UK gun control failed, wants a knife ban

So it's impossible for a citizen to shoot a gun is that what you're saying?

Proof?

That's false. We do have a constitution the difference is that it's a set of laws which have been built up over centuries. In fact if you've ever been to London then the odds are that you've walked on constitution hill.

Nope.

 

calling me a woman in order to try to bait & insult me, is pretty pathetic.

and a bit misogynist.

 

Sorry if I refused to engage your pretty desperate exercise in hairsplitting there. I'm pretty sure though that our bureaucrats aren't intentionally hiding our gun murders in order to make you feel good about yours in the US

 

You need to go back and read the posts if you want to salvage your image. None of the words you tried to put into my mouth were remotely related to anything I actually posted.

 

Rubbish.
They're still counted in crime statistics under under violent deaths which doesn't exceed more a thousand.

Also rubbish.
The fact is it didn't matter whether you had a handgun or not because you could only use blanks. I know this because one of my relatives actually had one and he himself was a policeman.
And the UK cannot be called the most violent country in Europe because all EU nations measure and categorise crime differently. And the French gendarmerie hasn't even contributed their full stats to the EU.

A sensible act.
Also British soldiers weren't permitted to keep their weapons so I've no idea where you got that from.

Both of which were very sensible.

So?

 

Here, let me help you out since you seem have a short memory.
"Saying it is the lowest has nothing to do with what I wrote. The Guardian (aka: England's twin autistic brother of the disgraced New York Times) is quoting numbers that don't count shootings without convictions. That is like saying the kid with the chocolate covered face is the best behaved kid in class because you didn't catch him eating the Oreos personally.




Quote Originally Posted by flogger View Post

Well this has been linked multiple times on this thread already but here it is yet again

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/a...ficial-figures"

Your link claims a 30% drop. Of cours Im sure we could drop US stats by 80% if we only started counting convicted homocides.

 

That's funny from someone who thinks that Syrian barrel bombs are a myth which is something the forums resident Syrian poster confirmed the existence of.

You said this. You have implied that firearms are banned in the UK.
There is no ban on all firearms but there are very stringent regulations.

I asked for proof which you haven't responded to.

You did say this which I answered.

A twisting of history.

 

How can you claim a 30% drop in gun related homicides and not count all people non accidental killed by guns but only those convicted? Your logic is skewed.

 

Yes gun control started with the 1920's Act. I already posted that information for you. I have no idea what you are talking about barrel bombs in Syria. I said nothing even remotely related to the topic.

 

I didn't claim that.

 

Yes I shouldn't have lowered myself to your level when you called me "bro" That was pretty juvenile on your part. I totally agree.

 

Yes you did say that and I brought it up to make others aware of your behaviour.
As for "gun control", so what? It worked.

 

Pro Consul already addressed this and you've been linked the hefty reductions in our already low gun crime rate over the last decade . Theres not a whole lot more to say. Increased gun control works .....end of

 

Ok children. Play amongst yourselves. Markets are ready to close and I have work to do now.
Here is an assignment for you. Read this and write me up a report and I will grade them in the morning.
"
Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby


Comment Now


Follow Comments








English: BERSA Thunder 380 Concealed Carry
Image via Wikipedia

As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging, none of the scary scenarios they advanced have materialized. Abuse of responsibility by armed citizens is rare, while successful defensive interventions against assaults on their lives and property are relatively commonplace.

National violent crime rates that soared for 30 years from the early 1960s began to decrease markedly since 1993. Last December the FBI reported that murder and other violent crime rates fell again by 6.4% during the first half of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010. A Gallup poll indicates that “Americans’ preference regarding gun laws is generally that the government enforce existing laws more strictly and not pass new laws.”

Caroline Brewer of the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has reported that “The research we’ve seen indicates fewer and fewer people owning more and more guns.” Yet one can only wonder where they are getting that information. In reality, public support for personal gun ownership is growing. According to Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group that represents about 7,000 firearms manufacturers and related companies, in 1959 some 70% of the American public favored handgun bans, whereas today that number has flipped. This support is reflected in the marketplace. Sanetti observes that the $4.1 billion gun industry “has had nineteen months of growth in an otherwise anemic economy.”

Recognizing these positive trends, most states now issue permits allowing qualified law-abiding people to legally carry handguns outside their homes. Unprecedented numbers are becoming licensed to do so, now totaling an estimated 10 million Americans, contributing, in turn, to a dramatic growth in gun sales.




A record of more than 1.5 million background checks for customers looking to purchase a firearm were requested by gun dealers to the National Instant Background Check (NICS) system last December. About one-third of these occurred during the six weeks before Christmas. They had previously recorded a 49% rise in background checks during the week before President Obama was elected in 2008 compared with the same week one year earlier.

The Brady lobby is upset that there has been no progress in leveraging tighter gun control legislation following the shooting January 8, 2010 rampage that killed 6 people and injured 13, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords. That tragic incident raised serious questions about background checks after it was determined that the accused shooter, having previously exhibited erratic behavior, legally purchased the weapon he “allegedly” used from a store.

The National Rifle Association clearly agrees that guns should not be sold to individuals found to have serious mental problems, although many states fail to provide mental health records to the federal computerized background check system. According to a November, 2011 report by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), 23 states have shown “major failures” in complying, and four (Alaska, Delaware, Idaho and Rhode Island) submit no records at all. (Although murder has been in decline in New York and other major cities for years, a Pepsi and Honda Super Bowl advertisement spot featured New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston’s Thomas Menino on a couch calling for stricter government measures to curb illegal gun sales.)

Dennis Henigan, the Brady group’s acting president, told Reuters: “Really it is a national disgrace that the only piece of gun-related legislation to come to a vote since Tucson was this legislation that would have enabled dangerous concealed carriers like Jared Loughner to carry their guns across state lines.” Referring to a proposed “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011″ (H.R. 822) which has passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate, the resolution would require states to recognize one another’s concealed carry permits the same way they recognize one another’s driver’s licenses. The intent is to eliminate confusion and potential legal problems for traveling gun owners.




As pointed out in a recent paper titled “Tough Targets” released by the Cato Institute, “The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. But authors Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett believe these restrictions put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage to criminals who acquire guns from underground markets since it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene where intervention is urgently needed. They also document large numbers of crimes…murders, assaults, robberies…that are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns.

A widely-known study conducted by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in the 1990s found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million U.S. defensive gun uses annually. A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee.

For these reasons, the Cato researchers investigated published news reports which much more often reveal how Americans use guns in self-defense. The data set is derived from a collection of nearly 5,000 randomly selected incidents published between October 2003 and November 2011. Still, the authors also recognize limitations with this approach, since many defensive incidents are never reported by victims, or when they are, never get published. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the successful self-defense outcomes are those where the defendants’ guns are presented but never fired.

Most of the actual self-defense shootings in the Cato study didn’t involve concealed carry licenses, but more typically had to do with responses to residential invasions. Of these, 488 involved home burglaries. In addition, there were 1,227 incidents where intruders were induced to flee the scene by armed inhabitants, circumstances that might otherwise have resulted in injurious assaults including rapes and murders. There were 285 news accounts indicating that the defender had a concealed weapon license, which in the majority of these incidents took place outside a home or place of business. Pizza delivery drivers were common robbery targets.

 

If you're a teacher then I would worry about the US education system but then again thankfully I don't have to.

Which has nothing to do with the UK at all.

 

You've been given the facts on the UK so perhaps baling out by talking about the US instead is your only option left

 

at least in wasn't trying to insult you with misogynist remarks.

 

Actually it's not the first time humanity sees a ban on sharp objects... the emperor of china did the same at some time in the past, they used bamboo swords instead. Imho knives are dangerous and shouldn't be easily accessible to people, no matter in a kitchen knife or a battle knife they both stab people just as good.

 

Ah yes, the notoriously sensationalist tabloid Daily Mail. I would no more use the Mail as a reliable source than an American would use the New York Post...

 

The UK has the worst gun laws of any developed nation (and most undeveloped ones too), but we take the cake on other weapons. Knives, bats, heck, even mace is a prohibited item.

 

Perhaps you should start caring. Arrogance and jingoism are not attractive qualities. Nor are these figures: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

 

We do have a constitution. Much of yours was lifted from it, along with your Bill of Rights.http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/whatis/uk-constitution
http://www.proconservative.net/CUNAPolSci201PartFourA.shtml

 

You did say that the British have no Constitution, did you not?

 

I consider calling me a male an insult to my character and over all human nature. I could never resort to the level of what some men find to be acceptable.

 

Yes you have the right to do what you are told. Great constitution.
This from your own site.
"It has been suggested that the British Constitution can be summed up in eight words: What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law. This means that Parliament, using the power of the Crown, enacts law which no other body can challenge. Parliamentary sovereignty is commonly regarded as the defining principle of the British Constitution. "