Teenager and 20 year old shot Friday night....in Britain, where they have gun control...

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

For the actual criminals, sure......but there is no reason to keep law abiding people from owning and carrying guns. and storage laws are useless, and simply set up normal people to have their gun rights removed for failing to lock a safe....in their own home....

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.

No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?


And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........

And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.

The very fact that you have to ask the government for permission to own a weapon is draconian
Pump action shotguns and semiautomatic rifles above .22 caliber were prohibited as were hollow point rounds

so basically you Brits are denied the most effective home defense weapon, a pump action shotgun and the most effective ammunition, the hollow point

but then again we Americans are used to having more rights than you people

 

[Tommy Tainant]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

For the actual criminals, sure......but there is no reason to keep law abiding people from owning and carrying guns. and storage laws are useless, and simply set up normal people to have their gun rights removed for failing to lock a safe....in their own home....

They obviously work in the UK.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.

No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?


And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........

And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....

You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.

However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

For the actual criminals, sure......but there is no reason to keep law abiding people from owning and carrying guns. and storage laws are useless, and simply set up normal people to have their gun rights removed for failing to lock a safe....in their own home....

They obviously work in the UK.

No...they don't. British culture is what worked......again....please explain to us which part of the law you cited would stop the legal owner of a shotgun...who stores it according to your laws......from taking that gun out of the safe, taking it to a school and shooting kids.

Your country is about to have a problem..you have a social welfare state creating young males who are learning to kill....and you imported violent foreigners from 3rd world countries who are forming criminal gangs...look at the names in your gang shootings......they aren't Chauncey and Alfred.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well gun grabber control freaks I'm going to buy a new pistol online right now

too bad I can't see your heads explode

 

[2aguy]

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.

No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?


And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........

And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....

You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.

However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.

Except for the Cumbria shooter in 2010...right....? He held a legal certificate for both a shotgun and rifle.......and tell us which gun law in Britain kept him from going to a school and killing kids......He killed 20 people....in gun controlled Britain...

He could easily have gone to a grammar school and killed kids...he chose not to......

Which of Britain's gun laws stopped him?

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British histor

----------

Bird had held a shotgun certificate since 1974 and had renewed it several times, most recently in 2005, and had held a firearms certificate for a rifle from 2007 onward.[30][31]

 

[Meane]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

And in the 1940s Europe allowed 12 million people to be murdered in gas chambers....unarmed people....averaging that out, their murder rate is higher than ours.....

And to cite Kellerman is a mistake......he retracted his numbers.....and the subjects he used were the most deviant samples he could find......

Here is all you need to know about Kellerman...



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

The study where he changed his number is linked below this piece on his 43 times number....


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

And now where he retracted that number....

MMS: Error

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



-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

And of course they Cite the National Crime Victimization Survey...do you know why they do this......? It is a study that professes to document the defensive use of guns...and puts out a number......the problem....? It is not a defensive gun use study...and in fact, does not use the word "gun" in any of it's questions......so their data on gun self defense is worthless.....

Here...don't trust me...Trust left wing, anti gun Daily Kos...

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

And another problem with this authors use of the NCVS...they can't even accurately count the very things they are supposed to be studying....

So Why would you use it as a reference....?


National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do.

But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

Donahue is a rabid anti gunner......he fails to disclose the actual research that actually studied defensive gun use .....here are some of the studies and the numbers they found....

I just averaged the studies at the bottom......I took only studies that exluded military and police gun use.....notice, theses studies which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

Self defense with a gun:

Self defense with a gun......40 years of actual research...first is the name of the group that conducted the research, then the year, then the number of defensive gun uses and finally wether the research contained police or military defensive gun uses....

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.

No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?


And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........

And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....

You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.

However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.

Except for the Cumbria shooter in 2010...right....? He held a legal certificate for both a shotgun and rifle.......and tell us which gun law in Britain kept him from going to a school and killing kids......He killed 20 people....in gun controlled Britain...

He could easily have gone to a grammar school and killed kids...he chose not to......

Which of Britain's gun laws stopped him?

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British histor

----------

Bird had held a shotgun certificate since 1974 and had renewed it several times, most recently in 2005, and had held a firearms certificate for a rifle from 2007 onward.[30][31]

Derick Bird was the exception. His case was the only one under current legislation. If only the US could say the same eh ?

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

And on top of everything else....donahue is wrong.....as actual statistics on crime show....as more Americans bought and carried guns....our gun crime rates have gone down, not up.....

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.

--------

Voters’ perceptions of crime continue to conflict with reality

Official government crime statistics paint a strikingly different picture. Between 2008 and 2015 (the most recent year for which data are available), U.S. violent crime and property crime rates fell 19% and 23%, respectively, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which tallies serious crimes reported to police in more than 18,000 jurisdictions around the nation.

Another Justice Department agency, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, produces its own annual crime report, based on a survey of more than 90,000 households that counts crimes that aren’t reported to police in addition to those that are. BJS data show that violent crime and property crime rates fell 26% and 22%, respectively, between 2008 and 2015 (again, the most recent year available).

 

[2aguy]

common sense to a Brit maybe

I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.

No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?


And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........

And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....

You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.

However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.

Except for the Cumbria shooter in 2010...right....? He held a legal certificate for both a shotgun and rifle.......and tell us which gun law in Britain kept him from going to a school and killing kids......He killed 20 people....in gun controlled Britain...

He could easily have gone to a grammar school and killed kids...he chose not to......

Which of Britain's gun laws stopped him?

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British histor

----------

Bird had held a shotgun certificate since 1974 and had renewed it several times, most recently in 2005, and had held a firearms certificate for a rifle from 2007 onward.[30][31]

Derick Bird was the exception. His case was the only one under current legislation. If only the US could say the same eh ?

No....you don't get to do that....he was a licensed gun owner.....more than likely stored his gun safely.....now tell us....which British gun control law kept him from walking into a school and murdering kids...instead of the 12 people he actually murdered?

You haven't had more school shootings because of the culture, or nature of British citizens....not because of your gun control laws.....but as I keep showing you...your gun crime rate is going up.....after decades of your ban....

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

And donahue is still wrong....here is a look at guns and rape prevention....

And here we have studies that show that guns are the most effective way to stop a rape.....

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.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.

No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?


And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........

And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....

You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.

However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.

Except for the Cumbria shooter in 2010...right....? He held a legal certificate for both a shotgun and rifle.......and tell us which gun law in Britain kept him from going to a school and killing kids......He killed 20 people....in gun controlled Britain...

He could easily have gone to a grammar school and killed kids...he chose not to......

Which of Britain's gun laws stopped him?

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British histor

----------

Bird had held a shotgun certificate since 1974 and had renewed it several times, most recently in 2005, and had held a firearms certificate for a rifle from 2007 onward.[30][31]

Derick Bird was the exception. His case was the only one under current legislation. If only the US could say the same eh ?

No....you don't get to do that....he was a licensed gun owner.....more than likely stored his gun safely.....now tell us....which British gun control law kept him from walking into a school and murdering kids...instead of the 12 people he actually murdered?

You haven't had more school shootings because of the culture, or nature of British citizens....not because of your gun control laws.....but as I keep showing you...your gun crime rate is going up.....after decades of your ban....

And again I tell you that our gun laws are a part of our culture that makes us safer than you.
Its laughable that you consider yourself qualified to lecture us on our gun laws.
Please help me here. How can we bring "down" our fatalities to US levels ?

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

This is an important point on Kellerman...

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

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

For example, 53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

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

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

 

[2aguy]

No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?


And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........

And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....

You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.

However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.

Except for the Cumbria shooter in 2010...right....? He held a legal certificate for both a shotgun and rifle.......and tell us which gun law in Britain kept him from going to a school and killing kids......He killed 20 people....in gun controlled Britain...

He could easily have gone to a grammar school and killed kids...he chose not to......

Which of Britain's gun laws stopped him?

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British histor

----------

Bird had held a shotgun certificate since 1974 and had renewed it several times, most recently in 2005, and had held a firearms certificate for a rifle from 2007 onward.[30][31]

Derick Bird was the exception. His case was the only one under current legislation. If only the US could say the same eh ?

No....you don't get to do that....he was a licensed gun owner.....more than likely stored his gun safely.....now tell us....which British gun control law kept him from walking into a school and murdering kids...instead of the 12 people he actually murdered?

You haven't had more school shootings because of the culture, or nature of British citizens....not because of your gun control laws.....but as I keep showing you...your gun crime rate is going up.....after decades of your ban....

And again I tell you that our gun laws are a part of our culture that makes us safer than you.
Its laughable that you consider yourself qualified to lecture us on our gun laws.
Please help me here. How can we bring "down" our fatalities to US levels ?

Allowing normal, law abiding citizens to own and carry guns......long prison sentences for criminals caught carrying guns....

Hiring more police.....you are short police...and that is going to catch up with you......

We had a spike in crime going into the 1960s.......that lasted till the mid 1990s.....when we changed our laws and allowed people to carry guns....our gun murder rate went down 49%...our gun crime rate went down 75%...our violent crime rate went down 72%....

You are entering a period much like our 1960s.....your crime rates are going up...you have young males raised by single mothers...and on top of that, you have imported foreigners from countries that do not share your British culture......it is leading to more violence.....