Sigh... If you want to debate that legalizing guns would make the UK safer argue away, I don't particularly care anymore, ive debated this so many times, if your interested in the arguments that I would use to counter your claims do a search, there was an epically long thread on this topic about 6 months ago I think.nlsme1 wrote:
Not sure if the death toll is off by a factor of fifty. Are you gonna ban shotguns now?Vilham wrote:
Yup and it shows in the death toll.nlsme1 wrote:
In 1987 Michael Ryan killed sixteen. In 1996, Thomas Hamilton killed sixteen children and a t4eacher at a kindergaten in Dunblane, Scotland.
US=200 million guns
UK=4 million guns
For Every gun you have we have 50.
I also don't get what your getting at with the first part, 1987 we banned semi auto assault rifles, 1996 we banned handguns, both of which have clearly worked due to the lack of mass shootings with the guns in the past 23 and 14 years.
Meh, "gun control" is a myth. Even in your beloved land it is a losing battle.
"a losing battle" how? If you actually search for that thread you will see statistical evidence from both the FBI and the British police force on how much lower violent crime is in the UK. Your guns do not do anything other than aid in killing. End of my debate here.nlsme1 wrote:
Meh, "gun control" is a myth. Even in your beloved land it is a losing battle.
"The criminal possession and use of firearms, a hallmark of urban America, is now a significant threat in Britain, too, says the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), despite moves to increase penalties for gun crime."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr … 05487.html
There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr … 05487.html
There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-06-02 12:47:04)
I was gunna type something long winded out. Just read this thread:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=130801&p=6
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=130801&p=6
127 deaths? Who cares? More people die from cancer in a single day in this country than have died in 'mass shootings'.Vilham wrote:
America has had 14 mass shootings in the last 12 years. So one less than every 12 months. 127 deaths in total not including shootings that took place after 29 March 2009.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I don't think we have mass killings ever 12 months. Maybe 2-3 people shot but not 37, guess the people in UK who get guns get trained proper.
I do like how they don't carry fire arms, but all the UK police should at least be trained and have one in the car. The armed police over there only get dispatched with instances like this, right?
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ … tings.html
We don't need cops with guns, this sort of thing hasn't happened in 14 years....
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I'm guessing the family's of the 127.JohnG@lt wrote:
127 deaths? Who cares? More people die from cancer in a single day in this country than have died in 'mass shootings'.Vilham wrote:
America has had 14 mass shootings in the last 12 years. So one less than every 12 months. 127 deaths in total not including shootings that took place after 29 March 2009.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I don't think we have mass killings ever 12 months. Maybe 2-3 people shot but not 37, guess the people in UK who get guns get trained proper.
I do like how they don't carry fire arms, but all the UK police should at least be trained and have one in the car. The armed police over there only get dispatched with instances like this, right?
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ … tings.html
We don't need cops with guns, this sort of thing hasn't happened in 14 years....
So what? Change laws effecting everyone because of an infinitesimal minority? How silly is that.paranoid101 wrote:
I'm guessing the family's of the 127.JohnG@lt wrote:
127 deaths? Who cares? More people die from cancer in a single day in this country than have died in 'mass shootings'.Vilham wrote:
America has had 14 mass shootings in the last 12 years. So one less than every 12 months. 127 deaths in total not including shootings that took place after 29 March 2009.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ … tings.html
We don't need cops with guns, this sort of thing hasn't happened in 14 years....
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
About as silly as any sort of restrictive or intrusive anti terrorism precautions.JohnG@lt wrote:
So what? Change laws effecting everyone because of an infinitesimal minority? How silly is that.paranoid101 wrote:
I'm guessing the family's of the 127.JohnG@lt wrote:
127 deaths? Who cares? More people die from cancer in a single day in this country than have died in 'mass shootings'.
2,985 people would like to tell you different if they could.Bertster7 wrote:
About as silly as any sort of restrictive or intrusive anti terrorism precautions.JohnG@lt wrote:
So what? Change laws effecting everyone because of an infinitesimal minority? How silly is that.paranoid101 wrote:
I'm guessing the family's of the 127.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i agree with your berster. Not on gun control but the comparison to our anti-terrorism legislation. It needs to go.Bertster7 wrote:
About as silly as any sort of restrictive or intrusive anti terrorism precautions.JohnG@lt wrote:
So what? Change laws effecting everyone because of an infinitesimal minority? How silly is that.paranoid101 wrote:
I'm guessing the family's of the 127.
JohnG@lt wrote:
2,985 people would like to tell you different if they could.Bertster7 wrote:
About as silly as any sort of restrictive or intrusive anti terrorism precautions.JohnG@lt wrote:
So what? Change laws effecting everyone because of an infinitesimal minority? How silly is that.
How predictably one sidely you are looking at this.
Completely ignoring the hundreds of thousands of deaths from gun crime in the US.
Which is exactly my point. The two things are very similar. Both place restrictions on what normal people can do in their day to day lives, but do have some impact on reducing the number of deaths from either terrorism or gun crime.SonderKommando wrote:
i agree with your berster. Not on gun control but the comparison to our anti-terrorism legislation. It needs to go.Bertster7 wrote:
About as silly as any sort of restrictive or intrusive anti terrorism precautions.JohnG@lt wrote:
So what? Change laws effecting everyone because of an infinitesimal minority? How silly is that.
Both are restrictions on freedom for improved public safety.
Strange that so many people are for one but against the other.
You have stats to back up that number?Bertster7 wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
2,985 people would like to tell you different if they could.Bertster7 wrote:
About as silly as any sort of restrictive or intrusive anti terrorism precautions.
How predictably one sidely you are looking at this.
Completely ignoring the hundreds of thousands of deaths from gun crime in the US.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
2985 is also an infinitesimal minority to the hundreds of million in this country.JohnG@lt wrote:
2,985 people would like to tell you different if they could.Bertster7 wrote:
About as silly as any sort of restrictive or intrusive anti terrorism precautions.JohnG@lt wrote:
So what? Change laws effecting everyone because of an infinitesimal minority? How silly is that.
So you have a problem with getting your bags checked or walking through a metal detector before boarding a plane then? I'm not inconvenienced in any way shape or form by any 'anti-terrorism' laws that have passed. Heck, just about the only time I ever see any uptick in 'presence' is when I take the train into Penn Station and I see National Guard troops walking around.Ilocano wrote:
2985 is also an infinitesimal minority to the hundreds of million in this country.JohnG@lt wrote:
2,985 people would like to tell you different if they could.Bertster7 wrote:
About as silly as any sort of restrictive or intrusive anti terrorism precautions.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You're painting with a mighty broad brush with that generalisation. There are plenty of arguments for and against either that aren't mutually exclusive.Bertster7 wrote:
Which is exactly my point. The two things are very similar. Both place restrictions on what normal people can do in their day to day lives, but do have some impact on reducing the number of deaths from either terrorism or gun crime.SonderKommando wrote:
i agree with your berster. Not on gun control but the comparison to our anti-terrorism legislation. It needs to go.Bertster7 wrote:
About as silly as any sort of restrictive or intrusive anti terrorism precautions.
Both are restrictions on freedom for improved public safety.
Strange that so many people are for one but against the other.
Are you kidding?JohnG@lt wrote:
You have stats to back up that number?Bertster7 wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
2,985 people would like to tell you different if they could.
How predictably one sidely you are looking at this.
Completely ignoring the hundreds of thousands of deaths from gun crime in the US.
Of course. There are reams and reams of stats easily available on this.
That's a rough estimate based on roughly 10,000 gun related homicides a year. Just check the FBI stats.
Most recent ones - 9484 in 2008
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-06-02 14:51:30)
My point was the 127 dead, where you consider the 2985 significant.JohnG@lt wrote:
So you have a problem with getting your bags checked or walking through a metal detector before boarding a plane then? I'm not inconvenienced in any way shape or form by any 'anti-terrorism' laws that have passed. Heck, just about the only time I ever see any uptick in 'presence' is when I take the train into Penn Station and I see National Guard troops walking around.Ilocano wrote:
2985 is also an infinitesimal minority to the hundreds of million in this country.JohnG@lt wrote:
2,985 people would like to tell you different if they could.
So? Remove guns and they'll just use knives instead. What's your point?Bertster7 wrote:
Are you kidding?JohnG@lt wrote:
You have stats to back up that number?Bertster7 wrote:
How predictably one sidely you are looking at this.
Completely ignoring the hundreds of thousands of deaths from gun crime in the US.
Of course. There are reams and reams of stats easily available on this.
That's a rough estimate based on roughly 10,000 gun related homicides a year. Just check the FBI stats.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And however many other lives that have been saved since the measures were implemented. I dunno where you live but here in NYC we always have the threat of terrorism looming in the background.Ilocano wrote:
My point was the 127 dead, where you consider the 2985 significant.JohnG@lt wrote:
So you have a problem with getting your bags checked or walking through a metal detector before boarding a plane then? I'm not inconvenienced in any way shape or form by any 'anti-terrorism' laws that have passed. Heck, just about the only time I ever see any uptick in 'presence' is when I take the train into Penn Station and I see National Guard troops walking around.Ilocano wrote:
2985 is also an infinitesimal minority to the hundreds of million in this country.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Heh, there's a world of difference between pulling a trigger from a distance, and stabbing someone up close.JohnG@lt wrote:
So? Remove guns and they'll just use knives instead. What's your point?Bertster7 wrote:
Are you kidding?JohnG@lt wrote:
You have stats to back up that number?
Of course. There are reams and reams of stats easily available on this.
That's a rough estimate based on roughly 10,000 gun related homicides a year. Just check the FBI stats.
You're not getting it. I'm not talking about terrorists. You consider 2985 significant, but not the 127. What about if I bring up gun related homicides in the US? Definitely significantly more than 2985. How many gun related homicides could be prevented if stricter gun measures were in place.JohnG@lt wrote:
And however many other lives that have been saved since the measures were implemented. I dunno where you live but here in NYC we always have the threat of terrorism looming in the background.Ilocano wrote:
My point was the 127 dead, where you consider the 2985 significant.JohnG@lt wrote:
So you have a problem with getting your bags checked or walking through a metal detector before boarding a plane then? I'm not inconvenienced in any way shape or form by any 'anti-terrorism' laws that have passed. Heck, just about the only time I ever see any uptick in 'presence' is when I take the train into Penn Station and I see National Guard troops walking around.
BTW, just playing Devil's Advocate. I'm against gun control. Criminals will get guns no matter what.
You have stats to back that up?JohnG@lt wrote:
So? Remove guns and they'll just use knives instead. What's your point?Bertster7 wrote:
Are you kidding?JohnG@lt wrote:
You have stats to back up that number?
Of course. There are reams and reams of stats easily available on this.
That's a rough estimate based on roughly 10,000 gun related homicides a year. Just check the FBI stats.
However you look at it, in NYC, your chances of being killed by being shot are far greater than your chances of being killed by terrorists.JohnG@lt wrote:
And however many other lives that have been saved since the measures were implemented. I dunno where you live but here in NYC we always have the threat of terrorism looming in the background.Ilocano wrote:
My point was the 127 dead, where you consider the 2985 significant.JohnG@lt wrote:
So you have a problem with getting your bags checked or walking through a metal detector before boarding a plane then? I'm not inconvenienced in any way shape or form by any 'anti-terrorism' laws that have passed. Heck, just about the only time I ever see any uptick in 'presence' is when I take the train into Penn Station and I see National Guard troops walking around.
Far, far greater.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-06-02 15:05:30)
Isn't England supposed to be gun-free and perfectly safe?SEREMAKER wrote:
12 Dead in Shooting
" LONDON - A taxi driver went on a shooting spree across rural northwestern England on Wednesday, killing 12 people and wounding 25 others before shooting himself, police said. "