[StarSlayer]

Social inequality issues are best fixed with education and familiarity.  You want that structure built on understanding and tolerance, fear is not a foundation at all.  While the fact that a target might have a 1911 may give and aggressor pause before doing something flagrantly bellicose it certainly won't breed long term acceptance.  The ultimate aim is to remove those boundaries not just create a deterrent.

[Nakura]

Yes Nakura, please don't bring guns to the UK, we do very well without them, thank you.

America has a gun culture, but we don't. Probably quite the opposite, an anti-gun culture.

I've never even seen a gun in the UK outside of all the guards at the airport I saw one time wandering around with machine guns...

Actually, I think you'll find quite the opposite. I've spent years studying data and history, and you will find that the British are among the most fervent pro-gun cultures in history. This can be seen through the Assize of Arms of 1181 and 1252, as well as the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

Though that is to say nothing of the fact that Britain was far better off with guns, than without them. Britain never had a history of mass shootings prior to the late 1980s, yet when they banned semi-automatics with the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, they began experiencing mass shootings; namely the Dunblane (1996) and Cumbria (2010) shootings. This is to say nothing of the fact that violent crime and homicide rates in Britain have been on the rise since the 1968, 1988 and 1997 gun control acts. In fact, violent crime rates have been increasing so drastically in Britain, in spite of (and potentially even because of) these laws, that they have not once reached their pre-Firearms Act (1966) levels. Meanwhile, almost every other first world country gets by just fine without a gun ban and most manage to have far lower violent crime rates and less mass shootings than Britain does. Your feeling of safety is just that, a feeling.

[Grizzly]

Nakura, you are making the same very crucial mistakes you did last time.

[Nakura]

Nakura, you are making the same very crucial mistakes you did last time.

Don't worry, I'm not advocating that we invade the United Kingdom or anything over the top like that. I was merely suggesting that the NRA work with grassroots activists in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, and help restore Britain's gun laws to how they were prior to 1988. Not necessarily laws such as those in the United States, but rather, something more along the lines of Sweden, France or any other country. Heck, even Australia-style gun laws would be an improvement over the current system.

[Lorric]

Yes Nakura, please don't bring guns to the UK, we do very well without them, thank you.

America has a gun culture, but we don't. Probably quite the opposite, an anti-gun culture.

I've never even seen a gun in the UK outside of all the guards at the airport I saw one time wandering around with machine guns...

Actually, I think you'll find quite the opposite. I've spent years studying data and history, and you will find that the British are among the most fervent pro-gun cultures in history. This can be seen through the Assize of Arms of 1181 and 1252, as well as the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

Though that is to say nothing of the fact that Britain was far better off with guns, than without them. Britain never had a history of mass shootings prior to the late 1980s, yet when they banned semi-automatics with the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, they began experiencing mass shootings; namely the Dunblane (1996) and Cumbria (2010) shootings. This is to say nothing of the fact that violent crime and homicide rates in Britain have been on the rise since the 1968, 1988 and 1997 gun control acts. In fact, violent crime rates have been increasing so drastically in Britain, in spite of (and potentially even because of) these laws, that they have not once reached their pre-Firearms Act (1966) levels. Meanwhile, almost every other first world country gets by just fine without a gun ban and most manage to have far lower violent crime rates and less mass shootings than Britain does. Your feeling of safety is just that, a feeling.

I don't think data from many centuries ago has any bearing here.

And two mass shootings in that timeframe is very, very good going in my book. How many mass shootings does the US have? The UK has a fifth of the US population, so they should have 5X the mass shootings all thing being equal. It's more.

It's funny you mention Dunblane, because that's when this country really turned on guns, that's when it all changed.

In my experience people don't talk about guns. Guns are largely irrelevant here. I've never heard anyone, whether it be in person, on the TV, or in a piece of reading material say anything about wanting to bring guns to the UK.

[Grizzly]

I was talking about specifically the last gun control debate and more specific things in general. Sorry about the confusion, but there's a distinct pattern.

1) Telling someone, who is part of a certain culture or country, that his culture or country is not like that at all, even though he himself lives there and experiences it every day. This is an extremely arrogant thing to do, and won't help your arguments in any way.

2) Making very broad stroke assumptions about first world countries, even though they are all very much different from one another, what with the various different cultures and semi-constant warfare and/or rivalry since the 'nation state' became a thing.

[Nakura]

Yes Nakura, please don't bring guns to the UK, we do very well without them, thank you.

America has a gun culture, but we don't. Probably quite the opposite, an anti-gun culture.

I've never even seen a gun in the UK outside of all the guards at the airport I saw one time wandering around with machine guns...

Actually, I think you'll find quite the opposite. I've spent years studying data and history, and you will find that the British are among the most fervent pro-gun cultures in history. This can be seen through the Assize of Arms of 1181 and 1252, as well as the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

Though that is to say nothing of the fact that Britain was far better off with guns, than without them. Britain never had a history of mass shootings prior to the late 1980s, yet when they banned semi-automatics with the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, they began experiencing mass shootings; namely the Dunblane (1996) and Cumbria (2010) shootings. This is to say nothing of the fact that violent crime and homicide rates in Britain have been on the rise since the 1968, 1988 and 1997 gun control acts. In fact, violent crime rates have been increasing so drastically in Britain, in spite of (and potentially even because of) these laws, that they have not once reached their pre-Firearms Act (1966) levels. Meanwhile, almost every other first world country gets by just fine without a gun ban and most manage to have far lower violent crime rates and less mass shootings than Britain does. Your feeling of safety is just that, a feeling.

I don't think data from many centuries ago has any bearing here.

And two mass shootings in that timeframe is very, very good going in my book. How many mass shootings does the US have? The UK has a fifth of the US population, so they should have 5X the mass shootings all thing being equal. It's more.

It's funny you mention Dunblane, because that's when this country really turned on guns, that's when it all changed.

In my experience people don't talk about guns. Guns are largely irrelevant here. I've never heard anyone, whether it be in person, on the TV, or in a piece of reading material say anything about wanting to bring guns to the UK.

Two mass shootings in about 15-20 years is a lot, considering there had been none for centuries prior to that and Britain had gun control laws similar to what the rest of Europe has now. It doesn't matter how many mass shootings the United States does or doesn't have, as they are two completely different societies and it's two different discussions; heck, all I have to do is say "look at France/Germany/Switzerland/Poland/Italy/Sweden/Norway/Czech Republic/Slovakia/etc." and point out how they have had less mass shootings; and that's just as valid, more-so-actually (due to the amount of data) as your claim on mass shootings in the United States.

Though I must admit that it was disingenuous of me to mention mass shootings, as they are statistically insignificant in every country, including the United States. It is virtually impossible to be killed in a mass shooting in the United States, United Kingdom or any other country for that matter, given that you're vastly more likely to be killed an infinite number of other ways. The real focus should be on violent crime, which is a legitimate problem. So that really was my fault, setting a trap for you like that, Lorric, I apologize.

[Nakura]

I was talking about specifically the last gun control debate and more specific things in general. Sorry about the confusion, but there's a distinct pattern.

1) Telling someone, who is part of a certain culture or country, that his culture or country is not like that at all, even though he himself lives there and experiences it every day. This is an extremely arrogant thing to do, and won't help your arguments in any way.

2) Making very broad stroke assumptions about first world countries, even though they are all very much different from one another, what with the various different cultures and semi-constant warfare and/or rivalry since the 'nation state' became a thing.

Again, I'm sorry, it wasn't my intent to make Lorric feel like an idiot or belittle him, and I think he knows this. Lorric and I are pretty much internet friends, and I wouldn't insult him (or anyone else here, without cause). I merely meant to point out that from an anthropological perspective, Britain, and indeed Anglo-Saxon cultures in general, have long been very friendly to gun ownership. Lorric himself pointed out that prior to the Dunblane/Hungerford shooting, nobody in Britain supported a ban on most firearms.

[Lorric]

The real focus should be on violent crime, which is a legitimate problem. So that really was my fault, setting a trap for you like that, Lorric, I apologize.

Alright, don't worry about it.

And I don't know where you get the idea violent crime is going up in the UK, it's going down, and has been year on year for a long time, and quite sharply too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280

I was talking about specifically the last gun control debate and more specific things in general. Sorry about the confusion, but there's a distinct pattern.

1) Telling someone, who is part of a certain culture or country, that his culture or country is not like that at all, even though he himself lives there and experiences it every day. This is an extremely arrogant thing to do, and won't help your arguments in any way.

2) Making very broad stroke assumptions about first world countries, even though they are all very much different from one another, what with the various different cultures and semi-constant warfare and/or rivalry since the 'nation state' became a thing.

Again, I'm sorry, it wasn't my intent to make Lorric feel like an idiot or belittle him, and I think he knows this. Lorric and I are pretty much internet friends, and I wouldn't insult him (or anyone else here, without cause). I merely meant to point out that from an anthropological perspective, Britain, and indeed Anglo-Saxon cultures in general, have long been very friendly to gun ownership. Lorric himself pointed out that prior to the Dunblane/Hungerford shooting, nobody in Britain supported a ban on most firearms.

Listen to him Nakura. I made the mistake of no.1 in a gun control debate on here badly a while back. Try not to over-rely on data alone.

I don't know how Brits felt about guns prior to Dunblane, but it had the feeling of a "that's it, no more" moment, which might mean guns had a low opinion even then.

On another note, you can own a gun in the UK. I know, as someone I know has at least one rifle, I think he has more, and belongs to a rifle club. He could also gun down an intruder in his home legally if in self-defence. National Rifle Association your NRA is, well don't worry, you can own a rifle in this country if you want. I know there's more to it than that, but you can own a gun in the UK, there isn't a blanket ban. Though it will take considerable effort to be allowed to.

[Nakura]

The real focus should be on violent crime, which is a legitimate problem. So that really was my fault, setting a trap for you like that, Lorric, I apologize.

Alright, don't worry about it.

And I don't know where you get the idea violent crime is going up in the UK, it's going down, and has been year on year for a long time, and quite sharply too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280

It's seen a decrease in the past year or two, but the overall trend has been an increasing one and they haven't come close to reaching their previous levels.

I was talking about specifically the last gun control debate and more specific things in general. Sorry about the confusion, but there's a distinct pattern.

1) Telling someone, who is part of a certain culture or country, that his culture or country is not like that at all, even though he himself lives there and experiences it every day. This is an extremely arrogant thing to do, and won't help your arguments in any way.

2) Making very broad stroke assumptions about first world countries, even though they are all very much different from one another, what with the various different cultures and semi-constant warfare and/or rivalry since the 'nation state' became a thing.

Again, I'm sorry, it wasn't my intent to make Lorric feel like an idiot or belittle him, and I think he knows this. Lorric and I are pretty much internet friends, and I wouldn't insult him (or anyone else here, without cause). I merely meant to point out that from an anthropological perspective, Britain, and indeed Anglo-Saxon cultures in general, have long been very friendly to gun ownership. Lorric himself pointed out that prior to the Dunblane/Hungerford shooting, nobody in Britain supported a ban on most firearms.

Listen to him Nakura. I made the mistake of no.1 in a gun control debate on here badly a while back. Try not to over-rely on data alone.

I don't know how Brits felt about guns prior to Dunblane, but it had the feeling of a "that's it, no more" moment, which might mean guns had a low opinion even then.

On another note, you can own a gun in the UK. I know, as someone I know has at least one rifle, I think he has more, and belongs to a rifle club. He could also gun down an intruder in his home legally if in self-defence. National Rifle Association your NRA is, well don't worry, you can own a rifle in this country if you want. I know there's more to it than that, but you can own a gun in the UK, there isn't a blanket ban. Though it will take considerable effort to be allowed to.

I am well aware of British firearms law, you can indeed own a rifle or shotgun, and a very select few handguns. However, it is virtually impossible for anyone, even the most ardent collector or sports shooters, to obtain a modern handgun or semi-automatic rifle in Britain. Herein lies the problem, it is not realistically possible for people to pursue their hopes and dreams.

[Grizzly]

 

Here's the UK violent crime rate graph from 1981 to 2007.

.

[Phantom Hoover]

Herein lies the problem, it is not realistically possible for people to pursue their hopes and dreams.

little timmy had one dream in his life, to own a weapon with the primary purpose of killing other human beings

the government took timmy's dream away from him, now he's an accountant

checkmate gun control?

[StarSlayer]

[Nakura]

Here's the UK violent crime rate graph from 1981 to 2007.

.

Here is the homicide rate in England and Wales:


My data comes straight from the British government, or to be precise, the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110314171826/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf

[Nakura]

Herein lies the problem, it is not realistically possible for people to pursue their hopes and dreams.

little timmy had one dream in his life, to own a weapon with the primary purpose of killing other human beings

the government took timmy's dream away from him, now he's an accountant

checkmate gun control?

Don't kid yourself, Phantom Hoover, there are countless legitimate purposes to own a gun, not just committing murder or waging war on other countries. There are hundreds of millions of law abiding gun owners in the United States alone who have never and will never kill a single person, this is to say nothing of the over hundreds of millions of gun owners in other countries (including over 2 million in Britain).

[Grizzly]

(including over 2 million in Britain).

... So what's your beef about gun control laws?

[Nakura]

(including over 2 million in Britain).

... So what's your beef about gun control laws?

Because virtually all of those gun owners are only allowed to own a bolt-action rifle and shotgun, unlike the rest of the civilized world, where semi-automatics and most handguns are legal.

[Phantom Hoover]

Don't kid yourself, Phantom Hoover, there are countless legitimate purposes to own a gun, not just committing murder or waging war on other countries.

name one purpose for a 'modern handgun' other than killing other humans (bonus points if it's not 'sport shooting')

[IronBeer]

Here is the homicide rate in England and Wales:
[snip]

There are footnotes on this graph. What are the footnotes on this graph?

[Lorric]

Look Nakura, we already have our own NRA:

http://www.nra.org.uk/

And check the wiki article on it:

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

Interestingly, it’s older than the American one. And if you scroll to the bottom, it seems at least several other countries have their own NRA. I don’t think they’ll have anything to do with the American one, especially the British one, which came first, but other countries have their own organisations to handle this sort of thing.

It's seen a decrease in the past year or two, but the overall trend has been an increasing one and they haven't come close to reaching their previous levels.

You didn't read the link I gave you, did you. I am disappointed in you.

That's for the past 10 years, showing it's fallen by a quarter over that period.

Where are you getting this impression from? Throw it away. Here's another one, for last year, stating violent crime is at it's lowest in 33 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25858421

*Lorric sees all the other posts*

It's interesting that there was a lower rate of violent crime all those years ago. But it's still going down and has been doing for some time. I also don't know how you'd link the law changes to changes in the data. Violent crime in the UK nearly always does not involve a gun.

Also, if you want to improve the violent crime statistic, why would the introduction of guns have a positive effect on that?