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.
The shotguns in the UK are kept under lock and key at the shooting ranges. They are not "in private hands". It is against the law to have a firearm in your home in England. That includes shotguns.
That would be true for rifles and handguns (generally illegal absent extraordinary circumstances), not for shotguns, Paul.
In contrast, shotguns tend to be used in more general rural circumstances, such as by farmers who are protecting livestock from foxes - and police recognise that landowners need guns for pest control.
BBC News - Gun control and ownership laws in the UK
Under UK law, shotguns are not even classified as firearms..
Jon -
Firearm-related homicides, rate:
USA: 10.2
UK: 0.25
Firearm-related suicides, rate:
USA: 6.30
UK: 0.17
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
who needs restrictive, right stripping laws
who needs restrictive, right stripping laws
The country with the highest murder rate in the developed world.
Your argument would make sense if both the US and UK had high murder rates when the UK passed their gun laws, but their murder rate was already much, much lower than that of the US because gun ownership was already much lower.
It's like two gamblers - one has $1000 and one has $100 and they both lose $20. Did they both perform equally?
I don't give a shit about protecting you sheep from the fucking government. All i care about is being able to protect my wife and home from some fucker who thinks what I have is his.
yes, they both lost equally. the impact on the total is the same.
Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom - Casey Michel - The Atlantic
Studies show there is very little correlation between heavily armed citizens and the presence of democracy in countries around the world.
After League City, Texas, became the first city in the state to pass a resolution effectively nullifying federal gun regulations in February, Councilwoman Heidi Thiess, who speared the motion, shared a quote. "Gen. Isoroku Yamamoto, who was the commander of Japan's WWII Combined Fleet, was asked why he never bothered to invade the U.S. after Pearl Harbor," she remarked. "And you know what he said? 'You can't invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.'"
It didn't matter that the quote is almost certainly false. The sentiment remains: The tether between that right to bear arms and the safety of liberal democracy is as real post-Newtown as it was following Pearl Harbor. And now that a handful of cities and counties across Texas have passed similar measures barring local officials from enforcing federal legislation, the link between your Glock and your unbridled freedoms becomes inseparable. "The Second Amendment was never meant for hunting, although that's what's been said over generations," Thiess continued. "It was a means of defense. Yes, self-defense, but also defense against our own government."
If we rank the Top 20 countries by homicide rate and by gun ownership - it usually correlates at 17 or 18 out of 20. It is a statistical fact - amd has been proven to be so by a dozen reliable studies.
If we rank the Top 20 countries by homicide rate and by gun ownership - it usually correlates at 17 or 18 out of 20. It is a statistical fact - amd has been proven to be so by a dozen reliable studies.
You mean "the top 20 western democracies." The top 20 countries would be an entirely different list, and it would include countries with severe penalties for owning a gun and with very few guns. Jamaica and Brazil are a classic examples.
Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom - Casey Michel - The Atlantic
Studies show there is very little correlation between heavily armed citizens and the presence of democracy in countries around the world.
After League City, Texas, became the first city in the state to pass a resolution effectively nullifying federal gun regulations in February, Councilwoman Heidi Thiess, who speared the motion, shared a quote. "Gen. Isoroku Yamamoto, who was the commander of Japan's WWII Combined Fleet, was asked why he never bothered to invade the U.S. after Pearl Harbor," she remarked. "And you know what he said? 'You can't invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.'"
It didn't matter that the quote is almost certainly false. The sentiment remains: The tether between that right to bear arms and the safety of liberal democracy is as real post-Newtown as it was following Pearl Harbor. And now that a handful of cities and counties across Texas have passed similar measures barring local officials from enforcing federal legislation, the link between your Glock and your unbridled freedoms becomes inseparable. "The Second Amendment was never meant for hunting, although that's what's been said over generations," Thiess continued. "It was a means of defense. Yes, self-defense, but also defense against our own government."
Personally, that attitude, the swaggering and blustering about how the nutter are gonna save us from the government or from invasion - its downright silly.
But, one can ignore the Mighty Mouse nonsense, its the rest of the article that's interesting.
who needs restrictive, right stripping laws
The country with the highest murder rate in the developed world.
Your argument would make sense if both the US and UK had high murder rates when the UK passed their gun laws, but their murder rate was already much, much lower than that of the US because gun ownership was already much lower.
It's like two gamblers - one has $1000 and one has $100 and they both lose $20. Did they both perform equally?
no, my argument is perfectly valid. and your example proves it. yes, they both lost equally. the impact on the total is the same. now to make you example be apples to apples you would have to say both lost the same percent. because I would turn your example around and say the USA decreased it's death rate by 1000 deaths while the UK only decreased by 10. a glaring difference, but not a fair comparison. the real facts are, the USA dropped its rates by the same percent as countries with tough gun laws. our achievment is even greater, because while those countries were reducing the number of guns we were doubling the amount we had. yet we achieved the same rate of improvement.
Spoonman -
yes, they both lost equally. the impact on the total is the same.
No, it isn't. One guy lost 20% of his money - and one lost 2% of his money.
The reason the US has been able to reduce its appalling figures slightly is because they were simply catastrophic to begin with. The UK will not be able to reduce their figures significanty from here on in, because they are already very low - back to 1983 levels, in fact.
If the US wants to reduce its murder rate significantly, gun laws are essential. There is no other way.
The country with the highest murder rate in the developed world.
Your argument would make sense if both the US and UK had high murder rates when the UK passed their gun laws, but their murder rate was already much, much lower than that of the US because gun ownership was already much lower.
It's like two gamblers - one has $1000 and one has $100 and they both lose $20. Did they both perform equally?
no, my argument is perfectly valid. and your example proves it. yes, they both lost equally. the impact on the total is the same. now to make you example be apples to apples you would have to say both lost the same percent. because I would turn your example around and say the USA decreased it's death rate by 1000 deaths while the UK only decreased by 10. a glaring difference, but not a fair comparison. the real facts are, the USA dropped its rates by the same percent as countries with tough gun laws. our achievment is even greater, because while those countries were reducing the number of guns we were doubling the amount we had. yet we achieved the same rate of improvement.
No wonder you are a cop.
You'd have failed at business.
If the US wants to reduce its murder rate significantly, gun laws are essential. There is no other way.
If we rank the Top 20 countries by homicide rate and by gun ownership - it usually correlates at 17 or 18 out of 20. It is a statistical fact - amd has been proven to be so by a dozen reliable studies.
You mean "the top 20 western democracies." The top 20 countries would be an entirely different list, and it would include countries with severe penalties for owning a gun and with very few guns. Jamaica and Brazil are a classic examples.
Yes, you are right. I did mean the Top 20 western countries. My apologies.
I'm not so sure about how few guns there are in Jamaica or Brazil...official and legal figures may not bear much contact with the reality of some of those favellas.
Kevin -
I do agree with much of your thinking here - guns do not occur as a problem in isolation. As you say, they are linked to drugs, gangs, unemployment and poverty - and all of those feautres need to be tackled as well, if gun crime is ever to be brought to acceptable levels.
But disarming gangs is possible, and has been done elsewhere, even if to a lesser degree than would be required in the likes of Chicago.
My feeling is that tackling unemployment and drugs WITHOUT new gun laws would be largely pointless, because gun crime will remain high as long as gangs have access to guns.
Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom
.
