|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 10, 2013, 08:32 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2011
Posts: 133
|
Far more than tuppence worth that, Pond. Spot on.
|
January 11, 2013, 09:25 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,458
|
Quote:
As is the case with the U.S., the more effective solution for the U.K. would have been to address the underlying causes for mass murders rather than the tools used to commit them (in the case of the U.K., most mass murders seem to be acts of terrorism). |
|
January 11, 2013, 10:51 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Governments worldwide love sideshows. Gun control in the US, the US as Great Satan in Iran, or the Palestinian plight in Saudi Arabia - all of these are useful tools for diverting the attention of the masses away from governmental creep and stagnating economies.
|
January 11, 2013, 11:06 AM | #29 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
Quote:
I've never heard of any government launching a policy to counter all deaths, or all crimes: that is next to impossible. There are initiatives to reduce road deaths, then there are policies to reduce gun deaths, then there are action plans to reduce drug use. There is never a universal policy for them all. There were mass shootings, so they banned guns: I don't agree with the solution they choose because it struck me as a knee-jerk reactionism, but aiming for a reduction in or elimination of mass shootings hardly strikes me as odd. Quote:
Unless you propose putting the attacks of 9/11 in the same category as Sandy Hook, Aurora and Columbine etc, then that is a inaccurate assertion IMO. Hence I have to re-assert that, in the case of the UK, mass-killings have seemingly dropped dramatically with only one incident in Cumbria a couple of years back... Having said all that we are, again, going back to a UK-US comparison which has little or no benefit in the current political climate on your side of the Atlantic. |
||
January 11, 2013, 12:55 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Location: Vinita, OK
Posts: 2,552
|
Quote:
When this was all brought up on the CNN talk show, this is what the pro-gun person should have pointed out. Rather than comparing absolute numbers of murders, you have to look at the per capita ones. Even more importantly, you need to look at how those numbers have changed over time. If somebody wants to argue that British gun control is responsible for a lower number of murders there, they have to include what the numbers were like for the ten years before the gun control came into effect. If the numbers were the same before the law... how can they make a cause and effect argument? The US is a very large and very diverse nation. And we vary a tremendous amount just within our own borders. I live in a very rural county in NE Oklahoma. I have my CCW and carry whenever I go out but the reality is that this county very, very rarely has a murder. We might go ten years or more between them. But Tulsa County has had 8 murders in the first 9 days of the year. (Not usually that bad. Average is only 49 a year. Half as many as OKC.) Considering how we are and our history, IMO you could physically eliminate every gun by some kind of magic spell and our murder rate would perk along about the same. Drug dealers will fight and kill to protect their turf. So will gangs. Some people will continue to kill others over money or women. There ARE things we can do to moderate some of this violence but doing away with guns won't fix it. Especially if we don't have that magic spell and we can only get rid of the ones the law abiding own! Gregg |
|
|
|