CDZ Criminals in Britain vs. the United States.....and gun laws...

[2aguy]

10 criminals in the U.S. have illegal guns.....

10 British criminals also have illegal guns.....

The U.S. criminals use their guns to rob, rape ......and then murder

British criminals use their guns to rob and rape, but do not murder....

Whose gun laws kept criminals from getting guns...the British or the Americans?

 

[Toronado3800]

So the British criminals are less violent due to the lack of a gun culture, because they did not have to kill the unprepared homeowner who grabbed his gun with the trigger lock still on, or something else?

I give. Whats up?

 

[2aguy]

So the British criminals are less violent due to the lack of a gun culture, because they did not have to kill the unprepared homeowner who grabbed his gun with the trigger lock still on, or something else?

I give. Whats up?

No.....they had guns before the 1996 gun ban...and their gun murder rate was low.....after the gun ban in 1996 their gun murder rate went up...as did their violent crime rate.....and the rate stayed higher than before the ban for years. Then, after a period of time, it returned to the same level it was at before the ban. The gun ban did nothing to change their gun murder rate.....their criminals still got guns....but they simply did not use them to murder their victims.

Our criminals....due to the break up of the family.....single teenage girls having multiple children from multiple teenage boyfriends.....has created a criminal with less control over their impulses....so they murder each other easily and often.....

In Britain...I think World War 2 set them back.....we don't understand the implications of that war and the how it affected their society....now.....they are beginning to catch up...their previous culture can no longer civilize the young men their welfare state is creating....just like us...they now have single teenage girls raising children from multiple teenage boy fathers...with no adult male role models to teach them impulse control

Gun laws didn't do anything to stop gun crime in Britain....if we point this out, anti gunners point to the gun murder rate as if that determines the effectiveness of gun laws.....my post here is to point out that gun murder rates are not how you rate the effectiveness of gun control laws.....since the culture of the criminal is different around the world...some criminal cultures are a lot more violent and prone to murder than others.....

Targeting normal, law abiding gun owners, does not change the gun crime rate...here or in Britain...since the gun crime rate in Britain is going up...2 decades after they banned guns.....it is up 42% in London.....and up all over the rest of the country as well....

 

[Toronado3800]

What is their gun crime rate vs ours?

Agreed on the effects of the great patriotic war in England btw.

 

[FA_Q2]

What is their gun crime rate vs ours?

Agreed on the effects of the great patriotic war in England btw.

That is irrelevant. There are a million factors that determine the crime rate in any given area. Comparing our crime rate to that of another nation and then trying to pigeon hole that into a single issue such as gun control is speculation at best.

The true test of the effectiveness of gun control measures is the change of the trend line after such laws are passed. That controls for the vast majority of the variables. The evidence shows that gun control has essentially no effect on homicide rates in general.

 

[2aguy]

What is their gun crime rate vs ours?

Agreed on the effects of the great patriotic war in England btw.

As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....

Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......

Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......

And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the murder rate in the UK is the same as it was in 1950
Our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950

they have passe many very strict gun laws passed since 1950 we have not had as many or as strict

therefore one can conclude gun laws have no effect on the murder rate over time

 

[anotherlife]

Gun laws are never about reducing violent crime. Gun laws are always about creating a tight control over average citizens.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

10 criminals in the U.S. have illegal guns.....

10 British criminals also have illegal guns.....

The U.S. criminals use their guns to rob, rape ......and then murder

British criminals use their guns to rob and rape, but do not murder....

Whose gun laws kept criminals from getting guns...the British or the Americans?

None of the above in as gun laws are for the regulation of legal guns, the criminals can get guns anywhere. They had a doc on TV on guns being made in South America being shipped North to America to be sold to the American Criminals. Same as in Europe guns made in places like Russia Turkey Iran shipped for use in the Counties that have the hard gun laws. Hell I can make one in a week.

 

[anotherlife]

10 criminals in the U.S. have illegal guns.....

10 British criminals also have illegal guns.....

The U.S. criminals use their guns to rob, rape ......and then murder

British criminals use their guns to rob and rape, but do not murder....

Whose gun laws kept criminals from getting guns...the British or the Americans?

None of the above in as gun laws are for the regulation of legal guns, the criminals can get guns anywhere. They had a doc on TV on guns being made in South America being shipped North to America to be sold to the American Criminals. Same as in Europe guns made in places like Russia Turkey Iran shipped for use in the Counties that have the hard gun laws. Hell I can make one in a week.

Yes I can too but you have to be very precise and you have to be very careful with the file and the sand paper or you screw up the accuracy. I can't really make a good one, very few people can.

 

[Toronado3800]

What is their gun crime rate vs ours?

Agreed on the effects of the great patriotic war in England btw.

As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....

Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......

Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......

And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

So the gun violence rate in a country with a populace which supports tighter gun laws is lower is what you are saying?

Personally I am for more reasoned gun laws but not necessarily tighter. Its not like I can't admire another society.

 

[2aguy]

What is their gun crime rate vs ours?

Agreed on the effects of the great patriotic war in England btw.

As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....

Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......

Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......

And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

So the gun violence rate in a country with a populace which supports tighter gun laws is lower is what you are saying?

Personally I am for more reasoned gun laws but not necessarily tighter. Its not like I can't admire another society.

No....I am saying that before Britain banned guns...their criminals did not use guns to commit murder. After Britain banned guns British criminals murdered more people with guns for about 10 years...then they returned to the same level of gun murder as before the ban.

This shows that banning guns and gun laws did not effect the gun murder rate. So allowing law abiding British citizens to own and carry guns would not increase the gun crime or the gun murder rate.....gun laws didn't stop their gun crime.....or their gun murder.....the attitude toward committing murder by British criminals is what controls their gun murder rate.

And as the U.S. shows...in support of this idea.....as more Americans own and carry guns...our gun violence rates went down...gun laws do not stop gun murder......locking up repeat violent criminals and repeat gun offenders lowers the gun murder rate.....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

What is their gun crime rate vs ours?

Agreed on the effects of the great patriotic war in England btw.

As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....

Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......

Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......

And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

So the gun violence rate in a country with a populace which supports tighter gun laws is lower is what you are saying?

Personally I am for more reasoned gun laws but not necessarily tighter. Its not like I can't admire another society.

I am always curious when people say they want more "Reasoned" gun laws. Not attacking, still curious.....what gun laws do you want...and how would they actually work to stop actual criminals and mass shooters?

 

[Skull Pilot]

What is their gun crime rate vs ours?

Agreed on the effects of the great patriotic war in England btw.

As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....

Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......

Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......

And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

So the gun violence rate in a country with a populace which supports tighter gun laws is lower is what you are saying?

Personally I am for more reasoned gun laws but not necessarily tighter. Its not like I can't admire another society.

as far back as I have ever looked the murder rate in the UK has always been lower than that of the US

the murder rate of both the US and the UK are the same as they were in 1950. The UK has passed very strict gun laws on several occasions and yet their murder rate is not lower than it was in 1950. We have not passed as many or as restrictive gun laws since 1950 and our murder rate is no higher that it was in 1950 and is in fact trending to actually go lower

so is there any possible way you can say that over time strict gun laws reduce the murder rate?

and we already have reasonable gun laws and some that are down right unreasonable

 

[anotherlife]

What is their gun crime rate vs ours?

Agreed on the effects of the great patriotic war in England btw.

As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....

Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......

Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......

And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

So the gun violence rate in a country with a populace which supports tighter gun laws is lower is what you are saying?

Personally I am for more reasoned gun laws but not necessarily tighter. Its not like I can't admire another society.

I am always curious when people say they want more "Reasoned" gun laws. Not attacking, still curious.....what gun laws do you want...and how would they actually work to stop actual criminals and mass shooters?

Your question is nonsensically moronic, you used the word reasoned and leftist together.

As for a good reason for a reasoned gun law, I would say, the best reason is the constitution, which guarantees all fire arms, including not only guns but also tanks and bombs to everyone who wants to protect himself. This is the law of the constitution, no matter how much the leftist bullies want to pervert it.

 

[Toronado3800]

What is their gun crime rate vs ours?

Agreed on the effects of the great patriotic war in England btw.

As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....

Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......

Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......

And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

So the gun violence rate in a country with a populace which supports tighter gun laws is lower is what you are saying?

Personally I am for more reasoned gun laws but not necessarily tighter. Its not like I can't admire another society.

I am always curious when people say they want more "Reasoned" gun laws. Not attacking, still curious.....what gun laws do you want...and how would they actually work to stop actual criminals and mass shooters?

Here are the first few ideas to pop into my head.

Reasoned:

1 in 100 chance of a death sentence for committing a crime with a gun. Not speeding with a gun in your car mind you, but a violent crime. Mandatory if you get arrested for a violent gun crime twice. My of a violent crime is a mugging type event. You don't respect the lives of others, I don't respect yours.

No difference in regulations for private and corporate gun sales. Same back ground check, whatever.

No being drunk or stoned in possession of your gun. Being less than humanly capable gives up your Constitution to human right to bear arms.

No difference in murder and attempted murder charges, you shot me, no lower penalty for having poor aim.

No difference in registration of different types of guns. I have to register my car, you have to register your gun.

Your gun gets "stolen" you better report it. That registered gun is your baby.

I don't care if the NRA keeps track of the serial numbers and the FBI or your Sheriff's department needs a warrant to get even one of them. We should have a simple national system that makes sense.

To speak plainly, this ain't no kinder gentler stuff. My family is out there.

 

[2aguy]

What is their gun crime rate vs ours?

Agreed on the effects of the great patriotic war in England btw.

As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....

Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......

Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......

And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

So the gun violence rate in a country with a populace which supports tighter gun laws is lower is what you are saying?

Personally I am for more reasoned gun laws but not necessarily tighter. Its not like I can't admire another society.

I am always curious when people say they want more "Reasoned" gun laws. Not attacking, still curious.....what gun laws do you want...and how would they actually work to stop actual criminals and mass shooters?

Here are the first few ideas to pop into my head.

Reasoned:

1 in 100 chance of a death sentence for committing a crime with a gun. Not speeding with a gun in your car mind you, but a violent crime. Mandatory if you get arrested for a violent gun crime twice. My of a violent crime is a mugging type event. You don't respect the lives of others, I don't respect yours.

No difference in regulations for private and corporate gun sales. Same back ground check, whatever.

No being drunk or stoned in possession of your gun. Being less than humanly capable gives up your Constitution to human right to bear arms.

No difference in murder and attempted murder charges, you shot me, no lower penalty for having poor aim.

No difference in registration of different types of guns. I have to register my car, you have to register your gun.

Your gun gets "stolen" you better report it. That registered gun is your baby.

I don't care if the NRA keeps track of the serial numbers and the FBI or your Sheriff's department needs a warrant to get even one of them. We should have a simple national system that makes sense.

To speak plainly, this ain't no kinder gentler stuff. My family is out there.

Some of your ideas are fine....the others don't work....

The background check on private sales is a non starter for the 2nd Amendment....the reason? The only way to make that work is registration of guns.....

3 problems with that....

1) gun registration is the first step for gun confiscation and gun banning...this is why the anti gunners are so hot to get it......Germany, Britain and Australia are just recent examples of this...The Germans even registered their guns in the 1920s...in order to make people safer, and when the nazis came to power in the 1930s, they used the gun registration records set up in the 20s to disarm Jews and the political enemies of the nazis......that is why background checks for private sales are fought against so hard....and they just don't work. Criminals use straw buyers to get guns from gun stores....those same straw buyers who pass the current federally mandated background checks for gun store purchases will pass background checks for private sales....and private sales are the least likely way that criminals will get guns...since they have stated to researchers that they are concerned that private sellers will be cops.....they get their guns from friends and family...who buy them from gun stores where they can pass background checks....

2) The Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....it violates their right against self incrimination.....so, the only people who would be forced to register their guns? Would be law abiding citizens who don't use their guns to break the law....

3) Cars are not guns......owning a car is not protected by the Constitution...owning a gun is......owning a gun is a Right...and you don't have to register with the government to exercise a Right...if you do..it isn't a Right and can be ended by the government...

Reporting Stolen Guns....why? Other than wanting it returned if found.......? Research shows that a gun used in a crime usually has been on the street, in criminal hands for about 9 years......so there is no actual value in knowing who the original owner of the gun is.....and since criminals who use guns in crimes are the ones who committed the crime...you can arrest them when you catch them....so there is no reason to put the original owner on the hook for it.....

you may say..what about Straw Buyers.....right? If it is registered to them, you can get them for giving the gun to a felon..right? Well, not really. They report the gun stolen....then when the gun is found with a felon...you can't do anything to them....and right now.....they already catch straw buyers in police stings, using normal police work...and gun registration and reports on stolen guns don't help those efforts....

 

[2aguy]

What is their gun crime rate vs ours?

Agreed on the effects of the great patriotic war in England btw.

As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....

Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......

Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......

And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

So the gun violence rate in a country with a populace which supports tighter gun laws is lower is what you are saying?

Personally I am for more reasoned gun laws but not necessarily tighter. Its not like I can't admire another society.

I am always curious when people say they want more "Reasoned" gun laws. Not attacking, still curious.....what gun laws do you want...and how would they actually work to stop actual criminals and mass shooters?

Here are the first few ideas to pop into my head.

Reasoned:

1 in 100 chance of a death sentence for committing a crime with a gun. Not speeding with a gun in your car mind you, but a violent crime. Mandatory if you get arrested for a violent gun crime twice. My of a violent crime is a mugging type event. You don't respect the lives of others, I don't respect yours.

No difference in regulations for private and corporate gun sales. Same back ground check, whatever.

No being drunk or stoned in possession of your gun. Being less than humanly capable gives up your Constitution to human right to bear arms.

No difference in murder and attempted murder charges, you shot me, no lower penalty for having poor aim.

No difference in registration of different types of guns. I have to register my car, you have to register your gun.

Your gun gets "stolen" you better report it. That registered gun is your baby.

I don't care if the NRA keeps track of the serial numbers and the FBI or your Sheriff's department needs a warrant to get even one of them. We should have a simple national system that makes sense.

To speak plainly, this ain't no kinder gentler stuff. My family is out there.

And more on gun registration...besides the other reasons it is a bad idea.....? It doesn't work where it is already tried....like in Canada.........

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.

 

[Toronado3800]

What is their gun crime rate vs ours?

Agreed on the effects of the great patriotic war in England btw.

As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....

Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......

Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......

And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

So the gun violence rate in a country with a populace which supports tighter gun laws is lower is what you are saying?

Personally I am for more reasoned gun laws but not necessarily tighter. Its not like I can't admire another society.

I am always curious when people say they want more "Reasoned" gun laws. Not attacking, still curious.....what gun laws do you want...and how would they actually work to stop actual criminals and mass shooters?

Here are the first few ideas to pop into my head.

Reasoned:

1 in 100 chance of a death sentence for committing a crime with a gun. Not speeding with a gun in your car mind you, but a violent crime. Mandatory if you get arrested for a violent gun crime twice. My of a violent crime is a mugging type event. You don't respect the lives of others, I don't respect yours.

No difference in regulations for private and corporate gun sales. Same back ground check, whatever.

No being drunk or stoned in possession of your gun. Being less than humanly capable gives up your Constitution to human right to bear arms.

No difference in murder and attempted murder charges, you shot me, no lower penalty for having poor aim.

No difference in registration of different types of guns. I have to register my car, you have to register your gun.

Your gun gets "stolen" you better report it. That registered gun is your baby.

I don't care if the NRA keeps track of the serial numbers and the FBI or your Sheriff's department needs a warrant to get even one of them. We should have a simple national system that makes sense.

To speak plainly, this ain't no kinder gentler stuff. My family is out there.

Some of your ideas are fine....the others don't work....

The background check on private sales is a non starter for the 2nd Amendment....the reason? The only way to make that work is registration of guns.....

3 problems with that....

1) gun registration is the first step for gun confiscation and gun banning...this is why the anti gunners are so hot to get it......Germany, Britain and Australia are just recent examples of this...The Germans even registered their guns in the 1920s...in order to make people safer, and when the nazis came to power in the 1930s, they used the gun registration records set up in the 20s to disarm Jews and the political enemies of the nazis......that is why background checks for private sales are fought against so hard....and they just don't work. Criminals use straw buyers to get guns from gun stores....those same straw buyers who pass the current federally mandated background checks for gun store purchases will pass background checks for private sales....and private sales are the least likely way that criminals will get guns...since they have stated to researchers that they are concerned that private sellers will be cops.....they get their guns from friends and family...who buy them from gun stores where they can pass background checks....

2) The Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....it violates their right against self incrimination.....so, the only people who would be forced to register their guns? Would be law abiding citizens who don't use their guns to break the law....

3) Cars are not guns......owning a car is not protected by the Constitution...owning a gun is......owning a gun is a Right...and you don't have to register with the government to exercise a Right...if you do..it isn't a Right and can be ended by the government...

Reporting Stolen Guns....why? Other than wanting it returned if found.......? Research shows that a gun used in a crime usually has been on the street, in criminal hands for about 9 years......so there is no actual value in knowing who the original owner of the gun is.....and since criminals who use guns in crimes are the ones who committed the crime...you can arrest them when you catch them....so there is no reason to put the original owner on the hook for it.....

you may say..what about Straw Buyers.....right? If it is registered to them, you can get them for giving the gun to a felon..right? Well, not really. They report the gun stolen....then when the gun is found with a felon...you can't do anything to them....and right now.....they already catch straw buyers in police stings, using normal police work...and gun registration and reports on stolen guns don't help those efforts....

You know your law. Just because a Judge or group of Judges decided something doesn't mean they are not wrong. Also some things are effectively your right.

-Background checks if they are legal for one purchase are legal for all. Anything else while legal may be contrived.

-Consider, what would have to happen for someone not be allowed to buy a car? The right to operate a car on the street can be taken away with due process. Practically owning a car seems like it is covered under my right to a pursuit of happiness, if I pay my taxes..

-That is pretty contrived thinking. I am required to register my car and pay my taxes every year even if I am "wanted" for avoiding turning in my 1040 last year.

-I share your worry about registration of guns and the loss of rights and it worries me also. Maybe I can throw a bone by letting the NRA, Tea Party or whoever keep the information and making law enforcement subpoena it.

The more paperwork required the more likely it is to catch Strawmen purchasers. Heck, I might even loosen up on my death sentence odds if a criminal turns one in.

 

[2aguy]

As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....

Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......

Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......

And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

So the gun violence rate in a country with a populace which supports tighter gun laws is lower is what you are saying?

Personally I am for more reasoned gun laws but not necessarily tighter. Its not like I can't admire another society.

I am always curious when people say they want more "Reasoned" gun laws. Not attacking, still curious.....what gun laws do you want...and how would they actually work to stop actual criminals and mass shooters?

Here are the first few ideas to pop into my head.

Reasoned:

1 in 100 chance of a death sentence for committing a crime with a gun. Not speeding with a gun in your car mind you, but a violent crime. Mandatory if you get arrested for a violent gun crime twice. My of a violent crime is a mugging type event. You don't respect the lives of others, I don't respect yours.

No difference in regulations for private and corporate gun sales. Same back ground check, whatever.

No being drunk or stoned in possession of your gun. Being less than humanly capable gives up your Constitution to human right to bear arms.

No difference in murder and attempted murder charges, you shot me, no lower penalty for having poor aim.

No difference in registration of different types of guns. I have to register my car, you have to register your gun.

Your gun gets "stolen" you better report it. That registered gun is your baby.

I don't care if the NRA keeps track of the serial numbers and the FBI or your Sheriff's department needs a warrant to get even one of them. We should have a simple national system that makes sense.

To speak plainly, this ain't no kinder gentler stuff. My family is out there.

Some of your ideas are fine....the others don't work....

The background check on private sales is a non starter for the 2nd Amendment....the reason? The only way to make that work is registration of guns.....

3 problems with that....

1) gun registration is the first step for gun confiscation and gun banning...this is why the anti gunners are so hot to get it......Germany, Britain and Australia are just recent examples of this...The Germans even registered their guns in the 1920s...in order to make people safer, and when the nazis came to power in the 1930s, they used the gun registration records set up in the 20s to disarm Jews and the political enemies of the nazis......that is why background checks for private sales are fought against so hard....and they just don't work. Criminals use straw buyers to get guns from gun stores....those same straw buyers who pass the current federally mandated background checks for gun store purchases will pass background checks for private sales....and private sales are the least likely way that criminals will get guns...since they have stated to researchers that they are concerned that private sellers will be cops.....they get their guns from friends and family...who buy them from gun stores where they can pass background checks....

2) The Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....it violates their right against self incrimination.....so, the only people who would be forced to register their guns? Would be law abiding citizens who don't use their guns to break the law....

3) Cars are not guns......owning a car is not protected by the Constitution...owning a gun is......owning a gun is a Right...and you don't have to register with the government to exercise a Right...if you do..it isn't a Right and can be ended by the government...

Reporting Stolen Guns....why? Other than wanting it returned if found.......? Research shows that a gun used in a crime usually has been on the street, in criminal hands for about 9 years......so there is no actual value in knowing who the original owner of the gun is.....and since criminals who use guns in crimes are the ones who committed the crime...you can arrest them when you catch them....so there is no reason to put the original owner on the hook for it.....

you may say..what about Straw Buyers.....right? If it is registered to them, you can get them for giving the gun to a felon..right? Well, not really. They report the gun stolen....then when the gun is found with a felon...you can't do anything to them....and right now.....they already catch straw buyers in police stings, using normal police work...and gun registration and reports on stolen guns don't help those efforts....

You know your law. Just because a Judge or group of Judges decided something doesn't mean they are not wrong. Also some things are effectively your right.

-Background checks if they are legal for one purchase are legal for all. Anything else while legal may be contrived.

-Consider, what would have to happen for someone not be allowed to buy a car? The right to operate a car on the street can be taken away with due process. Practically owning a car seems like it is covered under my right to a pursuit of happiness, if I pay my taxes..

-That is pretty contrived thinking. I am required to register my car and pay my taxes every year even if I am "wanted" for avoiding turning in my 1040 last year.

-I share your worry about registration of guns and the loss of rights and it worries me also. Maybe I can throw a bone by letting the NRA, Tea Party or whoever keep the information and making law enforcement subpoena it.

The more paperwork required the more likely it is to catch Strawmen purchasers. Heck, I might even loosen up on my death sentence odds if a criminal turns one in.

If you read Gun Control in the 3rd Reich, you would see that they swore that the records of gun ownership would be protected from getting into the wrong hands too.......and any registration scheme would eventually lead to confiscation.....we have already scene it happen in other countries...and that is the only reason anti gunners want gun registration....because if they tried to register guns in order to immediately ban and confiscate them, too many people would hide their guns....but separate the act.....and you get people to register their guns....years later, when you have the political power to do it, then you ban them...and you already know where they all are...

Sorry, registration has to be fought....besides..it doesn't do anything to stop crime, solve crime or prevent mass shootings...there is no reason for the government to know who has a gun....they can arrest you if you actually commit a crime with a gun.

The more paperwork......all that does is create legal jeopardy for law abiding gun owners.....straw buyers are captured today without registration and universal background checks...they simply use the same police techniques they do for drug dealers and other criminals...they offer deals and use snitches.....there is no need for universal background checks.

Here are more reasons why anti gunners want universal background checks...besides the fact that they lead to universal gun registration...the actual goal...

First...a quick history of background checks in this country...

Why Background Registration Checks Suck | Op-ed Articles

Objection Two: Abuse of the System… Again
New York City has witnessed just about every form of abuse, and will make for a good case study....

n 1967, then-mayor John Lindsay signed into law a long gun (rifle or shotgun) registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. From that point forward, anyone seeking to possess any rifle or shotgun within the city limits merely had to register it by make, model and serial number to obtain a permit for legal ownership. The fee was set at very “reasonable and common sense” $3. Gun owners were promised that registration rolls would never be used to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens. Bill sponsor City Councilman Theodore Weiss vowed that that the fee would never be raised, and that “the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law.”

Immediately after passage of the law, Mayor Lindsay proposed amendments to increase the fee to $25. As of this writing, the cost is approximately $230 ($140 for the application fee and $90 to process fingerprints). So much for a politician’s promise.

Then, in 1991, Mayor David Dinkins signed a City Council bill banning the possession of many semi-automatic rifles, claiming they were a now considered “assault weapons,” a term recently defined but now codified in NYC Administrative code, S 10-303.1. The registration rolls established in 1967 – the same rolls that “would not be used to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens” - were used to identify the owners of such arms, which had been legal just the day before. Another promise broken.

2,340 citizens received letters demanding the forced sale or surrender of the guns. A Staten Island man who announced his refusal to comply was the subject of a police raid. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

In 2006, NYC Administrative code S 10-306 was added, outlawing any “ammunition feeding device greater than five rounds.” This further reduced the number of formerly-legal rifles that could continue to be possessed, but no real enforcement effort was attempted until the passage of the statewide “SAFE Act” law in 2013. Then, once again, the records that “would not be used to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens” were consulted and “sell or surrender the guns we know you own” were sent out to New York City residents.

Guns were being confiscated – again – even if doors weren’t being kicked in.