How are those Gun Laws working out for you, England?

I think it has to do with society. May not be working in the UK but it's working in Canada. Our gun problem is minimal(I'm sure someone is going to be off to Google). In fact the gov't is going to tighten them more. We're like "M'eh". What can they really do? The last time they did this, gun registry(it's dead), I didn't register mine. F'em. It helps to have a high degree of apathy.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
Yeah, race is a component, but levels of poverty in the areas they come from is a bigger factor. At least, it is in the UK.

I know an area that is pretty much all white and it's also dirt poor with high unemployment and low wage jobs. The crime rate is high and mostly led by teenage lads.

I think it's more complex than poverty in itself, and more to do with large numbers of poor people living in the same place. Plenty of poverty in my area, but rich and poor live cheek by jowl. My own street has million £'s appartments and houses of multiple occupation where smack heads live in £80 a week rooms.
I think it makes a massive difference because areas don't become run by the hardest group of lads, we are all mixed up together.
Environment also makes a big difference, by the coast, tree lined streets etc, JSA is the same rate all over the UK but living here is a million times better being skint than in some uniform concrete jungle with graffiti and vandalism because nobody respects the place.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: StallionDuck

It's relevant, you are deflecting and don't want to answer a very simple question and we both know why.

It's not relevant at all.

However... To answer your question. It depends. How many rounds are we talking? What's the location? What's going on there? Handgun? Shotgun? Fully auto?

I think you greatly underestimate what a person wielding a knife can do.

a reply to: StallionDuck

If wanted to kill lots of people would you pick a gun or knife?.

originally posted by: testingtesting
If wanted to kill lots of people would you pick a gun or knife?.

I'd call the United States Marine Corps.

originally posted by: Morg234
a reply to: StallionDuck

Pretty good, you idiot? You know, given the fact that New York's murder rate is twice that of London, as even the BS article is forced to admit.

lol you're calling me an idiot while it looks like you didn't even read the OP.


Look how you formulated your statement.. question.. whatever that was... Irony man. Irony.

originally posted by: Morg234
a reply to: StallionDuck

In March, there were 22 murders, which is likely to match if not beat out New York's numbers.

Except, it doesn't. The Daily Mail is not a news source, and claiming a GUESS from the DM is a source is laughable.

Be my guest to look at the other sources. DM isn't the only source. It just happened to be the one I saw it on first a broke it down a bit more. Don't be lazy. Search for yourself.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: BigLes

Yeah, race is a component, but levels of poverty in the areas they come from is a bigger factor. At least, it is in the UK.

I know an area that is pretty much all white and it's also dirt poor with high unemployment and low wage jobs. The crime rate is high and mostly led by teenage lads. A small group are currently awaiting Court on charges of armed robbery. Even though these lads have stopped their robberies, others in the area have continued with them. Unmarked mopeds have been their greatest asset as we've seen throughout all the major cities since ~2012. They're almost untouchable on their peds as police can't employ the same tactics as they would with cars.

It's tougher still because these areas have rigid peer pressure too. Once someone enters the scene they can't get out of it unless they're hard enough to fight on their own. Even then, it's not uncommon for their mum's house to get robbed over and over to prove the point that they've betrayed the group. The ones who don't grow out of it tend to drift into the youth offender system and that's the end of them. It's a shame when that happens, but often it's the last thing after years of interventions have failed.

I agree. I think the 'neighborhood' is a huge factor. Poverty is likely the cause of 90% of the issue. That's only a guess but it 'feels' right. Many of those that take place outside of the poverty line still likely has something to do with someone that is in that same poverty neighborhood.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: StallionDuck

If wanted to kill lots of people would you pick a gun or knife?.

As a main weapon, neither. As secondary, depends on if it's close quarters or not so I would say equally both. Though a knife is more effective. It's quiet. It doesn't need ammo. It's more effective still if someone is trying to stop you by physical force.


AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: StallionDuck

Then why do the nutters always use guns?.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: StallionDuck

Then why do the nutters always use guns?.

You answered your own question.

Cause they're nutters, lol!


I could give you an example of how a knife would be more effective or ways to take out more without a projectile but I believe it would be against the T&C.



Edit:

I think those people just think that they can use it to take out more. With the exception of a fully auto or similar weapon in a perch, totally out of reach of defense, most of those mass shootings, those guys had multiple weapons that they didn't even get to use, mostly because they gave themselves away right away. Loud noises tend to do that.

The most deadly mass killings happened by a Marine in a perch with a single action rifle. Tells ya something.

a reply to: StallionDuck

You are really just comparing two gun free cities with one of them being next lot's of guns.

Perhaps in the long run we are not making choices that save lives at all but are simply choosing the method by which inevitability comes knockin at a door.

Is death inevitable in these cases and are we just playing out some energies thrust upon us by principalities and powers?

Watch out for those automatic assault knives though.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
The most deadly mass killings happened by a Marine in a perch with a single action rifle.

Define 'most deadly'.

a reply to: howtonhawky

lol I hear you.

But no... The comparison isn't the point of the OP at all. My only point in all of it was, it can happen anywhere with any weapon. The US isn't the source of all killings. That's all.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I suggest them just using knives If it is just as easy to kill with them then, may save you all a bob or two.

originally posted by: testingtesting
I suggest them just using knives If it is just as easy to kill with them then, may save you all a bob or two.

Never mess with a Gyrene and his Ka-Bar.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
I could give you an example of how a knife would be more effective or ways to take out more without a projectile but I believe it would be against the T&C.

It surely isn't against T&C's to speculate though. Personally if I wanted to kill multiple people then something like an SA80 would be my preferred choice, lots dead quickly, difficult to disarm or over power me. Knife though, hmm after stabbing one or two in a crowd then people are going to start grabbing 'extension' tools such as chairs or whatever and number of deaths will certainly be lower.
There is a reason Islamic terrorists use vehicles to kill multiple people in the UK, it's because they can't get hold of illegal firearms. Local gangs won't rent or sell them any, and the Eastern Europeans would shoot them just for asking.

Oh, and UK armed forces are issued with SA80's and not knives because guns are more effective at killing multiple people. Anyone who denies that has to question their logic.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: StallionDuck

Then why do the nutters always use guns?.

And why aren't leading armed forces equipped with half a brick and a zombie knife?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'll correct myself. I mean to say some of the most deadliest.

So far the most deadliest involved a bomb that killed 44 students and teachers.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I know right lol.