1628: Team Cheater

[Keith]

"She just broke his dick! She just broke his dick!"


The Official Site of Comedian John Roy. Site by Say Em

Diane O'Debra | Facebook

[WSEIII]

Another great band name would be, "The Asthmatics".

John Holmes the Batman killer not to be confused with the former porn star of the same name.

[John Walker]

Let's see how the handgun ban worked out in the UK... now obviously banning "assault weapons" doesn't mean jack (Viriginia Tech shooter: armed with 9mm and .22lr handguns) when the murderer is the only person armed with a firearm which can be reloaded in a matter of seconds i.e. any modern handgun. This is an article from the sporting shooters association of australia (I can't use an American article because hey every gun owner in the US just has dick insecurities and that explains it all away) The figures used are from UK's Home Office which keeps crime statistics among other things.

SSAA - Evaluating Britain’s handgun ban

Anyone who didn't want to read the article: it definitively shows that after handguns were banned, there was an increase in robberies, robberies with firearms, homicides, and overall violent crimes involving firearms.
Correlation doesn't imply causation, you say? Here's a correlation the UK DIDN'T see: a reduction in violent crime including gun crime after the gun ban.

The UK's handgun ban didn't prevent the Cumbria shooting which killed 12 (not including the psycho) and injured 11. Instead of an "assault weapon" he used a .22lr and a shotgun. Is the handgun ban responsible for reducing the number of mass shootings (which btw make up the overwhelming MINORITY of all shootings)? It would be absurd to say it did since prior to the Dunblane Massacre which prompted the handgun ban, there had been ONE mass shooting- the Hungerford massacre. Something which occurs infrequently like mass shootings (in the UK anyways) can be seemingly banished by anything from gun bans to prayer in school and for a time it would seem to work... until disaster struck again. The question is should we use the same knee jerk response which didn't lower the UK's relatively low murder rate, and expect it to work for our higher murder rate? Fuck no.

These psychos want a pedestal and it's no coincidence that public killings from celebrity stalker/murderers to mass shootings all became more and more common as the television became more and more popular. News agencies have to report on things like this, but they don't have to give any information about the killer. No lingering shots of the killer's "arsenal." No discussion of his "meticulous plans." No pictures of the killer, not even his name. If you're serious about preventing these mass killings, this is what has to be done. It should be illegal for any news agency or ISP to allow true information about the killer to be circulated... in the same way it's illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater (isn't there any other analogy I could use instead?) The 1st amendment can be "reinterpreted" in the same way the Brady Campaign wants to "reinterpret the 2nd. If any information about the shooter leaks on the net in spite of these precautions, internet users should take it upon themselves to spread disinformation (preferably negative and hilarious) which will bury real info.

Not trolling, if anyone has a better idea which they can back up with statistics / logic, please share.

[John Walker]

And my name has nothing to do with John Lindh, Keith.

[JaymztheKing]

Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk

TL;DR:
United States 9,146 deaths by firearm.
England 41

United States % of Homicides by firearm = 60%
England % of homicides by firearm = 6.6%

...and these stats are from a globally distributed newspaper, not a 4 year old article off the website of an Australian gun club.

[John Walker]

The statistics in the article I linked to are from the United Kingdom's Home Office. And you haven't addressed the issue. Where do we go from here? Yes our country has more gun deaths than the UK...it always has. But when the UK banned handguns in 1997, their violent crime rate increased, including murders. This isn't proof that the gun ban CAUSED the increase in violent crime, but if the UK had fewer firearm deaths before the gun ban than the years after the ban, then obviously the UK's relatively low murder rate isn't because of the gun ban. Look at the UK's murder rate year by year and see if the handgun ban in 1997 helped at all.

SSAA - Evaluating Britain’s handgun ban

[Jonny Face]

Originally Posted by John Walker

SSAA - Evaluating Britain’s handgun ban

Anyone who didn't want to read the article: it definitively shows that after handguns were banned, there was an increase in robberies, robberies with firearms, homicides, and overall violent crimes involving firearms.
Correlation doesn't imply causation, you say? Here's a correlation the UK DIDN'T see: a reduction in violent crime including gun crime after the gun ban.

The UK's handgun ban didn't prevent the Cumbria shooting which killed 12 (not including the psycho) and injured 11. Instead of an "assault weapon" he used a .22lr and a shotgun. Is the handgun ban responsible for reducing the number of mass shootings (which btw make up the overwhelming MINORITY of all shootings)? It would be absurd to say it did since prior to the Dunblane Massacre which prompted the handgun ban, there had been ONE mass shooting- the Hungerford massacre. Something which occurs infrequently like mass shootings (in the UK anyways) can be seemingly banished by anything from gun bans to prayer in school and for a time it would seem to work... until disaster struck again. The question is should we use the same knee jerk response which didn't lower the UK's relatively low murder rate, and expect it to work for our higher murder rate? Fuck no.

Yeah, because a link from a pro-firearm site isn't going to be biased at all mate

A lot of things can contribute to gun crime rates. Rising Crime in the UK had more to do with poverty than anything else; there is always a direct link between crime and deprivation. In any case, gun crime in the UK is now lower than ever, according to this link:

Gun Facts

Also, do you know how many gun-related massacres we have had since Dunblane? None that I can think of.

By the way if you are going to say "correlation doesn't imply causation" and than attempt to prove your point using a correlation, that makes about as much sense as saying "Im not racist, but I don't like black people".

Does arming your citizens help prevent gun crime? The following statistics are taken from the 1986 National Institute of Justice survey. This was a survey of convicted felons, asking their feelings on the average citizen being armed.

"more than a third of the felons questioned said they worried with some regularity about being shot by victims, but roughly 40 percent said they never considered the possibility; while 39 percent said that at least once they'd decided not to go through with a crime because they believed the person they'd targeted was armed, nearly 25 percent insisted they were actually drawn to the challenge of confronting an armed victim"