CDZ The best strategy, disarming law abiding gun owners, or keeping criminals locked up.

[JoeB131]

No when people break the law even in the UK they go to prison

Funny thing, the British have strict gun control and only have 83,518 people in prison.

United Kingdom prison population - Wikipedia

We have loose gun control laws and have 2,298,300 in prison.

United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia

We have 19,000 homicides a year (14,500 with guns) and they have 791 homicides, with only 11 being committed with guns...

Seems like someone is doing it right, and someone is doing it wrong.

 

[2aguy]

No when people break the law even in the UK they go to prison

Funny thing, the British have strict gun control and only have 83,518 people in prison.

United Kingdom prison population - Wikipedia

We have loose gun control laws and have 2,298,300 in prison.

United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia

We have 19,000 homicides a year (14,500 with guns) and they have 791 homicides, with only 11 being committed with guns...

Seems like someone is doing it right, and someone is doing it wrong.

They had low murder rates before they banned guns.....banning guns didn't change anything...hence, guns , in the hands of normal people, were not driving their murder rate....

We had 10,265 gun murders in 2018.....the majority of the victims were criminals murdered by other criminals in democrat voting districts....

U.S. vs U.K. - Crime/Murder - iGeek

• If you look at the (the blue line): Each time the UK enacted or stiffened their gun control laws, they saw an increase in murder rates. Each new law, had no positive (and some negative) impact or an increase in murder rates. (Crime trends are even worse). (In the 1950’s they outlawed conceal and carry, in the 80’s it was shotguns, and in the late 90’s it was all pistols). So regardless of whether the UK has fewer murders than the US for cultural reasons, we know that gun control didn’t help the UK’s murder rate.
• Next if you look at the (the red line): I overlaid (and adjusted) the U.S. murder rates with major gun control events. After JFK was shot, states and eventually the Fed (1968) passed all sorts of gun control laws — and what happened to our murder rates? They doubled from around 5 to 10 per 100K over the next decade, and they hovered there, despite all sorts of state and federal revisions, or more laws (30,000 different state/local/federal gun control laws were passed in total). There was no significant positive effects, and some observable negative ones in the U.S. due to our gun control laws.
• Then in the late 80’s Florida passed “Must Issue” conceal and carry and castle doctrine laws were passed, and their crime/murder rates started falling noticeably. Many other states (in the South and Midwest) followed suit, with the same effects in their state murder rates, and eventually enough of those added up to start impacting the federal murder rates noticeably. Then the federal assault weapon ban expired — and if gun control worked, you’d expect an upward spike in murders, but murders trended down. Adding gun control had no positive effects, and removing them had no significant negative effects, in the U.S.!. So if you have the choice of tyranny or liberty, and there's no benefit to tyranny: opt for liberty.
• -----

Something important to know is that the U.K. ONS distorts their numbers for political reasons. While the rest of the world measures murder rates as people who are killed, the ONS does two things to cheat:

1. They exclude Scotland and North Ireland from their counting: I guess when they are murdered, it isn’t as important to ONS as if Britons die. While that is only about 10% of the total population of the UK, it is significantly more of their crimes and murders.
2. They only count murders where someone is charged with a crime. (Only between 1/2 and 3/4ths of all murders are counted).
3. ----
4. n the U.S. Blacks are 1/7th the population, but over 1/2 of all our murders, and Latino’s are about the same 15% of the population and are responsible for over half the rest of murders.England has virtually no blacks or latino’s (<3%). So if we correct for those demographic differences (or just compare a subset — the U.S.’s white murder rate to the UK’s white murder rate), we find that in the bright red trend line, that the U.S. has a lower murder rate than the U.K.
   
   Racist:Now around this time, people that can’t handle the facts or truth, start trying to distract by claiming either I’m racist, or this data is racist. But data is not making judgements, it’s just facts.
   
   The problem isn’t racial in America, but it is cultural.
   
   
   Black immigrants don’t have the same murder rates as Black Americans.
   
   
   And if you dive into the groups, you find rural blacks (and whites and latinos) have lower murder rates than inner cities. It’s also not income or income equality based since rural poor have lower murder rates than urban poor -- and many richer countries have more murders/crime than many poorer ones. It's about failures of the inner city gang culture.
   
   So facts are facts. In the U.S. we have a lower white murder rate (but higher black murder rate) than the U.K.
   
   
   And white’s in America have higher gun ownership rates than blacks (or than whites in the U.K.) — so we know that gun control doesn’t help murder rates for whites. At least across these two countries.
   
   And the reason for differences among blacks in the two countries is easily explained by gang culture in the U.S.

Conclusion
Anyone vaguely informed on gun control issues knows is that the U.S. does not have a gun problem.

• Whites and Asian are highly responsible with guns, and have a lower murder rate than almost all of Europe and the OECD countries. We have a very specific problem: democrats, blacks and latino gang-members drag our murder and crime rates averages up.
• The UK has a higher white murder rate, but they use clubs and knives rather than guns. Since I’m pretty sure most people don’t want to be stabbed or beaten to death, the important factor is whether you’re murdered or not (not the tool the murderer uses), right?

Another thing gun-controller advocates either don’t realize (or do, and lie about) is as bad as the U.S. is at murders or violent crime -- the UK is worse despite their gun control. England alone has something like 600 murdersby knife per year (and 26,370 knife crimes). Compare that to only 1,500 for the U.S., with over 5 times the population. Home invasion robberies, aggravated assault, violent rape, and stabbings are worse in the UK than in the U.S. And that's BEFORE you correct for race and gang crimes.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

You do know people straw purchase to bypass those checks and also the Orlando shooting was a failure of LEO when the shooter should have been stopped from buying a firearm because he was on a list.

So your background checks are not going to stop criminals at all, hence why they are criminals

Good point. Let's own all private gun ownership. Problem solved.

You are never going to get your wish of banning firearms from the public in this Republic. You lack the Senate votes and even if your political party win the Senate you will still lack the votes there and most States will not ratify a amendment to repeal the Second Amendment.

Also those like Harris will get rebuked by the USSC is she think she could Executive Order the abolishment of the Second Amendment...

Finally, why is it with all the laws on the books have those like you not learn that LEO and Criminals ignore those laws?

 

[Blues Man]

No when people break the law even in the UK they go to prison

Funny thing, the British have strict gun control and only have 83,518 people in prison.

United Kingdom prison population - Wikipedia

We have loose gun control laws and have 2,298,300 in prison.

United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia

We have 19,000 homicides a year (14,500 with guns) and they have 791 homicides, with only 11 being committed with guns...

Seems like someone is doing it right, and someone is doing it wrong.

And if someone breaks one of those gun laws they go to prison

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

They had low murder rates before they banned guns.....banning guns didn't change anything...hence, guns , in the hands of normal people, were not driving their murder rate....

No guns.. no crime... This isn't complicated...

 

[JoeB131]

And if someone breaks one of those gun laws they go to prison

I'm sure they aren't sending a lot of people to prison for that... they only lock up 83,000 people for a country of 70 million.

 

[JoeB131]

You are never going to get your wish of banning firearms from the public in this Republic. You lack the Senate votes and even if your political party win the Senate you will still lack the votes there and most States will not ratify a amendment to repeal the Second Amendment.

We don't have to do any of that.

Here's how we ban guns.

Since the Second Amendment specifically calls for a "Well-Regulated Militia" we simply change the parts of the US Code to apply to the militia that would eliminate most gun owners who aren't currently in the police or the military.

We could also remove the law that immunizes gun makers and sellers from liability when some nut thinks he's the Joker and shoots up a theater or some such thing... They'll get pretty tired of losing money.

 

[Blues Man]

And if someone breaks one of those gun laws they go to prison

I'm sure they aren't sending a lot of people to prison for that... they only lock up 83,000 people for a country of 70 million.

So what?

You do not know how many Brits are charged with gun crimes every year do you?

ANd it doesn't matter

You want tough laws but you don't want anyone to go to prison for breaking those laws

You are a walking contradiction

 

[2aguy]

You are never going to get your wish of banning firearms from the public in this Republic. You lack the Senate votes and even if your political party win the Senate you will still lack the votes there and most States will not ratify a amendment to repeal the Second Amendment.

We don't have to do any of that.

Here's how we ban guns.

Since the Second Amendment specifically calls for a "Well-Regulated Militia" we simply change the parts of the US Code to apply to the militia that would eliminate most gun owners who aren't currently in the police or the military.

We could also remove the law that immunizes gun makers and sellers from liability when some nut thinks he's the Joker and shoots up a theater or some such thing... They'll get pretty tired of losing money.

Yes...that is part of the plan already.....get rid of the Lawful Commerce in Arms act which protects gun makers from fake law suits....and then sue them out of existence....democrat party "Lawfare" against their enemy......that is why I keep saying, any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment....

Of course......that will open up everyone to law suits....car makers for the drunk driver, computer manufacturers for child porn.......everyone will be sued for any crime no matter that they didn't actually do anything wrong.....

 

[JoeB131]

Yes...that is part of the plan already.....get rid of the Lawful Commerce in Arms act which protects gun makers from fake law suits....and then sue them out of existence....democrat party "Lawfare" against their enemy......that is why I keep saying, any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment....

Frankly, if I get shot up at a school or a theater because your beloved gun industry sold a gun to a Holmes or a Lanza or a Cruz, darned straight we should sue the gun industry.

Whether they get sued out of existence depends on whether or not they change their ways, of course. Funny thing, the Tobacco industry got sued, lost, paid a lot of money, and changed how it does business.

Let's try that with guns.

2AGUY "Sputter, sputter, second amendment, founding fathers... sputter, sputter"

 

[JoeB131]

Of course......that will open up everyone to law suits....car makers for the drunk driver, computer manufacturers for child porn.......everyone will be sued for any crime no matter that they didn't actually do anything wrong.....

Quite the contrary THOSE industries can show that their actions have been responsible. The Tech industry has been very vigilient in helping authorities track down kiddie porn, and the Auto Industry has worked very hard to make their cars safer.

The Gun industry, on the other hand, has pushed to loosen what gun laws exist and water down background checks and enforcement. They WANT the bad guys to have guns so everyone else wants them to

If you wanted an analog, the best analogy would be if we found out that 99% of computer viruses are not being created by losers in their mom's basement but by the Anti-Virus companies unleashing them to create demand for their product.

 

[Blues Man]

Yes...that is part of the plan already.....get rid of the Lawful Commerce in Arms act which protects gun makers from fake law suits....and then sue them out of existence....democrat party "Lawfare" against their enemy......that is why I keep saying, any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment....

Frankly, if I get shot up at a school or a theater because your beloved gun industry sold a gun to a Holmes or a Lanza or a Cruz, darned straight we should sue the gun industry.

Whether they get sued out of existence depends on whether or not they change their ways, of course. Funny thing, the Tobacco industry got sued, lost, paid a lot of money, and changed how it does business.

Let's try that with guns.

2AGUY "Sputter, sputter, second amendment, founding fathers... sputter, sputter"

Then let's hold the entire alcohol industry responsible for every alcoholic and every drunk driver too

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

Then let's hold the entire alcohol industry responsible for every alcoholic and every drunk driver too

We already do. If you own a bar and you let someone walk out the door after drinking a whole bottle of 80 Proof Skullcracker, you can be held liable if he kills someone.

 

[Blues Man]

Then let's hold the entire alcohol industry responsible for every alcoholic and every drunk driver too

We already do. If you own a bar and you let someone walk out the door after drinking a whole bottle of 80 Proof Skullcracker, you can be held liable if he kills someone.

No we do not
We do not hold a distillery responsible for alcoholism

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

No we do not
We do not hold a distillery responsible for alcoholism

Because the Distilleries are promoting responsible alcohol use and supporting the BASSET laws.

Unlike the gun industry, which tries to get guns to as many crazy people so you all want guns, too.

I'm sure if we had a lawsuit with the kind of discovery we had for the Tobacco industry, we'd find out all sorts of stuff.

 

[Blues Man]

No we do not
We do not hold a distillery responsible for alcoholism

Because the Distilleries are promoting responsible alcohol use and supporting the BASSET laws.

Unlike the gun industry, which tries to get guns to as many crazy people so you all want guns, too.

I'm sure if we had a lawsuit with the kind of discovery we had for the Tobacco industry, we'd find out all sorts of stuff.

And gun manufacturers do the same thing

All new guns bought from gun dealers come with safe use instructions

And don't forget that gun dealers have to ask the government if the person who in their shop is eligible to buy a gun

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

And gun manufacturers do the same thing

All new guns bought from gun dealers come with safe use instructions

And don't forget that gun dealers have to ask the government if the person who in their shop is eligible to buy a gun

Yeah, that's not good enough. We need more than a pinky swear that you aren't a crook or crazy person.

 

[Blues Man]

And gun manufacturers do the same thing

All new guns bought from gun dealers come with safe use instructions

And don't forget that gun dealers have to ask the government if the person who in their shop is eligible to buy a gun

Yeah, that's not good enough. We need more than a pinky swear that you aren't a crook or crazy person.

All gun dealers have to ask the government if the person who is in their business is eligible to buy a gun



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

No we do not
We do not hold a distillery responsible for alcoholism

Because the Distilleries are promoting responsible alcohol use and supporting the BASSET laws.

Unlike the gun industry, which tries to get guns to as many crazy people so you all want guns, too.

I'm sure if we had a lawsuit with the kind of discovery we had for the Tobacco industry, we'd find out all sorts of stuff.

You....are lucky this is the CDZ.......you want to sue the gun makers who do not sell their guns to criminals...yet you pretend distilleries are not in the exact same position in relation to drunk driving that you claim gun makers are......again, you are lucky you are in the CDZ....

 

[JoeB131]

You....are lucky this is the CDZ.......you want to sue the gun makers who do not sell their guns to criminals...yet you pretend distilleries are not in the exact same position in relation to drunk driving that you claim gun makers are......again, you are lucky you are in the CDZ....

Not at all-

The Gun Makers know darned well their products are getting to the bad guys, otherwise they would be insisting on tighter gun control. In fact, before Wayne LaPierre hijacked the NRA, the NRA supported tighter gun laws.

BUt this funny thing happened. People stopped hunting. The gun makers were in a quandary. How do you get people to buy something that - as you point out- they will never, really use. (Even if you buy your 1 million DGU's a year, that means you have 299 million guns that were never used. )

Well, if you had lots and lots of crime, that will scare them, really good.

I would like to see us go through S&W and Colt's and Remington's internal memos, the way we went through Phillip-Morris's...

But as you say, lucky this is the CDZ.