Looks like the U.K. will never be able to have freedom of gun ownership now

This statement is true though. Suicides are the most common cause of gun deaths. So, statistically a gun is more likely to kill the owner, than a criminal (or any other person).

But the statement fails to take into account the defensive uses of firearms not leading to death or injury at all. As in the deterrence value of having firearms for self defense.

 

The above only applies with male individuals. Female individuals prefer not to use a firearm when committing suicide due to vanity, and instead opt for alternative methods.

 

I do know this, I responded to many suicide scenes, even saved one.

Firearms did not top the list.
Hanging was number one on the suicide hit parade.

Instead of quoting somebody elses stastistics, tell of the suicides you responded to.

 

Probably be useful for you to look up data in the dictionary. Or at least stop pretending that you have any information other than your personal opinion.

 

Of course that is subject to some interpretation since background checks do seem to deny a significant number of gun purchases.

And thinking that clip limits defines a gun banner would indicate a certain degree of limitation in the understanding of the English language. Perhaps it would behove you to look up the definition of gun. Or if that requires going to deep into a dictionary look up clip since you won't have to turn so many pages to reach words beginning with " c"

 

Are you actually claiming there are more suicides from hanging than from guns?

 

Why? Other than your paranoid fantasy what could possibly be the reason.

 

Exactly, you fell right into the trap. Of course fully automatic weapons are banned and yet none of the fruit loop contingent are whining about how that is gun banning. So since that restriction serms to pass fruit loop muster why not restrict clip and or magazine size and ban armor piercing bullets.

 

background checks have not done a damn thing to decrease violent crime so they are an expensive waste of time and money

the rest of your post is equally devoid of logic

 

gun banners claimed I was paranoid when I said registration would lead to confiscation. They never admit what happened in NJ, NY, and England

Gun banners said I was paranoid when I noted that in NY a ten round magazine limit would lead to more restrictive limits. I was right

the fact is-gun banners never will stop and when we stop being "paranoid" is when that cancer will spread even farther

 

the 1934 NFA and the Hughes amendment are clearly unconstitutional

 

Fixed it for you. According to DOJ studies, straw purchases, theft and illegal street sales account for the vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals, and background checks do nothing to stop these. If someone fails a background check, they simply leave the store with full access to the above sources. In the report Brady Act Enforcement 2010, FBI found that only 13 of 72k prohibited persons were found guilty of lying on the Form 4473, the precursor to a background check. Everyone else, including an identified 34k felons, were left alone to pursue other illegal unstoppable sources for guns.

If it is Constitutional to limit a magazine to 20 (City of Denver) 15, (State of Colorado) 10 (California) or 7 (New York), it's Constitutional to limit it to a single round. There is nothing magical or scientific about any particular capacity restriction.

If a citizen in California turned in their 17 round Glock magazine and could not immediately purchase a 10 round magazine due to lack of supply, the government has in effect banned that citizen from the exercise of his or her 2A rights, as the gun is non-functioning.

 

No, they aren't banned. I know of two for sale in my town, and a quick search on NFA on gunbroker.com shows at least 50 machine guns for sale.

Not sure who you mean by the name calling, but there is a sizeable number of gun owners who would like to see either the Hughes Amendment or the NFA itself be overturned.

It violates Constitutional protections and will do nothing to the crime rate.

It's been explained to you already that every hunting rifle round can piece police body armor. Handgun caliber armor piercing bullets are already banned.

 

But females are much more likely to be shot by an intimate partner. So gun ownership negatively impacts them albeit in a different way.

 

It's about 55/45%. With a non-firearm death toll that high, which is materially greater than the overall ratio, it seems that male intimate partners can easily kill their female partners with or without a gun.

In suicides, guns were used in about 1/3 of suicides by females, behind poison and just ahead of hanging/suffocation.

 

men who abuse women would love to see guns banned. Indeed, criminals are much like many left-wingers when it comes to guns. Both groups tend to be big supporters of gun bans

 

No, you missed the point. I think the National Firearms Act was fully and completely unconstitutional and should never have passed review by the Supreme Court. However, as has been the rule more than the exception, the Supreme Court twists facts to fit their ability to rule in favor of maintaining governmental authority.

You can't restrict the size of clips because they are limited by their very construction. None hold more than 10 rounds that I am aware of. Restricting magazine capacity has no legitimate basis in fact, except to create a justification to restrict them further; from 30 rounds to 10 to 5 to 1. Magazine capacity restrictions are one of the most blatantly idiotic proposals ever put forward.

I'll ask again: can you even DEFINE an "armor piercing bullet"?? There was a legislative attempt to ban "armor piercing bullets" back in the 1990's, and the performance parameters given would have banned literally every caliber of ammunition and bullet configuration available except for .38 Special lead wadcutter target rounds. Attempts to ban "armor piercing bullets" is nothing but another attempt to ban all guns by people using catch phrases instead of legitimate arguments to push their agenda.

In the end, your statement reveals an abject contempt of the Constitution. "Well, we've violated it already so why not just ignore it altogether??" No, if the Constitution was treated with the respect if deserved we would have been able to pursue a much more common sense approach from the beginning; but since those in power sought to rationalize their way around the Constitution we now find ourselves in a position where the Constitution means little to nothing and ludicrous proposals that should never have seen the light of day are instead debated in the halls of Congress as if they deserve the attention and consideration they never should have been accorded in the first place.

 

..especially when someone does not know the difference between "clip" and magazine".
When people are ignorant of the basic terms of an argument, it is impossible to take them and their argument seriously.

 

Of course,they are not. You are ignorant of the law.

Simple: Such bans are unnecessary, ineffective and unenforceable.

These were banned by federal law decades ago.

 

Here in the U.S. and Europe, U.K. etc......
Personal observations.

 

Which holds no relevance to the matter pertaining to suicides. Stop intermingling suicides with homicides, as the two are not even remotely related to one another. They are two entirely different matters, that require two entirely different, non-overlapping approaches.

 

A reduction in gun ownership can help address both issues.

 

And pray tell how do you go about reducing ownership among those who cannot legally possess firearms to begin with? They acquire them through illegal means, not through legal channels. What proposals do you intend to put forth to address firearms being acquired either through theft, or through reliance on various, countless sources that simply do not care what the law may say? The criminal element already possesses countless millions of firearms, how do you go about removing them from the equation?

Beyond such, the ATF has reported that police officers in the state of California have engaged in firearms trafficking as well, by purchasing firearms that are not legal for private ownership, and then reselling them in violation of various state laws. What is the proposal when those tasked with enforcing the law are part of the problem of proliferation?

 

Perhaps. A reduction is meanness could work, too. Neither are the responsibility of the government.

 

And how will you do that ?
State level, Federal ?

Washington D.C. has virtually zero Gun ownership, virtually no concealed carry, only the Police / FBI / misc LE, etc..... yet very high crime, would you please explain ?

If you get killed by other than a Gun, are you not still dead ?

If you are 80, elderly and infirm, and a 15 year old girl beats you to death with a sneaker, is that still ok then ?