Other Countries Change Their Gun Laws After Mass Shootings. Why Not America?

43 people were murdered in Baltimore in the month of May due to typical black-on-black violence. One city, 43 people.

9 people died in a shooting by a white person.

Which of these events caused the nation to lose its mind over gun control?

Now ask yourself why that is?

Now do you honestly think that the gun control advocates are genuinely interested in reducing violence?

originally posted by: bluesilver
Most have at some point, but (a) the reality is that you have millions of guns in circulation on the chance that a first world nation in the 21st century is suddenly going to implode...

Why? Does being technologically advanced mean we are more immune from collapse? I would posit the opposite.

...and (b) you are assuming that a gun would stop your entire trained military, when they have for more weapons than you and far more advanced weapons than you. If it really came to it, they could starve you or bomb you before they have to shoot you.

Uh, huh, cause the military would carpet bomb suburbia. You forgetting how quickly we defeated the Viet COng, Taliban and Al Qaeda too?

But again, how likely is it really that your government is going to a war with its own subjects? I'd say it's pretty unlikely.

I say highly unlikely and part of the reason is the amount of privately held firearms. Lovely deterrent it is, just like it was planned to be.

originally posted by: Answer
43 people were murdered in Baltimore in the month of May due to typical black-on-black violence. One city, 43 people.

9 people died in a shooting by a white person.

Which of these events caused the nation to lose its mind over gun control?

Now ask yourself why that is?

Now do you honestly think that the gun control advocates are genuinely interested in reducing violence?

Considering the home office fudges the books so their murder rates look lower, I'd say that their interest in reducing violence is zero.

In the US, every violent death is counted as a homicide. In the UK, only those cases where a conviction for homicide is achieved are counted as homicides. Thus, the actual homicide rate in the UK might actually be greater than that in the US.

Here is an interesting article. Do not disregard it because of the conservative nature of the writer or the website as he links and sources actual UK home office and coroner's data.

Murder rates UK vs US

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: bluesilver
Most have at some point, but (a) the reality is that you have millions of guns in circulation on the chance that a first world nation in the 21st century is suddenly going to implode...

Why? Does being technologically advanced mean we are more immune from collapse? I would posit the opposite.

...and (b) you are assuming that a gun would stop your entire trained military, when they have for more weapons than you and far more advanced weapons than you. If it really came to it, they could starve you or bomb you before they have to shoot you.

Uh, huh, cause the military would carpet bomb suburbia. You forgetting how quickly we defeated the Viet COng, Taliban and Al Qaeda too?

But again, how likely is it really that your government is going to a war with its own subjects? I'd say it's pretty unlikely.

I say highly unlikely and part of the reason is the amount of privately held firearms. Lovely deterrent it is, just like it was planned to be.

So basically you think your country is likely to crumble and your government only holds back from taking over because you have a gun.

What other country feels the same as you do?

originally posted by: bluesilver

So basically you think your country is likely to crumble and your government only holds back from taking over because you have a gun.

History says it is inevitable.

What other country feels the same as you do?

Why would I care? I do not live there.

originally posted by: bluesilver

So basically you think your country is likely to crumble and your government only holds back from taking over because you have a gun.

What other country feels the same as you do?

Do you think that the Jews in Germany ever thought, for a second, that they'd be herded into cattle cars and shipped off to death camps?

Do you think that, when strict gun laws were passed in Germany, they ever thought that they were giving up their ability to defend from an eventual massacre?

History shows that the first step toward absolute tyranny is to disarm the people. As long as the people are armed, the system of checks and balances is firmly entrenched.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Answer
43 people were murdered in Baltimore in the month of May due to typical black-on-black violence. One city, 43 people.

9 people died in a shooting by a white person.

Which of these events caused the nation to lose its mind over gun control?

Now ask yourself why that is?

Now do you honestly think that the gun control advocates are genuinely interested in reducing violence?

Considering the home office fudges the books so their murder rates look lower, I'd say that their interest in reducing violence is zero.

In the US, every violent death is counted as a homicide. In the UK, only those cases where a conviction for homicide is achieved are counted as homicides. Thus, the actual homicide rate in the UK might actually be greater than that in the US.

Here is an interesting article. Do not disregard it because of the conservative nature of the writer or the website as he links and sources actual UK home office and coroner's data.

Murder rates UK vs US

Oh I know... I posted all that info in the other ongoing gun control thread full of UK members.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Answer
43 people were murdered in Baltimore in the month of May due to typical black-on-black violence. One city, 43 people.

9 people died in a shooting by a white person.

Which of these events caused the nation to lose its mind over gun control?

Now ask yourself why that is?

Now do you honestly think that the gun control advocates are genuinely interested in reducing violence?

Considering the home office fudges the books so their murder rates look lower, I'd say that their interest in reducing violence is zero.

In the US, every violent death is counted as a homicide. In the UK, only those cases where a conviction for homicide is achieved are counted as homicides. Thus, the actual homicide rate in the UK might actually be greater than that in the US.

Here is an interesting article. Do not disregard it because of the conservative nature of the writer or the website as he links and sources actual UK home office and coroner's data.

Murder rates UK vs US

Oh I know... I posted all that info in the other ongoing gun control thread full of UK members.

a reply to: Answer
I would say that the statistics in america would increase 10 fold if all your states were as densely populated, like ours would go up if we had firearms.

Nice link though.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Answer
I would say that the statistics in america would increase 10 fold if all your states were as densely populated, like ours would go up if we had firearms.

Nice link though.

No, not quite. These are per capita. Rates in rural America are already known to be low and the vast majority of our crime is in the inner city. In rural America, where guns are extremely common, our murder rates low. In the big cities, where guns are often banned, our rates are the highest.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Answer
I would say that the statistics in america would increase 10 fold if all your states were as densely populated, like ours would go up if we had firearms.

Nice link though.

You replied to me, even though I didn't post the link in this thread... but I'll bite.

You'll have to clarify your point a bit here... do you think that the U.S. doesn't have densely populated cities?

Also, you realize how "rates" work versus overall numbers, right?

a reply to: NavyDoc
My point being in these rural areas, if houses were in closer proximity to other houses, then the statistics would go up, like jn inner cities.

a reply to: Answer
I genuinely thought that america had no cities. Please. And yes I do understand rates. I apologise for reading a link you provided also. My bad.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Answer
I genuinely thought that america had no cities. Please. And yes I do understand rates. I apologise for reading a link you provided also. My bad.

Again, I didn't provide the link. If your reading comprehension while viewing the link was as good as you've shown in this thread... it's no wonder you're confused.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: NavyDoc
My point being in these rural areas, if houses were in closer proximity to other houses, then the statistics would go up, like jn inner cities.

I doubt it. There are different societal elements in rural vs urban environments. People will not change just because they have one tool or the other. I can leave my doors unlocked at night.

You honestly think farmers in the UK, delightful and good people, would suddenly start murdering each other if they happened to live closer together?

a reply to: NavyDoc
Just an opinion, cos for some reason people struggle to understand that what I type is just an opinion (not you), confrontations occur due to interaction. It's hard to confront/ get in a dispute with someone when the nearest neighbour is a 10 minute walk away (very rural).

I believe people do change when they have a tool or not. I believe the whole LEO predicament in america is a fine example of how a tool can change the mindset of an individual, which can then change other people's perceptions.

a reply to: Answer

My apologies thought you posted it. Very small phone as an excuse and possibly the inferred retardness playing a part.

a reply to: Answer

Now do you honestly think that the gun control advocates are genuinely interested in reducing violence?

No. Not really. They're after control. ...and control only.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: NavyDoc
Just an opinion, cos for some reason people struggle to understand that what I type is just an opinion (not you), confrontations occur due to interaction. It's hard to confront/ get in a dispute with someone when the nearest neighbour is a 10 minute walk away (very rural).

I believe people do change when they have a tool or not. I believe the whole LEO predicament in america is a fine example of how a tool can change the mindset of an individual, which can then change other people's perceptions.

Fair enough.

However, in those rural areas where people are not killing each other, they also find time to know who that neighbor is, even if his house is a 10 minute walk away, visit them when they are sick, tend their farm when they are away, go to weddings and funerals and everything one would expect from a close-nit community. Put those very same people in a tenement building and, IMHO, those people would still act the same way.

We won't make guns illegal, we'll just make a certain percentage of guns illegal, while increasing the companies in our own country that make these guns, creating an even greater profit margin to be had on all illegal guns.

Or with that logic, they push to make guns illegal because we have so many gun manufactures here and the price of guns would basically be whatever the seller wants, making the gun manufactures in this country even more money.

Or this is all bogus and guns don't walk around and kill people, human brains walk around via electrical signals and unpleasant thoughts normally based around someone wronging them, killing people in high emotional stress environments, possibly brought on by other stressers, meaning that, maybe we're all becoming too stressed out and this is making issues already present , that much more worse.

So many other ways to be an arsehat, guns have their pros and cons, mainly they are used when one doesn't care about the noise.