Jump to content

Aren't guns illegal in GB?


RC K9
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I understand the rush to point out gun violence elsewhere but using GB is really a terrible example. Their gun crime is a fraction of what our's is and to even be caught with an illegal firearm there gets you a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison. Just not a good example to use.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the rush to point out gun violence elsewhere but using GB is really a terrible example. Their gun crime is a fraction of what our's is and to even be caught with an illegal firearm there gets you a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison. Just not a good example to use.

 

Obviously if you can't legally have one period their gun chrime rate will be lower than ours..

 

The point I believe was that even banning them doesn't stop someone who doesn't obey they law anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, kinda thought that with the Orlando massacre fresh in our minds that people wouldn't be so quick to dance on the not-yet-buried body of an innocent woman to "prove" their political point.

 

A+ thread, will question humanity again.

 

In this political world, if you aren't dancing on warm bodies, you aren't going to get votes and rally your troops to say and do stupid things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source?

http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/violent-crime-us-abroad/

 

read towards the bottom of the article.... or just do a quick google search... people argue both ways... mostly saying that the definition of violent crimes are defined differently in the UK than the US, but one thing is made blindingly obvious... people still find ways to hurt people regardless of what tool they have.... Time to stop blaming the tool. How about people who are on the FBI watch list, don't allow them to purchase a firearm.. that's something I can get behind. What I cannot and will not get behind is taking that right away from the 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of people who would use a firearm properly and should be allowed to purchase a tank if they want to as long as they are found to be mentally sound, a US citizen, and NOT ON AN FBI WATCH LIST. Seems pretty simple to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, kinda thought that with the Orlando massacre fresh in our minds that people wouldn't be so quick to dance on the not-yet-buried body of an innocent woman to "prove" their political point.

 

A+ thread, will question humanity again.

 

Did someone say dance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/violent-crime-us-abroad/

 

read towards the bottom of the article.... or just do a quick google search... people argue both ways... mostly saying that the definition of violent crimes are defined differently in the UK than the US, but one thing is made blindingly obvious... people still find ways to hurt people regardless of what tool they have.... Time to stop blaming the tool. How about people who are on the FBI watch list, don't allow them to purchase a firearm.. that's something I can get behind. What I cannot and will not get behind is taking that right away from the 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of people who would use a firearm properly and should be allowed to purchase a tank if they want to as long as they are found to be mentally sound, a US citizen, and NOT ON AN FBI WATCH LIST. Seems pretty simple to me

 

For what it's worth the reason the definition here vs there is so important is that here it's reserved for more serious offenses rape, murder, etc. There it's everything that essentially has a victim. Which means things like punching someone at a bar, domestic incidents, petty theft etc all are counted over there and not here.

 

Intentional Homicide paints a little clearer picture, UK 1, Australia 1, US 3.9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#United_States

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first off....not all guns are banned in the UK. They types of guns banned are:

 

- Fully automatic or burst-fire weapons, which may include some air guns.

- Semi-automatic or pump-action rifles that fire centre-fire ammunition (e.g. Colt AR-15)

- Firearms disguised as another item

- Rockets and mortars.

- Air guns chambered for self-contained gas cartridges.

- Any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing. This would generally include stun guns, or electric shock devices, CS gas (tear gas), OC spray (pepper spray), etc.. Cattle prods would not generally be included, but it would depend on the type.

- Firearms which previously fell into a prohibited category, but have been converted to an otherwise permitted form.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518193/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf <--page 17 (but I used the wikipedia summary)

 

 

What is allowed Are Rifles, single fire muzzle load pistols, antique pistols kept for (historical purpose), certain types of shotguns, and certain types of Airguns. Police are allowed to carry hand guns and tactical weapons in limited circumstances, as are certain civilians with a "need" (like state sanctioned hunters to control the deer population).

 

This is not the same for all areas of Great Britain as Ireland and Scotland have their own laws.

 

If there is one thing GB crime statistics do support: the restrictive gun policy has lead to far fewer intentional homicides committed using a gun, fewer police deaths due to gunshots, and much fewer mass shootings. Whether this has lead to a decrease in violent crime overall remains to be seen since as it was pointed out earlier data is collected in a different way than in the US and also the US has a problem with accurately compiling crime statistics. Either way, GB overall consistently has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world.

 

Of the 3 mass shootings GB has had in the last 30+ years, two of them (1987 and 2010) were performed with legally owned weapons. I don't think you can use GB as an example for anything anti-gun laws, but it is unfair to compare them to America. The whole country is not very large by population or geography so it makes something this restrictive easier to manage. Hypothetically If a single state adopted a similar policy they would probably see similar results, but on a national scale something this restrictive would be too difficult to administer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are for the most part restricted or banned from the general population. Sucks for them. LOL on the center fire AR15 ban though. Just glance at our country stats from the FBI and you see that long guns have only accounted for about 250-300 murders per year. Yeah.....let's debate banning them and waste all our politicians time and our money doing that for the sake of a lie and a politicians agenda.

 

In the end the US only has about 8,500 hominides per year involving guns. OUt of 360M people in this country. Some damn good percentages right there. Even more so once you subtract the gutter trash that is killing each other thus doing the majority of law abiding citizens a favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it does look bad when we're compared to GB as far as gun statistics there's one thing that gets overlooked......there's several reasons this country was founded and the right to bear arms was pretty high on the list. Excuse me if I don't care what GB does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end the US only has about 8,500 hominides per year involving guns. OUt of 360M people in this country. Some damn good percentages right there. Even more so once you subtract the gutter trash that is killing each other thus doing the majority of law abiding citizens a favor.

 

Those are pretty good statistics, especially from my viewpoint. Growing up in a country that has a murder rate of 33 (US is at 3.9), where pre 1994 we had about 7000 murders per year and then post 1994 it shot up to about 50,000 per year(thanks Madiba)...I can't help but sometimes shake my head at people on both sides of the argument. You need to walk/talk/sleep/eat with a gun with you at all times for protection? BULLSHIT! Once you and all your neighbours require 20ft tall walls with electric fencing around your house, then we can talk.

 

You cannot compare crime statistics between different countries. Countries have different laws and justice systems, and probably the most important factor IMO...different cultures.

 

The US just needs to leave gun laws the fuck alone, and focus on stopping and preventing the crazies. Starting with the one that's trying to run for president, stoking the racial hatred flames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You cannot compare crime statistics between different countries. Countries have different laws and justice systems, and probably the most important factor IMO...different cultures.

 

The US just needs to leave gun laws the fuck alone, and focus on stopping and preventing the crazies. Starting with the one that's trying to run for president, stoking the racial hatred flames.

 

Logic, don't bring it here, certain people don't like it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US just needs to leave gun laws the fuck alone, and focus on stopping and preventing the crazies. Starting with the one that's trying to run for president, stoking the racial hatred flames.

 

Actually, the congress needs to stop taking the NRA's lobby money to de-fund the CDC's research on guns so we can figure out what the real statistics are and whether there actually is a gun problem or not. Gun research on any large scale has effectively been halted for the last 20 years, what little is published doesn't provide a full picture of the problem.

 

while I am not a fan of the LA Times, this column does a pretty good job of summing up the problem:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while I am not a fan of the LA Times, this column does a pretty good job of summing up the problem:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

 

That's fine, I'm all for research.

 

I have one issue with that article though. They keep stating that "We found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly ... associated with an increased risk of homicide ... by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

 

Well no shit. That's like saying, we found that people who have cars at home are more likely to get in car accidents. That's the problem with statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine, I'm all for research.

 

I have one issue with that article though. They keep stating that "We found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly ... associated with an increased risk of homicide ... by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

 

Well no shit. That's like saying, we found that people who have cars at home are more likely to get in car accidents. That's the problem with statistics.

 

That is kind of the crux - one of the fears the NRA had that caused them to take this course of action was that it went against the premise that you are safer as a gun owner which may have an effect on gun sales. When you suppress information from the public in order to protect the sales of the manufacturers you can't really call yourself an advocate of gun owners (which they do regularly). I sometimes think that a lot of the issues we have in the sphere would resolve in time if more information is shared. Block the information and you have an unresolvable problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is kind of the crux - one of the fears the NRA had that caused them to take this course of action was that it went against the premise that you are safer as a gun owner which may have an effect on gun sales. When you suppress information from the public in order to protect the sales of the manufacturers you can't really call yourself an advocate of gun owners (which they do regularly). I sometimes think that a lot of the issues we have in the sphere would resolve in time if more information is shared. Block the information and you have an unresolvable problem.

 

I love when people assume that the NRA is funded by the gun manufacturers.

 

We are talking about US based manufacturing of precision machined parts. Not exactly a combo that is raking in the dough hand over fist these days. Not to mention that there is a 10% excise tax on sales of completed firearms.

 

The NRA has millions of PAYING members that all pony up at least $20 a year. Not to mention the fund raisers and donations they get from their own group of wealthy individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...