Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Grinning Dragon]

I've run through my many sources and can only come up with 19 as the high for 2019. Last week we had a fellow from the FBI give a talk on best practices on what to do and what not to do when faced with a shooter, and during his talk he drove the point home that on average in the US the average mass shooting per year is 20 - 30 (circa) and he even made fun of such high numbers that get thrown around in the news and on the internet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_sh ... ted_States

Other media outlets have reported that hundreds of mass shootings take place in the United States in a single calendar year, citing a crowd-funded website known as Shooting Tracker which defines a mass shooting as having four or more people injured or killed.[25] In December 2015, The Washington Post reported that there had been 355 mass shootings in the United States so far that year.[35] In August 2015, The Washington Post reported that the United States was averaging one mass shooting per day.[36] An earlier report had indicated that in 2015 alone, there had been 294 mass shootings that killed or injured 1,464 people.[37] Shooting Tracker and Mass Shooting Tracker, the two sites that the media have been citing, have been criticized for using a broader criteria – counting four victims injured as a mass shooting – thus producing much higher figures.[38][39]

Mass jackoff tracker and shitting tracker are two sites I automatically dismiss when searching, why anyone would think either of those two are valid sources are beyond me.

[New haven america]

1. In areas and countries with high knife attack rates, a fear of knives is actually not uncommon. And yes, humans naturally fear things that can easily harm and kill them, that's shockingly what weapons are made to do, so not wanting to be around a device specifically made for killing is perfectly rational.
2. Thank you. :3
3. What are my solutions exactly? Because I've never posted them in this thread (Or on NS really, hm...).
4. I'm gonna put a pin in this one and refrain from answering until you explain to me what my solutions to gun violence are, I'm quite interested in hearing what I think should be done.

1. Sure, if those rates are actually high enough that the average person has a good chance of getting stabbed, that’s an entirely rational fear. But if those stabbings are so rare that they’re unlikely to ever even know someone who’ll be stabbed, then it’s not a rational fear.
2. <3
3. Alright then, since it would be crass of me to make arguments based upon your solutions without knowing them, please share your solutions with me? I may very well have been wrong in my assumptions and if so, I apologize on that front.

1. And in the US, most people have been in some sort of dangerous encounter with a gun, whether that be accidental or purposeful. I personally took up shooting classes in order to earn my shotgun and riflery merit badges when I was in Boy Scouts, and it wouldn't be uncommon for instructors or trainers to point guns at people or break the very rules they old us to follow (Like always treating a gun as if it's loaded, don't fuck with sensitive bits when you're taking it apart to clean, etc...).
3. No, you said that I'm standing on bodies to support my beliefs and possible laws. Now, please explain to me my beliefs on this matter, because I don't even know what they are apparently.

[Ors Might]

1. Sure, if those rates are actually high enough that the average person has a good chance of getting stabbed, that’s an entirely rational fear. But if those stabbings are so rare that they’re unlikely to ever even know someone who’ll be stabbed, then it’s not a rational fear.
2. <3
3. Alright then, since it would be crass of me to make arguments based upon your solutions without knowing them, please share your solutions with me? I may very well have been wrong in my assumptions and if so, I apologize on that front.

1. And in the US, most people have been in some sort of dangerous encounter with a gun, whether that be accidental or purposeful. I personally took up shooting classes in order to earn my shotgun and riflery merit badges when I was in Boy Scouts, and it wouldn't be uncommon for instructors or trainers to point guns at people or break the very rules they old us to follow (Like always treating a gun as if it's loaded, don't fuck with sensitive bits when you're taking it apart to clean, etc...).
3. No, you said that I'm standing on bodies to support my beliefs and possible laws. Now, please explain to me my beliefs on this matter, because I don't even know what they are apparently.

1. That’s something you haven’t sourced. “Most people” is a hefty claim and one that my own personal anecdotes would contradict.
3. I also said that I may have been wrong in my assumptions. Have I been?

[Galloism]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_sh ... ted_States

Mass jackoff tracker and shitting tracker are two sites I automatically dismiss when searching, why anyone would think either of those two are valid sources are beyond me.

Huh, and I just found a site that suggests an illegal full auto ak-47 in California is only $400-500.

Not sure if I should link it though.

Ironically, same site says $800 for Iraq, and $400-900 for Europe.

[New haven america]

1. Yes, and the US is a hot bed for the weapon industry, both manufacturing and trading. Anyone who's rich enough could get whatever the hell they want.
2. You yourself admitted that one would cost a couple thousand bucks, money which the average bank or store robber doesn't have or couldn't afford. 4th time I've been over this with you.

1. A bank or store robber can typically afford that quite easily in most cases. It’s not unusual for us to pick up criminals carrying five figures in cash. A lot of it involves drugs.

2. The reason they don’t has a lot to do with the fact that an AK is bloody overkill for a bank robbery when an illegal 38 special does the same job, at 90% lower cost.

3. Regardless, if you’re going in on robbing a bank, a few thousand is child’s play. Their getaway car is typically worth more than that.

1. Not illegally no, the average robber cannot. That's why bank and store robberies are lower in the entire developed world compared to the US.
2. And I wasn't talking about AK's, I was talking about simple pistols, with in every other developed nation (Even gun loving ones like Canada or Switzerland), is pretty fucking expensive and hard to get a hold of for the average robber)
3. Oh yeah, cars are even more expensive in developed countries that aren't the US, forget weapons, a robber is gonna need to figure out transportation first.

Can we just cut to the case?: You're gonna bring up a case or anecdote about how someone rich people got illegal weapons in the US (Which has liberal weapon laws), I'm going to rebuttal with the fact that restrictions in other areas of the world make it super difficult for the average criminal to get a hold of illegal weapons, you're going to provide another source or anecdote that only applies to the US, and then the cycle continues.

[Telconi]

Mass jackoff tracker and shitting tracker are two sites I automatically dismiss when searching, why anyone would think either of those two are valid sources are beyond me.

Huh, and I just found a site that suggests an illegal full auto ak-47 in California is only $400-500.

Not sure if I should link it though.

Ironically, same site says $800 for Iraq, and $400-900 for Europe.

Turns out they overcharged on their soup and assault rifles...

[Galloism]

1. A bank or store robber can typically afford that quite easily in most cases. It’s not unusual for us to pick up criminals carrying five figures in cash. A lot of it involves drugs.

2. The reason they don’t has a lot to do with the fact that an AK is bloody overkill for a bank robbery when an illegal 38 special does the same job, at 90% lower cost.

3. Regardless, if you’re going in on robbing a bank, a few thousand is child’s play. Their getaway car is typically worth more than that.

1. Not illegally no, the average robber cannot. That's why bank and store robberies are lower in the entire developed world compared to the US.
2. And I wasn't talking about AK's, I was talking about simple pistols, with in every other developed nation (Even gun loving ones like Canada or Switzerland), is pretty fucking expensive and hard to get a hold of for the average robber)
3. Oh yeah, cars are even more expensive in developed countries that aren't the US, forget weapons, a robber is gonna need to figure out transportation first.

Can we just cut to the case?: You're gonna bring up a case or anecdote about how someone rich people got illegal weapons in the US (Which has liberal weapon laws), I'm going to rebuttal with the fact that restrictions in other areas of the world make it super difficult for the average criminal to get a hold of illegal weapons, you're going to provide another source or anecdote that only applies to the US, and then the cycle continues.

It’s not difficult for them to do so, there’s just no point since the population is in an unarmed victim-ready state.

Illegal guns in the U.K. are about 200 pounds, and dropping fast.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ondon.html

India has illegal pistols for $10-15 apparently.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/black ... bout-guns/


And it’s not that different in other places.

[Telconi]

1. A bank or store robber can typically afford that quite easily in most cases. It’s not unusual for us to pick up criminals carrying five figures in cash. A lot of it involves drugs.

2. The reason they don’t has a lot to do with the fact that an AK is bloody overkill for a bank robbery when an illegal 38 special does the same job, at 90% lower cost.

3. Regardless, if you’re going in on robbing a bank, a few thousand is child’s play. Their getaway car is typically worth more than that.

1. Not illegally no, the average robber cannot. That's why bank and store robberies are lower in the entire developed world compared to the US.
2. And I wasn't talking about AK's, I was talking about simple pistols, with in every other developed nation (Even gun loving ones like Canada or Switzerland), is pretty fucking expensive and hard to get a hold of for the average robber)
3. Oh yeah, cars are even more expensive in developed countries that aren't the US, forget weapons, a robber is gonna need to figure out transportation first.

Can we just cut to the case?: You're gonna bring up a case or anecdote about how someone rich people got illegal weapons in the US (Which has liberal weapon laws), I'm going to rebuttal with the fact that restrictions in other areas of the world make it super difficult for the average criminal to get a hold of illegal weapons, you're going to provide another source or anecdote that only applies to the US, and then the cycle continues.

I'm curious what chase we're cutting to.

[New haven america]

1. And in the US, most people have been in some sort of dangerous encounter with a gun, whether that be accidental or purposeful. I personally took up shooting classes in order to earn my shotgun and riflery merit badges when I was in Boy Scouts, and it wouldn't be uncommon for instructors or trainers to point guns at people or break the very rules they old us to follow (Like always treating a gun as if it's loaded, don't fuck with sensitive bits when you're taking it apart to clean, etc...).
3. No, you said that I'm standing on bodies to support my beliefs and possible laws. Now, please explain to me my beliefs on this matter, because I don't even know what they are apparently.

1. That’s something you haven’t sourced. “Most people” is a hefty claim and one that my own personal anecdotes would contradict.
2.. I also said that I may have been wrong in my assumptions. Have I been?

1. You gotta scroll a bit, cause it's all the way at the bottom. Yeah, 44% of people surveyed knew someone who has been purposefully shot or threatened with a gun, 59% of urbanites have, and 40% of rural people have. And that's only for purposeful gun use, they don't mention dangerous accidental experiences with guns (Like mine), which can easily put it over 50%.
2. I don't know, you have yet to assume my beliefs, I'm waiting btdubs.

[New haven america]

1. Not illegally no, the average robber cannot. That's why bank and store robberies are lower in the entire developed world compared to the US.
2. And I wasn't talking about AK's, I was talking about simple pistols, with in every other developed nation (Even gun loving ones like Canada or Switzerland), is pretty fucking expensive and hard to get a hold of for the average robber)
3. Oh yeah, cars are even more expensive in developed countries that aren't the US, forget weapons, a robber is gonna need to figure out transportation first.

Can we just cut to the case?: You're gonna bring up a case or anecdote about how someone rich people got illegal weapons in the US (Which has liberal weapon laws), I'm going to rebuttal with the fact that restrictions in other areas of the world make it super difficult for the average criminal to get a hold of illegal weapons, you're going to provide another source or anecdote that only applies to the US, and then the cycle continues.

1. It’s not difficult for them to do so, there’s just no point since the population is in an unarmed victim-ready state.

2. Illegal guns in the U.K. are about 200 pounds, and dropping fast.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ondon.html

3.India has illegal pistols for $10-15 apparently.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/black ... bout-guns/


And it’s not that different in other places.

1. Yes it is. Deterrence is part of the reason crime in other countries is so low.
2. And in the US they can cost $10-50 dollars. Also, most criminals in the UK can't afford a 200 quid gun.
3. India's also not a developed nation, so it doesn't apply in this case. Though, if you were trying to compare the US' backwards gun access and culture to developing nations, you did a pretty good job. The fact that you can get illegal firearms in a developed nation and a developing nation for similar prices doesn't seem like an issue to you?

[Galloism]

1. It’s not difficult for them to do so, there’s just no point since the population is in an unarmed victim-ready state.

2. Illegal guns in the U.K. are about 200 pounds, and dropping fast.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ondon.html

3.India has illegal pistols for $10-15 apparently.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/black ... bout-guns/


And it’s not that different in other places.

1. Yes it is. Deterrence is part of the reason crime in other countries is so low.
2. And in the US they can cost $10-50 dollars. Also, most people in the UK can't afford a 200 quid gun.
3. India's also not a developed nation, so it doesn't apply in this case. Though, if you were trying to compare the US' backwards gun access and culture to developing nations, you did a pretty good job. The fact that you can get illegal firearms in a developed nation and a developing nation for similar prices doesn't seem like an issue to you?

1) deterrence has a lot to do with it. Other than murder, the U.K. for instance has a much higher crime rate than the US, and they cheat on murder.

Did the British ban reduce mass murders? Before and after the bans, such crimes were so rare in Great Britain that it is hard to say definitively. Great Britain is in some ways safer, and in more ways more dangerous, than the United States. The UK homicide rate tends to fluctuate between one and two per 100,000 population.90 The U.S. homicide rate is 4.7 (as of 2011). The difference is not entirely due to guns, since the non-gun U.S. homicide rate is consistently higher than the UK total homicide rate.

The actual rates of criminal homicides in the two countries are somewhat closer than the above numbers would indicate. The U.S. rate is based on initial reports of homicides, and includes self-defense killings (about 7-12 percent of the total); so the U.S. rate would be about half a point lower if only criminal homicides were counted.91

The statistics from England and Wales are based only on final dispositions, so an unsolved murder, or a murder that is pleaded down to a lesser offense, is not counted as a homicide. In addition, multiple murders are counted as only a single homicide for Scottish statistics.92 Even so, it is true that the U.S. homicide rate is higher than in the UK

In other categories of major violent crime, the UK is generally worse than the United States. In 2010, the assault rate per 100,000 population was 250.9 in the United States; 664.4 in England and Wales; 1449.7 in Scotland; and 80.6 in Northern Ireland.93

For robbery, the results are closer, although the UK as a whole is still worse. The U.S rate was 115.3; England and Wales had 137.9; Northern Ireland 75.0; and Scotland 49.

Burglary rates were: United States 695.9; England and Wales, 946.1; Northern Ireland, 658.7; and Scotland, 479.1. So the overall UK burglary rate is significantly worse (considering that England and Wales contain 89 percent of the UK population, and the burglary rate is more than one-third higher than in the United States). More important, the manner in which burglaries take place in the UK is much worse.

In the United States, only a fairly small percentage of home burglaries take place when the occupants are home, but in Great Britain, about 59 percent do.94 In surveys, American burglars say that they avoid occupied homes because of the risk of getting shot.95

English burglars prefer occupied homes because there will be wallets and purses with cash, which do not have to be fenced at a discount. British criminals have little risk of confronting a victim who possesses a firearm. Even the small percentage of British homeowners who have a legal gun would not be able to unlock the firearm from one safe, and then unlock the ammunition from another safe (as required by law), in time to use the gun against a criminal intruder.96 It should hardly be surprising, then, that Britain has a much higher rate of home-invasion burglaries than does the United States.

If success is measured by a reduction in handgun crime, then the Great Britain handgun confiscation was a failure. A July 2001 study from King's College London's Centre for Defense Studies found that handgun-related crime increased by nearly 40 percent in the two years following implementation of the handgun ban.

As the King's College report noted, with passage of the Firearms Act of 1997, "it was confidently assumed that the new legislation effectively banning handguns would have the direct effect of reducing certain types of violent crime by reducing access to weapons."97 The news media proclaimed that the "world's toughest laws will help to keep weapons off the streets."98 Yet faster than British gun owners could surrender their previously registered handguns for destruction, guns began flooding into Great Britain from the international black market, driven by the demands of the country's rapidly developing criminal gun culture.99 By 2009, Great Britain's handgun crime rate had doubled from the pre-ban levels.100

https://www.cato.org/publications/polic ... un-control

Deterrence does have a lot to do with crime rate, which is one reason Home invasions are so rare in the US compared with the U.K. that being said, we have room for improvement as well.

2) The UK apparently needs to do something about their mass poverty. Almost everyone here can afford a $250 legal gun, so it’s surprising the UK is so poverty stricken they can’t.

[Telconi]

1. It’s not difficult for them to do so, there’s just no point since the population is in an unarmed victim-ready state.

2. Illegal guns in the U.K. are about 200 pounds, and dropping fast.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ondon.html

3.India has illegal pistols for $10-15 apparently.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/black ... bout-guns/


And it’s not that different in other places.

1. Yes it is. Deterrence is part of the reason crime in other countries is so low.
2. And in the US they can cost $10-50 dollars. Also, most people in the UK can't afford a 200 quid gun.
3. India's also not a developed nation, so it doesn't apply in this case. Though, if you were trying to compare the US' backwards gun access and culture to developing nations, you did a pretty good job. The fact that you can get illegal firearms in a developed nation and a developing nation for similar prices doesn't seem like an issue to you?

Things are generally far more expensive in developed nations.

[New haven america]

1. Yes it is. Deterrence is part of the reason crime in other countries is so low.
2. And in the US they can cost $10-50 dollars. Also, most people in the UK can't afford a 200 quid gun.
3. India's also not a developed nation, so it doesn't apply in this case. Though, if you were trying to compare the US' backwards gun access and culture to developing nations, you did a pretty good job. The fact that you can get illegal firearms in a developed nation and a developing nation for similar prices doesn't seem like an issue to you?

1) deterrence has a lot to do with it. Other than murder, the U.K. for instance has a much higher crime rate than the US, and they cheat on murder.

Did the British ban reduce mass murders? Before and after the bans, such crimes were so rare in Great Britain that it is hard to say definitively. Great Britain is in some ways safer, and in more ways more dangerous, than the United States. The UK homicide rate tends to fluctuate between one and two per 100,000 population.90 The U.S. homicide rate is 4.7 (as of 2011). The difference is not entirely due to guns, since the non-gun U.S. homicide rate is consistently higher than the UK total homicide rate.

The actual rates of criminal homicides in the two countries are somewhat closer than the above numbers would indicate. The U.S. rate is based on initial reports of homicides, and includes self-defense killings (about 7-12 percent of the total); so the U.S. rate would be about half a point lower if only criminal homicides were counted.91

The statistics from England and Wales are based only on final dispositions, so an unsolved murder, or a murder that is pleaded down to a lesser offense, is not counted as a homicide. In addition, multiple murders are counted as only a single homicide for Scottish statistics.92 Even so, it is true that the U.S. homicide rate is higher than in the UK

In other categories of major violent crime, the UK is generally worse than the United States. In 2010, the assault rate per 100,000 population was 250.9 in the United States; 664.4 in England and Wales; 1449.7 in Scotland; and 80.6 in Northern Ireland.93

For robbery, the results are closer, although the UK as a whole is still worse. The U.S rate was 115.3; England and Wales had 137.9; Northern Ireland 75.0; and Scotland 49.

Burglary rates were: United States 695.9; England and Wales, 946.1; Northern Ireland, 658.7; and Scotland, 479.1. So the overall UK burglary rate is significantly worse (considering that England and Wales contain 89 percent of the UK population, and the burglary rate is more than one-third higher than in the United States). More important, the manner in which burglaries take place in the UK is much worse.

In the United States, only a fairly small percentage of home burglaries take place when the occupants are home, but in Great Britain, about 59 percent do.94 In surveys, American burglars say that they avoid occupied homes because of the risk of getting shot.95

English burglars prefer occupied homes because there will be wallets and purses with cash, which do not have to be fenced at a discount. British criminals have little risk of confronting a victim who possesses a firearm. Even the small percentage of British homeowners who have a legal gun would not be able to unlock the firearm from one safe, and then unlock the ammunition from another safe (as required by law), in time to use the gun against a criminal intruder.96 It should hardly be surprising, then, that Britain has a much higher rate of home-invasion burglaries than does the United States.

If success is measured by a reduction in handgun crime, then the Great Britain handgun confiscation was a failure. A July 2001 study from King's College London's Centre for Defense Studies found that handgun-related crime increased by nearly 40 percent in the two years following implementation of the handgun ban.

As the King's College report noted, with passage of the Firearms Act of 1997, "it was confidently assumed that the new legislation effectively banning handguns would have the direct effect of reducing certain types of violent crime by reducing access to weapons."97 The news media proclaimed that the "world's toughest laws will help to keep weapons off the streets."98 Yet faster than British gun owners could surrender their previously registered handguns for destruction, guns began flooding into Great Britain from the international black market, driven by the demands of the country's rapidly developing criminal gun culture.99 By 2009, Great Britain's handgun crime rate had doubled from the pre-ban levels.100

https://www.cato.org/publications/polic ... un-control

2. Deterrence does have a lot to do with crime rate, which is one reason Home invasions are so rare in the US compared with the U.K. that being said, we have room for improvement as well.

2) The UK apparently needs to do something about their mass poverty. Almost everyone here can afford a $250 legal gun, so it’s surprising the UK is so poverty stricken they can’t.

1. The UK is also considered by most Europeans to be the worst place in Europe (That was actually a discussion point in the UK Pol thread), so that homicide rate doesn't surprise me.
2. Like maybe making it harder for criminals or would be criminals to get guns or something...?
3. I can't, and I don't know any of my fellow poor people who can afford a gun. Also, that was a typo, I meant criminals, who do tend to be pretty poor.

[Galloism]

1. The UK is also considered by most Europeans to be the worst place in Europe (That was actually a discussion point in the UK Pol thread), so that homicide rate doesn't surprise me.
2. Like maybe making it harder for criminals or would be criminals to get guns or something...?
3. I can't, and I don't know any of my fellow poor people who can afford a gun. Also, that was a typo, I meant criminals, who do tend to be pretty poor.

1) But they do share the closest culture with the United States in the world, although even that isn’t that close in the grand scheme. So when comparing gun ban with no gun ban, England gives us the closest estimate as to what would happen if we banned guns here.

And this culture of the population is important to the discussion.

2) No, we need to make our justice system more accurate. Biggest deterrent against crime is the relevant chance of being caught or killed (notably, severity of punishment seems to have little effect). There’s a reason why home invasions are less common here than most other places - criminals are afraid of being captured or killed.

3) Criminals aren’t generally cash poor. They’re asset poor. And $250 isn’t a hell of a lot of money for a durable good. Can you afford to buy a cell phone?

[Kowani]

[
2) No, we need to make our justice system more accurate. Biggest deterrent against crime is the relevant chance of being caught or killed (notably, severity of punishment seems to have little effect). There’s a reason why home invasions are less common here than most other places - criminals are afraid of being captured or killed.

we What now?

[Galloism]

[
2) No, we need to make our justice system more accurate. Biggest deterrent against crime is the relevant chance of being caught or killed (notably, severity of punishment seems to have little effect). There’s a reason why home invasions are less common here than most other places - criminals are afraid of being captured or killed.

we What now?

Notably, burglaries and home invasions are not the same thing.

I provided a source a couple posts up.

[New haven america]

1. The UK is also considered by most Europeans to be the worst place in Europe (That was actually a discussion point in the UK Pol thread), so that homicide rate doesn't surprise me.
2. Like maybe making it harder for criminals or would be criminals to get guns or something...?
3. I can't, and I don't know any of my fellow poor people who can afford a gun. Also, that was a typo, I meant criminals, who do tend to be pretty poor.

1) But they do share the closest culture with the United States in the world, although even that isn’t that close in the grand scheme. So when comparing gun ban with no gun ban, England gives us the closest estimate as to what would happen if we banned guns here.

And this culture of the population is important to the discussion.

2) No, we need to make our justice system more accurate. Biggest deterrent against crime is the relevant chance of being caught or killed (notably, severity of punishment seems to have little effect). There’s a reason why home invasions are less common here than most other places - criminals are afraid of being captured or killed.

3a. Criminals aren’t generally cash poor. They’re asset poor. And $250 isn’t a hell of a lot of money for a durable good. b. Can you afford to buy a cell phone?

1. Actually, that would be Canada or Australia or New Zealand. The US and UK have a lot of stark differences and the UK definitely has more stereotypical European traits.
2. In the world maybe, but not among the developed nations. FFS, in a lot of the other developed nations you can even keep your door unlocked while your out of the house for hours or days at a time and not have trouble with home invasion, meanwhile, I don't even leave my door unlocked when I'm at home.
3a. Not really no, most criminals or poor people don't have a lot of cash on them either (Source: Poor person here), 3b. Nope, I didn't get my first cell phone until I was 20, and it isn't even a good one, it's a shitty $30 TracFone.

[Telconi]

1) deterrence has a lot to do with it. Other than murder, the U.K. for instance has a much higher crime rate than the US, and they cheat on murder.



https://www.cato.org/publications/polic ... un-control

2. Deterrence does have a lot to do with crime rate, which is one reason Home invasions are so rare in the US compared with the U.K. that being said, we have room for improvement as well.

2) The UK apparently needs to do something about their mass poverty. Almost everyone here can afford a $250 legal gun, so it’s surprising the UK is so poverty stricken they can’t.

1. The UK is also considered by most Europeans to be the worst place in Europe (That was actually a discussion point in the UK Pol thread), so that homicide rate doesn't surprise me.
2. Like maybe making it harder for criminals or would be criminals to get guns or something...?
3. I can't, and I don't know any of my fellow poor people who can afford a gun. Also, that was a typo, I meant criminals, who do tend to be pretty poor.

I find it hard to believe people too poor to afford a gun exist in this country.

[New haven america]

1. The UK is also considered by most Europeans to be the worst place in Europe (That was actually a discussion point in the UK Pol thread), so that homicide rate doesn't surprise me.
2. Like maybe making it harder for criminals or would be criminals to get guns or something...?
3. I can't, and I don't know any of my fellow poor people who can afford a gun. Also, that was a typo, I meant criminals, who do tend to be pretty poor.

I find it hard to believe people too poor to afford a gun exist in this country.

Hi, I'm a poor person who can't afford a gun and was born in and am currently residing within the US here, how you doin'?

[Telconi]

I find it hard to believe people too poor to afford a gun exist in this country.

Hi, I'm a poor person who can't afford a gun and was born in and am currently residing in the US here, how you doin'?

Is there a point to this?

[New haven america]

Hi, I'm a poor person who can't afford a gun and was born in and am currently residing in the US here, how you doin'?

Is there a point to this?

IDK, was there a point to your statement?

[Galloism]

1) But they do share the closest culture with the United States in the world, although even that isn’t that close in the grand scheme. So when comparing gun ban with no gun ban, England gives us the closest estimate as to what would happen if we banned guns here.

And this culture of the population is important to the discussion.

2) No, we need to make our justice system more accurate. Biggest deterrent against crime is the relevant chance of being caught or killed (notably, severity of punishment seems to have little effect). There’s a reason why home invasions are less common here than most other places - criminals are afraid of being captured or killed.

3a. Criminals aren’t generally cash poor. They’re asset poor. And $250 isn’t a hell of a lot of money for a durable good. b. Can you afford to buy a cell phone?

1. Actually, that would be Canada or Australia or New Zealand. The US and UK have a lot of stark differences and the UK definitely has more stereotypical European traits.
2. In the world maybe, but not among the developed nations. FFS, in a lot of the other developed nations you can even keep your door unlocked while your out of the house for hours or days at a time and not have trouble with home invasion, meanwhile, I don't even leave my door unlocked went I'm at home.
3a. Not really no, most criminals or poor people don't have a lot of cash on them either (Source: Poor person here), 3b. Nope, I didn't get my first cell phone until I was 20, and it isn't even a good one, it's a shitty $30 TracFone.

1. Definitely not New Zealand or Australia. They’re way too nice for us. Canada is closer, but I’d still say England is the closest - we modeled our government off theirs except no king.

Well, until now.

2) you literally can’t have a home invasion unless you’re home. And people who live in the countryside have been leaving their doors unlocked for centuries, in the US and other places.

3) Source, I’ve arrested people living in little shacks using meth with hundreds of dollars on their person.

How much do you pay per month for your tracphone?

[Telconi]

Is there a point to this?

IDK, was there a point to your statement?

Expressing disbelief that such people exist in America.

[Galloism]

1. The UK is also considered by most Europeans to be the worst place in Europe (That was actually a discussion point in the UK Pol thread), so that homicide rate doesn't surprise me.
2. Like maybe making it harder for criminals or would be criminals to get guns or something...?
3. I can't, and I don't know any of my fellow poor people who can afford a gun. Also, that was a typo, I meant criminals, who do tend to be pretty poor.

I find it hard to believe people too poor to afford a gun exist in this country.

I mean, there’s some. The bottom 2% maybe.

We should probably subsidize it. It’s unfortunate for a person to be unable to exercise a constitutional right on account of money.

[Telconi]

I find it hard to believe people too poor to afford a gun exist in this country.

I mean, there’s some. The bottom 2% maybe.

Maybe, but that's a very very small sliver of the population.