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

Serious career criminals care very deeply about whether they are going down for 1 year or 20 years. They get to be serious career criminals because they can make informed decisions about risk. Passing guns onto amateur criminals will mean that when the amateur is inevitably caught with the gun the professional criminal will still go down for serious time. They are not stupid and the penalties work as a serious deterrent.

If you are caught with an illegal weapon or trading in illegal weapons in the UK you are going to feel the full weight of the law in a way that doesn't apply to a petty thief.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about with regard to the situation within the UK.

Br Cornelius

Did you just make all that up? Everything I read on the web points to a grimmer darker picture. Why did the British police start going armed after the ban, then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we should disarm with such clear and present danger? I think not.

Circular logic at its best, I need guns to defend myself from guns.

There seems to be a huge blind spot for the root cause of the problem there.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you just make all that up? Everything I read on the web points to a grimmer darker picture. Why did the British police start going armed after the ban, then?

It is still relatively uncommon to see armed police in the UK.

You should be a bit more careful about what you believe from gun advocacy websites as the basis of your thinking :tu:

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Circular logic at its best, I need guns to defend myself from guns.

There seems to be a huge blind spot for the root cause of the problem there.

Br Cornelius

It's an American phenomenon often referred to as "redneck."
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It didn't. All the teachers were unarmed and had no means to defend their students.

and Sandy Hook was a "gun free" zone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Circular logic at its best, I need guns to defend myself from guns.

There seems to be a huge blind spot for the root cause of the problem there.

Br Cornelius

No, the root cause of your problem is the basic concept of defending yourself. You don't have the stomach for it, and it's not your fault. You been indoctrinated with the idea that it is morally wrong to the point you think the rules and customs of you little isle to be laws of nature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a country such as America where guns are common, the soldiers would have been dead from gunshot wounds before they would have had a chance to defend themselves. This is the reality of most gun fatalities - the victim doesn't see it coming till it is to late. The evidence is abundant in that soldiers have been killed on army bases despite their guns.

Br Cornelius

Believe it or not army bases are actually "gun free" zones. All the guns are locked up. So its kind of the same as attacking a school.

Ironically they do this to try and stop shootings....

Edited by spartan max2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anecdotes.

And your view that in the U.S people who support owning a gun are in the minority is based off of?

The laws dont reflect that, The voting dosent reflect that, the money spent on guns dosent reflect that and the culture dosent reflect that.

Its just your biased

Edited by spartan max2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the root cause of your problem is the basic concept of defending yourself. You don't have the stomach for it, and it's not your fault. You been indoctrinated with the idea that it is morally wrong to the point you think the rules and customs of you little isle to be laws of nature.

I don't want to die from random gun shooting - that is the basic fact. If I accept the need to defend myself against guns with guns my chance of been murdered suddenly jumps by 3000%. I certainly wouldn't feel I had done myself any favours by accepting that deal.

You are offering a **** trade - plain and simple.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Circular logic at its best, I need guns to defend myself from guns.

There seems to be a huge blind spot for the root cause of the problem there.

Br Cornelius

No I need a weapon to defend myself from criminals. Thats called common sense

Everyone is not Bruce lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think care is needed to avoid overstating the gun crime problem in the States. You have a steady occurrence (several thousand a year) of gun deaths that would not have happened in more advanced countries, but it is less than, say, the deaths from automobile accidents. The thing is why have these unnecessary deaths and suffering?

The Vietnamese police are divided into a number of specialties. You have the neighborhood magistrate who is rotated once a year and never carries a weapon and who arbitrates local disputes and handles all sorts of things (as he is rotated out a neighborhood poll is taken as to whether we think he did a good job). Then there are the traffic police, also not armed. So most of the uniformed police you see are not armed.

Even the detectives are not armed most of the time (such as vice, violent crime, organized crime, tourist protection, and so on). I've seen serious police chases against things like purse snatchers go on for extended chases with the whole neighborhood in an uproar, and no shots fired (I would assume the police who stake out for this sort of crime have guns but I'm not sure).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not army bases are actually "gun free" zones. All the guns are locked up. So its kind of the same as attacking a school.

Ironically they do this to try and stop shootings....

Once the genies out of the bottle is near impossible to put it back. The camp guards failed to stop the leaky gun culture from invading their space. Again its the leaky acceptance of guns at root here.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank I didn't think you had a sense of humour.

Br Cornelius

Redneck is what the Anglicans called Scots Presbyterians and later the Ulster Scotts in Northern Ireland, and in the US. My friend in Saigon with the identity crisis is right. It's part of our culture. My people are the ones that slammed the door on the Redshanks at Londonderry and later took some potshots at King James II, himself..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I need a weapon to defend myself from criminals. Thats called common sense

Everyone is not Bruce lee

But not even that works - burglaries are marginally higher in the US than in the UK, as are most other crimes. Your logic may sound sensible on the surface but it just means that you are more likely to be shot in your bed when the burgler comes a calling.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to die from random gun shooting - that is the basic fact. If I accept the need to defend myself against guns with guns my chance of been murdered suddenly jumps by 3000%. I certainly wouldn't feel I had done myself any favours by accepting that deal.

You are offering a **** trade - plain and simple.

Br Cornelius

No, your tortured logic and convoluted rationalizations--all off the top of your head--just makes my point. Here in this oh so dangeous U.S. I'ved been armed for fifty years and never been shot at or fired a personal weapon in anger. Your fears are misplaced. Edited by John Wesley Boyd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://pollingreport.com/guns.htm I was a little surprised that the majority in favor of tighter gun laws in not greater; I guess the propaganda has an effect. The problem is that all the rest -- mandatory background checks, etc. -- are ineffective if guns can be in private hands -- in such a case the criminals eventually get hold of them.

Still the numbers point out what I said is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, your tortured logic and convoluted rationalizations--all off the top of your head--just makes my point. Here in this oh so dangeous U.S. I'ved been armed for fifty years and never been shot at or fired a personal weapon in anger. Your fears are misplaced.

the personal account of a gun owner doesn't disprove the international verified statistic of relative risk of homicide. its like inferring that cancer doesn't exist because I have never had it. A massive failure of reasoning on your part.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://pollingreport.com/guns.htm I was a little surprised that the majority in favor of tighter gun laws in not greater; I guess the propaganda has an effect. The problem is that all the rest -- mandatory background checks, etc. -- are ineffective if guns can be in private hands -- in such a case the criminals eventually get hold of them.

Still the numbers point out what I said is correct.

the personal account of a gun owner doesn't disprove the international verified statistic of relative risk of homicide. its like inferring that cancer doesn't exist because I have never had it. A massive failure of reasoning on your part.

Br Cornelius

Even though I am pretty critical about a non-existing gun registry and no mandatory securing of guns in most states I still believe that in a low populated area, like most of the USA is, there are many reasons to own a gun... personal protection against crime is-- in most cases-- not one of them though. That is just a advertisement gimmick of the gun manufacturers to create an artificial need... in fact it is more likely that any of these self protectors injure themselves or a bystander than actually protecting themselves.

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the personal account of a gun owner doesn't disprove the international verified statistic of relative risk of homicide. its like inferring that cancer doesn't exist because I have never had it. A massive failure of reasoning on your part.

Br Cornelius

How? I've never denied any valid statistics. I just refuse to live like an unarmed peasant. If you think that if we could magically eliminate all weapons, we'd could all live like The Brady Bunch, you are living in la la land.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How? I've never denied any valid statistics. I just refuse to live like an unarmed peasant. If you think that if we could magically eliminate all weapons, we'd could all live like The Brady Bunch, you are living in la la land.

I told you I have given up caring about the domestic lunacy of the Americans, but in the UK almost no one wants laxer gun controls and the reason is because we are safer that way.

Most people will be lucky in America and not get shot, but thats a crap shoot and your running a 30x higher chance of losing. Good luck to you but please refrain from telling us we are cowards for not wanting to even up the odds.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told you I have given up caring about the domestic lunacy of the Americans, but in the UK almost no one wants laxer gun controls and the reason is because we are safer that way.

Most people will be lucky in America and not get shot, but thats a crap shoot and your running a 30x higher chance of losing. Good luck to you but please refrain from telling us we are cowards for not wanting to even up the odds.

Br Cornelius

If you'll refrain from calling us lunatics for having the courage to defend ourselves, as alien as that apparently is to you.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'll refrain from calling us lunatics for having the courage to defend ourselves, as alien as that apparently is to you.

It is lunacy when a course of behaviour you choose to take makes it more likely that you will end up with the exact opposite outcome you are seeking to achieve. I simply have no other word to describe it.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay....

I'm not going to even try and post past comments, they'd be too many, but I'm going to try and answer some of the points made. Not in any order mind, so readers may have to search back and find just what the hells I'm referring to!

In the UK we've had armed police for years, not just after personal ownership of firearms was banned. Hells, did you know that we armed officers on patrol during the 1920s great strike? Not that far back, aside from properly trained officers most police who were trusted with a gun were former army. In other words, they knew about guns so they could in a pinch handle one. At least, that was the idea...

Saw a comment about unarmed peasants. Really, unarmed? So these peasants - I assume you refer to those who work the land by that remark - wouldn't have access to farm tools. Like sharp objects which in a fight can be just if not as lethal as a gun. A gun helps hold a man at bay, supprese a crowd from raising their heads above a parapet, and can kill at a distance. So can an arrow shot from a bow, a sword can slice a man up more effective than a shot from a sidearm, and don't get me going about slings or blow darts

After the death of Drummer Lee Rigby, there was no call for guns by the population. Instead, there was a thought that perhaps his cowardly crap pieces of **** killers should be given over to Drummer Rigby's regiment for .... a chat. Anything to let those two scum have an interesting few minutes of terror that they richly deserved.

Look, if we go with a possible cultural idea about weapons for the civil members of the British public, then guns really don't feature. The above mentioned swords, bows and arrows, that sort of still lethal but close contact weapons would technically be right. But still, a population that feels they must be armed for the only reason because isn't a great argument as far as I care. This is Britain, we do have problems - crying out loud, we've had two major incidents with guns in the past two weeks not less than ten miles from where I live - but we don't feel as a country we need guns for the civil population. That may surprise some folk, but that's the way it is!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statistically, the odds of dying by alcohol in the UK is greater than dying by a gun crime in the US. I can live with those odds. And those traffic statistics! Let us both be caredful on the road, my friend. :yes:

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.