
 
Media_Truth said:
You're the one who used the car analogy. If cars and guns are similar, and both require a certain skill level to operate, why shouldn't both require licensing and deeds of transfer?
Click to expand...

The idea that guns ate self explanatory and require no training or licensing is utterly ridiculous
 
Lursa said:
How does training help prevent gun crimes and gun violence? For their purpose, point and pull the trigger is all they really need.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. So you believe that people who are unable to drive a car due to severe handicaps, vision impairment, revocation due to accidents or law-breaking; should be allowed to own whatever gun they choose, and ALL of them will be able to handle that gun responsibly? I would put it to you that your last sentence is about the most ridiculous statement posted on this forum, and most gun owners, myself included, will agree.
 
Media_Truth said:
Hmmm. So you believe that people who are unable to drive a car due to severe handicaps, vision impairment, revocation due to accidents or law-breaking; should be allowed to own whatever gun they choose, and ALL of them will be able to handle that gun responsibly? I would put it to you that your last sentence is about the most ridiculous statement posted on this forum, and most gun owners, myself included, will agree.
Click to expand...

Currently you can be legally blind and deaf and it is legal to buy a gun. Its nuts
 
vegas giants said:
The idea that guns ate self explanatory and require no training or licensing is utterly ridiculous
Click to expand...

For basic use, pistols(hand guns) require almost no training to use. To become proficient in their use requires training and practice. But for a criminal to commit a crime no real training needed.

I would not be apposed to a licensing program with a training requirement. as long as it was low cost/free.

I saw someone post a suggestion somewhere on here, extended sentence for crimes committed using a firearm. It was thought provoking.
 
Media_Truth said:
If cars and guns are similar, and both require a certain skill level to operate, why shouldn't both require licensing and deeds of transfer?
Click to expand...

Because firearms are the best means of self-defense ever created, while cars are simply a form of transportation, and because people have the natural and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The "level of skill" part is irrelevant.
 
Media_Truth said:
You're the one who used the car analogy. If cars and guns are similar, and both require a certain skill level to operate, why shouldn't both require licensing and deeds of transfer?
Click to expand...

Cars kill more people than guns. Are the auto regulations working?
 
apdst said:
Cars kill more people than guns. Are the auto regulations working?
Click to expand...

Cars kill accidentally. Guns kill purposefully.

A distinction you always conveniently ignore.
 
independentusa said:
Of course you did not answer the question, life or guns? It seems at this time in this country that is your choice? Is he loss of life okay with you so you can have guns?
Click to expand...

Its a false choice.
Not having guns does not make you safer as a nation.

The UK has much less gun ownership than the US.. yet has the same or worse violent crime.

Mexico has much less gun ownership than the us..and they very much have worse violent crime.

Canada has much more gun ownership than the UK..and less violent crime.

When gun sales went through the roof in the US during the 2000's.. violent crime fell.

Those are facts.
 
Media_Truth said:
You're the one who used the car analogy. If cars and guns are similar, and both require a certain skill level to operate, why shouldn't both require licensing and deeds of transfer?
Click to expand...

Well.. there is no requirement for me to license my car.

Felons can purchase cars.. . minors can purchase cars..

So.. would you like the same requirements for guns? Felons allowed to purchase guns?, minors allowed to purchase firearms? No licensing requirements or registrations etc (none of that is required to own a car.. only if you want to register it to drive on public roads).


.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom