Night of bloodshed in London: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/la...opolitan-police-gun-crime-violence-crime-news Luckily they banned guns.
If they were posh British twats I might be. Your article actually points out how wrong your opinion is. A night in which 4 people are INJURED in the UK is a "night of bloodshed."
My point is the mad man still managed to go on a rampage in spite of his country’s ban on guns. Makes you think.
London is a city of 8.8 Million. By contrast, Birmingham, Alabama has 212,000 people and has had 43 murders in 2018.
how many mass shootings happen in England compared to America? you can even look at the numbers and adjust it to population. it still wont be close. No sane person has ever said theres any way to eliminate it completely. but banning guns will reduce it greatly.
But at what cost? What about all the legal hunters who follow the law? Why should they be punished along with the criminal.
I know what you're doing here, but as a PSA to everybody else, legal hunters can have guns in the UK.
Hunters can still get a gun in most countries. Selection of legal guns for hunters with a licens is carefully thought out and the testing you need to get the licens is no joke.
I also know that tops is trying to troll but theres a lot of people who thinks like this on this board so at least they can read it. I know it wont help with most, but maybe 1 guy wakes up. You never know.
I am not here to argue right or wrong but I do want to understand how the pro-gun control crowd thinks. This is not bait, just hoping one of TMB fam can shed some light for me. So, if gun control were passed, then what? Do you just take whatever guns are banned out of circulation or do you go through all registered weapons of that type and force the owners to hand them over or are we just talking about more stringent background checks? If you just take them out of circulation then there are still a shit load of those guns out there to either be stolen and used for crimes and mass shootings or bought and sold on the black market. If you force owners to handover firearms that they legally purchased, well that could be mini civil war. If we go with more stringent background checks, then I see the same issues arising as if we take the guns out of circulation. I hate watching the news and seeing these kids getting killed and I agree something needs to be done but nothing I have heard on either side really sounds like a realistic solution.
Gun control and the second amendment have existed in harmony for our country's entire history. Gun control =/= a complete ban on guns.
Right. Sorry, my post wasn't clear. I don't mean banning all guns, I was referring to banning assault rifles and others that are currently not under any civilian ban.
And the idea that a mandatory buyback of certain guns would result in a "mini civil war" is preposterous. Most law-abiding citizens would comply. If they didn't immediately, then they would eventually when prosecuted for having the illegal guns. Also, ending production immediately decreases the supply. This isn't some kind of hypothetical, either. There's real precedent from our own country. You could by a fully automatic Thompson submachine gun from a Sears & Roebuck catalog until the 1934 National Firearms Act (which was supported by the NRA). It and similar guns were widely circulated. Within a decade, they weren't.
Very fair points, but didn't the Thompson go into civilian production in 1919 or 1920? So it was only available for 14ish years during a time in our country when a good chunk of the population was just trying to feed itself, so probably not really able to afford a luxury item like that. The AR15 went into production in 1964, so I am led to believe the saturation is to an exponential degree in this case. I know I am nitpicking a particular point you made, but I think it needs to be looked at in a wider context. Not saying taking them out of production wont work, but fuck how long will that take.
First civilian AR-15 went into production in 1990. ~7 million of its class, the "modern sporting rifle," which also includes things like the Mini-14 and AK47 variants were in circulation before 2011. Now, there are more than 8 million AR15 alone. So, there's definitely a greater saturation, but that's tied to rapidly increasing production not long-term availability. But, we also have much better technology to logistically address the problem than we did in the 1930's.
Good point about better technology. Where did you get 1990 from? "Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the "Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle" began on Jan 2, 1964. The M16 wasn't issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn't standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn't officially replace the M14 until 1969. Colt had been selling semi-automatic AR-15's to civilians for 5 years by the time the M16A1 replaced the M14. Going off of the serial number records for the SP1, Colt had sold at least 2,501 rifles to the civilian market by 1965, 8,250 rifles by 1967, and 14,653 rifles by 1969."
Yeah, I wasn't clear. Bad post on my part. 1990 is when Colt's patent expired and the style rifle went into civilian production, rather than just the single colt model being produced for military/civilian use.
And then immediately loses again. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article...681.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
when people complain about "culture" or "parenting" as the reason X is happening, if you dig even a little it almost always ends up being racist
That seems somewhat low at first glance, but I suppose it makes sense given what they’re labeling as Birmingham(212,000)...curious what the numbers of the urban and metro would look like as well