You don't see a difference in the killings? no difference in motive? In the case of the 3 people killed.. they were carpetbaggers who had bilked the shooter and others out of half a million dollars
That's what the shooter believed. But then he was a nut who killed 3 people, shot at police, then shot himself in the head, so
I don't have much faith in his opinion. 2 of the 3 men he murdered were retired police officers.
Now if you can't see the difference between that and a motiveless (at this time) killing spree at a mall then there is no point in talking to you.
You'll probably find a very similar motive in both cases. Both probably believed the world, and some individuals in it, had cheated them. Out of money, love, success, fame, whatever, spree killers usually have similar motives (assuming the mall shooting was not a terrorist act, of course)
so how many people has your gun laws saved in the UK nashwan?
Since the 20s? Tens of thousands. If England and Wales had the same murder rate as the US last year, and let's face it, we have similar rates of other crimes, then we'd have had about 2,750 murders. In actual fact, we had about 750, so I'd say around 2,000 lives saved last year alone.
tell the truth.. how much has the murder rate gone down? violent crime?
Since the 20s? Murder rates have gone up all over the industrialised world. Ours, with strict gun control, somewhat less than yours, with freely available guns.
You never had a high murder rate.. there is no reduction..
At the beginning of the 20th century, the British and american murder rates were similar. Britain began to implement gun controls, the US did not. The US rate soared, the British rate did not.
I predicted that there would be an increase in your violent crime rate soon.. I don't believe that I said that 5 years ago but... time flys... maybe it was. I don't know when it will happen but it sure seems that the pressure cooker is building up steam.
Only it isn't. Britain's murder rate is falling.
you have a 97% white population.
No. I don't think you have any conception of the numbers of people who have come to Britain since the Labour government opened the gates at the end of the 90s. 40% of all people living in London last year were born abroad.
as more "immigrants" are allowed.. you will be facing more violent crime.
And yet we aren't.
Labour came to power in 1997, and immigration started to soar at the end of the 90s. Yet the murder rate for 2005 was about the same as for the 90s average, and that's including 50 people killed in the London suicide bombings.
Are new immigrants and black people disproportionately involved in crime? Yes. But they just replace the existing criminal groupings.
The city with the highest murder rate in Britain is Glasgow, and it's a very white city. Second is Belfast, again with a very low black population.
I am responsible for a mall shooter because he got a gun?
Well, by your logic I am responsible for anyone killed who didn't have a gun to defend themselves, so yes.
You seem to think that murder and violence would go down if guns were banned.. you can't show me anything that supports that theory. not even in your own country. not in australia either.
Of course I can. How many people were mugged in the US? How many people were killed by muggers in the US? Now ask the same questions for the UK.
Guns are tools for killing people. It's hardly surprising that where the tools are freely available, they are more commonly used.
Seems your way just makes it easier for the criminals and less likely that the inocent can defend themselves..
This is the problem lazs. You seem incapable of understanding that a gun does not protect you. The "good guy" can lose, it's not a Hollywood movie. If criminals and victims are both armed, you are going to have a lot more dead victims than if neither is armed. In most cases, the criminal knows what's happening before the victim does, and the criminal is going to have less compunction about firing.
That's why criminals killed about 16,000 Americans, innocent people killed about 200 criminals.
What I am responsible for is the 1.5 million times or more a year that crimes are stopped in the U.S. with a firearm.
Made up figure. Phone people up at random, and 1% of them will claim to be Navy Seals who won the CMOH in the Gulf War. You can get 1% of the public to say almost anything, which is why opinion pollsters note they have a 3% margin of error. Kleck's poll on defensive gun use came up with figures much lower than the margin of error on the poll (and that doesn't mean the figure could be much higher. If 1% really defended themselves, then the maximum negative error on the sample is 3% of 1%, whereas the maximum positive error on the sample is 3% of 99%)
Hell, more Americans have been abducted by aliens than used a gun to defend themselves, if you believe in random telephone opinion polls.
What I am responsible for is the off duty cop having a gun to stop the mall shooter.
And the mall shooter having his guns in the first place. And the Philadelphia shooter, and the 30 other people who will shoot an American dead with a gun today. And the 30 tomorrow, and the 30 the day after, and so on.
You condem your fellows to tyranny by governments and thugs. Not I.
Only we're not suffering tyranny. I see far more Americans saying they have no control over their government than Britons.
