UK.. We Messed Up Letting The Government Take Our Guns..

Originally posted by EvillerBob

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Unalien
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Right - handguns outlawed so therefore no handgun violence -- Right?
Except mate - 2005 4,360 cases of handgun violence, 2006 - 4,672, 2007 - 4,173 2008 - 4,172 2009-4,274 2010-3,743 2011-3,105

So yeah - now the ONLY ones with handguns are the bad guys using them on all the sheep without them.

I don't see your point, I don't know where you're talking about either. If you're talking about chicago still, laws will not work there, because as I've said several times, they are surrounded by guns.

Ahh. I think I see the cross-purpose here.

Yes, Chicago is surrounded by guns. So is every other city in the US. Why is it that the two cities with the strictest controls still manage to have some of the highest rates of gun-related deaths? If it was just because "they are surrounded by guns" then there are hundreds of other cities that are not only surrounded by them but full of them too. What is it about those two cities that makes them different?

If "being surrounded by guns" is the reason why gun control doesn't work, why does Liverpool still manage to have such a high rate of gun crime?

I don't know, maybe they had high crimes and murders before the laws came in. Either way it doesn't prove anything on your side at all. Gun crime is different from gun homicides, but Liverpool's isn't that high, probably the highest in the country though. You aren't making a point at all here.

reply to post by NavyDoc


This is true - but not without a long standing, and frankly quite expensive club membership.
AR15 in .22LR would be a great target rifle - but, again, needing to attend a club a certain number of times beforehand makes it more complex than it needs be. IMHO.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Sorry fella, link doesn't seem to work and I'm having difficulty finding the pdf. I think the question is does a gun ban stop gun violence. You can't stop people being people, but you can restrict what they can kill each other with. From what i can tell from the numerous posts about guns on ATS there's more of fear of each other in the US, you feel the need to protect yourselves from one another. There's also more of a culture of the lone rugged individualist. We all prefer our own cultures, we're indoctrinated that way. Is one better than another ? depends on what you want out of your society.

reply to post by EvanB


Hi I am from Essex in Uk, The problem is no-one knows or understands the politics, We had our guns taken away with the promise of a more secure society, that was when the British Bobby carried only a set of handcuffs a wooden trunchen and a radio, Now we have no guns and they have Hand cuffs, tazers, pepper spray, helmets, protective jackets, and we have nothing to protect Yourself, You do not learn about common law in British schools because they do not want you to know your rights, the British people are the most lost, and have no idea of the MONSTER waiting round the corner,

Some people do know that something is wrong but even some of those do not give a #, they are morons.

I hear comments like "what can we do about it." or "thats just the way things are" what a pathetic excuse they have no idea of what these so called Elite bloodlines have in store for them, they think that if they keep their heads down and be a good little slave then nothing will happen. Im sick of it..

the Jews did what they were told, they got on the Buses, went to the camps, and ended up dead, they were told they were going to be looked after. WAKE UP IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN. please show support to the cause by visiting my youtube channel and please share the vids with friends, we all need to let our voices be heard. NOW

NewWorldNewAge YouTube Channel

Originally posted by SpearMint
I don't know, maybe they had high crimes and murders before the laws came in. Either way it doesn't prove anything on your side at all. Gun crime is different from gun homicides, but Liverpool's isn't that high, probably the highest in the country though. You aren't making a point at all here.

edit on 16-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Actually it proves a point quite well. If gun bans made one safer, than those US cities without gunbans should be more violent, yet we see that those cities with the most gun bans are the most violent consistently. You say" maybe they had higher crimes and murders before the laws came in" but that really concedes the point that gun bans are not the solution and that there are other factors at play.

Originally posted by Quadraphobe
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

This is true - but not without a long standing, and frankly quite expensive club membership.
AR15 in .22LR would be a great target rifle - but, again, needing to attend a club a certain number of times beforehand makes it more complex than it needs be. IMHO.

Yeah. My friends in the UK who are shooters and understand guns think that your rules are rather stupid, but they do what they can with what they have.

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Sorry fella, link doesn't seem to work and I'm having difficulty finding the pdf. I think the question is does a gun ban stop gun violence. You can't stop people being people, but you can restrict what they can kill each other with. From what i can tell from the numerous posts about guns on ATS there's more of fear of each other in the US, you feel the need to protect yourselves from one another. There's also more of a culture of the lone rugged individualist. We all prefer our own cultures, we're indoctrinated that way. Is one better than another ? depends on what you want out of your society.

edit on 16-1-2013 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)

But that's the point isn't it. You haven't stopped the killing with bans of inanimate objects: the killing not only has continued in the UK but has increased over time. Now they are discussing "knife crime" and bans and restricitons on knives in the UK, are they not? Banning an nanimate object will not solve a societal problem.

You are incorrect. Americans do not own firearms because they fear each other. They own firearms because they consider it a pracitcal tool for a particular problem. I own a fire extinguisher, not because I am afraid of fire, but because if there is a fire, that is the best tool to deal with the situation.

so to sum up, we can have guns, just some folk disagree with the nature of the rules

The UK certainly has a history of megalomaniacs and control freaks. It would not surprise me at all if there were still powerful people in the UK who want to increase control over their subjects as well as increase their control globally. I believe America was originally against these globalist control freaks but today they are in bed with them.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint
I don't know, maybe they had high crimes and murders before the laws came in. Either way it doesn't prove anything on your side at all. Gun crime is different from gun homicides, but Liverpool's isn't that high, probably the highest in the country though. You aren't making a point at all here.

edit on 16-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Actually it proves a point quite well. If gun bans made one safer, than those US cities without gunbans should be more violent, yet we see that those cities with the most gun bans are the most violent consistently. You say" maybe they had higher crimes and murders before the laws came in" but that really concedes the point that gun bans are not the solution and that there are other factors at play.

No, it doesn't. Why can't people understand that gun laws in one state are pointless when the whole country is saturated in guns. Obviously it's not going to work, that does not prove that gun laws do not work. It's too late for the US anyway, it's screwed and going to get worse either way, pointless argument really. Funny how the obsession with "liberty" lead to it.

There's an incredible degree of similarity between gun and religion debates on ATS. Both the pro and anti gun advocates get terribly emotional about the topic.

Originally posted by misscurious
NO we didn't .. why do we need guns here?

Actually re reading your post I've never heard so Much nonsense.. so instead of demonstrating peacefully we take to the streets with guns? I'm glad we don't have more people like you livng here...

edit on 15-1-2013 by misscurious because: (no reason given)

Blissfully ignorant you are. We do not need to protest with guns as our federal government know that it's citizens are armed. As Yamamoto stated "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

The framers knew that our government would become to powerful and eventually deem citizens irresponsible and legislate a nanny state. The only protection we have is the ability to rise up against our government if they become a tyrannical government. And if you do not think it's possible in this day an age, please look at the very recent history of many nations that have had their guns removed and tyrannical governments installed.

reply to post by SpearMint


Gun laws in Chicago do not work.
The entire progressive agenda in Illinois has failed.
They have shootouts every night.

Obama is debating whether or not to pass a bunch of placebos.
He also intends to hide behind children at the press conference.

I completely agree with you, OP.

I live in a western-European country where gun control is just as draconian as in the UK, and it's NOT a safe place.

Crime is completely out of control; there are dozens of murders, armed robberies and home invasions taking place every day in a country whose population consists of a mere 11008000 people.
My country has also seen three mass killings in the last few years, two in which several young children were killed by knife wielding psychopaths and one which involved a drugged-up ex-con using several illegal weapons (including grenades) to kill 6 people and seriously injure more than 120 (some of which later died from their injuries and many of which are now crippled for life).

It's so bad that i have been robbed three times in broad daylight, twice at knife-point and once by a gang of three men, in what is considered a safe part of the country.



To finish i will compare some statistics from 5 countries in order to prove just how effective private gun ownership, capital punishment and shame-based cultures are at deterring crime. i will also provide strong evidence that gun ownership does not affect suicide rates.


U.K:
gun control: very strict.
death penalty: unused.
culture: extroverted and guilt based. highly sexualized.
substance abuse: frequent, culturally acceptable.
crime: high.
suicide rate: low.

U.S.A:
gun control: lax.
death penalty: occasionally used in a few states.
culture: extroverted and guilt based. highly sexualized.
substance abuse: frequent, culturally acceptable.
crime: average.
suicide rate: moderate.

Switzerland:
gun control: lax-moderate.
death penalty: unused.
culture: introverted and guilt based. moderately sexualized.
substance abuse: uncommon, culturally controversial.
crime: low.
suicide rate: low.

Saudi Arabia:
gun control: inexistent until 2007, lax after 2007.
death penalty: used frequently.
culture: introverted and shame based. non sexualized.
substance abuse: very rare, culturally unacceptable.
crime: very low.
suicide rate: very low.

Japan:
gun control: very strict.
death penalty: used frequently for violent crimes.
culture: introverted and shame based. moderately sexualized.
substance abuse: uncommon, culturally controversial.
crime: low.
suicide rate: very high.


The conclusion i can draw from the comparison of these statistics is that the private ownership of firearms for the purpose of self-defense is a highly effective way to reduce both the frequency (via deterrence) and the severity (by allowing the victim or bystanders to stop the aggressor) of violent crimes. however, the only way to reduce the number of potential criminals to begin with is by setting boundaries such as personal shame and the risk of strict penalties (i.e. capital punishment), by increasing familial cohesion, by addressing cultural issues (forced extroversion and hyper-sexual behavior) and by fighting substance abuse.



some interesting facts pertaining to crime and self-defense:

- A person is 9000 times more likely to be killed by a vehicle than by a stray-bullet fired in self-defense.
- A police officer is 11 times more likely to shoot the wrong person than a civilian.
- Civilian shooters hit their target 9/10 times as opposed to 3/10 times for police officers and 1/10 times for criminals (this is due to the fact that criminals are often on drugs, enraged or running while they are shooting).
- On average 12.5% of all gunshot wounds are fatal compared to 13.7% of all stab wounds and roughly 25% of all attacks with blunt objects.
- in the U.S.A. alone private gun owners stop 800000 to 2500000 crimes a year.
- in Europe, there is a 1/4 chance that a robbery will end in violence towards the victim, even if he complies.


sorry if i messed up somewhere, it's my first post.

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by misscurious
NO we didn't .. why do we need guns here?

Actually re reading your post I've never heard so Much nonsense.. so instead of demonstrating peacefully we take to the streets with guns? I'm glad we don't have more people like you livng here...

edit on 15-1-2013 by misscurious because: (no reason given)

Blissfully ignorant you are. We do not need to protest with guns as our federal government know that it's citizens are armed. As Yamamoto stated "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

The framers knew that our government would become to powerful and eventually deem citizens irresponsible and legislate a nanny state. The only protection we have is the ability to rise up against our government if they become a tyrannical government. And if you do not think it's possible in this day an age, please look at the very recent history of many nations that have had their guns removed and tyrannical governments installed.

Piers Morgan and his minions are hoping we live in a society of chronic amnesiacs.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint
I don't know, maybe they had high crimes and murders before the laws came in. Either way it doesn't prove anything on your side at all. Gun crime is different from gun homicides, but Liverpool's isn't that high, probably the highest in the country though. You aren't making a point at all here.

edit on 16-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Actually it proves a point quite well. If gun bans made one safer, than those US cities without gunbans should be more violent, yet we see that those cities with the most gun bans are the most violent consistently. You say" maybe they had higher crimes and murders before the laws came in" but that really concedes the point that gun bans are not the solution and that there are other factors at play.

That argument would only stand if at city/state borders there were gun checks for anyone entering the city/state - that isn't the case is it.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint
I don't know, maybe they had high crimes and murders before the laws came in. Either way it doesn't prove anything on your side at all. Gun crime is different from gun homicides, but Liverpool's isn't that high, probably the highest in the country though. You aren't making a point at all here.

edit on 16-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Actually it proves a point quite well. If gun bans made one safer, than those US cities without gunbans should be more violent, yet we see that those cities with the most gun bans are the most violent consistently. You say" maybe they had higher crimes and murders before the laws came in" but that really concedes the point that gun bans are not the solution and that there are other factors at play.

No, it doesn't. Why can't people understand that gun laws in one state are pointless when the whole country is saturated in guns. Obviously it's not going to work, that does not prove that gun laws do not work. It's too late for the US anyway, it's screwed and going to get worse either way, pointless argument really. Funny how the obsession with "liberty" lead to it.

that is an illogical premise. If guns cause crime, then those regions awash in guns should have more crime. However, those regions where guns are banned have the most crime. In fact, in much of the rural US, where there is little gun control, you can leave your door unlocked still in many areas. If guns cause one to become a homocidal maniac, the rural US and the South and the Southwest and the NorthWest should be awash in blood, but it is not. Outside of the major metropolitan areas, the murder rate in the US is on par with the UK.

reply to post by ultimatelizardman


That's a very good 1st post.
It sounds to me that the government gained your confidence and then took your guns.
Hopefully, here in the USA we can learn from your mistakes.

Originally posted by ultimatelizardman
U.K:
gun control: very strict.
death penalty: unused.
culture: extroverted and guilt based. highly sexualized.
substance abuse: frequent, culturally acceptable.
crime: high.
suicide rate: low.

The death penalty is not unused in the UK, there isn't a death penalty. Not sure I really want to comment on the other points as they seem more like your personal opinion unless you have an unbiased source?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint
I don't know, maybe they had high crimes and murders before the laws came in. Either way it doesn't prove anything on your side at all. Gun crime is different from gun homicides, but Liverpool's isn't that high, probably the highest in the country though. You aren't making a point at all here.

edit on 16-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Actually it proves a point quite well. If gun bans made one safer, than those US cities without gunbans should be more violent, yet we see that those cities with the most gun bans are the most violent consistently. You say" maybe they had higher crimes and murders before the laws came in" but that really concedes the point that gun bans are not the solution and that there are other factors at play.

No, it doesn't. Why can't people understand that gun laws in one state are pointless when the whole country is saturated in guns. Obviously it's not going to work, that does not prove that gun laws do not work. It's too late for the US anyway, it's screwed and going to get worse either way, pointless argument really. Funny how the obsession with "liberty" lead to it.

that is an illogical premise. If guns cause crime, then those regions awash in guns should have more crime. However, those regions where guns are banned have the most crime. In fact, in much of the rural US, where there is little gun control, you can leave your door unlocked still in many areas. If guns cause one to become a homocidal maniac, the rural US and the South and the Southwest and the NorthWest should be awash in blood, but it is not. Outside of the major metropolitan areas, the murder rate in the US is on par with the UK.

Except the guns still exist there (for reasons I've mentioned many times) so your point is not valid. You seem to be mistaking late gun laws in a small portion of the country that is already drowned in guns for properly implemented gun control.