but there's so many things someone /could/ use to kill
banning something doesnt make it magically go away. stiffer sentences would help, but then the prisons are packed..... send em to oz i say.
Imitation Samurai swords too be banned!!
- Thread starter Helen
- Start date
but there's so many things someone /could/ use to kill
banning something doesnt make it magically go away. stiffer sentences would help, but then the prisons are packed..... send em to oz i say.
5 whole people though !
Thats 4 less than the Police killed in Yorkshire last year in high speed chases. We should ban Police, Yorkshire, high speed and chasing.
Nearly as big as the one that suggests those murders wouldn't have happened if firearms were restricted
I don't think so
At worst, how many of those cases would have been attempted murder cases rather than murder cases if the perpetrator hadn't had access to guns? Sometimes you have to rely on common sense, and common sense tells me that it's easier to kill someone with a gun than with most other things.No, a car has been designed for legitimate transport use, and is used as such. Guns for the most part, and swords are only useful as weapons.
That's great, but can you tell me what the homicide rate rose by in other metropolitan areas, like Washington, during the same period?
Problem with this debate is so much crap is written by both sides it's impossible to see what the real situation is. The above "fact" may have come from a website claiming to be "just facts" however it's clearly loaded as it's comparing a city, with a federal collection of states.
All the people saying ban this ban that blah blah are being utterly ridiculous 
Your making yourself look really foolish by comparing something that is completely unnecessary in modern society with devices that are integral to everyday life for millions of people!!
Rather than making yourself look stupid with this absurd and ridiculous argument how’s about putting your point across to why cheap, very sharp pieces of metal should not be banned for sale to the general public???
However if I were you I would not waste my breath as mark my words this ban WILL go through as it's what the majority of the U.K want!
It's safe to say the average person is pretty sensible and level headed unlike the majority here who seem to be weapons obsessed due to playing way too many violent video games!!
Your making yourself look really foolish by comparing something that is completely unnecessary in modern society with devices that are integral to everyday life for millions of people!!
Rather than making yourself look stupid with this absurd and ridiculous argument how’s about putting your point across to why cheap, very sharp pieces of metal should not be banned for sale to the general public???
However if I were you I would not waste my breath as mark my words this ban WILL go through as it's what the majority of the U.K want!
It's safe to say the average person is pretty sensible and level headed unlike the majority here who seem to be weapons obsessed due to playing way too many violent video games!!
I don't think so
It's easier to kill someone with a knife than a gun, a gun has a long, but very narrow area of lethality, a knife, even in untrained hands, does not.
That's irrelevant though. It's not a reason for applying a restriction.
It's sourced at the bottom of the page, however that's why I also included plenty of other sources. The newsbuster link actually contains the kind of comparison you are after.
All the people saying ban this ban that blah blah are being utterly ridiculous
Your making yourself look really foolish by comparing something that is completely unnecessary in modern society with devices that are integral to everyday life for millions of people!!
Rather than making yourself look stupid with this absurd and ridiculous argument how’s about putting your point across to why cheap, very sharp pieces of metal should not be banned for sale to the general public???
However if I were you I would not waste my breath as mark my words this ban WILL go through as it's what the majority of the U.K want!
It's safe to say the average person is pretty sensible and level headed unlike the majority here who seem to be weapons obsessed due to playing way too many violent video games!!
If the majority wanted to beat black people, would that be a sensible thing to legislate?
How about you give me a good reason that demonstrates that a ban will prevent a proven social harm that cannot be prevented by less draconian measures?
The issue is that the majority here are social liberals of one form or another, whereas you appear to be a social authoritarian, believing that you can use the state to force your opinions onto others.
And argumentum ad hominem is a true sign that you really don't actually have anything other than emotion to back up your statements. You haven't actually addressed any of the objections brought up to your views. You've simply starting hurling insults.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 3,806
- Location
- Manchester
The U.K handgun BAN has WORKED FACT!!
Scotland
The above FACTS/STATS prove that the ban on Handguns in the U.K has WORKED! Homocides by handguns is at the lowest it has been for over 7 years FACT! So the ban on handguns WORKS why shouldn't the same occure for dangerous cheap swords!!!
Source of stats = Home Office Statistical Bulletin 02/07 - Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/06 (Supplementary Volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/06)
Scotland
The above FACTS/STATS prove that the ban on Handguns in the U.K has WORKED! Homocides by handguns is at the lowest it has been for over 7 years FACT! So the ban on handguns WORKS why shouldn't the same occure for dangerous cheap swords!!!
Source of stats = Home Office Statistical Bulletin 02/07 - Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/06 (Supplementary Volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/06)
I'm not sure about that. Most murders are committed by people known to the victim, which implies anyone with a gun could get very close anyway, thus rendering any issues about range irrelevant. I'm not an expert by any means, but if you stab someone, I imagine you'd have to use a helluva lot of force to pierce bone (e.g. the ribcage which protects a lot of vital organs), and isn't there an issue with pressure, meaning that if you're not careful the blade will get stuck in the persons body on the first stab.
According to this (admittedly I don't know much about the source - and it's a blog
), gunshot wounds have a 17.4% mortality rate, while stab wounds have a 5.3% mortality rate: http://timlambert.org/1993/10/knives-00000/I wouldn't say so - it's why you can still own shotguns and other hunting guns in this country - they have a legitimate use, unlike handguns and assault rifles.
N o, you cannot say that from those stats. You need to know the brake down of murders caused by illegal/legal handguns. The fall in stats could be due to a number of reason for example. Police blocking more illegal weapons. Increase in arrests of gangsters etc. Just because the murders fell, does not mean the ban worked.
The top one is England and Wales (I presume) the bottom one is Scotland.
What's so unbelievable about 50 people being shot to death last year? Remember that handguns are illegal in the UK, shotguns are not.
I was looking at those figures before, they're on an anti-gun website. I believe that the figures given are accurate, however the conclusions drawn are somewhat shaky at best
Like I've said, both sides are as bad as each other for propaganda.
However the total number of homicides has generally increased or stayed at the same level since the ban was introduced in '97 which indicates that people have simply used other methods to carry out the murders.
Which is what we've been saying.
and you need to look at the overall homicide rate to see if baning guns has made any overall difference.
oh look at this looks like baning guns have made no difference, what a surpirse
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp
Last edited:
Bottom one is Scotland.
Anyway, the gun ban was not introduced too reduce gun crime as anyone with half a braincell knows criminals don't use legal guns to do 'business' with so to speak! It just happens to be a positive offshot of the outright ban and mandatory 10years if caught with a gun new law.
The gun ban was a direct result to 'Dunblane' to prevent another tradigy like that from ever happening again, and so far it has worked PERFECT!
lol Pathetically weak tbh! You seriously think in a country with so few deaths caused by guns that goverment figures could get away with being incorrect??? Of course not
Anyway, the gun ban was not introduced too reduce gun crime as anyone with half a braincell knows criminals don't use legal guns to do 'business' with so to speak! It just happens to be a positive offshot of the outright ban and mandatory 10years if caught with a gun new law.
The gun ban was a direct result to 'Dunblane' to prevent another tradigy like that from ever happening again, and so far it has worked PERFECT!
Oh, official government facts. It must be true then.
lol Pathetically weak tbh! You seriously think in a country with so few deaths caused by guns that goverment figures could get away with being incorrect??? Of course not
Last edited:
and how long was the average time frame between mass school shootings?
How about the school maschetty attack?
