Attention, gun control supporters:

[daveman]

Hi. It seems to me that you have LOTS of guns in the US. I mean, staggeringly large numbers of guns. Here in the UK we have none (well, almost none - farmers have shotguns, and some police are armed), but I have never seen a gun in the UK (except in the hands of the police, but only at airpots) , nor do I know anyone that has fired one.

So it must be heaven for criminals in the UK - we must all be terrified of walking the streets at night?

Well, no. It's fine over here. In fact we have a far lower percentage of crime and far, far fewer people in prison than you do in the US.

So, in answer to your question "How are you going to get criminals to obey the law" the answer is most definitely NOT not by allowing everyone to have guns. You have tried that in the US and it has spectacularly failed.

So what does work? Well, unsurprisingly, the countries in the world with the lowest crime are the ones that invest in education and have efficient policing, who deal with people firmly but fairly.

That's your answer.

Thanks for your input. It's wrong, by the way.

Myth: Britain has strict gun control and a low crime rate

Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen.
Fact: Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned.15
Fact: Britan has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest over all crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britan had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United states (446 vs. 2034 pre 100,000 population).16
Fact: 67% of British residents surveyed believed that “As a result of gun and knife crime [rising], the area I live in is not as safe as it was five years ago.”17
Fact: U.K. street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes are up 14%.18
Fact: This trend continues in the U.K in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.
Fact: In 1919, before they had any gun control, the U.K. had a homicide rate that was 8% of the U.S. rate. By 1986, and after enacting significant gun control, the rate was 9% – practically unchanged.19
Fact: “... [There is] nothing in the statistics for England and Wales to suggest that either the stricter controls on handguns prior to 1997 or the ban imposed since have controlled access to such firearms by criminals.”20
Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there.21 To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.22
Fact: An ongoing parliamentary inquiry in Britain into the growing number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in circulation – double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago – and that criminals are more willing than ever to use them. One in three criminals under the age of 25 possesses or has access to a firearm. 23
Fact: Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including the 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries.24
Fact: Handguns were used in 3,685 British offenses in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%.25 It is interesting to note:
• Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of “gun crime.”
• Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.
Fact: Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years – nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms – in a country that has virtually banned private firearm ownership.26
Fact: Over the last century, the British crime rate was largely unchanged. In the late nineteenth century, the per capita homicide rate in Britain was between 1.0 and 1.5 per 100,000.27 In the late twentieth century, after a near ban on gun ownership, the homicide rate is around 1.4.28 This implies that the homicide rate did not vary with either the level of gun control or gun availability.
Fact: The U.K. has strict gun control and a rising homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Switzerland has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) and has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. To date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland.29
Fact: “The scale of gun crime in the capital [London] has forced senior officers to set up a specialist unit to deal with ... shootings.”30
​

Hi. Thanks for all the facts!!

Fact 1: The rate of violent crime has risen. WRONG. It has fallen.
(You have to be careful with statistics, and avoid selecting the ones to prove your point, as they can be quoted out of context. Because crime goes up and down a bit over time, it would be easy to select a specific period where crime goes up and then state "crime has risen" or "crime has fallen" - which is what politicians do all the time - but if you look at the stats for violent crime for the UK over the last decade, there is a clear and obvious trend showing that violent crime is reducing in the UK. I could point out that it fell by 14% last year, which is a lot, but I would be guily of the same selective failing. Violent crime did rise a bit the year before, and fell the year before that.).

Fact 2: Firearm use has doubled since handguns were banned.
Again, you are wrong. The UK Police wrote a report for parliament summarising gun crime in the UK over the past decade. They said. "...the trend in total firearm offences recorded by the police since 1969 shows that these offences generally rose from the late 1990s to a peak of 24,094 offences in 2003/04. The number of firearm offences has fallen in each year since then with 11,227 offences recorded in 2010/11, 13% lower than the previous year and 53% below the peak of 2003/04. The proportion of all recorded crimes in which firearms, including air weapons, were used was 0.3% during 2010/11."

This shows a very clear and demonstratable REDUCTION in firearm use since handguns were banned.

Fact 3: Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe.
Really???? You are kidding me!!! I have heard this trotted out several times, but repetition doesn't make it true.

The figures for murder in the UK last year was 550 (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm) in a country of over 62 million people.

Let me repeat. That is just 39 deaths by shooting. How does that compare to, say, New Jersey???

Fact 4: 67% of residents surveyed said that they were increasingly concerned by crime.

Well I agree that, we have newspapers in the UK that like to whip up a story, and the fear of crime is one of them. I am sure your statistic is correct - in that, probably, some survey or other achieved these statistics. But I'm also sure that surveys showing that 9 out of 10 women agree that a particular face cream reduces the appearence of wrinkles is also true.

Beware of selective surveys!!

Fact 5: UK street robberies soared in 2001.
I haven't checked, but you may be right. I refer back to my response to Fact 1. Selecting a single year out of the overall stats (and I notice you had to go back over a decade to find this one) is a bit arbitrary, and doesn't tell you anything about the overall pattern.

etc, etc, etc.

You have presented no facts. Facts require citations. You know, the things you didn't give.

Fail.

 

[daveman]

OK, let's move the goalposts back to where they were!

I agree with you 100% that murder is wrong, whether it involves a gun or a tire iron.

I am sure you agree with me when I say that guns are more effective killing weapons than tire irons.

And I agree with you that that, if my life was in danger by a crazed madman pointing a loaded gun at me, I would prefer to have a gun in my hand than a tire iron.

I am NOT a pacifist!!

The point we disagree on is - does arming the population reduce crime and make the streets safer, or does it increase crime and make the streets less safe?

And I am saying that if you compare the crime stats in the USA to the crime stats in the UK it very clearly shows that widespread gun ownership does not make peoples lives safer.

And yet it does. Every state that has enacted concealed-carry laws has seen crime go down. Why do you think that might be?

Hint: Criminals prefer unarmed victims.

 

[daveman]

What an illogical question. Using your logic, drunk driving shouldn't be illegal since drunks are going to drive drunk anyway. You're suggesting that we shouldn't pass laws because criminals are going to break them, and that makes no sense.

Actually, he's suggesting that limiting the rights of the law abiding with something that will have no effect on the actions of criminals is, at best, nonsensical.

Dick is not equipped to understand that.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why must we have a mini arms race to survive?

1. 1.5 million well armed gang member in the US, who will NOT be surrendering any firerms regardless of any laws society enacts.

2. God knows how many non-gang member scumbags, also well armed and also who will NOT be surrendering any firearms regardless of any laws society passed.

3. Armed politicians like Dianne Fienstien and Chuck Shumer who wish to disarm us, but who both have firearms permits. Meaning they see some benefit to arming themselves while disarming their "subjects".

4. A knowledge of what has happened in the past, and what is happening right now, all over the world to popualtions that didn't have the means to defend itself from an oppressive govt.

5. A knowledge of history which shows that a defenseless people WILL BE preyed upon.

Are your numbers right so far as how many armed gang members?

Points 3-5 are patently ridiculous and politically inflammatory. Do you want to know why they are so ridiculous?

 

[thanatos144]

Guns mean freedom. Progressives dont understand that you dont get it from government you get it from God and we charge government to protect it.....Progressives are fascists that want to control everything cause they have no control of their own pathetic life.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Guns mean freedom. Progressives dont understand that you dont get it from government you get it from God and we charge government to protect it.....Progressives are fascists that want to control everything cause they have no control of their own pathetic life.

The ability to effectively project deadly force is power.
Those who used to preach "power to the people" are those now most intersted in taking that power away.

 

[daveman]

Why must we have a mini arms race to survive?

1. 1.5 million well armed gang member in the US, who will NOT be surrendering any firerms regardless of any laws society enacts.

2. God knows how many non-gang member scumbags, also well armed and also who will NOT be surrendering any firearms regardless of any laws society passed.

3. Armed politicians like Dianne Fienstien and Chuck Shumer who wish to disarm us, but who both have firearms permits. Meaning they see some benefit to arming themselves while disarming their "subjects".

4. A knowledge of what has happened in the past, and what is happening right now, all over the world to popualtions that didn't have the means to defend itself from an oppressive govt.

5. A knowledge of history which shows that a defenseless people WILL BE preyed upon.

Are your numbers right so far as how many armed gang members?

Points 3-5 are patently ridiculous and politically inflammatory. Do you want to know why they are so ridiculous?

They're not ridiculous. They're indisputable fact.

 

[daveman]

Guns mean freedom. Progressives dont understand that you dont get it from government you get it from God and we charge government to protect it.....Progressives are fascists that want to control everything cause they have no control of their own pathetic life.

The ability to effectively project deadly force is power.
Those who used to preach "power to the people" are those now most intersted in taking that power away.

Of course, they never wanted the people to have power. But putting "Power to US!!" on a protest sign, while infinitely more honest, isn't very inspiring to the proles, is it?

 

[Nosmo King]

1. 1.5 million well armed gang member in the US, who will NOT be surrendering any firerms regardless of any laws society enacts.

2. God knows how many non-gang member scumbags, also well armed and also who will NOT be surrendering any firearms regardless of any laws society passed.

3. Armed politicians like Dianne Fienstien and Chuck Shumer who wish to disarm us, but who both have firearms permits. Meaning they see some benefit to arming themselves while disarming their "subjects".

4. A knowledge of what has happened in the past, and what is happening right now, all over the world to popualtions that didn't have the means to defend itself from an oppressive govt.

5. A knowledge of history which shows that a defenseless people WILL BE preyed upon.

Are your numbers right so far as how many armed gang members?

Points 3-5 are patently ridiculous and politically inflammatory. Do you want to know why they are so ridiculous?

They're not ridiculous. They're indisputable fact.

No, they're ridiculous.

Dianne Feinstien and Chuck Schumer don't want to disarm americans. That's just idiotic hyperbole that the extremists love. Take away assault weapons? Sure! But that leaves all manner of weaponry, doesn't it?

And let's look at what happened in the past. 1956. rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a segregated Montgomery Alabama municipal bus. That leads to the Civil Rights movement. Now, all you Rambo wannabes bitch about tyranny. You have no idea what tyranny is. You've never been refused your right to vote. You've never been refused access to public and state schools. You've never been told what lunch counters you can eat at, what section of the theater you can sit in and who you can associate with. You've never been lynched.

And yet there WAS TYRANNY in the United States of America. And how did African Americans secure their freedom from tyranny? Did they gather their drinking buddies, buy some AR-15's, get in a Dodge Durango and play Army? NO! They marched peacefully, they boycotted, they committed acts of civil disobedience and they won their rights. And wouldn't you know, forty odd years later, one of their own was elected President. Is this a great country or what?

And yet there were African Americans who were dissatisfied with the pace of reform. they advocated arming themselves and training armed cadres to patrol the streets ready to 'fight tyranny'. The Black Panthers had the very same philosophy of what the 2nd amendment means as the dumb-asses who think they should own assault weapons and then they could have a chance against the 82nd Airborne. The Panthers made people very nervous. But no group was more nervous than Conservatives. That's right! People cut from the same bolt of political cloth who are telling us today that the solution to gun violence is more guns and those guns are protected so they can shoot up the government were nervous as hell that some folks were about to put that slab of stupidity into real action. Ironic as hell, ain't it?

 

[PaulS1950]

A bill of attainder is a law that punishes a group of people that have not been tried in a court. Banning and confiscating all semi-auto weapons is a bill of attainder.
Passing a law and making it apply to those who acted legally before the law was enacted is an ex-post-facto law.
Both of these are unconstitutional.
The supreme court ruled that a weapon that was not usable by the militia was not protected by the second - so by that ruling guns that are usable are protected. Semi-automatic weapons are protected.
They are exactly the weapons that a militia would use to protect the constitution from attack.

If you want to protect the second then go here:
http://ruger.com/micros/advocacy/index.html
click on the "Take action now" link on the right side of the page.

 

[jtpr312]

Why must we have a mini arms race to survive?

1. 1.5 million well armed gang member in the US, who will NOT be surrendering any firerms regardless of any laws society enacts.

2. God knows how many non-gang member scumbags, also well armed and also who will NOT be surrendering any firearms regardless of any laws society passed.

3. Armed politicians like Dianne Fienstien and Chuck Shumer who wish to disarm us, but who both have firearms permits. Meaning they see some benefit to arming themselves while disarming their "subjects".

4. A knowledge of what has happened in the past, and what is happening right now, all over the world to popualtions that didn't have the means to defend itself from an oppressive govt.

5. A knowledge of history which shows that a defenseless people WILL BE preyed upon.

Are your numbers right so far as how many armed gang members?

Points 3-5 are patently ridiculous and politically inflammatory. Do you want to know why they are so ridiculous?

My numbers on how many gang members there are, is probably on the low side seeing as how that number comes from the DOJ. As for them being well armed.............really you don't know that gangs are well armed? Now for 3-5, they may be inflammatory but they are facts. 3. Dianne Fienstien and Chuck Schumer BOTH have permits to bear a firearm, yet they yell the loudest that others should not have that right Hell Schumer has an unrestricted concealed carry permit in a city that is loathe to give those to anyone but cops. As for number 4, if you don't know the historical accuracy of this statement I can't help you. I have neither the time, the space nor the desire to educate you in world history. Guess we must just chalk you up as one more failure of the PS system to properly educate our children. Now to number 5. You're kidding right? Even a person with almost zero knowlesdge of history KNOWS from living past the age of 13 or so, that scumbags, forget governments, prey on the weak, the helpless and the defenseless. What do you live under a rock?

 

[bayoubill]

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?


I've never gotten a rational, workable answer to this question in all the years I've asked it on this and other boards.

Ship 'em to England... the Brits are apparently convinced that criminals obey the laws there...

 

[bayoubill]

Are your numbers right so far as how many armed gang members?

Points 3-5 are patently ridiculous and politically inflammatory. Do you want to know why they are so ridiculous?

They're not ridiculous. They're indisputable fact.

No, they're ridiculous.

Dianne Feinstien and Chuck Schumer don't want to disarm americans. That's just idiotic hyperbole that the extremists love. Take away assault weapons? Sure! But that leaves all manner of weaponry, doesn't it?

And let's look at what happened in the past. 1956. rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a segregated Montgomery Alabama municipal bus. That leads to the Civil Rights movement. Now, all you Rambo wannabes bitch about tyranny. You have no idea what tyranny is. You've never been refused your right to vote. You've never been refused access to public and state schools. You've never been told what lunch counters you can eat at, what section of the theater you can sit in and who you can associate with. You've never been lynched.

And yet there WAS TYRANNY in the United States of America. And how did African Americans secure their freedom from tyranny? Did they gather their drinking buddies, buy some AR-15's, get in a Dodge Durango and play Army? NO! They marched peacefully, they boycotted, they committed acts of civil disobedience and they won their rights. And wouldn't you know, forty odd years later, one of their own was elected President. Is this a great country or what?

And yet there were African Americans who were dissatisfied with the pace of reform. they advocated arming themselves and training armed cadres to patrol the streets ready to 'fight tyranny'. The Black Panthers had the very same philosophy of what the 2nd amendment means as the dumb-asses who think they should own assault weapons and then they could have a chance against the 82nd Airborne. The Panthers made people very nervous. But no group was more nervous than Conservatives. That's right! People cut from the same bolt of political cloth who are telling us today that the solution to gun violence is more guns and those guns are protected so they can shoot up the government were nervous as hell that some folks were about to put that slab of stupidity into real action. Ironic as hell, ain't it?

wow... thanks for that boringly tedious crock of shit... I'm nodding off as I write this...

 

[jtpr312]

Are your numbers right so far as how many armed gang members?

Points 3-5 are patently ridiculous and politically inflammatory. Do you want to know why they are so ridiculous?

They're not ridiculous. They're indisputable fact.

No, they're ridiculous.

Dianne Feinstien and Chuck Schumer don't want to disarm americans. That's just idiotic hyperbole that the extremists love. Take away assault weapons? Sure! But that leaves all manner of weaponry, doesn't it?

And let's look at what happened in the past. 1956. rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a segregated Montgomery Alabama municipal bus. That leads to the Civil Rights movement. Now, all you Rambo wannabes bitch about tyranny. You have no idea what tyranny is. You've never been refused your right to vote. You've never been refused access to public and state schools. You've never been told what lunch counters you can eat at, what section of the theater you can sit in and who you can associate with. You've never been lynched.

And yet there WAS TYRANNY in the United States of America. And how did African Americans secure their freedom from tyranny? Did they gather their drinking buddies, buy some AR-15's, get in a Dodge Durango and play Army? NO! They marched peacefully, they boycotted, they committed acts of civil disobedience and they won their rights. And wouldn't you know, forty odd years later, one of their own was elected President. Is this a great country or what?

And yet there were African Americans who were dissatisfied with the pace of reform. they advocated arming themselves and training armed cadres to patrol the streets ready to 'fight tyranny'. The Black Panthers had the very same philosophy of what the 2nd amendment means as the dumb-asses who think they should own assault weapons and then they could have a chance against the 82nd Airborne. The Panthers made people very nervous. But no group was more nervous than Conservatives. That's right! People cut from the same bolt of political cloth who are telling us today that the solution to gun violence is more guns and those guns are protected so they can shoot up the government were nervous as hell that some folks were about to put that slab of stupidity into real action. Ironic as hell, ain't it?

Seems to me the 82 Airborne, along with many other Army and Marine Infantry units, not to mention the Air force and Navy's contributions, along with many of our allies army's contirbutiosn, are having a pretty hard time disarming a few tens of thousands of stone aged living, sheep screwing rag heads in Afghanistan. Seems to me after ten years of trying, the liberals in this nation are saying it's time to quit, time to tuck tail and run leaving our Afhgan allies, the few that we have, at the mercy of their enemies, much like they did to the South Veitnamese way back when. Wonder how long it would take the liberals to cry uncle when it's US citizens and thier children doing the killing and the dying? Not ten years I bet. See the liberals put restrictions on how the Military can prosecute the war to disarm the Taliban because they lack the balls to allow our Military to use the power it has to crush the taliban and it's allies in Afghanistan, like it could do if the weak asses back in DC let them off their chains and allowed the Military to bring total war to our enemies. You really think the politicians in Washington will allow the Military to bring total war against it's own citizens? They won't, and that is the ONLY thing that will allow them to disarm the American populace like they desire to do. That's even if the Military went along with it, which I highly doubt.

 

[P@triot]

Here's a question I have never heard a pro-gun nut be able to answer.

If more guns is the solution here, and we have more guns in this nation than any other country, why aren't we the safest country in the world at this point?

Because people are being slaughtered in areas where libtards have banned having a gun on you when you need it (Chicago, New York, Washington D.C.).

Now you can't say you've "never had a pro-gun" person answer this question (and how sad that you needed someone to explain it to you).

 

[RDD_1210]

Here's a question I have never heard a pro-gun nut be able to answer.

If more guns is the solution here, and we have more guns in this nation than any other country, why aren't we the safest country in the world at this point?

Because people are being slaughtered in areas where libtards have banned having a gun on you when you need it (Chicago, New York, Washington D.C.).

Now you can't say you've "never had a pro-gun" person answer this question (and how sad that you needed someone to explain it to you).

So the rest of the country outside of those areas are free of gun violence and are safer than any other place on the planet? Is that your claim?

LOL. Hack.

 

[P@triot]

Here's a question I have never heard a pro-gun nut be able to answer.

If more guns is the solution here, and we have more guns in this nation than any other country, why aren't we the safest country in the world at this point?

Because people are being slaughtered in areas where libtards have banned having a gun on you when you need it (Chicago, New York, Washington D.C.).

Now you can't say you've "never had a pro-gun" person answer this question (and how sad that you needed someone to explain it to you).

So the rest of the country outside of those areas are free of gun violence and are safer than any other place on the planet? Is that your claim?

LOL. Hack.

Uh-oh, after receiving an answer that she *thought* there wasn't a legitimate answer to, it looks like the libtard is moving the goal post yet again.

Free from gun violence? No. Experience exponentially less gun violence? Abso-fucking-lutely you libtard hack.

 

[RDD_1210]

Because people are being slaughtered in areas where libtards have banned having a gun on you when you need it (Chicago, New York, Washington D.C.).

Now you can't say you've "never had a pro-gun" person answer this question (and how sad that you needed someone to explain it to you).

So the rest of the country outside of those areas are free of gun violence and are safer than any other place on the planet? Is that your claim?

LOL. Hack.

Uh-oh, after receiving an answer that she *thought* there wasn't a legitimate answer to, it looks like the libtard is moving the goal post yet again.

Free from gun violence? No. Experience exponentially less gun violence? Abso-fucking-lutely you libtard hack.

Moving the goal posts? I'm pretty sure I specified the entire nation in my original question. You decided to focus on three specific areas.

I'll say it again, why isn't our nation the safest on the planet with all the guns we have. Not one of you selfish gun lovers can answer that.

 

[Meister]

So the rest of the country outside of those areas are free of gun violence and are safer than any other place on the planet? Is that your claim?

LOL. Hack.

Uh-oh, after receiving an answer that she *thought* there wasn't a legitimate answer to, it looks like the libtard is moving the goal post yet again.

Free from gun violence? No. Experience exponentially less gun violence? Abso-fucking-lutely you libtard hack.

Moving the goal posts? I'm pretty sure I specified the entire nation in my original question. You decided to focus on three specific areas.

I'll say it again, why isn't our nation the safest on the planet with all the guns we have. Not one of you selfish gun lovers can answer that.

300+ million people will dictate that there will always be some gun violence, RD....even if guns were outlawed. The places where guns are outlawed there is a spike in gun violence. (weird, huh?)
One thing that is not talked about or reported by the media is the numbers of times that a gun does save a life. I will leave you to do your own research on that. I hope you can process what I've stated in a nonpartisan way.....thank you for your time.

 

[RDD_1210]

Uh-oh, after receiving an answer that she *thought* there wasn't a legitimate answer to, it looks like the libtard is moving the goal post yet again.

Free from gun violence? No. Experience exponentially less gun violence? Abso-fucking-lutely you libtard hack.

Moving the goal posts? I'm pretty sure I specified the entire nation in my original question. You decided to focus on three specific areas.

I'll say it again, why isn't our nation the safest on the planet with all the guns we have. Not one of you selfish gun lovers can answer that.

300+ million people will dictate that there will always be some gun violence, RD....even if guns were outlawed. The places where guns are outlawed there is a spike in gun violence. (weird, huh?)
One thing that is not talked about or reported by the media is the numbers of times that a gun does save a life. I will leave you to do your own research on that. I hope you can process what I've stated in a nonpartisan way.....thank you for your time.

We have more guns than anywhere else in the world, Why aren't we the safest nation in the world?