It is better that this woman was raped, than that she use a gun on her hip to stop it...right?

[Old Rocks]

Grab a subject and hang on. Feel free to start a thread about those other things, but this one is about guns.

Actually, this one is a question about where your anti gun beliefs actually lead us.......

And one you still haven't answered.....

Should this woman be able to carry a gun to stop her own rape and murder at the hands of a violent criminal......? Or do you prefer that she be raped and murdered rather than have that gun?

Still with the same disingenuous multi-aspect question. It can't accurately be answered with a Yes/No answer. RWNJs play these games all the time. It's dishonest.

Yes....this question can be answered with a yes/no answer..........Do you think this woman should be able to carry a gun for self defense to stop her own rape and murder. Yes or no? Everything else is unnecessary till that question is answered, and you don't want to answer it because it reveals the truth behind your anti gun extremism. You want this woman to be raped and murdered instead of allowing her to have that gun...because you hate gun owners.

Yep, you're still nuts.

Yep...still haven't answered the main question....you would rather that woman be raped...instead of having a gun to stop it.......got it.

The main question is why you bring really stupid arguments like that up, when we are dealing with people that have killed or injured more than 500 people in one incident. One man, 11 minutes, over 500 casualties, but the tool has nothing to do with the crime. What a lying little fuck you are. No way could that bastard have taken out that many people had he a lever or bolt gun that he had to stop and reload after five shots. Time for you insane assholes to face the reality are you are accessory to this crime.

 

[OldLady]

Actually, this one is a question about where your anti gun beliefs actually lead us.......

And one you still haven't answered.....

Should this woman be able to carry a gun to stop her own rape and murder at the hands of a violent criminal......? Or do you prefer that she be raped and murdered rather than have that gun?

Still with the same disingenuous multi-aspect question. It can't accurately be answered with a Yes/No answer. RWNJs play these games all the time. It's dishonest.

Yes....this question can be answered with a yes/no answer..........Do you think this woman should be able to carry a gun for self defense to stop her own rape and murder. Yes or no? Everything else is unnecessary till that question is answered, and you don't want to answer it because it reveals the truth behind your anti gun extremism. You want this woman to be raped and murdered instead of allowing her to have that gun...because you hate gun owners.

Yep, you're still nuts.

Yep...still haven't answered the main question....you would rather that woman be raped...instead of having a gun to stop it.......got it.

The main question is why you bring really stupid arguments like that up, when we are dealing with people that have killed or injured more than 500 people in one incident. One man, 11 minutes, over 500 casualties, but the tool has nothing to do with the crime. What a lying little fuck you are. No way could that bastard have taken out that many people had he a lever or bolt gun that he had to stop and reload after five shots. Time for you insane assholes to face the reality are you are accessory to this crime.

They seem to be having some technical difficulties with the SNL clips this morning. I tried to copy the Weekend Update from last night without any luck. You should check it out--it's hilarious.

 

[BULLDOG]

Grab a subject and hang on. Feel free to start a thread about those other things, but this one is about guns.

Actually, this one is a question about where your anti gun beliefs actually lead us.......

And one you still haven't answered.....

Should this woman be able to carry a gun to stop her own rape and murder at the hands of a violent criminal......? Or do you prefer that she be raped and murdered rather than have that gun?

Still with the same disingenuous multi-aspect question. It can't accurately be answered with a Yes/No answer. RWNJs play these games all the time. It's dishonest.

Yes....this question can be answered with a yes/no answer..........Do you think this woman should be able to carry a gun for self defense to stop her own rape and murder. Yes or no? Everything else is unnecessary till that question is answered, and you don't want to answer it because it reveals the truth behind your anti gun extremism. You want this woman to be raped and murdered instead of allowing her to have that gun...because you hate gun owners.

Yep, you're still nuts.

Yep...still haven't answered the main question....you would rather that woman be raped...instead of having a gun to stop it.......got it.

Typical crazy right wing tactic. Ask a blanket question as if there aren't many aspects that could effect the results in several ways. There is no reason to believe that her being armed will prevent her from being raped. Everything isn't that simple.

1.) Is she mentally stable? Will the voices in her head tell her that she should shoot everyone, because everyone is out to harm her?
No, she should not have a gun.

2.) Is she competent with the gun? Will she be more likely to harm herself and innocent bystanders than her attacker?
No, she should not have a gun.

3.) Is there a valid reason to believe she might be a victim in any way? Is the benefit gained by her carrying a gun outweighed by the risk to her and others involved?
No,She should not have a gun.


Here is your slightly reworded question. No more ridiculous than your wording.
This woman is in Britain...she got off of a London Bus....and was raped....according to anti-Ninja fanatics, this is better than if she had a small group of government supplied Ninjas guarding her and used it to drive off, capture, injure or kill her attacker...right?

Since they do not believe anyone should have government supplied ninjas, this is the preferred outcome....right? You might object to paying for ninjas to protect her, but what price do you put on preventing a rape?

 

[Rustic]

No..they aren't doing anything right.....they are now about to experience an increase in crime the way we did in the 1960s.......their society was set back by World War 2...and now they are about to catch up...their criminals are younger now, and they are shooting each other more.....and now, their people have nothing to use to stop their criminals...that is why their country is so more violent than ours is...

Bullshit. They have a handful of gun related deaths, we have bodies stacked to the ceiling, You're wrong.

No....you are wrong.....they banned guns, they are an island and their gun crime rates are skyrocketing....they have imported violent, drug gangs......and they need guns....

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.





The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .



========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.

-----

Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012.

He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns.

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that handguns and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

50 or 60 gun related deaths per year compared to our 8,124. Are you nuts?

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .




========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.

-----

Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012.

He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns.

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that handguns and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

An average of 93 people here are killed every day with a gun. They had 1760 over 2 years. We kill more in 2 1/2 weeks than they kill in 2 years. Give it up idiot.

Most of the people killed are criminals/gang bangers/deadbeats like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and the like. No big loss

 

[Skull Pilot]

They haven't prevented them....their criminals simply don't commit murder as often as our criminals do...what about that do you not understand...they have guns, they use guns, they don't murder with them...yet.....but as link after link shows....they have cut their police, they have hamstrung their police with political correctness, and their young males are becoming more and more violent on top of the fact they are importing violent drug gangs into their country.....

And their gun crime rate is going up...a lot, every single year...how long do you think they can get away with massive gun crime before the bodies start to fall?

Yes, I'm sure it is disappointing for you that their tactics are working, and ours aren't. Poor crazy baby.

All their gun laws didn't lower their murder rate or their crime rate

All their gun laws kept their murder rate extremely low. Only a small fraction of ours.

No it didn't. Their murder rate was lower BEFORE all the gun laws

It's still only a small fraction of ours.

And it has nothing to do with their gun laws.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, I'm sure it is disappointing for you that their tactics are working, and ours aren't. Poor crazy baby.

All their gun laws didn't lower their murder rate or their crime rate

All their gun laws kept their murder rate extremely low. Only a small fraction of ours.

No it didn't. Their murder rate was lower BEFORE all the gun laws

It's still only a small fraction of ours.

And it has nothing to do with their gun laws.

So why are you gun nuts trying to pretend it is? Gun nuts are constantly posting threads about percentage changes in England's crime rate and trying to tie that to their gun regulation. Make up your mind.

 

[2aguy]

In Britain, they have taken guns away from law abiding people.....and now their gun crime rate has gone through the roof, and their violent crimes, like rape....are going through the roof.......

And according to anti gunners here on U.S. message...and everywhere else....it is better that women be raped, and possibly murdered, than that they should have the option of using a concealed or open carried gun to stop that rape......

This woman is in Britain...she got off of a London Bus....and was raped....according to anti gunners, this is better than if she had a gun and used it to drive off, capture, injure or kill her attacker...right?

Since they do not believe anyone should carry a gun, this is the preferred outcome....right?

Young woman raped after getting off late-night bus

London.

The victim, aged in her 20s, had got off the bus and was walking down an alleyway when she was attacked from behind and raped, police said.

The incident happened just after midnight as the woman made her way from Millwood Road to Brantwood Road in St Paul's Cray, Bromley.


DC James White, who leads the investigation, said: "This incident took place in a secluded area, and the attack has left the woman traumatised by her ordeal.

You fucked up asshole, it is people like you that will end up getting us that type of draconian gun control. Those of us that want sane gun control have no problem of a citizen that has no mental problems owning and carrying a legal weapon for defense. War weapons are not needed for personal defense. Nor are weapons with more than a 5 to 10 rounds in the magazine or cylinder. If you cannot take out the miscreant with that many bullets, you should not be packing that weapon.

The guy didn't use a war weapon, none of the mass shooters since 1934 used a war weapon...now you are just lying.

Magazine limits help in self defense......and would not stop criminals or mass shooters if you tried to limit them, moron.....

Try doing some basic research...
The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control



In 2012, Arizona repealed its limitations on magazine capacity for hunters precisely because of the possible need for self-defense against unexpected encounters with cartel gangs in the southern part of the state.36 In that region, it is well known that drug traffickers and human traffickers use the same wild and lonely lands that hunters do.



---

For the firearms that are most often chosen for self-defense, the claim that any magazine holding more than 10 (or 7) rounds is “high capacity” or “large” is incorrect. The term “high-capacity magazine” might have a legitimate meaning when it refers to a magazine that extends far beyond that intended for the gun’s optimal operation. For example, although a semiautomatic handgun can accept a 40-round magazine, such a magazine typically extends far beneath the gun grip, and it is therefore impractical to use with a concealed-carry permit. For most handguns, a 40-round magazine could be called “high-capacity.”

------

The persons who have the most need for actual high-capacity magazines are those who would have great difficulty changing a magazine — such as elderly persons or persons with disabilities. For an able-bodied person, changing a magazine only takes a few seconds. Typically a gun’s magazine-release button is near the trigger. To change a magazine, the person holding the gun presses the magazine-release button with a thumb or finger. The magazine instantly drops to the floor. While one hand was pushing the magazine-release button, the other hand can grab a fresh magazine (which might be carried in a special holster on a belt) and bring it toward the gun. The moment the old magazine drops out, a fresh one is inserted.37


-----


Although one can quickly change magazines, persons being attacked by criminals will typically prefer not to spend even a few seconds for a magazine change. The stress of being attacked usually impedes fine motor skills, making it much more difficult to insert the magazine.38 That is why many semiautomatic handguns come factory-standard with a magazine of 11 to 20 rounds. Thus, a ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds means a ban on some of the most common and most useful magazines purchased for purposes of recreational target practice and self-defense.

Why might someone need a factory-standard 17-round magazine for a common 9mm handgun? As noted, standard-capacity magazines can be very useful for self-defense. This is especially true if a defender faces multiple attackers, an attacker is wearing heavy clothing or body armor, an attacker who is turbo-charged by methamphetamine or cocaine, or an attacker who poses an active threat from behind cover. In stressful circumstances, police as well as civilians often miss when firing a handgun even at close range, so having the extra rounds can be crucial.


It is important to consider the advantages a criminal has over his intended victims. The criminal has the element of surprise, whereas the victim is the one surprised. The criminal can decide at leisure what weaponry he will bring; whereas the victim must respond with what’s at hand at the moment of attack. A criminal can bring several guns, or lots of magazines; whereas the victim will usually have on hand, at most, a single defensive gun with only as much ammunition as is in that gun.

Thus, legislation confining law-abiding victims to magazines of 10 or fewer magnifies the criminal’s advantage over his intended victim


Violent confrontations are unpredictable; for example, if a person is fighting against one or two perpetrators, he may not know if there is an additional, hidden attacker. Thus, defensive gun users need to keep a reserve of ammunition. So even though armed defenders do not usually fire more than 10 shots, reducing reserve capacity (e.g., from a standard 17-round magazine to a 10-round substitute) will reduce the number of defensive shots. Fewer shots fired at the attacker reduces the risk of injury to the attacker, and thereby raises the risk of injury to the victim.
Would a Magazine Ban Be Beneficial?
The National Institute of Justice study found that the 1994-2004 federal ban on the manufacture of large magazines had no discernible benefit because the existing supply of such magazines was so vast.40

The types of criminals most likely to get into shootouts with the police or with other criminals are precisely those who are very aware of what is available on the black market. Although gun prohibitionists often link assault weapons to gang violence associated with the illegal drug trade, they miss the irony of their argument.41 They are, in effect, claiming that the very gangs operating the black market in drugs will somehow be restricted from acquiring high-capacity magazines by legislation limiting the manufacture and sale of such magazines. The claim — at least as it pertains to career criminals — is ludicrous. If gangsters can obtain all the cocaine they want, despite a century of prohibition, they will be able to obtain 15-round magazines.

What about the typical perpetrators of random mass attacks — mentally ill young men? They, too, could acquire magazines by theft, or on the black market. Given that 36 percent of American high school seniors illegally acquire and consume marijuana, it is clear that plenty of people who are not gangsters or career criminals use the black market.42 Besides that, the truly high-capacity magazines, such as a 100-round drum, are very prone to malfunction. For example, during the 2012 mass murder at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, the murderer’s 100-round magazine jammed, allowing people to escape.43 Hundred-round magazines are novelty items and are not standard for self-defense by civilians or police.

Advocates of a ban on standard-capacity magazines assert that while the attacker is changing the magazine, an intended victim might be able to subdue him — yet they cannot point to a single instance where this actually happened. They cite a trilogy of events that happened in Tucson, Arizona (2011), Aurora, Colorado (2012), and Newtown, Connecticut (2013). In fact, all of those events involved gun jams, not magazine changes. At Newtown, the criminal changed magazines seven times and no one escaped, but when his rifle jammed, people did escape. Clearing a gun jam takes much longer than changing a magazine. Fixing a gun jam involves all the steps of a magazine change (remove the empty magazine and insert a new one) plus all the intermediate steps of doing whatever is necessary to fix the jam. Similarly, in the Luby’s cafeteria murders (24 dead), the perpetrator replaced magazines multiple times. In the Virginia Tech murders (32 dead), the perpetrator changed magazines 17 times.44

----

When one also takes into account rifle magazines, the number of American magazines holding more than 10 rounds could be more than 100 million. That in itself is sufficient, according to the Supreme Court’s Hellerprecedent, to make the ban unconstitutional.

 

[2aguy]

All their gun laws didn't lower their murder rate or their crime rate

All their gun laws kept their murder rate extremely low. Only a small fraction of ours.

No it didn't. Their murder rate was lower BEFORE all the gun laws

It's still only a small fraction of ours.

And it has nothing to do with their gun laws.

So why are you gun nuts trying to pretend it is? Gun nuts are constantly posting threads about percentage changes in England's crime rate and trying to tie that to their gun regulation. Make up your mind.

No....I show Britain because they have actually done everything you guys say you want to do here...they completely banned and confiscated guns for normal people and reserved a few hunting shotguns for their elites to play with....and their gun crime rate went up 89% the first 10 years after the ban and keeps going up....23% in the entire country last year....and 42% in London all by itself...

It shows that taking guns away from law abiding citizens, even on an island...doesn't lower the gun crime rate.

 

[2aguy]

Actually, this one is a question about where your anti gun beliefs actually lead us.......

And one you still haven't answered.....

Should this woman be able to carry a gun to stop her own rape and murder at the hands of a violent criminal......? Or do you prefer that she be raped and murdered rather than have that gun?

Still with the same disingenuous multi-aspect question. It can't accurately be answered with a Yes/No answer. RWNJs play these games all the time. It's dishonest.

Yes....this question can be answered with a yes/no answer..........Do you think this woman should be able to carry a gun for self defense to stop her own rape and murder. Yes or no? Everything else is unnecessary till that question is answered, and you don't want to answer it because it reveals the truth behind your anti gun extremism. You want this woman to be raped and murdered instead of allowing her to have that gun...because you hate gun owners.

Yep, you're still nuts.

Yep...still haven't answered the main question....you would rather that woman be raped...instead of having a gun to stop it.......got it.

The main question is why you bring really stupid arguments like that up, when we are dealing with people that have killed or injured more than 500 people in one incident. One man, 11 minutes, over 500 casualties, but the tool has nothing to do with the crime. What a lying little fuck you are. No way could that bastard have taken out that many people had he a lever or bolt gun that he had to stop and reload after five shots. Time for you insane assholes to face the reality are you are accessory to this crime.

Yes...he could have actually killed more with a rental Truck...the guy in Nice, France murdered 89 people with a rental truck....since you are a slow witted dullard, that means that the guy in France with a rental truck killed more people than the guy with two rifles, a bumpfire stock, firing from an elevated and hard to find position.....moron.

 

[2aguy]

Actually, this one is a question about where your anti gun beliefs actually lead us.......

And one you still haven't answered.....

Should this woman be able to carry a gun to stop her own rape and murder at the hands of a violent criminal......? Or do you prefer that she be raped and murdered rather than have that gun?

Still with the same disingenuous multi-aspect question. It can't accurately be answered with a Yes/No answer. RWNJs play these games all the time. It's dishonest.

Yes....this question can be answered with a yes/no answer..........Do you think this woman should be able to carry a gun for self defense to stop her own rape and murder. Yes or no? Everything else is unnecessary till that question is answered, and you don't want to answer it because it reveals the truth behind your anti gun extremism. You want this woman to be raped and murdered instead of allowing her to have that gun...because you hate gun owners.

Yep, you're still nuts.

Yep...still haven't answered the main question....you would rather that woman be raped...instead of having a gun to stop it.......got it.

Typical crazy right wing tactic. Ask a blanket question as if there aren't many aspects that could effect the results in several ways. There is no reason to believe that her being armed will prevent her from being raped. Everything isn't that simple.

1.) Is she mentally stable? Will the voices in her head tell her that she should shoot everyone, because everyone is out to harm her?
No, she should not have a gun.

2.) Is she competent with the gun? Will she be more likely to harm herself and innocent bystanders than her attacker?
No, she should not have a gun.

3.) Is there a valid reason to believe she might be a victim in any way? Is the benefit gained by her carrying a gun outweighed by the risk to her and others involved?
No,She should not have a gun.


Here is your slightly reworded question. No more ridiculous than your wording.
This woman is in Britain...she got off of a London Bus....and was raped....according to anti-Ninja fanatics, this is better than if she had a small group of government supplied Ninjas guarding her and used it to drive off, capture, injure or kill her attacker...right?

Since they do not believe anyone should have government supplied ninjas, this is the preferred outcome....right? You might object to paying for ninjas to protect her, but what price do you put on preventing a rape?

No moron....you don't get to hide behind extra details that don't deal with the basic question.....but nice try....

The basic question is.......should she be able to carry that gun to stop the rape....? Yes or no. Regardless of your trying to muddy the water, she is capable, she is trained and she has no underlying problem.......you say that no matter what, no gun for her, she should be raped and murdered. That is where your position on gun control ends up.

And since it doesn't take a Navy Seal to use a gun for self defense, all of your points are still stupid....

 

[Skull Pilot]

All their gun laws didn't lower their murder rate or their crime rate

All their gun laws kept their murder rate extremely low. Only a small fraction of ours.

No it didn't. Their murder rate was lower BEFORE all the gun laws

It's still only a small fraction of ours.

And it has nothing to do with their gun laws.

So why are you gun nuts trying to pretend it is? Gun nuts are constantly posting threads about percentage changes in England's crime rate and trying to tie that to their gun regulation. Make up your mind.

What?

I have said all along that gun laws do not affect the murder rate.
You're mixing me up with someone else.

The only point I make about the UK is that their gun laws did not reduce their murder rate and they haven't.

In fact gun laws cannot be shown to have directly lowered the murder rate anywhere.

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

 

[ph3iron]

Grab a subject and hang on. Feel free to start a thread about those other things, but this one is about guns.

Actually, this one is a question about where your anti gun beliefs actually lead us.......

And one you still haven't answered.....

Should this woman be able to carry a gun to stop her own rape and murder at the hands of a violent criminal......? Or do you prefer that she be raped and murdered rather than have that gun?

Still with the same disingenuous multi-aspect question. It can't accurately be answered with a Yes/No answer. RWNJs play these games all the time. It's dishonest.

Yes....this question can be answered with a yes/no answer..........Do you think this woman should be able to carry a gun for self defense to stop her own rape and murder. Yes or no? Everything else is unnecessary till that question is answered, and you don't want to answer it because it reveals the truth behind your anti gun extremism. You want this woman to be raped and murdered instead of allowing her to have that gun...because you hate gun owners.

Yep, you're still nuts.

Yep...still haven't answered the main question....you would rather that woman be raped...instead of having a gun to stop it.......got it.

So how many rapist have you caught off mr 1950s?
Let me guess, zero?
Just spouting?

 

[ph3iron]

Yes, I'm sure it is disappointing for you that their tactics are working, and ours aren't. Poor crazy baby.

All their gun laws didn't lower their murder rate or their crime rate

All their gun laws kept their murder rate extremely low. Only a small fraction of ours.

guy.....their gun laws aren't stopping criminals...even teenage criminals from getting hand guns...the only reason they don't have more murder with those guns is they aren't murdering people by choice.......yet.

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .




========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.

-----

Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012.

He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns.

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that handguns and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

Think about that absurd remark for a minute
"the only reason they don't have more murder with those guns is they aren't murdering people by choice"
You've built a scenario in your head that doesn't match reality. Trying to say reality is wrong is just bizarre. Your scenario is wrong.

They have more gun crime...the criminals have guns....they are using them to engage in criminal activity they just aren't murdering their victims........crossing that line takes a different, sociopathic mind set........and they are priming their young males to get there...

Learned the difference yet between a noun and an adjective mr high school white boy?

 

[BULLDOG]

All their gun laws kept their murder rate extremely low. Only a small fraction of ours.

No it didn't. Their murder rate was lower BEFORE all the gun laws

It's still only a small fraction of ours.

And it has nothing to do with their gun laws.

So why are you gun nuts trying to pretend it is? Gun nuts are constantly posting threads about percentage changes in England's crime rate and trying to tie that to their gun regulation. Make up your mind.

No....I show Britain because they have actually done everything you guys say you want to do here...they completely banned and confiscated guns for normal people and reserved a few hunting shotguns for their elites to play with....and their gun crime rate went up 89% the first 10 years after the ban and keeps going up....23% in the entire country last year....and 42% in London all by itself...

It shows that taking guns away from law abiding citizens, even on an island...doesn't lower the gun crime rate.

Hard to lower it below almost nothing. I would trade our crime rate with theirs in a heart beat.

 

[BULLDOG]

Still with the same disingenuous multi-aspect question. It can't accurately be answered with a Yes/No answer. RWNJs play these games all the time. It's dishonest.

Yes....this question can be answered with a yes/no answer..........Do you think this woman should be able to carry a gun for self defense to stop her own rape and murder. Yes or no? Everything else is unnecessary till that question is answered, and you don't want to answer it because it reveals the truth behind your anti gun extremism. You want this woman to be raped and murdered instead of allowing her to have that gun...because you hate gun owners.

Yep, you're still nuts.

Yep...still haven't answered the main question....you would rather that woman be raped...instead of having a gun to stop it.......got it.

The main question is why you bring really stupid arguments like that up, when we are dealing with people that have killed or injured more than 500 people in one incident. One man, 11 minutes, over 500 casualties, but the tool has nothing to do with the crime. What a lying little fuck you are. No way could that bastard have taken out that many people had he a lever or bolt gun that he had to stop and reload after five shots. Time for you insane assholes to face the reality are you are accessory to this crime.

Yes...he could have actually killed more with a rental Truck...the guy in Nice, France murdered 89 people with a rental truck....since you are a slow witted dullard, that means that the guy in France with a rental truck killed more people than the guy with two rifles, a bumpfire stock, firing from an elevated and hard to find position.....moron.

quit trying to change the subject idiot.

 

[BULLDOG]

Still with the same disingenuous multi-aspect question. It can't accurately be answered with a Yes/No answer. RWNJs play these games all the time. It's dishonest.

Yes....this question can be answered with a yes/no answer..........Do you think this woman should be able to carry a gun for self defense to stop her own rape and murder. Yes or no? Everything else is unnecessary till that question is answered, and you don't want to answer it because it reveals the truth behind your anti gun extremism. You want this woman to be raped and murdered instead of allowing her to have that gun...because you hate gun owners.

Yep, you're still nuts.

Yep...still haven't answered the main question....you would rather that woman be raped...instead of having a gun to stop it.......got it.

Typical crazy right wing tactic. Ask a blanket question as if there aren't many aspects that could effect the results in several ways. There is no reason to believe that her being armed will prevent her from being raped. Everything isn't that simple.

1.) Is she mentally stable? Will the voices in her head tell her that she should shoot everyone, because everyone is out to harm her?
No, she should not have a gun.

2.) Is she competent with the gun? Will she be more likely to harm herself and innocent bystanders than her attacker?
No, she should not have a gun.

3.) Is there a valid reason to believe she might be a victim in any way? Is the benefit gained by her carrying a gun outweighed by the risk to her and others involved?
No,She should not have a gun.


Here is your slightly reworded question. No more ridiculous than your wording.
This woman is in Britain...she got off of a London Bus....and was raped....according to anti-Ninja fanatics, this is better than if she had a small group of government supplied Ninjas guarding her and used it to drive off, capture, injure or kill her attacker...right?

Since they do not believe anyone should have government supplied ninjas, this is the preferred outcome....right? You might object to paying for ninjas to protect her, but what price do you put on preventing a rape?

No moron....you don't get to hide behind extra details that don't deal with the basic question.....but nice try....

The basic question is.......should she be able to carry that gun to stop the rape....? Yes or no. Regardless of your trying to muddy the water, she is capable, she is trained and she has no underlying problem.......you say that no matter what, no gun for her, she should be raped and murdered. That is where your position on gun control ends up.

And since it doesn't take a Navy Seal to use a gun for self defense, all of your points are still stupid....

That's not what I said you liar.

 

[BULLDOG]

All their gun laws kept their murder rate extremely low. Only a small fraction of ours.

No it didn't. Their murder rate was lower BEFORE all the gun laws

It's still only a small fraction of ours.

And it has nothing to do with their gun laws.

So why are you gun nuts trying to pretend it is? Gun nuts are constantly posting threads about percentage changes in England's crime rate and trying to tie that to their gun regulation. Make up your mind.

What?

I have said all along that gun laws do not affect the murder rate.
You're mixing me up with someone else.

The only point I make about the UK is that their gun laws did not reduce their murder rate and they haven't.

In fact gun laws cannot be shown to have directly lowered the murder rate anywhere.

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

Which modern developed nations have as many guns owned by the people as the US?

 

[K9Buck]

No it didn't. Their murder rate was lower BEFORE all the gun laws

It's still only a small fraction of ours.

And it has nothing to do with their gun laws.

So why are you gun nuts trying to pretend it is? Gun nuts are constantly posting threads about percentage changes in England's crime rate and trying to tie that to their gun regulation. Make up your mind.

No....I show Britain because they have actually done everything you guys say you want to do here...they completely banned and confiscated guns for normal people and reserved a few hunting shotguns for their elites to play with....and their gun crime rate went up 89% the first 10 years after the ban and keeps going up....23% in the entire country last year....and 42% in London all by itself...

It shows that taking guns away from law abiding citizens, even on an island...doesn't lower the gun crime rate.

Hard to lower it below almost nothing. I would trade our crime rate with theirs in a heart beat.

They don't have that 13% issue, but they're working on it!

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it didn't. Their murder rate was lower BEFORE all the gun laws

It's still only a small fraction of ours.

And it has nothing to do with their gun laws.

So why are you gun nuts trying to pretend it is? Gun nuts are constantly posting threads about percentage changes in England's crime rate and trying to tie that to their gun regulation. Make up your mind.

What?

I have said all along that gun laws do not affect the murder rate.
You're mixing me up with someone else.

The only point I make about the UK is that their gun laws did not reduce their murder rate and they haven't.

In fact gun laws cannot be shown to have directly lowered the murder rate anywhere.

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

Which modern developed nations have as many guns owned by the people as the US?

Law abiding people owning guns is not now and has never been the problem and since there are no stats on how many criminals illegally possess weapons your question is meaningless in relation to the topic

And did you read the paper I linked to? because you'll find that it covers much of what has been discussed here

 

[BULLDOG]

It's still only a small fraction of ours.

And it has nothing to do with their gun laws.

So why are you gun nuts trying to pretend it is? Gun nuts are constantly posting threads about percentage changes in England's crime rate and trying to tie that to their gun regulation. Make up your mind.

What?

I have said all along that gun laws do not affect the murder rate.
You're mixing me up with someone else.

The only point I make about the UK is that their gun laws did not reduce their murder rate and they haven't.

In fact gun laws cannot be shown to have directly lowered the murder rate anywhere.

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

Which modern developed nations have as many guns owned by the people as the US?

Law abiding people owning guns is not now and has never been the problem and since there are no stats on how many criminals illegally possess weapons your question is meaningless in relation to the topic

And did you read the paper I linked to? because you'll find that it covers much of what has been discussed here

You made the direct contention that guns are not uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations. Do you still stand by that or not? Back up your claim or admit it's wrong.