Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
catsmate said:
:rolleyes:
The firearm related homicide rate in the UK is less than one half of one percent of that of the USA.
The suicide rate is approximately one fortieth and the fatal accident rate one fifteenth.
Click to expand...

sarge said:
But they do manage it, obviously. Excluding deaths from self-harm (which, frankly, should be included), England has 1/73 the gun death rate of the US. Japan has 1/110. Guess how many ‘first world’ countries have tighter gun laws but similar gun death rates.
Click to expand...

Babbylonian said:
Sure, but if a single criminal uses a gun, that justifies letting all people have them.
Click to expand...

MRC_Hans said:
I assume you are sarcastic, but that is one argument used: "Taking the guns from honest people means only criminals will have guns."

However, that is wrong. If only criminals have guns, anybody carrying a gun is automatically a criminal, so even criminals will avoid carrying guns, as that alone will incriminate them.

Hans
Click to expand...

If there are still shootings, and the honest citizens don't have guns then the criminals are the only ones with guns - And they don't care if they shouldn't have guns because they're c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l-s.

Therefore Sarge's complaint that the cry will go up "if we ban guns only the criminals will have guns" is not only true, but is true wherever guns have been banned - not just in the USA - and all the above sarcasm and condescension is a result of those posters answering what they wanted me to have said and not what I actually said.
 
Lplus said:
If there are still shootings, and the honest citizens don't have guns then the criminals are the only ones with guns - And they don't care if they shouldn't have guns because they're c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l-s.

Therefore Sarge's complaint that the cry will go up "if we ban guns only the criminals will have guns" is not only true, but is true wherever guns have been banned - not just in the USA - and all the above sarcasm and condescension is a result of those posters answering what they wanted me to have said and not what I actually said.
Click to expand...

But it would still reduce hugely the number of gun related deaths in the USA.

Unfortunately it's too late for the USA. Guns have won. It will only get worse there's nothing that can be done.
 
Lplus said:
If there are still shootings, and the honest citizens don't have guns then the criminals are the only ones with guns - And they don't care if they shouldn't have guns because they're c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l-s.

Therefore Sarge's complaint that the cry will go up "if we ban guns only the criminals will have guns" is not only true, but is true wherever guns have been banned - not just in the USA - and all the above sarcasm and condescension is a result of those posters answering what they wanted me to have said and not what I actually said.
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. In countries that strictly control guns, neither the criminals nor the citizens have guns to any appreciable degree and the gun death rate is a tiny fraction of ours. These two things are related.

The ‘good guy with a gun’ myth is just that…a myth. It does not happen to any meaningful degree.
 
sarge said:
Complete nonsense. In countries that strictly control guns, neither the criminals nor the citizens have guns to any appreciable degree and the gun death rate is a tiny fraction of ours. These two things are related.
Click to expand...

But they still have guns, so the phrase "if we ban guns, only the criminals will have them" is STILL true - and that's what I was referring to.
The ‘good guy with a gun’ myth is just that…a myth. It does not happen to any meaningful degree.
Click to expand...

If it happens at all it isn't a myth.

Look, the USA is stuck with guns and no amount of outrage on an internet forum will change that. Simply lashing out against everyone who refuses to express the same outrage is both futile and insulting.
 
Lplus said:
Look, the USA is stuck with guns and no amount of outrage on an internet forum will change that. Simply lashing out against everyone who refuses to express the same outrage is both futile and insulting.
Click to expand...

Well, that's that debate settled then..
 
erlando said:
Well, that's that debate settled then..
Click to expand...

There was a debate? I didn't see it, maybe it was masked by the sarcasm, inuendo and insinuations. btw, do you disagree with the actual words of my post?

arthwollipot said:
The occasional exception does not invalidate the generalisation. And the exceptions are very occasional.
Click to expand...

I don't argue that they are very occasional, nor do I actually advocate for them to be more frequent. My post was to counter a specific part of a post.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
The occasional exception does not invalidate the generalisation. And the exceptions are very occasional.
Click to expand...

And of course totally outwieghed by the risks of having a gun around with regards to elevated suicide risk, homicide risk and accidents.

Is being thrown clear and saved something that never happens from not wearing a seatbelt, no it has happened, but it is a logical reason not to wear a seatbelt, of course not.
 
MRC_Hans said:
I assume you are sarcastic, but that is one argument used: "Taking the guns from honest people means only criminals will have guns."

However, that is wrong. If only criminals have guns, anybody carrying a gun is automatically a criminal, so even criminals will avoid carrying guns, as that alone will incriminate them.

Hans
Click to expand...
Indeed, and fewer firearms in "legitimate" circulation means fewer in criminal hands, as well as drastically reducing the accidental, suicidal and impulsive homicide levels.
And, in any case, removing firearms from the general public doesn't mean police don't have access, when needed.
 
Lplus said:
If there are still shootings, and the honest citizens don't have guns then the criminals are the only ones with guns - And they don't care if they shouldn't have guns because they're c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l-s.

Therefore Sarge's complaint that the cry will go up "if we ban guns only the criminals will have guns" is not only true, but is true wherever guns have been banned - not just in the USA - and all the above sarcasm and condescension is a result of those posters answering what they wanted me to have said and not what I actually said.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
As I pointed out, fewer firearms in circulation mean fewer in criminal hands. Hence the generally lower armed crime rates in countries with greater restrictions on civilian possession.
 
Lplus said:
There was a debate? I didn't see it, maybe it was masked by the sarcasm, inuendo and insinuations. btw, do you disagree with the actual words of my post?



I don't argue that they are very occasional, nor do I actually advocate for them to be more frequent. My post was to counter a specific part of a post.
Click to expand...

Seemed more like knee-jerk contrarianism to me.
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes:
As I pointed out, fewer firearms in circulation mean fewer in criminal hands. Hence the generally lower armed crime rates in countries with greater restrictions on civilian possession.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that was not my original point

Susheel said:
Seemed more like knee-jerk contrarianism to me.
Click to expand...

Could be, sometimes the outrage fuelled cries of woe overcome my natural reticence.
 
Lplus said:
But they still have guns, so the phrase "if we ban guns, only the criminals will have them" is STILL true - and that's what I was referring to.
Click to expand...
I can only speak for my country, which is the UK, but here, even the criminals don't have guns for the most part. There are several good reasons for this.

Firstly, it's really easy for the police to keep guns off the street because anybody found in possession of one in public (except LEOs maybe), is automatically a criminal and will be arrested and will be going to prison. Even actual criminals don't like that. If your intent is to do a little burglary or petty theft, you don't carry a gun, because, if caught, your sentence is going to be very much worse.

Secondly, it's very hard to obtain guns legally in the UK. This has a knock on effect in that it makes it very hard to obtain guns illegally in the UK too. Illegal guns are pretty rare and very expensive here. Your average petty criminal doesn't bother trying to get one.

There's absolutely zero need for a good guy with a gun in a shopping mall here because there are never active shooters in shopping malls. Look at the Wikipedia page on UK mass shootings. Since the 1970's we've had fewer than a bad month in the USA and that's including all the terrorist attacks as a result of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Not having guns ubiquitous in society is a blessing and don't let anybody tell you different.
 
Last edited:
jeremyp said:
I can only speak for my country, which is the UK, but here, even the criminals don't have guns for the most part. There are several good reasons for this.

Firstly, it's really easy for the police to keep guns off the street because anybody found in possession of one in public (except LEOs maybe), is automatically a criminal and will be arrested and will be going to prison. Even actual criminals don't like that. If your intent is to do a little burglary or petty theft, you don't carry a gun, because, if caught, your sentence is going to be very much worse.

Secondly, it's very hard to obtain guns legally in the UK. This has a knock on effect in that it makes it very hard to obtain guns illegally in the UK too. Illegal guns are pretty rare and very expensive here. Your average petty criminal doesn't bother trying to get one.



There's absolutely zero need for a good guy with a gun in a shopping mall here because there are never active shooters in shopping malls. Look at the Wikipedia page on UK mass shootings. Since the 1970's we've had fewer than a bad month in the USA and that's including all the terrorist attacks as a result of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Not having guns ubiquitous in society is a blessing and don't let anybody tell you different.
Click to expand...

See the second part of post 2110.
 
And here we've seen the same old recycled and disproved arguments and myths: more good guys with a gun means more bad guys with guns stopped, only criminals will have guns, blah, blah, blah. What it all boils down to is that to many people the right to own a damn gun is far more important than the lives of people, including children. They won't or can't admit that so they trot out the old stand-bys that we've seen here. Frankly, I find it disgusting.
 
It's been a while but I'm back with a mass shooting from Cincinnati where 10 people were wounded. It appears there was a physical altercation on a street in a popular downtown area after the bars closed.

One not-a-MAGAr pulls out a gat and opens fire down a busy sidewalk. Another not-a-white supremacist on the other side of the street responds by opening fire into the same crowded sidewalk.

No mention of gang affiliation.

These retards have 131 felony and misdemeanor arrests, 66 convictions – not including traffic convictions – between the two of them.

https://www.wlwt.com/article/cincinnati-mass-shooting-over-the-rhine-two-arrested/40871532
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom