RayC

That may all be true but the undeniable fact remains, guns kill (and maim), and the data shows that in the overwhelming majority of nations where gun ownership is more restricted there are fewer gun related deaths and injuries: It really is as simple as that. I remain completely unconvinced by anything posted in this thread which supposedly purports to show that greater gun ownership amongst the general public is somehow beneficial to a society. I'm equally unconvinced by the 'freedom' argument.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that gun ownership is of more concern than - if true - that an increasing number of lunatics want to kill kids, however, there is no getting away from the fact that a gun is the preferred tool in these killings.

Deleted. My comment duplicates much of the subsequent discussion.

More sarcasm Jonathan?🤔

So an individual instructing and advising others how to kill and maim others just needs to play the "I was merely exercising my right to absolute freedom of speech" card to avoid bearing any responsibility or accountability when others act on that advice. Maybe you need to reconsider your priorities.

There will be no GE until this government decides to call one and that is unlikely to be before 2028 at the earliest. The mask slips again, Jonny. You berate those individuals who refuse to accept the result of the Brexit referendum as anti-democratic, but the very fact that you suggest that the Monarch should refuse giving Royal Ascent and therefore causing a constitutional crisis shows that you only believe in democracy when it suits you.

There have been recent instances of over-zaalous policing in the UK, however, that doesn't mean that there should be absolute freedom of speech. For example, if some nutter were to shoot the President after hearing a call to do from another lunatic, would you simply shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, never mind, that's a price worth paying for absolute freedom of speech"? I do worry about the UK. We have been in decline for +/-120 years (since the US overtook it as the world's leading power). A similar thing is happening to the US. It is also in decline. At some point it will be replaced by China as the world's leading power. You also should worry about your own declining country.

No idea and I am not going to the trouble of looking for a study(ies) which shows it. I am certainly not going to collect, collate and run a regression analysis on any data myself. If you look at the preceding pages of this thread you will find data relating to such things as the (annual) number of gun deaths per 100,000 inhabitants in various countries. You will see that in countries such as Australia and the UK where there are tighter restrictions on gun ownership, there are fewer deaths and injuries than in countries such as the US where the restrictions are looser. Whether you dismiss this intuitively obvious correlation as simply coincidence is entirely up to you.

It might be because you are still - for the time being at least - the major influence on the world stage, and we have no idea what your current maverick President will decide to do next to destabilise the world. I have little interest in US domestic affairs. If you want to re-enact 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' with an enlarged cast of millions, you crack on with it. We have Freedom of Speech. What we don't have is your freedom to incite rioting, violence, etc.

And yet, somehow we've managed to get by without one for +/-700 years. However, I'm pleased for you that you like yours.

Isn't that a coincidence. I feel the same for you.

I agree (and I thought that was what I explained? Obviously, I wasn't clear enough). The looser the restrictions on gun ownership, the higher the incident of gun deaths and injuries.

In the UK it's not.

Apologies for the delay in replying. Fair enough but it is true that it is easier to legally obtain a firearm in the US compared to the UK and Australia. Given that there is a strong negative correlation between the ease of obtaining a firearm and the number of deaths/ injuries resulting from firearms, I suggest that stricter firearm licensing legislation is in society's best interests (see previous pages of this thread for data and discussion. I won't repeat it here). See above There are many things which I do not know. Which particular gap in my knowledge are you referring to, and how is it relevant to this discussion? (I'm well aware that my admission leaves me open to a cheap shot (no pun intended). If you - or any other gun lovers - want to take that shot, be my guest. (I will limit my reply to the UK) No, that is not the case as the data shows. +/-6,500 new applications for firearm licenses were made in the UK in 2022/23 of which 97% were granted. The low number of applications suggests that 1) most UK citizens have no desire to own a firearm and/or 2) that due to the strict criteria which need to be met, they know that their application is likely to be rejected. That almost 100% of applications are successful shoes that those who do apply are obviously certain that they can meet the criteria. Disagree. Gun ownership is a privilege not a right. See first paragraph. You may be right. I now know nothing about planned parenthood abortion research and, therefore, don't have an opinion. I also have no great desire to learn more about it. Does that make a bad person? No. Your assumption is incorrect. I think that the article is disjointed and confused. I will repeat my first objection, namely that the lack of agreed definitions and terminology e.g. what constitutes 'defensive gun use' causes problems when aggregating the data and (may) compromise the integrity and quality of the data and conclusions (We cannot tell as the author does not show her methodological approach). Notwithstanding this objection, I do not see how the author can draw the conclusions contained in the final section from what precedes it. Indeed, if one takes a closer look at the sources referenced by the author, there is evidence to support the proposition that there should be stricter regulation of firearms in the US. For example, the fact that public support for such a measure has almost continuously been above 50% over the past 30 + years (Source 9) and that adoption of SYG laws across the US was associated with increases in violent deaths, deaths that could potentially have been avoided (Sources 2 & 3)

👍Excellent news Thanks. I will.

Is that an 'oooook', there's nothing to see here, or an 'oooook' I still think that there is something sinister here? If the latter, I look forward to seeing the supporting evidence.

I'll admit when I get something wrong: You are a conspiracy theorist.

Just as well you don't believe in conspiracy theories: "On the same day, Politico's Berlin Playbook newsletter reported causes of death for three of the candidates, citing an AfD spokesperson. Lange and Klinger were "severely ill," while Seitz had a heart attack. The newsletter also reported two additional deaths, reserve candidates René Herford and Patrick Tietze. Herford died of kidney failure, while Tietze committed suicide, according to the story. On Sept. 3, 2025, Die Welt reported that the AfD had confirmed to Politico that a seventh candidate had died. Hans-Joachim Kind died "a natural death after a long illness," according to the story. Kay Gottschalk, the deputy chairperson of the AfD for North Rhine-Westphalia, told Welt TV there was no evidence the deaths were "murder or the like.""

We might disagree about many things, Nauseus, but I never had you down as a conspiracy theorist.

😂 I was talking to my mirror image and he confirmed that my level of insanity pales in comparison with some right-wing posters on here😉

Yes - together with many of the AfD's local and national leadership - that's exactly what I think: It was just unfortunate random coincidence that 7 people - 5 of whom had known medical pre-conditions - all died within a few weeks of each other. This article gives more details. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/afd-candidates-died-germany/ No doubt the conspiracy theorists will dismiss this article as MSM bias, fake news or some such other nonsense.

A good summary of events but it in no way refutes my statement that the Flemish people do not want reunification with the Netherlands, although many favour the formation of an independent Flemish state.

Perhaps I am but read the other posts in this thread and you will see that my level of insanity appears to be mild compared to some.

Still doesn't explain the discrepancy (if it exists) as unfortunately, bad parents - single or otherwise - are also present in the UK and I dare say, Australia.

? That still doesn't explain why an American criminal underclass should be more 'scummy' than their Australian or UK counterparts.