[Oswald2001]

There is a ban needed alright.

[RealityUnfolding]

Originally Posted by azdesertsnake01 ↗

So true. There is something else I found interesting while doing a self study on the subject not long ago. I don't remember all the numbers, but found them on google. Basically mass stabbings in china for instance kills more people per year than guns do in the U.S.

Also, the largest mass stabbing in china took more lives than the largest mass shooting in the U.S. so should we ban steak knives? Something to think about.

Interestingly, when school stabbings started taking off there, they put armed Chinese guards in almost all the school. I've been fascinated with police response the world over for nearly a decade, so I have self-studied much of it, late nights with Wiki, translators, etc.

Just like with the Britain example, where a weapon is suspected, the armed units are dispatched and the response time is not quite 4 minutes and they've been sent out for dildos.

In fact, a Reddit thread some days back actually put this factoid up:

In 2010, 130,000 people were attacked with a knife in the UK, 340,000 people were attacked with a gun in the US. The population ratio is 4.975 so if we adjust for population, the comparable amount of knife attacks are 646,750 if it were the size of the US. For 2009, the US had 235,000 Knife attacks. So the UK has more knife attacks per capita than gun attacks and knife attacks combined in the US.

The difference here is most people have illegal guns. In Britain, they are RENTING them to do crimes. Topography aids the lower illegal gun trade.

There have been multiple-victim stabbings in Norway, Sweden, Canada, China, Russia, et al. but they lay their weapons down or commit suicide. No need for shots fired. In the US, our moronic criminals challenge the police like they'll get away with shooting a dozen cops and waltz right out of there.

I've found the biggest influence, in my anecdotal research, seems to be the reverence/authority the public has in the police. In countries/locales where police are distrusted (justly or not), violence on both sides increases. In the British example - yes, they "only" shot a handful of people, BUT in the same time frame, that's about how many cops were shot.

The numbers pretty much are on equal status, when you put police shootings versus police shot at on a graph. Pretty much all 1st world countries have the same rate of police shootings in correlation to the rate at which the same police are shot AT. The slight difference shrinks to non-existent when adjusting for violent crime rates which would increase armed police response.

[ajgeastwood]

Originally Posted by RealityUnfolding ↗

Wrong. While the large as a whole was never armed, senior officers DID carry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. With the public whinings, they reigned that in. From there, they spun off the police chosen to carry into a different division so they could maintain that general police do not carry. From there, in the last few years, those divisions have been tasked with handling calls that routine police would typically handle, while being given entire police control in several "hot zones" of criminal activity. Restrictions on access, but not carry have been eased in several locations and now they carry on their person.

The point is, just because you name the division something different, so you can say "eh, the police don't carry", doesn't mean that members of the force aren't carrying.

*Given all that, sounds like you don't know a whole lot about your own country. Perhaps you should, before telling someone they are twisting things around and looking like a moron. FWIW, if you are going to parse statistics, less people in Britain shoot at the police in general and many in interactions aren't carrying or if they are, drop it readily/immediately. That's not the reaction of criminals here, so comparing stats on how the police react to entirely different situations is rather stupid.

Sophistry and semantics. Your point was that on the whole the uk police were once routinely armed and have had that "taken away" yet you then water that down to senior officers. And as for lies, damn lies and statistics, well, fewer people on uk shoot at police because, guess what, there are fewer guns because as I said, we abandoned the cowboy mentality.
The right to bare arms was intended to protect from wild animals, natives and the 'oppressive British'.
Had it not been for your own stubbornness and stupidity you would not still feel the need to protect yourselves from, guess what, your other gun loving nuts!
Had you seen sense and evolved a little in the last 200 years or so there would be no NEED for a suburban household to own a gun of any description.

[tinton]

Originally Posted by Oswald2001 ↗

There is a ban needed alright.

Cool. That takes care of 1 of the 353 mass shootings in the U.S. What's next? Ban Christianity? Ban Whites? Ban Blacks? Ban Mexicans? Ban blah blah blah?

[Pyramid_Head]

Geez, and the dumbass President is already starting his gun control shit. Yea because gun control will surely stop terrorists.

[Keydog]

Originally Posted by Pigeon ↗

I suspected the woman involved might be his wife. Neither of them apparently gave a fuck about the baby they left behind.

Probably because it was a girl...

[Keydog]

I've gotta say that lack of gun control in the states is fucking crazy, it is far too late for it to have any immediate impact on these shootings , as there are so many guns in circulation already, but for any nutter to be able to walk into Walmart and buy a gun without a license is pure crazy. Cue the argument : if we need a licence to keep guns then only outlaws will have guns... it's like saying if we need a license to drive a car then only outlaws will be drivers... Responsible gun owners need to step up, where people store their weapons and ammo needs to be checked, background checks need to be made before licences are granted... 2 words: fucking crazy. And fuck all o yall that disagree, pack of brainwashed cunts

Anyway, bring on president Trump. This one's fucking useless.

[Keydog]

"But we must adhere to the second amendment, so militias can rise up against a tyrannical government." Good luck taking out those drones, F16s and spectre gunships with your little pea shooters, you paranoid bastards

[el_topo]

Originally Posted by tinton ↗

Cool. That takes care of 1 of the 353 mass shootings in the U.S. What's next? Ban Christianity? Ban Whites? Ban Blacks? Ban Mexicans? Ban blah blah blah?

So very true. A lot disillusioned people feel that religion is to blame. Judge a man (or woman in this case) by their actions and the judgement in their heart. Not by their origin. We are not all the same, and nobody chooses where we're born. People blaming Islam and guns are just using a scapegoat. The real problem is far more deeper than that.

[azdesertsnake01]

Originally Posted by Keydog ↗

I've gotta say that lack of gun control in the states is fucking crazy, it is far too late for it to have any immediate impact on these shootings , as there are so many guns in circulation already, but for any nutter to be able to walk into Walmart and buy a gun without a license is pure crazy. Cue the argument : if we need a licence to keep guns then only outlaws will have guns... it's like saying if we need a license to drive a car then only outlaws will be drivers... Responsible gun owners need to step up, where people store their weapons and ammo needs to be checked, background checks need to be made before licences are granted... 2 words: fucking crazy. And fuck all o yall that disagree, pack of brainwashed cunts

Anyway, bring on president Trump. This one's fucking useless.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just repeating obamas bullshit that you've seen on tv. And that's the problem today, people don't think. Most states have FAR more stricter gun laws than you are quoting as fact there. You have to pass background checks before getting a firearm.

If you have even had a domestic violence charge against you for getting in a fist fight 30 years ago, no firearm for you! People like yourself can be spotted a mile away. You quote shit from tv that makes the U.S. appear like the wild west where you can buy a tank and grenade launcher at a drive thru and keep going. It's just not like that.

The first ones to believe that bullshit is people from other countries who don't know the real truth because they don't live here. It's easy to paint a picture that low IQ people will believe when you tell them anyone can get a gun here and you show them video footage of a public shooting.

As I have previously asked, where does France fit in this skewed version of gun control? They have strict gun laws. Washington DC where handguns are illegal and laws are so strict it's not worth attempting to own one isn't just the capitol of the U.S., it's the murder capitol of the U.S. Because only criminals have guns there. Same goes for California which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

It's absolutely illegal in CA to own the weapons that the two nuts used yesterday. For some reason they seem to not be concerned about gun laws though. Perhaps if you were there to tell them it was illegal to own those, they would have dropped them and asked for forgiveness? Lol.

As far as your comparison of driving to guns, it makes you sound like a fruit cake. You obviously don't understand the very statement about guns being illegal, then only criminals will have them.

It's embarrassing that I even have to explain what that means, but here it is. It means if guns were banned tomorrow, many so called law abiding citizens would turn them in. Criminals who murder, rape, etc. like the two nuts yesterday would laugh at the weak minded fools who gave theirs up. The previously law abiding citizens who won't give theirs up then instantly are counted as outlaws and criminals too by default.

Therefore ONLY outlaws will have guns you MORON!!! Your quote of that is so fucked up that I can't even make out exactly what you think it means, but obviously you don't know what it means. The reason why people such as yourself use these old bullshit quotes is because when you hear U.S. liberal politicians speak of more gun control, you think we don't have any currently and anyone can get a gun.

What you do NOT understand is that more gun control is the liberal term for eventual confiscation of all firearms. They just haven't reached the point where they can fully out themselves and say that's what they want because they will scare off some of the sheep that they are trying to woo in.

Kind of like gay rights and gay marriage, they have to wait for the right moment, until they have the majority of the public convinced of their bullshit and then they will pounce with VERY fast and excessive gun laws.

So in short, it is YOU who are brainwashed. And you have a classic liberal case of brainwashing at that. Someone's stance on gun control is one of many ways I judge their intelligence. If they quote some liberal bullshit on the issue, I deduct 50 points from what I believed to be their IQ before that point.

When it's all said and done, as I have previously said, what will you liberals do when anyone can print an AK-47 at home with 3D printing? What good will your gun laws be then? And that is why we need to address the REAL cause of this.

Everyone reading this has the choice to or not to murder their entire family in their sleep at any time. Or anyone else for that matter. It's not being that type of person that keeps you from doing something like that. It's not a law that stops it. Murder is illegal, but yet our prisons are full of people who have done it.

Every person you see on a daily basis has the power to take your life if they wish to. So get over the gun grabbing fear and address the question of why and what are we going to do to REALLY stop it? In this case, addressing islam would be a damn good start.