Connecticut school massacre

Not really, Sweden requires everybody training in military and receives rifle to take home and keep it, crime? Lower than here, it's fact.

Uk has already banned guns murder still high and worse anyway.

It is actually Switzerland, not Sweden, there aren't much relationship between guns and crime because it is disputed.

The lower crime is result in different society.

There are no gun bans existed in US and the US Supreme Court already killed it.
 
Ofc

It is actually Switzerland, not Sweden, there aren't much relationship between guns and crime because it is disputed.

The lower crime is result in different society.

There are no gun bans existed in US and the US Supreme Court already killed it.
 
Right, it depends but most school outlaw several disciplines, making it even weaker.

Did you see my post #146?
http://www.alldeaf.com/2133673-post146.html

Most schools cannot afford to handle the lawsuits by angry parents.

New Jersey banned the spanking in late 1800's and I don't believe that decline of spanking worsen the education, so in European countries, the spanking is illegal but the education is better than in the US.
 
Not really, Sweden requires everybody training in military and receives rifle to take home and keep it, crime? Lower than here, it's fact.
Because they are soldiers. Same thing with law enforcement, they take their guns home. So...

Uk has already banned guns murder still high and worse anyway.

This is taken from Crime and the American Dream. (Book)

oBny0.jpg

It shows that England has the lowest homicide rate.
 
If we have 88 guns for every 100 Americans, how many more guns would we need to have a safe country?

Anti-tank rifles and landmines cannot be sold. Why assault rifles?

I guess I have 2 hands so 2 semi-automatic handguns each firing 17 rounds in 10 seconds, or so. Or, 30 rounds . . .

When I was living in Washington, DC, I used to get my haircut a few blocks away from where I attended school (North East DC). On one such occasion, the barber had turned the chair so I could look outside the storefront window. Directly across the street was a laundromat. Within mere minutes, a large group (20-30) of young black men, all wearing bright red t-shirts, hoodies, bandanas, converged on the laundromat.

They grabbed a young man and a young woman. They then dragged them out to the center of the street, in broad daylight and in full view of everyone on the street, and beat them to death. They then quickly dispersed.

I remember seeing a foot patrol officer make an abrupt about face and very quickly walk in the opposite direction when he saw this mob.

The barber, turned my chair away from the window and said "man .... there is nothing we can do ..."

If a bystander had a fully automatic rifle, they might have been able to save two innocent lives. Of course, they would be putting their own life at risk, especially by killing gang members. But since no one was armed or resisted, and the consensus was that "nothing could be done" they got away with it.

So yes, automatic weapons are necessary sometimes. No, not all the time. An average American can live their entire lifespan without ever seeing such an act of violence and feel as though people who want automatic weapons must be crazy. Therefore, they can justify supporting legislation that would prohibit anyone from owning one. Therefore, successfully criminalizing anyone who defends themselves, or others.

Then, the only people who end up getting them are the real crazy people, and this leaves everyone else defenseless. (btw, gang members will convert a gun to full auto, they do not care about getting a class III permit).

I am not trying to preach ... just put this in the discussion as a "different perspective".
 
This statistic is outdated, that's during time where us is in strict gun control (assault rifle were banned at that time which is between 1994 and 2004), plus every damn Switzerland citizen is required enroll military training, even if one has disabilities. So, that is at least 95% of Switzerland citizens has it.

And uk started strict gun control few years ago, I think 4 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Because they are soldiers. Same thing with law enforcement, they take their guns home. So...





It shows that England has the lowest homicide rate.
 
When I was living in Washington, DC, I used to get my haircut a few blocks away from where I attended school (North East DC). On one such occasion, the barber had turned the chair so I could look outside the storefront window. Directly across the street was a laundromat. Within mere minutes, a large group (20-30) of young black men, all wearing bright red t-shirts, hoodies, bandanas, converged on the laundromat.

They grabbed a young man and a young woman. They then dragged them out to the center of the street, in broad daylight and in full view of everyone on the street, and beat them to death. They then quickly dispersed.

I remember seeing a foot patrol officer make an abrupt about face and very quickly walk in the opposite direction when he saw this mob.

The barber, turned my chair away from the window and said "man .... there is nothing we can do ..."

If a bystander had a fully automatic rifle, they might have been able to save two innocent lives. Of course, they would be putting their own life at risk, especially by killing gang members. But since no one was armed or resisted, and the consensus was that "nothing could be done" they got away with it.

So yes, automatic weapons are necessary sometimes. No, not all the time. An average American can live their entire lifespan without ever seeing such an act of violence and feel as though people who want automatic weapons must be crazy. Therefore, they can justify supporting legislation that would prohibit anyone from owning one. Therefore, successfully criminalizing anyone who defends themselves, or others.

Then, the only people who end up getting them are the real crazy people, and this leaves everyone else defenseless. (btw, gang members will convert a gun to full auto, they do not care about getting a class III permit).

I am not trying to preach ... just put this in the discussion as a "different perspective".

What year when you seen gangs attack in DC?

When I lived in DC last year so I didn't see any gangs in DC but I did in NoVA when there were MS-13 hanged out in the mall, so they haven't bother me.

The crime rate in DC has improving now and you will be less likely to be victim of robbery during daytime from Gallaudet to subway station, but at night, there are risks.

If you come down in Compton or Watts so you will see shitload of street gangs, so a lot worse than in DC.

For me, I believe that regulate the guns should be up to state because many states have different culture so I like to put anti-gun and pro-gun groups in together. The federal regulation on guns are silly because it does interfere with states that have stronger gun culture.
 
This statistic is outdated, that's during time where us is in strict gun control (assault rifle were banned at that time which is between 1994 and 2004), plus every damn Switzerland citizen is required enroll military training, even if one has disabilities. So, that is at least 95% of Switzerland citizens has it.

And uk started strict gun control few years ago, I think 4 years ago.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UK banned on guns in 1997.

The murder rate in UK is much less. (Recent, updated statistic)
US and UK murder – rate and weapon (updated) | Flesh is Grass

In the UK – population 56.1 million (4) – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12 (5), a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm (6).

UK and US have different societies.
 
Supreme Court killed DC gun control about three years ago, that's why your seeing less now.

What year when you seen gangs attack in DC?

When I lived in DC last year so I didn't see any gangs in DC but I did in NoVA when there were MS-13 hanged out in the mall, so they haven't bother me.

The crime rate in DC has improving now and you will be less likely to be victim of robbery during daytime from Gallaudet to subway station, but at night, there are risks.

If you come down in Compton or Watts so you will see shitload of street gangs, so a lot worse than in DC.

For me, I believe that regulate the guns should be up to state because many states have different culture so I like to put anti-gun and pro-gun groups in together. The federal regulation on guns are silly because it does interfere with states that have stronger gun culture.
 
Supreme Court killed DC gun control about three years ago, that's why your seeing less now.

QnUOTE=Foxrac;2133711]What year when you seen gangs attack in DC?

When I lived in DC last year so I didn't see any gangs in DC but I did in NoVA when there were MS-13 hanged out in the mall, so they haven't bother me.

The crime rate in DC has improving now and you will be less likely to be victim of robbery during daytime from Gallaudet to subway station, but at night, there are risks.

If you come down in Compton or Watts so you will see shitload of street gangs, so a lot worse than in DC.

For me, I believe that regulate the guns should be up to state because many states have different culture so I like to put anti-gun and pro-gun groups in together. The federal regulation on guns are silly because it does interfere with states that have stronger gun culture.

No, it is still disputed about relationship between guns and crime.

It is very, very hard to get guns in DC because of heavily regulation, also you can't be armed on DC street.
 
Newer homicide rates, deaths per 100,000 people in 2009-2010. There are some changes, but as expected there isn't any significant changes like rate increase/decrease by 2x or more. Real life first-world society can't change that fast in 10 years, but second and third world like El Salvador, Africa, etc can.

5JKL8.jpg


This source is from Canadian empirical research: (link)
 
Newer homicide rates, deaths per 100,000 people in 2009-2010. There are some changes, but as expected there isn't any significant changes like rate increase/decrease by 2x or more. Real life first-world society can't change that fast in 10 years, but second and third world like El Salvador, Africa, etc can.

5JKL8.jpg


This source is from Canadian empirical research: (link)

Yup, Japan has restrictive gun laws but the murder rate is much less than rest of countries.

More guns = less crime are very disputed and controversial, so that's not reliable source to support the guns.
 
What year when you seen gangs attack in DC?

When I lived in DC last year so I didn't see any gangs in DC but I did in NoVA when there were MS-13 hanged out in the mall, so they haven't bother me.

The crime rate in DC has improving now and you will be less likely to be victim of robbery during daytime from Gallaudet to subway station, but at night, there are risks.

If you come down in Compton or Watts so you will see shitload of street gangs, so a lot worse than in DC.

For me, I believe that regulate the guns should be up to state because many states have different culture so I like to put anti-gun and pro-gun groups in together. The federal regulation on guns are silly because it does interfere with states that have stronger gun culture.


I don't recall the exact year. I **think** either 2000-2001. When I reported it, I was told "Whatcha talkin bout ... there ain't no gang problem in DC :roll:" so yeah, the whole gang presence was played down by the authorities.
 
The UK did an all weapons ban AWB after a mass school shooting in 1996. Now their police and citizens resort to bats, knives and other blunt objects for self defense.

Oh yup.
Dunblane school massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are lucky because we have constitution to protect the gun owners and ban on guns are out of question.

I don't think that UK has gun rights in the constitution, also UK police officers use taser guns now, however the real guns are reserved for serious events.
 
If there is no gun rights (Second Amendment Style) in UK constitution so the judges won't make anything.

Further vindication came September 26, when the wounded home invaders pleaded guilty to burglary and were sentenced to four years in prison. Presiding over the case was Judge Michael Pert QC, who rejected attempts by O'Gorman's attorney to obtain leniency for his client by citing O'Gorman's "near-death experience." Judge Pert remarked,


"If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it," adding, "Some might argue that being arrested and locked up for 40 hours is a trauma."

It appears that the judge who presided over the Ferrie case was sane.
 
It appears that the judge who presided over the Ferrie case was sane.

What are you try to saying? The court system in UK is different and not everyone have same justice as we have in the US, it looks like couple are lucky and unusual. It just like the court let drunk person go free.

It means you shouldn't go above the law because of different court's way.

The punishment for burglary is more severe in here, 10-20 years in state prison.
 
What are you try to saying? The court system in UK is different and not everyone have same justice as we have in the US, it looks like couple are lucky and unusual. It just like the court let drunk person go free.

It means you shouldn't go above the law because of different court's way.

The punishment for burglary is more severe in here, 10-20 years in state prison.

I am saying that the Judge who presided over the Terrie case made a very logical statement. If someone decides to break in a house, they should expect to get shot at. They should not be given leniency because they were shot at by the homeowner.
 
Back
Top