Safer WITH, or WITHOUT, Gun Control? USA -vs- UK

You know I always found it odd that whenever I asked British people what they learned about the wars between Britain and America(mainly the revolution but also the war of 1812) it's near nothing yet in history classes in upper grades the American civil war is often mentioned. I know the American revolution in terms of British history is a small blip, but dang still it did actually involve Britain

 

my fault; the british troops were just inandequate in numbers to win the war, in numbers they were in fact - at least at the start - superior.

 

But there is very little gun crime in the UK. Doesn't that mean it is working?

There is a widespread myth that the Vietnamese communists defeated South Vietnam with guerilla tactics. South Vietnam was invaded by a conventional army from North Vietnam.



Does this tank look like its made out of bamboo?

 

Well, it looks like the opposite is also true for you guy's education, based of a previous poster's claims of "ur all subjects of da kings n queens in britain lololz" nonsense. We did some American history in school, but I remember mostly doing British history, the Tudor's and Stuart's, the Victorians, the Georgians, the writings of Shakespere, the British Civil War and so forth. Much like in America, I imagine you must have learnt mainly American history.

 

I wasn't talking about the North invading the South, i was talking more about the initial conflict with America.

 

But there's very little gun crime in Switzerland and Finland, most gun crime in the US is centered in cities with strict gun control, while the level of gun crime has gone down in the past 20 years as most states have adopted CCW laws while on the flip gun crime in both Britain and Australia went up after their respective bans. Doesn't this mean it's not working?

While this is true, the role of the Vietcong in Vietnam was massive and is what mainly took on the American army

To a point, 8th and 10th grade was nothing but American history. But American history in itself is short, only about 225 years, another 200 years before that too but that would be a mix of American/British/French/Spanish history. Europe in during the world wars and industrial revolution comes up a lot along with colonialism, and the Greek city states and the Roman Empire. Nothing really much though in the 1,500 years in between.

 

I must make the point though, that America has a very short history compared to Britain (not to take as insult against you, it's a state of fact) and you're right, some of the wars between the US and Britain are just a blip compared to, say, the story of the Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Vikings, Romans, legions and legions of other events in British history and this is but one of them, albeit an important one for you, it is probably not quite so important for us. Britain as been in many a forgotten war over the centuries.

 

The UK is better statistically with gun involvment in murders being:

0.00102579 per 1,000 people - U.K.
0.02792710 per 1,000 people - U.S.

However Keep in mind, that would only be with guns. Total crimes in comparison gives off a different view:

85.5517 per 1,000 people - U.K.
80.0645 per 1,000 people - U.S.

In which kinda leads to why 89% of americans believe in our police force vs 70% of the U.K. believe in theirs

Would be nice if there was something to fix it all, but I doubt that will ever happen. U.S numbers looks big in totals due to the amount of citizens there are, but when held to a percentage in comparison to the countrys U.S. still is not in the top 5.

 

I feel that is pretty sad you don't get to learn a lot of European history. British history to name just one is extraordinary and well worth a read, the same for a lot of countries. Actually, we should make a pact. I read up on US history and you read about UK history? Deal? That way we're both just a little wiser.

 

Oh I know lots of British history, even though I never succeeded at my goal I went to college for a history major, and Britain, being the basically fancier version of America, where my country came from and the country we've always interacted with the most I had to read British history, plus I love British politics, I wish we had a question time. It's funny though I've fallen into the same general trap, my favorite part of history is the Roman empire, and when it comes to medieval history I know more about mainland Europe, so my main knowledge of British history goes from Rome to the Normans then fizzles out again until around the Act of Union.

Could be worse, many Americans fully believe Columbus was British.

And I saw something like 10-15% don't even know what country it was we declared independence from.

America, fuck yeah!

 

Christopher Columbus...British? Oh dear. The second thing I was pretty worried about. It's their history. How can you not know what country you were colonised by? Does that not make Independence Day invalid if you don't know what you're celebrating?
Actually I will read up on the collonial periods in the US, I'm quite interested to find out now.

 

Ironically the end of colonial days in America when we won the revolution, followed by America's constant expansion in both military and monetary purchase of land across North America, and the Monroe doctrine(which only worked because Britain supported it) is quite possibly one of the best things that may have happened to the British empire. North America was dominated only by the US and Canada(British), newly independent South American states were protected by the US and Britain under the monroe doctrine, and the War of 1812 ended at the same time that Britain and her allies defeated Napoleon. After that Britain began an expansion in Africa, India and Asia where sun truly never did set on the British empire. And as both countries grew, the "special relationship" between Britain and America grew.

 

Louisiana has concealed carry and the highest rate of gun homicide in the USA. It is about 20 times higher than Hawaii, which has much stricter gun control.

Also, it would have been more accurate for you to point out that gun crime has gone down in all states, regardless of their gun control laws.

Gun crime in both countries was near zero before and after the ban. Trust me I live in one of them.

 

I don't believe that. The North Vietnamese army was in it right from the beginning. The Vietcong were never that important.

 

On the flip side Vermont has the loosest gun laws in the country and New Hampshire is near on par and they have the lowest rates of gun homicide. Then there's the Washington D.C. example, but that's been said enough.

And how can you say the Vietcong was never that important, if anything they were just as important as the NVA for most of the war until the last few years. Tet offensive anyone? Though technically a South Vietnam/American victory, especially for how much the vietcong lost in manpower at the end of it, up to then and for a short while later the Vietcong probably did more damage then actual coordinated sole NVA attacks.

 

A relationship still burning strong today.
I never thought of it that way, that the loss of US soil was of benefit to the British empire. Maybe that, indeed, is true. Interesting, have not heard it from that point of view before. Again.... interesting.

As for the Vietcong, I actually believe they were very important. Influential even. They, I believe, were a major part that contributed to the American's downfall.

 

But why is that true if gun ownership reduces crime?

 

?
All guns were illegal in D.C. until the Heller case, and D.C.'s crime rate was beyond astronomical. The murder rate in D.C. in 90-91 was higher then the death rate of soldiers in Iraq, like wtf. This was more a matter of socio-economic problems I think though, I mean when I went to D.C. some years ago, I fully appreciated the fact that outside all the monuments, D.C. is near a third world shit hole, I can't imagine how bad it must've been 20 years ago, especially during the crack epedemic.

 

i think socio-economics had much of a part to play in this than anything. As is pretty obvious without posting entire statistics to prove as such, the more impoverished an area, the more crime committed. This obviously would have had some impact upon D.C. By the sounds of it though, money needs to be invested in DC urgently, to change it from a poverty-stricken area.

 

Being the seat of the world's largest and richest federal government, I don't know how much more investment D.C. can get.