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

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

The vid in this post, has a police officer stating that in the UK they confiscate 400 illegal firearms a month, on average.

Even if that had been the point of the OP, I don't think it can be argued that gun control worked in the UK with an estimated 300,000 illegal guns on the streets (according to that same video).

reply to post by harry1sg

Originally posted by harry1sg
reply to post by woogleuk

 

You knew the solicitor?

Yes, and his office is about 200 metres from my house.

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.

Yes, Kevin Commons. I won't quote the rest of your post, as it is kind of off topic, although on topic too I suppose as it is about shootings in the UK and guns.

There was a local rumour that the floods in 2009 was the fault of United Utilities, they let the lake overflow and when they opened the gate, they couldn't shut it and the water burst through causing a tsunami of sorts down the river Derwent.

I have no doubt there was plenty of backhanders with Allerdale borough council to keep shush about it.

However, the reason Derrick shot Commons and his brother was over a dispute with his fathers will. There was other financial and personal issues which caused him to tip over the edge, but I think that (plus other taxi drivers winding him up in the nights before) was the boiling point.

If you have any other question, can you please U2U me with them so this thread doesn't go off topic.

Cheers.

To answer your question, it wouldn't work. But that's not the purpose of this exercise, disarming the American public is and they are by and large are so friggin stupid they'll happily clamor to give away all of their rights, because THAT is what the 1% ivy leaguers on FOX News or CNN say they should do. This whole thing stinks and if you have a brain, you know it does. I have a better idea, how about we get rid of ALL the weapons on the whole planet?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

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?

not at all.
however, would you agree that the more realistic story is ... gun control worked as stated rather not worked at all ?

because we have been employing various 'gun controls' on the US population every decade in the 20th century (except 2), and ppl still keep dying by firearm ... gun control does work -> to the detriment of everyone.

In the UK we dont have massacres every other month.....

reply to post by crazyewok


So? You didn't have massacres every other month before you had gun bans either. You still do have massacres from time to time though with what puny guns you still have left. So you gave up a right for nothing.

America has always had guns but we haven't always had regular spree shootings. So something besides guns are causing them.

Originally posted by crazyewok
In the UK we dont have massacres every other month.....

And what do massacres have to do with guns as much as they have to do with the flaw of the person that committed the crime? the community that allows certain types of behaviors, and the pharmaceutical drugs to continue to affect judgement?

Look at these figures (Sorry the latest i could find where for 2009) :-

www.juancole.com...

Number of gun murders US 9,146

Number of gun murders UK 39

The figures speak for themselves.

I am so tired of hearing this over and over.

Look at these figures,

2,203,000 violent crimes in UK from 2010-11, divide by population for that time period (62.3 million), this gives a violent crime rate of 0.0353.

1,246,248 violent crimes in US from 2010-11, divide by population for that time period (308.4 million), this gives a violent crime rate of 0.0040.

They may have less gun violence, but it has not lowered the total violent crime rate!

www.homeoffice.gov.uk... page56

www.agediscrimination.info...

www.usnews.com...

www.fbi.gov...

reply to post by MrBigDave


Lowered the death toll though.

People keep throwing up the statistics for violent crime, including knife crime, but they fail to point out that those are crime statistics, not death statistics which are considerably lower.

Originally posted by woogleuk
As I said, criminals with guns wont risk revealing them for fear of a hefty jail sentence

There it is, you just solved the problem! If the criminals are too scared of hefty jail time to use there guns when they commit a crime, then lets just increase the penalty for the crime to a level that they would be just as scared of. I can think of some ideas, but they all came from a Rambo movie I saw once.

reply to post by MrBigDave


You are probably not far from a good idea to be fair. The current UK law states a term of 5 years for illegal possession of a firearm, bump that up to life and those who do have the balls to use them or get caught wont be doing it again in a hurry.

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by MrBigDave

 

Lowered the death toll though.

People keep throwing up the statistics for violent crime, including knife crime, but they fail to point out that those are crime statistics, not death statistics which are considerably lower.

Yes, I'll give you that. I would imagine that its harder to kill a man with a hammer that a gun. But if the death toll goes down and violent crime goes up, isn't that counter productive. I guess its good for doctors and hospitals, keeps them busy.

Get a grip people!! Making new laws will never stop the criminals from breaking them. THEY ARE CRIMINALS. By definition they break LAWS.....PERIOD

crim·i·nal (krm-nl)
adj.
1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
3.
a. Guilty of crime.
b. Characteristic of a criminal.
4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.
n.
One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

reply to post by MrBigDave


Violent crime is a tragic affair, but at least if the victim lives through it, preferably without any long term damage, then all good.

Plus it takes longer to stab multiple people, whereas a gun it can take seconds.

A well trained assailant can cause just as much if not more damage then Sandy Hook elem event no matter the weapon. Believe me when I tell you no matter what law you make up a person set on killing multiple people will do it with or without a gun. You can ban any weapon, magazine, or what ever you like. A person trained in how to properly use a six shooter can shoot it just as fast as an untrained person with a machine gun. The problem is people not the weapons they choose to use.

reply to post by GuidedKill


The people doing these massacres aren't well trained individuals, they are ordinary people who have just flipped.

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by MrBigDave

 

Violent crime is a tragic affair, but at least if the victim lives through it, preferably without any long term damage, then all good.

Plus it takes longer to stab multiple people, whereas a gun it can take seconds.

No, it is not all good. What would you rather endure, a single gun shot or multiple blows with a hammer or baseball bat? We have to figure out what it is we want to prevent. I think that living in the fear of helplessness is far worse than the fear that the other guy has a bigger gun than I do.

reply to post by GuidedKill


Agreed!

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by GuidedKill

 

The people doing these massacres aren't well trained individuals, they are ordinary people who have just flipped.

Exactly!! Just because some person looses their mind and goes on a killing spree has nothing to do with gun control. If they didn't have a gun to use they would have picked another form to kill with.

My point with the training is that no matter what weapon you choose it can be just as deadly as a gun in trained hands. For instance a martial arts expert can wield a edged weapon and kill just as many as the crazy untrained guy with a machine gun. Thank God these crazy people weren't well trained people in the firearms they chose. A well trained person can shoot a revolver just as fast as a untrained person can shoot a machine gun.

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by MrBigDave

 

Lowered the death toll though.

People keep throwing up the statistics for violent crime, including knife crime, but they fail to point out that those are crime statistics, not death statistics which are considerably lower.

But they are not. Murder rate in the UK is now 1.2/100,000. A generation ago, before all of these gun bans, it was 0.6/100,000. Your death stats are not considerably lower, in fact, they are twice as high.