New York Times puts gun control editorial on Page 1

[jpinx]

Here's the reason for the mess about guns in USA......

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35047899

[Grouse]

Here's the reason for the mess about guns in USA......

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35047899

"The [number one] driver of firearms sales is fear," Brian Ruttenbur, an analyst at BB&T Capital Markets, told Bloomberg.

"Primarily, fear of registration restrictions, banning and things like that," he said.

So true!

I for one am delighted that some grown ups at NYT have had the common sense to publish the editorial!

About time....

[up2u2]

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

[chuckd]

Here's the reason for the mess about guns in USA......

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35047899

Interesting article. It prompted me to look up a couple of things.

I found an article that lists the top thirty best handgun manufacturers. The top ten are...

1. Sig Sauer - Switzerland

2. Smith & Wesson - USA

3. Beretta - Italy

4. Springfield Armory, Inc. - USA

5. Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc. - USA

6. Colt's Manufacturing Co. - USA

7. Glock ges.m.b.H - Austria

8. Heckler and Koch - Germany

9. Walther Arms - Germany

10. Browning Arms Co. - USA

Interestingly, five in the US and five in Europe. It seems to be big business all over.

http://www.ranker.com/list/best-handgun-brands/werner-brandes

[chuckd]

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.

Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.

• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

• In states with and Stand Your Ground other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

Number three in your series of unattributed and outdated publications.

1. "Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures..."

​Published January 2006.

2. "threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without."

Published 2013 for survey period 2001 - 2009.

3. "Stand Your Ground other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides."

Publication date not shown, period covered in survey 2000 - 2010

[OMGImInPattaya]

Interesting...I read the San Bernardino service center re-opened yesterday and to protect it, they placed guards (with guns no less) at the entrances...not people holding up copies of the New York Times editorial. I wonder why?

Edited December 9, 2015 by OMGImInPattaya

[KarenBravo]

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.

Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.

• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

How do you threaten someone with a firearm if you don't have one?

[jpinx]

Here's the reason for the mess about guns in USA......

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35047899

Interesting article. It prompted me to look up a couple of things.

I found an article that lists the top thirty best handgun manufacturers. The top ten are...

1. Sig Sauer - Switzerland

2. Smith & Wesson - USA

3. Beretta - Italy

4. Springfield Armory, Inc. - USA

5. Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc. - USA

6. Colt's Manufacturing Co. - USA

7. Glock ges.m.b.H - Austria

8. Heckler and Koch - Germany

9. Walther Arms - Germany

10. Browning Arms Co. - USA

Interestingly, five in the US and five in Europe. It seems to be big business all over.

http://www.ranker.com/list/best-handgun-brands/werner-brandes

Don't forget - -Smith and Wesson was a UK company until recent times,,,,,

[jpinx]

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.

Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.

• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

• In states with and Stand Your Ground other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

Number three in your series of unattributed and outdated publications.

1. "Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures..."

​Published January 2006.

2. "threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without."

Published 2013 for survey period 2001 - 2009.

3. "Stand Your Ground other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides."

Publication date not shown, period covered in survey 2000 - 2010

Whilst I laud your web-ferretting skills, it is not unusual for statistics to be based on recent historic data. Statistics generally is a very bad measure of anything, since there is no mention of how the data was obtained. Having said that - -trends can be seen, and to go back 10 - 15 years is not unreasonable. Last years data will not have been compiled yet, so don't hold your breath for updates. More interesting would be overlays of graphs of gun-ownership per head of population and gun-crimes per head of population over the last 20 years -- let's see where this is going,,,,,

[Publicus]

Here's the reason for the mess about guns in USA......

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35047899

Interesting article. It prompted me to look up a couple of things.

I found an article that lists the top thirty best handgun manufacturers. The top ten are...

1. Sig Sauer - Switzerland

2. Smith & Wesson - USA

3. Beretta - Italy

4. Springfield Armory, Inc. - USA

5. Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc. - USA

6. Colt's Manufacturing Co. - USA

7. Glock ges.m.b.H - Austria

8. Heckler and Koch - Germany

9. Walther Arms - Germany

10. Browning Arms Co. - USA

Interestingly, five in the US and five in Europe. It seems to be big business all over.

http://www.ranker.com/list/best-handgun-brands/werner-brandes

Thank you for the marginally informative research that hasn't any direct or material bearing on the issues being discussed, to include the much abused Second Amendment.

Speaking directly and materially to the issue are the following data.

Note:

Population of the United States is 315 million.

Population of the European Union is 508 million.

Gun Deaths in the United States:

More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country

More than 30 people are shot and murdered each day

1/2 of them are between the ages of 18 and 35

http://heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10

Per Capita Annual Gun Death Rate Among States (per 100,000 population):

Highest: Louisiana (19.04, 45.6% households contain guns)

Median (25th): Pennsylvania (10.90)

Lowest: Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Hawaii (2.20)

National: (10.32)

Source: Centers for Disease Control

http://heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10

Firearms and Violent Deaths in Europe

Linkages Between Gun Ownership, Firearms Legislation and Violent Death

Analysis of the WHO data indicates that between 2000 and 2012, European countries registered more than 12,000 homicides committed using a firearm.

This comes down to 1,500 gun homicides per year in Europe and 1,000 gun homicides per year within the EU. The WHO data indicate that a gun was used in approximately 20% of all successful homicide attempts in Europe.

This is a rather low proportion, give that firearms are the most widely used weapons for homicides on a global level (41%).

http://www.vlaamsvredesinstituut.eu/sites/vlaamsvredesinstituut.eu/files/files/reports/firearms_and_violent_deaths_in_europe_web.pdf

Here's a map of firearm ownership around the world, using 2012 data compiled by the Guardian. The United States has nearly twice as many guns per 100 people as the next closest country, Yemen — 88.8 guns per 100 as opposed to 54.8 in Yemen:

(The Guardian/Phillybdizzle)

When you compare the United States with nations like Britain and Japan, it becomes clear that firearm ownership contributes to America's murder problem. The American firearm homicide rate is about 20 times the average among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries (excluding Mexico).

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/11/5797892/us-world-firearm-ownership-map\

As to the Second Amendment that gun worshipers much abuse, Americans in the British colonies were barely armed until some two years before the Declaration of Independence in 1776. From 1775-77 colonists had begun to buy masses of firearms from Europe.

Once the War of Independence began, the Continental Congress established the Springfield Armory in Massachusetts (Number 4 on the quoted list) to manufacture arms and ammunition for the Continental Army of General George Washington. Throughout the 19th century the Springfield Armory was one of the 3 or so firearms manufacturers in the United States.

Yet the above cited divergent gun homicide rates between Europe, to include the European Union, and in the United States are radically different. Sinfully so.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Scott
graphic removed.

[55Jay]

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.

Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.

• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

The homicide increase was to criminals, right? That would jive with the conclusion the stand your ground laws are having no deterrent effect, criminals persist even with increased risk of meeting armed resistance.

There ought to be a corresponding increase in anecdotal evidence that gun owners are using their weapons successfully to defend against criminals. My impression is anti-gun advocates tend to say that's NOT true. Yet the data above suggests otherwise.

My own home defense event was before this stand your ground/castle business. I presented him with two choices in the form of a double barreled shotgun. He chose None of the Above, and retreated hastily into the night. I consider that the ideal example of home protection, but of course I was fortunate to catch him at the door before he got into the house.

Edited December 9, 2015 by 55Jay

[up2u2]

Research on Guns in America

In 1993 the New England Journal of Medicine published a report “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home," funded by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The NRA wasn't happy with the findings and campaigned to eliminate the CDC department that compiled the report the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. By 1996 pressure from the NRA resulted in an appropriations bill that resulted in “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (the Dickey Amendment).

The amendment by Republican Jay Dickie ensures that no Federal money can be used on research that may advocate or promote gun control.

QUOTE: "This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA"

It is actually illegal for the Federal government to fund any research that findings may result in advocating or promote gun control. The last thing the NRA wants is a scientifically fact based research or a knowledgeable public when it comes to guns. The dumber the better.

[simple1]

Whilst it may be off topic would it not be more useful to compare homicide rates per 100,000 head of population.

1 homicide pa. per 100,000 in the UK

4.5 homicides p.a. per 100,000 in the US

[55Jay]

Research on Guns in America

In 1993 the New England Journal of Medicine published a report “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home," funded by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The NRA wasn't happy with the findings and campaigned to eliminate the CDC department that compiled the report the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. By 1996 pressure from the NRA resulted in an appropriations bill that resulted in “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (the Dickey Amendment).

The amendment by Republican Jay Dickie ensures that no Federal money can be used on research that may advocate or promote gun control.

QUOTE: "This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA"

It is actually illegal for the Federal government to fund any research that findings may result in advocating or promote gun control. The last thing the NRA wants is a scientifically fact based research or a knowledgeable public when it comes to guns. The dumber the better.

I would agree that my government should not use tax revenue to fund thier own studies to bolster their agenda to eliminate constitutional right(s) they think we don't need anymore.

If it weren't for colllective interest groups like the NRA (and many, many others), the government would steam roll right over people, and this is why they prefer them dumb and distracted with sports and Kim Kardashian's big ass.

Edited December 9, 2015 by 55Jay

[55Jay]

Whilst it may be off topic would it not be more useful to compare homicide rates per 100,000 head of population.

1 homicide pa. per 100,000 in the UK

4.5 homicides p.a. per 100,000 in the US

Keep going like you did yesterday. What was the shocking one? Honduras?

[SgtRock]

simple1, on 09 Dec 2015 - 14:54, said:

Whilst it may be off topic would it not be more useful to compare homicide rates per 100,000 head of population.

1 homicide pa. per 100,000 in the UK

4.5 homicides p.a. per 100,000 in the US

Make the same comparison with registered gun owners and the UK actually has a bigger problem.

Despite having one of the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

[Scott]

A post with oversized graphic has been removed.

[jpinx]

simple1, on 09 Dec 2015 - 14:54, said:

Whilst it may be off topic would it not be more useful to compare homicide rates per 100,000 head of population.

1 homicide pa. per 100,000 in the UK

4.5 homicides p.a. per 100,000 in the US

Make the same comparison with registered gun owners and the UK actually has a bigger problem.

Despite having one of the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

Sources? Figures? Vague statements about vague comparisons hold no weight....

[jpinx]

Research on Guns in America

In 1993 the New England Journal of Medicine published a report “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home," funded by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The NRA wasn't happy with the findings and campaigned to eliminate the CDC department that compiled the report the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. By 1996 pressure from the NRA resulted in an appropriations bill that resulted in “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (the Dickey Amendment).

The amendment by Republican Jay Dickie ensures that no Federal money can be used on research that may advocate or promote gun control.

QUOTE: "This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA"

It is actually illegal for the Federal government to fund any research that findings may result in advocating or promote gun control. The last thing the NRA wants is a scientifically fact based research or a knowledgeable public when it comes to guns. The dumber the better.

I would agree that my government should not use tax revenue to fund thier own studies to bolster their agenda to eliminate constitutional right(s) they think we don't need anymore.

If it weren't for colllective interest groups like the NRA (and many, many others), the government would steam roll right over people, and this is why they prefer them dumb and distracted with sports and Kim Kardashian's big ass.

The Federal government do not do the research, they pay independent bodies to do it. The law now presumes a result of some research (before it is done) in order to ban the research funding. mind-boggling,,,,,,,,,,

[55Jay]

Research on Guns in America

In 1993 the New England Journal of Medicine published a report “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home," funded by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The NRA wasn't happy with the findings and campaigned to eliminate the CDC department that compiled the report the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. By 1996 pressure from the NRA resulted in an appropriations bill that resulted in “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (the Dickey Amendment).

The amendment by Republican Jay Dickie ensures that no Federal money can be used on research that may advocate or promote gun control.

QUOTE: "This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA"

It is actually illegal for the Federal government to fund any research that findings may result in advocating or promote gun control. The last thing the NRA wants is a scientifically fact based research or a knowledgeable public when it comes to guns. The dumber the better.

I would agree that my government should not use tax revenue to fund thier own studies to bolster their agenda to eliminate constitutional right(s) they think we don't need anymore.

If it weren't for colllective interest groups like the NRA (and many, many others), the government would steam roll right over people, and this is why they prefer them dumb and distracted with sports and Kim Kardashian's big ass.

The Federal government do not do the research, they pay independent bodies to do it. The law now presumes a result of some research (before it is done) in order to ban the research funding. mind-boggling,,,,,,,,,,

Outsourcing the grunt work doesn't make it an NGO effort. The reference is to CDC, funded by federal funds.

[jpinx]

Research on Guns in America

In 1993 the New England Journal of Medicine published a report “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home," funded by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The NRA wasn't happy with the findings and campaigned to eliminate the CDC department that compiled the report the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. By 1996 pressure from the NRA resulted in an appropriations bill that resulted in “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (the Dickey Amendment).

The amendment by Republican Jay Dickie ensures that no Federal money can be used on research that may advocate or promote gun control.

QUOTE: "This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA"

It is actually illegal for the Federal government to fund any research that findings may result in advocating or promote gun control. The last thing the NRA wants is a scientifically fact based research or a knowledgeable public when it comes to guns. The dumber the better.

I would agree that my government should not use tax revenue to fund thier own studies to bolster their agenda to eliminate constitutional right(s) they think we don't need anymore.

If it weren't for colllective interest groups like the NRA (and many, many others), the government would steam roll right over people, and this is why they prefer them dumb and distracted with sports and Kim Kardashian's big ass.

The Federal government do not do the research, they pay independent bodies to do it. The law now presumes a result of some research (before it is done) in order to ban the research funding. mind-boggling,,,,,,,,,,

Outsourcing the grunt work doesn't make it an NGO effort. The reference is to CDC, funded by federal funds.

absolutely.... but this law presumes a result of the research before it is done in order to ban the research funding. still mind-boggling,,,,,,,,,,

[55Jay]

I would agree that my government should not use tax revenue to fund thier own studies to bolster their agenda to eliminate constitutional right(s) they think we don't need anymore.

If it weren't for colllective interest groups like the NRA (and many, many others), the government would steam roll right over people, and this is why they prefer them dumb and distracted with sports and Kim Kardashian's big ass.

The Federal government do not do the research, they pay independent bodies to do it. The law now presumes a result of some research (before it is done) in order to ban the research funding. mind-boggling,,,,,,,,,,

Outsourcing the grunt work doesn't make it an NGO effort. The reference is to CDC, funded by federal funds.

absolutely.... but this law presumes a result of the research before it is done in order to ban the research funding. still mind-boggling,,,,,,,,,,

OK, I get it now. Tx.

[SgtRock]

jpinx, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:19, said:

SgtRock, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:09, said:

simple1, on 09 Dec 2015 - 14:54, said:simple1, on 09 Dec 2015 - 14:54, said:

Whilst it may be off topic would it not be more useful to compare homicide rates per 100,000 head of population.

1 homicide pa. per 100,000 in the UK

4.5 homicides p.a. per 100,000 in the US

Make the same comparison with registered gun owners and the UK actually has a bigger problem.

Despite having one of the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

Sources? Figures? Vague statements about vague comparisons hold no weight....

You not believe me ?

Registered gun users US over 100,000,000. Registered gun users UK 1,000,000.

30000 US deaths annually / 100,000,000 = 0.0003. UK 50 deaths annually / 1,000.000 = 0.00005

For all the screaming and shouting about the lax gun laws in the US. There is not a great deal in it considering the UK's draconian gun laws.

[jpinx]

jpinx, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:19, said:

SgtRock, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:09, said:

simple1, on 09 Dec 2015 - 14:54, said:simple1, on 09 Dec 2015 - 14:54, said:

Whilst it may be off topic would it not be more useful to compare homicide rates per 100,000 head of population.

1 homicide pa. per 100,000 in the UK

4.5 homicides p.a. per 100,000 in the US

Make the same comparison with registered gun owners and the UK actually has a bigger problem.

Despite having one of the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

Sources? Figures? Vague statements about vague comparisons hold no weight....

You not believe me ?

Registered gun users US over 100,000,000. Registered gun users UK 1,000,000.

30000 US deaths annually / 100,000,000 = 0.0003. UK 50 deaths annually / 1,000.000 = 0.00005

For all the screaming and shouting about the lax gun laws in the US. There is not a great deal in it considering the UK's draconian gun laws.

You are correct

Where did you get your information?

[SgtRock]

jpinx, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:55, said:

SgtRock, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:52, said:

jpinx, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:19, said:jpinx, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:19, said:

Sources? Figures? Vague statements about vague comparisons hold no weight....

You not believe me ?

Registered gun users US over 100,000,000. Registered gun users UK 1,000,000.

30000 US deaths annually / 100,000,000 = 0.0003. UK 50 deaths annually / 1,000.000 = 0.00005

For all the screaming and shouting about the lax gun laws in the US. There is not a great deal in it considering the UK's draconian gun laws.

You are correct

Where did you get your information?

Believe it or not. From my head

[jpinx]

jpinx, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:55, said:

SgtRock, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:52, said:

jpinx, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:19, said:jpinx, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:19, said:

Sources? Figures? Vague statements about vague comparisons hold no weight....

You not believe me ?

Registered gun users US over 100,000,000. Registered gun users UK 1,000,000.

30000 US deaths annually / 100,000,000 = 0.0003. UK 50 deaths annually / 1,000.000 = 0.00005

For all the screaming and shouting about the lax gun laws in the US. There is not a great deal in it considering the UK's draconian gun laws.

You are correct

Where did you get your information?

Believe it or not. From my head

I believe that - but it contributes nothing to the discussion based on facts which can be referenced

[Chicog]

You not believe me ?

Registered gun users US over 100,000,000. Registered gun users UK 1,000,000.

30000 US deaths annually / 100,000,000 = 0.0003. UK 50 deaths annually / 1,000.000 = 0.00005

For all the screaming and shouting about the lax gun laws in the US. There is not a great deal in it considering the UK's draconian gun laws.

An interesting attempt at twisting statistics, but the fact is that with five times the population you have 600 times the number of gun deaths.

The total number of guns is irrelevant, considering you have people like this fetishist:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-stockpile-insight-idUSKBN0TM2LU20151204

[SgtRock]

jpinx, on 09 Dec 2015 - 16:16, said:

SgtRock, on 09 Dec 2015 - 16:09, said:

jpinx, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:55, said:jpinx, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:55, said:

You are correct

Where did you get your information?

Believe it or not. From my head

I believe that - but it contributes nothing to the discussion based on facts which can be referenced

Here your starter for 10.

Police forces with the highest number of firearms certificates as at 31 March 2015 were Devon and Cornwall, Sussex and West Mercia (10,855, 6,735 and 6,708 respectively) and police forces with the lowest number were City of London, Merseyside and Cleveland (3, 1,012 and 1,099 respectively). There were 525,125 firearms (covered by firearm certificates on issue), an increase of 3.4% (17,258) compared with the previous year’s figure, and the highest number since these figures first became available in 1995.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firearm-and-shotgun-certificates-in-england-and-wales-financial-year-ending-march-2015/firearm-and-shotgun-certificates-in-england-and-wales-financial-year-ending-march-2015

Approximately the same amount have been issued for Scotland and N.Ireland.

But you need to dig into other Government websites to find the numbers.

[movieplay]

so what exactly are the anti-gunist proposing?.. since the 80's I have always been sypathetic to a handgun ban because they can be concealed .. the most deadly of these mass shootings was the Korean kid with 2 handguns he concealed in his jacket and then went into a classroom..

but they have never talked about a handgun ban instead they always talk about this silly 'assault weapons ban' and then they want to ban cartridges over 5 rounds or some bullshit like that.. which proves they are not serious but simply trying to sell a bill of goods

US properties are not safe from intruders and the USA is not Japan or Korea or the Netherlands, you can install an early warning system of some sort to notify you that your perimeter has been breached but ultimatly you will need a gun AND it may take 30 rounds or more if he is also armed. it's a dangerous society and crooks will always be armed.. the only thing keeping the home invaders at bay in the US is the fact that (especially in the more conservative area's) they will be shot dead if they break in and enter. If i'm defending myself a statistic that says gunowners are more likly to threaten other drivers will not protect me.

[SgtRock]

Chicog, on 09 Dec 2015 - 16:32, said:

SgtRock, on 09 Dec 2015 - 15:52, said:

You not believe me ?

Registered gun users US over 100,000,000. Registered gun users UK 1,000,000.

30000 US deaths annually / 100,000,000 = 0.0003. UK 50 deaths annually / 1,000.000 = 0.00005

For all the screaming and shouting about the lax gun laws in the US. There is not a great deal in it considering the UK's draconian gun laws.

An interesting attempt at twisting statistics, but the fact is that with five times the population you have 600 times the number of gun deaths.

The total number of guns is irrelevant, considering you have people like this fetishist:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-stockpile-insight-idUSKBN0TM2LU20151204

Twisting stats ?

I never mentioned total numbers of guns. I used figures for registered gun users. If I was to use the total number of guns, the figures would work out even worse for the UK.

Just for your info. I'm a Brit.