So, the US has a homicide rate of 4.88, whereas no-guns UK has a homicide rate of 0.92

So, the US has a homicide rate of 4.88, whereas no-guns UK has a homicide rate of 0.92.
"Criminals will still get guns" - firearm deathrate US is 10.54, in the UK it's 0.23.
I mean, how do gun nuts explain that?

Reason 1: The UK has 4-6 million CCTV cameras.
Reason 2: Operation Trident

but muh muh freeedumb!!

Cops kill more people than registered gun owners.
Cops kill more people than criminals.
Cops kill more people than should be allowed in a modern society.

You are using statistics that include the deaths of criminals/shooters themselves.
Plus drop just Chicago and watch the math change.
Fuck off. You can't do shit about it and no one can or will.
Pussy safety bitch.
Why don't you try to ban cars that go over the speedlimit, or prescription drugs, or swimming pools and trampolines?

Reason #1 = US 40 million niggers

Well there are about 30 million in the US, which is more or less the same per capita. But I can see how the free space in the US can make it easier to get away with it.

And what's the difference in overall per capita homicides?

Those stats are the per capita-ish. Deaths per 100,000 people

Yep, like the hoods of Chicago there are stretches of houses with no CCTV.

UK is an island, therefore better able to control the in flow of illegal firearms. Although the IRA still was able to do it, and it is still possible to a gun on the black market in England.

The 2nd amendment. Not just some law, but part of the foundation document of the United States of America.

The cause of all the shootings is disconnected people in a complex society, and pervasive violence in entertainment. Movies, vidya, and TV glamorize that shit. But that is protected by the 1st amendment: Freedom of Speech.

You can't kill with a trampoline, prescription drugs and cars are useful and have restrictions, swimming pools... well I'm sure the swimming pool murder rate is pretty damn low

Also, we give no fucks about black on black crime. Remove those numbers from the equation to get a better picture of gun violence.

Japan has the most violent movies/vidgames and one of the lowest crime rates

I don't care anymore who's right about this shitty debate. If I want to get a weapon I'll get one. A knife, a gun, whatever the fuck, I'll use it if necessary and there's nothing wrong with me

''inb4 edgy''

nah dude, thugs should die

I love your constitution, it makes sure the guys out 200 years ago have power over your current populous. In the UK, we don't have a single written constitution, so when there was one major school shooting, we legislated, then there weren't any more.
Build the wall, mate. Yes this is a good point too, if you take the gun crime from continental Europe, it is a fair bit higher than the UK.

And no one has ever, EVER defended themselves with a firearm.
Fuck you. I don't give a shit if your entire family is murdered, because I know and care that MINE won't be.

Japan is a different culture. Also they are homogeneous.

>you can't kill with a trampoline


Look, I don't have to worry about my family being murdered, in raw numbers this entire country sees about 500 murders a year.
My town of 70,000 has seen two murders in the last decade.
Plus guns for self defense, means more cold bodies. If they're trigger happy, it could be unnecessary.

Constitution is constitution. Doesn’t matter what you think about it.


in Glasgow/Scotland in general most murder is with a knife or beating. even the gangsters prefer to stab as caught with knife is 2 years max, caught with gun is 5 years

Agreed . Then you should be talking about which races are responsible enough to own violent movies/vidgames and fire arms

And my hometown probably has more guns that registered voters and hasn't seen a gun homicide in over 20 years, and that was over drugs which just have easily could have been a stabbing.
What's your fucking point?

You do realise what the word amendment means, right?

That's the problem.
And also that's not quite right either, the constitution is how you interpret the constitution. Free speech, for example, do you think that encompasses hate speech? Did they consider Islamic propaganda etc.?
Does the 2nd Amendment mean you can buy dangerous weapons from Wallmart?
Yes and this is harder to do, and less people do it. About a third of murders are with knives, a fifth by beatings, but at the end of the day it's still less murders.
Lol my point is the exact opposite, no-one has any guns here. You get people with knives, etc. the 2 murders were both knife murders.


I don’t know where you got your figure for Scotland but the maximum is 4 years.

You do realize what ratification by 3/4ths of the States means, right?

Rather be shot with a handgun than stabbed. Any day. Twice on Sunday.

But when someone pulls a knife, there's a much better chance you can get away. For example, if you're simply a faster runner that's his murder done, same doesn't apply to guns. Also there are plenty of self-defense methods against knives.

So what's your point? Guns are used for killing people?? Yep that's what guns are for. I never understood people that say ban ar15s because they are killing machines. I want my gun to be dangerous that's why I buy it so I can kill people lol.

And I'll have a gun. And a knife. 2 actually


Take the nogs out of the equation, then do the math, faggot OP

Well that means at least one person is shot. That's not a good thing.
Anyway if someone already has a gun on you, if you try pulling your own, odds are you'll still be the dead one

there are just many more people in the USA worth killing

>My anecdote supersedes literally national statistics on homicide
Do you understand what statistics are and are for?

Someone tries to stab me and I ventilate him.
How is that in any way not a good thing?
You obviously don't own a firearm or practice with one. I shoot every. Single. Weekend.

Okay, taking out black Americans takes out 50% of the homicides, and 12% of the population, bringing you closer in line with Europe, but still much higher than the UK.

The statistics include suicide. Also, if you remove black on black shootings like in Chicago, which has very strict gun laws, it drops down a significant amount.
Long story short, places with the stricter measures to aquire a gun has thr most shootings (mostly African American) with that being said, most Americans refuse any gun laws. Just look up how many background checks occurred last black friday. Millions and millions of legal people bought firearms. Very few of them will use them in a illegal manner.

>get rid of the gang banging coons and stats go down

Now remove Hispanics and the US is lower

Not only that, he's also misrepresenting the statistics.
The homicide rate of 4.88. That's not from guns alone but is murder across the board.
Deliberately run someone over? It goes to that total. Drown someone in a pool? Add it on. Strangle someone with a power lead while attempting auto-erotic asphyxiation? Yep, you guess it, it counts.
And when he includes firearm death rates, that includes things like suicides, or accidents.

>prescription drugs and cars are useful

Are you saying guns aren't useful?

Are you an idiot or just uninformed? Just yesterday there was the story of the grandmother in Florida who shot the two armed Intruders that broke into her house.

family of law enforcment, cousins still sometimes bug me to join, happy in office making shekels etc.

Ok, present Englanders if present please correct this burger who is always trying to learn if anything is off, but my knowledge of the UK, gun laws and what not are as follows: They gave up all their guns after the war, and the stabbing rate skyrocket to the point where you can't even own a sword unless your in a martial art or something.
Now that you're been culturally enriched beyond belief you have acid, car, fire arm attacks that are Chicago/LA tier and have pissed off the law abdiding folk to the point where they no longer care.

Meanwhile look at the Swiss, probably better armed than the average burger household, yet hardly any gun violence compared to here. Now even Hungary is getting similar firearms laws, I think it was Hungary anyway someone please correct me if i'm wrong.

Biggest problem the USA has, lack of firearms education. Since so many houses are fatherless the first exposure a young male has to a firearm probably isn't the best which brings me to my next point that I know we share with England, shitty families/family values. Let's face it lads, we fucking suck. We can blame our parents all we like but we've been adults for a while now, what have we done to fix things? Which leads me to my next point, mental health and the law. There are too many people out there who need treatment, not demonization/jail. All for capital punishment but i'm also practical. You don't fix someone by treating him like an animal, you fix the head so he can go back into society, work and pay taxes. That, and you hopefully correct the problem at home so they can breed and raise productive children. This brings me to my last point, if all else fails what do? Then I say throw the book at him and do like they used to do in Indiana in the 1920s, sterilize them so their line, complete with their mental problems and shit tier genetics ends.

>America already has guns
>ban guns
>guns still available
>gun violence

>UK doesn’t have guns
>no gun availability
>no gun violence

His first line was sarcasm.

No they don't, there are 10x as many suicides in the UK than these statistics show homicides.
Other than that, sure, that's a fair point.
It's already lower than the European average, but it's still about 3x higher than the UK. These stats here are grouping hispanics and whites together. Anyway, do I get to take out Asians from the UK stats?

The percentage of black people in the U.K. is 3%

The percentage of black people in the U.S. is a little over 12%

That means we have a little over4 times as many black people per 1000 people then the U.K. does

It just so happens we also have a homicide rate per 1000 people the is a little over 4x what the homicide rate in the U.K. is.


You retard, I know, I never said that was gun murders, I GAVE THE FUCKING GUN MURDER RATE TOO as a SEPARATE STATISTIC.
Yes I'm saying guns are useless outside of sport and killing.

heart disease is the biggest killer in USA. homicide ain't even in the top 10 causes of death in USA

Yeah, okay, get your obesity problem solved.
BUT where does terrorism rank? Absolutely fucking nowhere, but you still have a lot of laws and restrictions with the aim to prevent it.

You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead body. But only afer I take 30 libs with me


>be American
>get shot
>pay for medical bills
>get shot walking out of hospital
At least you guys have the greatest fast food places

reason 3: welfare benefits
reason 4: mental healthcare

canada has more guns per capita than burgers yet far less shootings. it's about societal issues


nice strawman. you kina all over the place, jr.

‘No guns UK’
I own 5 faggot, welcome to Scotland

asians have lower crime rates then whites .
Give yourself a pat on the back for white people in the UK have a very low murder rate . But you have a Mooslim problem now and no handguns to protect you .
>whoomp wah

I'm not 100% on the history, I know there were a lot of restrictions implemented after a school shooting in Scotland in 1996.
I agree with the rest of what you say, and in fact Switzerland has a lower overall murder rate than even here.

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.

>muh shotguns and bolt actions

Yeah, fuck you I'm keeping my knives, guns and water bottles on this plane!

>So, the US has a homicide rate of 4.88, whereas no-guns UK has a homicide rate of 0.92.
>"Criminals will still get guns" - firearm deathrate US is 10.54, in the UK it's 0.23.
>I mean, how do gun nuts explain that?
>in the uk
>the uk

we fought a war so we dont have to listen to you
tell the queen to have a tea and fuck off

>Implying handguns protected against any muslim terror attacks where they had them


Good excuses, you are the future of the USA. The future looks great...

>Be unamerican
>die of starvation and all around shitty environment with little no resources before you reach the age of 12.

>You retard, I know, I never said that was gun murders, I GAVE THE FUCKING GUN MURDER RATE TOO as a SEPARATE STATISTIC.

Yes, yes you did. But you also said
>whereas no-guns UK has a homicide rate of 0.92
>whereas no-guns UK
>whereas no-guns

You implied that the homicide rate had a direct connection to guns.

>Yes I'm saying guns are useless outside of sport and killing.
You ever seen a sheep that's been mauled by a wild dog? It's throat torn open as the poor thing lays struggling to breath in a pool of it's own blood, a look of pure terror in it's eyes?
Or how about a lamb that's had it's leg ripped off by a wild dog?
It can take up to 10 minutes for a sheep in either of these conditions to die. And it's not a painless nice death, either. It's a painful bloody, horrible thing.
When something like this happens you have 3 options.
>Let it bleed out and die horrifically
>Call the vets and hope they can make it out in time to euthanize it. If they make it in time, the animal still has to wait and suffer before it gets it's painless end. Then you have to pay for the call out and for the drugs. If they don't make it, then the animal dies horrifically and you still pay call out.
>You shoot it in the head and end it's suffering.

Guns have a use you city dwelling fuck. You cunts always seem to forget that because your heads are so far up your own ass'.

I was thinking more about rape . Home invasion etc...

I'm not trying to force my views onto you, it's just that I don't really understand the logic in the point of view of these pro-guns guys.
I'm getting quite a few good points from this thread.
Yeah I said no use outside of killing, that comes under killing.
Homicide rate does have a direct connection to guns, 74% of US homicides are with guns

I'm sorry, but if the guy has enough physical control over the victim to be raping them, how do they not have control over the gun too?
Home invasions don't tend to end with murders, imo it's best someone steals something than someone is killed.

>So, the US has a homicide rate of 4.88, whereas no-guns UK has a homicide rate of 0.92.
Yep worth it to.
"I prefer Dangerous Freedom over Peaceful slavery." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Don’t forget my 10/22 lel

>I'm not trying to force my views onto you, it's just that I don't really understand the logic in the point of view of these pro-guns guys.

why dont you justify boiling everything or having bad teeth

> here are some and made up statistics wow so randum

Kill yourself you unoriginal cunt.

I have bad teeth because as a kid I refused to brush.
I don't boil everything, more of a fry/grill/roast kinda guy.

>Build the wall
Texan here. We have sections of wall. They have ladders. It doesn't work. All the walls do is prevent wildlife from reaching part of their natural habitat and create genetic bottlenecks. It's a stupid idea, and next to impossible from an engineering standpoint.

Are there many people like this? Who just refuse to believe statistics?
Look them up yourself you moron

> bitches about environment
> bitches about immigration control measures not working
> claims to be Texan


Well, in 2017 in Chicago civilians with carry permits had more justified homicides than police.

>Yeah I said no use outside of killing, that comes under killing.

So guns are useful for the thing they were created for, but otherwise useless?
Couldn't the same be said about prescription medication and cars?

I mean, how do rev-heads and sick people explain that?

every year, every news, every article makes me think americans are one of the most retarded nation in the planet

Because the use is so much wider.
I'm not saying you need a carpet ban, I'm just saying not everyone needs it. Hunters, farmers etc. should be allowed them imo.
Not everyone though.

Because amerimutts are mostly niggers.

but anyone can become a hunter or farmer...

america doesnt have a gun problem it has a poverty and healthcare problem

You're being foolish when you think concealed carry wouldn't Stop all of that . Of course home invasions have gone up since the guns were taken away .

>I don't really understand the logic in the point of view of these pro-guns guys.

Here it is with all the social niceties stripped away: I'm not willing to sacrifice the safety of my family or my ability to engage in direct violent action in order to gain some marginal benefit for people likely already engaged in criminal activity. The majority of firearm related homicides in the US involve both a shooter and a victim with felony histories. Its criminals killing other criminals over criminal shit. From there its domestic violence, which we need to come down on hard but which is also a broader social problem than just access to firearms.

tl;dr: I'm not giving up my guns to save the lives of criminals.

>Hunters, farmers etc. should be allowed them imo.

But those people are the ones that get fucked over most by gun laws.

>hunters, farmers, etc

Except thats a structural difference between the way your society is organized and the way ours is. Guns in the US are not about hunting or protection of livestock. Those are things guns can be used for, but they are not the core right the Second Amendment protects. Guns in the US are about immediate access to deadly force for the purposes of self defense.

I live in Chicago. Its a left-wing bastion. We've had tough gun laws (though, with a lot of work, thats changed over the last decade), we have politicians who are deeply opposed to guns, we're probably in the top five or ten states when it comes to hostility towards gun rights in the US. Even so, I have complete criminal and civil immunity if I shoot an uninvited person in my home in self defense. I have no duty to retreat if I'm in public and attacked. I have no duty to comply or cooperate if someone attempts to rob me. I can, legally, use deadly force as a first line of defense if someone implies the potential use of violence during an attempted robbery.



The first 10 Amendments were ratified at the same time as the Constitution itself.

There is he argument that the constitution is misunderstood. It was written when fighting for independence and was meant to mean that citizens have the right to bear arms in that struggle. For their country. I can't see how the founding fathers would have wanted guns readily available for all time and certainly can't imagine they would approve of the current issues.
And anyway, lots of countries have had lots of rules and laws over the years. It doesn't matter who wrote them, they should always change with the times. Nothing should ever be held as infallible and unalterable.

and to protect against the state, dipshit. they had same guns as the military back then so why should it be any different now?

It's still just a constitution, written by men, who are subject to making mistakes as any other men. George Washington owned slaves. Notice how that's changed. Don't be stupid enough to think that because someone wrote something down it should never be subject to being questioned, and certainly not with that murder rate haha.

They couldn't have done what happened in Las Vegas with a musket

>It was written when fighting for independence and was meant to mean that citizens have the right to bear arms in that struggle.
> It doesn't matter who wrote them, they should always change with the times. Nothing should ever be held as infallible and unalterable.

the 2nd amendment is a safeguard in case a King George-esque government came into power again -- the founders knew the first thing that would happen would be the confiscation of firearms because that very thing just happened with the colonies. thus, the 2nd amendment was created, safeguarding firearms for all time. the founders would be aghast at the citizens allowing the government to determine who can and cannot own a firearm, not to mention having to fill out a form in order to get one.

>There is he argument that the constitution is misunderstood.
But thats masturbating unless you think you have a majority in SCOTUS.
>It was written when fighting for independence
Actually, it began two years after the war and was ratified a full eight years after the close of the war.
>was meant to mean that citizens have the right to bear arms in that struggle.
Partly, but the right to armed self defense goes back in English Commonlaw to 1689. Private ownership of firearms for self defense was hardly controversial in 1791.
>Nothing should ever be held as infallible and unalterable.
Its not. The Constitution has been amended 17 times since 1791. The process is clearly laid out in Article 5. You need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, followed by 3/4 of the State Legislatures or a Constitutional Convention (which has never happened). Its a steep hill, and the pro-gun side is actually closer.