London murder rate rises higher than NY City

Okiefreak: I was responding to your previous post arguing that the thread should still be in play and open to a general discussion of the gun issue.

Storch: Specifically, where did I say that a certain thread should still be in play and open for discussion?

Okiefreak: Post #367.

Post #367: You complain and say that you keep trying to pull the thread back to London, yet here you are calling a response from me. You need to decide what you really want, Balbus. You give the impression that you don't know your own mind.

But in answer to your question, I don't need an argument for having a gun that holds more than six rounds because there is no rational argument against me having a gun that holds more than six rounds. The only thing I've heard is a hysterical claim from you that people only want them so that they can shoot lots more people.
_____________________________________________________________________________

So where in the above did I say that a certain thread should still be in play and open for discussion?

Also, the cosmetics I'm talking about are the ones I asked you about after you proposed them. This should jog your memory:

You said you wanted grenade/flare launchers banned. How many grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle are you aware of? You said you wanted folding stocks banned. Do folding stocks make it easier to conceal a rifle when trying to sneak it in somewhere to do a mass shooting? Also, how many mass shootings are you aware of in which the shooter folded the stock in order to conceal it before shooting? And how does a flash suppressor help a mass shooter? I mean, there's no one they would need to be trying to hide their intentions from at that point, right? So why is it logical to accept such illogical thinking when it comes to what should be banned?

 

Is violent crime high in London? There were 116 murders in London in 2017, fewer than half New York’s annual total of 290. The latest New York police figures show 54 suspected murders so far in 2018, with two more reported by the media, which would put New York ahead of London--by one. The U.K has the third lowest murder rate from guns than other high income countries, while the U.S. has 25.2 times higher murder rates than those countries and 31% of mass shooters. BTW, New York has gun control ,and the real story in these comparisons is that New York has had success in dramatically lowering the violent crime rate in recent years--a pattern that may reflect a policy change to community policing. In the U.S., the most violent cities in terms of violent crimes per 100,00 people are Detroit (2046), St. Louis (1913) and Memphis (1820), compared with 573 for New York City. Tulsa, right here in Oklahoma, has a violent crime rate of 1095, making it the 19th most dangerous U. S. city. New York ranks 51st .2016 Cities By Violent Crime Rate (FBI) (better, rates, places, homicide) - City vs. City - City-Data Forum London may have had more actual murders than cities like Paris, Toronto and Berlin, but the chances of being a victim are roughly the same — based on population. The U.K. has one of the lowest per capita numbers police among European countries (one officer for every 367 people),, which may account for a higher crime rate. I have absolute figures via Eurostat for the U.K., but you'll need to work out the per capita figures. More than one million violent crimes were committed in Britain in 2008, the highest total for any European country., compared with France was next with 331,778. The UK also recorded the highest number of domestic burglaries in Europe– 284,427.

Specifically you didn't. I took your response to Balbus as an indication that you considered the thread still open to discussion of the gun issue. But this illustrates why I don't want to engage with you anymore. I don't want to waste my time with hair splitting distinctions relating to trivia. I don't recall saying a damned thing specifically about "cosmetics" ever. I'm afraid that wasn't enough to jog my memory, so you'll need to show me the post or relate the details. Was it Revlon or Estee Lauder you were referring to? I assume that you're either confusing me with someone else or making a reference to something contained in the legislation and court decisions in the Fourth Circuit. Don't bother tho, because I'm swearing off wasting further time with you,

 

The right wing perspective that crime is high in Europe. London has crime but so does every major city. I would not worry about guns there. I could be stabbed or mugged by a group of guys but it's still unlikely they will shoot me. That would be nice. The cops who get nervous and shoot because you might have a gun make the news but the random person shot by thief with same idea does not. You need a gun because he has a gun. And if he does not want one he is un-American. It is the American way.

 

There is no doubt that I was telling Balbus that while he claims to be wanting to get the thread back on topic, he nonetheless continues to ask questions unrelated to this thread.

 

Sure.

Storch said: Okay, so you don't want insane people or violent felons to be able to get ahold of a gun. What else do you want?

Okiefreak said: Legislation similar to Maryland's "assault weapons" ban, upheld under heightened scrutiny by the 4th Circuit in Kolbe v. Hogan, would do for starts. That law bans the sale or transfer of81 listed models of guns, along with "their copies," plus all semiautomatic centerfire rifles that accept detachable magazines and have two or more of these features: a folding stock, a grenade/flare launcher, or a flash suppressor. The law also bans the sale or transfer of magazines than can hold more than 10 rounds. Violators (buyers as well as sellers) can go to prison for up to three years.

Storch said: You say you want to ban "all semiautomatic center-fire rifles that accept detachable magazines that have two or more of these features: a folding stock, a grenade/flare launcher, or a flash suppressor." I'm curious as to how many grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle you are aware of. Do you believe that a folding stock makes it easier to conceal a rifle when trying to sneak it in somewhere? How many mass shootings are you aware of in which the shooter folded the stock in order to conceal it before shooting? And how does a flash suppressor help a mass shooter? I mean, who do you think they're trying to hide their intentions from at that point?

Also, you say that you would ban all semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, but then you mention that the law bans magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. So you want to ban semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, but not 10-round magazines?? Explain.

Given that semiautomatic rifles have been used in 3 of the hundreds of school shootings since 1984, and 18 of the most deadly mass shooting to date (and of those 18 incidents, 12 involved shotguns and pistols along with the semiautomatic rifles), why are you focused on the least used weapon?

Okiefreak said: . . . . . .
______________________________________________________________________

So yes, you are correct. This should illustrate why you don't want to engage with me anymore.

 

As suspected, "something contained in the legislation and court decisions in the Fourth Circuit." It passed the legislature, withstood the test of the adversarial process and heightened scrutiny, giving the benefit of the doubt to the gun owners, and was upheld by an en banc Fourth Circuit, cert to POTUS denied. I trust the legislature's and court's judgment. I've told you this before, and if you don't like it, too bad. As for grenade attacks, Toggle seems to think grenade launchers would be just fine for self-defense. You never have told us whether or not you agree, or if not, what firearms you think you need for self-defense to allay your insecurities about home invasions. Don't waste my time on this further. Tell it to the judge or the wall, or some hapless person who wants to engage with you.

 

Yeah, you did this before, too. Instead of answering my challenge to your statements, you appealed to the authority of some judges who didn't know a civilian semiautomatic rifle from a military select-fire rifle. And you're still avoiding answering questions concerning your statements about what you want to see banned, and why. I mean, in your own words.

And since you ask, grenade launchers are legal if you want to put out the cash and go through the paper work. People do own them. I personally don't think one is necessary for my purposes. A Glock-17 is fine.

 

The entire reason why the comparison between the two cities' crime rates is of any interest is because people try to use England's lower homicide rate compared to the US to make logically-flawed claims that draconian gun restrictions save lives.

That should at least make the UK's suppression of the right to keep and bear arms (and the lack of justification for that suppression) on-topic.

No. I'm the one who pointed out that there is no justification for banning them, either in England or in the US.

Restricting access to explosive shells seems adequate for public safety concerns.

 

For self defense.

If you think that six rounds is adequate for self defense, then do you think that British police agencies should limit all of their authorized firearms officers to six rounds?

 

I fail to understand how getting stabbed to death on the streets of London is any better than getting shot to death on the streets of New York City.

No. Guns are also used to defend against people who attack with knives, and even to defend against people who attack using only their fists.

 

OK so let’s look at this logically

I don’t want to be talking for MeAgain but the argument seems to be that there doesn’t seem to be any rational argument why a civilian should have a gun that has more than six bullets and needs reloading after they are expended and this could reduce harm.

The first part of this stance seems to be confirmed by Storch who after being repeated asked for a rational and reasonable argument for having guns capable of carry more bullets has been unable to come up with one.

So which is the most logical stance?

Well one side doesn’t have any logical reason and the other does, it has an intent, so the one with the reason wins out logically there.

I mean the intent of the proposer seems to be that if civilian guns were limited to those with 6 bullets it could limit the damage from such guns in the hands of those that might use them irresponsibly or criminally.

And there is no opposing argument.

I’m not saying I’m for this 6 bullet proposal or not, I’m still undecided and would like to hear more from MeAgain but so far I’d have to say from a logical and rational stand point since there is no counter argument it would seem to be the more reasonable one.

 

LOL it wasn’t the talk of guns that I was complaining about it was the shit that so often seems to come with it from some in the gun lobby, pumping out pages of repetitious crap that seems more about derailing a thread than honest debate as note by Okie and Scorch such dishonest tactics killed another thread just recently.

The thing is that guns have a place in this debate as a contrast between the US and UK and of course Trump brought up the knifings in London at the NRA bash.

 

As said the UK and especially urban areas have long being tackling gangs and violent crime. I’ve talked to many Americans that seem to think that the problem with urban gangs is something exclusive to the US but it is not is the same in many comparable places like the UK, what is different in the UK from the US is that the weapons are different and so the homicide rate is lower.

Now some gun lobbyists have claimed the answer is to give UK citizens the same ease of access to guns that many Americans have.

But ease of access to citizens in the US has led to ease of access to guns for criminals as well, so soon we would have gun problem rather than a knife problem when it came to gangs.

In answer to Trump’s NRA speech “Prof Karim Brohi, another surgeon at the hospital and the director of London’s major trauma system, said knife violence was a serious issue for London. “We are proud of the excellent trauma care we provide and of our violence reduction programmes,” he said in a statement on Saturday. “The Royal London hospital has cut the number of our young patients returning after further knife attacks from 45% to 1%.

“There is more we can all do to combat this violence, but to suggest guns are part of the solution is ridiculous. Gunshot wounds are at least twice as lethal as knife injuries and more difficult to repair. We are proud of our world-leading service and to serve the people of London.” [my bold]

Trump's knife crime comments are ridiculous, says London surgeon

 

Ok the reason for wanting more than 6 bullets is for self-defence, against what?

Also I should explain that regular police officers in the UK are not armed, we have small numbers of specialist units that are. I believe that some 90% of officers in London are not armed.

Thing is that armed police are meant to respond to any incident they are charged with going to it while self-defence is not about seeking out trouble.

Also if gun lobbyists think a potato is just as effective and dangerous as a gun, why do gun lobbyists seem so keen on having guns that can shoot lots of bullets?

 

Police officers are tasked with protecting the general public. I suppose if a massive gang is attacking you, six rounds would make sense but the average person will deal with a one on one situation. Unless you’re defending a school against a shooter but that shouldn’t be left up to civilians. This is just my opinion. Your observations might be different.

 

There is very much an opposing argument.

The classic lever-action .30-30 has eight rounds. The magazine in a classic .45 pistol has seven rounds. There is no justification for banning either weapon.

Against criminals who attack us.

If six rounds is adequate for confronting a hostile person though, then there should be no problem with limiting authorized firearms officers to six rounds.

Because running out of ammo in the middle of being attacked is a very bad thing.

 

Self defense requires multiple rounds. Not every round even hits the attacker. Not every round that hits the attacker even hits a vital area. And handguns are so underpowered that a hit to a vital area is no guarantee of stopping an attack.

And people can be attacked by multiple aggressors.

If civilians are the only ones present to defend against someone who is attacking them, it would be a good idea for them to defend until the police arrive.

 

You're undecided because there is no rational argument against a gun that holds more than six rounds to begin with. If there were, you would be offering it. Instead, you refer to someone else to offer it for you because you're incapable. So there you have it . . . or don't have it, in this case.

If you were able to think beyond your one-dimensional view, you would understand that in the absence of guns that hold more than six rounds, a shooter would simply bring two or three guns to the affair.

 

LOL what the fuck are you talking about?

So you still can’t actually produce a rational argument why civilian guns shouldn’t be limited to six bullet models.

 

Here is a post I made about a week ago. Not sure if anyone checked out the article or not.