Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you're thinkin them Brits is having 10,000s of gun deaths going unreported, are ya?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Where do you folks think this shit up?
No, I'm saying the UK figures around gun crime are highly misleading.
I'm also pointing out that after the UK banned civilian ownership of firearms, gun crime skyrocketed there.
Sorry if the true doesn't fit your agenda.
Gotcha. Multiply 'em by 10. Now where are we?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
It's no big deal. I recognize fear when I see it. I was raised with guns in the house. I was brought up hunting and was taught to "absolutely" respect what a gun can do. Both my children (a Son and a Daughter) grew up with weapons in the house and both know how to defend themselves. I, nor they, have EVER used a gun in an unlawful manner.
The left is best known for striking out at that which they don't understand. And, as unfortunate as it is, they usually understand very little, but seem to believe that they, and they alone, know what's best for everyone else.
One of my co-workers a few years ago, and Black, like me, told me that I was "one crazy Brutha" because I don't "toe the line" when it comes to Obama - 'cause da Brutha is one of us".
I told him at that time that if he wanted to follow the wolf into the woods, that's hs choice, but he "ain't my Brutha". Obama, like any other politician, has never done a thing for me. But, as in everything, it's a choice.
My buddy recently left the democrat party and is now a registered Independent.
Democrats (liberals) have nothing to offer but slavery. Sorry if that offends liberals, but at some point, one MUST face the truth.
Oh man. You're black and don't vote democrat? The liberals are not going to like you one bit.
Truth be told, I catch more flack from white liberals who are sure that (again, because of my "blackness") I should be jumping up and down for Obama. Sorry 'Massa!!! but I don't agree with the man. I believe in a robust economy perpetuated by free enterprise and NOT the government. I saw, while in Europe, how that form of government works (or rather, DOESN'T work) When I was assigned to consulates in Soviet Bloc countries, I saw, firsthand, the results of Obama's form of "governance".
I saw, first hand, people lined up for blocks on end, trying to get a loaf of bread from a "so-called" benevolent government, where the rulers lived like Kings and the "people" were an encumberence that had to be "dealt with" if they got out of line.
Thanks, but no thanks.
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. 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.
1. Yet, in countries that have enacted an outright ban on civilian gun ownership, gun crime increased and they still have mass killings. The Clinton era "assault weapon" ban also had no positive effect on gun crime. The National Institute of Justice stated The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.
2. Your proposed solution overlooks the fact that bad guys will always get a firearm. You cannot stop that. You can only prevent law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves, and that is a non starter.
1. Got some stats on that? I'm all fucking ears.
Sure.
Firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned (Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007)
After the UK ban, U.K. street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes increased by 14%. (British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002.)
The trend continued in the U.K in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies. Meanwhile, crime rates in the rest of the western world were dropping.
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 despite a virtual ban on private firearm ownership. (Illegal Firearms in the UK, Centre for Defense Studies King's College in London, July 2001.)
We can also look at Australia:
In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, April 2003.)
From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, firearm-related murders were up 19%, armed robberies were up 69%, and home invasions were up 21%. Again, this during a period where the rest of the world was seeing crime rates drop.
Sure; but the shit they get their hands on might be less lethal. So there's that.
Less lethal how? You think a firearm that looks a certain way is "less lethal" than ones with a wooden stock or nice walnut grips? Why do you think that?
Besides, what makes you think banning guns would limit the supply of firearms to "less lethal" guns, whatever you think that means?
How did you put it? "You got some stats on that?"
Not to mention, bad guys aren't carrying guns near as much already. Crack dealers know that they get caught, eventually. They all have arrest records and jail time, frequently. And having a gun with them when it happens, makes the jail time about 5 times longer. They know that. So spotters, pals standing around providing cover, and a smart phone, is all they need. And of course, some rock to sell.
So you advocate for tougher laws when someone breaks a law with a firearm. We have no disagreement there.
Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things and criminals will continue to break your laws, no matter how many you enact. You can choose to remain unprepared and hope the police will save you. I choose differently.
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. 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.
1. Yet, in countries that have enacted an outright ban on civilian gun ownership, gun crime increased and they still have mass killings. The Clinton era "assault weapon" ban also had no positive effect on gun crime. The National Institute of Justice stated The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.
2. Your proposed solution overlooks the fact that bad guys will always get a firearm. You cannot stop that. You can only prevent law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves, and that is a non starter.
1. Got some stats on that? I'm all fucking ears.
Sure.
Firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned (Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007)
After the UK ban, U.K. street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes increased by 14%. (British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002.)
The trend continued in the U.K in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies. Meanwhile, crime rates in the rest of the western world were dropping.
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 despite a virtual ban on private firearm ownership. (Illegal Firearms in the UK, Centre for Defense Studies King's College in London, July 2001.)
We can also look at Australia:
In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, April 2003.)
From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, firearm-related murders were up 19%, armed robberies were up 69%, and home invasions were up 21%. Again, this during a period where the rest of the world was seeing crime rates drop.
Sure; but the shit they get their hands on might be less lethal. So there's that.
Less lethal how? You think a firearm that looks a certain way is "less lethal" than ones with a wooden stock or nice walnut grips? Why do you think that?
Besides, what makes you think banning guns would limit the supply of firearms to "less lethal" guns, whatever you think that means?
How did you put it? "You got some stats on that?"
Not to mention, bad guys aren't carrying guns near as much already. Crack dealers know that they get caught, eventually. They all have arrest records and jail time, frequently. And having a gun with them when it happens, makes the jail time about 5 times longer. They know that. So spotters, pals standing around providing cover, and a smart phone, is all they need. And of course, some rock to sell.
So you advocate for tougher laws when someone breaks a law with a firearm. We have no disagreement there.
Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things and criminals will continue to break your laws, no matter how many you enact. You can choose to remain unprepared and hope the police will save you. I choose differently.
No, I'm saying the UK figures around gun crime are highly misleading.
I'm also pointing out that after the UK banned civilian ownership of firearms, gun crime skyrocketed there.
Sorry if the true doesn't fit your agenda.
Gotcha. Multiply 'em by 10. Now where are we?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
First, we're talking about all gun crime in the UK, not just deaths. Secondly, if they're not reporting any incidents lacking a conviction, how do you know to multiply it by 10? You clearly have no idea what the real rates of gun crime in the UK are.
Correct, which means your statement that a flash suppressor "hid the DC snipers pretty well" is bogus.
That would depend on whether the muzzle was inside or outside the trunk. Several of the snipers shots were also outside the car. Do you have something definitive you want to say?
Yes. Flash suppressors don't do what you think they do. They are intended to reduce recoil by letting gases escape efficiently. There remains plenty of "flash" coming out of the muzzle. You imply they render a shot invisible. That is not true, not even close.
Gotcha. Multiply 'em by 10. Now where are we?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
First, we're talking about all gun crime in the UK, not just deaths. Secondly, if they're not reporting any incidents lacking a conviction, how do you know to multiply it by 10? You clearly have no idea what the real rates of gun crime in the UK are.
Try stay with me. You say the numbers are not as inclusive as ours. I say fine. Give you the benefit of the doubt, and make it real easy to multiply; just add a zero at the end, which should compensate a few time over.
Then I asked, how do we compare? Mind answering? Or is dodging it your preferred?
So you advocate for tougher laws when someone breaks a law with a firearm. We have no disagreement there.
Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things and criminals will continue to break your laws, no matter how many you enact. You can choose to remain unprepared and hope the police will save you. I choose differently.
That would depend on whether the muzzle was inside or outside the trunk. Several of the snipers shots were also outside the car. Do you have something definitive you want to say?
Yes. Flash suppressors don't do what you think they do. They are intended to reduce recoil by letting gases escape efficiently. There remains plenty of "flash" coming out of the muzzle. You imply they render a shot invisible. That is not true, not even close.
Wrong moron. They were designed to disperse the gases as they exit the muzzle, and rapidly cool them. They were designed to reduce the visible flash to preserve the shooters night vision, and have the added benefit of hiding where the muzzle flash came from.
First, we're talking about all gun crime in the UK, not just deaths. Secondly, if they're not reporting any incidents lacking a conviction, how do you know to multiply it by 10? You clearly have no idea what the real rates of gun crime in the UK are.
Try stay with me. You say the numbers are not as inclusive as ours. I say fine. Give you the benefit of the doubt, and make it real easy to multiply; just add a zero at the end, which should compensate a few time over.
Then I asked, how do we compare? Mind answering? Or is dodging it your preferred?
Until both countries report gun crime in the same way, with full disclosure, you cannot compare them directly. We can only look at what happened to gun crime after the UK banned civilian firearm ownership. As I showed you, it skyrocketed.
1. Got some stats on that? I'm all fucking ears.
Sure.
Firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned (Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007)
After the UK ban, U.K. street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes increased by 14%. (British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002.)
The trend continued in the U.K in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies. Meanwhile, crime rates in the rest of the western world were dropping.
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 despite a virtual ban on private firearm ownership. (Illegal Firearms in the UK, Centre for Defense Studies King's College in London, July 2001.)
We can also look at Australia:
In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, April 2003.)
From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, firearm-related murders were up 19%, armed robberies were up 69%, and home invasions were up 21%. Again, this during a period where the rest of the world was seeing crime rates drop.
Less lethal how? You think a firearm that looks a certain way is "less lethal" than ones with a wooden stock or nice walnut grips? Why do you think that?
Besides, what makes you think banning guns would limit the supply of firearms to "less lethal" guns, whatever you think that means?
How did you put it? "You got some stats on that?"
Not to mention, bad guys aren't carrying guns near as much already. Crack dealers know that they get caught, eventually. They all have arrest records and jail time, frequently. And having a gun with them when it happens, makes the jail time about 5 times longer. They know that. So spotters, pals standing around providing cover, and a smart phone, is all they need. And of course, some rock to sell.
So you advocate for tougher laws when someone breaks a law with a firearm. We have no disagreement there.
Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things and criminals will continue to break your laws, no matter how many you enact. You can choose to remain unprepared and hope the police will save you. I choose differently.
One that hold fewer bullets is less lethal, which I'd recommend we mandate for all concealable weapons for civilian purchase, keeping and bearing, pursuant to the BoR.
So you advocate for tougher laws when someone breaks a law with a firearm. We have no disagreement there.
Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things and criminals will continue to break your laws, no matter how many you enact. You can choose to remain unprepared and hope the police will save you. I choose differently.
Kinda defeatist.
Gun crime is a major no-no and the sentencing delta between with-gun-crime and no-gun-crime is stark and having a profound deterent effect.
So you advocate for tougher laws when someone breaks a law with a firearm. We have no disagreement there.
Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things and criminals will continue to break your laws, no matter how many you enact. You can choose to remain unprepared and hope the police will save you. I choose differently.
Kinda defeatist.
No, realistic.
Gun crime is a major no-no and the sentencing delta between with-gun-crime and no-gun-crime is stark and having a profound deterent effect.
Tougher laws for harming another with a firearm...or a stick for that matter...I'm all for. There you go, agreement!
Try stay with me. You say the numbers are not as inclusive as ours. I say fine. Give you the benefit of the doubt, and make it real easy to multiply; just add a zero at the end, which should compensate a few time over.
Then I asked, how do we compare? Mind answering? Or is dodging it your preferred?
Until both countries report gun crime in the same way, with full disclosure, you cannot compare them directly. We can only look at what happened to gun crime after the UK banned civilian firearm ownership. As I showed you, it skyrocketed.
Okay; fuck it.
Belgium. What do they do that enables you to reject them as a comparison? Is it the great pralines? (chocolates) Maybe too many ingredients in their beer, and too damn many fruity beers?
Whadaya think?
So you advocate for tougher laws when someone breaks a law with a firearm. We have no disagreement there.
Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things and criminals will continue to break your laws, no matter how many you enact. You can choose to remain unprepared and hope the police will save you. I choose differently.
Kinda defeatist.
No, realistic.
Gun crime is a major no-no and the sentencing delta between with-gun-crime and no-gun-crime is stark and having a profound deterent effect.
Tougher laws for harming another with a firearm...or a stick for that matter...I'm all for. There you go, agreement!
Kinda defeatist.
No, realistic.
Gun crime is a major no-no and the sentencing delta between with-gun-crime and no-gun-crime is stark and having a profound deterent effect.
Tougher laws for harming another with a firearm...or a stick for that matter...I'm all for. There you go, agreement!
Gotcha.
Nothing you can do to fix a problem or mitigate some of its problematic aspects.
Kinda defeatist.
No, realistic.
Gun crime is a major no-no and the sentencing delta between with-gun-crime and no-gun-crime is stark and having a profound deterent effect.
Tougher laws for harming another with a firearm...or a stick for that matter...I'm all for. There you go, agreement!
Oops. Contradicts the first item. Damn it. Just when I was starting to believe you.
Kinda defeatist.
No, realistic.
Gun crime is a major no-no and the sentencing delta between with-gun-crime and no-gun-crime is stark and having a profound deterent effect.
Tougher laws for harming another with a firearm...or a stick for that matter...I'm all for. There you go, agreement!
Oops. Contradicts the first item. Damn it. Just when I was starting to believe you.
Until both countries report gun crime in the same way, with full disclosure, you cannot compare them directly. We can only look at what happened to gun crime after the UK banned civilian firearm ownership. As I showed you, it skyrocketed.
Okay; fuck it.
Belgium. What do they do that enables you to reject them as a comparison? Is it the great pralines? (chocolates) Maybe too many ingredients in their beer, and too damn many fruity beers?
Whadaya think?
It was the UK and Australia that recently banned civilian firearm ownership, not Belgium. You can either accept that this did not curb crime but in fact increased it, or you can pretend facts don't matter. Your choice.
