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.
Yo're wrong. The 550 homicides recorded in 2012 (550 it's not a 'rate' it a number of homicides in the UK) makes it the lower number of homicides since 1983, hence the telegraph, bbc and guardian's claims of the 30 years low. Learn to read.
What source? You haven't quoted any.
I posted stats from california which indicate a rate per capita.
Why are you responding in the first person to my response to Donidanko's post?
Is trapperjohn the fourth user name, besides donidanko, whippersnapper, freighshaker belonging to one and the same person. Do the mods know about it?
And, no, we are discussing the UK not california
I have one user name. You, on the other hand, are new. I wonder who you were.
I posted stats on california because like the UK gun laws are strict. Furthermore, you responded to my posts earlier. The facts indicate that the U.S. is no less safe than the UK in 99.4% of zip codes. In other words, we have guns in every cupboard in the US but except for a small number of zip codes we are perfectly safe.
The per capita rate in the UK is basically unchanged despite the ban and you call it a success.
You have made the classic mistake of assuming that correlation equals causation. There are numerous other socio economic factors at work, including technology and affluence. In the US, homocide rates are closely tied to income. Lower income zip codes have a far higher homocide rate.
Debating is pointless because you have an agenda and choose to ignore basic facts, instead relying on attacks and rhetoric.
You have one user name yet you responded in the first person to my response to Donidankos post?
Got mixed up with your four user names a little? :smack
I bet you will now login from your other screen name just to prove that it wasn't you...
C'mon guy. Four user names? When do you find the time to run this scheme?
Try again. One user name. I responded to your post in the context of the discussion and my prior posts.
No you haven't "responded to your post in the context of the discussion and my prior posts" as we haven't had any recent discussions about any stats or numbers.
Tell me, how sick and anti-social you have to be to create four user names in an anonymous forum?
Trapperjohn, Donidanko, freightshaker and whippersnapper are one and the same person.
Is this because in real life nobody wants to talk to you?
You don't even know what you post. Cut and paste whatever they tell you to cut and paste.
Simple solution. Don't carry an "unsecured firearm with a chambered round". Your choice. At least you're honest enough to recognize and admit your limitations.
Of course I'm not going to do something that foolish.
But how do I protect my family from some careless person who does?
That was over 24 hours ago and you didn't post any stats nor data, neither we discussed any actual stats in that exchange
You just responded to my post to Donidanko because you mixed your on line personas.... Explain to me what does it do to you to have four screen names here? Does it make you feel powerful? Knowledgeable?
Of course I'm not going to do something that foolish.
But how do I protect my family from some careless person who does?
Has your family been hurt by such a person? How do you protect them from, say, a lightning strike? Far greater chance of that then of being shot by a law abiding person with a firearm.
Has your family been hurt by such a person? How do you protect them from, say, a lightning strike? Far greater chance of that then of being shot by a law abiding person with a firearm.
You can't really protect yourself from mother nature can you.
No, i just found out that certain people here are sick to the point of creating multiple screen names and lack basic analytical skills, not to mention basic math skills.
There is a hard statistical data that proves that the UK became a much safer place after handguns were banned by the conservative government of John Mayor, yes conservative. You however chose to pretend you don't understand what you read
Ok, whatever you say......
The statistics from the Home Office in the UK that say gun crime doubled in the ten years after the ban speak for themselves.....
Your continued trolling, false accusations, and lame attempts at a distraction also speaks for itself...
He is probably smart enough not to do that in the first place but it doesn't protect him from being accidentally shot by morons who do walk around with a bullet in a chamber, guns in purses, backpacks etc etc.
if the only risk were morons accidentally shooting themselves than it would be OK with me, let the Darwin laws take care of it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, very often there are others who have to suffer consequences of other people negligence or simple lack of imagination.
What's the stats on that? Can you cite your source? Obviously, if it happens as frequently as you claim, surely there's some data on it, right? And when you cite your source, make sure it doesn't cover the more broad term of "accidental shootings"...... because we are specifically talking about concealed carriers out in public, whose negligence harms others.
The truth is, it doesn't happen frequently, it happens very rarely, so I doubt you'll even be able to find any statistics on it, but I'll be waiting.
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.
