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

reply to post by Wotan



How many shootings after gun bans does it take for the anti gun crowd to realize that guns are the problem? No trthere are endless studies that show this kind of thing is more unique to the US despite other countries with large amounts of guns. That indicates that it is a mental health issue.

All these crimes have a mentally ill person, who shoots up a place where you would not expect to find guns to return fire. So of course gun control geniuses (such as yourself) take the most benign (not to mention impossible to properly manage) part of that equation and rest the blame entirely on it to push an agenda. In reality getting rid of assault weapons will have no effect as proven by my expose in the OP. The weapon will simply change and the deaths will continue (these shootings happened under the last assault weapon ban). Eventually you guys will have to admit that the real problem are mental ill people unable to get healthcare, and indefinsible locations (b oth things that could actually be helped easier than banning guns).

reply to post by smurfy


They are because the topic is actually about how criminals comitted the exact same crime despite passing new laws while achieving the near-same body count despite adjusting the weapons used. So basically your government took your self loading weapons 20 years ago in response to a massacre, to stop massacres only to have a massacre perpetrated again in 96 (govt took more guns away) and then finally 20 years later a guy using bolt actions acheives the same thing as the guy in 89 with an a.r. So why keep giving up your right to these guns if ir changes nothing. It didn't change gun crime at all. You guys have always had less of it. You gave it all up for nothing.

If you brits sincerely think it has to do with access to weapons your out of your minds. Look at your pre ban crime and mass shooting rates. They didn't change. You guys gave u your arms because of spree killings ot gun crime. The spree killings happen the same for you. You naturally have less violence. I would probably attribute it morew to your healthcare.

Don't be absurd thinking you have a bunch of killers over there that just couldn't get a gun and then gave up and are living happily ever after now. That's what you are saying whether you realize it or not and it makes you look ignorant.

I just don't want to believe they would actually take away the freedoms to which this country was founded over. It would create complete chaos in the streets. The last straw if you will to all the other freedoms we have lost in time. IMHO

Yea I have no idea what most of the Europeans are talking about either.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.
Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.
France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 – a 67 per cent increase in the past decade – at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population.

Every time talks of gun bans are being publicly driven by the mainstream media, I can't help but bring up an incident of a young girl who was faced with a home intruder. Fortunately, she received gun training by her parents and had her pink rifle for self-defense. What if she didn't have that rifle and what if she never received training? Kidnapping? Rape? Murder? I'm GLAD we never had to find out.

Who here has the moral short-sightedness to stand up and strip a human being from its right to self-defense?

The point of the measures introduced - realistically - isn't to stop massacres ever happening, but to minimise the likelihood of massacres happening.

It's a bit like seatbelts - making them mandatory to wear in the UK doesn't stop all road traffic fatalities, but it drastically reduces the likelihood of them happening.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Mass shootings will always happen. The issue is whether steps have been taken to minimise the likelihood of them happening - the bans have certainly controlled and limited the amount of firearms available in this country. To have a massacre every 12 years or so is clearly not ideal, but it's certainly preferrable to one every few months, so lets not point fingers, eh?

I think that the support of a professional, free healthcare service has certainly saved a lot of individuals from following dark paths...the issue in the US is certainly not just gun availability, but what appears to be a massive mental health issue in recent generations. It's very telling that a psychologist and a therapist were amongst the victims in a shooting at a junior school. Very sad.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

I was saying that pro gunners cannot say look at the way Canada is without guns...they cannot say we have more crimes and deaths due to gun control laws.

The anti gunners can use our country and say..this is how good life can be with stricter gun laws.

Bu Canada is not without guns. In fact, they recently ended the registry due to lack of effectiveness up there.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

To reply to your OP? Why, you must just hate Americans. That's it. Indeed... You hate us all.. can't be anything else. Why for do you hate us so, Mr. OP?

See, everyone knows Americans are law abiding, quiet, peaceful folk of 1950's TV vintage. A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage with June Cleaver at the kitchen window preparing dinner for the boys. Don't ya know? We're all like that! Only hateful conspiracies like those FBI Crime stats say otherwise. We all know the FBI never tells the truth!

So of course, a ban is the only logical path, don't you see? We ALWAYS follow prohibitions of substances, objects and marketable goods. I mean, Americans would never consider owning anything that wasn't properly legal, would they? So of course, passing these laws will solve the problem overnight!


If it hasn't worked perfectly in the UK? Well...It's because contrary to our peaceful and loving nature on this side of the pond, they are brutes...they worship violence and kill each other over the smallest thing! They turn each other into Kabobs with all manner of knife!

See?? So bans are totally absurd for most of the world...but here? Well.. We respect every last law passed like it came from the hand of God himself. The law itself will solve every problem it's ever been thought to address, I have no doubt!

(turns quickly to hide a nose MUCH MUCH longer than a rabbit ought to have...for some odd reason? )

i often wonder if the gun control advocates even realize that the US has entertained and employed some form of 'gun control' in EVERY DECADE of the 20th century except the 40s (war) & the 70s (war+recession)

since 1911, this has been an ongoing and fruitless battle ... leave our guns alone !!
gun control measures - www.majorsgunclub.org...

how many know about the history of gun control thoughout the world ?

bayougunsmith.com...
HERE'S A LITTLE HISTORY ON GUN CONTROL

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1..5 million Armenians, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Consider this: Over 56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

reply to post by Honor93

I guess this fight doesn't end until the citizens do get to the point of fighting this out the hard way. Given that 50% is trying to enforce their will on the OTHER 50%? There aren't many ways this CAN end where brutal internal conflict isn't a part of the outcome.

I'd sure want to remind the Lefty folk of something tho.... The very thing that pisses them off the most about Right leaning folk? ...Is why pushing this to a conflict is a 100% dead end for their entire way of life ......literally.

Left leaning folk....ON average (I've shot with a few Dems..I know plenty of exceptions exist) hate guns, don't know how to use one and would pee their pants if one happened to fall from a cabinet or come into their immediate area of control by some other unexpected method. The whole THOUGHT of shooting someone ...Ewww... gives 'em nightmares.


That's fine...until the side ^^ With those hangups decides it's great national sport to push and push and push against the OTHER half of this nation who DOES own weapons. We folks DO hunt...We DO kill things on occasion and we're VERY comfortable, accurate and confident with weapons of all kinds. (Most of us).


I mean, it's hard not to laugh sometimes....but the Liberal far Left is setting up a national O-K Corral and they have nothing but Harsh Language to bring to the fight. Well... Mr Earp and Doc Holiday are coming, damn skippy...and millions like them, if it keeps being pushed to rip our rights from us.

I don't even have to question the final outcome.......the NATURE of the debate says that's a forgone conclusion only ONE side even seems to realize. It WOULD be funny....if it wasn't watching so many be SO self defeating and foolish.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

folk....ON average hate guns, don't know how to use one and would pee their pants if one happened to fall from a cabinet or come into their immediate area of control by some other unexpected method. The whole THOUGHT of shooting someone ...Ewww... gives 'em nightmares

that was good ... you've been peeeeking
yeah, i have to concede that's a pretty fair description
at least it Was.

then, the truth hits home one day or in my case a few times and you eventually realize, no one is responsible for self defense other than self

for the record, i still hate guns ... i hate having to think about them but that hatred isn't enough to prevent me from learning about them, understanding them and their prescribed uses and learning to be confident with them so i can defend self, adequately.

i concede that when i'm asleep, it is possible my gun would be useless ... however, i am a very light sleeper

reply to post by woogleuk



You knew the solicitor?

You might find this interesting (if you haven’t already seen it?). Was the solicitors first name Kevin? If so then there is a theory that the Cumbria shootings were orchestrated to kill that person, the rest were a cover for the crime and that Derrick Bird was a victim of a mind control mass shooting conspiracy.

The solicitor was at the time trying to sue United Utilities which were the main water company in the area at the time of the 2009 floods in which a local policeman was swept away and died when a bridge collapsed.

The solicitor was encouraging local people affected by the floods to download a letter from his company’s web site explaining how United Utilities were at fault as they control reservoir levels and didn’t take the necessary measures to either prevent the flooding or at least lessen the extent of the flood waters by water management.

A week before the shootings it was said in the media that the chief executive (Philip Green) of United Utilities was going to step down (the M.D. did actually step down in 2010). Green used to be the director and chief operating Officer of Reuters PLC so he’s no small fish.

The second person shot dead by Derrick Bird was the solicitor who’s company was going to take United Utilities to court over the flooding, if they won the case and could prove the company was in liable in anyway then as there was the death of a PC involved then there was the possibility of prison for the people involved.

Watch this video from about 10:12

www.richplanet.net...

I hope I’m not de railing the thread a little but it’s an interesting theory of what could be a reason behind that particular mass shooting by somebody who was considered a ‘nice guy’ with no real motive for him flipping out.

reply to post by Honor93


" The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.."



You know, that sounds sweet in theory, but the glaring thing one learns from analyzing history is that man learns nothing from history.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

then i would guess woman is the exception to the rule, eh ?
we certainly have changed and continue to do so which might be another reason why UK gun bans will never work in the US.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

then i would guess woman is the exception to the rule, eh ?
we certainly have changed and continue to do so which might be another reason why UK gun bans will never work in the US.

Gun bans will never work anywhere, let alone the US.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

oh, they've worked alright ... straight to the extermination of millions of ppl but we have no such agenda to fear, right ?

the thread title is very misleading given the op constantly shoots everyone who argues that gun control has worked in the uk down as 'missing his point'

please don't start a thread with:

Why would gun control measures that didn't work in the UK, work in the U.S.?

and then tell people they can't point out why gun control in the uk has worked.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

oh, they've worked alright ... straight to the extermination of millions of ppl but we have no such agenda to fear, right ?

Are you confusing me with someone who supports gun control?

Originally posted by bates
the thread title is very misleading given the op constantly shoots everyone who argues that gun control has worked in the uk down as 'missing his point'

please don't start a thread with:

Why would gun control measures that didn't work in the UK, work in the U.S.?

and then tell people they can't point out why gun control in the uk has worked.

How has it worked considering the murder rate has doubled?