Shootings in Britain

[Vagabond63]

Nope....not at all....I am showing that normal people can own and use guns safely and effectively,

Yes they can, with the proper licencing, registration and most important of all full and proper training in the use and storage of firearms.

 

[Vagabond63]

15 year old shot in the mouth....in a country with extreme gun control.....

And how did a 15 year old, the one suspected of being the shooter.....get a gun, in gun controlled Britain?

The teenager, 15, is fighting for his life in hospital after being gunned down on his first day back at Kesgrave High School, Ipswich, on Monday morning. A boy, also 15, was later arrested about five miles from the scene at 11am. According to sources, they had once been close friends, reported The Sun. One parent described hearing the shooting just before 8.30am. They said: ‘It was a very, very loud bang. Then there was a lot of shouting and screaming.’ -------
Another neighbour said their son also heard the sound of the blast followed by a ‘significant pause’ then a scream ‘maybe from someone who witnessed what happened’. He told the Mirror: ‘He was apparently shot in the mouth. Today would have been his first day back at school, so someone knew exactly where he would be. The boy who was shot comes from a good family.’


Read more: Terrified children heard 'very loud bang' before boy, 15, 'shot in face'

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: Metro


Read more: Terrified children heard 'very loud bang' before boy, 15, 'shot in face'

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: Metro

Terrified children heard 'very loud bang' before boy, 15, 'shot in face'

One parent said children took cover in her home after a woman was heard screaming 'run' in the streets.

metro.co.uk

How do you know that the weapon was illegal? An eyewitness stated the shooter looked as if they were carrying a brush or pole covered by clothes. That sounds like a rifle or shotgun, both of which are legally available in the UK. Perhaps his parents got careless, like many, many American parents and the kid got hold of the keys to the gun safe/cabinet?

It doesn't matter if it is legal...you dumb ass.....your gun control laws are supposed to stop criminals from using guns to commit crimes......they don't......what are the odds that those doing the shooting went through the rigorous training, and legal requirements to own that shotgun? You moron. And which gun control law in Britain kept them from walking into a school, a theater, a church?

Your criminal gangs will use guns when they want to shoot people ....and your gun control laws are not stopping them....handguns are becoming more and more convenient for your criminals....as they protect their drug trade.

This 15 year old boy was not a criminal until he pulled the trigger. Our hand gun ban was place to prevent mass shootings of innocent people and it has worked. Gun ownership is restricted so it's very difficult for whack jobs to go out and shoot up churches, schools, etc. in the UK, unlike in the US, where these events seem to occur every week.

How has your gun ban stopped mass shootings? Criminals and crazies still have access to guns, you doofus....the only reason you haven't had another mass shooting is the crazies haven't decided to do one........since they can obviously get guns in your country too.....

The Cumbria shooting.....12 people killed with a shotgun and bolt action rifle...you dumb ass.......

12 gauge double barreled shotgun,

.22 caliber bolt action rifle....

12 people killed........

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You don't understand anything you are talking about......

One, not using hand guns. How many mass shootings have there been in the US since 1997?

And yours is a stupid question....I have just pointed out that with a .22 bolt action rifle and a double barreled shotgun your guy murdered 12 people and injured 11.....meaning that any one of your crazies has access to weapons that can be used to kill as many people as our mass shooters do with their access to handguns......they just haven't decided to do it yet.......

Our "crazies" have a hard time even getting near a gun, let alone using one. Your single UK example is of a normal person who snapped under the various pressures in his life who was previously of good enough character to be allowed to own firearms. Your "crazies" and others in the same circumstances, just have to visit a gun fair or dodgy gun dealer, buy a gun, and start shooting. 98 mass shootings an countless other "non-mass" shootings in the US since 1997. In the UK, ONE. You even have to trawl through our local papers like the Liverpool Echo to find the occasional gang related shooting incident, which according to your "mindset" you don't count in America as it's a "blue on blue" event.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent rapes, robberies and murders......

vs. 76 people killed in mass public shootings....

In France, a muslim terrorist used a truck to murder 87 people and injure 434.......more than any mass public shooting with any type of gun......

Your arguments lack facts, truth and reality......

Also....in Europe, you guys took guns away from your peoples after World War 1......telling them it would make them safer..........

You then allowed the German socialists to murder 12 million unarmed, men, women and children....

If you add up all of our gun deaths from murder since 1939....even using the 2018 number....10,235 as the yearly average you get 818,000 dead. Of those, 70-80% of those murdered are criminals....murdered by other criminals in criminal acts and the lifestyle....of the rest, the majority of the victims are friends and family, caught up in the criminals lifestyle and shot as a result......

818,000 dead vs 12,000,000 in Europe....

You have no argument that is rational....nothing you say can defend taking guns away from normal people.....normal people who save lives with their guns 1,100,000 times a year in this country....................

Oh please, not this bullshit again. Can't be bothered to respond to this drivel.

 

[2aguy]

A woman is being attacked and raped.....do you think it is better she is raped, tortured and murdered or that she is able to have and use a gun to stop it?

You have refused to answer that question...you are a coward who hoped that time would make me forget to ask that question.

If a woman stops a rape with a gun, and you had the chance to go back in time to take that gun away from her...would you take that gun away from her?

Firstly you appear to have an unhealy obsession with rape, maybe you should seek counselling.
Secondly, your question is meaningless. Exactly how many women have used firearms in such a situation? Got a link to the relevant statistics that show women in America regularly use guns to protect themselves?

Your criminals get guns easily.....they don't use them to commit murder......more guns are flooding Britain as your immigrant gangs use them to enforce their drug turf.......

Not as easily as your criminals, who just need to walk into a gun shop or go to a gun fair in States that don't do any form of checking. Technically your criminals have a right to bear arms, like everyone else, it seems. I've never seen anything in you 2nd ammendment that says, ..."except criminals". But hey, why bother to buy guns when you can so easily steal them. Gun Theft in the United States: A State-by-State Analysis - Center for American Progress

You asked....you doofus...

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

 

[2aguy]

A woman is being attacked and raped.....do you think it is better she is raped, tortured and murdered or that she is able to have and use a gun to stop it?

You have refused to answer that question...you are a coward who hoped that time would make me forget to ask that question.

If a woman stops a rape with a gun, and you had the chance to go back in time to take that gun away from her...would you take that gun away from her?

Firstly you appear to have an unhealy obsession with rape, maybe you should seek counselling.
Secondly, your question is meaningless. Exactly how many women have used firearms in such a situation? Got a link to the relevant statistics that show women in America regularly use guns to protect themselves?

Your criminals get guns easily.....they don't use them to commit murder......more guns are flooding Britain as your immigrant gangs use them to enforce their drug turf.......

Not as easily as your criminals, who just need to walk into a gun shop or go to a gun fair in States that don't do any form of checking. Technically your criminals have a right to bear arms, like everyone else, it seems. I've never seen anything in you 2nd ammendment that says, ..."except criminals". But hey, why bother to buy guns when you can so easily steal them. Gun Theft in the United States: A State-by-State Analysis - Center for American Progress

You don't know what you are talking about......every licensed gun dealer has to do background checks, so criminals have to use mothers, baby mommas, to get their guns, since those women can pass the required background checks.....you dumb ass....


That criminals steal guns is the reason to ban them for normal people? You really are a stupid human being....

 

[2aguy]

And before the ban in Britain you averaged just one every 10 years...you had guns, you didn't have mass public shootings in large numbers.....gun control had nothing to do with you low rate of mass public shootings, you culture did......you are too stupid to understand that dynamic.

Exactly, your "culture" inherently promotes gun violence, so you need proper gun control in the form of registration, licencing, and most importantly, full training in firearms use, before any of you get anywhere near a gun.

No, our democrats party lets violent criminals out of jail....don't worry, you will learn what this is like as your lefties are pushing the same stupidity.

 

[2aguy]

Law abiding people carrying guns for self defense does not increase the murder rate...something Britains should learn....

• EMAIL

Courtesy Crime Prevention Research Center

John Lott has published his Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2020 and there’s lots of good news in it.
------
Other goods news is that chart above. It shows the murder rate has declined as the CCW rate increases.

But the trend is even more noticeable, to the point where one cannot honestly deny it.

Data Reveals Murders and Violent Crime Decrease as More People Carry Guns - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ John Lott has published his Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2020 and there’s lots of good news in it. The number of concealed handgun permits has soared to over 19.48 million – a 34% increase over 2016. Seventeen states no longer provide...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Crime prevention Research Centre? Ah, the John Lott propaganda factory, making things up again, got it.

You can't dispute his research...so you lie about him. You are a weak twit.

You call it "research" the rest of academia just roll their collective eyes and call it what is, "make believe, gun nut fantasies" Both Lott and Gleck are basically fringe conspiracy theorists masquerading as "researchers". They have been thoroughly debunked time after time, so there's no need for me to comment further.

Neither of them has been debunked and no one has been able to touch their research...you lying shit.

 

[2aguy]

A woman is being attacked and raped.....do you think it is better she is raped, tortured and murdered or that she is able to have and use a gun to stop it?

You have refused to answer that question...you are a coward who hoped that time would make me forget to ask that question.

If a woman stops a rape with a gun, and you had the chance to go back in time to take that gun away from her...would you take that gun away from her?

Firstly you appear to have an unhealy obsession with rape, maybe you should seek counselling.
Secondly, your question is meaningless. Exactly how many women have used firearms in such a situation? Got a link to the relevant statistics that show women in America regularly use guns to protect themselves?

Your criminals get guns easily.....they don't use them to commit murder......more guns are flooding Britain as your immigrant gangs use them to enforce their drug turf.......

Not as easily as your criminals, who just need to walk into a gun shop or go to a gun fair in States that don't do any form of checking. Technically your criminals have a right to bear arms, like everyone else, it seems. I've never seen anything in you 2nd ammendment that says, ..."except criminals". But hey, why bother to buy guns when you can so easily steal them. Gun Theft in the United States: A State-by-State Analysis - Center for American Progress

You refuse to answer a very easy question...here it is again...

A woman is being attacked and raped.....do you think it is better she is raped, tortured and murdered or that she is able to have and use a gun to stop it?

You have refused to answer that question...you are a coward who hoped that time would make me forget to ask that question.

 

[2aguy]

And before the ban in Britain you averaged just one every 10 years...you had guns, you didn't have mass public shootings in large numbers.....gun control had nothing to do with you low rate of mass public shootings, you culture did......you are too stupid to understand that dynamic.

Exactly, your "culture" inherently promotes gun violence, so you need proper gun control in the form of registration, licencing, and most importantly, full training in firearms use, before any of you get anywhere near a gun.

Shit for brains......as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down, by 49%....our gun crime rate went down by 75%...

You are really stupid....you have no facts to back up any of your claims and 27 years of experience in the U.S. shows you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Vagabond63]

You can't dispute his research...so you lie about him. You are a weak twit

I don’t have to, even your gun guru messiah figure Garry Kleck disputes Loot’s findings in his “Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control” book.

Also, serious academics don’t need to ceate “sock puppets” to support them and can provide data when requested, something Lott has signally failed to do for his alleged 1997 study.

 

[Vagabond63]

You asked....you doofus...

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape

Well that might be an answer to some question, but not the one I asked, here I’ll refresh your memory,

“Exactly how many women have used firearms in such a situation (i.e. attempted rape)?”

As regards your cut and paste article…seriously, a college newspaper is the best you can do! Even the article itself basically disagrees with your theories, not to mention, using data from 50 years ago… and best of all, the author, Robert J. Woolley was himself fired from his job for…wait for it…sexual assault on a colleague!!! Priceless! Oh, my ribs… stop it.

 

[Vagabond63]

You don't know what you are talking about......every licensed gun dealer has to do background checks…

Not in Idaho or Montana. Also, ever heard of the “Gun show loophole”?

 

[Vagabond63]

That criminals steal guns is the reason to ban them for normal people?

No, but it’s a reason to have them registered and sold to people who are properly trained and licenced, who can store them securely, so they are very difficult, if not impossible to steal.

 

[Vagabond63]

...as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down, by 49%....our gun crime rate went down by 75%...

And again we have a fine example of the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy. No social survey or academic research has ever mentioned gun ownership as a factor in the decline in gun murder rates or crime rates. This is further illustrated that the same rates declined throughout the Western world over the same period in countries with gun control laws.

 

[2aguy]

You can't dispute his research...so you lie about him. You are a weak twit

I don’t have to, even your gun guru messiah figure Garry Kleck disputes Loot’s findings in his “Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control” book.

Also, serious academics don’t need to ceate “sock puppets” to support them and can provide data when requested, something Lott has signally failed to do for his alleged 1997 study.

Lott did provide the data, and if you weren't such a hack you would know that...


1) He provides this data, and they screwed it up, not lott...
Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, crime, shall-issue, right-to-carry, NRC

Abstract
In an article titled “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy” published in the American Law and Economics Review in 2011, Abhay Aneja, John Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang report on their inability to replicate regression estimates appearing in the 2005 National Research Council (NRC) report Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.

They suggest that there are flaws in the data that John Lott had supplied to the NRC.

This suggestion could sow seeds of doubt with respect to the many studies that have used that data.

The source of the replication problem, however, was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang did not estimate the correct model specification—a problem that they have acknowledged in subsequent communications. However, in these later communications they do not make clear that the basis for their doubts about the Lott-originated data has disappeared.

2)

Here....

Response to Malkin's Op-ed

people who say he gave them his info. easily

John Lott's website

David Friedman defends lott against various critics...

My_Comments_on_the_Lott_Controversy.html

zhou, donahue used the wrong numbers when they attempted to criticize lott...and then refused to admit their error....

Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, crime, shall-issue, right-to-carry, NRC


Mother jones attack against Lottt…

John Lott's Website: Mother Jones joins the list of left wingers trying to discredit me and the Crime Prevention Research Center

*****************

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center

For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper.
In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated. Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.

In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”

------

Lott defends against accusations he works for gun lobby

What gun control advocates bring up when they have nothing else to say, More attacks against the CPRC by gun control advocates - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[2aguy]

You don't know what you are talking about......every licensed gun dealer has to do background checks…

Not in Idaho or Montana. Also, ever heard of the “Gun show loophole”?

You are an idiot...there is no gun show loophole you tool. And yes...in Idaho and Montana gun stores have to do federal background checks....

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about........and yet you still post it.

 

[2aguy]

...as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down, by 49%....our gun crime rate went down by 75%...

And again we have a fine example of the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy. No social survey or academic research has ever mentioned gun ownership as a factor in the decline in gun murder rates or crime rates. This is further illustrated that the same rates declined throughout the Western world over the same period in countries with gun control laws.

No....moron....and you are pretending not to understand what that post means though it was explained to you over and over.....you are a vile human being.....

Your claim...more guns will mean more gun murder and more gun crime.

27 years of actual experience in the United States....more people who own and carry guns and the gun murder rate went down 49%, not up.....gun crime went down 75%....not up...

That means you are wrong.....

This means that when the crime rates around the world go down, including in the United States by more than those around the world, normal people who own guns do not create gun murder or gun crime.

Nothing you believe about guns is even remotely accurate or true.....

 

[2aguy]

...as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down, by 49%....our gun crime rate went down by 75%...

And again we have a fine example of the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy. No social survey or academic research has ever mentioned gun ownership as a factor in the decline in gun murder rates or crime rates. This is further illustrated that the same rates declined throughout the Western world over the same period in countries with gun control laws.

Your argument...

And again we have a fine example of the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy. No social survey or academic research has ever mentioned gun ownership as a factor in the decline in gun murder rates or crime rates. This is further illustrated that the same rates declined throughout the Western world over the same period in countries with gun control laws.

This means that in the same period.......as more Americans owned and actually carried guns for self defense....the gun crime rates, the gun murder rates and the violent crime rates did not go up....

That means, you doofus.....that people owning guns does not increase the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate or the violent crime rate........

Gun ownership by law abiding citizens is not a factor that increases gun crime.......you doofus....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

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

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

Courtesy Crime Prevention Research Center


John Lott has published his Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2020 and there’s lots of good news in it.

• The number of concealed handgun permits has soared to over 19.48 million – a 34% increase over 2016.
• Seventeen states no longer provide data on all the people who are legally carrying a concealed handgun because people in those states no longer need a permit to carry.
• Permits for women and minorities continue to increase at a much faster rate than for either men or whites.
• Five states now have over 1 million permit holders: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Florida is the first state to have over 2 million permits.

And more. On personal note, I’m proud that my own state is one of those with a million-plus. That’s particularly impressive, because the last time I checked, we were only around 700,000; about 1 in 8 adults.

Other goods news is that chart above. It shows the murder rate has declined as the CCW rate increases. That’s not news to TTAG regulars, but it’s nice to see it confirmed for yet another year. In case some gun-grabbing type wants to argue that the murder rate trend is really almost flat, so it doesn’t mean anything, take a look at the CCW vs. violent crime trend. Concealed carry is up while violent crime down.

But the trend is even more noticeable, to the point where one cannot honestly deny it.

Courtesy Crime Prevention Research Center


I

 

[Vagabond63]

Lott did provide the data, and if you weren't such a hack you would know that...

Why thank you, I was unaware of this other more recent controversy about Lott’s so called “research”. I referenced his failure to provide his original data when he claimed his hard drive failed and he lost all his data, along with the details of anyone he employed to obtain said data, allow me to remind you,

“Also, serious academics don’t need to create “sock puppets” to support them and can provide data when requested, something Lott has signally failed to do for his alleged 1997 study.” Post #489

Interesting paragraph from that “controversy”

“Given the findings of ADZ(2011), even if it were true that the original data were flawless, it is entirely mis-leading to state that the original More Guns, Less Crime hypothesis has now been tested many times over the past decade and a half, with a majority “finding some support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws reduce crime” (MLM 2013, 26).

A more helpfully accurate statement would be that the NRC’s 2005 report concluded that all of the previous articles that appeared to provide support for the More Guns, Less Crime hypothesis in fact did not provide credible statistical support for that view.”

Substance vs. Sideshows in the More Guns, Less Crime Debate: A Comment on Moody, Lott, and Marvell · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, crime, shall-issue, right-to-carry, NRC

Our recent work affirms the basic conclusion of the 2005 National Research Council report that there is no credible statistical support for the claim …

econjwatch.org

 

[Vagabond63]

...there is no gun show loophole you tool. And yes...in Idaho and Montana gun stores have to do federal background checks....

Gun show loophole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Montana gun control laws are some of the most permissive in the country. A Montana resident does not need a registration, license, or permit to purchase or possess firearms. A background check is not required under state law when buying a firearm in a private sale, although local ordinances may apply. Apr 8, 2019

Montana law does not prohibit sales of firearms to out-of-state residents, but federal laws and the laws of your resident state might. Montana Gun Control Laws - FindLaw

Idaho is not a point of contact state for NICS. Idaho has no law requiring firearms dealers to initiate a background check prior to transferring a firearm.

Holders of concealed weapons licenses in Idaho are exempt from background checks when purchasing a firearm. Background Check Procedures in Idaho | Giffords

I agree that Federally licenced gun dealers must carry out background checks anywhere in the USA, but laws are broken with alarming regularity, as you point out here.

…so criminals have to use mothers, baby mommas, to get their guns, since those women can pass the required background checks...

post #484

“About 50,000 guns are found to be diverted to criminals across state lines every year, federal data shows, and many more are likely to cross state lines undetected.”

Interesting article on how easy it is to smuggle guns across the USA. Another argument for gun control if ever there was one.
How Gun Traffickers Get Around State Gun Laws (Published 2015)

 

[Vagabond63]

Your claim...more guns will mean more gun murder and more gun crime.

That might be someone’s claim, but it has never been mine. See post #481

I consistently argue that if the general public are to have access to firearms, the firearms must be registered for traceability, the person wanting the weapon should be vetted and licenced, and most importantly can only acquire a gun after extensive training in its use and secure safekeeping.

I also argue that the gun controls we have here in the UK work.

As do the gun control regulations in other European countries, unlike the apparent free for all you have in America. Since we banned assault rifles and concealable handguns, we’ve had one mass shooting in over twenty years, how many mass shootings have happened over the last 20 years in the USA? 98.

When there is a firearms incident over here, it’s big news, whereas in America the phrase “shots fired” is so commonplace, such incidents barely get a mention in local news outlets never mind national news media.