In Britain, man executed, with gun in front of mums with children...

[2aguy]

Good thing they banned and confiscated guns....you wouldn't have people executed with guns because criminals wouldn't have guns....but...then.....how did this guy get his gun that he used to execute this guy?

Children playing in street just minutes before daylight execution

A mum who witnessed a brutal execution outside her home said her daughter was playing in the street just minutes before.

Police and paramedics were called to Cornwood Close in Belle Vale at around 11.30am this morning after a man was shot multiple times in the head and torso.

The 27-year-old victim died a short time later and a murder investigation was launched as police hunt an armed assassin who is believed to have fled the scene on a bicycle.

One neighbour, who witnessed the shocking incident this morning, told the ECHO it is her daughter's birthday today and she had been playing with her new bike just before the shooting.

The woman, who didn't want to be identified, said: “My daughter was out in the street I wouldn’t even say two minutes before it happened.

 

[Duckalert]

 

[Vagabond63]

*sigh* Here we go again, pity 2aguy didn't know this was a gangland hit, the "victim" had been shot in 2010 and later arrested himself for possessing a firearm.

 

[fncceo]

*sigh* Here we go again, pity 2aguy didn't know this was a gangland hit, the "victim" had been shot in 2010 and later arrested himself for possessing a firearm.

So, your point is, even in a country where private firearms are banned, we shouldn't be surprised if criminals have free access to them?

 

[Vagabond63]

*sigh* Here we go again, pity 2aguy didn't know this was a gangland hit, the "victim" had been shot in 2010 and later arrested himself for possessing a firearm.

So, your point is, even in a country where private firearms are banned, we shouldn't be surprised if criminals have free access to them?

Private firearms are not banned over here, do keep up. Criminals have always had access to firearms, which they use mainly to protect themselves from other criminals with guns; it's something they picked up from America. The rest of us don't care that much if criminals shoot each other.

 

[fncceo]

Criminals have always had access to firearms

Then why is it so wrong for non-criminals to have firearms with which to defend themselves?

 

[JoeB131]

Good thing they banned and confiscated guns....you wouldn't have people executed with guns because criminals wouldn't have guns....but...then.....how did this guy get his gun that he used to execute this guy?

46 Gun murders in the UK a year vs. 11,000 in the US.

They are getting it right.. us, not so much.

The reason why you find one of these stories a month is because they are so unusual in the UK.

 

[JoeB131]

*sigh* Here we go again, pity 2aguy didn't know this was a gangland hit, the "victim" had been shot in 2010 and later arrested himself for possessing a firearm.

2AGuy lives in mortal fear the rest of us will get tired of his fetish and the 33,000 deaths and 78,000 injuries that go with it.

 

[Votto]

Criminals have always had access to firearms

Then why is it so wrong for non-criminals to have firearms with which to defend themselves?

Damn it, I told you before, stop trying to make sense.

It only annoys those on the Left.

Now he will go shout someone down.

Happy?

 

[JoeB131]

Then why is it so wrong for non-criminals to have firearms with which to defend themselves?

Because a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

So it makes about as much since as owning your own rabid pit bull because your neighbor has a rabid pit bull guarding his crack house.

 

[2aguy]

Good thing they banned and confiscated guns....you wouldn't have people executed with guns because criminals wouldn't have guns....but...then.....how did this guy get his gun that he used to execute this guy?

46 Gun murders in the UK a year vs. 11,000 in the US.

They are getting it right.. us, not so much.

The reason why you find one of these stories a month is because they are so unusual in the UK.

Their gun crime is going up, ours is going down. Our problem isn't guns, our problem is democrats in power letting repeat gun offenders out of jail over and over again.

As more Americans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....Britain banned and confiscated guns? Their gun crime rate in London was up 42% last year, up 23% across England and Wales, with violent crime going up 95% in some areas of England......

Guns aren't our problem, a revolving door for violent, known, repeat gun offenders is our problem.

 

[2aguy]

Then why is it so wrong for non-criminals to have firearms with which to defend themselves?

Because a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

So it makes about as much since as owning your own rabid pit bull because your neighbor has a rabid pit bull guarding his crack house.

43% is a lie, you know it, you have been shown that the guy who made up that number, Kellerman changed it when he was called on it....here is the study where he had to change the number, followed by analysis of his lies...

NEJM - Error

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[2aguy]

*sigh* Here we go again, pity 2aguy didn't know this was a gangland hit, the "victim" had been shot in 2010 and later arrested himself for possessing a firearm.

What difference does that make? It shows that criminals in Britain, a country, an Island, that banned and confiscated guns still get guns and use them to murder people when they want to murder people.....

You are simply confirming my point.

 

[2aguy]

*sigh* Here we go again, pity 2aguy didn't know this was a gangland hit, the "victim" had been shot in 2010 and later arrested himself for possessing a firearm.

So, your point is, even in a country where private firearms are banned, we shouldn't be surprised if criminals have free access to them?

Private firearms are not banned over here, do keep up. Criminals have always had access to firearms, which they use mainly to protect themselves from other criminals with guns; it's something they picked up from America. The rest of us don't care that much if criminals shoot each other.

And that is the same thing that happens in the United States....70-80% of gun murder victims in the U.S. are criminals....and the shootings are confined to tiny areas of democrat party controlled cities.....meanwhile, good, normal Americans use their legal guns in the U.S. 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack, which has led to a 49% decrease in gun murder, a 75% decrease in gun crime and a 72% decrease in violent crime...

Meanwhile, in Britain, violent crime against normal people is going through the roof...

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.

 

[2aguy]

*sigh* Here we go again, pity 2aguy didn't know this was a gangland hit, the "victim" had been shot in 2010 and later arrested himself for possessing a firearm.

2AGuy lives in mortal fear the rest of us will get tired of his fetish and the 33,000 deaths and 78,000 injuries that go with it.

Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack...saving lives.....and of those 33,000, you always lie and refuse to admit that over 20,000 of those are suicide, which do not count considering countries with extreme gun control have higher suicide rates than we do.....

Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct

. If this 1/3 vs. 2/3 ratio of deaths to injuries in actual shootings pertains in these DGUs, that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—less some attackers who lost their lives to defenders. This enormous benefit dwarfs, both in human and economic terms, the losses trumpeted by hoplophobes who only choose to see the risk side of the equation.

Kleck is still correct, whether precisely or not. Remember that the NSDS was more comprehensive and sampled the national population for one year compared to the BRFSS sampling some states inconsistently. That makes Kleck and Gertz’ work the more valid of the two in any case.

Late 1990’s CDC leadership must have been scared off by their own numbers. However you slice it, there are tremendous numbers of DGUs done by Americans who take self-defense seriously and effectively. Thank goodness and the Second Amendment!


==============
Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

Our man Bruce Krafft — whose posts we dearly miss — did the math back in 2012. Here it is:
Our fearless leader suggested that I take a look at the flip side of the anti’s latest attack on our freedoms (a recycled strategy from the Clinton-era Public Health model of gun control): the monetary cost of gun violence.
For example, the Center for American Progress touted the “fact” that the Virginia Tech massacre cost taxpayers $48.2 million (including autopsy costs and a fine against Virginia Tech for failing to get their skates on when the killer started shooting).
It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what are the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
The Kleck-Gertz DGU study estimated that there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs a year in the U.S. The Ludwig-Cook study came up with 1.46 million. So let’s split the difference and call it 1.88 million DGUs per year.
In the K-G article Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 15.7 percent of people who had a DGU reckoned they almost certainly saved a life. Ignoring the ‘probably’ and ‘might have’ saved a life categories for simplicity, 15.7 percent of 1.88 million gives us 295,160 lives saved annually.
[NB: A number of people have questioned the 15.7 percent stat. Remember: many states regard the mere act of pulling a gun on someone a form of deadly force. In addition, virtually every jurisdiction in the nation requires that an armed self-defender must be in “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” before using (or in some places even threatening to use) deadly force.]
How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.
According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.
So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.
Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.
I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”
Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.

 

[Vagabond63]

Criminals have always had access to firearms

Then why is it so wrong for non-criminals to have firearms with which to defend themselves?

I never said it was wrong as such, just that most people here in the UK aren't victims of "gun crime", we're generally not inclined to reach for a gun to resolve our differences, it's a sign of civilisation, you know.

 

[pismoe]

*sigh* Here we go again, pity 2aguy didn't know this was a gangland hit, the "victim" had been shot in 2010 and later arrested himself for possessing a firearm.

So, your point is, even in a country where private firearms are banned, we shouldn't be surprised if criminals have free access to them?

Private firearms are not banned over here, do keep up. Criminals have always had access to firearms, which they use mainly to protect themselves from other criminals with guns; it's something they picked up from America. The rest of us don't care that much if criminals shoot each other.

------------------------------------------ i think that all the taxpaying English peoples handguns were confiscated in 1996 weren't they . Except for the 'queens' men and the retired 'tony blair' whose bodyguard leaves her Glock in Starbucks restrooms as she spends a penny Vaga .

 

[fncceo]

such, just that most people here in the UK aren't victims of "gun crime",

Neither are most people in the US.

 

[pismoe]

and long guns , mostly owned by the rich that have land isn't it Vaga ?? [pest control and hunting]

 

[2aguy]

Criminals have always had access to firearms

Then why is it so wrong for non-criminals to have firearms with which to defend themselves?

I never said it was wrong as such, just that most people here in the UK aren't victims of "gun crime", we're generally not inclined to reach for a gun to resolve our differences, it's a sign of civilisation, you know.

Same here...our gun crime is confined to democrat party controlled cities and even there, to tiny neighborhoods controlled by the democrat party. The other gun owners, the legal gun owners, own and carry their guns and do not use them to harm anyone.

And the victims of gun crime in the U.S......? 70-80% of them are criminals, and of the rest a good many are friends and family of the criminals who have the illegal guns in the first place...