A disarmed populace are easy targets.
https://youtu.be/1CVvBSAUuZ0

I noticed that theme heavily on the new Bloomberg ad. They like fear! They have their lemmings waking up afraid of the damn WEATHER every day, lol...

As much as I wish it wasn't necessary, I'm inclined to agree with the topic header. At one time, England was quite a lawless place and even into later Victorian times, those that could afford them carried pistols and sword-sticks to ward off criminals, especially at night. Then Sir Robert Peel established our modern Police force and crime fell dramatically and it was no longer necessary or legal to carry such weapons. Now, the majority of Police carry tazer's and have armed response teams (but that's another story). However, after ten years of austerity, Police numbers have been drastically reduced and no longer capable of preventing the majority of crimes and rarely make more than a token effort to do so. It has often been rightly commented that gun control and other such restrictions only affect the law abiding majority, leaving criminals free to acquire whatever weapons that they can. When I lived on the edge of Moss Side in the late 1980's I would regularly hear rival gangs attacking each other with automatic weapons and grenades only a few hundred yards away. The Police would only arrive after this had stopped. If the Police are no longer capable of protecting us, through reduced numbers, then we must be allowed to protect ourselves, especially as there are apparently 20,000 Jihadists in the country having returned from Syria and elsewhere and attacks upon the population continue to happen.

True gun control is being able to hit your target!!!

Guns have gotten into the ((wrong hands!)), From people from all walks of life including kids,thanks for this post,

Idiot control is needed not gun control. If all we had were tazers to defend ourselves we'd be in trouble. Criminals don't go by the law. They will still get them and we will be without means to defend ourselves. Teach your children gun safety. So many are scared children won't understand but kids are smart they learn quickly.

It's a tough one because many places in the US you need a gun, I mean there's a lot of things that could eat you. SO they need to be available.
there is nothing in the uk that can kill you. 1 venomous snake (the adder) a big one is capable of killing a small dog. 3 spiders that can give you a painfull bite but nothing else.
so there's no need for guns. If you see what I mean.

but
14,542 homicides in US in 2017 About 109 per day from guns alone thats not counting knife, strangulation blunt instruments etc

In the UK in 2017 there were 709 homicides incuding everything.


325 million in us
66 million in uk
which is almost 5 times the population of uk ( 4.924 )
so relative to the uk. thats 2900 V 709
basicly in a nut shell, you have almost 3 times more homicides (relative to population) than the uk from guns alone.
I can't be bothered to work out any more statistics but its a lot don't you think?


just pull the trigger.

You don't carry a gun in the uk, you'll get locked up. but if you want to hunt or even just clay pigeon shooting, you get a licence.(they do a background check before issuing it)
There are 100,000 licenced firearms in devon and cornwall (two uk counties) but nearly all shotguns. Not the sort of thing to keep in a coat pocket.
And pull out when you percieve a threat. I wonder how many shootings are done by paranoid psycotics.

idiot controll :) thats about it.

^^^ This! I don't own a gun and doubt I ever will, but for those that do choose to have guns, being responsible and teaching your children gun safety is vital.

Japan has the fewest gun deaths per year in the world. Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and experiences 100 or fewer gun deaths per year in a population of over 127 million and a gun death rate of .06 deaths per 100,000 people. In order for Japanese citizens to purchase a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written exam, and complete a shooting range test scoring at least 95% accuracy. Candidates will also receive a mental health evaluation, performed at a hospital, and will have a comprehensive background check done by the government. Only shotguns and rifles can be purchased. The class and exam must be taken again every three years.


http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/gun-deaths-by-country/

I would support something like this. WE have a large percentage of emotionally unstable people who should not be handling guns. We need stricter deterrents/laws for those who provide or sell them illegally too.

I would certainly agree that, if you are going to allow people to own and carry weapons, especially firearms, then strict licensing laws are essential as are strong penalties for their unjustified use. I think that frequent mental health checks of the sort they have in Japan would be the best idea to prevent some of the things such as the Las Vegas and School shootings that we've seen.
I know that in places like Switzerland, where adults are required to own at least one rifle as part of the Swiss Civilian Militia they also have very strict storage requirements and severe penalties for the misuse of these weapons.

I think most people will support stronger penalties for the illegal use or possession of a firearm. I think they would also support some level of required knowledge and emotional stability to purchase. What they will not support is the government or some other organization knowing who has a firearm and what that firearm is.

How else do we track if someone is supposed to have that weapon?

Criminals love Gun Free zones.
I'd like to see, Constitutional Carry.
Either purchase the weapons of your choice or, our government supply all willing and able adults with the weapon of our choice. Free safety, maintenance and proficiency classes. Free range time. A mandatory 2 hours per month range time. Free ammo. Return used brass for fresh ammo.
Mandatory death sentence for anyone using a weapon to commit any premeditated crime. Any gang associated persons convicted of possession of a weapon also, mandatory death penalty.

Ouch. I do not want mandatory death penalty for anything. I prefer case by case, based on if a life was taken and the details and context of that event. As it stands, I believe supply and demand invoke greed. So long as there are people wanting something, there are people willing to supply. Since we cannot stop people from wanting the illegal products, I believe it more productive to deter the availability of those illegal products instead, whether it be guns or drugs. Those deterrents should have consequencs that are just and commiserate however.

Showing a gun in a crime shows intent.
Any criminal intent should require a death penalty.
As with Fast and Furious. Anyone involved in that should be executed for illegally supplying criminals with arms.

I think that the main problem with the death penalty is, while you can free a prisoner who was wrongly convicted, you can't give the dead back their lives if you got it wrong. It's not that I'm against the death penalty as such, in the worst cases of multiple serious crimes including murder, it might well be justified on any number of grounds but if you are to have such a penalty, then it must be only for the very worst of crimes and you need to be very sure of the evidence. I don't know if you have similar laws in the United States but here any sentence can be suspended even if you are found guilty of a crime. It goes something like this: "You are hereby sentenced to 3 Years imprisonment suspended for 5 Years". Because of the suspended nature of the sentence, the person found guilty is then free to resume their normal life but if at any time during those five years they commit any further crimes, they will be arrested and imprisoned for the original three years plus whatever additional punishment they received for their latest crime. In principle I don't see why even the death penalty couldn't be suspended against any future serious crimes.

Career criminals laugh at our laws.
Execute a bunch and the rest may learn restraint.

showing a gun does not prove intent to kill, in my opinion although it does justify reasonable effort by the viewer to act cautiously or react defensively, depending upon the context of the situation. And if a life has not taken, my opinion is that responding by taking life is not justified.

1st rule in gun safety.
Never point a gun at anyone unless you INTEND on shooting.
I really don't believe the left is interested in saving lives. If they were, they'd be down with very harsh consequences for the criminal.
All I've seen is they want to punish law abiding citizens for the actions of bad people.
Then again, guns don't kill near as many innocents than Planned Parenthood.

I really think law abiding citizens are not being punished in any way, but criminals are prosecuted. I am interested in saving lives, which explains why I do not support taking lives just to deter çrime, but only as a payment, if you will, for someone who has actually taken a life. EVen then I prefer them be incarcerated, because I am so against premeditated taking of life. But at least I can understand some logic to a life for a life, even if I do not agree it is the best approach.