Thousands of people become violent crime statistics that don’t involve firearms. And thousands are saved from being crime statistics because of guns, which, depending on the source equal or exceed the numbers are victims, according to the most recent 2013 national study by the CDC (the study that wasn’t supposed to happen, but was funded by the Obama Administration). The fact is, when looking at crime and gun stats over the last couple of decades, violent crime has been trending significantly downward; in the same period, the number of guns in civilian hands has vastly increased (no causal conclusion drawn except the raw figures don’t support GCA narratives)...what that means depends on the bias lens of those interpreting those stats. We don’t agree on the nature of the problem and I suspect, we don’t on the various means to mitigate problems, assuming we reached agreement on categorizing the ‘problems’ that do exist. What I don’t support are government mandates that trample protected civil rights over promoting people having the right to make educated choices. Just as some might believe in trading safety for liberty... sacrificing civil rights and individual liberties to force safety among the population, I could come up with the means to trample the civil rights of those responsible for violent crime to mitigate it, but my suggestions would be castigated by GCAs as medieval; they clearly value removing the rights of all over those that commit crime.
One, I'm not a UK citizen. Two, as you yourself note the Home Office (and the Office of National Statistics) publish both the stats on the UK murder rate and the method used to calculate it. They are not 'secret' and figures on unsolved murders can be obtained from the relevant Police Force. Yet you keep saying 'your (sic) nation doesn't properly report its homicides so its can artificially deflate its murder rate'. Presumably because they don't use the same methodology as your home nation??? Yet you do this without ever actually producing any evidence that what you are saying is true. Are UK authorities deliberately trying to mislead the public? (and the key word here is deliberately) Well then if there is a deliberate conspiracy to deceive prove it. The point is at some point you have to stop clicking your heels together Dorothy while saying 'there's no place like home, there's no place like home' or if you prefer 'there is a conspiracy, there is a conspiracy'. You need to pony up with some facts.
You realize most people are entirely unaware of how it works, right? You understand that most people look at the home office stat and think "look how safe we are"? I can point to examples here on this forum going back years ffs. I say they hide it because when someone ends up obviously dead by foul play but no suspect is fingered and convicted, they don't list that murder in the stats that year. That's obfuscation and you know it. The stat isn't convictions for murder its PERSONS MURDERED. Not suicide or accidental or natural? Murder then. See how that works?
Google have removed the gun emoji and replaced it with a water pistol. Do you feel your rights to a gun emoji have been infringed?
Google freely deciding to remove part of their private service's functionality: Don't have to agree with it, its not my business. The government banning flavored vapes without a law in place allowing such, essentially having president cheeto dick dictate the law (which you'd normally be screaming about like a stuck pig): Definitely don't agree with it since its Vitamin E oil cut into THC vapes on the black market that are proven to be the cause of the latest health crisis, a practice already illegal on multiple levels, and its certainly my business as the government acting in such a manner takes it beyond its proscriptions. Making it rogue.
Dodge Chargers LOOK like they go really fast. Even if that's the base SXT model that's still putting down nearly 300hp from a V6 engine. In fact these modern V6 sports cars wipe the floor with the top of the line classic muscle cars from back in the day with their raw power V8's. We start getting in to the modern V8 engine and it's ridiculous how much power a production muscle car produces. Even with the baseline V6 model you're still able to cruise around and well over 120mph in that thing. Why is that allowed? Better yet, why do you NEED to have that? Chargers look cool, but what practical purpose does that vehicle serve that a 4cyl Honda Civic doesn't? It has 4 doors and 4 wheels. Why do you NEED 300hp? Where are you trying to go in your daily life to where you need a 300 hp vehicle? Then we start talking about the Hellcat's and Redeye's. There is no justifiable reason whatsoever why ANYBODY needs a Dodge Hellcat Redeye. There is not a single person who can honestly argue in favor of owning an 800hp car outside of the fact that they just want one and it's fun. People know that, they really do, but as I said it's all about selective outrage. Guess who uses Dodge Chargers pretty often? Law Enforcement. Why? Because they are fast. Why do CIVILIANS NEED the same type of vehicles that Law Enforcement has? And better yet, why are civilians ALLOWED to own cars that can literally outrun Law Enforcement vehicles? Nowhere in the United States is it legal to open up a Dodge Hellcat to it's full potential on a public road. Some say well because I want one and I am responsible and I won't do anything illegal with it even though it CAN go faster than the legal speed limit. I can take it to the track or something to open it up and it's illegal to speed on public roadways. Fair point. I am responsible and I want AR-15s and I won't do anything illegal with them even though they CAN be used illegally. I take them to the range to shoot and it's illegal to shoot people. The argument is always well just because it's obviously illegal to shoot people with AR15s doesn't mean people don't get shot with them so they should be illegal. Fine, fair point. It's illegal to speed and people speed all the time in anything from Geo Metro's to Ferrari's. Take away folks ability to speed since speeding being illegal is obviously not a deterrent enough seeing how people speed all the time. All production cars will have governors installed on them to limit the top speed to 85mph which is the maximum speed limit anywhere in the US which is only in that one tiny part of Texas. In reality it should be governed at 75mph seeing how thats way more common and if you decide to drive through that part of Texas and want to go faster then you can stop by your dealership and have your governor reprogrammed. That's the logic we are using, then use it in regards to everything. No picking and choosing. Somebody argue against that and justify why we aren't doing that as a society if SAVING LIVES is honestly in your heart the reason why you want more laws regarding firearms. As someone who has had family members killed with guns and family members killed in automobile accidents as the direct result of speeding I can tell you that the method by which a loved one dies has zero correlation to how much it "sucks". No I wasn't more devastated when my family member was shot in the head than I was when my family member was t-boned by an idiot drag racing on a public road and ran right through an intersection late at night going 110mph. Why are people allowed to own cars that can do that and why the hell is nobody out here screaming about this?
And using pure honesty and being non bias and having no preconceived notions, can you justify why any person actually NEEDS to own that car? Or better yet, without including any version of "because I want one" can you justify why anybody actually owns one?
So it is your supposition that ownership of such a vehicle cannot be parlayed into picking up floozies? did you drive a yugo your whole life or something? never had a hot car?
And do you think your very nice muscle car hindered or aided your pursuit of 'these ho's' as the hip cool youth of today that are hip would say?
So it is your supposition that if you had been driving that yugo instead of the road runner, you'd have had the same experience?
A bit off the gun topic, but here is a fairly short old chase video from a trooper I worked with until he retired recently. This happened outside my jurisdiction, but I know the prosecutor there. And no, they did not prosecute the car for how fast it could go--anymore than we should blame the gun for the hand that wields it. They prosecuted the driver for his choice of how he chose to drive the car. As an aside, the method of capturing the suspect was unintentional and a result of the surface the trooper's car was on....
I understand that. But what I don't understand is the hypocritical logic and selective outrage that gets presented so often. I keep hearing "You don't NEED an AR15 or an AK47" or you don't NEED standard capacity magazines. Don't NEED 30 rounds to defend your home or property or to hunt, etc. The logic being used is based on compromise. Basically the odds of you actually needing 30 rounds to defend yourself are extremely slim, but allowing folks to own 30 round magazines is dangerous seeing how some people use that to commit mass shootings. So since it's dangerous lets compromise in the middle, 10 round mags or something. That will prevent those who wish to commit mass shootings from having 30 rounds available before having to reload. Yet when I apply the exact same logic to other dangerous things then it's pure silence. You don't NEED a car that can go 140 mph. You don't NEED a car that has 500hp. Speeding (which is illegal) is the direct result of the majority of auto accidents along with distracted driving. Lets apply the exact same logic here and compromise. You don't NEED to be able to go that fast, so lets require governors on all vehicles. Let's compromise for the SAFETY of the society. You can still have your Dodge Hellcats and Mustangs, but they can only go 80mph. You can still have your ihpones and Androids, but they are disabled while the vehicle is in motion. If you want to use your phone then pull over like those billboards all over the place tell you to do. Factual irrefutable statistics show that those two things are the leading cause of automobile fatalities in the US. Accidents that result in the deaths of thousands more Americans than AR15s. Yet I hear NOBODY talking about that or even pushing for the things I just mentioned. Why? Case in point, on my way to work yesterday I was cruising down the highway at 65mph. The speedlimit is 60mph, I go 5 over. In the left lane an Orange Dodge Charger came screaming past me going at least 85mph or more weaving in and out of traffic. The roads were slick with freezing rain. WHY do we ALLOW people to do that? The fact that it is ILLEGAL to do that isn't deterrent enough obviously since people do it all the time. So since laws regarding that aren't solving the problem it's time to PREVENT people from doing that via engineering. SOMEBODY who is for banning AR15s or 30 round magazines argue against what I just said. 8 years and counting, have yet to receive an answer.
You are right, anti-second amendment arguments have always been fundamentally dishonest. Safety is never a real concern for those who organize to prevent Americans from arming themselves. For instance, 30 round magazines will always be available for any criminal who has the slightest inclination to have them regardless of any law.
People suggesting 30 rd mags aren’t used for hunting should view vids on population control of feral pigs in some southern states or coyotes in some Western states.
I'd argue that law enforcement officers are relatively well trained when it comes to firearms, but not when it comes to gun fights. There's a huge difference between hitting a target at a certain range and/or rate and hitting an armed individual that may or may not be trying to kill you in return.
To be honest that's most people. The best shadow boxer would likely get his/her ass kicked in the ring facing an amateur opponent who had experience actually boxing other people. How's that old saying go? Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. That's not a knock on anyone but that's reality. Shooting at targets and practicing on tactical ranges and whatnot is good, it creates muscle memory and whatnot, but actually doing that in real life against a threat who may actually be shooting back at you is a whole other ballgame. I used to catch flak with this but this is the reality. I often hear many talking about the more guns the better and/or the good guy with a gun will stop the bad guy with a gun. Eh...maybe. Here's the thing, most people will run. I know "you" (not you but "you" in a general sense) think you won't and think you'll rise to the occasion but you probably won't. In spite of what you tell yourself you'll probably run and/or hide like everybody else even if you are there with your EDC muscle memory trained with firearm in your waistband. And if you do decide to return fire you'll probably miss, then you'll panic, then you'll run. That's just reality. Even me myself has no idea what I'd actually do if I found myself in a situation like that. And I'm one of the rare few folks who has years of genuine real world experience knowing exactly what it's like to shoot at people who are shooting back at you. But sitting there going about my daily life and having all hell break loose around me in a mall or something what would I do? I don't know. I might grab my concealed firearm and rush to the occasion or I might hit the floor or I might take off running with everybody else. And I have zero shame in that, on this very forum years ago I openly explained exactly what happened the first time I ever experienced what it was like to try to shoot at people who shot back at me, a forum search will find that post if anybody is interested enough. It doesn't matter if you are the average Joe or a Law Enforcement Officer or a Navy SEAL. I don't care who you are or what you personally tell yourself, no you do not know how you will react if you ever find yourself in a life or death situation. Training and whatnot will hopefully help push you in the right direction, but all the training in the world doesn't actually give you any guarantees when it actually happens. I've seen it first hand. In order to get well trained in gunfights you have to experience gun fights. And the overwhelming vast majority of folks thankfully have never actually done that, which is good...
