I only had to read about half of your post to see you're wrong.

The US may have more shootings, because the UK has less firearms. But they have way more stabbings. Because someone who wants to do harm to others will find a way, gun or not.

Pepperoni wrote

002 wrote

Pepperoni wrote

THQ wrote Why should I have to have all my guns taken away because of others. America is about the freedom. Yeah I agree a lot of people are popped a year, but you need to understand, it's not the guns it's the people behind them. We don't need any gun laws. What we need is stronger background checks for those attempting to purchase.

I agree. The background checks are a joke. When I bought my gun it took maybe 20 minutes. I went in, signed a few things and then waited for my background check. Way too easy.

So what else can they do?

Nice little article I read.

"Americans overwhelmingly support background checks. Surveys show that 92 percent of Americansincluding 82 percent of gun owners and 74 percent of NRA memberssupport criminal background checks for all gun sales.

But under pressure from the gun lobby, Congress and most states have failed to close the deadly loopholes in the background check system.

Federal law only requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks. That means that millions of guns are exchanged each year without a checkmost often online or at gun shows through unlicensed private sellers. Felons, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill, and other dangerous people know about this loophole, and they exploit it every day.

Its like having two lines at the airportone with security, and one without. And criminals get to choose. Thats why criminals are flocking to unregulated online gun saleswhere they can buy guns, with no background check and no questions asked.

Closing this private sale loophole is the simplest way to shut down criminals easy access to guns. Since the background check system was started, it has blocked more than two million sales to dangerous people, and a background check takes only a few minutes to complete.

We also need to make sure the background check database is complete. States and federal agencies have failed to send hundreds of thousands of records to the national background check databases. Every missing record is another tragedy waiting to happen. The Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 32 people, was banned from buying guns because a court found him severely mentally ill. But he passed a background check because his records never made it into the system.

There is no better way to reduce gun deaths in America than strengthening the background check system."

You said background checks are a joke. I already posted my opinion on how we can fix the loop holes so I won't get into that. My question was, what else can they do? Inferring other than background checks as they "a joke". Not attacking / disagreeing with you here, just looking for more insight from other.

THQ wrote

002 wrote

Pepperoni wrote

THQ wrote Why should I have to have all my guns taken away because of others. America is about the freedom. Yeah I agree a lot of people are popped a year, but you need to understand, it's not the guns it's the people behind them. We don't need any gun laws. What we need is stronger background checks for those attempting to purchase.

I agree. The background checks are a joke. When I bought my gun it took maybe 20 minutes. I went in, signed a few things and then waited for my background check. Way too easy.

So what else can they do?

well I can only speak for my state, Tennessee, but they are in the right direction I suppose, for handguns only unfortunately. When buying a handgun here you have to sign papers as with any gun, but they require you to fingerprint, and after that they make you wait 3 days and during that time they "run background checks" and after the 3 day period you can come and assuming all is cleared out they give you the gun. Well oddly enough, while this has helped a bit for handguns any other type of weapon that's store bought that i know of especially a shotgun, you walk in you pick it out sign papers pay and you have a gun. I think if you want to buy a weapon you should have to register for owning a gun and take a mental test before you are eligible of buying. I'm pro gun and I think that it would be safer if it went something like this.

WA state used to have that across the board for any firearm. I remember having to wait the 3 days for my hunting rifle, they said it was a "cool down period". I personally don't think it'd do much as these murderers already have their guns / pre-meditate it, but I do think it'd help and certainly wouldn't hurt. For some reason WA state got rid of that, we walked out of the stores with the AR's and AK's in less than 2 hours (again different shops and different times).

notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

Miss wrote

Click to View Content

Schoey wrote

Click to View Content

002 wrote

notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

Click to View Content

002 wrote

notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

002 wrote

notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

002 wrote

notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

C4s wrote Im just gonna leave this here

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

and also this

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

wanna read the post before posting gun memes made for republicans for retards to believe is the simple truth - there are criminals in all countries, if guns are embargoed they have a lot harder time getting hold of guns and ergo killing people.

002 wrote Oh boy, this topic again.

Hmm, let's look at some numbers. The UK has 64.1 million people, and the US has 318.9 million people. There are going to be a lot more issues in the US regardless....

Ok, next. 32k people die every year from guns. That's what? 0.01% of the population? Oh, but let's not forget that 20k of those deaths where suicide, and 2k where gang related. Cool, so now we're down to 10k deaths, that's 0.003% of the population? Is that honestly a big enough number to justify taking guns away from the rest of the people?

According to the Trackers data, which defines a massacre as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870. We know that gang violence roughly accounts for what? 15% of that? That's about 56 of those shootings. Let's say that the others where all the bad people shooting up schools of innocent children and such. That's 316 mass shootings. We look at a lot of these shootings it is 1 person doing it. Let's jump the number to say that from the 316 mass shootings, 1k people where shooters. So 0.00031357792411414236% of the US population are mass shooters. That means 1 person out of every 318,900 people are "mass shooters". 1 out of every 318,900, should that 1 person being an idiot account for guns being taken away for the next 318,900 people behind them? NO.

But please, I'm all ears. What do YOU suppose we should do? There are all sorts of people saying America is a horrible place because 0.0003% of the population are shooters and 0.003% of the population die from guns, so how do we solve it? We can't simply take them away, because I as a law abiding citizen will not hand in my gun, along with many others. I often hear that people want stricter regulations on how you get guns. I have yet to hear a viable option as to what else we can do. As it stands right now, if you buy a gun at a legal FFL you know that they do everything but know what will happen with the gun in the next 20 years. I do agree however that being able to sell guns at a gun show without a registered FFL there should be illegal. Yes, you are supposed to go to an FFL to transfer it into your name, but if anyone has done that, you know that it's like going to the DMV for a new drivers license picture. It sucks, so people don't do it. The only way past it that I can see is have 1 legal FFL booth for every 5 gun booths and make sure no one leaves with a gun that they did not transfer. Another way to do it is write everyone's names down and have a signing party at an FFL the next day. For example I'd go there, I see a gun I want say I'll buy this gun, write my name down and let's get it registered tomorrow, all the while the gun is still at the booth until it is in your name. That's all we can do.

So you are willing to relegate the students and teachers of Columbine, Lindhurst, Sandy Hook, Pearl High, Santana High, Virginia Tech as well as the innocents in various public places to a percentage?! Like don't worry guys its okay cause most people dont get killed. Listen to your infantile reasoning. And whats it all for? Is it just the principle that you don't like have the slightest bit of freedom of choice taken away? Are their lives not important enough for you to give up the ability to shoot animals and the non existent intruders in your house you all talk about?

You are asking me to propose change? what would I do? Place an embargo on the supply of guns full stop. Are you guys babies with rattles? Once its taken away you want it for the sake of wanting it? The second amendment was written when there were standards in battle. When guns weren't capable of taking out schools and clubs of people - it was written when dueling was a sport for christ's sake. Are you incapable of adapting when it is clearly needed.

You are also still talking about the requirement for licensing and ticking boxes to be able to purchase a weapon, however, you still have not provided any evidence to suggest that this stops the amount of barbaric shootings that go on. Shall we all just ignore these events that only seem to happen in the US barring a few other nations like Venezuela and parts of Africa. There are plenty of other hugely popularised areas such as China (larger than USA) that don't have these problems, so don't just justify your statistics as "we have more people than you do so its bound to happen" cause as long as you can prove its a "small amount" then its fine to keep on going on as you do.

I don't think you understand facts. There are a ton of guns here. People won't give them (myself included), so if these people can't get a gun, the steal mine. Oh, but let's say it's a perfect world, no citizen has a gun. Cool, they are hard to get, what;s next? The tannerite you can buy from Walmart. Great thinking.

You have no idea how hard I laughed when you said take the supply of guns to a full stop, that was hilarious. Take your liberal ideas and keep them in your country rofl. In case you didn't notice, we are not ruled by tyrants. You mean to tell me, that you think because 10k people die a year that shouldn't, we should take away guns? What about the rest of the people who need guns for hunting? I want you to visit places like Chicago and walk down the streets. Tell me you'd feel safe with pepper spray, you won't.

80% of guns used in these attacks are purchased legally. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about in this conversation, so I am done. You have no idea how the real world works. Guns will always be around in the US weather or not you make them illegal, kind of like drugs.

LOL you actually haven't addressed any of my counterargument - I accept that it may be a small percentage, but you haven't addressed the issue that that still isn't okay. Perhaps we can employ you to go home to these families and tell them their son or daughter is dead.

You're actually so mad now lmao, you just predict arbitrarily that if you don't have guns people will resort to tannerite hahaha are you literally that assured that people are that desperate to kill others in the states - I mean even though throughout this whole thread I've been providing statistics and examples that less guns directly lead to less mortality, but apparently I "don't understand facts". Anyways I'm done feeding you official statistics from various sources to which you have provided none except a simple division of gun rate to population which is irrelevant. You can continue on in your ignorance lol peace

Yes, you've provided statistics, those won't change. Tell me one more statistic. How much did the UK murder rate increase per 100k after guns where banned? Go ahead, tell me. Also, I have provided facts on the other thread that was linked to you, it already has 6 pages, no need for another one here.

I'm "mad" because you are using childish words resorting to personal attacks.

It is such a small amount that we shouldn't be worried about taking guns away. If we're honestly worried about that small of a number, we might as well take cars away because 30k people die a year from cars. While we're at it, not more swimming because people die from drowning, oh, and no more fired because people die from those too. What about the thousands of people who rely on hunting for meat? I personally hunt with an AK-47. But hey, let's take away semi-auto "assault rifles". Now we're left with bolt action / lever action rifles. Great, now I can get on a roof top and snip everyone. Great idea.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

after 1997 here are the statistics, admittedly the figures dont change immediately as it will have taken some time for all personal firearms to be handed in, but there has been an overall net fall in death within crime since the firearm ban in britain. Also to counter another one of your earlier points that people will not give their firearms up, well they did here, so you can speak for yourself..

read below (if you're capable)

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

You're a slippery fella, read what I said, murder rate, not firearm related murder rate.

To find that statistic just take away that from the actual murder rate, will still drop - but apparently because only a small percentage are affected, not including yourself, it doesn't matter if the rate drops just as long as you can own a few pieces of metal

The murder rate will not drop lol, the UK proved that when it increased. But hey, let's look at a couple more facts. You like to post pictures, so I'll post two as well.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]


Fact: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates.

Fact: According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America.

Fact: Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.

Fact: The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian Prairie Provinces than in the northern US states across the border.

Fact: Strict controls over existing arms failed in Finland. Despite needs-based licensing, storage laws and transportation restrictions, Finland experienced a multiple killing school shooting in 2007.

Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime especially violent crime has risen.

Fact: Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned.

Fact: Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population).

Fact: 67% of British residents surveyed believed that As a result of gun and knife crime [rising], the area I live in is not as safe as it was five years ago.

Fact: U.K. Violent Crime Rates 1982 through 2010 covering gun control acts in 1998 and 1997 - revised - 2Fact: U.K. street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes were up 14%.

Fact: This trend continued in the U.K in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.

Fact: An ongoing parliamentary inquiry in Britain into the growing number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in circulation double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago and that criminals are more willing than ever to use them. One in three criminals under the age of 25 possesses or has access to a firearm.

Fact: Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries.

Fact: Handguns were used in 3,685 British offenses in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%. 27 It is interesting to note:
Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.
Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.
Fact: Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms in a country that has virtually banned private firearm ownership.


Is that enough facts for you? Go ahead, look them up.

FACT: none of your facts have sources.

You do realise that when you say crime increased in the UK since guns where banned that could be due to various outside factors such as the fact that everything is logged on computers now. Technology has advanced so more cases can be solved (this is just my view as a reason why it could of happened not a FACT)

However even if an increase in crime from when guns where banned is what it takes in order to be safe in 20 - 30 years time then it's worth it imo?

FACT: The last school shooting in the UK was in 1996
FACT: Dunblane was the UK's first and only school shooting.

Meanwhile in America there's been countless School Shootings this could be due to the FACT that it's easy to obtain a gun in america because of your gun laws. (source: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ] )

The other argument about your constitutional rights is also retarded how about you bear arms with the weapon that was in mind when it was written. Even with AR-15's and other guns you can get you aren't going to overthrow your government look at the tech they have vs you.

The other argument that "bad guys" will still get guns/ other weapons is another retarded argument because even tho yes they will find a way I know that I personally feel safe in the UK I don't even think I've seen a gun. Knife crime is going to go up yes but you can run from a knife you can't really run from a bullet.

The only people I feel sorry for is the people that are sensible with their guns I sympathise with them but there's a time where you have to think...are your guns worth the consequences if they get into the hands of a mentally ill person?

I also think that you should have your own NHS but that is a bag of worms for another time

No, its gun crimes, not general crimes.

"The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."

That's odd, you'd think that kind of crime would have gone down with a ban.

All you British people talk about how easy it is to get a gun, yet have never gotten one. Please come get one then tell me how easy it was.

People do own those weapons still. And it's not about overthrowing the government, it's about defending ourselves from it.

Unfortunately, feeling safe won't do you any good when someone tries to break into your house.

Why would my gun get into the hands of a mentally ill person? None of my other belongings have.

When we lose 260 million people to get to your population, then we may get an NHS.

You keep making reference to the size of your population, however, everything is relative, your population size contributes to a far higher yearly gdp rate as the US runs a multi trillion dollar economy annually.
Probably a good idea to start putting some of that towards helping your citizens rather than to overfund your military and keep mexicans out lmao

We put WAY too much to the citizens. The US government pays me if I don't have a job. They pay me if I am "disabled". There are people right now in the US who live off this free money and can do what every they please. Meanwhile, 30-40% of the money I make gets taken out of my check and given to them.

Why should we let Mexicans in? We have a job crisis and they come here to take our jobs. That's kind of the whole point in keeping them out....

Either way, both of those subjects are for a different time.

Nodus wrote

Pepperoni wrote Overall it really doesn't matter what anyone says (for or against banning guns). They can not and will not ever take away our 2nd Amendment right. And here is a great solution. You don't like our country, then f**k off, we are none of your business, you are not our parent. And if you live here and don't love our country, I going to say you don't belong. No one forces you to stay in our country and you are FREE to leave when ever you like.

It becomes our business when we constantly hear about your country on OUR news. You didn't even take the time it seems to read what he said or look at the others sides argument.

Here's an idea for you. Stop getting mad at us and our freedoms, and start getting mad at your news for reporting it. Guns are not a big problem in the US.

Motivational wrote

Anytime you do something there will always be consequence to our actions. Lets say we ban all guns. We are in the same situation (Pulse shooting), no one can defend themselves, now more are dead. Not its all over the news that we made a terrible decision banning guns. It's bad no matter what. Lets say someone in pulse had a gun and takes out the gunman shortly after he started firing, now less are dead and injured. To me, the problem is not the gun itself, but the people. We as Americans need to stop blaming the guns for our problem and teach our citizen how to act. I mean it's unbelievable how childish our country acts. We don't act a whole, we basically pick sides of two extremes and fight to see who wins. It's a joke. Our three best candidates for the next presidency are a joke. I mean Hilary is a criminal, Trump is unrealistic, and Bernie live in a fairy tale where we can help every single person on the world. It's sad really.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you ban all guns because it's simply not going to work. We're suggesting that more restrictions are put on them.

Otherwise, I agree completely with what you're saying about the presidency situation and how more education is needed to teach people that it's wrong to kill someone.

@Mocro

For those of you too lazy to Google here is his source gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/g...countries/

If you actually looked at these sources, you'd notice that some of the articles that his facts are based off were written over twenty years ago. You can understand why people don't think that the facts are legitimate and up to date.

So facts have an expiration date? Cool, gravity is no longer a factor....

The reason I brought up the influx in crime in the UK is because that is what will happen in the US. Citizens are dis-armed, criminals are armed, and there will be pandemonium on a whole different scale.

002 wrote

Pepperoni wrote

002 wrote

Pepperoni wrote

THQ wrote Why should I have to have all my guns taken away because of others. America is about the freedom. Yeah I agree a lot of people are popped a year, but you need to understand, it's not the guns it's the people behind them. We don't need any gun laws. What we need is stronger background checks for those attempting to purchase.

I agree. The background checks are a joke. When I bought my gun it took maybe 20 minutes. I went in, signed a few things and then waited for my background check. Way too easy.

So what else can they do?

Nice little article I read.

"Americans overwhelmingly support background checks. Surveys show that 92 percent of Americansincluding 82 percent of gun owners and 74 percent of NRA memberssupport criminal background checks for all gun sales.

But under pressure from the gun lobby, Congress and most states have failed to close the deadly loopholes in the background check system.

Federal law only requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks. That means that millions of guns are exchanged each year without a checkmost often online or at gun shows through unlicensed private sellers. Felons, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill, and other dangerous people know about this loophole, and they exploit it every day.

Its like having two lines at the airportone with security, and one without. And criminals get to choose. Thats why criminals are flocking to unregulated online gun saleswhere they can buy guns, with no background check and no questions asked.

Closing this private sale loophole is the simplest way to shut down criminals easy access to guns. Since the background check system was started, it has blocked more than two million sales to dangerous people, and a background check takes only a few minutes to complete.

We also need to make sure the background check database is complete. States and federal agencies have failed to send hundreds of thousands of records to the national background check databases. Every missing record is another tragedy waiting to happen. The Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 32 people, was banned from buying guns because a court found him severely mentally ill. But he passed a background check because his records never made it into the system.

There is no better way to reduce gun deaths in America than strengthening the background check system."

You said background checks are a joke. I already posted my opinion on how we can fix the loop holes so I won't get into that. My question was, what else can they do? Inferring other than background checks as they "a joke". Not attacking / disagreeing with you here, just looking for more insight from other.

I was just pointing out that there are loopholes. Stop private selling of weapons. Is what I would do. Anyone can go buy a gun from a private seller. And as far as background checks go I think the should tighten the parameters. Take a psych test or a mental health test before you take possession of the weapon

If you are on a terror watch list or on a no-fly list, you should not be able to purchase a gun. It's common sense.

I am pro-guns, it's your right, but if you have been under investigation for possibly terrorism, there is no way you should be able to purchase a gun.

Sorry for the double-post, however:

Why there should not be a ban on assault rifles.

According to the FBI, (source at the bottom), there were 12,253 murders in the US in 2013 where a weapon was used. You'll notice that 2013 is a typical year, so we'll just use that for our data.

In 8,454 of these murders the weapon was a fire arm. Further, 285 of these murders used a rifle. Now, if you pull out your handy-dandy calculator, you'll notice that this accounts for about 3.37% of murders where a fire arm was used, or about 2.33% of all murders where a weapon was used.

For the sake of argument, let's go ahead and say that every single rifle used was an "assault rifle". Let's also say that any assault weapons ban in the US is 100% effective, meaning all assault rifles disappear and it is impossible for any new ones to enter the country. Additionally, we have to assume that the murderers who used assault rifles are now incapable of murdering anyone due to their lack of an assault rifle.
If these conditions sound reasonable to you, then congratulations! Push for that ban and maybe, just maybe, after a long legal battle you'll be able to prevent 2.33% of murders where weapons were used.

Source: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Motivational wrote

More like they were denying it's very existence. They were talking about the ban on guns in the UK which was in the nineties. So they are relevant for the time.

Yes, they were relevant for that time, but they're not relevant today.

Comparing crime rates in the UK vs America and trying to justify that there's more crime in the UK is completely pointless. It's safer to live in the UK without doubt in terms of crimes.

The majority of these facts are not true. Just read the bottom of the page. I'm sorry but a newspaper written for the purpose of selling as many copies as physically possible is not a credible source. Fair enough, the articles written by Universities are probably legitimate but the BBC, guardian and telegraph are not legitimate sources.

Less guns = Less gun crimes. That's simple economies with supply and demand. All these illegal gun dealers are not making their guns, they're buying them off their suppliers who have a legitimate licenses and are purchasing their weapons from the local gun store. We need to make handguns and assault rifles illegal to reduce this kind of thing from happening IMO.

What? " It's safer to live in the UK without doubt in terms of crimes" No it's not... According to the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace, the U.K. had 933 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2012, down from 1,255 in 2003. In the U.S., the figure for 2010 was 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people.