Gun Banning - Why would gun control measures that didn't work in the UK, work in the U.S.? (Hungerf

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

Hitler also came for "enemies of the state" and "undesirables" incrementally ("when they finally came for me there was no one left to protest....") and we all know how well the policy of "appeasement" worked against Nazi Germany for their european land grabs in the period leading up to WWII.

Look, Gogo, no offense meant to you, I appreciate your opinions on guns and stuff, but I am out.

I am sick of arguing in these threads and going round in circles.

The fact is, most Brits and most Americans will not agree on this subject. We have different cultures and different attitudes on the subject.

There is no point people arguing and falling out over something that neither side can win.

There has been far too much arguing back and forth these last few days, and it just seems both sides are at boiling point.

So, much respect, but I am now avoiding all threads regarding the subject.

reply to post by TheDarkTurnip


Good post.

That's exactly it too, ban the scary looking weapons.
I got into an argument with a gun control guy who kept throwing out "glock," eventually I was like "Glock is a brand name. You are talking about banning Glocks, but a Glock 45 is no more or less dangerous than a Springfield 45, you've just heard Glock mentioned in more rap songs"

reply to post by woogleuk


That's fine, the point of this thread wasn't to be another argument. It was to illustrate, with examples, that the type of guns used made no difference in the outcome.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by alldaylong

 

They don't really because it's not enough information.

Switzerland has a really low homicide (by gun) rate, yet they have more guns per capita then any other country in the world.

So those numbers don't work. Again, it's not the guns.

Also, everyone is missing the point of the thread which is that the problem remained and the mass shooters were just as successful with whatever guns were legal at the time. The information above makes that very clear. It's a warning that shootings will likely continue even if they ban semi-auto's and the government will eventually look to solve the problem AGAIN.

Also for that information to work, you have to find how many people were killed by guns each year before the ban went into effect. It doesn't work to just compare the US and UK because there are variables including healthcare and population.

www.guardian.co.uk...

edit on 19-12-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Switzerland has a higher murder rate involving firearms than the UK (again using 2009 figures)

Population of Switzerland 7.8 million 24 Deaths

Population of UK 62 million 39 Deaths

So using Switzerland as an example is not the brightest of ideas.


www.businessinsider.com...

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by khimbar

 

I know that khimbar, but most criminals with guns don't want to risk getting caught, so they don't just freely walk about with them.

Whenever you hear of a shooting on the news, it is usually because one criminal has shot another, I know there are exceptions to that, but compared to America, the UK is pretty gun crime free.

I refer to my previous post. When I lived in Birmingham two people were shot in a house down my road. It barely made the news.

I lived next door to a man from Afghanistan with an AK47. It didn't stop him.

I'm not saying we have anywhere near the same level of gun crime as the US.

It's interesting to look here

citizensreportuk.org...

and see how localised gun fatalities seem to be. London and Manchester mostly.

reply to post by alldaylong


You missed the point too though.

Switzerland has more guns per capita than anywhere else in the world, including the US. So it's plenty enough of a bright idea. It has to do with the amount of guns. Of course there are going to be gun deaths everywhere, but Switzerland has a rate comparable to that of France, yet they (Switzerland) has more guns than anywhere else in the world. Which helps to illustrate that it's not the guns that are the problem.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by alldaylong

 

You missed the point too though.

Switzerland has more guns per capita than anywhere else in the world, including the US.

You missed my point, Switzerland has a higher murder rate with firearms. The reason being there are more guns out there.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I say it isn't comparable because they are isolated incidents, they are not regular occurrances.

Like i said, the point of gun control is to reduce gun crime, nothing more. You will never stop it but you can reduce it. As with many changes (in any field) initially there will be a rise in numbers but then they will start to drop.

Surely that is a preferable position to the one you currently have? Both sides need to accept that there is no miracle cure to stop this type of thing. Anti-gun people need to realise that an outright ban will not stop the problem. Pro gun people need to accept that the sheer number of weapons available, combined with other factors, mean this sort of incident is sadly inevitable.

What do you do when you have two opposing groups who need to reach agreement? That's right, you compromise.

reply to post by alldaylong


Read my above post.
They still have a pretty low gun crime rate for being the country with the most guns in the world. This thread isn't about comparing and contrasting countries, but about mass murders being a poor excuse for changing laws as they will still occur no matter what is available in the country.

reply to post by Flavian


Then why is gun control only pushed/brought up when a mass shooting occurs? If, as you say, it's only about reducing gun crime why isn't it constantly pushed?

Also, why go after assault rifles when they aren't commonly used in day to day gun crime, but generally just in these types of incidence which aren't that common at all?

Why in the UK did it take mass shootings to change the gun laws if it was about reducing gun crime? Gun crime usually isn't about how many bullets a gun can spit out, it only takes a gun and one or two bullets, you guys still have that.

With a little common sense it's obvious that it's not actually about stopping gun crime, or mass shootings, it's about control.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by alldaylong

 

Read my above post.
They still have a pretty low gun crime rate for being the country with the most guns in the world. This thread isn't about comparing and contrasting countries, but about mass murders being a poor excuse for changing laws as they will still occur no matter what is available in the country.

Low compared to where? The USA?

Well so does Helmland Province...........

I understand the point of what you are trying here and, to an extent, i can agree (not just guns that are the problem). I do think you keep missing the point about gun control though.

reply to post by Flavian


Actually fairly low. As I said, they have a gun crime rate that is comparable to that of France, and France is completely disarmed.


en.wikipedia.org...

Look at the above link, when you consider the legality of guns in those countries, and consider that Switzerland has more guns than any other country, you will see they have a fairly low gun crime rate.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by alldaylong

 

Read my above post.
They still have a pretty low gun crime rate for being the country with the most guns in the world. This thread isn't about comparing and contrasting countries, but about mass murders being a poor excuse for changing laws as they will still occur no matter what is available in the country.

It doesn't take rocket science to work at that the more guns that are available in a society then the higher the crime rate involving firearms. If the supply is there then the potential is greater (as proved in the Swiss statistics)

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Look, regarding the Assault Rifles, can you honestly give me a good reason why anyone would need one? A realistically good answer too by the way, no cheating like i have seen others mention (in different sites and threads) about helping stop an invasion!

I cannot see any use for them regarding hunting. After all, a large part of hunting is about the trophy (it isn't just the hunt itself). If the carcass is riddled with gun shot, it doesn't make much of a trophy!

Here is a list of offences involving the use of a firearm committed along side the various restrictions on firearms implemented in the UK:

armbritain.blogspot.co.uk...


As you can see, even going as far as to completely ban handguns had no effect on the general use of firearms in crime. The Dunblane massacre was a one off incident in over 100 years of civilian ownership of cartridge handguns in the UK.

Before 1967 you could walk out of any shop with a smoothbore long gun such as a shotgun and until 1997 obtaining any other firearm was a simple matter of filling out some paper work - many less requirements than for a obtaining a .22 rifle today.

reply to post by alldaylong


Again, read my above post.
Crimes will be committed regardless of what is used to perpetrate them.

That doesn't mean we should disarm civilians, especially when you consider that gun crimes will still exist long past the time you have taken guns from honest civilians.

Also, everyone keeps getting off topic, I don't see why it's so hard to grasp the point of my thread. This isn't supposed to be a gun control argument, I am simply illustrating a point that is very clear and very obvious when you read the OP.

reply to post by TheDarkTurnip


Yet, that one off incident had a huge effect on the country. A whole population lost their right to handguns because of one incident.

reply to post by Flavian


Yes, I have already given one in this thread.
First I will say, that assault rifle is a kind of non sense general term people have given to any gun that takes 30 round clips, which is a shame.

My friend was in Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina. They were trapped in their apartment with looters taking everything in sight, no police, no electricity, they saw bodies in the street, and there was no escaping and no protection. That is a good time to have an assault rifle.

Any power out or natural disaster situation. Not to mention it's the right of the people to keep arms in case their country decides to practice tyranny. We have no idea what effect that seemingly dormant right has had on the struggle for power inside our political system.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


But the difference is that we were generally speaking very happy to lose the "right" to own handguns. We do not need them to feel safe. Perhaps that is one reason why Brits and Yanks tend to be so far apart on this issue - we genuinely do not understand the position of the other side!