Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.
I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.
They obviously work in the UK.Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
For the actual criminals, sure......but there is no reason to keep law abiding people from owning and carrying guns. and storage laws are useless, and simply set up normal people to have their gun rights removed for failing to lock a safe....in their own home....
You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.
No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?
And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........
And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....
They obviously work in the UK.Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
For the actual criminals, sure......but there is no reason to keep law abiding people from owning and carrying guns. and storage laws are useless, and simply set up normal people to have their gun rights removed for failing to lock a safe....in their own home....
You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.
No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?
And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........
And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....
However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.
Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.
To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,
At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.
So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.
The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.
The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.
I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.
Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.
The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.
For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.
Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.
BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?
What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries
The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.
To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,
At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.
So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.
The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.
The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.
I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.
Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.
The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.
For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.
Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.
BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?
What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries
The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.
To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,
At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.
So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.
The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.
The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.
I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.
Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.
The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.
For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.
Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.
BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?
What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries
The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.
To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,
At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.
So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.
The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.
The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.
I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.
Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.
The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.
For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.
Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.
BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?
What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries
The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.
To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,
At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.
So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.
The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.
The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.
I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.
Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.
The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.
For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.
Derick Bird was the exception. His case was the only one under current legislation. If only the US could say the same eh ?You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.
No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?
And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........
And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....
However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.
Except for the Cumbria shooter in 2010...right....? He held a legal certificate for both a shotgun and rifle.......and tell us which gun law in Britain kept him from going to a school and killing kids......He killed 20 people....in gun controlled Britain...
He could easily have gone to a grammar school and killed kids...he chose not to......
Which of Britain's gun laws stopped him?
Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia
The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British histor
----------
Bird had held a shotgun certificate since 1974 and had renewed it several times, most recently in 2005, and had held a firearms certificate for a rifle from 2007 onward.[30][31]
Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.
BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?
What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries
The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.
To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,
At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.
So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.
The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.
The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.
I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.
Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.
The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.
For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.
Derick Bird was the exception. His case was the only one under current legislation. If only the US could say the same eh ?You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?common sense to a Brit maybe
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.
No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?
And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........
And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....
However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.
Except for the Cumbria shooter in 2010...right....? He held a legal certificate for both a shotgun and rifle.......and tell us which gun law in Britain kept him from going to a school and killing kids......He killed 20 people....in gun controlled Britain...
He could easily have gone to a grammar school and killed kids...he chose not to......
Which of Britain's gun laws stopped him?
Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia
The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British histor
----------
Bird had held a shotgun certificate since 1974 and had renewed it several times, most recently in 2005, and had held a firearms certificate for a rifle from 2007 onward.[30][31]
Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.
BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?
What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries
The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.
To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,
At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.
So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.
The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.
The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.
I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.
Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.
The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.
For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.
And again I tell you that our gun laws are a part of our culture that makes us safer than you.Derick Bird was the exception. His case was the only one under current legislation. If only the US could say the same eh ?You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.
No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?
And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........
And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....
However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.
Except for the Cumbria shooter in 2010...right....? He held a legal certificate for both a shotgun and rifle.......and tell us which gun law in Britain kept him from going to a school and killing kids......He killed 20 people....in gun controlled Britain...
He could easily have gone to a grammar school and killed kids...he chose not to......
Which of Britain's gun laws stopped him?
Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia
The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British histor
----------
Bird had held a shotgun certificate since 1974 and had renewed it several times, most recently in 2005, and had held a firearms certificate for a rifle from 2007 onward.[30][31]
No....you don't get to do that....he was a licensed gun owner.....more than likely stored his gun safely.....now tell us....which British gun control law kept him from walking into a school and murdering kids...instead of the 12 people he actually murdered?
You haven't had more school shootings because of the culture, or nature of British citizens....not because of your gun control laws.....but as I keep showing you...your gun crime rate is going up.....after decades of your ban....
Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.
In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.
The OP is worthless.
Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950
The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago
1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.
The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]
The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]
Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.
common sense to a Brit maybe
Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.
BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?
What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries
The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.
To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,
At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.
So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.
The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.
The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.
I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.
Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.
The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.
For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.
The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:
On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.
A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.
And again I tell you that our gun laws are a part of our culture that makes us safer than you.Derick Bird was the exception. His case was the only one under current legislation. If only the US could say the same eh ?You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?
And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........
And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....
However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.
Except for the Cumbria shooter in 2010...right....? He held a legal certificate for both a shotgun and rifle.......and tell us which gun law in Britain kept him from going to a school and killing kids......He killed 20 people....in gun controlled Britain...
He could easily have gone to a grammar school and killed kids...he chose not to......
Which of Britain's gun laws stopped him?
Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia
The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British histor
----------
Bird had held a shotgun certificate since 1974 and had renewed it several times, most recently in 2005, and had held a firearms certificate for a rifle from 2007 onward.[30][31]
No....you don't get to do that....he was a licensed gun owner.....more than likely stored his gun safely.....now tell us....which British gun control law kept him from walking into a school and murdering kids...instead of the 12 people he actually murdered?
You haven't had more school shootings because of the culture, or nature of British citizens....not because of your gun control laws.....but as I keep showing you...your gun crime rate is going up.....after decades of your ban....
Its laughable that you consider yourself qualified to lecture us on our gun laws.
Please help me here. How can we bring "down" our fatalities to US levels ?
