Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
Thread drift.
;D
But no... I cannot truly weigh in on crime in England as I've only been there once and that was a long time ago. However... regardless of the crime rate, and how it's defined, one thing is for certain and that is that there are a heck of a lot less shooting sprees in England (probably none) than in the U.S. Obviously, the 180-degree difference in the availability of firearms must be the biggest factor.
Toronto had 34 murders last year by gun. Across the street in Chicago they went over 500Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
Thread drift.
;D
But no... I cannot truly weigh in on crime in England as I've only been there once and that was a long time ago. However... regardless of the crime rate, and how it's defined, one thing is for certain and that is that there are a heck of a lot less shooting sprees in England (probably none) than in the U.S. Obviously, the 180-degree difference in the availability of firearms must be the biggest factor.
Canada had about 150 murders last year and below the 48th parallel it was close to 15,000
The gun lobby is trying to equate England's assault rate by bottles and pots and pans as a direct result of the gun ban. That is not a slippery slope. Its a total mountain cave in using flawed logic.
Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US.....FACTQuote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
Also Obama & the liberals want to ban Assault Rifles & more people have been murdered with hands & feet than Assault Rifles......FACT
But hey owning a gun is only my RIGHT and after all what does that mean nobody cares about the Constitution anymore, they want FDR's "Bill of Rights" with their "living wage" & "healthcare" :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongChicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US.....FACTQuote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
Also Obama & the liberals want to ban Assault Rifles & more people have been murdered with hands & feet than Assault Rifles......FACT
But hey owning a gun is only my RIGHT and after all what does that mean nobody cares about the Constitution anymore, they want FDR's "Bill of Rights" with their "living wage" & "healthcare" :rolleyes:
That Is right but just a little drive down the road they have almost no gun laws FACT
Those unrestricted guns end up in Chicago killing people Fact
Your second amendment rights written in an era of single shot muskets and a 5 minute reload does not supersede the right to life of 20 children. 95% of all your ubiquitous never ending mass shootings are done with assault rifles.
Criminals don't care about laws ergo gun control ONLY disarms law abiding citizens. Gun control doesn't solve anything, it only creates unarmed victims.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
Yes IN SPITE OF STRICT GUN CONTROL LAWS
Haha oh that is precious Iaminuit #1 you couldn't be more wrong about mass killings being done with assault rifles and #2 so free speech should ONLY apply to actual spoken word & books then? And illegal search and seizure shouldn't apply to cars? Religions established POST 1789 (or1791 if you want to go by the date of ratification) don't qualify for the Freedom of Religion? Do you see where the logic is flawed there??? All the military had at the time were muskets too so I would suggest either the Armed Forces go back to muskets or you quit bitching about my right to bear arms.
According to the FBI in 2005 there were 445 murders by rifles (not specifically Assault Rifles, just rifles in general) & in 2011 there were 323 murders by rifles (again in general)...but what is really interesting is that according to the very same FBI "blunt objects" were used in 618 murders in 2005 & 496 murders in 2011.
445 is LESS than 618
323 is LESS than 496
How long before this sinks in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
No Offence but, and excuse the pun, you just shot yourself in the foot. Even in America there are more blunt objects than guns, so ubiquity has just trumped efficiency. We both know that the whole story can only be painted by including all firearms, the picture then is quite different
In the absence of Kirkland, here is a graph
Murder weapons, 2011
http://charts-datawrapper.s3.amazona...6uf/index.html
Ah people providing statistics they like and ignoring the ones they dont. The basis of any good debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenbeanzQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
No Offence but, and excuse the pun, you just shot yourself in the foot. Even in America there are more blunt objects than guns, so ubiquity has just trumped efficiency. We both know that the whole story can only be painted by including all firearms, the picture then is quite different
In the absence of Kirkland, here is a graph
Murder weapons, 2011
http://charts-datawrapper.s3.amazona...6uf/index.html
Ok and the President is talking about ONLY banning Assault Rifles which aren't used in the majority or even half or even 10% of murders soooooo your graph is pointless
I find it ironic how a couple of the guys on here who obviously dont like Americans much, are fighting for you all to disarm yourselves. You'd think they'd saying; "yeah go on, buy more guns, make it even easier to get them, so you can all have one." :).
Instead they are saying it for one reason,to stop innocents getting killed by freaks in the future.
So whats more important? I say disarming the freaks and preventing more from arming themselves.
You need stricter vetting and stricter gun laws in regards to who.
Seriously what else can you do to stop innocents being continually plowed down?
What is your answer to the problem, or is there no problem in your mind?
1. We don't have a president in EnglandQuote:
Originally Posted by El KabongQuote:
Originally Posted by GreenbeanzQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
No Offence but, and excuse the pun, you just shot yourself in the foot. Even in America there are more blunt objects than guns, so ubiquity has just trumped efficiency. We both know that the whole story can only be painted by including all firearms, the picture then is quite different
In the absence of Kirkland, here is a graph
Murder weapons, 2011
http://charts-datawrapper.s3.amazona...6uf/index.html
Ok and the President is talking about ONLY banning Assault Rifles which aren't used in the majority or even half or even 10% of murders soooooo your graph is pointless
2. We don't have a major problem with gun crime in England
3. This is a thread built on the false premise that crime is SO HIGH in England.
4. Blunt objects are red herrings as demonstrated by the lovely red interactive graph I found.
5.Your points are pointless because this is not a thread about America, Guns. Obama or a constitutional amendment that allows for the arming of militias.
Why not include pistols, smgs, machine pistols etc?
He was already off on one from like the 2nd post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz5.Your points are pointless because this is not a thread about America, Guns. Obama or a constitutional amendment that allows for the arming of militias.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongQuote:
Originally Posted by GreenbeanzQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
No Offence but, and excuse the pun, you just shot yourself in the foot. Even in America there are more blunt objects than guns, so ubiquity has just trumped efficiency. We both know that the whole story can only be painted by including all firearms, the picture then is quite different
In the absence of Kirkland, here is a graph
Murder weapons, 2011
http://charts-datawrapper.s3.amazona...6uf/index.html
Ok and the President is talking about ONLY banning Assault Rifles which aren't used in the majority or even half or even 10% of murders soooooo your graph is pointless
A very wound up individual.
That is it for me on this topic. Lets just say we are diametrically opposed on this issue because I'm not going to get in some forum war with a guy I could probably shoot the shit with over a beer on the same topic w/o incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongCriminals don't care about laws ergo gun control ONLY disarms law abiding citizens. Gun control doesn't solve anything, it only creates unarmed victims.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
Of-course they don't. Why would they? Why are they so available to these criminals? There is already 1 gun per person pretty much or close to 300 million weapons and yet guns still fly off the shelves. How many do you need a billion? Perhaps arming those infants would have saved the day. Its like the mental illness argument. Well if mental illness is such a problem then how do these mental people freely access guns and 10 thousand rounds of ammunition at the click of a mouse? Like I said earlier slippery slope. Same with the cultural argument about being unemployed etc etc. Well if that's true then why again make guns so available to these down and out people?
Yes IN SPITE OF STRICT GUN CONTROL LAWS
Haha oh that is precious Iaminuit #1 you couldn't be more wrong about mass killings being done with assault rifles and #2 so free speech should ONLY apply to actual spoken word & books then? And illegal search and seizure shouldn't apply to cars? Religions established POST 1789 (or1791 if you want to go by the date of ratification) don't qualify for the Freedom of Religion? Do you see where the logic is flawed there??? All the military had at the time were muskets too so I would suggest either the Armed Forces go back to muskets or you quit bitching about my right to bear arms.
Whats precious about it? Produce the evidence to dispute it. I can wait. While I wait I will go gather some.
Whats free speech have to do with anything I said? I said an individuals right to a weapon does not trump life itself.
I'm an atheist and could give two shits about any religious text.
I can bitch about your antiquated right to hold arms all I want. I live in a free country with free speech and where I don't have to be worried about being shot by my neighbour because my lawnmower blew a little grass onto his yard.
You paranoid Tea baggers and this devil from inside mentality are just fucked up and the writers of this constitution would have never imagined its application or use today They wouldn't have even considered people killing each other at this rate. I suppose the right then would apply to each other and not some Government who tried to rule with an iron fist
Does immigration have anything to do with the high crime rate in the UK?