14 kids dead and one teacher at Texas school shooting.

by jojorabbit 117 Replies latest social current

  • jojorabbit

    This is a quote from the daily wire on line.

    2. The gun bans in Australia and Britain also didn’t work. Australia and Britain are both hailed by the Left as evidence that gun control works. However, the facts tell a different story.

    Two studies – a 2007 British Journal of Criminology study and a 2008 University of Melbourne study – concluded that Australia’s temporary gun ban had no effect on the gun homicide rate. Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott had similar findings.

    “Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward [trend] in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the buyback,” wrote Lott. “It is hence difficult to link the decline to the buyback.”

    “Again, as with suicides, both non-firearm and firearm homicides fell by similar amounts,” Lott continued. “In fact, the trend in non-firearms homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre- and post-buyback periods. This suggests that crime has been falling for other reasons. Note that the change in homicides doesn’t follow the change in gun ownership – there is no increase in homicides as gun ownership gradually increased.”

    In Britain’s case, the Crime Research Prevention Center found that after the gun ban was implemented, there was initially a severe increase in the homicide rate, followed by a gradual decline once Britain beefed up their police force. However, there has only been one year where the homicide rate was lower than it was pre-ban:

    Additionally, there was an 89 percent spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of which occurred after the gun ban.

    A closer look at the actual facts show that the Left’s favorite examples of Britain and Australia are actually examples of how gun control doesn’t work.

  • road to nowhere
    road to nowhere

    It is telling that almost all these events happen in a gun free zone. It is reported that the teachers wanted to be allowed to carry but were denied. note the shooter was taken out by an ICE agent, (a supposed racist bad guy) We know little of the actual motives, means, or trigger.

    Do not confuse the blm crap with getting off the plantation. Most protesters were whites who never gave done grunt labor. The rest were thugs who are decried by ALL normal humans.

  • Simon

    It's pointless comparing the gun laws and shootings between the US and UK.

    The UK was never "frontier territory" where a gun was an important tool. We didn't have civil wars after modern guns were invented. Gun ownership has always been relatively rare so "controlling" it was simple and easy.

    Any solution that involves magically disappearing all guns from existence is pointless to debate. Why not also solve it with magical invisible nano-bot bullet shields?

    Assume any solution has to align with people having the right to own guns and work backward from there. The problem isn't really people having access to guns, because people have access to guns in lots of places, and there are not the same mass shooting incidents. Likewise, if guns used are already owned illegally, making more laws to make them even more illegal isn't going to do much.

    Look at who does the shootings, why, what warning signs existed, who could & should have noticed them, who did but didn't act, and which politicians stand to benefit from mass-shooting events.

    Who makes hay when the bullets fly? Who stands to gain? Who sets what policies and why? Who stops criminal accountability?

  • jhine

    We've had all this tripe before , it comes from GOP trying to defend gun ownership.

    I live here , have done for 66 yrs . We are not scared of guns or knives.

    I looked at the numbers in the 5 years up to 2018 there were 34 firearm murders per 1million people in the US .

    That doesn't take into account the children killed by , usually , older brothers playing with firearms that have not been stored securely. .

    UK 0.48 per 1million .

    Murders by sharp instruments 2016

    US 4.96 per 1 million .

    UK 3.26 per 1million.

    It is a fact that you are less likely to be murdered by any means in the UK than in the US

    Yes you could secure schools but should a civilised society have to do that?

    You can't secure shops and restaurants .


  • jojorabbit

    From a person I know who lives in England. "I live in Britain. We had a terrorist attack last year

    - and because they couldn’t get guns the terrorists used machetes. Three able bodied terrorists in a crowded area killed a total of eight people, three with their vans and five with machetes. Gun control worked to protect us from terrorists.

    We had a gang war in London earlier this year (which is why the murder rate spiked for a couple of months). Our gang war participants used knives because they couldn’t get guns, thus protecting innocent bystanders. Gun control worked.

    Gun control works in the country I live in, clearly and obviously. It doesn’t miraculously change people’s hearts but means that people who want to do harm, either to themselves or to others, have to work harder and mostly endanger innocent bystanders a whole lot less."

  • jojorabbit


    A study which was recently published by Harvard took a look at firearm ownership, gun laws and violent crime, and suicide rates around the world. The authors sought to answer the question would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?

    The study, which was conducted by Don B. Kates, an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, a Canadian criminologist and university professor, offered a stark truth: More guns does not equal more deaths and less guns does not equal less deaths.

    Kates and Mauser claim in the study that while some international comparisons have been viewed as evidence that more guns equals more deaths and therefore to reduce guns will reduce deaths, they indicate that some of these studies use inaccurate or misleading information to obtain the results.

    According to the study, the so-called fact that the reason the murder rate is so high in the United States compared with other modern developed countries is due to the U.S. having uniquely easy access to guns, is simply not true. The study indicates those homicide rates are not an accurate representation and moreover, that those rates have nothing to do with the number of firearms in the country.

    While gun ownership in the U.S. is high, the unusually high murder rate is not the norm. The study compares other developed countries with high gun ownership rates, including Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark. These countries all have significantly lower murder rates than the U.S. as well as those countries in which gun ownership is much more uncommon. In other words, the high murder rate of the U.S. is the exception, not the rule, when comparing homicide rates to gun ownerships rates.


    Euro guns

    For example, in Luxembourg handguns are completely banned and gun ownership of any kind is extremely rare. However, the country’s murder rate is nine times that of Germany’s, despite Germany having gun ownership rates 30,000 times higher than Luxembourg.

    In another instance, the study compares the U.S. with Russia. It cites that once the Soviet Union succeeded in disarming the majority of civilians, beginning in the 1960s murder rates skyrocketed. By the 1990s murder rates had become so high that the basically gun-less Russia was left with the highest murder rate of the civilized world, three times higher than that of the U.S., despite the country’s long-standing strict and stringent gun control policies.

    In addition, other countries of the former Soviet Union, which have held on to the strict gun control policies, including the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, as well as various other now‐independent European nations, all have similar murder rates.

    The fact that these countries have very few firearms has not reduced the rate of violent crimes. In fact, according to the study, “Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”

    In comparing gun ownership rates with homicide rates, the study concludes that “where firearms where are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

    Just as the United States’ unusually high murder rate is used in the argument for gun control, England’s unusually low murder rate prior to the 1990s along with the country’s low rate of gun ownership presently is often cited as factual evidence that gun control reduces violence.

    Yet, according to the study, what fails to be acknowledged is that first, England was already experiencing an all-time low in violence before gun control measures were introduced. Secondly, in the late 1990s England started to initiate stricter gun control policies, resulting in a complete ban of handguns as well as many long guns. Hundreds of thousands of firearms were confiscated from law-abiding citizens. By the year 2000, violent crime in England had increased so much that it had one of the highest violent crime rates in all of Europe, evening higher than that of the U.S.

    When guns aren’t available for killing people, criminals just find another tool, according to a Harvard Study. (Photo credit: Lehigh Valley Live)

    When guns aren’t available for killing people, criminals just find another tool, according to a Harvard Study. (Photo credit: Lehigh Valley Live)

    In addition, England’s most recent crime statistics have been grossly misrepresented. In 2006 the criminal justice system, in an attempt to conserve resources, initiated a policy in which the police would no longer investigate “minor” crimes, such as burglary and minor assault. If a mugger, robber, burglar or others engaged in minor criminal activities are caught, the police simply give them a warning – a virtual slap on the wrist – then send them on their way, without filing charges, arresting or prosecuting them. In other words, crime has not gone down in England, but rather “minor” crimes are simply no longer counted as crime.

    Moreover, after years of England’s police forces not even carrying guns, with violent crime on the rise, many departments are now opting to arm their officers.

    Meanwhile, as England initiated stricter gun control for its residents, the U.S. was loosening gun laws, which eventually allowed for citizens to legally carry firearms in 40 states. Concealed carry permit holders are now estimated to be at 3.5 million.

    And as states adopted statutes to allow the carrying of firearms, the U.S. saw a dramatic drop in violent crime, particularly homicides. Additionally, states that approved residents to carry firearms saw a greater decrease in crime than those who did not.

    However, the theory that gun ownership reduces crime is a highly controversial one. And as the study points out, even though the correlation is clear, there still remains other factors that may have influenced the drop in crime in the U.S. as well.

    One study indicated that the drop in violent crime was partially the outcome of the legalization of abortion, which “resulted in the non‐birth of vast numbers of children who would have been disproportionately involved in violent crime had they existed in the 1990s.”

    The same study also questioned if the possibility of the increase in both prison populations, from 100 to 300 per 100,000, and executions, from five each year to 27, resulted in reduced violent crime.

    Regardless of the reason – or reasons – the fact remains that the U.S. has seen the lowest violent crime rate in the last 15 years.

    The study then skims the surface of the societal problems of violent crime, citing that most violent criminals – and especially murders – almost always have a long history of criminal behavior. “So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder. By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians.”

    A statement which aims to debunk the idea that thousands of law-abiding citizens are turned into murders each year simply because they have access to a firearm. “The day‐to‐day reality is that most family murders are prefaced by a long history of assaults.” In other words, normal, ordinary, law-abiding people don’t murder other people, but rather homicide is more likely motivated by socio-economic and cultural factors and marked by an extensive history of violence.


    Suicide rates

    The highly debated issue of suicide was explored as well. The World Health Organization ascertains, “The easy availability of firearms has been associated with higher firearm mortality rates.” While this is true, removing the firearm does not remove the suicide risk. The study points out that, “The evidence, however, indicates that denying one particular means to people who are motivated to commit suicide by social, economic, cultural, or other circumstances simply pushes them to some other means,” concluding that there is “no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, more or less resulting in the same amount of death.”

    While the question of whether or not gun ownership rates have a direct effect on violent crime and suicides will continue to no doubt remain a highly debated topic, the study does bring some interesting points to light. And although the study more strongly indicates that gun control does not reduce crime, it doesn’t necessarily strongly debate that an increase in gun ownership reduces crime either. However, a CDC study released earlier this year showed that even with the U.S. owning half the guns on earth, those guns are more often used in self-defense than for violent crimes.

    Moreover, in addition to the Harvard study, at least two other studies have come up with similar conclusions. In 2003 the U.S. Center for Disease Control and again in 2004 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences both concluded that they “failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicides, or gun accidents.”

  • TonusOH

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was much more concerned about gun violence when I lived in a progressive city with very strict laws and very low legal gun ownership. Today, I live in a city where guns are common and relatively easy to buy, and it's not difficult to get a concealed-carry permit, which means you can hide the gun you have on you. I am not concerned about gun crime. To be honest, I'm not concerned about any other type of crime- it's the kind of place where people don't lock up their homes and even leave their cars unlocked when they go shopping.

    How much does gun control have to do with it? Not much, is my guess. Where I live now has a much lower population density than where I used to live. Household incomes are higher. Those two factors are likely to have the largest impact, much greater than how many people are armed. The US has badly mismanaged its large cities for decades, and created a vicious cycle where the problems are used as a pretext to demand more money and more control. Since the corruption and mismanagement isn't addressed, things just get worse, and the reaction is to demand more money and more control.

    The gun control debate is a political one, being used in a tug-of-war where people are left to their own devices in service of an agenda. We won't get rid of guns, and we refuse to take any steps to make people safer, by tackling the real issues and trying steps that can work on a smaller scale.

  • Foolednomore

    The question I ask is why does one need a military style rifle? Why did someone sold this kid two assult rifles? I'm I gun owner but I'm for responsible gun ownership. No one needs an assult rifle.

  • Simon
    No one needs an assult rifle.

    Please explain what you think an assault rifle is.

  • Foolednomore

    A military style weapon. Higher then needed mags. I had an SKS converted I had not much use for it. Are you a gun owner? I understand. I like guns. I'm just troubled by what's going down.

Share this