British Starting to Debate Gun Rights Again.

Prove this.

 

double post

 

We already have a ban, it has served us very well. What you do in your mass murdering country is up to you.

 

England did much mass murdering in America until the American Revolutionary War put a stop to it.

 

How can you show that it served you very well?

 

He can't.

 

I already did.

 

They didn't do a bad job in India either. Just saying.

 

how many mass shootings were there before that law=like one? so that collective bed wetting by the Brits over Dunblane was pretty stupid IMHO

 

he is telling the truth if the perspective is that of a despot or a criminal.

 

the only faith based beliefs we see in the gun debate is the myth that banning guns will somehow stop people who commit murder and robbery from having weapons.

 

The Hungerford massacre was only a year or two earlier.
This is the thing, the UK is not scared to make laws to make it safer to send your kids to school or go shopping.

 

But not London Bridge. Got it.

 

No guns used on London bridge. If their were the death count would have been far higher.

 

Pray tell what will be proposed if the usage of motor vehicles as deadly weapons continues to grow more prevalent in terrorist-related attacks? The same approach to firearms obviously cannot be used with regard to motor vehicles, as everyone is constantly told that modern society cannot exist without them. So ultimately what will be done about the matter? You obviously cannot stop anyone from owning or otherwise renting a motor vehicle, nor can the government require psychological health screenings, and character references for their use.

 

Then explain how eighty six people were murdered with nothing more than a motor vehicle in the city of Nice, in the nation of France. That was a mass murder that exceeded the body count of any mass shooting in the united states, regardless of what firearm was used.

 

You have hit on the difference. No one needs handguns in the UK. A few people such as farmers need shotguns and occasionally rifles. That's the point, if no one has guns then no one needs guns. It's so blindingly obvious I just don't see how you lot don't get it.
US is different, you have more guns than people and this puts you at risk if you are not armed. We have 1/4 of your murder rate and very few guns so no one needs one.

 

What does that have to do with Brits having guns?

 

And you know this just how?

 

Because one Muslim armed with guns killed 50 in the Pulse nightclub.

 

Like I said, it wasn't the Presbyterians, the Baptists or the Catholics. It was Muslims.

 

It was one mentally ill Muslim WITH A GUN.

 

No so. This is a myth, based on a partial quote from an almost 20-year-old parliamentary "witness" memo which (as a full quote makes clear) refers to one (unspecified) part of crime statistics. In actuality, UK homicide statistics detail deaths "initially counted" by the police as murders as well as deaths "currently counted" as murders, differences being solely attributable to reclassification to suicide/accident or conversely, from suicide/accident to murder. Although further data is collected on (among other things) case outcomes (e.g. suspect convictions, acquittals, suicides, etc.) this has no impact on police recorded murder statistics - initial and current murder counts remain unchanged.

 

With a lot of cheerleaders behind him.

 

A statement which you cannot demonstrate as being factual.

Another statement which cannot be demonstrated as being factual. Neither yourself, nor anyone else, can conclusively demonstrate that there is no actual need for firearms, despite their being an absence of such. There are still countless threats that individuals would need to protect themselves against, even in the united kingdom. The absence of firearms simply means that said need cannot adequately be met.

Which does not answer the question that was presented to you. Pray tell what will be proposed if the usage of motor vehicles as deadly weapons continues to grow more prevalent in terrorist-related attacks? What will be done then, since motor vehicles cannot be restricted in any manner? What will the united kingdom do when they have to admit that they cannot remove the latest deadly weapons that society is filled with?

You made the erroneous claim that if firearms had been involved in the London Bridge attack, the death toll would have been far higher. Not that it could have been higher, that it would have been higher. You are stating this to be absolute fact. So it was demonstrated that the most recent mass murder, with the highest body count on record, was committed with nothing more than a single motor vehicle, in a time span of less than five minutes. This single attack demonstrates that motor vehicles have greater potential to be far more deadly than firearms.

In a confined area with no back exit, meaning there was no way of escaping. Meanwhile in a wide open area, one muslim armed with a motor vehicle killed eighty six individuals, despite them having the ability to actually flee the scene.