Shooting at Florida School, Shooter IS in custody. - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=bdd458;53136428]If you actually think you can hunt hogs, a dangerous pest, with a bow and arrow, then just lol. Like, hogs will and can charge at you, and often need more than one bullet to take down in that case. A semi-auto is going to protect you. A bow and arrow won’t.[/QUOTE] just use a sword lol [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=LegndNikko;53136494]You can't be serious.[/QUOTE] Hunting game is actually a whole lot cheaper per pound than buying meat. Meat is really expensive, I could actually see poorer more rural communities hunting for meat to save money on food

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;53136230][img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWF2rZ5VMAEMrm0.jpg:large[/img][/QUOTE] Great job Trump, ya played y'self.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53136506]Great job Trump, ya played y'self.[/QUOTE] To be fair whatever regulation that image is referring to (this is the first time I'm hearing about it) would probably not have stopped his purchase

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53136436]Not to mention, when you suggest banning semi-auto's, it looks like you just want to reduce the number of deaths per mass shooting as opposed to preventing mass shootings all together.[/QUOTE] Is it a bad thing to want to reduce the number of deaths per mass shooting?

[QUOTE=GuyMoment;53136500]just use a sword lol [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] Hunting game is actually a whole lot cheaper per pound than buying meat. Meat is really expensive, I could actually see poorer more rural communities hunting for meat to save money on food[/QUOTE] Did anybody teach you that you use a spear when hunting hogs or boars? If they get too close to you you're going to rue it.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;53136491]What kind of fantasy Lala-land incarnation of USA do you live in, that you have to hunt to survive?[/QUOTE] People in remote locations all over the US hunt to put food on the table. But hunting is also for more than food - it's important for population control, especially with invasive and dangerous species like hogs.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53136509]Did anybody teach you that you use a spear when hunting hogs or boars? If they get too close to you you're going to rue it.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't know I only hunt with brass knuckles. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt of PunishedMod" - Sgt Doom))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136513]People in remote locations all over the US hunt to put food on the table. But hunting is also for more than food - it's important for population control, especially with invasive and dangerous species like hogs.[/QUOTE] Just as a point of curiosity; what do other nations with a less significant hunting population do about the population control of invasive species? They're not a uniquely American issue.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53136518]Just as a point of curiosity; what do other nations with a less significant hunting population do about invasive species? They're not a uniquely American issue.[/QUOTE] They usually have government employees (I guess you would call them game wardens?) who do it, or pay people to do it based on a tag system, or a combination of the two. Other population control methods like sterilization/passive trapping/poison/etc are out there as well. I think most countries that have problems with invasive game species also have private hunters, though in a country like Germany you can't, for example, go out with a .22 and shoot snakes or rabbits - only specific types of animals like deer in specific amounts using specific types of weapons.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136519]They usually have government employees (I guess you would call them game wardens?) who do it, or pay people to do it based on a tag system, or a combination of the two.[/QUOTE] So then it's not really a necessity that's a justifiable argument for gun ownership, is it? More of a hobby/luxury thing. Hunting for meat and sport seems to be a more solid reasoning, but two birds with one stone I guess.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53136508]Is it a bad thing to want to reduce the number of deaths per mass shooting?[/QUOTE] why not work on bringing down the issues that actually cause mass shootings instead? wouldn't that be a more effective, long term solution that would help prevent any sort of mass killing? Things like reducing the stigma around mental health, implementing universal health care, reducing the recidivism rate in the country, ending the war on drugs, etc... Wouldn't that make more sense? Granted, I don't trust the Trump administration to do any of that. But to be honest, those would do far more to reducing tragedies than any well meaning but misguided gun bans would. [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;53136522]So then it's not really a necessity that's a justifiable argument for gun ownership, is it? More of a hobby/luxury thing. Hunting for meat and sport seems to be a more solid reasoning, but two birds with one stone I guess.[/QUOTE] except there are areas where people do have to hunt pests off their property to save livestock, farmland, their property, etc... don't fuck with hogs [quote]Wild hogs are among the most destructive invasive species in the United States today. Two million to six million of the animals are wreaking havoc in at least 39 states and four Canadian provinces; half are in Texas, where they do some $400 million in damages annually. They tear up recreational areas, occasionally even terrorizing tourists in state and national parks, and squeeze out other wildlife. Wild hogs are “opportunistic omnivores,” meaning they’ll eat most anything. Using their extra-long snouts, flattened and strengthened on the end by a plate of cartilage, they can root as deep as three feet. They’ll devour or destroy whole fields—of sorghum, rice, wheat, soybeans, potatoes, melons and other fruits, nuts, grass and hay. Farmers planting corn have discovered that the hogs go methodically down the rows during the night, extracting seeds one by one. Hogs erode the soil and muddy streams and other water sources, possibly causing fish kills. They disrupt native vegetation and make it easier for invasive plants to take hold. The hogs claim any food set out for livestock, and occasionally eat the livestock as well, especially lambs, kids and calves. They also eat such wildlife as deer and quail and feast on the eggs of endangered sea turtles. Because of their susceptibility to parasites and infections, wild hogs are potential carriers of disease. Swine brucellosis and pseudorabies are the most problematic because of the ease with which they can be transmitted to domestic pigs and the threat they pose to the pork industry. And those are just the problems wild hogs cause in rural areas. In suburban and even urban parts of Texas, they’re making themselves at home in parks, on golf courses and on athletic fields. They treat lawns and gardens like a salad bar and tangle with household pets. Hogs, wild or otherwise, are not native to the United States. Christopher Columbus introduced them to the Caribbean, and Hernando De Soto brought them to Florida. Texas’ early settlers let pigs roam free until needed; some were never recovered. During wars or economic downturns, many settlers abandoned their homesteads and the pigs were left to fend for themselves. In the 1930s, Eurasian wild boars were brought to Texas and released for hunting. They bred with free-ranging domestic animals and escapees that had adapted to the wild.[/quote] [url]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pigs-in-texas-73769069/[/url]

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53136522]So then it's not really a necessity that's a justifiable argument for gun ownership, is it? More of a hobby/luxury thing. Hunting for meat and sport seems to be a more solid reasoning, but two birds with one stone I guess.[/QUOTE] I mean ultimately you can whittle everything down to a point where it doesn't sound necessary if you consider only specific benefits one at a time. I wouldn't arm a population strictly for controlling the population of game. I also wouldn't arm a population strictly for self defense. It's a combination of the many benefits of a stable armed population that makes me think it's worth the trouble. The US' gun owning population is, by overwhelming majority, quite stable. Unfortunately there are more outliers than there should be, but I don't see outliers as being good reason to take them away entirely, so I won't entertain that notion, and while I am in favor of thoughtful and useful regulation, I don't think this is something to be hasty with. It's important to consider the impact of every step you take. If you apply a new regulation which overwhelmingly hassles law abiding citizens but does nothing to criminals, it is a useless regulation. Most proposed (and existing) regulations fall in that category.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53136436]Not to mention, when you suggest banning semi-auto's, it looks like you just want to reduce the number of deaths per mass shooting as opposed to preventing mass shootings all together.[/QUOTE] Wow what a terrible thing to want to reduce the number of deaths.

[QUOTE=GuyMoment;53136507]To be fair whatever regulation that image is referring to (this is the first time I'm hearing about it) would probably not have stopped his purchase[/QUOTE] To be further fair, this is on top of the fact that it's been known for a while now that most everybody saw this coming and reported how fucking creepy the kid was being on multiple occasions.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53136436]Not to mention, when you suggest banning semi-auto's, it looks like you just want to reduce the number of deaths per mass shooting as opposed to preventing mass shootings all together.[/QUOTE] Isnt that the unfortunate truth to how much we can do though?

[QUOTE=bdd458;53136525]why not work on bringing down the issues that actually cause mass shootings instead? wouldn't that be a more effective, long term solution that would help prevent any sort of mass killing? Things like reducing the stigma around mental health, implementing universal health care, reducing the recidivism rate in the country, ending the war on drugs, etc... Wouldn't that make more sense? Granted, I don't trust the Trump administration to do any of that. But to be honest, those would do far more to reducing tragedies than any well meaning but misguided gun bans would.[/QUOTE] Those sound like good ideas to me. I don't see why it has to be one or the other. Well, I do think there is a reason not to go after gun bans, and that's because it's not a good fit for the US. The problem with the US is the oversaturation of guns on the market that easily fall in the hands of criminals, gang members, etc. Roadblocks for legal gun owners wont do much to bring down tragedies and deaths brought on by illegally acquired guns. And, of course, there is the fact that there isn't inherently anything wrong with a completely law-abiding citizen owning a gun in of itself. This particular tragedy, though, does certainly raise questions about our standards for legal gun ownership due to the background of this guy and the fact that he easily purchased his guns legally. As did the case of Dylann Roof, who made purchases just weeks before his incident. Evidently, systems and checks in place are failing, even when signs are abundant - and in Roof's case, simple criminal background checks don't function at all. [QUOTE]except there are areas where people do have to hunt pests off their property to save livestock, farmland, their property, etc... don't fuck with hogs[/QUOTE] Again, what makes this a uniquely American phenomenon? Rural areas with local pests exist elsewhere too. This is a genuine question btw, not a cornering attempt or anything. I'm not the most well educated on gun ownership trends abroad.

Guns are used for pest control all over the world, even in countries like the UK you can buy guns for the purpose of culling invasive species in rural areas. I think most (all?) countries with large rural farming populations have at least some system in place by which farmers can be allowed to keep firearms. Guns are everywhere - they are more common and more available than many people realize even in gun-unfriendly countries like the UK - and used in more crimes than people realize. Many people seem to think the UK has completely eliminated gun crime but the Met reported around 2500 incidents from April 2016 to April 2017 involving guns (if I'm recalling correctly - I posted the article a few pages back) in London ALONE. It's just that there's not a lot of noise being made about them there, and people end up thinking they just aren't a factor. But they are. e: Here's that article: [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500[/url] [quote]The Met Police's figures showed there were 2,544 gun crime offences from April 2016 to April 2017 compared to 1,793 offences from 2015 until 2016.[/quote] I realize this might seem like it's going off on a bit of a tangent but the point I'm trying to make here is that there's this perception that America is the only (or at least one of very few) country with significant gun crime and that's just not the case. Things like hunting and pest control work pretty much the same way here as anywhere else regardless of perceptions about the prevalence of guns.

[QUOTE=OvB;53134715]I've never met a gun owner that's killed or shot someone (not counting military) Most people are responsible with most things.[/QUOTE] I know a gun owner that used to live in this town. Can't say he was particularly safe or responsible, especially when he drank, which was often. I have seen him: 1) Put a pistol to his head and pull the trigger repeatedly with a dry-fire block in it (still a HUGE no-no) 2) Open a hatch to the crawl space of the house he was leasing and show me where he fired his .22 pistol into one of the floor joists visible there. He figured this was perfectly fine because a) he didn't have to drive all the way out to a range "just" to fire a .22, and b) the .22 was so quiet there was no way his neighbors could hear it, or so he claims. Far as I'm away nobody's called the cops on him for it. 3) Show me where he was missing one of his pinky-toes. And then explained in elaborate detail as to why said pinky-toe was missing. It's a long (but bizarre) one. Will provide upon request. 4) Show me his guns. 5) Often. 6) Like, VERY often. 6.5) Pretty much any time I went to his place to either help him with something, or asked him to help me out with my truck. 99.98% guaranteed to be shown his .22 magnum pistol, M1 Garand, PPSH-40 with some crucial part cut in half, 9mms, .45s, shotgun with [I]breaching attachment(?!)[/I],why he had so many I couldn't begin to guess. :disgust:

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136535]I mean ultimately you can whittle everything down to a point where it doesn't sound necessary if you consider only specific benefits one at a time. I wouldn't arm a population strictly for controlling the population of game. I also wouldn't arm a population strictly for self defense. It's a combination of the many benefits of a stable armed population that makes me think it's worth the trouble. The US' gun owning population is, by overwhelming majority, quite stable. Unfortunately there are more outliers than there should be, but I don't see outliers as being good reason to take them away entirely, so I won't entertain that notion, and while I am in favor of thoughtful and useful regulation, I don't think this is something to be hasty with. It's important to consider the impact of every step you take. If you apply a new regulation which overwhelmingly hassles law abiding citizens but does nothing to criminals, it is a useless regulation. Most proposed (and existing) regulations fall in that category.[/QUOTE] Stable by what standard? The US has exceedingly high rates of mass shootings as well as gun deaths by suicide/homicide. It doesn't seem unreasonable to say that the massive presence of firearms in the US results in more deaths by firearm. Unfortunately, firearms are very very good at their job, which effectively means we see more deaths than comparable nations. Speaking of criminals, what about them? Surely we can say that the fact that so many guns fall into the hands of criminals is indicative of our gun problem. Typically people entirely brush aside the gun fatalities that come from gang violence and criminal activity (unsurprisingly, the focus is usually on standards for legal ownership and these figures arent insignificant). What makes these figures not worth considering in the larger conversation of American gun culture and gun violence? [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136556]Guns are used for pest control all over the world, even in countries like the UK you can buy guns for the purpose of culling invasive species in rural areas. I think most (all?) countries with large rural farming populations have at least some system in place by which farmers can be allowed to keep firearms. Guns are everywhere - they are more common and more available than many people realize even in gun-unfriendly countries like the UK - and used in more crimes than people realize. Many people seem to think the UK has completely eliminated gun crime but the Met reported around 2500 incidents from April 2016 to April 2017 involving guns (if I'm recalling correctly - I posted the article a few pages back) in London ALONE. It's just that there's not a lot of noise being made about them there, and people end up thinking they just aren't a factor. But they are. e: Here's that article: [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500[/url] I realize this might seem like it's going off on a bit of a tangent but the point I'm trying to make here is that there's this perception that America is the only (or at least one of very few) country with significant gun crime and that's just not the case. Things like hunting and pest control work pretty much the same way here as anywhere else regardless of perceptions about the prevalence of guns.[/QUOTE] There have been [url="http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/"]over 6700 incidents this year ALONE in the US[/url]. So in two months, the US has more than tripled that years gun crime incident total in the UK. Of course, population is a factor, but even when accounting for that the US' rates are excessive. It's clearly not comparable, even when considering a year that was, for the UK, a deviation enough that it was worth reporting on (an increase of 42%, from your source). And the US is on pace for a lower-than-average year in terms of gun crime anyway if my math is right. In 2017, there were almost 62000 incidents. Anyway, I think that it's great that rural populations have systems in place for gun ownership. My question now is; do these same standards and systems apply to all populations? Or just those rural populations that need it for protection/pest control? If you have any additional information about these systems I'd be appreciative of learning more.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53136575]Speaking of criminals, what about them? Surely we can say that the fact that so many guns fall into the hands of criminals is indicative of our gun problem. Typically people entirely brush aside the gun fatalities that come from gang violence and criminal activity (unsurprisingly, the focus is usually on standards for legal ownership and these figures arent insignificant). What makes these figures not worth considering in the larger conversation of American gun culture and gun violence?[/QUOTE] Because criminals by and large don't get their firearms by legal means. They are already breaking the law. Reducing the number of guns in the US won't reduce their ability to obtain firearms.

I don't exactly understand your meaning. When I say the gun owning population in the US is mostly stable, I mean that the FBI statistic of 42% of the population which owns guns neither commits nor is prone to committing crimes. As such I am reluctant to approach the issue as though gun owners are by default out to do harm and therefore need to be handled as though they are radioactive. The majority of guns used in crimes are stolen - one might argue that it's relatively easy to steal guns because there are a lot of legally owned guns, but the same could be said about any other frequently stolen item, and I think holding gun owners explicitly responsible for their guns being stolen is a bit of a backwards way to think about the issue -- unless of course they were stored in a blatantly irresponsible way, such as in an unattended vehicle. I don't brush gang violence and so on aside when talking about these issues, but it's important to keep in mind that these people are not following the law to begin with, so just willy-nilly adding more to the boiling soup that is firearms laws on a hunch that it might do something, maybe, is an approach that will disproportionately affect 42% of the population. All of my proposed regulations make it harder for criminals to acquire guns illicitly. I don't consider regulations that affect legal purchases to be effective by default because the bulk of criminals are not going out and buying guns legally in the first place. However it will affect anyone who means well and wants to follow the law because it's the right thing to do. An example of a useless legislation is the machine gun ban. Machine guns were banned because they are scary, but it effected no useful change on homicide rates. I am a law abiding citizen and responsible gun owner. I am (legally) in possession of a partially destroyed Sten submachine gun. Any idiot with a cheap welder could restore this gun to full functionality and have themselves a machine gun. If I do it, I am breaking the law no matter what, regardless of my intent to use it in a safe and responsible manner. There is no way for me to restore this antique weapon without ending up in supermax. If a criminal intends to rebuild the same gun, the fact that he's not allowed to do it legally won't bother him at all since he is planning to commit a crime with it anyway. As such, the criminal ends up with a machine gun, but simply by property of being law abiding I'm not allowed to have one. The law, therefore, is ineffective and only affects people who were going to follow it in the first place. Most proposed regulations are like this - all the background checks, registries, waiting periods, ammunition limits, storage laws, and so on don't mean a lick to a criminal who just steals one from a law-abiding citizen who went through all the hoops.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136556]Guns are used for pest control all over the world, even in countries like the UK you can buy guns for the purpose of culling invasive species in rural areas. I think most (all?) countries with large rural farming populations have at least some system in place by which farmers can be allowed to keep firearms. Guns are everywhere - they are more common and more available than many people realize even in gun-unfriendly countries like the UK - and used in more crimes than people realize. Many people seem to think the UK has completely eliminated gun crime but the Met reported around 2500 incidents from April 2016 to April 2017 involving guns (if I'm recalling correctly - I posted the article a few pages back) in London ALONE. It's just that there's not a lot of noise being made about them there, and people end up thinking they just aren't a factor. But they are. e: Here's that article: [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500[/url] I realize this might seem like it's going off on a bit of a tangent but the point I'm trying to make here is that there's this perception that America is the only (or at least one of very few) country with significant gun crime and that's just not the case. Things like hunting and pest control work pretty much the same way here as anywhere else regardless of perceptions about the prevalence of guns.[/QUOTE] When you look at it Per Capita though (which is a fairer comparison than raw numbers of incidents), the UK and other comparable countries lag WAY behind the US. Why? Because we have fairly strict control of our guns. I talked about this in the Las Vegas Shooting thread but there is a multi-step process to getting a legal firearm here, including demonstrating safe storage (bolted down safe, usually, which would help address your 'stolen' aspect.. and I think you need to have a secure way of moving them to where you intend to use them if you are hunting, but it has been a while since I looked into it), valid need, a police background check which includes your doctor vouching for your mental state etc and at the end of all that you get a government issued licensed. And you can only own hunting rifles and shotguns.

I'm not denying the UK has less gun crime - there's just more than people seem to think - and its overall violent crime rate is not significantly lower than the US. The gun ban didn't actually make the country safer overall than the US, it just reduced one specific type of crime and another type increased to compensate. I am concerned with effecting societal change that improves the situation overall - rather than being laser focused on a specific facet of the issue, which is only a symptom and not a cause. As I have pointed out earlier in the thread plenty of other countries have relatively open access to guns without a crime problem, while plenty of countries that just focused on banning weapons rather than improving their societies still have huge problems with crime.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136625]I'm not denying the UK has less gun crime - there's just more than people seem to think - and its overall violent crime rate is not significantly lower than the US. The gun ban didn't actually make the country safer overall than the US, it just reduced one specific type of crime and another type increased to compensate.[/QUOTE] Homicide rate is lower though, or was in 2014. Similar violent crime rates, but less fatalities. Here's my post from the Vegas thread. [quote]In 2014, in the US, there was around 4.5 homicides per 100 000 people. 3.6 of those were firearm homicides (And boy finding the data for that was fun... Wikipedia has some very helpful articles but the total homicide data was from 2015, had to go to the FBI website for 2014s). In the equivalent timespan the UK had 0.92 homicides per 100 000 people. I can't find the data on how many of those were committed with a firearm because it is so insignificant as to have not been mentioned on any public source, and I'm not going to submit an FOI request just to beat the (self-evident) point in any further. (It was 0.06 in 2011, though) Sources: FBI, UK Gov[/quote] 2014 was used because it was the most robust/complete data set available from both countries when I was posting back in October-ish.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53136609]Because criminals by and large don't get their firearms by legal means. They are already breaking the law. [B]Reducing the number of guns in the US won't reduce their ability to obtain firearms.[/B][/QUOTE] Is this a sure fact? Or just conjecture? Grenadiac's post seems to suggest fact - but I just want to be sure that the logical foundation for this is sound. Other countries, such as, incidentally, the UK, have much lower firearm crime rates (i.e., criminals using guns), with criminals resorting to tools such as acid and knives to do their dirty work. Speaking of the UK, it seems like Grenadiac's figures were even more misleading than I thought, due to the way it categorizes and defines what constitutes as an "incident". From what I can tell, the UK **actually** had [url="https://public.tableau.com/profile/metropolitan.police.service#!/vizhome/MPSFY201617CrimeStatistics/NOTES"]only 110 gun related [I]homicides[/I],[/url] unless I'm interpreting these statistics wrong, which is entirely within the realm of possibility. According to the same source I posted earlier, there were 15,590 gun related deaths in the US. Suicides not included. [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate"] Per 100,000, the UK's generic intentional homicide rate also utterly pales in comparison to that of the US.[/url] So even when accounting for the presence of knives and other gun-alternatives, it seems that their problems don't stack up from any angle. Now, of course, no two countries are alike and there are many more factors at play here. But I think that when considering just [I]how[/I] exceptional the US is in terms of its gun crime, it's worth considering that the presence of guns might be a significant factor.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;53136628]Homicide rate is lower though, or was in 2014. Similar violent crime rates, but less fatalities. Here's my post from the Vegas thread. 2014 was used because it was the most robust/complete data set available from both countries when I was posting back in October-ish.[/QUOTE] Yeah, there are less fatalities, but you still have people trying to kill each other. Would it not be better to deal with the reasons people are trying to kill each other than simply keep trying to take away the means to do it? If you haven't read through all 14 pages (I don't blame you) let me tell you now I'm not opposed to intelligent gun control but simply going ham with banning this and that and restricting this and that isn't going to do anything useful. It has been conclusively useless in parts of the US that tried it. Australia didn't even see a meaningful drop in its gun crime rate as a result of its ban; it just kept falling at the same rate that it had been falling previously.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136635]Yeah, there are less fatalities, but you still have people trying to kill each other. Would it not be better to deal with the reasons people are trying to kill each other than simply keep trying to take away the means to do it? If you haven't read through all 14 pages (I don't blame you) let me tell you now I'm not opposed to intelligent gun control but simply going ham with banning this and that and restricting this and that isn't going to do anything useful. It has been conclusively useless in parts of the US that tried it. Australia didn't even see a meaningful drop in its gun crime rate as a result of its ban; it just kept falling at the same rate that it had been falling previously.[/QUOTE] And my first post literally says that I don't supporting banning them (because that would be hypocritical) but a move to a much more controlled access such as the UK has.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53136633]Is this a sure fact? Or just conjecture? Grenadiac's post seems to suggest fact - but I just want to be sure that the logical foundation for this is sound. Other countries, such as, incidentally, the UK, have much lower firearm crime rates (i.e., criminals using guns), with criminals resorting to tools such as acid and knives to do their dirty work. Speaking of the UK, it seems like Grenadiac's figures were even more misleading than I thought, due to the way it categorizes and defines what constitutes as an "incident". From what I can tell, the UK **actually** had [url="https://public.tableau.com/profile/metropolitan.police.service#!/vizhome/MPSFY201617CrimeStatistics/NOTES"]only 110 gun related [I]homicides[/I],[/url], unless I'm interpreting these statistics wrong, which is entirely within the realm of possibility. According to the same source I posted earlier, there were 15,590 gun related deaths in the US. Suicides not included. [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate"] Per 100,000, the UK's generic intentional homicide rate also utterly pales in comparison to that of the US.[/url] So even when accounting for the presence of knives and other gun-alternatives, it seems that their problems don't stack up from any angle. Now, of course, no two countries are alike and there are many more factors at play here. But I think that when considering just [I]how[/I] exceptional the US is in terms of its gun crime, it's worth considering that the presence of guns might be a significant factor.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind homicide statistics are counted in kind of a funny way in the US. Two bad statistical practices inflate our gun homicide rate beyond what it should be. - Crimes where the type of weapon was not recorded get lumped in with gun homicides - Shooting and killing someone in self defense is still technically considered criminal homicide and recorded as such - you just don't get prosecuted - but those incidents are also added to the gun homicide rate I'm not going to deny that our rate is higher than it should be but there's a lot of things playing into it. US statisticians are primarily politicians and like to creatively interpret numbers, that's why you will find a lot of conflicting data if you go looking. I wasn't trying to imply the 2500 London firearm incidents were all homicides, either, so I'm not sure where you got that. They are predominately robberies or attempted-but-failed homicides as far as I'm aware. That doesn't mean there's no gun crime. [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Craigewan;53136636]And my first post literally says that I don't supporting banning them (because that would be hypocritical) but a move to a much more controlled access such as the UK has.[/QUOTE] Which, as I'm trying to explain to you, won't do any good unless you launch a mandatory turn-in campaign and destroy several hundred million of the existing firearms like the UK did to prevent criminals from being able to steal them.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136641]Keep in mind homicide statistics are counted in kind of a funny way in the US. Two bad statistical practices inflate our gun homicide rate beyond what it should be. - Crimes where the type of weapon was not recorded get lumped in with gun homicides - Shooting and killing someone in self defense is still technically considered criminal homicide and recorded as such - you just don't get prosecuted - but those incidents are also added to the gun homicide rate I'm not going to deny that our rate is higher than it should be but there's a lot of things playing into it. US statisticians are primarily politicians and like to creatively interpret numbers, that's why you will find a lot of conflicting data if you go looking. I wasn't trying to imply the 2500 London firearm incidents were all homicides, either, so I'm not sure where you got that. They are predominately robberies or attempted-but-failed homicides as far as I'm aware. That doesn't mean there's no gun crime.[/QUOTE] But it does mean there is far less. Nobody has claimed that we eradicated gun crime, but we have done is reduce it to negligible levels.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136611]I don't exactly understand your meaning. When I say the gun owning population in the US is mostly stable, I mean that the FBI statistic of 42% of the population which owns guns neither commits nor is prone to committing crimes. As such I am reluctant to approach the issue as though gun owners are by default out to do harm and therefore need to be handled as though they are radioactive. The majority of guns used in crimes are stolen - one might argue that it's relatively easy to steal guns because there are a lot of legally owned guns, but the same could be said about any other frequently stolen item, and I think holding gun owners explicitly responsible for their guns being stolen is a bit of a backwards way to think about the issue -- unless of course they were stored in a blatantly irresponsible way, such as in an unattended vehicle.[/QUOTE] Perhaps it would be a good idea to start looking at more strict measures on storing firearms, then. How about gun safes being mandatory with all purchases? (You might have already proposed this in the past, my memory isn't fresh) Anyway, I think a lot of this argument hangs on the fact that it's an inevitability that criminals wind up with guns in their laps. That they're bound to get them no matter the unique conditions of legal gun ownership. A larger saturation of guns means more guns in the hands of criminals. It shouldn't be a given that criminals should have such ready access to firearms. It certainly isn't elsewhere.