• 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!

The difference between the UK and the US when it comes to the availability of guns

DebateChallenge said:
If anything, a gun would enable a woman to stop a stronger man from raping/murdering her.
Click to expand...

Yes, if a woman has a gun, and one man comes at her without a gun, then yes, she might be able to stop a man raping her.

But then again Alaska has a rape rate five times higher than NY state. Go figure.
 
DebateChallenge said:
You do know what a first world country is, don't you? First world countries are the free world, countries such as the USA and Canada and countries that are in NATO. Second world countries are communist countries such as China and the USSR when it existed. Third world countries are those that are neither NATO nor communist.
Click to expand...

Used to be. The definition has changed

First World - Wikipedia

"The concept of First World originated during the Cold War and included countries that were generally aligned with NATO and opposed to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the definition has instead largely shifted to any country with little political risk and a well functioning democracy, rule of law, capitalist economy, economic stability, and high standard of living. Various ways in which modern First World countries are often determined include GDP, GNP, literacy rates, life expectancy, and the Human Development Index.[1] In common usage, as per Merriam-Webster, "first world" now typically refers to "the highly developed industrialized nations often considered the westernized countries of the world".[2]"
 
Frigidweirdo said:
The problem is you're still deflecting away from the problems.

How does the difference skew the numbers even more? You stated the size of the US skews the numbers. Well, perhaps, but skews them for the UK, not the US.

It doesn't matter whether the US breaks the top 10 for homicides or not. Comparing the US with third world countries isn't really going to get us very far. The US is a first world country.

Yes, the US has more guns per capita than any other country. And the highest murder rate in the first world. Coincidence? Also the easy availability of guns means that bad people can easily get guns. Also means people who go a little crazy can get them easily too.

You say guns aren't as available as people think. I disagree.

Where Do the Guns Come From? | The Crime Report

"Guns were easy to obtain when he was a youngster, Samuel told us. Adults would shoot dice in front of the building, and he would offer to hold their guns. Sometimes he’d be sitting on a nearby bench with 10 guns on him."

"At the time, he was only 11 or 12 years old."

"None of this would have happened, Samuel says now, if he had not had such easy access to guns."

"They asked 99 inmates a simple question: where do you get your guns?

And the research is clear: while policymakers argue about background checks for legal gun purchases, criminals, for the most part, are not getting guns through legal means."

Where Do All The Illegal Guns In Chicago Come From? — Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog — September 26, 2017

"According to the FBI, roughly 60% of guns used in crimes in Illinois were from out of state. The overwhelming number of those guns flow into Illinois from states that have much less restrictive gun laws. Most of those out of state guns came from Indiana, which is next to Illinois. Second place goes to Mississippi and third place goes to Wisconsin."

Guns are available and they're being acquired through illegal means, because the laws in place simply don't deal with the issues at hand. The biggest issue being that states do NOT have physical borders.

Yes, people can buy guns in the UK. So what's the difference between how the UK deals with things and how the US deals with things? The biggest part is that criminals find it difficult, not impossible, but difficult to get their hands on guns, therefore guns become precious for those who have them in the UK, whereas in the US, if you lose one gun, hell, go get another one.
Click to expand...

Once again, enforcement of existing laws would be better than adding unnecessary ones. Not to mention getting criminals off the streets themselves would hamper most of this as well.

Also, I would suggest not using the word of a criminal, much less the world of a murderer. Especially one who thinks it's correct to blame the availability of guns, then himself for what "He" chose to do. A gun on it's own, cannot just pick itself up and shoot someone.

None of this really impacts any decision that's been made in the last twenty years when it comes to gun laws in either the US, or the UK. Because you're still going to have criminals finding a way to kill one another.
 
DebateChallenge said:
You can buy and own handguns in the UK too, they just have to have an overall length of at least two feet and there is a minimal requirement for barrel length too. So handguns that are legal in the UK have long barrels and have counterbalances permanently attached to the handles. If you want to make it smaller, all you need is a hacksaw.
Click to expand...

As soon as the hacksaw comes into play, then it's illegal. Though I may have to find the pdf from the home office to get clarification on that one.
 
apdst said:
Nice job of cherry picking. You only presents stats for gun murders, but ignored every other violent crime. I guess you have no choice, though. Otherwise, your argument would go down in flames faster than the Hindenburg
Click to expand...

OK... World Bank statistics are provided by each nation's statistics organisations.

Intentional homicides 5.353 per 100,000 in U.S

Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) | Data

Intentional homicides 1.202 per 100,000 in U.K.

Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) | Data

You fail miserably each time whichever way you try and dodge. Your idiot president Trump tries to show London as some kind of murder capital but a simple image demonstrates what a moron he is and anyone who buys his argument.

How-Londons-murder-rate-compares-to-American-cities4-369f.jpg
 
DebateChallenge said:
There is nothing wrong with guns being readily available to those who use them properly.
Click to expand...

America holds the record for death buy bullet per head of population. Well done America. You guys kill more per head of population than third world countries. You should be proud. Hail the ak47 and AR 15.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
I love your rape argument. Makes sense, right?

Until you look at the rape statistics in the US and realize that MORE GUNS often means MORE RAPE.

The US average for rape is 41.7 per 100,000

Alaska has a rape rate of 116.7. This is massively higher than any other state. Lots of guns in Alaska. Then again Wyoming has the most registered guns, and a low rape rate.

The problem is, guns can be used to rape women.
Click to expand...

Physical size can be used to rape women. At least if the rapist has a gun and the victim has a gun they are equal.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Flamebait.

According to any sane look at facts, the gun crime rate is nowhere close to the USA's.
Click to expand...

If you banned knives, the amount of crimes with knives would go down. If you cut off everyone’s hands, there would be less people beaten with fists.

That is not a sane look at facts. It’s extremely irrational. By focusing purely on ‘gun crime’ you are making a dishonest argument.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I have no idea why it's so hard to understand.
Click to expand...

It’s irrational.

Infinite Chaos said:
Your nation promoted and still promotes itself as a beacon to others. Britain never did that. Your nation lied about being the "home of the free" when minorities were still hugely oppressed and had little chance of improving their lot.
Click to expand...

So?

Infinite Chaos said:
Nice way of admitting you didn't properly read what I posted.
Click to expand...

Ironic, since what you just quoted it pointing out you didn’t properly read what I posted. [emoji3166]
 
Frigidweirdo said:
No, but then it does make the whole violent bit at the beginning easier.
Click to expand...

That’s the point. Giving the women who as a natural physical disadvantage the ability to bring violence at the beginning easier. That in intentionally the point. [emoji817]
 
Oborosen said:
Once again, enforcement of existing laws would be better than adding unnecessary ones. Not to mention getting criminals off the streets themselves would hamper most of this as well.

Also, I would suggest not using the word of a criminal, much less the world of a murderer. Especially one who thinks it's correct to blame the availability of guns, then himself for what "He" chose to do. A gun on it's own, cannot just pick itself up and shoot someone.

None of this really impacts any decision that's been made in the last twenty years when it comes to gun laws in either the US, or the UK. Because you're still going to have criminals finding a way to kill one another.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but maybe not.

The point is that these laws aren't working. So if they're not working then people need to understand why. Perhaps the laws aren't being enforced because the laws are bad laws.

The whole "we just need to enforce existing laws" is just to stop people making gun control laws, isn't it? Just a tactic.

No, a gun can also not do anything on their own. Again, pointless words.
 
Aberration said:
Physical size can be used to rape women. At least if the rapist has a gun and the victim has a gun they are equal.
Click to expand...

Yes it can. So what?

If the rapist has a gun, and the victim has a gun, but the rapist catches the victim off guard, then it's not equal, is it?

Again, Alaska has the highest rape rate in the US. And lots of guns.
 
Aberration said:
That’s the point. Giving the women who as a natural physical disadvantage the ability to bring violence at the beginning easier. That in intentionally the point. [emoji817]
Click to expand...

And yet IT DOESN'T WORK.

The problem with your simple equation is that IT'S WRONG.

It'll work with rednecks, but it won't work with people who passed through high school.
 
The difference between the UK and the US when it comes to the availability of guns
Click to expand...


US: Second Amendment.

UK: No Second Amendment.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Maybe, but maybe not.

The point is that these laws aren't working. So if they're not working then people need to understand why. Perhaps the laws aren't being enforced because the laws are bad laws.

The whole "we just need to enforce existing laws" is just to stop people making gun control laws, isn't it? Just a tactic.

No, a gun can also not do anything on their own. Again, pointless words.
Click to expand...

Not pointless words, seeing as the man being interviewed in that article. Attempted to blame guns for his own crime. Something that the guns could not do, without him to pull the trigger.

What laws do you suppose we make to do anything about this, or what laws do you believe are useless?

Because at this point, better enforcement of laws a much better than a vast majority of the laws brought on by those who are more anti-gun in their lawmaking.

You can't just jump to "ban all guns" like some democrats would like to do, and not expect someone to have something to say about it.
 
Oborosen said:
Not pointless words, seeing as the man being interviewed in that article. Attempted to blame guns for his own crime. Something that the guns could not do, without him to pull the trigger.

What laws do you suppose we make to do anything about this, or what laws do you believe are useless?

Because at this point, better enforcement of laws a much better than a vast majority of the laws brought on by those who are more anti-gun in their lawmaking.

You can't just jump to "ban all guns" like some democrats would like to do, and not expect someone to have something to say about it.
Click to expand...

He didn't blame guns for his crimes. You're twisting it to make it fit into your narrative.

The issue here is you're talking about enforcing already existing laws, I'm saying there might be a reason why these laws aren't being enforced in the first place. Perhaps the laws are bad because they're not being enforced.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
He didn't blame guns for his crimes. You're twisting it to make it fit into your narrative.

The issue here is you're talking about enforcing already existing laws, I'm saying there might be a reason why these laws aren't being enforced in the first place. Perhaps the laws are bad because they're not being enforced.
Click to expand...

From the exact same article you linked.
None of this would have happened, Samuel says now, if he had not had such easy access to guns.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like trying to blame the guns, instead of actually taking responsibility for doing what he chose to do himself.

I will talk about enforcing laws, because it's the most sensible course of action. Especially compare to what a large number of politicians are trying to get pushed into action.
 
Oborosen said:
From the exact same article you linked.


Sounds a lot like trying to blame the guns, instead of actually taking responsibility for doing what he chose to do himself.

I will talk about enforcing laws, because it's the most sensible course of action. Especially compare to what a large number of politicians are trying to get pushed into action.
Click to expand...

I know what you're talking about. I just don't agree with your analysis of this.

You're trying to turn this into the typical argument that was bad the first time.

Kids are impacted by what goes on around them. Guns give power to people. You can pretend this is about individual responsibility, but the reality is that kids born and raised into a part of society that is rotten to the core, are more likely to end up committing crime. Yes, perhaps they could have done something about it. But the simple fact is many do NOT. And there are reasons behind this.

The politicians say it's about individual responsibility so they can avoid being responsible for doing their job.

You know why one of the reasons why the UK has less gun crime? Because politicians actually deal with the problems.

Or at least those not in the Tories do.

You will talk about enforcing laws. Which laws do you want enforcing? And why is that law not being enforced now?
 
Frigidweirdo said:
I know what you're talking about. I just don't agree with your analysis of this.

You're trying to turn this into the typical argument that was bad the first time.

Kids are impacted by what goes on around them. Guns give power to people. You can pretend this is about individual responsibility, but the reality is that kids born and raised into a part of society that is rotten to the core, are more likely to end up committing crime. Yes, perhaps they could have done something about it. But the simple fact is many do NOT. And there are reasons behind this.

The politicians say it's about individual responsibility so they can avoid being responsible for doing their job.

You know why one of the reasons why the UK has less gun crime? Because politicians actually deal with the problems.

Or at least those not in the Tories do.

You will talk about enforcing laws. Which laws do you want enforcing? And why is that law not being enforced now?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to turn it into anything that you're not trying to make it. You're the one that supplied the link did you not?
The one of a man, a man who had been convicted of murder of another gang member, and Quoted as saying that he wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the availability of guns.. Like the gun told him to pick it up, and use it to take another life?

Then try to fix those sections of rot and leave peoples 2nd amendment rights alone.
You would also need to actually prove that it's the politicians fault that one gangster decided to shoot another, which would be pretty hard to prove on face value alone. Because it's not the politicians responsibility.

People like myself try to emphasis personal responsibly because that is what counts when it comes to what "YOU" decided to do. If people exorcised personal responsibility more, they wouldn't be in these situations where they lived in, or around a rotten core of society.

Let the UK politicians deal with Gun crimes their way. They don't' have the second amendment, which protects their citizens from such things. Which is one of the main reasons why you can't just use them as some form of cookie cutter answer to gun violence in the US. Both of their policies, and politics do not mesh on that level.

Anti smuggling laws, charges against criminals who're caught, getting illegal guns off the streets and keeping them off those same streets. Just to name a few that come to mind.

My answer sure isn't going to be taking everyone else's guns, and leaving them only "for" the criminals. That is a death sentence just waiting to happen for more people, who are going to made even easier targets. Single women, children in their own schools, public transit, cab drivers, all of them.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Yes, if a woman has a gun, and one man comes at her without a gun, then yes, she might be able to stop a man raping her.
Click to expand...
In most cases a man wouldn't need a gun to rape a woman but if the woman has a gun at least that gives her a chance, whether the man has a gun or not.

Frigidweirdo said:
But then again Alaska has a rape rate five times higher than NY state. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Source?
 
Oborosen said:
As soon as the hacksaw comes into play, then it's illegal. Though I may have to find the pdf from the home office to get clarification on that one.
Click to expand...

Yes, the point is its easy to convert a legal gun into an illegal one in the UK since as far as I know hacksaws aren't too hard to get in the UK although that might be changing.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Your idiot president Trump tries to show London as some kind of murder capital but a simple image demonstrates what a moron he is and anyone who buys his argument.
Click to expand...

Based on the word "your" that you started the sentence with, that implies you are not a US citizen.
 
coco said:
America holds the record for death buy bullet per head of population. Well done America. You guys kill more per head of population than third world countries. You should be proud. Hail the ak47 and AR 15.
Click to expand...

Most of those deaths are suicides and the USA does not hold the record for suicides. Japan beats out the USA in suicide. France is more or less tied with the USA in suicide.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
The whole "we just need to enforce existing laws" is just to stop people making gun control laws, isn't it? Just a tactic.
Click to expand...

We don't need any more gun control laws, we've already got over 2000, if anything we need to get rid of some of them.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
It'll work with rednecks, but it won't work with people who passed through high school.
Click to expand...

Most people who own guns have passed through high school. Most people who believe in gun rights have passed through high school. Most people who are against gun rights haven't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom