quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Loki, so how is the murder rate in the US almost 4 times higher than that of the UK, according to the 2006 figures ?

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=900003&contentid=255032

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09
Yes gun crims has had a small upsurge in recent years for a number of reasons. Like I say the answer to quell it is not to make guns readily available to everyone Loki.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Loki, so how is the murder rate in the US almost 4 times higher than that of the UK, according to the 2006 figures ?

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=900003&contentid=255032

But is there a gun murder rate in Britain? That's my point. They have an outright BAN on firearms....yet innocent people are still being killed by them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VanIsleKnight

Well, for starters, you can make it much more difficult to legally own a gun.  Restrict the sales of firearms and ammunition to -very- specific shops, no deals where if you sign-up here or buy this you get a free gun.  You go to a gun store with your license, purchase the gun, wait three days, get the gun.

Your information is flawed as to what the laws currently are in the US.

You can only buy new guns from FEDERAL FIREARMS LISCENSE holders now. It's been that way since the 1960's. Those "Free Gun" deals in order to get your gun you have to go to the gun shop and pick it up (Another Micheal More "poetic Liscence" issue from his movie taken as fact without getting the facts first) When you win, get a "free gun" you get a voucher and then have to go to the federally liscenced firearms dealer and fill out the paperwork they run the background check (Instant Check System) and if the computer doesn't find your name on the prohibited list you get the gun. We voted to have the Instant Check System instead of a waiting period.



Another thing you can do is recycle guns.  Sounds really hippyish to do but melt them down or whatever it is that recyclers do.  They're only valuable as evidence for so long.  The more guns there are available, the cheaper or easier they'll be to get. Guns confiscated during criminal investigations where the person is convicted do in fact after a period of time ( enough to allow for appeals etc) already get chopped up and melted down. Again a suggestion you make that is already in effect in the US.

Proper education and stricter requirements for a license with similar penalties for misuse, handling, or care.  In my opinion they should be treated like cars, if you can't prove to safely and responsibly handle them, you don't deserve to have them.  (Though this infringes on the "right to bear arms" so instead take away the privilege to purchase and own lethal ammunition)

Federal law since this is a federal, nationwide issue should take priority, not state law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Loki your argument here makes no sese. Britain has very stict gun laws. As a c onsequence our rate of gun crime is miniscule compared to america and is one of the factors that meas our murder rate is between a seventh and a quater of yours. The fact that we still have an xtremely low preponderace of gun crime shows that theban does work not th it doesn't. Presumably by your logic you look at my country and think that banning heroin is a bad idea?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Loki your argument here makes no sese. Britain has very stict gun laws. As a c onsequence our rate of gun crime is miniscule compared to america and is one of the factors that meas our murder rate is between a seventh and a quater of yours. The fact that we still have an xtremely low preponderace of gun crime shows that theban does work not th it doesn't. Presumably by your logic you look at my country and think that banning heroin is a bad idea?

Actually, the argument makes a lot of sense if you'd just look at it objectively and not defensively for your country.

Let's keep it as simple as possible with a single question: You banned firearms there. Who has them now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Your changing your tune, as well as the goalposts. You asked about gun crime, and now I have given you figures showing they are relatively low, you ask who has the guns now. No one is being defensive, just giving you the facts you wont accept.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
If you want to be pedantic, a few criminals have guns, that wasnt what you asked me though, was it.

The point remains we have a very low murder rate, by guns or otherwise, you dont.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
If you want to be pedantic, a few criminals have guns, that wasnt what you asked me though, was it.

The point remains we have a very low murder rate, by guns or otherwise, you dont.

Perhaps. But lets ask those 'few' victims Britain has if they feel the bans are working. Oh wait, we can't. They're dead. And the cops? They got there in time to clean up the mess.

That's how it happens. When SECONDS count, cops are MINUTES away. Good luck thwarting a firearm-wielding intruder with a baseball bat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I have to laugh, now you use capitals to try and prove a point, probably because you cant use facts. It is rare for a civillian not involved in street gangs, to be shot dead. Its fairly rare for gang members to be shot dead. There is a higher chance of me being struck by lightning, if you still dont believe me, do some research.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

So what domimus. No one is arguing that there is no benefit to having firears the argument is that the negatives outweight the positives. I'm sure the thousands of innocents killed by firearms in america would have been damned glad if the criminals weren't given ready access to such powerful weapons.