Decline of gun crime in the U.K.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
no,,,, These are stories taken from local newspapers about the country...
York daily record-Elizabeth PA,,, The Telegraph-Macon Georgia,,, Express-Times Bethlehelm PA,,,, San Francisco Chronicle Vallejo Ca,,,, Upper Michigan Source Marquette MI,,,,, Knoxville News-Crossville TN,,,, Fox16, Little Rock AR.

written by the local papers,, not the magazine. ...[text shortened]... led while distracted
by cell phones seems to go un-noticed.... it's just not "real" news?

1. You don't have to make up stories to have biased information. Just not reporting stories that contradict your narrative is more than enough. I bet the "American Rifleman" will not often print stories about gun deaths that might have been prevented by stricter regulation.

2. "People have been killing people since creation ...." This is a very weak argument. Just because there are multiple ways to do something wrong, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to close of some of these paths, especially the easy ones. I'd rather someone try to kill me with a knife than with a gun, my chances are a lot better in the first case.

3. "I dare say more people are killed daily while texting on cell phones, than by a bullet from a gun." But you'd be wrong. Strange that in a discussion about guns you take the time to look up statistics on distracted driving, but not on gun deaths. A quick trip to Wikipedia and we see, for 2004, about 8000-8500 handgun homicides with an additional 2000-2500 homicides with other firearms. For 2007, there were 600 accidental deaths with guns.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
no,,,, These are stories taken from local newspapers about the country...
York daily record-Elizabeth PA,,, The Telegraph-Macon Georgia,,, Express-Times Bethlehelm PA,,,, San Francisco Chronicle Vallejo Ca,,,, Upper Michigan Source Marquette MI,,,,, Knoxville News-Crossville TN,,,, Fox16, Little Rock AR.

written by the local papers,, not the magazine. ...[text shortened]... led while distracted
by cell phones seems to go un-noticed.... it's just not "real" news?

isnt texting while driving illegal in the u.s? it is in the u.k.


is reporting local stories of gun 'heroes' in a magazine giving a balanced view of the issues? is there a difference between left wing media groups choosing negative stories on purpose to paint a negative picture and gun magazines choosing positive stories on purpose to paint a positive picture.


"if guns kill people, spoons make people fat."

i dont know where to start on this sentence its wrong in so many ways.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
"if guns kill people, spoons make people fat."

i dont know where to start on this sentence its wrong in so many ways.

Accidental fatness by spoon?

Fatricide?

Child dies of obesity after over feeding by parents due to lax spoon control laws?

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
no,,,, These are stories taken from local newspapers about the country...
York daily record-Elizabeth PA,,, The Telegraph-Macon Georgia,,, Express-Times Bethlehelm PA,,,, San Francisco Chronicle Vallejo Ca,,,, Upper Michigan Source Marquette MI,,,,, Knoxville News-Crossville TN,,,, Fox16, Little Rock AR.

written by the local papers,, not the magazine. ...[text shortened]... led while distracted
by cell phones seems to go un-noticed.... it's just not "real" news?

People have been killing people since creation..... McVie didn't need a gun to kill the people in Oklahoma City..just an imagination, and time. Jack the Ripper used a knife,
Yeah but people without these killing machines have had to put some effort into taking the life of another (and the victims had a chance at getting away). With a gun you just point it at someone, move your finger, and that person ends up with a nasty hole in them.

if guns kill people, spoons make people fat.
Spoons were designed for the transportation of small quantities of food stuffs that keep us alive, guns were designed for the transferrence of small quantities of metal into (and out of) human bodies leaving destruction (and often death) in their wake

I dare say more people are killed daily while texting on cell phones, than by a bullet from a gun.
Yeah...nothing wrong with killing machines if you can find something that, to date, has been responsible for more killings!

😞

Originally posted by stellspalfie
isnt texting while driving illegal in the u.s? it is in the u.k.


is reporting local stories of gun 'heroes' in a magazine giving a balanced view of the issues? is there a difference between left wing media groups choosing negative stories on purpose to paint a negative picture and gun magazines choosing positive stories on purpose to paint a positi ...[text shortened]... make people fat."

i dont know where to start on this sentence its wrong in so many ways.

of course it's illegal in american, how does one enforce it.....
personally I have had many more friends and associates killed in vehicles, than by guns..
it's also illegal for a felon to own a gun, but that doesn't stop them from getting one does it..?
we will never see gun control as you brits have it in the UK,,,, our constitution says so.. nah....
we will always have murders, guns are convenient, but I would prefer that to being crashed by hundreds of thousands of pounds of brick and rubble...
we all die, we have no say in how that comes about, so I just live with it,, some people can accept that fact, others can't..

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]People have been killing people since creation..... McVie didn't need a gun to kill the people in Oklahoma City..just an imagination, and time. Jack the Ripper used a knife,
Yeah but people without these killing machines have had to put some effort into taking the life of another (and the victims had a chance at getting away). With a gun you just poin ...[text shortened]... machines if you can find something that, to date, has been responsible for more killings!

😞[/b]

obesity=heart disease..that costs all of us on our health insurance.. smoking is another, want to ban guns.. laughable,, ban tobacco, and cell phones, both raise insurance costs for all of us..

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
obesity=heart disease..that costs all of us on our health insurance.. smoking is another, want to ban guns.. laughable,, ban tobacco, and cell phones, both raise insurance costs for all of us..

Is the explicit purpose of a cell phone to destroy and kill things? ... No!? Crap comparison then - please try again 🙂

i'm surprised you haven't tried: "ban guns!? are you serious!??? old age kills way more people than guns!!!"

Originally posted by Agerg
Is the explicit purpose of a cell phone to destroy and kill things? ... No!? Crap comparison then - please try again 🙂

i'm surprised you haven't tried: "ban guns!? are you serious!??? old age kills way more people than guns!!!"

neither were tobacco products, they work better than guns....
slow death though, which would you prefer..?
I will always show up in defense of gun rights....

we all die, some of us just don't sit around and worry about it..

oh, the vehicle I drive is built to survive some 1/2 wit chatting on a cell
phone, odds are I would go right over the top of a hybrid now... :-)

anyway, how would you propose to eliminate the gun from the american home?

Lol,, toss that one around in your mind.

Anders Behring Breivik. Killed 91 people in Norway, which has stricter laws than the USA...... so once again, how do you keep guns from the hands of criminals...answer you DO NOT....

Gun ownership is a non-controversial subject in Norwegian politics. By far, the most crimes are committed with stolen weapons, not legally obtained ones. Most illegally-used guns are stolen from larger military storage facilities,[citation needed] although some may be acquired when stolen from private owners. Break-ins in private homes seldom lead to the theft of weapons, unless the owner has not followed the regulations.[citation needed]
There is no apparent public desire to introduce a concealed carry permit at this point in time, and there is no such license available to civilians.[citation
One person with a concealed carry license could have perhaps saved some lives, of course that is pure speculation on my part.. but?

So The brits have seen a drop in gun crime,, great....

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
obesity=heart disease..that costs all of us on our health insurance.. smoking is another, want to ban guns.. laughable,, ban tobacco, and cell phones, both raise insurance costs for all of us..

There is a big difference between suicide and homicide. Many people reserve the right to suicide (whether by tobacco, obesity or more violent means).
However, the other things you mention have a massive benefit to individuals and society that make them worth the trade-off when it comes to the deaths they cause, though that also depends on circumstances, eg though I still think it should remain illegal to text while driving, I do not think cellphones should be banned outright, and although I do not support banning cars, I do support laws against driving while under the influence.
If guns were genuinely useful and caused less deaths, I would not be against them. As it is, I believe they are too dangerous for the small nor non-existent benefit they provide.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
So The brits have seen a drop in gun crime,, great....

What do you attribute it to?

Originally posted by FMF
What do you attribute it to?

Muskets have become obsolete.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
Anders Behring Breivik. Killed 91 people in Norway, which has stricter laws than the USA...... so once again, how do you keep guns from the hands of criminals...answer you DO NOT.... Gun ownership is a non-controversial subject in Norwegian politics. By far, the most crimes are committed with stolen weapons, not legally obtained ones.

In response to this silly observation about Norway, I'm repasting this article from another thread: it's Hugo Rifkind in The Times on gun ownership in the US and elsewhere. Can't paste the link as it's subscribers only, but it was page 21 of the issue of Tuesday 24th July:

Sometimes guns are ace. I'll tell you what else is ace, though: British gun law. Many British people will never even have seen a gun, save in the hands of soldiers or airport policemen. Pistols are wholly illegal and have been since the Dunblane shootings of 1996. Automatic weapons are also illegal, as are properly functioning pump action shotguns. Those who own guns must keep them in locked cupboards, which are inspected by the police, and can lose their licences if anyone else (even, in one case, their 81-year-old mother) knows where they keep the keys.

Obviously, it sometimes fails. Three people were killed by a man called Michael Atherton on New Year's Day, and his guns were legally held[...] But contrast the 51 killed by guns in the UK last year with their (deep breath) 31,347 counterparts in the US, and it's hard not to conclude that we're doing something very right. After the deaths of 12 people at last Friday's cinema shooting in Aurora, Colorada, the great question once again is why America doesn't feel capable of doing it too.

It is surely indisputable by this stage that gun control would save lives. This has to be true everywhere, not just in America, and the stricter it gets the more lives would be saved. Over the past few days various American voices have sought to make despicable hay over the Utoya massacre a year ago, in which Anders Breivik used weapons for which he was fully licensed. "Norway has very strict gun control laws," John McCain told CNN.

In fact, Norway's gun laws are only strict in comparison to America's. Which is to say, not very. Breivik conducted his slaughter with a Glock pistol and semi-automatic rifle, both of which he obtained with only a little forward planning. In Colorado, though, James Holmes bought his guns over the counter and his bullets online. Maybe even Norway's laws would have stymied him. Britain's laws would have likely thwarted both of them. Certainly you can kill people with a shot gun, but only a couple at a time.