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.
Who gave up their guns and what was the increase in violent crime, assault, rape and armed burglaries, as a result?
In the United Kingdom, access by the general public to firearms is tightly controlled by law, but it is less restrictive in Northern Ireland. The country has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. There were 0.05 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in the five years to 2011 (15 to 38 people per annum). Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2011. There is some concern over the availability of illegal firearms.
Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996. Dunblane was the UK's first and only school shooting. There has been one spree killing since Dunblane, in June 2010.
Police in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) are not routinely armed. Fatal shootings of police are extremely rare; there were three in England and Wales in the eleven-year period from 2000/01 to 2010/11. Armed response units are available to deal with incidents, and around 7,000 police officers have received firearms training.
The watch list itself, as well as the selectee, and the no fly, should be abolished immediately. There is no due process, no right to confront the accuser, and no hearing.
Linking anything to those is just flat wrong.
People get up and arms over illegal search and seizure, rightfully so. Same principle.
Secret lists compiled by secret bureaucrats in secret organizations using secret procedures under secret conditions. That was how the USSR operated, folks.
These lists were initially compiled as intelligence watch lists--"persons of interest," names to watch for as more intelligence flowed in. And for that purpose, they're perfectly fine.
But not as a tool to constrain anyone's liberties.
No distinction is made between suicides and murder.
Equating a country smaller than Texas in population is erroneous.
Equating what has had results in a country with a completely different historical/demographic makeup is erroneous.
Equating a country that did not have to fight for independence and the resulting legalities is erroneous.
Citing the author who even admits too much emphasis is placed on 'mass shootings' is erroneous.
In short, and I can continue, the author is writing not from an American perspective but from an outside pov.
And what solutions are even offered? Nyet.
Thanks for the clarification that I might have time to consider more closely with more time later, but these are not exactly disagreements expressed by anyone else in this thread before. In your prior comment, apparently you were not referring to others, but your own points of disagreement, and that's fine of course. Just saying, most other comments have not been to object about the conclusion(s) as described in the article, conclusions that I maintain are pretty sound and reasonable in general, as others have also agreed in this thread.
As to the solutions offered..., "Nyet," because there are none!
I have read all manner of research, study after study, and no doubt all the comments in some of these gun threads that wish to promote the idea that armed civilians helps reduce rather than aggravates the problem of gun violence in America. From what I can tell, this is not the case, certainly not proven in any case.
Still waiting on proof of the claim made in this thread that "more than 500,000 times per year, legal gun owners prevent crimes" for example.
.
I have seen the link posted on one of these gun threads, but I do not have it.
Thanks for the clarification that I might have time to consider more closely with more time later, but these are not exactly disagreements expressed by anyone else in this thread before. Apparently you referring not to others, but your own points of disagreement, and that's fine of course. Just saying, most of the rest has not been about the conclusion(s) as described in the article that I maintain are pretty sound and reasonable in general, as others have also agreed in this thread.
As to the solutions offered..., "Nyet," because there are none!
There are none, because the problem isn't the guns. It's the persons using them.
Me too. You can be on the terror watch list, the "no fly list," not be able to board a plane, but you can buy a gun?
Just asking...
You can be on the terror watch list, the "no fly list," not be able to board a plane, but you can buy all kinds of explosives, poison, gasoline, knives you want, drive any car you want, walk close to any person and into any kindergarten you want?
But guns? Oh, hell no, no guns. You can't have guns. That's just pure evil!
Here again apparently pointless to go around in circles, but instead just note that if all facts contrary to the "education" attempted by some in these gun threads is dismissed for whatever ridiculous reason, like this statement in bold above, we not only don't have education, but intelligent exchange is made impossible as well.
FYI: POLICE PROTOCOL -- If the suspect points a gun at someone, or reaches for a gun in a way that indicates they're going to shoot, police are allowed to fire. Police are trained to shoot at "center mass," or a suspect's torso where many vital organs are located."
Does that training not sound like "shoot to kill" for anyone?
Or are you suggesting that's just something someone just told a news reporter?
Who really needs the "education" here?
You are the one who needs education. You obviously have no ability or will to learn.
No, it doesn't not sound like "shoot to kill."
Like I said many times, nobody in the world is or can be trained to shoot at legs. Please name one if you know someone. It's legally problematic and tactically impossible and suicidal.
Legs have vital organs too. One nip on the artery, you are dead within minutes. Same goes with arms. People died of very superficial wounds like a .22 in the arm, and people routinely live through direct heart shots and head shots.
Shall we shoot off people's fingers then?
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 06-28-2016 at 11:51 AM..
You can be on the terror watch list, the "no fly list," not be able to board a plane, but you can buy all kinds of explosives, poison, gasoline, knives you want, drive any car you want, walk close to any person and into any kindergarten you want?
But guns? Oh, hell no, no guns. You can't have guns. That's just pure evil!
But the bad guys can still get guns, just through the back door of the gun store and not the front with a bcg.
I have read all manner of research, study after study, and no doubt all the comments in some of these gun threads that wish to promote the idea that armed civilians helps reduce rather than aggravates the problem of gun violence in America. From what I can tell, this is not the case, certainly not proven in any case.
Still waiting on proof of the claim made in this thread that "more than 500,000 times per year, legal gun owners prevent crimes" for example.
Lots of people in these threads would argue this is not the most safe society either. Floorist comments come to mind...
I know for some, to live in a country with strict gun control measures and/or bans is viewed as not being "free," but I wonder if you asked a Brit whether they feel they are not "free," whether they would say no. I don't think so...
They may say they are "free" of the gun violence we have in America, but not free to own a gun like you can in America.
Is this what defines "freedom?"
Seems to be a matter of perspective in any case, also whether the 2A is the law of the land of course...
Evil has always been around. The more people with guns, are going to eliminate the problem immediately, even if evil gets the drop on you personally. They too will have due process or possibly be eliminated from society on the spot. No questions asked.
Disarming the public and making them fear guns, has been an ongoing theme from government since the end of the Civil War. Just now in the 25 years, has America started to rearm itself and the government isn't liking it one bit.
We are hearing more and more armed civilians protecting themselves from evil. Some win and some, evil gets the drop on them.
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.
