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

[JoeB131]

As you know, but it doesn't seem to sink into your brain....your tiny brain....Britain always had a low murder rate compared to the U.S....

Yes, because they've ALWAYS limited who can own a gun. They didn't pervert a militia amendment into "Any nut who wants a machine gun can have one!"

I'm glad this is finally clear for you.

Less guns = less murder. Mostly because beating someone to death with your fists is a lot more work than shooting someone.

48 gun murders a year vs. 11,000..... We're just plain doing it wrong.

 

[2aguy]

As you know, but it doesn't seem to sink into your brain....your tiny brain....Britain always had a low murder rate compared to the U.S....

Yes, because they've ALWAYS limited who can own a gun. They didn't pervert a militia amendment into "Any nut who wants a machine gun can have one!"

I'm glad this is finally clear for you.

Less guns = less murder. Mostly because beating someone to death with your fists is a lot more work than shooting someone.

48 gun murders a year vs. 11,000..... We're just plain doing it wrong.

Moron, our knife murder number is higher than their entire murder number.....you are an idiot and with you failed understanding of crime and culture, you can't explain how gun crime rates in the U.S. went down with more gun ownership, and are going up in Britain with less law abiding gun ownership.....

You are still an idiot....

 

[JoeB131]

Moron, our knife murder number is higher than their entire murder number..

Well, that sounds like a good reason for knife control. I'm betting the Brits don't sell swords and bayonets openly, either.

you are an idiot and with you failed understanding of crime and culture,

Um, guy, we have pretty much the same culture as the UK and Canada, but they don't have anywhere near our crime rates... now how is that?

They also don't have as many guns or prisons as we do.

 

[2aguy]

As you know, but it doesn't seem to sink into your brain....your tiny brain....Britain always had a low murder rate compared to the U.S....

Yes, because they've ALWAYS limited who can own a gun. They didn't pervert a militia amendment into "Any nut who wants a machine gun can have one!"

I'm glad this is finally clear for you.

Less guns = less murder. Mostly because beating someone to death with your fists is a lot more work than shooting someone.

48 gun murders a year vs. 11,000..... We're just plain doing it wrong.

Moron......our knife, club and empty hand murder number is far higher than theirs......you idiot..and again...please explain how our gun murder rate dropped 49% as more Americans own and carry guns......over 17.25 million Americans now carry guns for self defense and you can't explain how our gun murder rate went down 49%, how our gun crime rate dropped 75%....75%....and our violent crime rate dropped 72%....

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2017

Knives.....1,591

Hands and feet......696

Clubs.....467

 

[2aguy]

Moron, our knife murder number is higher than their entire murder number..

Well, that sounds like a good reason for knife control. I'm betting the Brits don't sell swords and bayonets openly, either.

you are an idiot and with you failed understanding of crime and culture,

Um, guy, we have pretty much the same culture as the UK and Canada, but they don't have anywhere near our crime rates... now how is that?

They also don't have as many guns or prisons as we do.

No, moron, we don't.......we have the democrat party in control of our inner cities for decades, in some places over 100 years who believe that locking up violent, known, gun criminals is wrong...so they keep letting them out and then they go on to kill people...... we never experienced the soul crushing feudalism of Europe or the destruction of our men through World War 1 and 2 the way they did........ completely different cultural experiences...and our social welfare network has had longer to destroy our families than theirs did...but they have now caught up as the violence in their cultures is showing...

You don't understand the issue, you are mentally ill.....you focus on guns, not criminals.

 

[JoeB131]

please explain how our gun murder rate dropped 49% as more Americans own and carry guns

It didn't... it's has stayed pretty consistent and has gone up in the last two years...

2016: 14,415
2015: 12,974
2014: 10,945
2013: 11,208
2012: 11,622
2011: 11,068
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493.

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Whoops.

 

[Geaux4it]

please explain how our gun murder rate dropped 49% as more Americans own and carry guns

It didn't... it's has stayed pretty consistent and has gone up in the last two years...

2016: 14,415
2015: 12,974
2014: 10,945
2013: 11,208
2012: 11,622
2011: 11,068
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493.

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Whoops.

Gunpolicy.org

LMAO

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

Gunpolicy.org

LMAO

great source for people who want real figures... I hadn't checked their site in a while, and didn't know they had recently posted figures for 2015 and 2016.

 

[Yarddog]

*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.

Private firearms are not banned in England? Then why is it illegal to defend yourself with a gun in England? or a knife? or a cane? defending yourself there has almost become an act of aggression it self In the eyes of the law.
Yet, you say you dont care if Criminals shoot each other???? But heaven forbid a citizen shoot a Criminal in self defence.... then you care. You dont see the irony here?

 

[Yarddog]

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.

Is there a link to your stat of 43 times? I saw one that said 34 times, though.... these numbers can be manipulated.

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you have solutions?

Oh yeah your default position is to blame everyone else for your failings

Not really... I just recognize that Capitalism is a shit sandwich for most people... even if they think they are doing well.

But to the point, yes, there are solutions.. invest in education, create job programs and opportunties in poor areas, and the big one.

Get rid of the ******* guns...

yes you know better than the people who think they are doing well and how many zeroes to the left of the decimal point does your net worth figure have?

Surely if you know what's best for everyone you must be extremely successful right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Britain did that, and their gun crime and violent crime against British citizens is going through the roof

48 gun homicides a year compared to our 11,000?

Um... yeah, I think I'll take what's behind Door #1, Monty.

Feel free to move the **** out

 

[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?

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.

Private firearms are not banned in England? Then why is it illegal to defend yourself with a gun in England? or a knife? or a cane? defending yourself there has almost become an act of aggression it self In the eyes of the law.
Yet, you say you dont care if Criminals shoot each other???? But heaven forbid a citizen shoot a Criminal in self defence.... then you care. You dont see the irony here?

To own a firearm or weapon of any category in th UK requires a 'valid reason'. Hunting and target shooting are the most common reasons. Self defense or home defense are NOT allowed as valid reasons.


If you use a fire arm, or any weapon, including a cricket bat, in self defense, you must prove a) that you were carrying that weapon at the time for the purposes of participating in the valid reason, 'I was on my way to play cricket when I was assaulted ', and b) the the use of the weapon is considered 'reasonable' response the the level of force used against you.


This is important


Anytime you use a weapon in self defense in the UK, you must prove both that you were not carrying the weapon in anticipation of being assaulted and you must prove the use of the weapon was proportional to the threat.


You are guilty until you can prove your use of a weapon was justified.

 

[Skull Pilot]

*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.

Private firearms are not banned in England? Then why is it illegal to defend yourself with a gun in England? or a knife? or a cane? defending yourself there has almost become an act of aggression it self In the eyes of the law.
Yet, you say you dont care if Criminals shoot each other???? But heaven forbid a citizen shoot a Criminal in self defence.... then you care. You dont see the irony here?

To own a firearm or weapon of any category in th UK requires a 'valid reason'. Hunting and target shooting are the most common reasons. Self defense or home defense are NOT allowed as valid reasons.


If you use a fire arm, or any weapon, including a cricket bat, in self defense, you must prove a) that you were carrying that weapon at the time for the purposes of participating in the valid reason, 'I was on my way to play cricket when I was assaulted ', and b) the the use of the weapon is considered 'reasonable' response the the level of force used against you.


This is important


Anytime you use a weapon in self defense in the UK, you must prove both that you were not carrying the weapon in anticipation of being assaulted and you must prove the use of the weapon was proportional to the threat.


You are guilty until you can prove your use of a weapon was justified.

That's not too different from our self defense laws

The person who shoots and kills in self defense cannot claim he is innocent of homicide and he must prove the shooting was justified.

 

[HenryBHough]

Fake news.

Nobody could possibly be killed by a gun in Britain.

There are no guns in Britain.

They have the laws Pelosi and friends drool over imposing on you.

Therefore either they're f'n idiots (P & friends) or this is fake news.

No question you liberal snowflakes will find it easier to accept the latter rather than the former. If you even know what that sentence means.

 

[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?

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.

Private firearms are not banned in England? Then why is it illegal to defend yourself with a gun in England? or a knife? or a cane? defending yourself there has almost become an act of aggression it self In the eyes of the law.
Yet, you say you dont care if Criminals shoot each other???? But heaven forbid a citizen shoot a Criminal in self defence.... then you care. You dont see the irony here?

To own a firearm or weapon of any category in th UK requires a 'valid reason'. Hunting and target shooting are the most common reasons. Self defense or home defense are NOT allowed as valid reasons.


If you use a fire arm, or any weapon, including a cricket bat, in self defense, you must prove a) that you were carrying that weapon at the time for the purposes of participating in the valid reason, 'I was on my way to play cricket when I was assaulted ', and b) the the use of the weapon is considered 'reasonable' response the the level of force used against you.


This is important


Anytime you use a weapon in self defense in the UK, you must prove both that you were not carrying the weapon in anticipation of being assaulted and you must prove the use of the weapon was proportional to the threat.


You are guilty until you can prove your use of a weapon was justified.

That's not too different from our self defense laws

The person who shoots and kills in self defense cannot claim he is innocent of homicide and he must prove the shooting was justified.

You need to prove that your level of force was reasonable, except where laws like 'Castle Laws' apply.

But using a legal weapon in self-defence isn't an issue here like it is in the UK.

Moreover, except is jurisdictions where you must demonstrate need to carry, you don't need to produce a reason to own a firearm or a legal weapon.

 

[2aguy]

please explain how our gun murder rate dropped 49% as more Americans own and carry guns

It didn't... it's has stayed pretty consistent and has gone up in the last two years...

2016: 14,415
2015: 12,974
2014: 10,945
2013: 11,208
2012: 11,622
2011: 11,068
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493.

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Whoops.

Wrong...you doofus...

Notice....the numbers only go back to 1997 but feel free to go back farther.....the actual data is from Pew...


We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

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

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

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8



gun murder rate 1997 -2000


1997..... 10,729
1998..... 9,257
1999..... 8,480
2000..... 8,493
2001..... 8,719
2002... 9,369
2003.... 9,638
2004..... 9,385
2005.... 10,158
2006.... 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,312
2015--9,616
2016--11,004
2017--10,982

 

[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.

Is there a link to your stat of 43 times? I saw one that said 34 times, though.... these numbers can be manipulated.

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

He is lying when he uses the 43 times number and he knows it...since he has been shown that the researcher, Kellerman, had to change that number to 2.7 times after his research was analyzed by other researchers, and even then....he loaded his research with the worst cases to use as examples...here is some info on that number...the first link goes to the study kellerman did to change his number from 43 times to 2.7 times...then, I have links that look at how he even got that wrong....

joe know this and has been shown it several times...he just hates guns and will lie to push that agenda...

This is the link to kellerman's follow up study where he had to change the number from 43 to 2.7....

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Private firearms are not banned in England? Then why is it illegal to defend yourself with a gun in England? or a knife? or a cane? defending yourself there has almost become an act of aggression it self In the eyes of the law.
Yet, you say you dont care if Criminals shoot each other???? But heaven forbid a citizen shoot a Criminal in self defence.... then you care. You dont see the irony here?

To own a firearm or weapon of any category in th UK requires a 'valid reason'. Hunting and target shooting are the most common reasons. Self defense or home defense are NOT allowed as valid reasons.


If you use a fire arm, or any weapon, including a cricket bat, in self defense, you must prove a) that you were carrying that weapon at the time for the purposes of participating in the valid reason, 'I was on my way to play cricket when I was assaulted ', and b) the the use of the weapon is considered 'reasonable' response the the level of force used against you.


This is important


Anytime you use a weapon in self defense in the UK, you must prove both that you were not carrying the weapon in anticipation of being assaulted and you must prove the use of the weapon was proportional to the threat.


You are guilty until you can prove your use of a weapon was justified.

That's not too different from our self defense laws

The person who shoots and kills in self defense cannot claim he is innocent of homicide and he must prove the shooting was justified.

You need to prove that your level of force was reasonable, except where laws like 'Castle Laws' apply.

But using a legal weapon in self-defence isn't an issue here like it is in the UK.

Moreover, except is jurisdictions where you must demonstrate need to carry, you don't need to produce a reason to own a firearm or a legal weapon.

You still have to justify a shooting if the castle doctrine is in effect. All the castle doctrine means is you have no duty to retreat from your own home.

I never said you needed a reason to own or to carry I said if you shoot and kill someone in self defense you have to prove it was justified

 

[JoeB131]

Is there a link to your stat of 43 times? I saw one that said 34 times, though.... these numbers can be manipulated.

Old news... look up "Kellerman Study". The Gun Fetishists come up with all sorts of claims to try to discredit it.