London murder rate rises higher than NY City

I'm sure there are indeed more guns used in home invasions in the US. What I'm skeptical of is the claim that there are more armed home invasions.

In countries with few guns, armed home invaders will simply carry a knife.

Those people don't know what they are talking about. We don't live in fear of guns.

I really doubt that the risk of an armed home invasion is any greater here.

If you live in a country where there are few privately-owned guns, armed home invaders will simply carry a knife instead of a gun.

The NRA's defense of civil rights does not make this country any more dangerous in any way. All it does is ensure our freedom.

Eliminating civil rights has not been proven to do anything other than abolish freedom.

Why do people who oppose civil rights always use terms like "common sense" or "reasonable" or "rational"?

 

Because then anyone who owns any firearm for whatever reason is unreasonable, irrational and lacking common sense. Here or abroad.

 

Actually no. Its because no one is trying to prevent sane, law abiding people from owning a firearm. Therefore opposing regulations that could save lives becomes irrational, you oppose any sort of gun control because of an irrational fear of getting your guns taken away, you have such an irrational fear that you dont hear what is actually being proposed. All you hear is , "theyre gonna take muh gerrns and muh raights!"

Anyways this thread is too off topic and any conversation about guns just goes in circles anyways so i'm bowing out

 

You're extremely tiring... she didn't imply your specific recap. I bet she would go with a baseball bat sooner.
But as a citizen of the Netherlands i can tell you I WOULD use a bat or a lead pipe if I would encounter a burglar in my house. But to be clear its a highly hypothetical scenario. I feel i have just as much need for a baseball bat as for a gun.

 

Sorry that was the point that was been made – that the Smoking Lobby propaganda was all about trying to convince people not to trust ‘authority figure’ that were telling them smoking was unhealthy. Even when a causal relationship was proved the smoking lobby was still trying to convince people not to trust such findings.

This is absurd - you seem to be saying I’m correct and that is why I’m wrong – can you please present a rational argument?

 

This is weird if not plain nuts – to repeat I’ve said I don’t have an opinion about banning all guns that hold more than six rounds that it’s not something I’ve proposed or thought about doing, so I asked you to convince me that it isn’t a good idea and you reply that you haven’t got any rational or reasonable argument why I should reject the idea and instead I should think them up for you?

The thing is that if you have no actual rational reason why this proposal should not be brought in it makes me wonder if it might just be a reasonable idea.

 

OK again we are hampered by lack of knowledge into gun related issues but lets see.

A 2010 report from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics noted that "between 2003 and 2007, approximately 2.1 million household burglaries were reported to the FBI each year on average. Household burglaries ending in homicide made up 0.004% of all burglaries during that period."

So 2.1 million a year for 5 years is 11 million and if google calculator is correct 0.004% of 11 million is 440 and that divided by 5 is 88 so around 88 people a year are murdered as a result of a burglary.

Now to put that in context I believe that from 2012 to 2014, on average, 1,297 children died annually from a gun-related injury in the US.

A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.

A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

OK so let’s see it has been said by gun lobbyists that 3.5 homicides per 100,000 due to ease of access to guns is to insignificant a number of deaths for prudent gun control to be needed, but some gun lobbyists argue that 88 deaths a year out of a population of 325 million is SO significant and SO frightening that they put it as the main reason for them wanting a gun?

 

Reading the posts in this thread since I last posted was depressingly familiar the same old crap being pumped out by the gun lobby that sidesteps at ignores the rational and reasonable at every turn.

Where one of them can post this statement without irony - A causal relationship is apparent unless you don't want to see it…that's called denial.

For many in the gun lobby it just seem to be a matter of -I want a gun because I want a gun – and that it whatever is said beyond that is just an add on. It doesn’t matter how irrational, untruthful or even absurd it might be or seem to others it doesn’t matter to them what they are saying is not the reason all there really is that overwhelming want.

But having talked with many of them it seems clear that their want is fuelled by a by fear, and that they are afraid because they have a Social Darwinist dystopian outlook on life.

 

To explain again it has been known for some time that like most large cities London has a gang and violence problem. For many years the problem many sectors have been trying to tackle the problem with some success even in the face of budget cuts, but the latest round of austerity is really taking its toll.

All around England services are being cut and budgets slashed in London this has resulted in many of the programmes and services tackling gang and youth violence have become overstretched and less effective with many having disappeared altogether. Under the Conservative and right wing coalition government, the number of police officers has fallen by somewhere between 19,000 and 22,000. The community police services has been decimated.

And I also think the Glenfell fire has deepened resentment amongst many of the poor and young in the city who see the huge inequality and seeming disregard for their lives and have come to the conclusion that ‘they’ and society don’t care about them or their future. And the thing is that many on the right of politics in the UK don’t.

 

This. I don’t understand why gun owners make the leap that their rights are going to be infringed upon when the proposals out there are to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

 

Well, sweety, you haven't answered my question of whether or not you think that confronting a home invader with a knife or my bare fists would be more to your liking. The fact that you haven't answered that question indicates that you understand exactly how self centered your answer will sound.

Also, your beef is with all the corrupt politicians that you believe are in cahoots with the NRA. But since politicians are an authority figure in your mind, you won't approach the problem (as you see it) by marching up to Washington with similar, like-minded people and demanding an end to the corruption you are so sure exists. And that's your preference.

 

You're becoming thicker. You have no rational argument for banning all guns that hold more than six rounds, yet you ask me for a rational argument for not banning them. I've already told you that it's a fucking ridiculous idea based on hysteria. If you believe that it isn't, then put up or shut up.

 

That is incorrect. That is exactly what they are trying to do.

The regulations that I oppose are not designed to save any lives.

I don't oppose any sort of gun control. I only oppose the sort that violates people's civil rights.

 

I've given you a rational and reasonable reason why it shouldn't be done:

There is no justification for such a ban.

Well, yes. That's what freedom is all about.

Free people don't have to justify their wants to anybody, and if anybody doesn't like the choices that a free person makes, that's just too bad.

Since Americans are free people, if we want to have a gun, we get to have a gun. It doesn't matter why we want it.

 

It's because there are people--some right here on this forum--whose proposals include the confiscation of all guns that hold more than six rounds. I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. I do have a problem with law enforcement officials who ignore obvious threats made by unbalanced, would-be shooters. I also have a problem with people who are aware of these law enforcement fuck-ups, but choose to focus on the guns used by the shooter.

 

No leap. That isn't what the proposals out there are.

The gun control movement mainly cares about violating people's civil rights for fun. They aren't fighting to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

 

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

National Crime Victimization Survey

Victimization During Household Burglary

September 2010 NCJ 227379

Highlights

*An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.

*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

*Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when
a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and
rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was
present and violence occurred.

*Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent
burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.

*Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred
during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of
all households violently burglarized while someone was home
faced an offender armed with a firearm.

*Households residing in single family units and higher density
structures of 10 or more units were least likely to be
burglarized (8 per 1,000 households) while a household member
was present.

*Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for
36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home
and experienced violence during a completed burglary.
__________________________________________________________________________

You are one of the proponents here who believe that I have an obligation to take on a home invader with a knife or my fists. Why would I accept such a stupid, hysteria-based obligation?

 

Oh my poor little Storch, as I’ve said before calm down take some deep breaths and try and think straight.

The thing is that I’m not sure I can put it any simpler – the 6 bullets thing was not something I’ve proposed or thought about doing, it was MeAgain that proposed it, although for a time you were convinced I’d said it, before actually reading the posts and discovering it wasn’t me.

I believe MeAgains argument was that he didn’t see a need for any weapon in civilian hands to hold more than that number of bullets. I can see a certain logic in that I mean outside of a war zone why would someone need guns that could shoot a lot of people all at once.

But to repeat it’s not something I’ve proposed, and so I asked you give me a rational and reasonable argument why I should reject this proposal so far you seem unable to do so.

Just saying its fucking ridiculous isn’t a rational argument and actually makes you look like the hysterical one.

 

Yes i read the same DOJ thing - what is you point?

 

Wow! I said:

"You have no rational argument for banning all guns that hold more than six rounds, yet you ask me for a rational argument for not banning them. I've already told you that it's a fucking ridiculous idea based on hysteria. If you believe that it isn't, then put up or shut up."

If this is your idea of someone not being calm, then it is no wonder that you're afraid of guns.

And you left out the part of Meagain's proposal that called for the confiscation of all guns that hold more than six rounds. There's no reason for such a thing. In your mind anyone who has a gun that holds more than six rounds wants it so that they can kill more people. That's kind of hysterical, and sort of paranoid.