Pretty much the above is a lie. Beto (and any of the candidates in favor of a misnamed "buy back" program) wants our "assault weapons." Diane Feinstein would take away all of our guns if she could.
And Feinstein conceal carries and has armed security, they are all hypocrites. No Bueno, Beto: Americans Won’t Comply With Your Gun Ban.
Not correct. From; https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/ The author, adjusting for differences in reporting rates and definitions of 'violent crime' between the UK and US then allowing for population you get the following for a selection of crime types arrives at the following figures. ROBBERY: UK robbery incidences: 76,179 (THOSB – CEW page 61, paragraph 2.) 76,179 / 561 = 135.72 US robbery incidences: 354,396 (FBI – CUS) 354,396 / 3116 = 113.7 You are thus 1.1x (135.7 / 113.7) more likely to suffer robbery in the UK than in the US. . BURGLARY: UK burglary incidences: 258,148 (THOSB – CEW page 73, paragraph 3.) 258,148 / 561 = 460.1 US burglary incidences: 2,188,005 (FBI – CUS) 2,188,005 / 3116 = 702.1 You are thus 1.52x (702.1 / 460.1) more likely to suffer burglary in the US than in the UK. HOMICIDE / MURDER: UK homicide incidences: 642 (THOSB – CEW page 17, paragraph 4.) 642 / 561 = 1.14 US murder incidences: 14,612 (FBI – CUS) 14,612 / 3116 = 4.6 You are thus 4.03x (4.6 / 1.14) more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK. . KNIFE CRIME: UK incidences of knife crime: 32,714 (THOSB – CEW, page 18, paragraph 1.) 32,714 / 561 = 58.3. US incidences of knife crime: 19.1% of 751,131. (FBI – CUS) = 142,714.89 142,714.89 / 3116 = 45.8 You are thus 1.27x (58.3 / 45.8 ) more likely to be knifed in the UK than in the US. . FATAL SHOOTINGS: UK incidences of fatal shootings: 55 (THOSB – CEW, page 63, paragraph 3.) 55 / 561 = 0.09 US incidences of fatal shootings: 67.7% (FBI – CUS[/url) of 14,612 = 9892.2 9892.2 / 3116 = 3.17 You are thus 35.2x (3.17 / 0.09) more likely to be shot dead in the US than in the UK. . RAPE OF A FEMALE: UK incidences of rape of a female: 14,624 (THOSB – CEW table 2.04, page 43.) 14,624 / 561 = 26 US incidences of rape of a female: 83,425 (FBI – CUS) 83,425 / 3116 = 26.7 You are thus 1.02x (26.7 / 26) more likely to be raped as a female in the US than in the UK. GRIEVOUS BODY HARM / AGGRAVATED ASSAULT: UK incidences of grievous body harm: 19,474 (THOSB – CEW table 2.04, page 42.) 19,474 / 561 = 34.7 US incidences of aggravated assault: 751,131 (FBI – CUS – Aggravated Assault) 751,131 / 3116 = 241.05 You are thus 6.9x (241.05 / 34.7) more likely to suffer aggravated assault in the US than in the UK. So while you are slightly more at risk of being knifed in the UK, the difference is marginal. Whereas the chances of being the victim of a shooting is vastly higher in the US which makes sense given the much larger number of firearms there.
What's not correct? That you still have plenty of gun crime with what is essentially a total ban? And plenty of violent crime? Demonstrably you do. Most crime occurs in large inner cities. You've got 1 3/4s of those. We have far more. Of course we have crime. SO do you. The difference is that here I can defend myself and there you're at the mercy of whomever. Well that and your numbers are off because the brits lie. Did your study factor in that the brits lie about their reporting for murders? https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/7/17/how-the-uk-covers-up-murder-stats/ Homicide stats for the United Kingdom have traditionally come from reports from the Home Office, which tallies murders according to a completely different system. The crucial methodological difference is that a murder’s existential status depends on a conviction, not a body and evidence of foul play. Think of how many murders go unsolved, and it will become clear that the Home Office’s numbers are woefully low. Not only that, but they are reported from the time of conviction, not the time of death. Since murder cases often take years to be resolved, statistics for a given year tend to reflect events actually occurring in previous years. For example, Home Office figures appear to indicate a massive spike in murders culminating in 2003; in actuality, this is the year in which the victims of prolific serial killer Harold Shipman—who murdered throughout his long career—were reported.
It doesn’t take the training you might perceive as demonstrated by Cruz in Fl who used 10 rd mags because they better fit his backpack. In semi autos mags are frequently a weak point... often found as the cause of jams from FTEs and FTFs... something that can stymie a shooter who has not trained to diagnose and clear malfunctions as happened in the Aurora Co instance. When I am brought a malfunctioning gun I frequently find mags as the culprit. And, when I train students in combat shooting courses, learning how to quickly diagnose and clear (instructor induced) malfunctions is an essential part of the training, something few novices can do without training. Those of us that do competition are fastidious with insuring the mags we use are as high quality and reliable as possible with our gun platforms as possible. Aftermarket 100 rd mags are not only cumbersome appendages for the fast multiple target transitions and acquisition required and far more prone to failure than standard capacity 30 rd or fewer mags. I know of no one in competition, where you’d think they might offer advantage, that would use one. But, a demonstration is worth more than words, BTW, when shooting my AR chambered for 5.56, I tend to use 30 Rd mags (loaded with 27 rds for better potential feed reliability) because the ones I have purchased are higher quality and easier to find than high quality 10 or 20 rd mags. One trade of on 30 rd mags is they raise my profile and make target acquisition a bit more difficult than 10 or 20 rd mags. BTW, I have three uppers for my AR, one in .458 SOCOM that can stop any game in N.America. A standard 20-round 5.56mm NATO magazine can hold seven .458 SOCOM rounds and a standard 30-round 5.56mm NATO magazine can hold ten .458 SOCOM rounds. I have never contemplated owning a 100 rd mag...why? And, loaded with .458 for dangerous game...I wouldn’t trust the reliability or handling characteristics.
Cruz was shut down by a jam he couldn't figure how to clear, investigators found his rifle in a stairwell inoperable with more rounds in the mag. Jams are a part of life with any firearm bolt or semi-auto, which is why one learns early on how to clear them quickly and get moving, plus something a majority of the GCA's fail to understand is high capacity mags 30+ rounds are more prone to jamming, than the lower count 10 or 20 rounds mags. Yet they want to ban the very mag that might shut down or provide an opportunity to take out an active shooter, but that comes with not having a clue of the subject they wish to preach about to those who do fully understand it. And with an AR system anything over 20 makes the rifle tough to shoot from the prone position which is one of the safest positions to be in when getting shot at.
You are the one who called the UKs levels of violent crime 'absurd' without stats to back that statement up you up. I simply looked for a an accurate comparison to confirm whether you were correct or not. And you are missing the whole point of the analysis behind the article concerned. It isn't trying trying to prove that Britain doesn't has a crime problem. Instead it was simply showing that, allowing for variations in the way crimes are categorized and recorded between the US and Britain both countries have similar levels of violent crime. It does show shows that (when comparing the US and Britain) the presence or absence of firearms has demonstrably little or no impact on the likelihood of being a victim of most crimes most crime types. With one exception 'fatal shootings'. And this category encompasses all deaths by firearm, including accidental deaths and suicide. So of course the US has much higher figures. More guns per person equals more fatalities, the same way as more cars per kilometer of road equals more car accidents and more swimming pools per head of population equals more deaths by drowning. Accidents are just that accidents and while guns make suicide easier they are not the direct cause. Read the article or prove they are lying. Otherwise all anyone ever has to do is say 'no the US is lying about how serious their crime figures are. Its a coverup I tell you! ' (Again without a shred of proof and we just go round and round in circles resolving nothing.) Using different methodologies to record certain statistics is not lying. If the home office deliberately started issuing misleading figures it would and could be detected - it would also lead to mass sackings and criminal convictions. Just like it would if it was done in the US. In fact the author of the report I quoted was specifically trying to address this often quoted allegation by doing his analysts.
Is "vaping" or the use of any other tobacco-related products a constitutional right? Can such products be used in a manner that does not put anyone else at risk of exposure, or is their use and their byproducts indiscriminate?
For a place that the ministry of silly walks has declared a gun free zone? Yes its pretty absurd. You guys don't count homicides until the crime is solved ffs don't give me that
A mass shooter is a disoriented boy, perhaps in a man's body, making one last ditch, desperate effort for attention, wanting to go under the sod with a name people remember. Take away all guns and the fad won't stop. Just be glad I'm not teaching them any of the many alternative, more effective methods.
Even if true your point only relates to the crime of murder. (Most of which BTW are solved anyway so the impact of counting only 'solved' murders is again marginal at best.) It does not apply to all the other crime types listed in the article and then in my post. So again, allowing for the stated variables the results seem to show only marginal differences in the violent crime rates between the US and GB with the presence or absence of firearms have little if any impact. Like it or not this is what the numbers tell you. And the take away message remains the same, owing a firearm doesn't apparently make you any safer than not owning one. Of course owning a firearm doesn't put you at more risk either - with the exception of the death by firearm which, allowing for accidents etc is also understandable. Hard to accidentally kill yourself or someone else with something you don't own.
Hmm, having a gun has saved my life more than once, including when I lived in the UK. Stats are great, but I gauge my risk by my knowledge and experience and thus far, having a gun has worked 100% of the time for me. If I eventually don’t survive because I own/carry them, well without one in the past I wouldn’t be here to for that potential eventuality to begin with. I am ahead of the game because of my choices.
Yes but that's the issue. One data point (your experience) can be immediately offset by another data point (someone else with an opposing experience). Result in they cancel each other out. Could be someone who was unarmed but used situational awareness to avoid injury or someone who mishandled their own firearm. So the Big Picture always matters. Doesn't mater whether its cancer, economics or the weather etc. Analyzing the data gives you a heads up on threats and opportunities both.
Where I was raised, on a road directly linking the Falls with the Shankill, without some means of protection... protection that if stopped and found to possess would result in mandatory time, it was highly unlikely I would have survive living where I was. Count on the RUC for protection? Protection for a Taig? Sure now. If caught with a weapon, at least I’d be alive to serve time. There are variable to risk stats that often don’t reveal the underlying reality of variations to risk, particularly by those judging from the relative safety of a less risky set of circumstances. As a citizen of the US, I am free to make educated choices, rather than accept an ‘truth’ of stats that don’t reflect the variability of my situation. Even at my age, I fly planes, hang glide, cycle some 7,000 mi/yr and do extreme skiing. By the ‘stats’ my level of risk would have me already dead. But, what the stats don’t reflect is my accumulated knowledge and experience. Am I at higher risk than someone that doesn’t do those things...yes. But, it’s my educated choice to do them, figuring my risk of being killed in an auto accident by a another driver a higher risk. Risk stats might be useful in assessing personal risk, but there is more to making a rational decision than simply accepting the numbers.
My father was an Irish Protestant from Belfast who married an English Catholic and got out of Northern Ireland as fast as he could. His father was in the RUC and ended up on both sides 'hit list' because he didn't give a fig what side you were on, all that mattered was if you broke the law or not. I got stories about the place growing up and saw it for myself when I visited relatives. So I get the scenario point is I soon learned there were simply (a few areas) you didn't go if you weren't a local. Other than that no probs. As far as hang gliding/cycling etc goes, more power to you but the risks in those activities are extremely low. My reason for quoting the stats I did was that the original argument being posited by Reality was that the presence of firearms in (US) society reduced the risk of being the victim of violent crime vs one like the UK without them. I simply pointed out that stats appear to show that (as a whole vs individual cases) this was not the case i.e. they made no significant difference one way or the other. Ergo using this argument as justification for owning/carrying a firearm is invalid. Again this relates to the population as whole. The fact that one guy gets hit by lightning while paragliding is not an argument in favor of you giving this sport up.
Yep, back home there were no go areas dangerous for me; I didn’t venture there. But, some of that danger was routinely exported. In the US where I live I have the right of making an informed choice on the risks I am willing to take whether walking out of my home in a thunderstorm, owning a fireplace, mounting a ladder, to hang gliding, to carrying a gun. I make my choices based on range of factors, which include assessing information from a number of sources, accumulating as much knowledge as possible, my experience levels. In many areas, such as owning a gun, to hang gliding my level of risk is far lower than those of the population engaged in doing the same. However, there is a qualification to that, when there is trouble I have a tendency to run toward it, not away because I might be able to help others. For instance, I can’t count the times when I have encountered someone seriously injured where an audience seems frozen from action, but where I have stepped in to render essential first aid; recently saving a little girl’s life while her parents were frozen as the girl was bleeding out. As for justification for owning a firearm, given it is a right, I don’t need one. However, my use of firearms provided sustenance and the financial means to pay for my education through graduate school, has been a factor in saving my life (and that of others...two years ago stopping the kidknapping of a screaming teen that three armed youths were trying to drag in a van while onlookers did nothing) on more than one occasion. I am not only aware of the risks, but have the knowledge and experience to intelligently and responsibly mitigate those risks and to teach others wanting to learn. Life is a risk, anything, from what you ingest, where you walk, who you talk to, who you f*** or any activity has the potential to result in harm or ending your life. The accumulation of knowledge and experience in my opinion not only better equips you to survive, provides more life options, but also decreases individual risk. As for the difference between the US and the UK, that associated with guns is is one that isn’t the simple variable of the presence of guns, but is a far more complex interplay of variables that has evolved over more than two hundred years. Your statement, “The fact that one guy gets hit by lightning while paragliding is not an argument in favor of you giving this sport up.” sums up my thinking to a degree, the fact that some use guns to commit crime or have accidents due to negligence is not an argument for me to give up owning/carrying guns. In fact, the former is a reason for me to own one.
The UK Office of National Statistics publishes details of statistics on homicides in England and Wales on an annual basis. This includes tables listing homicide outcomes. While “unsolved homicides” is not a specific category you can derive a measure by combining the categories of 'no suspect charged' and 'proceeds discontinued or not initiated'. Individual Police forces can provide statistics on unsolved homicides as of he date of inquiry but there are issues with such figures. Specifically, these figures will not account for matters before the courts where no verdict has yet been delivered. When an offender is identified it can take years for the matter to proceed through the Courts and no crime is officially solved until such time as a conviction is recorded. So a murder in say 2015 might not see a conviction until 2020 - and that's assuming they identify a suspect in the first 12 months. Even then this can be and often is subject to appeal. Yes even those convicted of murder have a right of appeal, go figure. So again if you think someone is lying - prove it. And BTW a story on page 3 of the the tabloid press is not generally regarded as 'proof ' of anything.
Yep but the same issue still stands and the figures don't lie. To the extend you as a individual don't cause or (heaven forbid) become a US gun statistic does not take away from the fact that thousands of people are. Clearly there is an issue at play and for every trained, conscientious and law abiding firearm owner there are many who are obviously not. You and others like you may not be the problem, that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. And the question is what to do about it? IMO denial doesn't cut it as a solution.
Dude how the home office publishes its stats is public record. I'm sorry you have a problem with how your nation doesn't properly report its homicides so its can artificially deflate its murder rate.
