You got that right! We can't let that happen here!
The vast majority of criminals in the UK do not go armed.
The biggest problem is with kids imagining they are in the US and carry and use guns as they like.
We have very few gun related incidents here.
Take a look at the figure, in 2001 there were gun deaths (per 100,0000) of 3.98 in the US and 0.15 in the UK (homicide)
5.92 in the US and 0.02 UK for suicide
and other,including accident, 0.36 US and 0.03 UK.
And you think we've got it wrong!
Less gun-related violence? WE can't let that happen here!!
Blimey no Ron, must preserve the right to shoot dead anybody who looks at you a bit funny
That's not entirely accurate. The target must be Mexican or a reasonable facsimile.
Most Americans don't care if you're gay, Mexican, or Atheist, and if you're a democrat, well you'll eventually self destruct! Socialism will never take root here!!
Speaking for most Americans again, LaLo?
Then gays can marry, mexicans can go without their 'papers,' and noone's trying to legislate based on christian principles?
Wow, that's great! I want to live there...
I've never been to the States so my impressions are based on news items, plus TV and Film. Do police ALWAYS carry firearms in America, or is that a false impression? I just ask, because armed response is the exception rather than the rule here in the UK. This is because so few criminals have firearms.
It is not gun crime that is out control. It is both gun and knife related crime. Some areas are hot spots for shootings while other spots are hotspots for knife related crime and stabbings. Both are an ongoing issues in our country. Guns and knifes.
Safiq, I think this very much depends on where you live in the UK. I know there are problems in some of the larger cities where too many people live crammed together with too few jobs. There is relatively little knife or gun crime in the smaller towns and cities, or in the countryside.
This is an opinion piece by an American blogger it does not show the real facts that Americans Kill each other with guns like no other country on earth. On all measures whether per capita or otherwise...
More children are killed each year in swimming pool accidents than are killed with guns. That's a verifiable statistic, look it up. Shall we then ban swimming pools in America??????
Most murders in the United States of America are carried out via blunt force trauma. Killers tend to enjoy being close up and personal with the people that they kill. Shall be ban baseball bats then, end little league, High School, and college baseball?????
Oh, let's not forget, you can kill someone pretty easily with a golf club and a pool stick, guess we'll have to ban golf and pool too.
Or we could be intelligent? Hmmm.....no, intelligence is far too difficult for sheep, let's just ban guns, and ask the government when it's okay for us to breathe air, oh my! I've not paid my breathing taxes this year, or my use of the sidewalk taxes either; you see, I'm just a "criminal" from the start.
Speaking of intelligence, you seem to have missed the entire point of the OP, which was to claim that gun control in Great Britain is a failure. No one has suggested banning guns. We have merely presented evidence that stricter gun control laws will save lives.
No, we don't ban swimming pools, but we do create regulations to help prevent accidents. Same with cars.
Indeed, the only reason that people have got involved with this discussion is the invalidate a wild claim that the UK has some sort of problem with guns (which we all know are almost entirely non-existant in about 99% of the country).
If you want to save lives, you address the cause of the loss of lives; and that cause is not guns. People kill people, and guns do not. So then, since we can't argue the facts above, that people are what kill people, and guns are only tools; then it seems that we must agree that the problem is human, and not a jumble of steel, wood, and gunpowder and lead.
What to do then? Fix the problem, the people. Where does this violence come from?????
Have you heard the theory "garbage in, garbage out?" It's rather simple; but it's very true. Our media is violent garbage, and people are forever thinking about sex and greed; and this leads to frustrations. Frustrated people sometimes get violent.
Guns never get frustrated or violent.
I can agree that some form of gun control would save lives; I can also agree that shooting all of our industrial waste into space would clean up the planet a bit. Neither gun control or shooting garbage into space will fix the human problem.
How does that relate to the thread title?
"Gun Control In Great Britain Is A Failure"
What does that have to do with the credibility of the American media, sex or landfill sites?
I'm sure that each of those areas would make valid forum threads all on their own, if you want to go and start them yourself, but the people on this thread are discussing the title and the link provided in the original post.
I would probably have a fair bit to say about my opinions on President Muburak, or graffiti, or Koreans eating dog meat, but not on a thread about UK gun crime.
What argument either for or against do you have for the statement "Gun Control In Great Britain Is A Failure"? None? Because you don't know much about the UK? Well then find another thread.
No it all seemed very logical to me, Ryan; sure, gun control might have reduced gun violence in the U.K.; but it didn't solve the problem of violent people. Or do you think that taking guns away somehow prevents people from getting angry enough to kill another person??
THAT would be an interesting thing to try and prove.
I believe that the UK has a big problem with violent crime. But an angry person with their fists is much less likely to kill somebody than an angry person with a gun in their pocket. I have no doubt that British people are just as aggressive as American people, but if you start a fight in a British bar in most parts of the country the worst that you could expect is a bottle around your head. That would mess you up of course, but I much prefer that to a bullet in my head.
In the worst gun crime areas of the UK, where gun crime tends to be highly organised, it is still extremely difficult to get a gun on the black market. Criminals have even been known to pool guns, so one entire inner-city gang of 50 may possess just two or three guns; would I rather see 50 dangerous people with a gun or 3 out of 50 dangerous people with a gun? No-brainer to me.
To me that sounds logical, but I am happy to agree to disagree, my opinion on the matter won't change. I often see drunk British kids so angry that they look to be fighting to the death on the streets, I would much rather limit them to bottles and bricks that they find on the pavement than cheap and easy to obtain guns which they could pull from their jeans.
Maybe you don't want that in America, but that's what we all want in the UK.
No harm, no foul. The millionaire across the street from me has an AK 47, or an AR 15; I've not seen it, I only hear him shooting it. He's got several hundred acres for a back yard. I live across the street in an RV. . .interesting neighborhood.
While I can think of no good reason that the man should need a military grade assault rifle; I also can't think of any reason why he can't have one, he's about the least likely person in the world to use it in anger against his fellow humans.
As for me, I only own a few shotguns, and I've not shot them in years. I did carry a pistol all last Summer though, as I'm an air conditioning service mechanic by trade; and I sometimes go into some very threatening neighborhoods at night in the Dallas, Texas area. No, I've never needed the pistol, and my boss put it into the work van of his that I drive; but I can imagine circumstances where it could have to be used, as I carry around thousands and thousands of dollars worth of tools and materials.
And if those people in Dallas didn't own guns the most you would have needed to carry is a big monkey wrench.
As a result of your gun culture it has become necessary for people like you to carry a gun, in the UK people simply drive with golf club or a baseball bat.
Your need to carry a gun is a result of a problem, not a solution to a problem. If I carried a gun in a van in the UK I would get 4 or 5 years in jail. And good. Because that deters criminals from carrying guns.
You can even get a couple of years in prison for carrying a knife. And again, good. We still have far far less people in prison than the US too, another indicator that our way of doing things works.
The real problem on this forum is that the liberals are acting like the only variable involved is "Gun Policy", and the conservatives are acting like "allowing guns has no effect on violence".
Both are idiotic arguments, and thus we have raging debates of idiocy that never end.
Guns DO lead to violence (but banning them doesn't solve the problem), and the US is FANTASTICALLY different than the vast majority of governments listed on the chart.
How many of the countries have a failed drug policy? How many have a huge border with a third world country? How many of those that share a huge border with a 3WC actively talk about how they don't want immigrants from that country?
It might not have solved the issue of violent people, but it does mean that most people don't have guns.
Can we agree that violent people and guns are not a good combination?
I see. You've gotten tired of inventing your own lies, so now you simply post someone else's.
The following statistics are true. Sit down and take a deep breath before viewing, your system is probably not prepared for it:
The stats may be true but what do they tell us? Finland which has a population of 5 million has half as many gun deaths among children as the USA with a populaion of 300 million! I'd say if you're planning on going to Finland better pack a gun!
It's measured as out of 100,000 population, not a direct comparison.
Finland has half as many deaths per 100,000.
We posted at the same time. I was going to see if she could figure it out. lol
Its still not a fair comparison the sample size in the USA is greater by 98%! You simply can not ignore the total population in calculating such a metric. Look at Switzerland compared to Finland. Switzerland has about 7.5 million people and the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe and yet less deaths than Finland... how do you explain that?
Oh for pities sake, stop struggling.
You are wrong, admit it and move on. You will go up in most peoples estimation if you do, constantly scrabbling to save face and you won't.
Strict gun control, lady, that's how you explain that. Use you head and stop regurgitating right-wing nonsense. It's unbecoming.
Strict gun control in Switzerland??? Lol!! Everyone in Switzerland owns a gun!! Lol!!
You know what's more unbecoming? Left wing ideolouges that can't think for themselves.
I suppose it would be better if we just let you do our thinking for us, right? Yes, you are what we should all strive to be like.
Nearly everybody in Switzerland owns a gun because every one in Switzerland does National Service and keeps their gun when they've served their time.
They don't strut and pose with them or pretend to be backwoods man.
When they do use them it's mainly to commit suicide.
Well every male, but your point remains equally as strong nonetheless.
Or take them to outdoor art fairs, political events, schools or church or go running around in the woods in camo outfits or compile arsenals in their basements.
Swiss gun laws require gun owners to keep their weapons and ammunition locked in their homes. Unlicensed persons are not permitted to carry weapons except under very special circumstances prescribed by law. Owners are legally responsible if someone else uses or takes possession of their weapon.
If you bring up Switzerland with regard to gun laws, then you are only bolstering the argument that more regulation results in fewer gun deaths.
Among the many,many,many,many,many,many,many,many,many,many,many,many,many,many,many,many,...things you should know something about before commenting, are the incredibly strict gun control laws of Switzerland. NRA apologists often bring up the huge percentage of Swiss households with guns. The guns are for military, not civilian use, and are required to be stored very securely and unloaded. The Swiss government has the right to enter any citizen's home and verify that the guns and ammo are stored correctly.
When you bring up Switzerland you are making a strong case for gun control.
She's certainly not making a strong case for her contention that gun control in GB is a failure.
Sure that's why as recently as Febuary stricter gun regulations were rejected by referndum.
I'm shocked that people are still arguing over this.
Listen: the US DOES have the most deaths per population count than any other country. It's hopeless to argue otherwise.
But that tells us very little. We have a comPLETELY different culture than these other countries. We go hunting, we believe in overthrowing tyrannical governments (at least, when they are OUR government), and we have a much larger area to work with -- you can't hunt where there isn't any room to do so.
We also have completely different socio-economic situations, we also have completely different demographics, we also have much more diversity than just about every country listed on that chart (I'm NOT - repeat NOT - arguing that "diversity" brings about death, I'm simply arguing that it IS likely a factor. Just ask the KKK)
We also share a WIDE border with a third world country that's renowned for it's drug cartels and gangs. We also have horrendous policies towards innocent crimes like "smoking a joint".
Sure, you COULD treat each country like an apple, but really some are oranges, some are cucumbers, and a few are even trees.
Recap - We DO have more deaths from firearms than other countries. There's almost no way to argue otherwise.
But you're comparing apples to oranges.
Gosh, E.G.R.; now I'll have to concede that you've got some very sound thinking going on. Awesome comment.
Great, now can you please tell me how "Gun control in Great Britian (sic) is failing"?
All you are doing is attempting to justify a lack of gun control in the United States, that bears little relevance to the original post.
You pointed out quite clearly that the culture in the US and UK is very different, suggesting that you feel that you know a fair bit about UK culture, so can you now tell me how gun control in the UK is failing?
Or do you have no opinion on that particularly topic? And as such, have nothing to actually add to the discussion without twisting it into something which you can contribute to?
Now, take your time and read the chart carefully....
This is most alarming!
Who knew FINLAND had such a problem with guns? How are they able to avoid getting negative press attention on their dismal statistics?
And not only that, but what's up with the suicide-by-gun epidemic in NORTHERN IRELAND????
I'd take the OP claim a step further and say that gun control in EUROPE is a FAILURE !!!
Sadly, there are a lot of broken people in Northern Ireland, a bitter hangover from the Troubles.
It also has less strict gun control laws than the rest of the UK.
Actually Finland has a pretty long and unfettered love affair with firearms. Their gun laws are about as liberal as ours.
Obviously, we have to get more guns on the street so we can shoot those people who are doing all that murdering.
I am amazed that the American conservative media can seriously question Britain's lack of gun culture. I feel safe in a country, where guns are a rarity, and where the police don't feel the need to carry them. I understand that for a long time the right to bear arms has gone hand-in-hand with the American sense of nationhood. But in Britain, violence and the threat of violence is actually viewed as a bad thing. That there has thankfully only ever been one situation in our history, where children have been shot and killed, whilst at school, whereas, it seems hardly a year goes by, when such an event is not reported from the US. You keep your guns, if they are so important to you, but please understand that in other nations, we appreciate being able to send our children to school without the fear of them being shot whilst in a geography lesson, and most of us have no desire to shoot our neighbours.
As with everything, there is a certain socio-economic groups that are more gaga for guns than others. Not everyone owns a gun in other words. I know no one who owns a pistol. Even though I have grown up in this culture, I am still a little shocked everytime I get a gun store flyer (advertisement) that advertises what are basically military assault rifles for sale. And gun violence in schools is very much or a rarity; when it does happen, sadly, it is nearly always tragic.
I agree. I'm actually an American but I would prefer if we didn't have guns. I don't like the culture it promotes.
Gotta love a forum post started by someone that is quickly shown to be based on conjecture. Since then.... radio silence.
There are many factors influencing gun related crime (such as socio-economic factors) but access to guns has a pretty high correlation with gun violence.
People are often surprised to see Switzerland frequenting the top 10 in a number of tables. Reason? They still do National Service and everyone has a weapon at home.
Every country has the full spectrum of citizens including the mentally ill and just plain evil. Easy access to weapons doesn't help the situation.
Americans have the right to bear arms. Some rights have side effects and living with an increased risk of violence is one of them.
This isn't directed at anyone in particular.
As a Brit, i think it is unjust to compare gun crime statistically between countries as different as the US and Switzerland. Yes you can argue about social and demographic trends, however people view guns completely differently in these two countries, or any two that are on that graph.
And yes, they have National Service, so you could expect anyone to be capable of gunning you down at 400m if you are planning to commit some armed robbery.
Perhaps looking at the percentage of Swiss who possess firearms (which is insanely high if not practically mandatory) would balance this debate in favour of the US.
However I will not deny that certain aspects of crime in the US is nearing epidemic proportion.
I am 25 years and 11.6 months old, yes it is my birthday very soon.
In the first 25 years and 11 months of my life I had seen just two guns, other than those attached to police officers in Spain and the United States plus one machine gun held by police at heathrow airport.
Of the two guns that I had seen held by citizens in the UK in the first 25 years 11 months of my life, one was merely a shotgun held on private land by a licensed farmer to shoot foxes on his agricultural holding. The other was an illegal gun but was not accompanied by ammo, as such would not have practically have been able to cause death - at least no more easily than a hammer.
Then I went to Vegas, where I was able to walk into a shooting range at the beggining of this month, pay $23 without giving any form of ID, and was subsequently presented with a semi-automatic rifle and 10 rounds of ammo. Anybody on my Facebook would be able to verify this. I could choose any one of effectively any gun in existance, even machine guns with as much ammo as I wanted.
That, quite simply, is why so many people in the US die as a result of a bullet. And it is laughable really, people from the UK need to have their criminal records checked now before entering the US for a vacation. Yet once I am in the country you don't even need to see my passport to hand me a semi-automatic weapon with 10 bullets which, had I been an experienced shooter, could effectively cause 10 deaths if presented to somebody with severe mental health problems.
Anybody who claims that the UK gun policy is a failure has clearly not ever stepped into the country. Now, if you want to raise the issue of KNIFE culture in our inner-cities then you may find a few British people agreeing that the problem of non-gun violence is an increasing one and one which is causing certain areas (London, Manchester, Glasgow mainly) some big issues.
Hardly a big issue Ryan, agreed it's increasing but not to the extent where it is a big issue.
BTW I lived in a small market town in Norfolk for many years. They had a much bigger problem with violence than Manchester appears to have.
That doesn't surprise me John, although largely drink fuelled, I hate going out in small towns in Norfolk..... we get that in Norwich too, groups of lads coming from Ipswich or Yarmouth or Diss or Thetford, drinking themselves silly and then scraping with other groups of lads.
Although I lived in inner-city Sheffield for a few years and as mugged twice with a knife, never hear of that around here. Whereabouts in Norfolk John?
I know its not a huge issue to anybody other than Daily Mail readers, but still one that we should acknowledge; facing up to the issue is better than a flat out denial.
I feel absolute loathing when I see any kind of hand gun. They are only fit for blowing holes in people.
Maybe my contempt is not so unusual in the UK and maybe that is why we have so much less gun crime than most- despite equaling the US for casual everyday violence and assaults.
The main difference, I am aware of, though, is that Americans actually imagine that they are good, calm and wise as a people. People in the UK are a little more aware of just how damn dangerous they and their fellow creatures are.
Why arm a population that will fight over any silly thing?
Assaults per capita
6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
7 New Zealand: 7.47881 per 1,000 people
8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
10 Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people
25 France: 1.75554 per 1,000 people
26 Germany: 1.4183 per 1,000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_a … per-capita
Anglos are a menace...
Yes because we are a nation of alcoholics!
Our violence is largely drink fuelled, I could imagine nothing worse than having 40 million guns in our nation of 60 million people (working on the US ration of 200 million for 300 million people).
We are most hypocritical though, our arms industry have been holding hands with our politicians for years, we don't seem to kick up much of a fuss when presented with the knowledge that we are the 5th largest arms exporters in the world.
A high level of binge drinking doesn't help. Even so, the rage was there before the beer hit the belly.
I reckon you are on the right track. Ryankett but there are probably a hundred reasons why Brits are so bellicose.
My god the USA terrifies me! Who hell wrote this?! They had to invoke the Hungerford killing 25 years ago to show that not having guns is a good idea.
In the UK we probably don't get to hear about the majority of shootings in the USA, but even someone with the most casual interest will notice that massacres happen with alarming regularity.
The overall murder rate in the US is more than 300% higher than in the UK. Of which 2/3 of the killings in the US are with guns.
Having guns influences the way in which the police treat suspects too. There has been a person shot dead by police on average every day in the US since 1980. This fact absolutely staggers me! There's maybe one or two a year in the UK (when the suspect holes themselves up with a gun).
UK gun policy has been an absolute success. It has one of the lowest murder rates in the world as a result. The USA on the other hand, has a murder rate higher than Armenia and Yemen!
Does the UK share a border with a 3rd world country?
Does it have gangs as a result of a failed drug war policy?
Does it have a history full of the idea of overthrowing tyrants...oh wait, don't you guys still have a Queen?
You're comparing apples to oranges, and assuming the only difference is the gun policy.
Of couse we have drugs gangs, the same drugs gangs that you have, especially yardies. And no doubt they possess guns in abundance, but that is gang-on-gang crime, there is very rarely civilian casualties to drugs gangs.
Not sure what you refer to in respect of overthrowing tyrants, but we lost an entire generation to Hitler and seem to be losing lives for your wars. Unless you mean internally, when the only plot that I can think of involved Guy Fawkes.
Mexico is not a third world country, it is the 10th largest economy in the world. Those borders also go right across land which was stolen from Mexico in the first place. We have plenty of immigration problems, it usually involves boats going across the thin English channel. People often swim across that channel for charity.
Of course, all you have done is confirmed the need for your military, your police and your border control to have guns. We are talking about civilians.
Our army possesses guns too, didn't you know? They aren't fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan with water pistols, although looking at the number of 'friendly fire' deaths of British troops by American troops in relation to the number of 'friendly fire' deaths of American troops by British troops, you would thinkt hat the UK military were indeed fighting with water pistols.
The article which started this forum was an American directly comparing the gun cultures of the UK and USA. IT drew the initial comparison, not ME.
I'd be willing to bet that the gun culture is in no small way related to the associated murder rate. I think blaming it on a shared border with Mexico is a bit harsh (I also think that Mexicans wouldn't be too happy with the term "3rd world" to describe them)!
The UK has gangs and gang-related violence, but because they have low level access to firearms, they don't often shoot people - relatively speaking.
You're right about the queen though, that 86 year old blue blooded bitch is a real tyrant.
Do you genuinely believe that the figures I quoted in that last post have nothing to do with high gun ownership? I'd particularly like you to address the one on police shootings. "Culturally" the US and UK are very similar beasts, more so that the US and Yemen, who have fewer firearms fatalities, for instance.
Just to point out here that 25 years ago many of the gun restrictions in the UK were not in place.
Prior to the latest installment of gun regulations, which I remember happening in my childhood, 15 years agoish? my dad had semi automatic pistols, rifles and more.
Yeah, they did largely come in after the Hungerford massacre in '87.
Guns are just completely alien to me; I've never seen, let alone held one in the UK (though I am a city boy, I've never had to do away with a problem fox). This has to be a good thing!
True, gun-related murders have fallen in the UK according to:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr … 32069.html
but the article does also say that the peak occurred "eight years ago" - meaning that the peak occurred in the year 2000, since the article was written in 2008.
As the OP's article says, the gun laws in the UK were tightened up after Thomas Hamilton's Dunblane killing spree in 1996.
So it seems to me that there's no cause and effect thing going on here between tightening of gun laws in the UK and reduction in gun-related murders - the peak occurred four years *after* the laws were tightened!!
I would also think that the people who do most of the gun crime in the UK probably get their guns via non-legal means anyway.
You assume laws have an instant effect then?
If a law is passed in order to reduce gun crime, and gun crime doesn't reduce but actually goes on increasing four years after the law was passed, then I'm afraid my conclusion is that said law is ineffective!
Look at America! There are plenty of otherwise honest people on these forums who say that if their government brought in laws banning certain types of gun they would give them up over their dead bodies!
Why do you think there aren't people here in the UK who have exactly the same sentiments?
The gun laws restricted future supply, not depleted the existing number of guns in the country.
That is only something which can follow in the long term through:
a) seizures through arrests or warrants
b) gun amnestys (we have had lots of those, to great success)
c) the end of the life of the guns
That couldn't all happen in 1996. We had a major gun amnesty in 2003 which took 20,000 guns in one month.
That is a tiny figure in America but an astronomical one in the UK. If America restricted the supply of cofee bags in January 2012 there would still be people drinking coffee in January 2014, but it would be much more difficult and much more expensive to get hold of. Same principle. It wouldn't result in everybody giving up coffee by February 2012.
I agree with you that the recent "tightening" of the gun laws has not lead to a big drop (if any) in gun fatalities.
You have to put this into context a little though; the post-Dunblane rules affected around 0.1% of the population and about 0.05% of the population lost a gun as consequence of it over the next 4 years.
The numbers we are dealing with are also incredibly small in terms of murders. There are only around 750 murders in the UK of a population of 60 million (or 1.4 per 100,000) and about 6% of these are shootings. This means that a "peak" could be caused by very few fatalities indeed, I suspect Derek Bird may cause there to have been a "peak" last year with his 12 murders, for instance.
The Idependent article is reporting a fall in UK gun deaths of 18% which sounds a big drop. However in 2006/7 for instance, this would have represented just 9 fewer deaths!
It is more the ongoing UK policy on guns post WW2 that I meant to suggest is correct. We certainly shouldn't be making guns easier to obtain and certainly not as easy to obtain as the US where the murder rate is much (around 3.5 times) higher per capita, with gun deaths representing around 70% of these.
I get what you're saying - it's hard to say "QED" when you're using a very small sample size, as we are when talking about gun-related deaths in the UK.
Which does make me wonder whether we've gone as far as it's reasonably possible to go when it comes to anti-gun legislation - you're always going to get a hardcore of people (whether gangsters or nutters) who will acquire guns via non-legal means if they can't get them via legal methods.
Plus this is the real world rather than a scientific experiment, so we don't have a "control" (i.e. a scenario without the progressive gun legislation since WWII) to compare it with. Before you say "but there's the USA!", I tend to agree with Evan - there are cultural differences between other countries (e.g. Britain) and the USA which make a comparison meaningless.
There's got to be another reason why the US has a relatively high gun crime rate, besides the ready availability of guns.
Okay, my two cents on this, although I should probably not bother wasting my breath judging by the previous posts by the OP.
Here is Gun Control in the UK (We had around 5 rifles, 6 shotguns, and several handguns in my home, in England. Handguns are not completely illegal, but they ARE severely restricted, since the only thing you can really do with a handgun is carry it around concealed and then shoot people at close range with it. Defending your home? use a shotgun.)
You need to pass a background check before you can own a gun.
You have to store guns and ammunition in heavy safes to prevent theft.
The police will check that you still own the guns regularly to help prevent black market sale of guns.
Guns at most can be semi automatic, easily concealed guns for the most part have to be single shot.
There are more regulations out there but to summarize.
Since guns have to be stored securely and are monitored by the police anyone who wants a black market gun needs to get it from overseas. This vastly reduces the number of guns in the hands of criminals in England.
Since the guns are also stored securely and have no automatic firing, it is hard for a kid to get a hold of them, and even if they did they are not going to be able to shoot up an entire school with them.
However you can still own a gun, and you can use it to defend your property.
The reason I used the USA as an example is because that was the direct comparison that the initial article drew.
I agree there are cultural differences, but I suspect that they are are closer in terms of culture than you may suspect. What differenciates the UK from the US in culture apart from law, for instance? In fact most of the US law is copied straight from Britain's.
The idea that ipse dixit is wrong; "there ARE cultural differences, therefore it must be wrong to draw any comparisons between the two."
Why does there HAVE to be another reason? There probably is, you're right. But does that account for the massive difference in murder rate and deaths at the hands of guns? 4 deaths per 100,000 in the USA compared to 0.15 per 100,000 in the UK? (this is 27 times higher)
10.29 people die in the USA per year at the hands of guns in all deaths, 0.37 die in Britain, which is 28 times higher, largely in line with the difference in homocides.
As you say, it is difficult to draw direct comparisons between countries because they are generally culturally different. But when the odds are stacked so heavily in favour of one thing over another when the countries are similar in cultural background, GDP, health and standard of living, you have to make a judgement call. If I was comparing the US to Yemen, you'd have a good point (the US has a higher incidence of gun murder incidentally).
If you can think of some genuinely sound reasons as to why the US might see such a disparity in gun deaths to the UK then I'm all ears. (You could get also get a professorship funded by the NRA!)
by Marcy Goodfleisch 15 months ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?
by Josh Ratzburg 2 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
by crankalicious 5 years ago
Is there such a thing as reasonable or common sense gun control?So, there's a continuum of gun control, right? On the far right, you have unfettered access to guns where anyone can get one anytime without restriction. On the far left, you have a total ban on all guns. Is there somewhere we should...
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
The NRA leadership (not most of NRA members) currently sees Gun Control as a stark Black and White issue. The NRA et al think that ANY step to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them is ipso facto an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of ALL citizens; this is the...
by Michael Collins aka Lakemoron 5 years ago
Gun Control Do you care?Do you care about all the talk about gun control? Do you think anything will happen with all the talk?
by Jeff Berndt 6 years ago
I just noticed something about the Fast and Furious controversy.Leaving aside the question of whether the operation was a good idea or not (I think not), I noticed that the Left and the Right have both seemed to flip-flop on their usual arguments about gun control.The Left usually wants to restrict...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|