What a great, evidence driven comeback that is bound to convince people...
US TV journalists shot dead on air
- Thread starter PapaLazaru
- Start date
What a great, evidence driven comeback that is bound to convince people...
The same reason why a black gangster getting shot by a white policeman while resisting arrest is viewed as worse than an 8 year old black girl getting shot by a black gangster. Political correctness.
What gets me is why we care so much about America's gun control laws - it's not our country ffs, we don't get to have a say in their laws. Our media are worse, Jon Snow on C4 news almost has a heart attack every time there's a shooting in America.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,787
- Location
- Falling...
I just don't get the fascination the Americans and their guns. However, would tougher gun laws have stopped this happening? IF the guy was intent on killing those 2 people he'd have probably succeeded in finding a gun. That said it might have put him off owing to the difficulty of finding one? I don't know.
It's tragic either way, 2 innocent people died because of a disagreement a former employee had. Horrific and sad
It's tragic either way, 2 innocent people died because of a disagreement a former employee had. Horrific and sad
Re Gun controll-USA
America is not a Country, it is not a Nation.
It is a continental empire.
(As such, it probably wont last, Empires never do!)
Comparing (say) the violent crime rate in South Dakota with the crime rate in District of Columbia and criticising the entire US because of it makes as much sense as comparing the crime rate between the UK and Romania and criticising the entire EU because of it.
There are plenty of parts of the US that are, despite high levels of firearm ownership, no more dangerous than the leafy suburbs of SW Surrey. You just have to keep well away from "Little Africa" and "Little Mexico" (And the people who live there)
Continent wide, the violent crime/gun crime stats look dire, but what is even more dramatic is that if you exclude the Black component (and to a lesser extent, the Hispanic one) then nearly 3/4 of the problems go away!
Violent criminals are going to violent criminal. Restricting the rights of hundreds of millions of people will not do anything to stop this.
Consider this, can anybody demonstrate any stats that show a dramatic drop in Gun Crime UK as a result of the restrictions imposed on shot guns post Hungerford and as a result of the Hand gun ban post Dunblane? I want to see nice graphs demonstrating a statistical cliff (If you see what I mean) No Cliff=Pointless, expensive and totally unjust exercise!
The same will apply to the US, even more so since the US has borders that are even more porous than ours!
America is not a Country, it is not a Nation.
It is a continental empire.
(As such, it probably wont last, Empires never do!)
Comparing (say) the violent crime rate in South Dakota with the crime rate in District of Columbia and criticising the entire US because of it makes as much sense as comparing the crime rate between the UK and Romania and criticising the entire EU because of it.
There are plenty of parts of the US that are, despite high levels of firearm ownership, no more dangerous than the leafy suburbs of SW Surrey. You just have to keep well away from "Little Africa" and "Little Mexico" (And the people who live there)
Continent wide, the violent crime/gun crime stats look dire, but what is even more dramatic is that if you exclude the Black component (and to a lesser extent, the Hispanic one) then nearly 3/4 of the problems go away!
Violent criminals are going to violent criminal. Restricting the rights of hundreds of millions of people will not do anything to stop this.
Consider this, can anybody demonstrate any stats that show a dramatic drop in Gun Crime UK as a result of the restrictions imposed on shot guns post Hungerford and as a result of the Hand gun ban post Dunblane? I want to see nice graphs demonstrating a statistical cliff (If you see what I mean) No Cliff=Pointless, expensive and totally unjust exercise!
The same will apply to the US, even more so since the US has borders that are even more porous than ours!
Mr Joe Average does not need a handgun at all. They need to mimic the UK. Honestly, it's just ridiculous. Then they start banging on about their constitutional rights, oh please STFU, in real world no one needs to carry around that ****.
The fact any nutjob can get hold of one is the most alarming thing here. Murica and all of that.
The fact any nutjob can get hold of one is the most alarming thing here. Murica and all of that.
nothing much dramatic happens here so we've not got that much to gossip about?
I just don't get the fascination the Americans and their guns. However, would tougher gun laws have stopped this happening? IF the guy was intent on killing those 2 people he'd have probably succeeded in finding a gun. That said it might have put him off owing to the difficulty of finding one? I don't know.
It's tragic either way, 2 innocent people died because of a disagreement a former employee had. Horrific and sad
thing is most "normal" people with some mental issues really dont know the types who'd sell them a gun.
that's why most (all?) spree killings are done with legal/family guns. (i make the distinction purely because someone will go "but they used their dads gun so its actually an illegal gun!!!")
As if his family are not ashamed enough as it is.
Yeah know what you mean, I especially like the "unwashed" part
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Leading question is leading.
I'd expect Gun Crime to go up slightly after the ban given the ban introduced new gun laws and therefore a bigger scope of what you can get arrested for under that category.
For example someone caught with an illegal hand gun today will be plus 1 for gun crime, yet the gun wouldn't have been illegal before the ban and so no arrest would have been made.
This site seems to have the best stats but only goes back to 1996 (the year of Dunblaine) in which 84 people who murdered via gun, since then it tends to average half that figure except for a spike of 61 in 2006.
5.56mm isn't used much by civilians, they tend to use .223 instead. But yes, most people will hunt with a higher caliber, so I'm not sure what you're argument is?
The military have automatic weapons, most civilians don't, they have semi-auto.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,080
So, yes then
Orionaut, you're also not considering the bigger picture. Gun control isn't just about reducing violent crime. Suicide rates drop significantly. Police shootings drop significantly.
America has a toxic attitude when it comes to firearms
I had pretty much the same discussion with American friends after Sandy Hook (teachers should be armed) and the Aurora shootings (concealed/open carry would have stopped this).
most massacres are carried out with semi auto "civilian" weapons designed sole for killing humans not sport or hunting or anything else, they are just military weapons adapted to fit civilian laws. (longer barrels, semi auto)
which is basically what he was getting at but you wanted to be pedantic.
I'm not sure why you're focusing on that exactly.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,787
- Location
- Falling...
Agreed.
Probably - but I'm sure the ability to get a gun so easily doesn't help against the fact it is therefore easier to use one against someone.
None of us have claimed we have a say in their gun control, we are simply discussing something that is being discussed all over the world/net. Its what happens when there is a big news story, people discuss it...
Then he should have said that, instead of saying they are military weapons - they are not.
Also, most are killed using handguns, not rifles. Rifles are not the issue.
AR-15s are pretty decent hunting rifles, and they are used for sports too - just not any sport you'd find in the Olympics. Forget what it's called - basically think Police Academy when they walk down a street and all these targets appear at certain points.
No it doesn't. It's the Brits who have a toxic attitude towards the Americans and their firearms, because they/we have been brainwashed into thinking it's bad or wrong to defend ourselves.
We all have that right, the Americans are just not afraid to exercise it.
They are not sporting hunting rifles, they are semi automatic weapons, designed for killing humans.
Much in the same way you wouldn't hunt with an automatic, you wouldn't hunt with a handgun, you shouldn't hunt large game with a crossbow, its not sporting
There is no need to hunt animals with these weapons, but yet again, Americans think its sporting, because thats the tools they are given
You wouldnt think of going hunting in the UK with a handgun or one of these, even across Europe, you would be looked upon as a disgrace to the sport
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,787
- Location
- Falling...
I'm not sure... the number of firearm related deaths in the USA vs the UK is pretty dramatic.
10.64 per 100,000 people in the USA (there are 318 million people - so that's THOUSANDS of people per year)
0.26 per 100,000 people in the UK (there are 64 million people - so that's less than 200 people per year)
Those stats of course include suicide, police shootings and accidents. That said, the fact you can get a gun easily means, suicides, and accidents are more likely to happen, and the fact that their police are fairly trigger happy.
Looking at homicides alone
2.6 per 100,000 in the USA (that's still over 8,000 people of pure homicide) and an amazing 0.16 per 100,000 of unintentional killings, that's over 500 people who have died by accident through shooting and 6.7 per 100,000 of suicides (thousands of people!)
I don't know, to me it seems that the USA has a bigger problem with gun and gun crimes than the UK.