Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

How Gun Control Made England The Most Violent


Socio
 Share

Recommended Posts

Frank... this is one of the best rebuttals to gun ownership that I have ever read.... power to you my friend, :clap::nw::clap::tsu:

Thanks, gosh, I'm speechless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof gun control does far more harm than good;

http://www.breitbart...untry-In-Europe

If the UK is this bad imagine what the US will look like with the same kind of gun control.

This is a bogus argument for the reasons Cornelius gave earlier.

Statistics on violent crime cannot be compared between nations that define and collect their data differently.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

Nearly all criminologists agree that the only reliable comparison when considering violent crime is the homicide rate.

Use that statistical comparison and see what you get.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank... this is one of the best rebuttals to gun ownership that I have ever read.... power to you my friend, :clap::nw::clap::tsu:

Except that history has taught us, time and again, that when people choose to live like placid sheep, in the care of good shepherds, they die en masse like sheep, when a wolf slips into the fold. How many massacres would have been cut short, and how many lives would have been saved, if one sheep had pulled a gun out and shot the wolf? The philosophy of abrogation of self responsibility for one's safety and that of one's loved ones is a fallacious lie and a utopian fantasy based on limited trials in three Island nations that now may be home to more illegal firearms than they ever were to legal ones. The result is that the criminal element have easy access to banned weapons. All prohibition of anything in demand does is create a black market. Then there's honest, law abiding citizens who are now criminals by default because they refuse to disarm in the face of clear and present danger. :innocent: Edited by John Wesley Boyd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The American (not just the US but most of the Americas, as well as the Philippines and much of the Middle East) situation with guns never ceases to amaze me. It is a classic example of politics going seriously haywire -- how an irrational minority of single-issue voters is able to prevent sensible law.

Here is a little litany:

If a gun is present, a domestic squabble becomes a murder.

If a gun is present, a severe bout of clinical depression or grief becomes a successful suicide (other forms of suicide don't succeed nearly as much).

If a gun is present, a bit of road rage becomes manslaughter.

If a gun is present an intrusion becomes manslaughter, or worse if it was your confused grandmother.

If a gun is present childhood curiosity becomes a tragedy that the parents will have to live with all their lives.

If a gun is present, an attempt at self-defense is suicidal, even if it is one's own gun (professional criminals tend to be adept at taking guns away from people -- they often do it to even trained cops).

The responses people often provide to items of this liturgy is that they are different, they are "responsible." My thought is generally if you really were responsible you wouldn't even think of having one around. That said, locking up the guns and all those things are only passive defenses, and a moment's lapse is all it takes.

I watch propaganda by gun advocates who show cases where merchants being robbed have "gotten" the criminals. Maybe exceptions to gun control laws can be written that, subject to rules, a merchant can have one, but they don't show the times the merchant was killed by his or her own gun.

There are times when a gun is appropriate -- I just mentioned one. Of course law enforcement officers and similar people and the military need guns, but here too there have to be carefully thought-out rules. The same of course applies to hunters and farmers, although in these cases a rifle should be enough.

The thing that gets me, and makes the unfortunate psychology of gun advocates so obvious, is the oft-heard claim that without guns there is no way to remove an autocratic government. This is almost funny in its perversion -- as though in the modern age a few hot-heads with guns can overthrow the government in any but the most primitive states.

One thing to remember is that when only the police have guns, we are all much safer. Yes the police must have oversight and rules about these guns, but that way, provided the laws restricting gun ownership are well enforced, it becomes damn difficult for a criminal to get one, and the efforts usually bring police attention.

Another advantage to society at large such laws provide is that if someone is found in possession of a gun, the police can act on that alone and not wait until it is used.

I see no point in taking good care of one's health, and all the sacrifices and time that requires, if one is going to go out and get oneself shot.

Your post kind of just reinforces my view that anti gun people have a fear of the common person. Because no one ever considers them self as a "average" person and assume they would act diffrently.

Just because you have a gun dosent mean your going to kill people all the time. No chaos. Would you kill more people then you do now just because you own a gun? No, but yet you assume others will because you don't consider yourself one of the common people.

My family all has concealed carry and yes they do get road rage no they never even thought to pull a gun on someone. Iv had freinds who commuted suicide without the help of a gun. Teach your kid guns are not toys.

That same gun you are afraid of people having is the same thing that saves many law abiding citizens lives. But alas you are afraid of the common person.

If my neighbor owns a gun it makes me feel safer not in more danger.taking my gun away puts my family in more danger it dosent help us. Police can not teleport.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a gun in a fit of temper anyone might do anything. If you don't know this about yourself you are really a danger to yourself and others. "First of all, know thyself."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The American (not just the US but most of the Americas, as well as the Philippines and much of the Middle East) situation with guns never ceases to amaze me. It is a classic example of politics going seriously haywire -- how an irrational minority of single-issue voters is able to prevent sensible law.

Here is a little litany:

If a gun is present, a domestic squabble becomes a murder.

If a gun is present, a severe bout of clinical depression or grief becomes a successful suicide (other forms of suicide don't succeed nearly as much).

If a gun is present, a bit of road rage becomes manslaughter.

If a gun is present an intrusion becomes manslaughter, or worse if it was your confused grandmother.

If a gun is present childhood curiosity becomes a tragedy that the parents will have to live with all their lives.

If a gun is present, an attempt at self-defense is suicidal, even if it is one's own gun (professional criminals tend to be adept at taking guns away from people -- they often do it to even trained cops).

The responses people often provide to items of this liturgy is that they are different, they are "responsible." My thought is generally if you really were responsible you wouldn't even think of having one around. That said, locking up the guns and all those things are only passive defenses, and a moment's lapse is all it takes.

I watch propaganda by gun advocates who show cases where merchants being robbed have "gotten" the criminals. Maybe exceptions to gun control laws can be written that, subject to rules, a merchant can have one, but they don't show the times the merchant was killed by his or her own gun.

There are times when a gun is appropriate -- I just mentioned one. Of course law enforcement officers and similar people and the military need guns, but here too there have to be carefully thought-out rules. The same of course applies to hunters and farmers, although in these cases a rifle should be enough.

The thing that gets me, and makes the unfortunate psychology of gun advocates so obvious, is the oft-heard claim that without guns there is no way to remove an autocratic government. This is almost funny in its perversion -- as though in the modern age a few hot-heads with guns can overthrow the government in any but the most primitive states.

One thing to remember is that when only the police have guns, we are all much safer. Yes the police must have oversight and rules about these guns, but that way, provided the laws restricting gun ownership are well enforced, it becomes damn difficult for a criminal to get one, and the efforts usually bring police attention.

Another advantage to society at large such laws provide is that if someone is found in possession of a gun, the police can act on that alone and not wait until it is used.

I see no point in taking good care of one's health, and all the sacrifices and time that requires, if one is going to go out and get oneself shot.

Wow... Well said, Frank. I agree with all of your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that history has taught us, time and again, that when people choose to live like placid sheep, in the care of good shepherds, they die en masse like sheep, when a wolf slips into the fold. How many massacres would have been cut short, and how many lives would have been saved, if one sheep had pulled a gun out and shot the wolf? The philosophy of abrogation of self responsibility for one's safety and that of one's loved ones is a fallacious lie and a utopian fantasy based on limited trials in three Island nations that now may be home to more illegal firearms than they ever were to legal ones. The result is that the criminal element have easy access to banned weapons. All prohibition of anything in demand does is create a black market. Then there's honest, law abiding citizens who are now criminals by default because they refuse to disarm in the face of clear and present danger. :innocent:

But it doesn't work out that way. Making guns more freely available means that murder rates rise so even if you had a gun to defend yourself the net effect is that you are more likely to be murdered by a gun. America is the case in point which proves this. Mass shootings are extremely rare in the UK - much more so than in America.

Its a bit of bogus reasoning.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post kind of just reinforces my view that anti gun people have a fear of the common person. Because no one ever considers them self as a "average" person and assume they would act diffrently.

Just because you have a gun dosent mean your going to kill people all the time. No chaos. Would you kill more people then you do now just because you own a gun? No, but yet you assume others will because you don't consider yourself one of the common people.

My family all has concealed carry and yes they do get road rage no they never even thought to pull a gun on someone. Iv had freinds who commuted suicide without the help of a gun. Teach your kid guns are not toys.

That same gun you are afraid of people having is the same thing that saves many law abiding citizens lives. But alas you are afraid of the common person.

If my neighbor owns a gun it makes me feel safer not in more danger.taking my gun away puts my family in more danger it dosent help us. Police can not teleport.

You are suffering from a false sense of security since you as an American are about 30 times more likely to be murdered than I as a Brit are - and the main mechanism for murder is by Gun in America.

Yours reasoning on this is absolutely not supported by the evidence and its as simple as that. The one thing the article did get right is that Britain can be a violent place (for the reasons I mentioned) but rarely does that end in murder. Murder is statistically more common in the US and no amount of guns on your person is going to change that fact.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Didn't know we had this much violence each and every day in the UK! And yes, that line is meant to be extremely sarcastic in tone...

We're a country, like many others, that can have major problems with violence. To deny that would be stupid and completely dishonest. But we are not like a country that seems to the casual viewer to have shootings every flaming day, whether by accident or deliberate actions. The amount of domestic beatings - by both sexes - is high, drug induced crimes are a daily occurrence, muggings and sexual assaults happen every day. Hey, that's just like all other countries in the world, but to try and say we are the most violent country in Europe is pushing it out a bit. Reading reports like the one at the start of this thread reminds me of the travel advice given by the State Department about the UK during the height of the IRA attacks. Not to say those reports weren't true (Three times in the past when I was in London there was a bomb scare. Made me think the buggers were out to get me) but they made you think that the place was under constant attack.

Personal view point here, but reading such graphs and reports of this type make me just think it is a ploy to make those overseas look and think other places are worse than their country. Not to be unexpected, but really a tad cheeky.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that history has taught us, time and again, that when people choose to live like placid sheep, in the care of good shepherds, they die en masse like sheep, when a wolf slips into the fold. How many massacres would have been cut short, and how many lives would have been saved, if one sheep had pulled a gun out and shot the wolf? The philosophy of abrogation of self responsibility for one's safety and that of one's loved ones is a fallacious lie and a utopian fantasy based on limited trials in three Island nations that now may be home to more illegal firearms than they ever were to legal ones. The result is that the criminal element have easy access to banned weapons. All prohibition of anything in demand does is create a black market. Then there's honest, law abiding citizens who are now criminals by default because they refuse to disarm in the face of clear and present danger. :innocent:

The UK is not awash with illegal guns,the general public don't want or need them.Your coming out with the classic argument that people can't defend themselves without a gun and its nonsense.Why has the UK got lower rates of violent assault resulting in serious injuries and rape if we aren't all armed?

If one of the sheep can shoot the bad wolf why is there are more gun massacres in the US and more serial killers?

I think thats your utopian fantasy right there,guns don't make you any safer,in fact they don't even prevent more burglaries!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its refreshing to be in a debate where the rabid gun advocates are in the minority and where the tone is more in keeping with what you would find in almost any civilized country outside of America.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many massacres would have been cut short, and how many lives would have been saved, if one sheep had pulled a gun out and shot the wolf?

Well...? How many?

This would be pretty strong support for the public availability of firearms, should it happen to be true. Hasn't anyone looked into it?

Aren't there any comparisons out there between situations in which a gunman armed with excessive weapons and ammo, indicating he intended a massacre, has opened fire in a public area at random targets? How many victims of gun massacres have there been where the gunman either shot himself or was shot by a law enforcement officer, compared to victims shot by non-enforcement officers?

Seems to me like an excellent question that deserves an answer, not just an assumption.

Edited by aquatus1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...) approximately 26% of the population are mentally ill (...)

(...) we should be preventing the creation of loonies and removing those that exist from society for treatment. (...)

This cancer infecting our societies needs eliminating (...).

Well, thats a pretty big loop to connect gun politics to nazi eugenic quotes for the reason of a pro-gun argument.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-39751-0-33164800-1411897513_thumb.j

As long as a majority of Americans love their guns more than they love their children, school massacres will continue to be part of the culture.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-39751-0-33164800-1411897513_thumb.j

As long as a majority of Americans love their guns more than they love their children, school massacres will continue to be part of the culture.

Certainly very true.

As long as Britain does nothing about its binge drinking problem the violence will continue. I finished my shift at 4am this morning and haven't long got out of bed. Yet another awful fight kicked off seeing a young man hospitalized last night. So today, one of my two days off is going to be spent waiting for the police to take a statement.

Still in the UK you can easily avoid the violence by avoiding the hotspots like notorious pubs and clubs.

Not so easy in the US when unstable people have access to firearms and walk into public areas intending to go out in a blaze of glory.

Edited by skookum
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked out a couple of things gun advocates said in this thread that really bother me. One was that somehow, unlike other countries, Americans will never submit to an autocratic government, and guns are part of this.

Americans are not special. Everyone values their freedom, and the implication of such a statement is ugly. I dare say if some tyrant got firm hold of the levers of power in the states, Americans would submit and make their adjustments just as anyone else. In fact there is now a good deal less freedom in the States than in a so-called autocracy like Vietnam (I have several times had reason to demonstrate specifics about this), and the voting process in the States is largely just an exercise in pretense of legitimacy, while money and appeals to voter prejudice and special interests really run the country.

A second statement that really got me was to the effect that I assume everyone is like I am and I would go off crazy if I had a gun. Now that is a bit of a straw man on my part -- it wasn't said in such a blunt way -- but the implication is there. What the person overlooks or doesn't want to see is that laws have to apply equally to everyone. If we are safer without guns, then no matter how reasonable I am about guns, I too have to be subject to such a law. The net benefit to me outweighs the restriction on my freedom, and I am damn glad criminals walking the streets of Vietnam don't dare carry a gun and can't get one.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are suffering from a false sense of security since you as an American are about 30 times more likely to be murdered than I as a Brit are - and the main mechanism for murder is by Gun in America.

Yours reasoning on this is absolutely not supported by the evidence and its as simple as that. The one thing the article did get right is that Britain can be a violent place (for the reasons I mentioned) but rarely does that end in murder. Murder is statistically more common in the US and no amount of guns on your person is going to change that fact.

Br Cornelius

You are so quick to give alternative explanations for the violence in England but if its the U.S then it must be because of our gun policy? Double standards. Most areas of the U.S you will be less likely to get murdered to most places. All the stats come from certain areas. If Other countries had as large a country with as much big cities with inner city problems as we did then their stats would be the same.

Its refreshing to be in a debate where the rabid gun advocates are in the minority and where the tone is more in keeping with what you would find in almost any civilized country outside of America.

Br Cornelius

This thread is about England. Unlike how people from other countries love to tell the U.S what our policies should be, We dont really care to tell England how they should run their country.

This should be no surprise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...? How many?

This would be pretty strong support for the public availability of firearms, should it happen to be true. Hasn't anyone looked into it?

Aren't there any comparisons out there between situations in which a gunman armed with excessive weapons and ammo, indicating he intended a massacre, has opened fire in a public area at random targets? How many victims of gun massacres have there been where the gunman either shot himself or was shot by a law enforcement officer, compared to victims shot by non-enforcement officers?

Seems to me like an excellent question that deserves an answer, not just an assumption.

A very adroit tap dance on the head of a pin. I've stated the obvious, which you shy away from. If you want to disprove it, be my guest and you go find some statistics to refute my argument. People raised to be passive about self defense and submissive in the face of aggression always find the concept of proactive self defense disturbing, even frightening. Sometimes governments--with the noblest intentions--teach their citizens to be cowards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it doesn't work out that way. Making guns more freely available means that murder rates rise so even if you had a gun to defend yourself the net effect is that you are more likely to be murdered by a gun. America is the case in point which proves this. Mass shootings are extremely rare in the UK - much more so than in America.

Its a bit of bogus reasoning.

Br Cornelius

Guns are easily available in the UK. If your intention is to commit a crime, once one more broken law? I prefer to have the option to defend myself and let frightened, passive paranoids worry about statistics. I don't intend to be a statistic on a government chart. Edited by John Wesley Boyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are easily available in the UK. If your intention is to commit a crime, once one more broken law? I prefer to have the option to defend myself and let frightened, passive paranoids worry about statistics. I don't intend to be a statistic on a government chart.

So you are willing to accept the 30x greater likelihood of been murdered.

Keep your guns but don't expect the UK to follow you down that rabbit hole, as you will probably have gathered at this point the British are almost universally thankful for the controls placed on guns.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are easily available in the UK. If your intention is to commit a crime, once one more broken law? I prefer to have the option to defend myself and let frightened, passive paranoids worry about statistics. I don't intend to be a statistic on a government chart.

Oh, are they? Could you elaborate as to where and how? Also, it is a huge different if you commit a crime with a deadly weapon or without. "Professional" criminals are well aware of that.

I also find it very disturbing that people who do not abide lax gun laws are always described with words such as "scared", "frightened", "cowardly" or even "paranoid". Paranoid, really? Isn't the person who thinks he needs to defend himself more paranoid?

And yes, of course "passive". The gun owner is actively hunting criminals, whereas the non-armed person is letting it all happen, right?

Edited by FLOMBIE
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are easily available in the UK. If your intention is to commit a crime, once one more broken law? I prefer to have the option to defend myself and let frightened, passive paranoids worry about statistics. I don't intend to be a statistic on a government chart.

That statement is simply not true.

"I don't intend to be a statistic on a government chart." I'm pretty sure everyone of those school kids in everyone of those massacres thought the same thing.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are willing to accept the 30x greater likelihood of been murdered.

Keep your guns but don't expect the UK to follow you down that rabbit hole, as you will probably have gathered at this point the British are almost universally thankful for the controls placed on guns.

Br Cornelius

Until a few more beheadings. Oh, and didn't I know you spoke for "almost all" Brits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Paranoid, really? Isn't the person who thinks he needs to defend himself more paranoid?"

A good point well made.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until a few more beheadings. Oh, and didn't I know you spoke for "almost all" Brits.

We are talking about Britain where the rule of law protects us from random gun violence so your talking bull**** again.

Can you see a single British contributor to this thread who has asked for lax gun laws - this is representative of British opinion - just as your opinion is largely representative of US opinion.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.