I've realised something about US gun control, and I'd like to share it....

a reply to: JBurns

I know, and I agree that it would probably have a decent impact on these rates. I don't doubt it would save lives.

Its very refreshing to have a discussion with someone who can take that point.

I just doubt that there is any practical way to actually carry out any control measures

Agreed, I have often said that it would take a full generation to change American gun culture probably longer, only I think the best place to start with in through some changes to the law.

The nature of desperation/crime is that they'll do just about anything to achieve their end

Again I agree I would only add that just because bad people will do bad things regardless of the law does not mean we shouldn't be legislating against it.

a reply to: underpass61

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Probably none lol..

A) most murders (80%+) are by a family member or close friend.. aka not someone that you would consider a threat enough to shoot before they shot you...



B) Why would a robber or burglars need to kill you when they know your not armed??

It’s the same with the police.. the reason they shoot people for wiggling wrong is because everyone has guns and their training tells them to take no chances...

If the person robbing you knows your not armed, then your not really a threat and there is no need for a murder charge..

C) your not gonna have anyone accidental shootings and misidentified shootings and suicides by gun..

A lot of the suicide deaths would remain, but they wouldn’t be shootings anyone..


So yea shooting deaths would absolutely fall and probably a lot because accidental, misidentification and suicides are likely 60% of all shooting +.

That said rape and robbery could skyrocket lol.



Added in edit....

To be fair that also isn’t counting the 30 million deaths it takes in the Civil War it takes to REMOVE the guns from all the law abiding people.. lol

Thats not the point. The point is remove the illegal guns.
Part of that is ask the legal gun owners. to store their guns to reduce the chance of abuse and theft.

The arguement that you all need to carry guns to stop mass shooting is false. In only the most incident has one person person shoot back who was not a cop.

Litterally hundreds of mass shooting and only 1 civilian bold enough to shoot back.

The real plan is a mass shooting is to wait for the cops. Civilians carrying gun is zero deterrent.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Here's where your tautology goes astray: American's don't believe that having guns will make everyone safer on a daily basis. Americans (or some of us) believe that freedom is worth more than safety. Those who believe in gun rights feel that THEY are safer because of it. Those who believe in guns rights believe that the US as an entity is safer because of it.

originally posted by: Tulpa
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Criminals still shoot people in the UK. Mostly with handguns.
I've shot pistols myself at a range in the past but managed not to harm anyone.

Plenty of rifle clubs around nowadays. No handguns but if you're not an idiot and you can fill in the paperwork and satisfy some safety issues then its fine.

I'm more likely to get stabbed to be honest.

Bull#.
Point us to any news article about gun violence in Britan.

Per 100,000 people the UK has .23 gun guns attributed most to hunting accident but some violent use

The US number is 10.48 which 40 times worse than the UKs.

Mexico with its rampant crime is 7.64

Does it seem right to that mexico should have a better record on gun safety than america?

a reply to: JBurns

I bet you were a good cop....

(Off topic—we have got to stop using police officers as low paid tax collectors and revenue generators... return or maybe if it’s always been that way, create a situation where the officers are ONLY there to protect and serve.. if your not creating a safety issue, then you don’t get interacted with..

Create a system where all the moral, drug crimes and revenue generating infractions that are not safety issues are repealed and the police ONLY show up when they get to be the hero. )

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

GUNS aren't cheap.
THE smart buyer knows better anyway.
HOW can one achieve parity with criminals who have their own supply lines, yet the law abider is disarmed?
They are getting PAST law enforcement and WE JUST saw a vigilante being praised for it.
SOMEONE wants a fight that is somehow triggering these people.
WE can't yet understand how.

I am a former RECCE SQUADDIE myself, some college,so THAT parity issue without effective LEO control and a VERY corrupt government ...WHAT is your equation Oxford?

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

I see that by starting this tread you didn't really learn much in the past 20 years. How about this little tidbit in the past 20 years the numbers of guns in the US have surpass the number of people here, however for the most part the number of incidents of gun homicides have generally decreased (from 1993 to 2014 it was down 49%).

Talking about guns and Americans is like talking to a flower pot. Guns are part of American culture and thousands of Americans die every year defending their right to carry guns.

Americans need guns to defend themselves against Americans who have guns. Attempting to understand this logic is not possible if you are not an American.

However, let's not go overboard with this. My brother lives in the States with his American wife. They don't have guns and they have never been shot at. Nor are they frightened. While gun crime in the States is high, the place is hardly like Mexico. Most people (even those with guns) are law abiding, sensible and balanced.

I live in the UK where around seven in a hundred people have a gun. Gun crime is rare enough to be reported on the national news. Police shootings are even rarer and our "normal" police are unarmed. Your average American would not understand this, as the average Brit does not understand the American gun culture.

a reply to: JBurns

I'm curious what you think:They aren't really shunning the civilian responders here ,DO you see that as a danger?

My two cents

North America has developed a " Gun Culture "
The very foundations of the country has been built on migrants colonizing the continent... violent land - grabbing and subsequent defence of the same land. Hunting and land maintenance and defence would have been a lot harder without guns. Guns are as traditional as Thanksgiving and the 4th of July.
Of course as the right to bear arms is written into their Constitutional Rights, it is fiercely defended by the majority of Americans. Understandably so...as American as Apple pie....right ?
Maybe...
In the 21st century..who are they bearing arms against? Their fellow country men...other people with guns. The debate is as circular as the issue... Duh !

Weapons are a hell of a lot more sophisticated now. Some kinda psycho going postal can result in a tragic and heavy loss of innocent life. As we see all too often.

It's a gun-toting society...always has been.
There are always psychopaths in society....always have been.

It's not going to change.

a reply to: SmilingROB


Citizens*

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I agree that it make some time but that some measures can be taken that would reduce gun deaths. I think our legislators (ugh, no confidence in almost any of them though) ought to put some real thought and research into which weapons/equipment are doing the most damage and finding ways to limit the access.

Obviously we need so much more than just gun control to reduce the violence but it's a great start.

Knee jerk probably won't do much good. I do agree that it might take time but we can improve on the current atmosphere.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

This argument is beyond beaten to death. The American's that worship guns have no limit to the amount of deaths caused by guns that would cause them to change stances on this. If there were 100 million domestic gun death accidents each year it would not matter.

a reply to: SmilingROB

there is just look ffs
www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: SmilingROB

Honestly? I can't.

You could try the Liverpool Echo for James Meadows aged 17 (I think). Just off the top of my head. Its not something I follow.

Could be Meadowes. With an e

Was going to leave this, but after some thought would propose these questions, in the interest of debate. As a disclaimer, I own multiple guns, fire them frequently at a local range, and spent a significant portion of my life carrying one on my side or shoulder for work. I am also licensed to carry, open or concealed, should I choose to do so. I have never so much as slapped another human being in my life. I will, without hesitation, protect myself, my family, and my property as the law allows. Here we go...

How many of the guns in the United States are in the possession of law abiding citizens who have never even pondered an unprovoked violent act, and how many are in the hands of criminals?

How come no one ever asks why aren’t we disarmining the criminals? Is it because it’s easier to disarm law abiding citizens? I mean the cops could go door to door in East LA, Southside Chicago, the gang havens of many other cities, and obviously greatly reduce gun deaths by removing illegal guns from those possessing them...yet they don’t...why?

What happens when the 2nd Amendment falls, making it easier to do the same to the rest of the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution? (Which is what the Globalists, MSM, and the SJWs are likely after).

Why does anyone...ANYONE...think violent crime is going to decrease once the criminals know that NO ONE, except other criminals, can defend themselves? (Well, not entirely true, I have two rather large furry friends trained to help me protect me, my family, and my property as the law allows)

Why does anyone think they have a right to turn me and my family into potential defenseless victims?

Why do the Brits think they should be able to dictate American Freedoms to this day? There is a lot that I think is wrong with England, yet I don’t think it’s my place to dictate to the Brits what they should do about it...just sayin’...

That’s probably enough...blood pressure rising thinking about those who think they know what’s best for me...

a reply to: cavtrooper7


I see armed Citizens as potential life savers, as they have saved the ass of more than one LEO. Granted, LE is typically the ones doing the "ass saving" but they (we!) are assets. To put it another way, I don't see many officers rejecting help from armed Citizens if the situation is truly that dire.

That being said, I think training, training and more training in the solution to potential concerns and pitfalls. A lot of people mistakenly believe that all LEOs have significant tactical/marksman training, whereas in reality there is a minimum standard to qualify with which some officers choose to never exceed. It doesn't take an expert marksman to hit their target, but it does take considerable practice to control your breathing/jitters/tunnel vision/thoughts to the point where you can quickly and safely engage a threat actor if needed. Whatever happens, it is really important to know where each and every round that comes out of your gun is going to go - what is in behind the target, off to their sides, above/below and so on. Cross fire is another concern we always had, which was addressed in a pretty silly way (usually by shouting out the phrase cross-fire).

Just my 2c everyone! In my humble opinion trained armed Citizens can be a huge asset to LE and their community. I would like to point out that I have never been in a gun fight, and these are last resort situations we're talking about here of course, so your mileage may vary

I am a Brit, I support your right to own firearms. Most of us do not think we should be able to dictate American freedoms.
a reply to: Lab4Us

a reply to: Lab4Us

They fail at tracking their acquisition by criminals,its too far gone for it,by now.
and THERE is no mental health system in the US.
We are left to our own recognizance.