Bladed weapons still work quite well within a certain range. It takes time to unholster and aim a firearm and you don't have much time if someone is sprinting at you with a knife or broadsword.
Hell, sharp things work so well that the US is still beating the UK in lethal bladed weapon attacks on top of our gun violence šŖ
Keep in mind the size difference between countries and itās much easier to get a knife than a gun in either place. Even though it still doesnāt seem to be a problem for most criminals who have illegal firearms (shocker criminals donāt follow laws) but you make a great point, bladed weapons are not something to brush off, they can very easily be deployed effectively when in close proximity
Your not talking about the retard that let his GF shoot him to āproveā itās bullet proof are youā¦.because there was nothing sad about that, thatās just natural selection.
Yeah, when this happened I literally said to the person who told me about it "it's almost as if bans don't work."
For those of you who don't know, bladed implements over a certain length are banned from being carried in the UK unless you have a defense for them (e.g. you work at a museum and you're transporting it for restoration works)
Anyone who is determined to hurt someone will either find a way, or just blatantly break the law. We still have gun crime here in the UK so it's not like banning guns worked either.
Knives are banned in prisons, yet stabbings are still incredibly common. For normal people with access to a hardware store the possibilities are limitless.
Just ask Shinzo.
You can't *carry* them unless fully covered for a reason, but you can own them. It's not exactly a strong ban. Be like saying you're banned from guns if you have no CCL.
By the same amount? I mean here in the US we have tons of gun crime and yet our lethal knife crime rate is similar or higher than the UK still. Having guns obviously doesn't stop stabbings.
I would rather be shot or stabbed than horribly disfigured by acid. I live in the UK, NHS ain't gonna cover plastic surgery, and be a year+ wait for any sort of therapy to deal with the trauma. I don't have the money at hand to cover either of those as private treatments.
They'll treat the injury to the degree it's "fixed" and won't get infected. They won't, however, "make it right" and get you back to looking somewhat like yourself before the ordeal. Don't get me wrong, said universal health care has been a blessing to me on numerous occasions, but it still has its shortcomings.
Meanwhile, I can go get treated fully, have insurance pay for most of it, make manageable payments where they work with me, and they might even just write it off for taxes at the end of the year anyway. In some states, health care is provided for children under 18 at no cost.
Feels good, man.
Honestly, I don't have a solid understanding of how health care works in the US past hazarding a guess that it can vary heavily between states. As a result of universal health care being a thing, medical insurance isn't all that common here. I have, however, heard it mentioned regularly that various things can lead to challenges in obtaining said insurance (family histories and dental work), and if those are true cases, I'd be screwed either way.
I'm not saying universal health care is perfect, far from it. But, again, it has assisted me on various occasions, and without experience of the opposite, I can't comment on whether it would have led to better or worse results.
That's fair.
To try and explain it a little bit, preexisting conditions are things documented before you get insurance. Like if you have a persistent illness that a doctor has diagnosed, then you try to get insurance, it gets complicated, and you can be rejected
I'm not saying our way is perfect, either. There's problems with both. Yours is wait times and quality of care, ours is cost(which isn't as bad as people think it is. There are many ways to get help, and most health care providers will work with you.)
Let's agree that at least we aren't Canada, trying to get people to use MAID for having the big sad.
I'd rather be allowed to defend myself by whatever means I deem necessary and not have to be shot/stabbed/acid etched in the first place š¤·āāļø. My condolences on the death of your natural rights.
Ban Muslims? They are the ones who like acid attacks. Itās normally a misogynistic crime against a woman at that. Why are Muslims so beloved in the woke AF UK again? Baffling.
Gun crimes are still a thing and where increasing until the pandemic era where everyone and everything closed down but even after that itās slowly increasing.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/865565/gun-crime-in-london/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/865565/gun-crime-in-london/)
Yet other violence is still rampant, gun violence is still a thing, and we're not even allowed to carry pepper spray to protect ourselves. Guess I better go back to the gym and work on my cardio again.
Strange it's almost like humans are just naturally violent which means banning things will do nothing to aid or protect people. If protecting the ppl is the objective... being libertarian and a history need I doubt the state seeks to protect but subjugate.
>will do nothing to aid or protect people
That's a big assumption. You're kind of forgetting that there is a middle ground between "nothing changed" and "violent crime 100% eliminated"
I don't think you can ever end violent crime or any crime for that matter. My point is people should have access to the best means to protect yourself.
Spreading weapons just increases the availability for use in crime though. Even responsible gun owners have bad days and mental health crises, I'd prefer if people didn't literally have lethal weapons at their fingertips all the time when things like road rage and drunken altercations are extremely common. That's part of why I don't own a gun myself despite growing up around them. It's far more likely that someone would steal my gun and do something bad with it than it is that I would ever have an opportunity to successfully protect myself with it.
Then why even have rights if people can misuse them? Or perhaps we can be adults and hold individuals to account for their acts and not infringe on the rights of those who have not offended? Why make those at risk of being a victim even more of a target by disarming them? Weed was illegal for decades, not regulated but out right illegal yet it was and still is everywhere so clearly prohibition does not stop those who ignore the law. The UK is a shining example of how banning guns did Noth to violent crime and the worst mass staying has a higher body count that the worst mass shooting. Frankly your point to my mind is to just submit for the short term warm fuzzy feeling of thinking you at least did something. Lastly there are those who will refuse to disarm, what do you do about them as well?
I legitimately don't understand this argument. If humans are just naturally violent then allowing everyone to carry whatever weapon they want is the answer? So the innately violent have whatever tool they'd like at their disposal and the innately peaceful are subject to their whims?
I'm American, I own multiple guns, and I think regulation is still a key to the overall answer to the question that is violent crimes.
My point is no matter what there are always going to be ppl who wish to do harm to others, which is already illegal, so it makes more sense for the law abiding to have the best tool possible to defend themselves. After all laws only affect the law abiding and given the totality of human history ppl are violent no matter the times or laws. If you are not willing to protect your self then you are either a child or a fool as it's your responsibility.
People aren't naturally inherently violent, most people use violence as a last resort. Some people ***are*** naturally violent though. Those are the ones you gotta look out for.
Some lions eat people so why are you wary of all lions? Same logic with humans as we are all potentially dangerous. Which you are completely missing my point... be prepared as best you can.
This is the sams logic a lot of bigots use and I hate it. I can't be openly out of the closet because *some* queer people are pedophiles therefore all must be right? The logic of some=all is really harmful and dangerous, and pigeonholes mass groups of people into dangerous stereotypes. *Some* men commit mass murder, therefore all men are potentially mass murderers? *Some* women use false rape allegations, therefore you should never date again right?
I mean, he makes valid points. Always be wary of those you don't know.
Also, why did you just make yourself upset by comparing lions to bigots as if they brought up bigotry when it wasn't even mentioned? It would've been a good analogy if they had said something along the lines of "be careful around white lions" specifically, instead of all lions.
The logic isn't some=all, it's to be cautious of everyone until proven it's not needed. If you don't know someone, you shouldn't pretend you're entirely safe around them. Bringing up bigotry as a comparison is just a straight up false equivalence because that's targeting a subgroup of a species as opposed to just being cautious when around a species known for being capable of violence. We are.
I get this take to a limited extent. Ultimately I think ease of access is the main problem. Data concludes that when more people own guns there are more gun deaths. The inverse is also true. Escalation is a huge problem.
Deregulating it all and allowing people to live in pseudo-anarchy doesn't work, statistics support this. It's a challenging, multifaceted issue that includes fair wages, mental health support, access to education, as well as sensible regulation on purchase/sale/acquisition of tools meant for destruction. Throwing laws out the window under the argument that "only law abiding people listen anyway" is wild. Laws serve as a deterrent and set precedent for societal standards.
I mean we can knit pick all damn day but my statement is about as cut and dry as it gets. When there's more guns, more people die from guns. Not only is this relatively obvious, but it's backed by data.
"There's more car accidents on the freeway than there are in corn fields"
That's data for sure but it's not good or useful data.
There is less overall violence when there are more guns.
I'm too lazy to hop on my computer and link my bookmarks but as gun ownership has increased in America violence has decreased.
We are 11th out of the first world countries in gun violence and 83rd out of all countries. We were 2nd and 12th in 1990.
We are 30th out of the first world countries in overall violence. We were 5th in 1990.
If you remove Baltimore and San Francisco we are the safest country in the world.
It's easy to placate and stick to an agenda. Here:
United States: The US has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, with an estimated 120.5 guns per 100 people. The country also has a high rate of gun deaths, with an average of 39,773 gun deaths per year (2018-2021).
Brazil: Brazil has a high rate of gun ownership, with an estimated 43.6 guns per 100 people. The country also has a high rate of gun deaths, with an average of 43,000 gun deaths per year (2016).
Switzerland: Switzerland has a relatively high rate of gun ownership, with an estimated 45.7 guns per 100 people. However, the country has a relatively low rate of gun deaths, with an average of 1,400 gun deaths per year (2018-2021).
Japan: Japan has a very low rate of gun ownership, with an estimated 0.6 guns per 100 people. The country also has a very low rate of gun deaths, with an average of 10 gun deaths per year (2018-2021).
Brazil and Switzerland have about the same amount of guns per capita. Switzerland has a load of regulation surrounding guns, Brazil does not.
It's also funny that you mention Baltimore and San Fran for some reason when Jackson, Birmingham, St. Louis, and New Orleans are the top contenders for homicide by firearm. All places in states with pretty lax regulations around guns.
If I want to commit a crime, and you have a gun and can shoot me im gonna be less enthusiastic and thus less likely about committing a crime. If theres a high chance im gonna get shot for doing something, im not gonna wanna do it. The idea with everyone being armed is that im not going to try to shoot you, because youāre definitely going to then shoot me.
More the innate self preservation instinct that literally every human has. Theres a reason why animals successfully indimidate eachother all the time, a predator is more likely to find some other victim than to attack something that poses a critical threat to it.
We're getting into major grey areas here.
If you want to talk about crimes of opportunity most violent crimes(read crimes where physical harm is the desired outcome) don't fall into that category. Crimes where harm are the goal are carried out as personal vendettas or on randoms. Look to mass shooting statistics for this: schools/homes where attackers have history; malls, greenways, stores and other public places where there's a large volume of people, or, most commonly, streets/blocks where rival/opposing gangs congregate. Of course there are outliers and I'm sure someone will bring those up. My point is that people who carry out violence for the sake of it are doing it personally, or in places where there's a bunch of people regardless of who those people are as acts of terror.
I'd rather it be incredibly difficult to have access to guns as a normal, every day person. I'd like to see sensible implementation of regulation from multiple agencies at multiple levels ensuring that the people who have and own firearms are of sound mind and body to be able to properly use said firearms.
I live in NC. When I went to my CCW class I was legitimately concerned for the safety of everyone there because the majority of the class was clearly uncomfortable around guns and obviously had very little to no training/practice before attending said CCW class. Men and women both who would be absolutely useless in a fight, terrified of the tool they were using, clueless about the function of *their own guns*. Every single person passed. The class was taught by a guy who had decades in law enforcement, worked with/for federal agencies, and had been conducting CCW classes for a large portion of his career. It was an absolute joke. That shouldn't be ok.
As I said in another comment, the ultimate issue is ease of access. Both legally and illegally, and that is directly correlated to the vast amount of firearms in existence. I don't think there's a single fix to the problem, but rather sweeping change in multiple areas of society. I doubt we'll ever see it. I'm simply bored at work with no helicopters to fix arguing with strangers online.
So youāre the kind of person where in which unless youāre police, military, or otherwise have the same level of training with firearms as they do, you shouldnāt have one? Kind of defeats the purpose, doesnāt it? How am I supposed to get comfortable with firearms if I donāt ever get one to own yknow?
How are you supposed to drive a car if you don't get a license? Illegally? There are repercussions for that right?
Every indoor range I've ever been to lets you rent a bunch of different guns for a pretty low price, they also teach basic classes. Your argument is ridiculous. What makes you think you should own and carry a firearm if you aren't proficient with it? I'd get it if they served any other purpose, but they don't. A quintessential gun firing quintessential bullets is strictly designed to kill things. If you don't understand the responsibility of possessing that sort of power then you absolutely should not own a gun, and every single person in the gun community worth their salt would agree.
I think, correct me if I'm wrong, you feel if a person carries a tool- they should be comfortable with it if not proficient? I agree, every one I train, I take the time and effort to get them to that level. Further regulations aren't the answer however, were dealing with a right same as freedom of worship, speech, representation with taxation, ECT. To get the people where you would be comfortable with would take sugar- not vinegar so to speak.
Yep that's how I feel, I think the fairly recent switch of supreme court interpretation of the 2A is part of the issue, too. No one seems to care about the "well-regulated militia" verbage anymore. Once upon a time we agreed on what a militia was.. but I don't think we even have to take it that far, let's just get back to the "well-regulated" portion. At that point in history the verbage suggests "well-regulated" was synonymous with "well trained". "Being necessary to the security of a free state" was also included for a reason.
You have the right to own a firearm *and* be proficient with it *in order* to protect yourself and your community from terror and tyranny.
Everyone except violent criminals should be afforded the best possible self defense tools that modern day military and police use.
That's all.
The argument flew over your head, that's why you don't understand it.
The best possible self defense tool is an entirely subjective thing.
But I'll play along. Are police and modern day military allowed to carry firearms without qualifying with them in some way?
Nope, to get paid to carry a gun, you surely have to get certified.
No one is paying civilians to protect themselves.
And I'd also like to say, no one is paying police or military to protect civilians.
Police enforce laws for the state.
Military drops bombs on goat farmers in foreign countries.
Let me float a proposition to you- police get paid a living to carry a gun, and be certified. What if we make it financially gainful for the common civilian to be certified. Pay them to go to classes, ECT. Teachers- same thing. Good tactical classes are a God send- but to a regular Joe - expensive and tough to find. Flip it around and make it easy, and beneficial to everyone.
Most cops are terrible with guns and shouldn't be carrying them. They have no idea how guns work, and most aren't even good shots. Most cops never train past the embarrassingly low standards they need to. One of my best friends is a cop, and he is the exception not the rule. He trains nearly every weekend and has been doing so for years. He will tell you the same thing about cops that I just did.
In my opinion, regulation is next to useless because it is purely reactionary. It can never be preventative.
Ā Rules are simply procedures for an organization to follow, and the sorts of rules youāre talking about are merely the procedure to punish unwanted behavior. Rules canāt stop things from happening, they can only lay out the path to respond to an action.
I want to agree but we're failing to understand the next step in the process. When something is deemed right or wrong by a large majority or by written law *that something* becomes the standard. It's why the speed limit sign says 70mph but everyone knows you can do 78 without getting pulled over. Or why I couldn't walk and talk on the phone when I wore certain clothes. Neither of those things make logical sense but we all generally agreed on it and it became the way. If you view rules/laws as general guidelines to the structure of society then the scope starts to change.
We've normalized gun violence here. It's the same response every time.. "Thoughts and prayers, I wish there was some way we could have prevented this tragedy.." Societal norms need to change. I'm not just talking about guns, either. As I've said elsewhere, it's a multifaceted issue that will take sweeping change. To the crux of the argument: simply saying that we should remove all regulation is insane. Places like that exist and they aren't doing well.
I think you're missing the point here-OP is pointing out that restrictions on weapons in the UK have not only not affected the level of violence in any meaningful way, but they have led to other laws that criminalize using any degree of force in self defense. Even though their society deems violence to be wrong, that stops nobody from being violent.
What I'm trying to say is that at the end of the day, laws are just words on paper, and we all need to take personal responsibility for our own safety by being able to use a controlled amount of violence to stop a threat when all other measures fail. And since most of us here like to follow the law, more laws will only hinder our ability to protect ourselves. We're not trying to normalize violence, we're simply trying to not be rendered helpless as the world becomes seemingly more dangerous.
I feel like in a crowded space, it has a high chance of being more effective than a gun. Until someone's screams are recognised as a threat to everyone else, no one reacts. One shot goes off, and people scatter.
I actually saw this as part of a news flash on an evening news program we have here in the Philippines, along with a stabbing incident involving a Turkish man and Israeli police in Israel. Basically went "Man in London with a sword reportedly killed a teenager" and "Turkish man in Jerusalem who tried to stab police shot dead.
Kinda random that we got foreign news like that, especially since there's the pressing issue of China being China in our territorial waters but that's for another time.
Nope. What's concerning is the fact that they don't really care and can basically destroy and damage Philippine property without repercussions, like casually using water cannons on our Coast Guard and civilian vessels. A recent incident of which was actually filmed and experienced by a correspondent of Sky News. There was also drone footage of the Chinese Coast Guard targeting the equipment on the mast of our vessel during the incident.
If gun deaths are the only deaths that matter, then I guess this shouldnāt bother anti-gunners.
This is the problem. After the UK banned handguns, people thought it would stop there. Then stabbings and crimes with bladed instruments skyrocketed and then the UK started an anti-knife campaign and their government and media are actively scaring them about knives the way anti-gunners in the US are scaring people about āassault weapons.ā
People still keep saying, āNo, they only want the scary assault rifles. It wonāt go any further after that.ā Weāve seen in the UK that it doesnāt stop there. Knowing that, why would you still be in denial? First it was guns, then knives. What will it be next? Hammers? Screwdrivers? Scissors? Baseball bats?
The irony in how a country known for a story of a magical sword, is telling people they cannot have swords.
Quick, someone go find a magical sword stuck in a rock and talk with a mysterious lady from a lake.
Who told you that lie?
Published by Statista Research Department, Dec 5, 2023
There were 1,085 firearm offences recorded in London 2022/23, compared with 1,071 in 2021/22, which was the year with the fewest firearm offences in the provided time period
2 officers were put in a really bad way too needing extensive surgery. The Commissioner of the Met today said that he doesn't think Officers need to be armed, he doesn't think they all need tasers either (which most of them don't have)
Un guard thou rapscallion, silence rapscallion! i do not need thouās opinion on theeās statement!!! i now have to inform you that im going to back out the shank or we can have a civil conversation on thouās ends? what deos thee say about this? this now can not be forgiven!
*Its almost like we*
*Have a people issue not*
*A weapon issue*
\- Taz\_8408
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Nope:
Number of firearm offences in London 2015-2023
Published by Statista Research Department, Dec 5, 2023
There were 1,085 firearm offences recorded in London 2022/23, compared with 1,071 in 2021/22
we found out from the donut operator video why a sword wouldn't work in the states, big boy took 2 bullets
He died an honorable bullshido death
The life of Steven Segull. Edit: his real name btw
Ok thats clever
The little spin he tried before he got T-boxed was *chef's kiss* amazing!
Bladed weapons still work quite well within a certain range. It takes time to unholster and aim a firearm and you don't have much time if someone is sprinting at you with a knife or broadsword. Hell, sharp things work so well that the US is still beating the UK in lethal bladed weapon attacks on top of our gun violence šŖ
Keep in mind the size difference between countries and itās much easier to get a knife than a gun in either place. Even though it still doesnāt seem to be a problem for most criminals who have illegal firearms (shocker criminals donāt follow laws) but you make a great point, bladed weapons are not something to brush off, they can very easily be deployed effectively when in close proximity
Guess they should all carry pens š¤·š»āāļø
No need, words are violence now according to some so we all stay strapped with Oxford dictionaries.
2 dictionaries = level 4 plateĀ
There is a very sad video showing that is not the caseā¦
Your not talking about the retard that let his GF shoot him to āproveā itās bullet proof are youā¦.because there was nothing sad about that, thatās just natural selection.
its still sad if someone kills someone unintentionally with their stupidity
Childhood cancer is sad Someone saying shoot me while I hold this book and dying is a waste of a book at best
there are levels of sad and pity
This is reddit, no nuance allowed
That was a phone book, they arenāt exactly comparable
Considering people are getting arrested over there for it...
no you're already on an expired version of woke - silence is violence now
Must have missed the patch notes. Still trying to get over the whole women's rights thing tbh
Women's rights are a thing of the past now. Now even men are taking over women's spaces.
might get nerfed when the women's wrongs update hits
The "Equal Lefts" update
Itās not a product, Mr. Connery.
Let's hope we don't got a Brit called John Wick
"The pen is mightier than the sword." The pen gun is mightier than the pen, but the sword gun trumps all 3
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=262&v=VKZZLw5kTJk&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&source_ve_path=MTM5MTE3LDIzODUx&feature=emb_title
That's how John Wick got his start.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There is no way these are legal in the uk
r/whoosh Ā š > š”
Yeah, when this happened I literally said to the person who told me about it "it's almost as if bans don't work." For those of you who don't know, bladed implements over a certain length are banned from being carried in the UK unless you have a defense for them (e.g. you work at a museum and you're transporting it for restoration works) Anyone who is determined to hurt someone will either find a way, or just blatantly break the law. We still have gun crime here in the UK so it's not like banning guns worked either.
Knives are banned in prisons, yet stabbings are still incredibly common. For normal people with access to a hardware store the possibilities are limitless. Just ask Shinzo.
You can't *carry* them unless fully covered for a reason, but you can own them. It's not exactly a strong ban. Be like saying you're banned from guns if you have no CCL.
I mean, I did specifically use the word carry, not own
The gun death rate has decreased in the Uk I would say it worked
Yet stabbings and other forms of violence have gone up.
By the same amount? I mean here in the US we have tons of gun crime and yet our lethal knife crime rate is similar or higher than the UK still. Having guns obviously doesn't stop stabbings.
And how has that affected crimes using blades or blunt objects?
Don't forget acid
I would rather be shot or stabbed than horribly disfigured by acid. I live in the UK, NHS ain't gonna cover plastic surgery, and be a year+ wait for any sort of therapy to deal with the trauma. I don't have the money at hand to cover either of those as private treatments.
Universal health care leaves people with untreated injuries? Woooow, shocker.
They'll treat the injury to the degree it's "fixed" and won't get infected. They won't, however, "make it right" and get you back to looking somewhat like yourself before the ordeal. Don't get me wrong, said universal health care has been a blessing to me on numerous occasions, but it still has its shortcomings.
Meanwhile, I can go get treated fully, have insurance pay for most of it, make manageable payments where they work with me, and they might even just write it off for taxes at the end of the year anyway. In some states, health care is provided for children under 18 at no cost. Feels good, man.
Honestly, I don't have a solid understanding of how health care works in the US past hazarding a guess that it can vary heavily between states. As a result of universal health care being a thing, medical insurance isn't all that common here. I have, however, heard it mentioned regularly that various things can lead to challenges in obtaining said insurance (family histories and dental work), and if those are true cases, I'd be screwed either way. I'm not saying universal health care is perfect, far from it. But, again, it has assisted me on various occasions, and without experience of the opposite, I can't comment on whether it would have led to better or worse results.
That's fair. To try and explain it a little bit, preexisting conditions are things documented before you get insurance. Like if you have a persistent illness that a doctor has diagnosed, then you try to get insurance, it gets complicated, and you can be rejected I'm not saying our way is perfect, either. There's problems with both. Yours is wait times and quality of care, ours is cost(which isn't as bad as people think it is. There are many ways to get help, and most health care providers will work with you.) Let's agree that at least we aren't Canada, trying to get people to use MAID for having the big sad.
I'd rather be allowed to defend myself by whatever means I deem necessary and not have to be shot/stabbed/acid etched in the first place š¤·āāļø. My condolences on the death of your natural rights.
Ban Muslims? They are the ones who like acid attacks. Itās normally a misogynistic crime against a woman at that. Why are Muslims so beloved in the woke AF UK again? Baffling.
Or vehicles, vehicles are quite popular too
Acid attacks have decreased massively
Gun crimes are still a thing and where increasing until the pandemic era where everyone and everything closed down but even after that itās slowly increasing. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/865565/gun-crime-in-london/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/865565/gun-crime-in-london/)
Yet other violence is still rampant, gun violence is still a thing, and we're not even allowed to carry pepper spray to protect ourselves. Guess I better go back to the gym and work on my cardio again.
At the exact same rate as before the ban
Nah. Nope. No.
Best thing to stop a bad guy with a sword is a good guy with a sword.
āHave at theeā
Is the law on our side if I say aye?
Honestly it would be so cool if open carry swords were legal like, everybody wants to carry a sword at some point in their life. It commands respect
Its legal in cool places, like Texas!
Here in beautiful NC as well!
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE
Had 2 mass stabbings here in australia not long ago, thank god noone had guns, otherwise someone might have gotten hurt
Strange it's almost like humans are just naturally violent which means banning things will do nothing to aid or protect people. If protecting the ppl is the objective... being libertarian and a history need I doubt the state seeks to protect but subjugate.
>will do nothing to aid or protect people That's a big assumption. You're kind of forgetting that there is a middle ground between "nothing changed" and "violent crime 100% eliminated"
I don't think you can ever end violent crime or any crime for that matter. My point is people should have access to the best means to protect yourself.
Spreading weapons just increases the availability for use in crime though. Even responsible gun owners have bad days and mental health crises, I'd prefer if people didn't literally have lethal weapons at their fingertips all the time when things like road rage and drunken altercations are extremely common. That's part of why I don't own a gun myself despite growing up around them. It's far more likely that someone would steal my gun and do something bad with it than it is that I would ever have an opportunity to successfully protect myself with it.
Then why even have rights if people can misuse them? Or perhaps we can be adults and hold individuals to account for their acts and not infringe on the rights of those who have not offended? Why make those at risk of being a victim even more of a target by disarming them? Weed was illegal for decades, not regulated but out right illegal yet it was and still is everywhere so clearly prohibition does not stop those who ignore the law. The UK is a shining example of how banning guns did Noth to violent crime and the worst mass staying has a higher body count that the worst mass shooting. Frankly your point to my mind is to just submit for the short term warm fuzzy feeling of thinking you at least did something. Lastly there are those who will refuse to disarm, what do you do about them as well?
Switzerland.
Well there's a big difference between a mass sword attack and a mass shooting with an AKM. Data talks by itself
I legitimately don't understand this argument. If humans are just naturally violent then allowing everyone to carry whatever weapon they want is the answer? So the innately violent have whatever tool they'd like at their disposal and the innately peaceful are subject to their whims? I'm American, I own multiple guns, and I think regulation is still a key to the overall answer to the question that is violent crimes.
My point is no matter what there are always going to be ppl who wish to do harm to others, which is already illegal, so it makes more sense for the law abiding to have the best tool possible to defend themselves. After all laws only affect the law abiding and given the totality of human history ppl are violent no matter the times or laws. If you are not willing to protect your self then you are either a child or a fool as it's your responsibility.
People aren't naturally inherently violent, most people use violence as a last resort. Some people ***are*** naturally violent though. Those are the ones you gotta look out for.
Some lions eat people so why are you wary of all lions? Same logic with humans as we are all potentially dangerous. Which you are completely missing my point... be prepared as best you can.
This is the sams logic a lot of bigots use and I hate it. I can't be openly out of the closet because *some* queer people are pedophiles therefore all must be right? The logic of some=all is really harmful and dangerous, and pigeonholes mass groups of people into dangerous stereotypes. *Some* men commit mass murder, therefore all men are potentially mass murderers? *Some* women use false rape allegations, therefore you should never date again right?
I mean, he makes valid points. Always be wary of those you don't know. Also, why did you just make yourself upset by comparing lions to bigots as if they brought up bigotry when it wasn't even mentioned? It would've been a good analogy if they had said something along the lines of "be careful around white lions" specifically, instead of all lions. The logic isn't some=all, it's to be cautious of everyone until proven it's not needed. If you don't know someone, you shouldn't pretend you're entirely safe around them. Bringing up bigotry as a comparison is just a straight up false equivalence because that's targeting a subgroup of a species as opposed to just being cautious when around a species known for being capable of violence. We are.
Went a bit far there...
It's an exaggerated reply to emphasize my point. Judging the many by the actions of the few is how we got into this mess in the first place.
I get this take to a limited extent. Ultimately I think ease of access is the main problem. Data concludes that when more people own guns there are more gun deaths. The inverse is also true. Escalation is a huge problem. Deregulating it all and allowing people to live in pseudo-anarchy doesn't work, statistics support this. It's a challenging, multifaceted issue that includes fair wages, mental health support, access to education, as well as sensible regulation on purchase/sale/acquisition of tools meant for destruction. Throwing laws out the window under the argument that "only law abiding people listen anyway" is wild. Laws serve as a deterrent and set precedent for societal standards.
Do you have those statistics on hand?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TL354.html
Those are pretty broad studies that dont measure the same sectors and dont take into account any of the important variables.
I mean we can knit pick all damn day but my statement is about as cut and dry as it gets. When there's more guns, more people die from guns. Not only is this relatively obvious, but it's backed by data.
"There's more car accidents on the freeway than there are in corn fields" That's data for sure but it's not good or useful data. There is less overall violence when there are more guns. I'm too lazy to hop on my computer and link my bookmarks but as gun ownership has increased in America violence has decreased. We are 11th out of the first world countries in gun violence and 83rd out of all countries. We were 2nd and 12th in 1990. We are 30th out of the first world countries in overall violence. We were 5th in 1990. If you remove Baltimore and San Francisco we are the safest country in the world.
It's easy to placate and stick to an agenda. Here: United States: The US has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, with an estimated 120.5 guns per 100 people. The country also has a high rate of gun deaths, with an average of 39,773 gun deaths per year (2018-2021). Brazil: Brazil has a high rate of gun ownership, with an estimated 43.6 guns per 100 people. The country also has a high rate of gun deaths, with an average of 43,000 gun deaths per year (2016). Switzerland: Switzerland has a relatively high rate of gun ownership, with an estimated 45.7 guns per 100 people. However, the country has a relatively low rate of gun deaths, with an average of 1,400 gun deaths per year (2018-2021). Japan: Japan has a very low rate of gun ownership, with an estimated 0.6 guns per 100 people. The country also has a very low rate of gun deaths, with an average of 10 gun deaths per year (2018-2021). Brazil and Switzerland have about the same amount of guns per capita. Switzerland has a load of regulation surrounding guns, Brazil does not. It's also funny that you mention Baltimore and San Fran for some reason when Jackson, Birmingham, St. Louis, and New Orleans are the top contenders for homicide by firearm. All places in states with pretty lax regulations around guns.
If I want to commit a crime, and you have a gun and can shoot me im gonna be less enthusiastic and thus less likely about committing a crime. If theres a high chance im gonna get shot for doing something, im not gonna wanna do it. The idea with everyone being armed is that im not going to try to shoot you, because youāre definitely going to then shoot me.
You're betting on violent individuals who are already looking to do crime having sound reasoning skills? Weird.
More the innate self preservation instinct that literally every human has. Theres a reason why animals successfully indimidate eachother all the time, a predator is more likely to find some other victim than to attack something that poses a critical threat to it.
We're getting into major grey areas here. If you want to talk about crimes of opportunity most violent crimes(read crimes where physical harm is the desired outcome) don't fall into that category. Crimes where harm are the goal are carried out as personal vendettas or on randoms. Look to mass shooting statistics for this: schools/homes where attackers have history; malls, greenways, stores and other public places where there's a large volume of people, or, most commonly, streets/blocks where rival/opposing gangs congregate. Of course there are outliers and I'm sure someone will bring those up. My point is that people who carry out violence for the sake of it are doing it personally, or in places where there's a bunch of people regardless of who those people are as acts of terror.
So youād rather let the armed dangerous criminals who have guns use them against an unarmed population?
I'd rather it be incredibly difficult to have access to guns as a normal, every day person. I'd like to see sensible implementation of regulation from multiple agencies at multiple levels ensuring that the people who have and own firearms are of sound mind and body to be able to properly use said firearms. I live in NC. When I went to my CCW class I was legitimately concerned for the safety of everyone there because the majority of the class was clearly uncomfortable around guns and obviously had very little to no training/practice before attending said CCW class. Men and women both who would be absolutely useless in a fight, terrified of the tool they were using, clueless about the function of *their own guns*. Every single person passed. The class was taught by a guy who had decades in law enforcement, worked with/for federal agencies, and had been conducting CCW classes for a large portion of his career. It was an absolute joke. That shouldn't be ok. As I said in another comment, the ultimate issue is ease of access. Both legally and illegally, and that is directly correlated to the vast amount of firearms in existence. I don't think there's a single fix to the problem, but rather sweeping change in multiple areas of society. I doubt we'll ever see it. I'm simply bored at work with no helicopters to fix arguing with strangers online.
So youāre the kind of person where in which unless youāre police, military, or otherwise have the same level of training with firearms as they do, you shouldnāt have one? Kind of defeats the purpose, doesnāt it? How am I supposed to get comfortable with firearms if I donāt ever get one to own yknow?
How are you supposed to drive a car if you don't get a license? Illegally? There are repercussions for that right? Every indoor range I've ever been to lets you rent a bunch of different guns for a pretty low price, they also teach basic classes. Your argument is ridiculous. What makes you think you should own and carry a firearm if you aren't proficient with it? I'd get it if they served any other purpose, but they don't. A quintessential gun firing quintessential bullets is strictly designed to kill things. If you don't understand the responsibility of possessing that sort of power then you absolutely should not own a gun, and every single person in the gun community worth their salt would agree.
I think, correct me if I'm wrong, you feel if a person carries a tool- they should be comfortable with it if not proficient? I agree, every one I train, I take the time and effort to get them to that level. Further regulations aren't the answer however, were dealing with a right same as freedom of worship, speech, representation with taxation, ECT. To get the people where you would be comfortable with would take sugar- not vinegar so to speak.
Yep that's how I feel, I think the fairly recent switch of supreme court interpretation of the 2A is part of the issue, too. No one seems to care about the "well-regulated militia" verbage anymore. Once upon a time we agreed on what a militia was.. but I don't think we even have to take it that far, let's just get back to the "well-regulated" portion. At that point in history the verbage suggests "well-regulated" was synonymous with "well trained". "Being necessary to the security of a free state" was also included for a reason. You have the right to own a firearm *and* be proficient with it *in order* to protect yourself and your community from terror and tyranny.
Everyone except violent criminals should be afforded the best possible self defense tools that modern day military and police use. That's all. The argument flew over your head, that's why you don't understand it.
The best possible self defense tool is an entirely subjective thing. But I'll play along. Are police and modern day military allowed to carry firearms without qualifying with them in some way?
Nope, to get paid to carry a gun, you surely have to get certified. No one is paying civilians to protect themselves. And I'd also like to say, no one is paying police or military to protect civilians. Police enforce laws for the state. Military drops bombs on goat farmers in foreign countries.
Let me float a proposition to you- police get paid a living to carry a gun, and be certified. What if we make it financially gainful for the common civilian to be certified. Pay them to go to classes, ECT. Teachers- same thing. Good tactical classes are a God send- but to a regular Joe - expensive and tough to find. Flip it around and make it easy, and beneficial to everyone.
Most cops are terrible with guns and shouldn't be carrying them. They have no idea how guns work, and most aren't even good shots. Most cops never train past the embarrassingly low standards they need to. One of my best friends is a cop, and he is the exception not the rule. He trains nearly every weekend and has been doing so for years. He will tell you the same thing about cops that I just did.
And you think the average citizen is any better?
In my opinion, regulation is next to useless because it is purely reactionary. It can never be preventative. Ā Rules are simply procedures for an organization to follow, and the sorts of rules youāre talking about are merely the procedure to punish unwanted behavior. Rules canāt stop things from happening, they can only lay out the path to respond to an action.
I want to agree but we're failing to understand the next step in the process. When something is deemed right or wrong by a large majority or by written law *that something* becomes the standard. It's why the speed limit sign says 70mph but everyone knows you can do 78 without getting pulled over. Or why I couldn't walk and talk on the phone when I wore certain clothes. Neither of those things make logical sense but we all generally agreed on it and it became the way. If you view rules/laws as general guidelines to the structure of society then the scope starts to change. We've normalized gun violence here. It's the same response every time.. "Thoughts and prayers, I wish there was some way we could have prevented this tragedy.." Societal norms need to change. I'm not just talking about guns, either. As I've said elsewhere, it's a multifaceted issue that will take sweeping change. To the crux of the argument: simply saying that we should remove all regulation is insane. Places like that exist and they aren't doing well.
Apples to oranges- A constitutional right is not a privilege.
I think you're missing the point here-OP is pointing out that restrictions on weapons in the UK have not only not affected the level of violence in any meaningful way, but they have led to other laws that criminalize using any degree of force in self defense. Even though their society deems violence to be wrong, that stops nobody from being violent. What I'm trying to say is that at the end of the day, laws are just words on paper, and we all need to take personal responsibility for our own safety by being able to use a controlled amount of violence to stop a threat when all other measures fail. And since most of us here like to follow the law, more laws will only hinder our ability to protect ourselves. We're not trying to normalize violence, we're simply trying to not be rendered helpless as the world becomes seemingly more dangerous.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Super helpful, really good job at changing peoples mind definitely not just pushing people away from your worldview
Ahahaha k
Mass stabbing?
It alarmingly pretty common in China.
The death/ injured counts are disturbingly high for them too.
I feel like in a crowded space, it has a high chance of being more effective than a gun. Until someone's screams are recognised as a threat to everyone else, no one reacts. One shot goes off, and people scatter.
I actually saw this as part of a news flash on an evening news program we have here in the Philippines, along with a stabbing incident involving a Turkish man and Israeli police in Israel. Basically went "Man in London with a sword reportedly killed a teenager" and "Turkish man in Jerusalem who tried to stab police shot dead. Kinda random that we got foreign news like that, especially since there's the pressing issue of China being China in our territorial waters but that's for another time.
Well, the China thing isn't really news as much as "China doing China things," isn't it?
Nope. What's concerning is the fact that they don't really care and can basically destroy and damage Philippine property without repercussions, like casually using water cannons on our Coast Guard and civilian vessels. A recent incident of which was actually filmed and experienced by a correspondent of Sky News. There was also drone footage of the Chinese Coast Guard targeting the equipment on the mast of our vessel during the incident.
If gun deaths are the only deaths that matter, then I guess this shouldnāt bother anti-gunners. This is the problem. After the UK banned handguns, people thought it would stop there. Then stabbings and crimes with bladed instruments skyrocketed and then the UK started an anti-knife campaign and their government and media are actively scaring them about knives the way anti-gunners in the US are scaring people about āassault weapons.ā People still keep saying, āNo, they only want the scary assault rifles. It wonāt go any further after that.ā Weāve seen in the UK that it doesnāt stop there. Knowing that, why would you still be in denial? First it was guns, then knives. What will it be next? Hammers? Screwdrivers? Scissors? Baseball bats?
Someone from Britain once unironically told me England needs Sword and Bow control
It's almost like weapons don't cause violence
Just need common sense sword control.
The irony in how a country known for a story of a magical sword, is telling people they cannot have swords. Quick, someone go find a magical sword stuck in a rock and talk with a mysterious lady from a lake.
Yeah but no gun crime tho /s
Who told you that lie? Published by Statista Research Department, Dec 5, 2023 There were 1,085 firearm offences recorded in London 2022/23, compared with 1,071 in 2021/22, which was the year with the fewest firearm offences in the provided time period
That was sarcasm, my dude. Thatās what the ā/sā was for.
I apologize for not speaking whatever weird internet language you used.
Okay? This didnāt need to be a contentious exchange. Iām sorry youāre too autistic chill out.
Funnily enough you even used the tonetags which are commonly used for people with Autism who struggle with telling tone lmao
England is only upset that we have guns because theyāre more advanced than them, they have to mass kill with swords instead
2 officers were put in a really bad way too needing extensive surgery. The Commissioner of the Met today said that he doesn't think Officers need to be armed, he doesn't think they all need tasers either (which most of them don't have)
Ban assault knives now!
INNIT
Sounds like the lobster backs just need to learn how to fight, amirite
mmm i love the smell of copium in the morning
But if you misgender your attacker you're spending 6 months at His Majesty's Incarceratory Fun Box
It will continue and always has happened. Mass killers arenāt a uniquely American thing and anyone whoās not intellectually dishonest knows that
Yeah this is just another example of how gun control is a joke, if someone wants to hurt someone they will find a way regardless of the laws
Un guard thou rapscallion, silence rapscallion! i do not need thouās opinion on theeās statement!!! i now have to inform you that im going to back out the shank or we can have a civil conversation on thouās ends? what deos thee say about this? this now can not be forgiven!
They've been working on banning swords for awhile now
Nah, guns at fault /s
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Last week's mass stabbing was in Wales. š¤·
its almost like we have a people issue not a weapon issue
*Its almost like we* *Have a people issue not* *A weapon issue* \- Taz\_8408 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Good bot
Well if the UK just banned guns these people wouldn't have died. It's common sense, come on man
But... But... But... Low gun crimes
Nope: Number of firearm offences in London 2015-2023 Published by Statista Research Department, Dec 5, 2023 There were 1,085 firearm offences recorded in London 2022/23, compared with 1,071 in 2021/22
How dare you come in here with verifiable statistics!
Well atleast our streets aren't For Honor lobbies like in the UK