Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Different countries have different cultures, any comparison is apples and oranges.
Britain passed draconian gun laws back in the 30s. A man that I worked with many years ago told me that he enlisted in the RAF at the beginning of WW2. He said when he was assigned to guard duty he was handed a wooden pole that was sharpened on one end. "What's this he asked" and was told that it was a pike and it was the only weapon they had to give him. The gun makers had been driven out of business and there was no one to equip the military.
Guns Laws in Britain were not that draconian in the 1930's, although the age was raised from 14 to 17. In terms of Manufacturing Britain always had a string armaments industry and even today BAE is one of the largest Defence companies in the world.
Obviously at the start of the war there were some shortages in weaponry especially in relation to home defence units as available weapons were sent overseas as our armed forces rapidly expanded and as we moved from a Civilian Economy to a War Economy.
Stagging On (Guard Duty) is mainly carried out by the Military Provost Guard Service, MOD Police/MOD Guard Service, RAF Regiment and other such units.
I know this is touchy controversial subject so I am warning people to tone down on the emotion!
But ever since I hear this debate since Australia has stronger gun Laws than the US as a result it is safer, but isn't this simplistic way of looking at it and isn't this just an extreme comparison, what about other comparisons that appear to be in the middle.?
Switzerland has lax gun laws and seems as safe, if not safer than Australia, what do you have to say about that?
So the whole point of me posting this post was to ask people whether the Laws and Crime rate or lack thereof is the result of the laws on guns or are there other factors?
I've always been skeptical of the view that strictness equals lower rates of crime???
Please share your views and experiences and anything else you see fit?
I will never give up my guns because the police cannot protect me and my family 24/7. If you break into my house I WILL shoot to kill. That being said I see no reason except for the military and police to have assault weapons. I think stronger gun laws might prevent some of the mass shootings since it's kind of hard to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time with a revolver or automatic.
But for the every day shootings in the crime ridden neighborhoodfs, strict gun laws will do nothing because the criminals aren't turning in their weapons anytime soon. In addition if someone really wants to kill someone else there are plenty of other weapons they can use.
I will never give up my guns because the police cannot protect me and my family 24/7. If you break into my house I WILL shoot to kill. That being said I see no reason except for the military and police to have assault weapons. I think stronger gun laws might prevent some of the mass shootings since it's kind of hard to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time with a revolver or automatic.
You can't protect them 24/7 either. (Unless you never leave the house and never let them leave the house, that is.)
You do realize that having a gun in the house makes it more likely that one of the residents will shoot another resident, far more often than a resident shooting an intruder?
I don't think that gun control leads to less crime. However, I do think that it leads to less deadly crime. In countries with strict gun control, the casual criminal is far less likely to have or to use a gun. And much crime is casual or opportunistic. That said, the more professional criminal will still get a hold of a gun and no gun law will stop that.
The other aspect of gun control is that it also restricts access to the mentally disturbed or those harboring such a grudge that it lead to mass murders such as Sandy Hook or Charleston.
However, I don't think that British or Australian style gun control will work in the USA. Our culture is far too different and there are far too many guns already in the hands of the public. The idea that government can somehow 'confiscate' guns held by law abiding citizens is a complete non-starter.
And, of course, the risk of a violent death is incredibly remote for the vast majority of law abiding citizens. Most gun deaths are criminal on criminal or suicides. Having spent 4 months on a Grand Jury I had a really good look at the incidence and type of crime in the county where I live and violent crime is something that I simply don't get worried about.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am a gun owner, I enjoy shooting which I do regularly and I will use my gun to defend myself. I just don't think that will ever happen.
In Japan, there are virtually no guns and virtually no gun-related deaths. There is still crime of course, and there are still deaths, some of them being either murders or suicides. The problem with guns however is that they do their terrible work so much more swiftly and surely than other tools do. The NRA et al. do not take responsibility for this. Nor do they choose to recognize that guns in Wyoming (not quite 6 people per square mile) are a different thing from guns in Manhattan (more than 72,000 people per square mile).
Swiftlier than a bomb or a truck? Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911
The concerns over guns actually center on notions of harm-reduction. Mass killings are certainly horrific, but they are a drop in the bucket considering that we have more than 30,000 gun-related deaths to deal with annually and more than 200,000 (very expensive) gunshot wounds to treat each year as well, a great number of those not covered by insurance. It was not necessary to confiscate automobiles in order to reduce auto-related casualties from even worse levels. Perhaps if we actually thought about it, there would be ways to reduce the harm that is done by guns as well.
Mass killings are certainly horrific, but still less horrific than genocide. And number of people saved by guns against criminals ain't reported, yet those criminals rightfully killed in self-defense (or by police) are included into gun-related deaths.
Moderator cut: Orphaned - Quoted Post has been deleted
There is only one solution to the gun mess: Fewer guns.
It will take a hundred years, or more, to deal with the problem. Getting the manufacture stopped, or tightly controlled, involves breaking the bribery schemes which make our congressman wealthy.
Then you have to get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns which are already out there.
Americans are sued to solving problems in the snap of the fingers. The gun issue will take decades to resolve.
I have to use them as an example, but just look at ISIS. They have been going at it for decades. A few thousand deaths here, a few hundred more over there. They cause a small amount of heinous chaos every day.They have caused us to spend Hundreds of Billions to secure our airports and public spaces. They don't care if it takes 500 years, they will win. We need to follow the example with guns. Forget about "gun laws" and gun control. Never going to happen.
Get guns out of the public hands. Put them in secure ranges and sporting clubs. Check them out, check them back in. Over a hundred years the gun problem will go away. There is no simple solution, we just have to be dedicated to stopping gun deaths over a VERY long period of time.
You do realize that having a gun in the house makes it more likely that one of the residents will shoot another resident, far more often than a resident shooting an intruder?
Keeping a gun in the home makes it 3-4 times more likely that a resident will die from a gunshot wound. This includes accidental shootings, murders, and suicides, all of which become more likely in the presence of a gun.
If you actually want to protect your home and family 24/7, the best approach would be to sell all your guns and use the proceeds to install a decent home security system.
We shouldn't do anything about gunshot deaths and wounds until we've found a cure for genocide?
That's the mindset,. And we shouldn't help poor or sick people either until we have found and helped the poorest and sickest persons in the world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
