CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should the British crack down on weapon laws?
The British have not cracked down on weapon laws, or found the root of the issue. Personally as a British citizen, I sometimes feel unsafe walking the streets, alleyways and parks of my hometime. I reckon I will be lucky to live to 18.
If they don't crackdown on weapon laws, I predict 75% of teenagers will be walking the streets with weapons of self-defence or just for attacking (mugging, killing ect).
I don't live in the UK, but if my research is right in the UK you can only own a shotgun with a permit and the gun must be stored in a safe with ammunition placed seperate from the gun. Therefore, what are you going to be afraid of? Oh, thats right. The criminals. If everyone was armed (like Switzerland) you crime would have decreased instead of increased and then whenever a nutjob walks in and starts to cause "trouble", you all can deal with it yourselves. Cops will show up, but they will take a picture of your body too.
Possession of a gun (although anything can be deemed a weapon) carries with it very high prison sentence in UK. Recent "Drive-by" shootings offenders have each received, on average, 32 years in prison.
say what you want to happen ? what and how would you "crack down" ?
Do you think a law makes things disappear by magic ? Speeding is against the law - this law has not stopped speeding. Bankers fiddling trillions of pounds is against the law - has the law stopped these criminal scum ??
Does that mean that we should be more closely monitoring the weapons that people are carrying and say that they are not allowed to use them? If it does then of course we don't have to do that, it would mean that we are not learning from countries around the world - and learning from the mistakes and good things others do is part of being human and not doing so would be completely stupid.
America has legalised guns and they have a much larger problem than we do with weapons. As a consequence of this America has the most reported gun crime in the world. We have not legalised guns and we have other laws meaning that it isn't easy to carry a weapon and not be arrested. That's how effective and legendary the system is here.
I think this might be a troll debate, and we don't have to change anything about our laws.
America has legalised guns and they have a much larger problem than we do with weapons.
Guns have always been legal in the United States. The only difference is that more gun control and bans have been passed over the centuries. However, the most recent removal of gun restrictions have been recent with the Supreme Court case finding the DC gun ban Unconstitutional and the Federal ban on Assault rifles that expired during the Bush administration.
We have not legalised guns and we have other laws meaning that it isn't easy to carry a weapon and not be arrested. That's how effective and legendary the system is here.
The most important quote from the link: Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
The laws have correlated with more homicides so I hardly see it to be "effective and legendary." Second graph is of England and Wales along with an explanation.
Only in a slight way. And really, this isn't surprising in the short term - in the short term gun bans will only remove guns from those who follow the rules, it is only the long term that it is made more difficult for criminals to get weapons, as the supply dries up.
The most important quote from the link: Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
Homicide rates increase with urbanization & sudden inflows of ethnic minorities. These have both increased since 1968 & 1997. Also, with the cost of guns decreasing significantly in the same time, I hardly find this surprising.
in the short term gun bans will only remove guns from those who follow the rules, it is only the long term that it is made more difficult for criminals to get weapons, as the supply dries up.
The supply doesn't dry up unless you send out a task force to eliminate as much of it as you can. And even when this was done with cocaine that only increased the power of the Cartel because costs went up as supply went down. What task force has been destroying guns recently?
Homicide rates increase with urbanization & sudden inflows of ethnic minorities. These have both increased since 1968 & 1997. Also, with the cost of guns decreasing significantly in the same time, I hardly find this surprising.
There are many possibilities, but as the facts show gun control has been ineffective and has only correlated with higher homicide rates.
Blame it on urbanization and minorities, I say that either way gun control has been a failure. Look at it in the same way as drug prohibition. It isn't right to say that drug prohibition is the reason why more people do drugs and why drugs are cheaper, but it isn't right to dismiss the facts and suggest that drug prohibition, in any way, is working.
The supply doesn't dry up unless you send out a task force to eliminate as much of it as you can. And even when this was done with cocaine that only increased the power of the Cartel because costs went up as supply went down. What task force has been destroying guns recently?
Guns are not permanent. They will eventually break, become outdated, get lost, and the supply will only be going down. And with regulation preventing whatever guns are banned from entering the market, this would imply that it is in the long term that gun bans will be most effective.
There are many possibilities, but as the facts show gun control has been ineffective and has only correlated with higher homicide rates.
Again, this is only within America. From an international perspective (which this debate is, if somewhat pointless), more gun control = less gun deaths/homicides/guns in the hands of criminals.
Look at it in the same way as drug prohibition.
Well from a point on the morality of the prohibition, I would argue that while drugs are a pursuit of individual liberty, guns are designed to infringe on the liberty of others - among other things, yes. Also, are you implying that by prohibiting guns, criminals are encouraged to purchase guns (basically, how closely related do you think that guns & drug prohibitions are)?
And in terms of the effectiveness of the prohibition, I maintain that it is exclusively an American problem that gun prohibition does not work, as I have already shown you, it has a significantly higher rate of gun violence (murders & homicides) than the vast majority of countries.
Collectors of antique guns will agree, but note that even antique guns can still be fired.
As well, guns will not stop being made even with a nation wide gun ban. Guns manufacturers are paid by governments to make more guns for various reasons, either for military or rebellions, and for the police. The idea that guns will ever stop being made is a pipe-dream. Gun bans only remove hands from law-abiding citizens.
this would imply that it is in the long term that gun bans will be most effective.
Even though this has never been proven or even been the case. You're going off of ideology. If making guns became banned and a task force went after anyone who made guns (with whatever weapons that aren't guns), I suppose you'd then have a problem with practicality, but just because a gun ban is enacted does not mean that the supply will "dry up."
Again, this is only within America. From an international perspective (which this debate is, if somewhat pointless), more gun control = less gun deaths/homicides/guns in the hands of criminals.
Did you not read my link? It pointed out gun control and bans in England and Wales and how homicides have only gone up.
As much as you love pointing out that other countries with less guns also happen to have less gun related deaths, you completely miss the point. The US has a much larger gun culture and has only had more problems as gun control was enacted. And it isn't just an American problem, because the results were the same in England. and countries like Sweden are heavily armed yet have very little gun crimes.
More gun control, like any type of regulation, only pushes guns into the black market. Guns aren't going to disappear... I can't believe you even tried to insinuate that.
(basically, how closely related do you think that guns & drug prohibitions are)?
Drugs are completely banned and the government has been attempting to eliminate them.
it has a significantly higher rate of gun violence (murders & homicides) than the vast majority of countries.
This only means that people are using guns instead of other weapons to kill people. Not to mention how much of the Drug War has actually brought upon gun homicides into this country. The combined factors result in a higher gun homicide rate. But taking away guns from law-abiding citizens has not curbed these facts. If Holmes didn't have guns he would have just used explosives which probably would have killed more (after all, he even made explosives). The Columbine kids also knew how to make explosives. The only ones they used were put in hot environments that caused them to melt, but if they were used in the schools it would have been much more devastating.
Collectors of antique guns will agree, but note that even antique guns can still be fired.
Agreed. I'm not saying the supply & stockpiles of guns will turn to zero, I'm saying they shall decrease, and make it safer for people.
Gun bans only remove hands from law-abiding citizens.
That's patently untrue. Gun bans make it significantly harder for criminals to acquire weapons - not impossible, but harder. Look at the prevalence of guns in criminals in the UK, in Australia, in France. Then look at the prevalence of guns among criminals in the US. Then, if you want even more proof, look at the amount of legal weapons in the hands on criminals, compared to that of illegal (more powerful) weapons. Legal weapons are much easier to access. The word 'only' is ridiculous in that statement.
Did you not read my link? It pointed out gun control and bans in England and Wales and how homicides have only gone up.
It failed to prove, in any way, that the only reason why gun control laws are the only reason for this rise. I believe that another explanation is largely to blame.
The US has a much larger gun culture and has only had more problems as gun control was enacted.
I would personally like to see a comparison of gun crime comparisons in various states, including mentions of gun control laws. I don't think I've seen such a comprehensive graph before - both sides are too selective about the data they produce.
And it isn't just an American problem, because the results were the same in England. and countries like Sweden are heavily armed yet have very little gun crimes.
When you say 'heavily armed', you do realise that they have also a third as many guns per capita as the US, right?
This only means that people are using guns instead of other weapons to kill people.
So to fix the problem, give more guns?
What you need to prove, in order to justify lax gun control laws (I don't think too many people should find it excessive to have basic background checks, personally), is that the extensions to personal liberty (the opportunity to go hunting/shooting/prevent crime) outweigh the fallbacks (instigating crime). I'm all for personal liberty, but I feel that with guns, the potential to reduce others liberties must take precedence.
I'm saying they shall decrease, and make it safer for people.
Yet this has never been the case. The pentagon often has a surplus of military grade weapons that it gives away to random local cities if they sign up for them quickly. What you're proposing is idealistic, and quite frankly, I haven't actually heard anything from you on how to decrease the supply. Somehow gun bans, to you, will mean far less guns which means safety. John Holmes used one gun that I know of... how are we safer if one gun can cause 12 deaths?
Look at the prevalence of guns in criminals in the UK, in Australia, in France.
No evidence saying that the on going trend of low gun violence has anything to do with gun control. England has always had low gun crimes even before gun control. Actually, GUN CRIMES WENT UP ACCORDING TO THE FACTS, which you dispute, and I shall get to.
It failed to prove, in any way, that the only reason why gun control laws are the only reason for this rise. I believe that another explanation is largely to blame.
Just because you personally can't accept the facts doesn't make them any less true. Blame whatever you want, the facts remain the same. Gun control and gun bans, according to my link, has correlated with only more gun homicides. Europe has always had always had less guns. America has been heavily into guns since its birth, not to mention the Civil War which added greatly to the civilian gun ownership. We have more guns, so we use them more. gun control has never had anything to do with that, and the evidence, according to my link, shows that increasing gun control (including bans) has done nothing to lower gun crime. US or any other country.
When you say 'heavily armed', you do realise that they have also a third as many guns per capita as the US, right?
Irrelevant. Sweden and Switzerland have much larger gun ownership (not gun existence) than other European countries yet have very little gun crimes.
One of the two actually have a requirement for all young males to register a fire arm and be susceptible to the draft. I think their lack of military is because of this. If anything, you could argue against the US's large military, but not against our lack of gun control.
I'm all for personal liberty, but I feel that with guns, the potential to reduce others liberties must take precedence.
If there was proof saying that lax gun control actually leads to more gun crime, you'd have something there. So far, all the pro-gun control people can only say that so far areas that have large gun crimes will always have large gun crimes, because inaction of gun control and bans have only correlated with either no decrease or even an increase of gun crimes.
You are approaching from an angle of paranoia. That letting citizens be armed leads to violence, yet this is hardly the case. Most gun murders are from criminals in the first place, be it drug dealers or burglars. Surely the US has an issue in how it deals with crime, but gun control has never been shown to be the answer.
As well, you're also acting like government is something to trust and not be afraid of. Why not disarm our government if we are to disarm the people it supposedly serves?
It happened in Australia, and has generally been considered a success in many parts of Europe. Generally, it is accepted that as long as gun control laws are implemented while guns are not prevalent, then the ban will be beneficial to gun crime. Using the US as an example in a debate on UK gun laws is irrelevant - we do not give guns away to people.
And if you don't believe that the supply will fall with gun sales down, does that mean that you want gun ownership to increase, with gun sales as normal? I fail to see how more guns in the UK will help reduce crime - guns are hard to get for criminals right now, I feel it's a good system.
No evidence saying that the on going trend of low gun violence has anything to do with gun control. England has always had low gun crimes even before gun control. Actually, GUN CRIMES WENT UP ACCORDING TO THE FACTS, which you dispute, and I shall get to.
No real evidence suggesting otherwise, we have causation without correlation - on both sides. And if you look at the graph, it followed the trend, regardless of the short term jumps due to gun control laws.
But, to play your game, the abundance of countries with stricter gun control + lower gun crimes than the US, and the low gun crime in the UK despite gun control, both implies that gun control is positive.
Just because you personally can't accept the facts doesn't make them any less true.
No. Stop asserting yourself, and your sources, as absolute and comprehensive sources of evidence. If you look at the graph you sent, the current position is below the long term trend - despite gun control laws in the recent past. The fact that the graph only shows from the beginning of a gun law, rather than significantly beyond it, is also telling.
Irrelevant. Sweden and Switzerland have much larger gun ownership (not gun existence) than other European countries yet have very little gun crimes.
They also have similar levels of gun control, much stricter than the US. In Sweden, for example, you must apply for a license, and will only get a gun if you can show reasonable reasons for needing one. This link, if you look under regulation, explains quite a bit. Most tellingly, you can't get a gun just for 'self defense'.
If anything, you could argue against the US's large military, but not against our lack of gun control.
Glad we agree here.
If there was proof saying that lax gun control actually leads to more gun crime, you'd have something there.
Except for the US - the lowest form of gun control in the developed world, and the highest level of gun crime. I think that's evidence enough to assume that high levels of gun ownership, in the hands of whoever wants them, should be approached with paranoia.
As well, you're also acting like government is something to trust and not be afraid of. Why not disarm our government if we are to disarm the people it supposedly serves?
does that mean that you want gun ownership to increase, with gun sales as normal?
Of legal citizenry? Of course.
I fail to see how more guns in the UK will help reduce crime - guns are hard to get for criminals right now, I feel it's a good system.
Except it's not a good system. You're basically saying "yeah, the population can't defend itself, but hey, I feel that it's a good idea anyway, despite no evidence supporting me."
No real evidence suggesting otherwise, we have causation without correlation - on both sides.
So why disarm the populace? Why is big government the automatic notion just because you ACCEPT what I've been saying, which is that no evidence shows gun control to be effective.
the abundance of countries with stricter gun control + lower gun crimes than the US, and the low gun crime in the UK despite gun control, both implies that gun control is positive.
Like all I've said has been completely disregarded. All the stats means nothing to you.
The fact that the graph only shows from the beginning of a gun law, rather than significantly beyond it, is also telling.
The graph shows that gun control and bans are useless. As I've stated over and over again, it's not about proving that they cause anything, it's that they haven't done anything to lower homicide rates.
Except for the US - the lowest form of gun control in the developed world, and the highest level of gun crime
As stated over and over again, with or without gun control. The same goes for all other countries. Gun control has had little to no effect on their homicide rates. In fact, as the stats show, gun control has only correlated with more gun crime.
And yes, only correlation. But why disarm the populace in defense of authoritarianism when the statistics don't even support your ideology?
You have the very same mentality as supporters of drug prohibition.
So are you saying that we should keep weapons to learn about different cultures? Also as a fact every 7 seconds someone in London gets stabbed, so we do have to monitor closer in public places, airports and train stations.
"So are you saying that we should keep weapons to learn about different cultures?"
Where did I say that?
Usually when someone is making a serious point they will back up their information with proof (in this case, quote what I said). You have not done so and I therefore do not understand why you have reached this conclusion.
I do not think that this was actually intended to be a serious debate, we don't have to change our laws at all - that's a problem for countries where knuckle-dusters are legal. Therefore I suppose that you are a troll.
"As a fact every 7 seconds someone in London gets stabbed"
That isn't true at all.
Just look at the link below to see that stabbings in London are far more infrequent than that. Your number of someone being stabbed every seven seconds is miles out.
If every seven seconds someone in London was stabbed then I could pay a quick visit to London and see loads of people with knives stuck into them, and that isn't something that I, or anyone I know, has ever seen. Americans, from the contact I have had with them, appear to be under the understanding that London is a bloodthirsty place full of corruption - that's completely wrong.
