Should the UK loosen handgun restrictions?

[Chernoslavia]

Yeah, about that... doesn't that have an article somewhere stating that the British people have the right to have weapons? Which was infringed years ago now due to massive draconian and ineffective gun laws?

No.

In fact, fuck no. This demonstrates a level of inaccuracy that would be astounding if it wasn't typical of you comments on the topic to date.

Of course, you guys once had it in the Bill of Rights of 1689, until 1920....

[The Joseon Dynasty]

No, absolutely not.

[Corbins]

I think gun control should be sanctioned

[Yngen]

The UK should get rid of most of its gun laws. I mean for a country that is so called "free" some of its laws are pretty Damn oppressive.

Britons have never idealised 'freedom'. Our keyword is 'civilisation' and we understand that actually, despite that one Franklin quote about liberty that's always thrown around like he's some kind of living god, societies entail compromise. If one of those compromises is that we all agree we don't actually need to have access to powerful killing machines 24/7 then so be it.

[NFA]

The UK should get rid of most of its gun laws. I mean for a country that is so called "free" some of its laws are pretty Damn oppressive.

Britons have never idealised 'freedom'. Our keyword is 'civilisation' and we understand that actually, despite that one Franklin quote about liberty that's always thrown around like he's some kind of living god, societies entail compromise. If one of those compromises is that we all agree we don't actually need to have access to powerful killing machines 24/7 then so be it.

Well, I guess that's just the difference between us. You would sacrifice your freedom in the name of " compromise" and "civilization", whereas I choose to have my freedom as opposed to a little security.

[Horizont]

Britons have never idealised 'freedom'. Our keyword is 'civilisation' and we understand that actually, despite that one Franklin quote about liberty that's always thrown around like he's some kind of living god, societies entail compromise. If one of those compromises is that we all agree we don't actually need to have access to powerful killing machines 24/7 then so be it.

Well, I guess that's just the difference between us. You would sacrifice your freedom in the name of " compromise" and "civilization", whereas I choose to have my freedom as opposed to a little security.

Actually, quite a lot of people in Britain in general have accepted that ideal; it's not just him.

[NFA]

Well, I guess that's just the difference between us. You would sacrifice your freedom in the name of " compromise" and "civilization", whereas I choose to have my freedom as opposed to a little security.

Actually, quite a lot of people in Britain in general have accepted that ideal; it's not just him.

That's what I meant when I said " between us".

[Horizont]

Actually, quite a lot of people in Britain in general have accepted that ideal; it's not just him.

That's what I meant when I said " between us".

Ah, my apologies. I assumed it was simply between you and him as individuals.

[Yngen]

Britons have never idealised 'freedom'. Our keyword is 'civilisation' and we understand that actually, despite that one Franklin quote about liberty that's always thrown around like he's some kind of living god, societies entail compromise. If one of those compromises is that we all agree we don't actually need to have access to powerful killing machines 24/7 then so be it.

Well, I guess that's just the difference between us. You would sacrifice your freedom in the name of " compromise" and "civilization", whereas I choose to have my freedom as opposed to a little security.

And that's why my children can go to school without getting shot. You care more about access to big boy toys and a pointless, unnecessary 'freedom' which was actually a military convention written during wartime than you do about the safety of those around you. I guess that's just the difference between us.

[Salandriagado]

False. You have already admitted that banning handguns directly reduces the percentage of violent crimes that result in deaths. The rest follows directly.

I have never said that anywhere.

Fine, if you're going to deny it, we'll just have to pull out the statistics :

Crimes involving guns: 8,135 offences involving firearms, of which 30 were fatal, 204 resulted in serious injury, 1,434 in minor injury, and the rest in no injury. That is: 0.37% fatal, 2.5% serious, 18% minor. Of those resulting in some kind of injury, 1.8% were fatal and 12% were serious. (2012/13 statistical year, source).
Violent crimes in general: 1.9 million offences, of which 551 were fatal, 1.2 million resulting in some form of injury ("serious"/"minor" statistics not obviously available). That is 0.029% of all violent crimes were fatal, 0.046% of all of those resulting in some kind of injury. (Same year, Source 1, Source 2).

That is: removing firearms from a violent crime reduces the fatality rate by more than an order of magnitude. All that remains to show is that the laws in Britain have, in fact, removed guns from crimes: this has already been thoroughly covered, but I can go and dig the statistics out again if you insist.

Britons have never idealised 'freedom'. Our keyword is 'civilisation' and we understand that actually, despite that one Franklin quote about liberty that's always thrown around like he's some kind of living god, societies entail compromise. If one of those compromises is that we all agree we don't actually need to have access to powerful killing machines 24/7 then so be it.

Well, I guess that's just the difference between us. You would sacrifice your freedom in the name of " compromise" and "civilization", whereas I choose to have my freedom as opposed to a little security.

Owning a particular object isn't a right, unless it's necessary for life. A ban on owning guns (which doesn't exist, and has never existed in the UK, by the way) is no different from a ban on owning nuclear weapons: it's a ban on something you have no particular right to own, and perfectly within the moral purview of the government and doesn't cause any problems with rights whatsoever.

[NFA]

Well, I guess that's just the difference between us. You would sacrifice your freedom in the name of " compromise" and "civilization", whereas I choose to have my freedom as opposed to a little security.

And that's why my children can go to school without getting shot. You care more about access to big boy toys and a pointless, unnecessary 'freedom' which was actually a military convention written during wartime than you do about the safety of those around you. I guess that's just the difference between us.

At least my country doesn't have a higher violent crime rate in per portion to population... So, who is safer now?

[Horizont]

And that's why my children can go to school without getting shot. You care more about access to big boy toys and a pointless, unnecessary 'freedom' which was actually a military convention written during wartime than you do about the safety of those around you. I guess that's just the difference between us.

At least my country doesn't have a higher violent crime rate in per portion to population... So, who is safer now?

The UK's definition of violent crime is a lot broader than that of the US so those numbers mean nothing.

[Salandriagado]

And that's why my children can go to school without getting shot. You care more about access to big boy toys and a pointless, unnecessary 'freedom' which was actually a military convention written during wartime than you do about the safety of those around you. I guess that's just the difference between us.

At least my country doesn't have a higher violent crime rate in per portion to population... So, who is safer now?

Except that many of those violent crimes result in no injuries whatsoever. Still the country that doesn't have the highest murder rate in the developed world.

[The Nihilistic view]

No.

In fact, fuck no. This demonstrates a level of inaccuracy that would be astounding if it wasn't typical of you comments on the topic to date.

Of course, you guys once had it in the Bill of Rights of 1689, until 1920....

The Clause in question

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

Key part underlined, it only prevents the Monarch from interfering whilst gives parliament the authority to set the law on bearing arms as it sees fit. It in no way guarantees the right to bear arms. It was added because previously James II had made it unlawful for protestants to bear arms.

You have fundamentally misunderstood the point of the bill of rights. It was not about the rights of the common people but rather the rights of parliament over the Monarch. All it was was a transfer of power from King to Parliament.

[The Nihilistic view]

And that's why my children can go to school without getting shot. You care more about access to big boy toys and a pointless, unnecessary 'freedom' which was actually a military convention written during wartime than you do about the safety of those around you. I guess that's just the difference between us.

At least my country doesn't have a higher violent crime rate in per portion to population... So, who is safer now?

That is a myth, the reason it appears that way is that the UK classification of violent crime is different to the US. The UK classifies more crimes as violent.

[Shago]

At least my country doesn't have a higher violent crime rate in per portion to population... So, who is safer now?

Except that many of those violent crimes result in no injuries whatsoever. Still the country that doesn't have the highest murder rate in the developed world.

England is a little bit different. When prohibition was tried in the US it only made the problem of alcohol worse. If a prohibition on guns happened In the US, it would only make the problem of gun violence worse. Again the UK is a little different.

[Salandriagado]

Except that many of those violent crimes result in no injuries whatsoever. Still the country that doesn't have the highest murder rate in the developed world.

England is a little bit different. When prohibition was tried in the US it only made the problem of alcohol worse. If a prohibition on guns happened In the US, it would only make the problem of gun violence worse. Again the UK is a little different.

What, exactly, did that have to do with my post? If you're going to quote one of my posts, kindly respond to it. If you just want to post your thoughts, don't quote my posts.

[NFA]

At least my country doesn't have a higher violent crime rate in per portion to population... So, who is safer now?

That is a myth, the reason it appears that way is that the UK classification of violent crime is different to the US. The UK classifies more crimes as violent.

England has always had a very low murder rate. America was founded on Guns, we always have had a violent culture.
What do they call violent crime anyway? Violent crime should be violent crime.

[Shago]

England is a little bit different. When prohibition was tried in the US it only made the problem of alcohol worse. If a prohibition on guns happened In the US, it would only make the problem of gun violence worse. Again the UK is a little different.

What, exactly, did that have to do with my post? If you're going to quote one of my posts, kindly respond to it. If you just want to post your thoughts, don't quote my posts.

Sorry, my mistake. Using phone to post, you know how that goes.

[Chernoslavia]

I have never said that anywhere.

Fine, if you're going to deny it, we'll just have to pull out the statistics :

Crimes involving guns: 8,135 offences involving firearms, of which 30 were fatal, 204 resulted in serious injury, 1,434 in minor injury, and the rest in no injury. That is: 0.37% fatal, 2.5% serious, 18% minor. Of those resulting in some kind of injury, 1.8% were fatal and 12% were serious. (2012/13 statistical year, source).
Violent crimes in general: 1.9 million offences, of which 551 were fatal, 1.2 million resulting in some form of injury ("serious"/"minor" statistics not obviously available). That is 0.029% of all violent crimes were fatal, 0.046% of all of those resulting in some kind of injury. (Same year, Source 1, Source 2).

That is: removing firearms from a violent crime reduces the fatality rate by more than an order of magnitude. All that remains to show is that the laws in Britain have, in fact, removed guns from crimes: this has already been thoroughly covered, but I can go and dig the statistics out again if you insist.

Well, I guess that's just the difference between us. You would sacrifice your freedom in the name of " compromise" and "civilization", whereas I choose to have my freedom as opposed to a little security.

Owning a particular object isn't a right, unless it's necessary for life. A ban on owning guns (which doesn't exist, and has never existed in the UK, by the way) is no different from a ban on owning nuclear weapons: it's a ban on something you have no particular right to own, and perfectly within the moral purview of the government and doesn't cause any problems with rights whatsoever.

1. Like I said I have admitted nothing that banning guns reduces gun violence and homicide. Now, if you were to have said removing guns from criminals, I would've agreed with you. I do agree that britain has had very low gun homicides, but as I say once again even before the handgun ban gun crime was already low, meaning the ban changed nothing neither for good or bad...well, except the fact that property was seized by the government.

2. That's it. There's just no fucking compromise or reasoning with you. If you don't think that having tools to help defend yourself is not a basic human right and thus think that it's okay to take it from people that already own said tools, then I seem to have waisted my time with you. I believe we're done here.

[Horizont]

2. That's it. There's just no fucking compromise or reasoning with you. If you don't think that having tools to help defend yourself is not a basic human right and thus think that it's okay to take it from people, then I seem to have waisted my time with you. I believe we're done here.

To defend citizens is what the police is there for, so it's not really as essential as you think in this country.

[Chernoslavia]

2. That's it. There's just no fucking compromise or reasoning with you. If you don't think that having tools to help defend yourself is not a basic human right and thus think that it's okay to take it from people, then I seem to have waisted my time with you. I believe we're done here.

To defend citizens is what the police is there for, so it's not nearly as essential as you think.

In the real world, the police can't always be there to help you, do you have any idea how many cops we would need to hire in order to have that kind of fantasy? A very unrealistic amount.

[Shago]

2. That's it. There's just no fucking compromise or reasoning with you. If you don't think that having tools to help defend yourself is not a basic human right and thus think that it's okay to take it from people, then I seem to have waisted my time with you. I believe we're done here.

To defend citizens is what the police is there for, so it's not really as essential as you think in this country.

Saying you don't need guns to defend yourself because we have the police is like saying you don't need fire extinguishers because we have the fire department.

[Chernoslavia]

To defend citizens is what the police is there for, so it's not really as essential as you think in this country.

Saying you don't need guns to defend yourself because we have the police is like saying you don't need fire extinguishers because we have the fire department.

We have a saying here in the US - It is better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it.

[Horizont]

To defend citizens is what the police is there for, so it's not nearly as essential as you think.

In the real world, the police can't always be there to help you, do you have any idea how many cops we would need to hire in order to have that kind of fantasy? A very unrealistic amount.

Of course they can't do it completely, but they're doing a decent enough job in my opinion. But let's say we legalize guns and that everything goes as you intended. Okay, now let's say a hundred less people die each year (which wouldn't happen). But even so, the enormous drawbacks such a thing would have would far outweigh any benefits it might bring.