Jimmy Kimmel Continues Prove He's a Fool

[toobfreak]

Jimmy Kimmel Continues Prove He's a Fool

I didn't know it was possible for that asshole to show he was any lower a piece of dirty scum than he already has. Who watches that crap anyway? Last good late night show was Johnny Carson. To this day I still don't know what his leanings were, They were NEVER discussed on his show! And he treated EVERYONE with respect, so I tend to believe he must have been a conservative.

Nowadays, the Left uses EVERYTHING as a vehicle for negative political exploitation and promotion, and it just keeps BLOWING UP IN THEIR F----KING FACES! The people of this country are tired of their crap and want to hear a positive message.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Not at all.

You said you don't believe in gun control, then you said you believe in gun control. It's getting a little confusing.

Are you or are you not a believer in gun control?

No, you're creating a strawman because you couldn't debate your way out a wet paper bag. Prisoners have no rights whatsoever, and should have access to nothing but bread and water, and in a lot of cases, should just be executed entirely.

No, I'm not creating a strawman at all. You said you were against gun control. I then asked you a question and you said you were for gun control.

Prisoners DO have rights. You don't understand the theory of rights. Prisoners don't have their rights taken away, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

I never said I was for gun control. Prisoners have 'their rights infringed upon', that's not control on guns, that's control on prisoners. Your word salad won't win you anything.

It's a simple fact, if you want to control guns, then you're for gun control. It's that simple. If you prevent prisoners from having guns, that's gun control.

You call it word salad, I call it being articulate.

If you want gun control then the laws you pass need to be enforced on the civil law enforcement agencies (<they need to conform to the law) that are being imposed upon the rest of the population.

In other words all law enforcement agencies will follow the same law and turn their unauthorized gear over to the military.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Dale Smith]

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Not at all.

You said you don't believe in gun control, then you said you believe in gun control. It's getting a little confusing.

Are you or are you not a believer in gun control?

No, you're creating a strawman because you couldn't debate your way out a wet paper bag. Prisoners have no rights whatsoever, and should have access to nothing but bread and water, and in a lot of cases, should just be executed entirely.

No, I'm not creating a strawman at all. You said you were against gun control. I then asked you a question and you said you were for gun control.

Prisoners DO have rights. You don't understand the theory of rights. Prisoners don't have their rights taken away, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

I never said I was for gun control. Prisoners have 'their rights infringed upon', that's not control on guns, that's control on prisoners. Your word salad won't win you anything.

It's a simple fact, if you want to control guns, then you're for gun control. It's that simple. If you prevent prisoners from having guns, that's gun control.

You call it word salad, I call it being articulate.

It's word salad. You're trying to twist my words because you have no argument.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, the problem is that all guns can never be regulated. There are people who build guns themselves, and there are people who don't operate through legal channels, such as the black market. The best way to keep Americans safe is for all of them to be armed. People are far less likely to commit crimes if their potential victims are armed. Physical boundaries, much like gun laws, would only disarm people who follow the law.

It's true. But the issue is that in the UK there isn't much of a problem, is there? Gun deaths in the UK? 23 in 2013. Out of a population of 65 million people. The equivalent in the US would be about 2,000 murders.

Which is better, 23 murders or 2,000 murders?

Oh look, you cited no sources for that claim, I'm so surprised. Besides that, Dapperton already debunked the number of gun murders in the US in the video.

You want sources huh?

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

Click Death and Injury, click Gun Homicides. You'll see:

"2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84"

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

Do the same:

"2014: 10,945"

List of countries and dependencies by population - Wikipedia

Click on United Kingdom and you will see 65,648,100
Click on USA and you will see 325,902,000

Open your calculator and divide the US's population by the UK's population. You will find 4.964378253140609

Take 10,945 and divide it by 4.964378253140609 and you will get 2,204.707103669201

That means the US murder rate would be 2,204 if it were in the UK. The UK murder rate was 23 for the year before.

As for Dapperton, I'm not arguing with Dapperton.

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

What you mean to say is that it had no effect at all because gun legislation doesn't work.

I was looking at general murders, not gun murders. Gun murders is a worthless statistic, abused by gun-grabbing leftist nutjobs to push their propaganda whilst ignoring that their legislation doesn't work.

Actually, what I looked at to come to my conclusion was population size increases and decreases, police force increases and decreases, date of legislation, and the statistics for the MURDER RATE you linked. The murder rate barely changed, and it was such a long time after the legislation passed that the legislation couldn't have been the cause. Especially since mass murders with illegal firearms didn't cease. On the other hand, if everyone was armed, all it would have taken for the gunman to be stopped was one person. He probably wouldn't have murdered anyone. Good thing the UK took steps to disarm their populace.

The other things that lead to fluctuations are whether or not the 'homicides' included in the statistics are taking into account self defense, which they're not, because there's no way to differentiate. Other things influencing the difference in statistics are what America and the UK arm their police with, since the UK police aren't typically armed with guns, and aren't allowed to use them unless specifically authorized, and also that the UK has almost completely disarmed their populace, leading to significantly fewer deaths as a result to self defense. Considering that the statistics don't bother to differentiate between justified and unjustified homicide, it makes sense that statesthat allow their populace to defend themselves would have more deaths.

Yes, gun control is worthless~ unless you like seeing dead innocents, or prefer your subjects on their knees, as most governments do.

 

[2aguy]

Their is the problem ..

No?

Free reign on the television shows to indoctrinate people in the liberal way..

Not so much in the conservative way..

Tim Allen on Last Man Standing Cancellation: 'Nothing More Dangerous Than a Likable Conservative'

Keep your hopes up. If trump gets his way, there will only be state approved teleivision available.

Wouldn't it be in the lefty benefit , ya know before right wing talk radio when the fairness doctrine was in place?


Why do you even try me?

.

The fairness doctrine would help the country

You are soooo correct, Fallon, Kimmel and Colbert are all left wing crackpots.
We need a late night TV talk show host who is mainstream so things would be fair.

Wonder why there're no Right Wing Nuts on late at night.

Because conservatives have to get up early to go to work...

 

[2aguy]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Criminals in the U.K. get all the guns they want...that is why after they banned and confiscated guns in 1997, the gun crime rate went up 89% the following 10 years and keeps going up every year, last year 23% over the entire country and 42% in London alone....again, the criminals in Britain...don't murder their victims...they have guns, they don't cross that line......

And if he was rich, he would be able to get guns....a 19 year old got a pistol on the dark web...he was going to commit a mass public shooting at his former university.....their gun laws didn't stop him....his posting about the attack on social media tipped off the cops....this guy in Vegas...with unlimited resources....could have done the exact same thing.....moron.....considering that about a dozen terrorists in France, on government terrorist watch lists, easily got fully automatic, military weapons which are completely illegal and banned in France... to think he wouldn't be able to do this is just stupid....

 

[2aguy]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

Why are you opposed to laws? No law is 100% effective at preventing crime. Common sense-------try to get some.

And nothing you propose would stop any actual criminal or mass shooter....but to do "nothing" with your new laws, you would take away the gun rights of the owners of close to 600 million guns...that is what we oppose....moron.

 

[2aguy]

It's true. But the issue is that in the UK there isn't much of a problem, is there? Gun deaths in the UK? 23 in 2013. Out of a population of 65 million people. The equivalent in the US would be about 2,000 murders.

Which is better, 23 murders or 2,000 murders?

Oh look, you cited no sources for that claim, I'm so surprised. Besides that, Dapperton already debunked the number of gun murders in the US in the video.

You want sources huh?

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

Click Death and Injury, click Gun Homicides. You'll see:

"2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84"

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

Do the same:

"2014: 10,945"

List of countries and dependencies by population - Wikipedia

Click on United Kingdom and you will see 65,648,100
Click on USA and you will see 325,902,000

Open your calculator and divide the US's population by the UK's population. You will find 4.964378253140609

Take 10,945 and divide it by 4.964378253140609 and you will get 2,204.707103669201

That means the US murder rate would be 2,204 if it were in the UK. The UK murder rate was 23 for the year before.

As for Dapperton, I'm not arguing with Dapperton.

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

What you mean to say is that it had no effect at all because gun legislation doesn't work.

I was looking at general murders, not gun murders. Gun murders is a worthless statistic, abused by gun-grabbing leftist nutjobs to push their propaganda whilst ignoring that their legislation doesn't work.

Actually, what I looked at to come to my conclusion was population size increases and decreases, police force increases and decreases, date of legislation, and the statistics for the MURDER RATE you linked. The murder rate barely changed, and it was such a long time after the legislation passed that the legislation couldn't have been the cause. Especially since mass murders with illegal firearms didn't cease. On the other hand, if everyone was armed, all it would have taken for the gunman to be stopped was one person. He probably wouldn't have murdered anyone. Good thing the UK took steps to disarm their populace.

The other things that lead to fluctuations are whether or not the 'homicides' included in the statistics are taking into account self defense, which they're not, because there's no way to differentiate. Other things influencing the difference in statistics are what America and the UK arm their police with, since the UK police aren't typically armed with guns, and aren't allowed to use them unless specifically authorized, and also that the UK has almost completely disarmed their populace, leading to significantly fewer deaths as a result to self defense. Considering that the statistics don't bother to differentiate between justified and unjustified homicide, it makes sense that statesthat allow their populace to defend themselves would have more deaths.

Yes, gun control is worthless~ unless you like seeing dead innocents, or prefer your subjects on their knees, as most governments do.

The biggest cities in Louisisana have been controlled by democrats for about 100 years....they are also soft on criminals...dittos Missouri....St. Louis.....democrat mayors since 1955.....Baltimore...they have driven their police force into the ground and are short cops...and the cops that are left are handicapped by the left and the Ferguson effect....

None of those cities have a gun issue, they have criminal issues and democrat party policy issues.....

 

[2aguy]

It's true. But the issue is that in the UK there isn't much of a problem, is there? Gun deaths in the UK? 23 in 2013. Out of a population of 65 million people. The equivalent in the US would be about 2,000 murders.

Which is better, 23 murders or 2,000 murders?

Oh look, you cited no sources for that claim, I'm so surprised. Besides that, Dapperton already debunked the number of gun murders in the US in the video.

You want sources huh?

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

Click Death and Injury, click Gun Homicides. You'll see:

"2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84"

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

Do the same:

"2014: 10,945"

List of countries and dependencies by population - Wikipedia

Click on United Kingdom and you will see 65,648,100
Click on USA and you will see 325,902,000

Open your calculator and divide the US's population by the UK's population. You will find 4.964378253140609

Take 10,945 and divide it by 4.964378253140609 and you will get 2,204.707103669201

That means the US murder rate would be 2,204 if it were in the UK. The UK murder rate was 23 for the year before.

As for Dapperton, I'm not arguing with Dapperton.

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

What you mean to say is that it had no effect at all because gun legislation doesn't work.

I was looking at general murders, not gun murders. Gun murders is a worthless statistic, abused by gun-grabbing leftist nutjobs to push their propaganda whilst ignoring that their legislation doesn't work.

Actually, what I looked at to come to my conclusion was population size increases and decreases, police force increases and decreases, date of legislation, and the statistics for the MURDER RATE you linked. The murder rate barely changed, and it was such a long time after the legislation passed that the legislation couldn't have been the cause. Especially since mass murders with illegal firearms didn't cease. On the other hand, if everyone was armed, all it would have taken for the gunman to be stopped was one person. He probably wouldn't have murdered anyone. Good thing the UK took steps to disarm their populace.

The other things that lead to fluctuations are whether or not the 'homicides' included in the statistics are taking into account self defense, which they're not, because there's no way to differentiate. Other things influencing the difference in statistics are what America and the UK arm their police with, since the UK police aren't typically armed with guns, and aren't allowed to use them unless specifically authorized, and also that the UK has almost completely disarmed their populace, leading to significantly fewer deaths as a result to self defense. Considering that the statistics don't bother to differentiate between justified and unjustified homicide, it makes sense that statesthat allow their populace to defend themselves would have more deaths.

Yes, gun control is worthless~ unless you like seeing dead innocents, or prefer your subjects on their knees, as most governments do.

Notice....he doesn't give a link to the states with the murders...make him give you the link...too often the anti gunners add suicides to the total and hide the fact that they do this......

 

[Political Junky]

Oh look, you cited no sources for that claim, I'm so surprised. Besides that, Dapperton already debunked the number of gun murders in the US in the video.

You want sources huh?

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

Click Death and Injury, click Gun Homicides. You'll see:

"2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84"

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

Do the same:

"2014: 10,945"

List of countries and dependencies by population - Wikipedia

Click on United Kingdom and you will see 65,648,100
Click on USA and you will see 325,902,000

Open your calculator and divide the US's population by the UK's population. You will find 4.964378253140609

Take 10,945 and divide it by 4.964378253140609 and you will get 2,204.707103669201

That means the US murder rate would be 2,204 if it were in the UK. The UK murder rate was 23 for the year before.

As for Dapperton, I'm not arguing with Dapperton.

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

What you mean to say is that it had no effect at all because gun legislation doesn't work.

I was looking at general murders, not gun murders. Gun murders is a worthless statistic, abused by gun-grabbing leftist nutjobs to push their propaganda whilst ignoring that their legislation doesn't work.

Actually, what I looked at to come to my conclusion was population size increases and decreases, police force increases and decreases, date of legislation, and the statistics for the MURDER RATE you linked. The murder rate barely changed, and it was such a long time after the legislation passed that the legislation couldn't have been the cause. Especially since mass murders with illegal firearms didn't cease. On the other hand, if everyone was armed, all it would have taken for the gunman to be stopped was one person. He probably wouldn't have murdered anyone. Good thing the UK took steps to disarm their populace.

The other things that lead to fluctuations are whether or not the 'homicides' included in the statistics are taking into account self defense, which they're not, because there's no way to differentiate. Other things influencing the difference in statistics are what America and the UK arm their police with, since the UK police aren't typically armed with guns, and aren't allowed to use them unless specifically authorized, and also that the UK has almost completely disarmed their populace, leading to significantly fewer deaths as a result to self defense. Considering that the statistics don't bother to differentiate between justified and unjustified homicide, it makes sense that statesthat allow their populace to defend themselves would have more deaths.

Yes, gun control is worthless~ unless you like seeing dead innocents, or prefer your subjects on their knees, as most governments do.

The biggest cities in Louisisana have been controlled by democrats for about 100 years....they are also soft on criminals...dittos Missouri....St. Louis.....democrat mayors since 1955.....Baltimore...they have driven their police force into the ground and are short cops...and the cops that are left are handicapped by the left and the Ferguson effect....

None of those cities have a gun issue, they have criminal issues and democrat party policy issues.....

Louisiana went republican after 1964.

Oh look, you cited no sources for that claim, I'm so surprised. Besides that, Dapperton already debunked the number of gun murders in the US in the video.

You want sources huh?

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

Click Death and Injury, click Gun Homicides. You'll see:

"2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84"

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

Do the same:

"2014: 10,945"

List of countries and dependencies by population - Wikipedia

Click on United Kingdom and you will see 65,648,100
Click on USA and you will see 325,902,000

Open your calculator and divide the US's population by the UK's population. You will find 4.964378253140609

Take 10,945 and divide it by 4.964378253140609 and you will get 2,204.707103669201

That means the US murder rate would be 2,204 if it were in the UK. The UK murder rate was 23 for the year before.

As for Dapperton, I'm not arguing with Dapperton.

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

What you mean to say is that it had no effect at all because gun legislation doesn't work.

I was looking at general murders, not gun murders. Gun murders is a worthless statistic, abused by gun-grabbing leftist nutjobs to push their propaganda whilst ignoring that their legislation doesn't work.

Actually, what I looked at to come to my conclusion was population size increases and decreases, police force increases and decreases, date of legislation, and the statistics for the MURDER RATE you linked. The murder rate barely changed, and it was such a long time after the legislation passed that the legislation couldn't have been the cause. Especially since mass murders with illegal firearms didn't cease. On the other hand, if everyone was armed, all it would have taken for the gunman to be stopped was one person. He probably wouldn't have murdered anyone. Good thing the UK took steps to disarm their populace.

The other things that lead to fluctuations are whether or not the 'homicides' included in the statistics are taking into account self defense, which they're not, because there's no way to differentiate. Other things influencing the difference in statistics are what America and the UK arm their police with, since the UK police aren't typically armed with guns, and aren't allowed to use them unless specifically authorized, and also that the UK has almost completely disarmed their populace, leading to significantly fewer deaths as a result to self defense. Considering that the statistics don't bother to differentiate between justified and unjustified homicide, it makes sense that statesthat allow their populace to defend themselves would have more deaths.

Yes, gun control is worthless~ unless you like seeing dead innocents, or prefer your subjects on their knees, as most governments do.

The biggest cities in Louisisana have been controlled by democrats for about 100 years....they are also soft on criminals...dittos Missouri....St. Louis.....democrat mayors since 1955.....Baltimore...they have driven their police force into the ground and are short cops...and the cops that are left are handicapped by the left and the Ferguson effect....

None of those cities have a gun issue, they have criminal issues and democrat party policy issues.....

Nearly all the democrats in Louisiana registered as republicans after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, just as President Johnson predicted. I lived there.

 

[2aguy]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

Why are you opposed to laws? No law is 100% effective at preventing crime. Common sense-------try to get some.

Laws like protecting classified information? Does that law count?

-Geaux

No law is 100% effective. That's why gun nuts say we shouldn't have any.

No...we say we have all the laws we need......you can't use a gun to commit a crime, if you do you get arrested......if you are a felon and caught in mere possession of a gun, you get arrested....then the democrats will let you back on the street to murder people....

We have the laws we need to deal with criminals...you want more gun laws to deal with law abiding gun owners, to strip them of their Right to self defense....see the difference? Twit. Our way stops crime, your way is what assholes do.....

 

[2aguy]

You want sources huh?

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

Click Death and Injury, click Gun Homicides. You'll see:

"2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84"

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

Do the same:

"2014: 10,945"

List of countries and dependencies by population - Wikipedia

Click on United Kingdom and you will see 65,648,100
Click on USA and you will see 325,902,000

Open your calculator and divide the US's population by the UK's population. You will find 4.964378253140609

Take 10,945 and divide it by 4.964378253140609 and you will get 2,204.707103669201

That means the US murder rate would be 2,204 if it were in the UK. The UK murder rate was 23 for the year before.

As for Dapperton, I'm not arguing with Dapperton.

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

What you mean to say is that it had no effect at all because gun legislation doesn't work.

I was looking at general murders, not gun murders. Gun murders is a worthless statistic, abused by gun-grabbing leftist nutjobs to push their propaganda whilst ignoring that their legislation doesn't work.

Actually, what I looked at to come to my conclusion was population size increases and decreases, police force increases and decreases, date of legislation, and the statistics for the MURDER RATE you linked. The murder rate barely changed, and it was such a long time after the legislation passed that the legislation couldn't have been the cause. Especially since mass murders with illegal firearms didn't cease. On the other hand, if everyone was armed, all it would have taken for the gunman to be stopped was one person. He probably wouldn't have murdered anyone. Good thing the UK took steps to disarm their populace.

The other things that lead to fluctuations are whether or not the 'homicides' included in the statistics are taking into account self defense, which they're not, because there's no way to differentiate. Other things influencing the difference in statistics are what America and the UK arm their police with, since the UK police aren't typically armed with guns, and aren't allowed to use them unless specifically authorized, and also that the UK has almost completely disarmed their populace, leading to significantly fewer deaths as a result to self defense. Considering that the statistics don't bother to differentiate between justified and unjustified homicide, it makes sense that statesthat allow their populace to defend themselves would have more deaths.

Yes, gun control is worthless~ unless you like seeing dead innocents, or prefer your subjects on their knees, as most governments do.

The biggest cities in Louisisana have been controlled by democrats for about 100 years....they are also soft on criminals...dittos Missouri....St. Louis.....democrat mayors since 1955.....Baltimore...they have driven their police force into the ground and are short cops...and the cops that are left are handicapped by the left and the Ferguson effect....

None of those cities have a gun issue, they have criminal issues and democrat party policy issues.....

Louisiana went republican after 1964.

You want sources huh?

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

Click Death and Injury, click Gun Homicides. You'll see:

"2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84"

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

Do the same:

"2014: 10,945"

List of countries and dependencies by population - Wikipedia

Click on United Kingdom and you will see 65,648,100
Click on USA and you will see 325,902,000

Open your calculator and divide the US's population by the UK's population. You will find 4.964378253140609

Take 10,945 and divide it by 4.964378253140609 and you will get 2,204.707103669201

That means the US murder rate would be 2,204 if it were in the UK. The UK murder rate was 23 for the year before.

As for Dapperton, I'm not arguing with Dapperton.

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

What you mean to say is that it had no effect at all because gun legislation doesn't work.

I was looking at general murders, not gun murders. Gun murders is a worthless statistic, abused by gun-grabbing leftist nutjobs to push their propaganda whilst ignoring that their legislation doesn't work.

Actually, what I looked at to come to my conclusion was population size increases and decreases, police force increases and decreases, date of legislation, and the statistics for the MURDER RATE you linked. The murder rate barely changed, and it was such a long time after the legislation passed that the legislation couldn't have been the cause. Especially since mass murders with illegal firearms didn't cease. On the other hand, if everyone was armed, all it would have taken for the gunman to be stopped was one person. He probably wouldn't have murdered anyone. Good thing the UK took steps to disarm their populace.

The other things that lead to fluctuations are whether or not the 'homicides' included in the statistics are taking into account self defense, which they're not, because there's no way to differentiate. Other things influencing the difference in statistics are what America and the UK arm their police with, since the UK police aren't typically armed with guns, and aren't allowed to use them unless specifically authorized, and also that the UK has almost completely disarmed their populace, leading to significantly fewer deaths as a result to self defense. Considering that the statistics don't bother to differentiate between justified and unjustified homicide, it makes sense that statesthat allow their populace to defend themselves would have more deaths.

Yes, gun control is worthless~ unless you like seeing dead innocents, or prefer your subjects on their knees, as most governments do.

The biggest cities in Louisisana have been controlled by democrats for about 100 years....they are also soft on criminals...dittos Missouri....St. Louis.....democrat mayors since 1955.....Baltimore...they have driven their police force into the ground and are short cops...and the cops that are left are handicapped by the left and the Ferguson effect....

None of those cities have a gun issue, they have criminal issues and democrat party policy issues.....

Nearly all the democrats in Louisiana registered as republicans after the Civil Rights act of 1964, just as President Johnson predicted. I lived there.

Wrong...

Baton Rouge...democrat party since 1953....

List of mayors of Baton Rouge, Louisiana - Wikipedia

New Orleans...democrats since 1872

List of mayors of New Orleans - Wikipedia

Oh...and guess what...they are the two cities driving the gun murder rate in Louisiana.....

 

[Political Junky]

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

What you mean to say is that it had no effect at all because gun legislation doesn't work.

I was looking at general murders, not gun murders. Gun murders is a worthless statistic, abused by gun-grabbing leftist nutjobs to push their propaganda whilst ignoring that their legislation doesn't work.

Actually, what I looked at to come to my conclusion was population size increases and decreases, police force increases and decreases, date of legislation, and the statistics for the MURDER RATE you linked. The murder rate barely changed, and it was such a long time after the legislation passed that the legislation couldn't have been the cause. Especially since mass murders with illegal firearms didn't cease. On the other hand, if everyone was armed, all it would have taken for the gunman to be stopped was one person. He probably wouldn't have murdered anyone. Good thing the UK took steps to disarm their populace.

The other things that lead to fluctuations are whether or not the 'homicides' included in the statistics are taking into account self defense, which they're not, because there's no way to differentiate. Other things influencing the difference in statistics are what America and the UK arm their police with, since the UK police aren't typically armed with guns, and aren't allowed to use them unless specifically authorized, and also that the UK has almost completely disarmed their populace, leading to significantly fewer deaths as a result to self defense. Considering that the statistics don't bother to differentiate between justified and unjustified homicide, it makes sense that statesthat allow their populace to defend themselves would have more deaths.

Yes, gun control is worthless~ unless you like seeing dead innocents, or prefer your subjects on their knees, as most governments do.

The biggest cities in Louisisana have been controlled by democrats for about 100 years....they are also soft on criminals...dittos Missouri....St. Louis.....democrat mayors since 1955.....Baltimore...they have driven their police force into the ground and are short cops...and the cops that are left are handicapped by the left and the Ferguson effect....

None of those cities have a gun issue, they have criminal issues and democrat party policy issues.....

Louisiana went republican after 1964.

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

What you mean to say is that it had no effect at all because gun legislation doesn't work.

I was looking at general murders, not gun murders. Gun murders is a worthless statistic, abused by gun-grabbing leftist nutjobs to push their propaganda whilst ignoring that their legislation doesn't work.

Actually, what I looked at to come to my conclusion was population size increases and decreases, police force increases and decreases, date of legislation, and the statistics for the MURDER RATE you linked. The murder rate barely changed, and it was such a long time after the legislation passed that the legislation couldn't have been the cause. Especially since mass murders with illegal firearms didn't cease. On the other hand, if everyone was armed, all it would have taken for the gunman to be stopped was one person. He probably wouldn't have murdered anyone. Good thing the UK took steps to disarm their populace.

The other things that lead to fluctuations are whether or not the 'homicides' included in the statistics are taking into account self defense, which they're not, because there's no way to differentiate. Other things influencing the difference in statistics are what America and the UK arm their police with, since the UK police aren't typically armed with guns, and aren't allowed to use them unless specifically authorized, and also that the UK has almost completely disarmed their populace, leading to significantly fewer deaths as a result to self defense. Considering that the statistics don't bother to differentiate between justified and unjustified homicide, it makes sense that statesthat allow their populace to defend themselves would have more deaths.

Yes, gun control is worthless~ unless you like seeing dead innocents, or prefer your subjects on their knees, as most governments do.

The biggest cities in Louisisana have been controlled by democrats for about 100 years....they are also soft on criminals...dittos Missouri....St. Louis.....democrat mayors since 1955.....Baltimore...they have driven their police force into the ground and are short cops...and the cops that are left are handicapped by the left and the Ferguson effect....

None of those cities have a gun issue, they have criminal issues and democrat party policy issues.....

Nearly all the democrats in Louisiana registered as republicans after the Civil Rights act of 1964, just as President Johnson predicted. I lived there.

Wrong...

Baton Rouge...democrat party since 1953....

List of mayors of Baton Rouge, Louisiana - Wikipedia

New Orleans...democrats since 1872

List of mayors of New Orleans - Wikipedia

Oh...and guess what...they are the two cities driving the gun murder rate in Louisiana.....

Louisiana supported Trump. Large cities often vote Democratic.

 

[2aguy]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

I did listen to the video, I just happen not to see everything in right wing memes.

Yes, criminals don't always obey the law. However when a criminal goes and robs a bank, he doesn't go and break all laws at the same time. He doesn't stop off to rape someone just because he feels that it doesn't matter, he's broken one law, why not break ALL LAWS?

Many criminals don't rape people. Many criminals don't break a lot of the laws out there? Why?

Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago or anywhere else because they can't regulate all the guns within the area of boundaries. Those boundaries are the USA. So a person can go from one place to another place with a gun and not get caught, because there's no physical barrier. That's the problem here. Gun control within the USA would be a different matter entirely.

Wrong.....Chicago is short 2,000 police officers....the police officers they have are hamstrung by the ACLu and the Ferguson effect, gangs control the ward aldermen and vote down police resources.....that is the problem....not law abiding gun owners.

Houston is about the same size as Chicago, they have gun stores all over the place and Texas has a border with the Narco State of Mexico...and their gun murder number is lower than Chicagos.....Chicago has the same gun laws as New York, and L.A.....and has more gun murders than both cities combined......

It isn't guns, it is the lack of police, the hamstringing of police...and the lack of control on the West and South sides....

 

[2aguy]

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

What you mean to say is that it had no effect at all because gun legislation doesn't work.

I was looking at general murders, not gun murders. Gun murders is a worthless statistic, abused by gun-grabbing leftist nutjobs to push their propaganda whilst ignoring that their legislation doesn't work.

Actually, what I looked at to come to my conclusion was population size increases and decreases, police force increases and decreases, date of legislation, and the statistics for the MURDER RATE you linked. The murder rate barely changed, and it was such a long time after the legislation passed that the legislation couldn't have been the cause. Especially since mass murders with illegal firearms didn't cease. On the other hand, if everyone was armed, all it would have taken for the gunman to be stopped was one person. He probably wouldn't have murdered anyone. Good thing the UK took steps to disarm their populace.

The other things that lead to fluctuations are whether or not the 'homicides' included in the statistics are taking into account self defense, which they're not, because there's no way to differentiate. Other things influencing the difference in statistics are what America and the UK arm their police with, since the UK police aren't typically armed with guns, and aren't allowed to use them unless specifically authorized, and also that the UK has almost completely disarmed their populace, leading to significantly fewer deaths as a result to self defense. Considering that the statistics don't bother to differentiate between justified and unjustified homicide, it makes sense that statesthat allow their populace to defend themselves would have more deaths.

Yes, gun control is worthless~ unless you like seeing dead innocents, or prefer your subjects on their knees, as most governments do.

The biggest cities in Louisisana have been controlled by democrats for about 100 years....they are also soft on criminals...dittos Missouri....St. Louis.....democrat mayors since 1955.....Baltimore...they have driven their police force into the ground and are short cops...and the cops that are left are handicapped by the left and the Ferguson effect....

None of those cities have a gun issue, they have criminal issues and democrat party policy issues.....

Louisiana went republican after 1964.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

What you mean to say is that it had no effect at all because gun legislation doesn't work.

I was looking at general murders, not gun murders. Gun murders is a worthless statistic, abused by gun-grabbing leftist nutjobs to push their propaganda whilst ignoring that their legislation doesn't work.

Actually, what I looked at to come to my conclusion was population size increases and decreases, police force increases and decreases, date of legislation, and the statistics for the MURDER RATE you linked. The murder rate barely changed, and it was such a long time after the legislation passed that the legislation couldn't have been the cause. Especially since mass murders with illegal firearms didn't cease. On the other hand, if everyone was armed, all it would have taken for the gunman to be stopped was one person. He probably wouldn't have murdered anyone. Good thing the UK took steps to disarm their populace.

The other things that lead to fluctuations are whether or not the 'homicides' included in the statistics are taking into account self defense, which they're not, because there's no way to differentiate. Other things influencing the difference in statistics are what America and the UK arm their police with, since the UK police aren't typically armed with guns, and aren't allowed to use them unless specifically authorized, and also that the UK has almost completely disarmed their populace, leading to significantly fewer deaths as a result to self defense. Considering that the statistics don't bother to differentiate between justified and unjustified homicide, it makes sense that statesthat allow their populace to defend themselves would have more deaths.

Yes, gun control is worthless~ unless you like seeing dead innocents, or prefer your subjects on their knees, as most governments do.

The biggest cities in Louisisana have been controlled by democrats for about 100 years....they are also soft on criminals...dittos Missouri....St. Louis.....democrat mayors since 1955.....Baltimore...they have driven their police force into the ground and are short cops...and the cops that are left are handicapped by the left and the Ferguson effect....

None of those cities have a gun issue, they have criminal issues and democrat party policy issues.....

Nearly all the democrats in Louisiana registered as republicans after the Civil Rights act of 1964, just as President Johnson predicted. I lived there.

Wrong...

Baton Rouge...democrat party since 1953....

List of mayors of Baton Rouge, Louisiana - Wikipedia

New Orleans...democrats since 1872

List of mayors of New Orleans - Wikipedia

Oh...and guess what...they are the two cities driving the gun murder rate in Louisiana.....

Louisiana supported Trump. Large cities often vote Democratic.

Yep....and their revolving door policies on criminals who use guns drives their gun crime rates......which is funny since they ***** the most about gun crime...one could think they keep letting violent gun offenders back onto the street to push more gun control.....

 

[2aguy]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

I did listen to the video, I just happen not to see everything in right wing memes.

Yes, criminals don't always obey the law. However when a criminal goes and robs a bank, he doesn't go and break all laws at the same time. He doesn't stop off to rape someone just because he feels that it doesn't matter, he's broken one law, why not break ALL LAWS?

Many criminals don't rape people. Many criminals don't break a lot of the laws out there? Why?

Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago or anywhere else because they can't regulate all the guns within the area of boundaries. Those boundaries are the USA. So a person can go from one place to another place with a gun and not get caught, because there's no physical barrier. That's the problem here. Gun control within the USA would be a different matter entirely.

And that doesn't hold up when you consider L.A. and New York as well as Baltimore.......and then throw in Houston.......they all have the same access to guns and Chicago has the worst rate......Baltimore and D.C. are up and comers....

 

[2aguy]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

I did listen to the video, I just happen not to see everything in right wing memes.

Yes, criminals don't always obey the law. However when a criminal goes and robs a bank, he doesn't go and break all laws at the same time. He doesn't stop off to rape someone just because he feels that it doesn't matter, he's broken one law, why not break ALL LAWS?

Many criminals don't rape people. Many criminals don't break a lot of the laws out there? Why?

Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago or anywhere else because they can't regulate all the guns within the area of boundaries. Those boundaries are the USA. So a person can go from one place to another place with a gun and not get caught, because there's no physical barrier. That's the problem here. Gun control within the USA would be a different matter entirely.

No, the problem is that all guns can never be regulated. There are people who build guns themselves, and there are people who don't operate through legal channels, such as the black market. The best way to keep Americans safe is for all of them to be armed. People are far less likely to commit crimes if their potential victims are armed. Physical boundaries, much like gun laws, would only disarm people who follow the law.

It's true. But the issue is that in the UK there isn't much of a problem, is there? Gun deaths in the UK? 23 in 2013. Out of a population of 65 million people. The equivalent in the US would be about 2,000 murders.

Which is better, 23 murders or 2,000 murders?

Nope......gun murders in the U.K. went up after they banned guns.....their criminals decided to murder more people...then they went back to the same level after the ban....they decided not to murder more people....and British gun laws didn't do anything to stop them...

In fact....after Britain banned and confiscated guns...their gun crime rate went through the roof....their criminals don't murder each other or their victims...but that is changing...their homicide rate is going up...

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

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

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




========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

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

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

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

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

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

----

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

-----

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

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

-----

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

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

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

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

 

[2aguy]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

I did listen to the video, I just happen not to see everything in right wing memes.

Yes, criminals don't always obey the law. However when a criminal goes and robs a bank, he doesn't go and break all laws at the same time. He doesn't stop off to rape someone just because he feels that it doesn't matter, he's broken one law, why not break ALL LAWS?

Many criminals don't rape people. Many criminals don't break a lot of the laws out there? Why?

Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago or anywhere else because they can't regulate all the guns within the area of boundaries. Those boundaries are the USA. So a person can go from one place to another place with a gun and not get caught, because there's no physical barrier. That's the problem here. Gun control within the USA would be a different matter entirely.

No, the problem is that all guns can never be regulated. There are people who build guns themselves, and there are people who don't operate through legal channels, such as the black market. The best way to keep Americans safe is for all of them to be armed. People are far less likely to commit crimes if their potential victims are armed. Physical boundaries, much like gun laws, would only disarm people who follow the law.

It's true. But the issue is that in the UK there isn't much of a problem, is there? Gun deaths in the UK? 23 in 2013. Out of a population of 65 million people. The equivalent in the US would be about 2,000 murders.

Which is better, 23 murders or 2,000 murders?

Gun crime in Britain after the ban.....up 89%....

As Americans own and now carry more guns....our gun crime rate fell 75%...our gun murder rate went down 49%...our violent crime rate went down 72% .....

In the same time frame as Britain.........their gun ban didn't stop their criminals from getting guns.....

Our law abiding people owning and carrying guns didn't increase the gun crime rate or the gun murder rate...

Right there...you entire premise is shown to be bullshit.

 

[2aguy]

No, the problem is that all guns can never be regulated. There are people who build guns themselves, and there are people who don't operate through legal channels, such as the black market. The best way to keep Americans safe is for all of them to be armed. People are far less likely to commit crimes if their potential victims are armed. Physical boundaries, much like gun laws, would only disarm people who follow the law.

It's true. But the issue is that in the UK there isn't much of a problem, is there? Gun deaths in the UK? 23 in 2013. Out of a population of 65 million people. The equivalent in the US would be about 2,000 murders.

Which is better, 23 murders or 2,000 murders?

Oh look, you cited no sources for that claim, I'm so surprised. Besides that, Dapperton already debunked the number of gun murders in the US in the video.

You want sources huh?

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

Click Death and Injury, click Gun Homicides. You'll see:

"2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84"

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

Do the same:

"2014: 10,945"

List of countries and dependencies by population - Wikipedia

Click on United Kingdom and you will see 65,648,100
Click on USA and you will see 325,902,000

Open your calculator and divide the US's population by the UK's population. You will find 4.964378253140609

Take 10,945 and divide it by 4.964378253140609 and you will get 2,204.707103669201

That means the US murder rate would be 2,204 if it were in the UK. The UK murder rate was 23 for the year before.

As for Dapperton, I'm not arguing with Dapperton.

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

You know it didn't....you know gun crime has increase in a massive way each year.....and then you post this......

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

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

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




========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

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

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

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

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

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

----

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

-----

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

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

-----

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

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

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

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