Shootings in Britain

[AZrailwhale]

Can you tell which number is bigger and how many lives are saved by Americans with guns?

54 children killed is presumably a documented fact. The rest, lives saved with guns, is fantasy, estimation, extrapolation, and guesswork.

If the number of lives saved by legal possession of a gun is more than one the case for guns is made. I can't see even the most biased person saying that legal possession of guns haven't saved at least one person's life.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Should have anticipated the usual deluge of cut and paste...hey ho.

There is no need to register guns. No reason at all.

Then why register cars? So, you know which gun belongs to which owner, and when it’s sold on, the transfer of ownership is recorded. You do it for cars, why not guns, which are arguably as much if not more dangerous.

Registering guns has one goal.....knowing who owns the gun so when you have the political power you know where to find them for confiscation.

Registration of guns does not work....since criminals can't buy, own or carry guns in the first place, they will not have legally registered guns when they commit their crimes......you doofus. So registering them to normal people has no effect on solving crimes. Finding a gun that has been stolen and used in a crime does not tell you who pulled the trigger.......the average street life of a gun is about 11 years...after it is stolen......so again...you don't know what you are talking about...

Here.....the truth, in cut and paste....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...

10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

cssa-cila.org

Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.


Bullet tracking..

Maryland scraps gun "fingerprint" database after 15 failed years
Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the "fingerprints" of thousands of handguns was a failure.

Since 2000, the state required that gun manufacturers fire every handgun to be sold here and send the spent bullet casing to authorities. The idea was to build a database of "ballistic fingerprints" to help solve future crimes.

But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case. Now the hundreds of thousands of accumulated casings could be sold for scrap.

"Obviously, I'm disappointed," said former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat whose administration pushed for the database to fulfill a campaign promise. "It's a little unfortunate, in that logic and common sense suggest that it would be a good crime-fighting tool."

The database "was a waste," said Frank Sloane, owner of Pasadena Gun & Pawn in Anne Arundel County. "There's things that they could have done that would have made sense. This didn't make any sense."

Even if registering guns was mandatory, criminals couldn't be prosecuted for failing to register their guns because the Fifth Amendment protects them from self-incrimination. When criminals would registerer their guns, they would be admitting that they were committing a crime by possessing the gun in the first place.

 

[2aguy]

Should have anticipated the usual deluge of cut and paste...hey ho.

There is no need to register guns. No reason at all.

Then why register cars? So, you know which gun belongs to which owner, and when it’s sold on, the transfer of ownership is recorded. You do it for cars, why not guns, which are arguably as much if not more dangerous.

Registering guns has one goal.....knowing who owns the gun so when you have the political power you know where to find them for confiscation.

Registration of guns does not work....since criminals can't buy, own or carry guns in the first place, they will not have legally registered guns when they commit their crimes......you doofus. So registering them to normal people has no effect on solving crimes. Finding a gun that has been stolen and used in a crime does not tell you who pulled the trigger.......the average street life of a gun is about 11 years...after it is stolen......so again...you don't know what you are talking about...

Here.....the truth, in cut and paste....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...

10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

cssa-cila.org

Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.


Bullet tracking..

Maryland scraps gun "fingerprint" database after 15 failed years
Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the "fingerprints" of thousands of handguns was a failure.

Since 2000, the state required that gun manufacturers fire every handgun to be sold here and send the spent bullet casing to authorities. The idea was to build a database of "ballistic fingerprints" to help solve future crimes.

But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case. Now the hundreds of thousands of accumulated casings could be sold for scrap.

"Obviously, I'm disappointed," said former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat whose administration pushed for the database to fulfill a campaign promise. "It's a little unfortunate, in that logic and common sense suggest that it would be a good crime-fighting tool."

The database "was a waste," said Frank Sloane, owner of Pasadena Gun & Pawn in Anne Arundel County. "There's things that they could have done that would have made sense. This didn't make any sense."

Even if registering guns was mandatory, criminals couldn't be prosecuted for failing to register their guns because the Fifth Amendment protects them from self-incrimination. When criminals would registerer their guns, they would be admitting that they were committing a crime by possessing the gun in the first place.

Yep...you are correct, Haynes v United States from the Supreme Court ruled just that way. Only law abiding people can be prosecuted for not registering their guns....

Dumb, isn't it?

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4]

The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem.

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[2aguy]

An 80 year old man in Britain would simply have to submit to two young car jackers.....in America......they get shot....

Investigators said an 80-year-old Pensacola, Florida, man walked outside to lock his cars just after 11 p.m. Tuesday when two males approached him and demanded his car, WEAR-TV reported.
One of the suspects pulled a gun on the elderly victim, WKRG-TV reported.
But it turns out their target came prepared. Police said the homeowner grabbed his concealed weapon — for which he has a permit — and opened fire, WEAR reported.
Both suspects ran off, WKRG said, adding that one of the victims turned up at a house with a gunshot wound. The second suspect got away, WEAR reported.
--------
Well, it looks like both suspects have an opportunity to step back and evaluate their life choices, now doesn’t it?
------
After all, bad guys are predators. They like to look for easy prey, people like 80-year-old guys in Florida.

And that’s why owning and carrying a gun is so important.

Even an armed criminal is likely to run from an armed citizen defending themselves. While I often point out that bad guys set the terms of engagement, the truth is that the armed citizen is likely the more tenacious side. After all, escape is usually not really an option for the armed citizen. They have their lives to defend.

Putting up a fight really does seem to be the best option when faced with an armed criminal, and this gentleman did fight. As a result, he went home that night and at least one of the thugs went to the hospital. Sure, another got away, but he’s going to have that memory of damn near being lit up by some old guy who didn’t want to give up his cars or his life.

80-Year-Old Armed Citizen Teaches Carjackers Valuable Life Lesson

An elderly man in Florida faced with armed carjackers produced his own firearm and defended himself.

bearingarms.com

And a true observation that anti-gun extremists never understand and this is why the get the entire guns for self defense argument wrong...

Guns don’t make men evil. They don’t create criminals where none existed previously. They do, however, give people who may not be physically able to meet physical threats an edge that allows them to protect themselves.

 

[2aguy]

Kids.....sitting at their table eating Christmas dinner when criminals shoot at their home.....in gun controlled Britain.....

A house in Manchester was shot at as children were inside eating their Christmas dinner. Police have launched an investigation after shots were fired on two separate occasions at the property in Moston on December 25. Two adults in their 50s and two teenagers, aged 17 and 14, were inside the property when it was first targeted at 1am, police said. A young child and two other adults, aged 40 and 35, were also present having their Christmas dinner during the second shooting.


Read more: Shots fired at family home as children eat their Christmas dinner

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

Shots fired at family home as children eat their Christmas dinner

Police have launched an investigation after shots were fired at the property in Manchester on two separate occasions.

metro.co.uk

 

[Vagabond63]

Can you tell which number is bigger and how many lives are saved by Americans with guns?

54 children killed is presumably a documented fact. The rest, lives saved with guns, is fantasy, estimation, extrapolation, and guesswork.

If the number of lives saved by legal possession of a gun is more than one the case for guns is made. I can't see even the most biased person saying that legal possession of guns haven't saved at least one person's life.

Using your logic then, if the lives saved by controlling guns is more than one, the case for gun control is made.

 

[2aguy]

Can you tell which number is bigger and how many lives are saved by Americans with guns?

54 children killed is presumably a documented fact. The rest, lives saved with guns, is fantasy, estimation, extrapolation, and guesswork.

If the number of lives saved by legal possession of a gun is more than one the case for guns is made. I can't see even the most biased person saying that legal possession of guns haven't saved at least one person's life.

Using your logic then, if the lives saved by controlling guns is more than one, the case for gun control is made.

And if the lives saved by allowing people to own and carry guns is in the 10s of thousands, the case for freedom is made......

Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct


that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—less some attackers who lost their lives to defenders. This enormous benefit dwarfs, both in human and economic terms, the losses trumpeted by hoplophobes who only choose to see the risk side of the equation.



A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..


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]

Can you tell which number is bigger and how many lives are saved by Americans with guns?

54 children killed is presumably a documented fact. The rest, lives saved with guns, is fantasy, estimation, extrapolation, and guesswork.

If the number of lives saved by legal possession of a gun is more than one the case for guns is made. I can't see even the most biased person saying that legal possession of guns haven't saved at least one person's life.

Using your logic then, if the lives saved by controlling guns is more than one, the case for gun control is made.

Hey...Vagabond.....been a while...

Again...

Which is better, which do you prefer....

That a woman is tortured, raped and murdered....or she is able to own and even carry a gun to prevent the rape torture and murder?

If a woman uses a gun to stop a violent rape....would you like to go back in time to be able to take that gun away from her?

Since you refuse to answer those questions...I will keep posing them to you.....

 

[Vagabond63]

And if the lives saved by allowing people to own and carry guns is in the 10s of thousands, the case for freedom is made....

Oh, you mean by attempting a violent insurrection against a lawfully elected government in order to prevent them validating a free and fair election result in order to impose an orange narcissist dictator?

Interesting how when a "well regulated militia" turned up to prevent this, all the Right wing white supremacist gun-nuts just melted away like snow in the sunshine... Yes the case for freedom was made, America needs gun control, so only responsible adults can have them as opposed to the whackjob conspiracy theorists and other gullables who swallow the bovine excrement from sources like your own firehose of falsehood like post #687 above.

 

[Vagabond63]

Can you tell which number is bigger and how many lives are saved by Americans with guns?

54 children killed is presumably a documented fact. The rest, lives saved with guns, is fantasy, estimation, extrapolation, and guesswork.

If the number of lives saved by legal possession of a gun is more than one the case for guns is made. I can't see even the most biased person saying that legal possession of guns haven't saved at least one person's life.

Using your logic then, if the lives saved by controlling guns is more than one, the case for gun control is made.

Hey...Vagabond.....been a while...

Again...

Which is better, which do you prefer....

That a woman is tortured, raped and murdered....or she is able to own and even carry a gun to prevent the rape torture and murder?

If a woman uses a gun to stop a violent rape....would you like to go back in time to be able to take that gun away from her?

Since you refuse to answer those questions...I will keep posing them to you.....

Well, had you not been too busy continually regurgitating your torrential cut and paste BS, you'd have noticed the fact I have answered you twice now. I can't be bothered to trawl back through the morass of your cut and paste BS to find them again, so knock yourself out .

 

[2aguy]

And if the lives saved by allowing people to own and carry guns is in the 10s of thousands, the case for freedom is made....

Oh, you mean by attempting a violent insurrection against a lawfully elected government in order to prevent them validating a free and fair election result in order to impose an orange narcissist dictator?

Interesting how when a "well regulated militia" turned up to prevent this, all the Right wing white supremacist gun-nuts just melted away like snow in the sunshine... Yes the case for freedom was made, America needs gun control, so only responsible adults can have them as opposed to the whackjob conspiracy theorists and other gullables who swallow the bovine excrement from sources like your own firehose of falsehood like post #687 above.

It wasn't an insurrection......it was a bunch of people milling around taking selfies while antifa/blm members of the democrat party attacked police and vandalized the building.

Which is better, which do you prefer....

That a woman is tortured, raped and murdered....or she is able to own and even carry a gun to prevent the rape torture and murder?

If a woman uses a gun to stop a violent rape....would you like to go back in time to be able to take that gun away from her?

Since you refuse to answer those questions...I will keep posing them to you....

 

[2aguy]

Can you tell which number is bigger and how many lives are saved by Americans with guns?

54 children killed is presumably a documented fact. The rest, lives saved with guns, is fantasy, estimation, extrapolation, and guesswork.

If the number of lives saved by legal possession of a gun is more than one the case for guns is made. I can't see even the most biased person saying that legal possession of guns haven't saved at least one person's life.

Using your logic then, if the lives saved by controlling guns is more than one, the case for gun control is made.

Hey...Vagabond.....been a while...

Again...

Which is better, which do you prefer....

That a woman is tortured, raped and murdered....or she is able to own and even carry a gun to prevent the rape torture and murder?

If a woman uses a gun to stop a violent rape....would you like to go back in time to be able to take that gun away from her?

Since you refuse to answer those questions...I will keep posing them to you.....

Well, had you not been too busy continually regurgitating your torrential cut and paste BS, you'd have noticed the fact I have answered you twice now. I can't be bothered to trawl back through the morass of your cut and paste BS to find them again, so knock yourself out .

You refused to answer the questions..........so again..

Which is better, which do you prefer....

That a woman is tortured, raped and murdered....or she is able to own and even carry a gun to prevent the rape torture and murder?

If a woman uses a gun to stop a violent rape....would you like to go back in time to be able to take that gun away from her?

Since you refuse to answer those questions...I will keep posing them to you....

 

[2aguy]

But......how do British criminals have guns......and hand grenades? Looks like they are following the lead of Swedish gangs and tooling up ......hand grenades?

Guns and hand grenades found in Manchester....

Flats evacuated after police find guns and hand grenades during armed raids

400 people were forced from their homes during the huge police investigation.

metro.co.uk

 

[2aguy]

Can someone from Britain explain to us how it is that 14-15 year olds used a gun, in Britain, to murder another 15 year old boy?

Did you guys forget to include 14 and 15 year olds when you banned guns?

The youngest of the two had the gun? Odd that a 14 year old in Britain had a gun......

A pair of young teenagers, 14 and 15, have appeared in court after being charged with murdering another 15-year-old with a ‘gang of youths’. Keon Lincoln died after suffering stab and gunshot wounds from a group of youngsters who attacked him in broad daylight outside his home in Handsworth, Birmingham. Two teenagers, 14 and 15, were arrested on suspicion of his murder and they appeared in court today.
----
While they have both been charged for murder, the youngest defendant faces another charge of possessing a firearm and the oldest has been charged with possessing a knife.


Read more: Teenagers in court charged with murder of boy, 15, who was shot and stabbed

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/


Read more: Teenagers in court charged with murder of boy, 15, who was shot and stabbed

Teenagers in court charged with murder of boy, 15, who was shot and stabbed

They both face charges of murder while the 14-year-old is also charged with possessing a firearm.

metro.co.uk

 

[2aguy]

And these guys? Sentenced in another shooting......in gun free Britain?

Two jailed after man shot with sawn-off shotgun through van window

The pair have received a combined total of 37 years in prison.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[2aguy]

British cop? Never seen so many guns taken off of the streets of London....

But...how is that possible? They banned and confiscated guns in the 1990s....so Britain should be gun free, especially for criminals....

Right?

He told the Standard: “In nearly 30 years’ service, I’ve never seen this amount of firearms being taken off the streets of London.

Guns blitz as Met targets underworld armourers in dawn raids

At least 41 firearms including an Uzi submachine gun were seized

www.standard.co.uk