Three separate shootings in UK in last week

why don't you make an argument in favor of that stupid law? Feinswine whined that the makers-by modifying their product to not violate the unconstitutional, dishonest and specious gun ban were "violating the SPIRIT of the law"

 

Why would I make an argument in favor of a law I’m not in favor of?

 

.....

 

good, since you don't favor it, you should denounce it like all good patriots should

 

Sorry, but that is NOT how it works. If you had any functional training you'd know that. The stock needs to fit the shooter; it's the primary interface the shooter has with the rifle if they are going to be able to fire effectively. In the fluid, fast moving, ever changing circumstances of a lethal force encounter one needs a weapon that points naturally; not a weapon they have to wrestle with to try and get themselves properly behind it.

 

which is why the turds who pass such laws should be in jail

 

its funny watching non shooters spew nonsense that anyone with any experience just laughs at

 

Seriously! Right??

 

Well, there is experience, and then there are those with Hollywood U diplomas... the later being essential to sustaining the left’s narratives.

 

Yes, shootings happen because the UK too has guns. Laws on anything won't and never stop incidents but what they do is that they reduce them. All types of crime will continue especially gang gun crime. What the UK sees in the news in a year, America has surpassed that in one weekend.

Have you noticed that the vast majority of gun and knife crime is in London, the immigration capital of the UK. Some 70% of crime is by immigrants, imported from the EU. Hopefully after Brexit, we can start closing the border and begin kicking them out.

 

Three shootings in a country of 66 milliion people. Look at yourselves. Concern yourself with the violence in the US.

Over 13,000 people were killed by guns in the US in 2015. Two people in the UK were killed in the incidents you listed. To be equal to the gun deaths in the US, 50 people a week would need to be killed in the UK by gunfire.

 

Refer to CA SKS ban.

 

Like I’ve said...I’ve had not issue shooting other people’s AR.

 

Then there is no point in the united states attempting to implement the same firearm-related restrictions as other nations, as the problem will simply continue to remain regardless.

The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does such make? There are countries with firearm-related restrictions either in line or much stricter with those of the united kingdom, and yet their annual firearm-related homicide rates are vastly higher than that of the united states, indicating that it is not the existence of these restrictions that makes any difference.

The united states has a similar immigration problem going on, with many government officials making every effort to insure it does not get addressed. Therefore there is no point in discussing the matter of firearms further, until those that illegally make use of them remain a continual issue in need of being addressed adequately.

 

Then what is ultimately being stated by yourself, is that there is an acceptable number of firearm-related homicides for a country to experience? Pray tell, what is the round number of annual murders that is considered to be acceptable, and not worthwhile addressing?

 

You have to be aware of and work to prevent gun violence in the community. The UK and Australia have tackled this. If guns are freely available, the risk of gun crime and actual gun crime taking place is expotenially higher. If you remove various gun types over a period of time and control the storage, calibre etc.. of allowable guns, you will then get the UK and Australia gun crime stats. Guns on the black market command high prices and so gun availability for would be criminals are further restricted.

More to the point, massacres in America are not often committed by felons or those who wish to rob a bank, steal a TV etc.. it tends to be your normal citizen who turned crazy, probably in relation with the effects of social media. So yes, America implementing UK legislation would likely reduce school massacres virtually down to zero and in general lower gun crime over a few decades via amnesty hand in days but armed bank robberies would continue.

To diss any solution other than pump more guns into society is Utopian in idea and clearly opposite to what's worked in the UK and Australia. If being armed and prepared is the winning solution, how many of your cops have died this year by gunfire?

 

The number of acceptable murders per annum is zero, but that's not achievable. What's achievable is reducing murder from available weapons that are available, or should I say, restricting weapons that are readily available. It's not just guns per se that are important, it's every other type of available weapon. As acid attacks increase, talk of restrictive legislation is on the cards. And this is where guns fit in, they're very dangerous, readily accessable but probably the only weapon with the least legislative control.

 

I'm surprised that ANYTHING positive about gun owners & a GOOD outcome of defensive gun use ever made it to MSM as the egregious anti-gun bias of MSM works hard to repress any news about positive gun uses such as the innumerable DGUs, the Shooting Sports, basic facts about firearms or even the joys of recreational firearm use.

Since most news stories are written by people who know nothing about firearms, dislike firearms and fear them, it is reasonable that their hoplophobia is passed on to readers with the same characteristics.

"Commentary: CNN turns gun-control story into crusade"

https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-d...ary-cnn-turns-gun-control-story-into-crusade/

EXCERPTS "Watch the network, read its website or scroll through its Twitter feed, and the overall message will come through loud and clear: Assault weapons should be banned, Republicans should be put on the spot for their votes to the contrary, and anyone who disagrees is on the take from the National Rifle Association.

Alisyn Camerota asked two survivors of the Parkland shootings now calling for gun regulation if they knew they were up against the money of the NRA. (They did.) Fair enough – except that no CNN anchor is going to mention Planned Parenthood’s political contributions in a segment about late-term abortion. And Camerota didn’t mention the millions of voters for whom the NRA speaks, voters from whom it gets that money in the first place.

Anchors also promoted gun control on their own Twitter feeds. Chris Cuomo retweeted a fake story about a 20-year-old who had allegedly bought an AR-15 in five minutes, and then angrily defended himself from critics when the account was exposed as untrue."CONTINUED

 

Apparently, you've never been in a real War Zone & are just regurgitating the tiresomely fraudulent, inflated statistics forwarded by America's exploitative & dishonest Gun Ban lobbies.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

"FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low"
https://mises.org/wire/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

Public Unaware that Homicide Rates Have Fallen

EXCERPT "As Pew has reported in recent years, in fact, the American public is "unaware" that the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. And while Pew doesn't report on it, it's also a safe bet that the public is also unaware that homicide rates have collapsed as total gun ownership in the United States has increased significantly."CONTINUED
- - - - - - -

Additionally, it is both logically flawed as well as disingenuous to attempt to compare America to cherry picked, distant, smaller countries with different demographics, histories, climates, culture, neighbors and far more extensive educational & health / mental health care systems.


"The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so. They never acknowledge that when factors beyond per capita GDP are considered, it makes little sense to claim Sweden should be compared to the US, but not Argentina. Such assertions ignore immense differences in culture, size, politics, history, demographics, or ethnic diversity. Comparisons with mono-ethnic Asian countries like Japan and Korea make even less sense"CONTINUED

 

I'm not saying that at all. Really reprehensible of you to try to put words in my mouth or twist what I am saying. What I'm saying is that Americans should not be criticizing other countries that have a miniscule amount of firearm related deaths in comparison to their own. Do something about your own problems first.

 

At last, someone agrees with me, mind your own countries faults. I only pointed to the UK and Australia as models the gun banners over here point too.

But anyway, here is an article from The Telegraph...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...73/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

 

Firearms already are freely available to anyone who wants them in the united kingdom, and the nation of Australia. They are simply not legal. But as has been witnessed with marijuana in the united states, illegality does not mean anything pertaining to availability.

The types of firearms used in the Santa Fe shooting indicate that such is not the case, as they are still legal in the nation of Australia.

And yet there is a thriving black market for firearms in the nation of Australia, with countless thousands possibly being smuggled in steadily.

And yet mass shootings are not the primary cause of homicides related to firearms, despite all the news media focus they achieve. More accurately the primary cause of firearm-related homicides are single-party incidents, where there is only one victim and one perpetrator, often committed by a prohibited individual, such as a convicted felon who cannot legally possess a firearm under any circumstances.

Focusing on mass shootings is disingenuous, as they amount to, at the very most, two percent of the annual number of firearm-related homicides.

None of those legislative restrictions have anything to do with preventing murders, or benefiting society. They serve no purpose other than to make legal firearms ownership as cumbersome and difficult as possible, for the sole purpose of discouraging as many individuals as possible from even applying in the first place. It has all the effectiveness of a total firearms prohibition, without technically amounting to one if it should ever be taken to court.

Except for the fact that they are not actually working.

Very few law enforcement deaths in the united states can attribute to being shot. In the united states, being a law enforcement officer is not even among the top ten most dangerous careers to be had. Statistically the most dangerous job there is to be had is being a logger, where one works with trees rather than violent criminal individuals. Even commercial fishing is more deadly than being a law enforcement officer.

 

Then ultimately what is the point of even trying? In the words of yourself, the only acceptable number of murders annually is zero, but it is an impossibility. This means that no matter what course of action is taken, no matter what theoretical reduction may potentially be achieved, the end result will continue to remain unacceptable. Even the laws in the nation of Japan have done nothing to bring their annual firearm-related homicide number down to an acceptable level.

Ultimately this all boils down to failure being the only achievable outcome, so what is the point of trying so hard to achieve an impossibility? What is the point of devoting countless finite resources to what is ultimately a futile cause, when the end result will always remain unacceptably high?

The only one who makes such a statement, is one who has no comprehension of just how many restrictions pertaining to firearms already exist within the united states, not only at the federal level, but also at the state level.

 

And yet the entire presentation on the part of yourself suggests it it little more than a numbers game being addressed.

It is the same tactic that is already applied by other countries with regard to the united states. They continue to have an unacceptably high number of firearm-related homicides each and every year, they have their own issues with crime to contend with, and yet the people who live in these nations feel obligated to take time out of their busy schedules and lives, and criticize the united states for how it handles itself, and tell it what it should be doing differently.

If other countries do not like the united states taking issue with their own shortcomings and failures, they should mind their own business and do not meddle in foreign affairs that do not affect them. What is going on at the street level in the united states has no impact, no significance, and no meaning to those that live in the city of Great Britain, or the nation of Australia, or anywhere else in the world. If they cannot handle criticism, they should not criticize. It is just that easy.

 

The sooner America adopts adequate gun control like the UK and Australia, and cleansing the market of certain firearms, will be the day gun violence reduces. Even incidents with legal firearms will take place but at least America will have achieved a significant reduction.

The resistance to this is killing far too many people. To be honest, if it just was gun owners that were killed, keep going mad with guns but innocent folk, kids etc.. get caught up in it.