~100 a year currently
Got a source?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...involvingtheuseoffirearms/yearendingmarch2019
Says you're out by a large margin. That's total shooting murders not just those by licensed firearms.
~100 a year currently
I was talking about gun suicides
https://www.psych.ox.ac.uk/publications/168345
I did assume the majority would be by legally owned firearms, which is backed up by this study
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-005-0889-y
No, what you asked was
If "licences are licences" then "how many people being killed by licensed firearms are how many people being killed by licensed firearms"
What does it matter, the discussion is about the ownership of dangerous objects and how licensing can reduce that risk. Suicide by gun is one of the risks associated with firearms so it seems silly to try and ignore that. In fact part of the licensing application for the ownership of firearms is about the persons mental state so it's very relevant!
You obviously know that's because they are so restricted, so people use other methods that are readily available.
This is what's funny, you're so argumentatively contrarian you react like a pavlovian dog at times without realising someone hasn't even disagreed with you about the core of the discussion
All I did was answer your simple question with a factual answer and yes, I still maintain its relevant to the point. You just found the answer inconvenient for some reason so immediately went on your usual obtuse arguments. So for the record I'm completely fine with licensing for dogs....and guns .
Looking at what happened when my wife walking our dog was attacked in the street, I look at licenses and the concept of responsible ownership of certain breeds and I don't feel on their own they hugely seem to address the issues. The owner of the dog that attacked my wife, then mauled our dog was deemed 'responsible' and the police decreed that it posed no threat to the public etc.
The failure mode was:
1. Despite all safeguards, a gate/door was left open accidentally, allowing the dog to get outside the front of the property.
2. The dog did not have the intelligence to understand their property they are protecting ends at the pavement and therefore any member of the public on said pavement should not be attacked.
3. The Dog in question was of a breed that should it feel you are not in its family and within it's territory will latch on and inflict serious damage (the way it then dragged our dog down a side alley like a ragdoll was quite harrowing).
The way the police rationalised this to decree the dog posed no threat and the owner was a responsible owner just tells me this is the fundamental issue. The fact he had the correct harness and muzzle was one of the reasons cited, the obviousness that this only works if you are 100% in control of the dog 100% of the time, however, the failure mode was the dog escaping the house, at that point, no muzzle, no restraint and it did what it naturally wanted to do.
We obviously have a dog, One of the requirements was it had to be a softer breed of dog that lacks the hardware in almost all cases to inflict serious damage and are not bred in anyway for any aggressive trait.
Perhaps if the law was such that you are tried for whatever violence your dog ensued no matter what, then perhaps this would focus peoples minds..
Aren't Labradors one of the most dangerous dogs but just have a good PR department?
I suppose it depends on your definition of dangerous, and the prevalence of those dogs. To be fair, if I was going to be attacked by a dog, I'd rather it was a jack Russell than a bull terrier/ rotty etc.
Can you link the stats? I'm genuinely interested in seeing a breakdown by breed.
Recent deaths are disproportionately pit/ American Bully types.
Updating as the people who owned the dog in penyrheol that killed 10 year old Jack Lis have just been jailed.
Jack Lis: Pair jailed for Caerphilly dog attack death
Jack Lis was mauled to death by a dog called Beast at a house near where he lived.www.bbc.com
I live around 2 miles from penyrheol and my kids would have been in secondary school with him in a year or two.
Most of these attacks seem to happen in peoples homes.
I didn't say that did I?
An observation that it would seem the majority (not all) of the dog attacks take place in the home environment, not outside.
I don't know anything about this specific incident, but have previously said that a lot of people who have experienced these home attacks often seem to buy a dog "off a mate".
I'd be more than happy for all breeders to be licensed.
To the people saying owners should be vetted and licensed, what would possible reasons to preclude soneone from a licence be?