PDA

View Full Version : USA and Guns



Carina Reinhardt
15th February 2015, 11:26
Good video from LASO on citizen response to active shooter:

http://www.governmentvideo.com/article/los-angeles-county-sheriffs-department-releases-active-shooter-training-video/115412

Very sad that "there are an average of 20 mass shooting events in the U.S. every year." Does it not make reflect you about the easiness to buy and own firearms in US ? It is kind of strange, in the US you buy alcoholics in a special store only for adults(here you can buy them in every supermarket, yet children are not allowed to buy them), but everybody can buy firearms everywhere, very sad :(

Brian Owens
16th February 2015, 01:51
"It is kind of strange, in the US you buy alcoholics in a special store only for adults(here you can buy them in every supermarket, yet children are not allowed to buy them), but everybody can buy firearms everywhere"

Your ignorance about buying guns in the USA is understandable, given the lies spread by anti-rights propagandists, but it is still ignorance. Try doing some research.

Kendoguy9
16th February 2015, 02:11
Very sad that "there are an average of 20 mass shooting events in the U.S. every year." Does it not make reflect you about the easiness to buy and own firearms in US ? It is kind of strange, in the US you buy alcoholics in a special store only for adults(here you can buy them in every supermarket, yet children are not allowed to buy them), but everybody can buy firearms everywhere, very sad :(

On average 28 people die from drunk driving everyday in the US. In 2011 there were 1.2 million people arrested for drunk driving. I'm not sure what your experience in the US is but it is far more difficult to buy a gun than you think. I can't speak for every state but in Maryland people who want to purchase a firearm must go through a background check by State Police, get a license and wait 7 days before taking possession.

Carina Reinhardt
16th February 2015, 07:29
"It is kind of strange, in the US you buy alcoholics in a special store only for adults(here you can buy them in every supermarket, yet children are not allowed to buy them), but everybody can buy firearms everywhere"

Your ignorance about buying guns in the USA is understandable, given the lies spread by anti-rights propagandists, but it is still ignorance. Try doing some research.

Ok you need a guns permit, but if you cannot get it, you go to a lawyer for ex in NY to John Randazzo and he gets one for you. :)

Carina Reinhardt
16th February 2015, 07:39
On average 28 people die from drunk driving everyday in the US. In 2011 there were 1.2 million people arrested for drunk driving. I'm not sure what your experience in the US is but it is far more difficult to buy a gun than you think. I can't speak for every state but in Maryland people who want to purchase a firearm must go through a background check by State Police, get a license and wait 7 days before taking possession.

Ok then you wait 7 days or more, the main thing is that you get it, killers have time.

WVMark
16th February 2015, 15:39
Ok then you wait 7 days or more, the main thing is that you get it, killers have time.

Might want to watch this video. It'll help put things in perspective for you about the US and guns.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=806713486044197

Hissho
16th February 2015, 18:07
Chris can we split off the "US and Guns" discussion, to either Firearms or a forum more appropriate to politics? I'd prefer this thread stay about practical matters when facing an active threat situation.

Carina Reinhardt
16th February 2015, 19:41
Might want to watch this video. It'll help put things in perspective for you about the US and guns.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=806713486044197

Mark will you really compare the US with so called countries of the 2nd or 3rd world?
Of course Mark, I agree with that "Maybe its the people holding the guns", still it is sad and I wouldn't compare these deaths with other accidents like drunk driving, (we lose our driving license if we drive drunk).
It is sad and it could be prevented, making the ownership of guns more difficult, like to pass some psychological tests or kind of that, if people really have to own a gun. I don't think so, there are the police and trained people to protect citizen.

Kendoguy9
16th February 2015, 19:58
Kit, agreed. Hey guys I know this is a hot button issue with folks making valid points on both sides. Please continue this conversation in this thread instead of the personal protection thread. I think everyone has been very respectful and professional to this point and I'm sure it will stay that way. Thanks!

Chris

Hissho
16th February 2015, 23:03
Kit, agreed. Hey guys I know this is a hot button issue with folks making valid points on both sides. Please continue this conversation in this thread instead of the personal protection thread. I think everyone has been very respectful and professional to this point and I'm sure it will stay that way. Thanks!

Chris

Indeed - my only interest was not derailing the other thread - I've been very pleased with how even the debates and disagreements are going here.

WVMark
17th February 2015, 02:10
Mark will you really compare the US with so called countries of the 2nd or 3rd world?
Of course Mark, I agree with that "Maybe its the people holding the guns", still it is sad and I wouldn't compare these deaths with other accidents like drunk driving, (we lose our driving license if we drive drunk).
It is sad and it could be prevented, making the ownership of guns more difficult, like to pass some psychological tests or kind of that, if people really have to own a gun. I don't think so, there are the police and trained people to protect citizen.

There are a lot of things you're missing.

1. The courts in the US have ruled that it is NOT the duty of the police to protect citizens. That saying you see "To Protect and Serve" is a slogan.

2. Response time with Law Enforcement is 99% after something has happened. That means the only person you can rely upon to protect yourself and family is ... yourself.

3. Concealed Carry Holders in the United States are THE, let me say that again, THE most law abiding group bar none. Not the police nor the politicians.

4. Murderers, rapists, thieves, etc all have shown that they do NOT obey the law. Gun control laws do not affect them, only law abiding citizens which disarm them and take away any chance of defense.

5. Studies show that women who were attacked fared far, far better when they were armed with a gun than those that had no gun. Those without a gun to protect themselves had a much higher rate of being harmed or hurt or killed.

6. Studies show that there are anywhere between 70,000 and a million defensive gun uses in the US every year to save lives.
Look at one website that has a map of defensive gun usages.
http://gunssavelives.net/incident-map/

7. To end. Certainly not the last nor the least but the US has a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. :) The Second Amendment guarantees our Right to keep and bear arms. (Which, of course, does contain strict limits to keep hands out of the insane, felons, etc).

Mark

Brian Owens
17th February 2015, 05:16
Ok then you wait 7 days or more, the main thing is that you get it, killers have time. But there's no "waiting period" or "background checks" for alcohol, so your previous statement -- "in the US you buy alcoholics in a special store only for adults...but everybody can buy firearms everywhere" -- is already proven false.

Carina Reinhardt
17th February 2015, 07:37
But there's no "waiting period" or "background checks" for alcohol, so your previous statement -- "in the US you buy alcoholics in a special store only for adults...but everybody can buy firearms everywhere" -- is already proven false.
Of course, but we are talking about completely different things, these were just examples of your culture, I have more, but you would find again things to defend your culture :)

Raff
17th February 2015, 09:50
There are a lot of things you're missing.

1. The courts in the US have ruled that it is NOT the duty of the police to protect citizens. That saying you see "To Protect and Serve" is a slogan.

Mark

Hello Mark,

Is it true? I find this statement very disturbing, especially coming from a court. Of course, it is not possible to ensure the maximum security for citizens (the rate one police officer/one citizen is obviously out of the question) but nevertheless, there are still moments (and that is fortunate) in which the felons are caught in the act. I guess that arresting somebody and thus preventing him/her from commiting crimes could be considered as active protection to the citizens?!!!

Hissho
17th February 2015, 14:34
Hello Mark,

Is it true? I find this statement very disturbing, especially coming from a court. Of course, it is not possible to ensure the maximum security for citizens (the rate one police officer/one citizen is obviously out of the question) but nevertheless, there are still moments (and that is fortunate) in which the felons are caught in the act. I guess that arresting somebody and thus preventing him/her from commiting crimes could be considered as active protection to the citizens?!!!

Raff

Courts have ruled that it is not the duty of the police (the government) to protect the individual citizen, unless a duty is somehow otherwise created. This is basically serves to prevent lawsuits due to extended response times, etc. "when seconds count, the police are minutes away" sorta thing. They can't be responsible to you as an individual, they are not your personal bodyguard, because it is simply unworkable.

You call 911 to have the police come because a guy is kicking down your door. But there was just a major drunk driving accident and a shooting on the other side of the city and the five cops working tonight are all busy. Its going to take a while for the cops to get there...

Joe goes out, gets drunk, is contacted by an officer that learns that though Joe is drunk he is certainly not gravely disabled, the officer releases him to walk home and he jaywalk and gets hit by a car. In the US, many think it is of course the officers fault that Joe got hit by a car, so the individual officer and the agency he works for is often sued over things like this.

But in general, and when the police can do so, they will do what they can to Protect a citizen that calls for help.

Carina Reinhardt
17th February 2015, 14:36
There are a lot of things you're missing.



7. To end. Certainly not the last nor the least but the US has a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. :) The Second Amendment guarantees our Right to keep and bear arms. (Which, of course, does contain strict limits to keep hands out of the insane, felons, etc).

Mark

This morning I also replied to this, but it seems that I did not clicked on submit.

You have a lot of valid points Mark, but you know that we can put figures as we like and how they best fit us.

I knew about the Second Amendment in your Constitution, which surely comes from your history and your large country with many places almost inhabited.

There is also something more: The USA is the major producer of firearms!

About your point 4, yes, they do NOT obey the law and can get guns easily, but take for ex the Newtown School Shooting, could it have been avoided, if the gunman wouldn't have had access to a gun? And so many other mass shootings. No gun should be available to depressed or inestable people

gendzwil
17th February 2015, 15:23
Carina, I have learned long ago that it is pointless to enter into a gun control debate with Americans. You are entering into a debate that is a mixture of politics and religion and thus pretty much guaranteed to get ugly. The gun culture and mentality is thoroughly embedded, and you are not going to change anybody's mind. Also given the incredible numbers of guns already in circulation and available to criminals, they have a different situation than most other developed countries so debating statistics and such is just a waste of time.

Carina Reinhardt
17th February 2015, 17:19
Carina, I have learned long ago that it is pointless to enter into a gun control debate with Americans. You are entering into a debate that is a mixture of politics and religion and thus pretty much guaranteed to get ugly. The gun culture and mentality is thoroughly embedded, and you are not going to change anybody's mind. Also given the incredible numbers of guns already in circulation and available to criminals, they have a different situation than most other developed countries so debating statistics and such is just a waste of time.

Thank you Neil, but I found an american who has answers for almost every reason pro gun american will or could bring up
http://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/refuting-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/

gendzwil
17th February 2015, 19:17
Thank you Neil, but I found an american who has answers for almost every reason pro gun american will or could bring up
http://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/refuting-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/If you think that page will change anybody's mind, you have little experience arguing these issues.

Carina Reinhardt
17th February 2015, 19:32
hahaha, no I don't think so, just a little reading to reflect. Maybe things that work in other countries, don't work in America. I think every human life is priceless and if there is something to do to avoid the next mass shooting, just a very tiny little thing to make people reflect, we should try it, don't you think ?

gendzwil
17th February 2015, 20:21
I think every human life is priceless and if there is something to do to avoid the next mass shooting, just a very tiny little thing to make people reflect, we should try it, don't you think ?Bear in mind you are talking to a Canadian here and so pretty much preaching to the choir. Convincing the Americans is another matter. I have a number of American friends that I avoid this topic with - they are otherwise reasonable people but gun culture in the US is close to religion.

Carina Reinhardt
17th February 2015, 20:35
I know you are Canadian, beautiful country, I worked in Toronto many years ago.

As Mother Teresa said "We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean. But the ocean would be less because of that missing drop."

Brian Owens
18th February 2015, 04:29
...gun culture in the US is close to religion.

As is anti-gun culture in many other countries.

jdostie
18th February 2015, 05:16
"Gun culture" is a media take on this, largely built by the media.

I don't own a gun, to my knowledge, no one in my family owns a gun. I have - on occasion - fired a few (oddly, none when I was in the military).
I have what I consider a healthy fear/respect for guns, and a the moment don't feel compelled to own one. But there are times when I consider the purchase, particularly when there is a threat to take away the right to own one, and when I see society becoming more lawless.

Make no mistake about it, if I feel the need, I will make a purchase as soon as possible if I feel the need.

Another oddity, my shinken, or heck, even my iaido have a greater mystique, and will get tongues wagging a lot faster than any firearm - so long as said firearm isn't recklessly brandished. It's a question of familiarity. Americans are familiar with guns.

Also, when talking about the numbers, proportion to the whole is an important distinction.

WVMark
18th February 2015, 05:52
Report from the Center for Disease Control in 2013.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

Highlights:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate thatdefensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.

WVMark
18th February 2015, 06:22
From the 1980s through 2010, according to NBC, "From its beginnings in the 1980s, the “right-to-carry” movement has succeeded in boosting the number of licensed concealed-gun carriers from fewer than 1 million to a record 6 million today, according to estimates from gun-rights groups that are supported by msnbc.com’s research. And while hotly debated, the effect of this dramatic increase is largely unknown."

Correlate that with the CDC report. Unintentional firearm related deaths have declined ... while concealed carry holders have greatly increased ... and guns used to save lives range from 500,000 to 3 million per year.

And we have to remember all the people crying "There will be blood in the streets" and "It'll be like the Wild Wild West" when concealed carry laws started to gain momentum. Time and time again, the anti-gun crowd has been proven wrong in nearly every assertion they've tried.

Carina Reinhardt
18th February 2015, 12:54
An example

http://woodtv.com/2015/02/08/wife-officer-shooting-suspects-death-devastating/

Could this have been avoided, if the man hadn't had a gun?

jdostie
18th February 2015, 15:06
Perhaps, and perhaps not. Notice: "The Jan. 29 incident wasn’t the first time James had seen violence from her husband. Several years ago, he stabbed her in the neck." If police had been called, and if he advanced on police officers with a knife, the outcome might have been similar.

I knew a man that shot himself, and I felt fairly certain that if he had not had a gun with him that day, that he would not have committed suicide. But then, I never thought he would have done it in the first place. He might have tried something else.

The biggest argument against firearms is the scale of destruction one person might do without being stopped - IMO over against some other type of weapon. But even there, someone can do considerable damage with a blade, or a pipe bomb, or whatever. And the whole healthcare question gets glossed over in most cases. Why was this man not hospitalized until his medication was under control? He'd already had a violent incident - attributed by his wife to his medications...

These are not easy questions.

One more thing, the American 'thing' about guns is primarily about liberty - not violence (99% of the time). I have the liberty to own a gun, or not... I don't.

Carina Reinhardt
18th February 2015, 15:28
Perhaps, and perhaps not. Notice: "The Jan. 29 incident wasn’t the first time James had seen violence from her husband. Several years ago, he stabbed her in the neck." If police had been called, and if he advanced on police officers with a knife, the outcome might have been similar.



Yes ,the outcome could have been similar, but most likely that if he only had a knife, the police could have controlled him differently and he would be now in a reha center. But having a gun, now there are 3 people who suffer: the wife and son of the victim and the police who shot.

gendzwil
18th February 2015, 16:18
Yes ,the outcome could have been similar, but most likely that if he only had a knife, the police could have controlled him differently and he would be now in a reha center. But having a gun, now there are 3 people who suffer: the wife and son of the victim and the police who shot.If a guy is attacking with a knife and is within 20 feet, a cop will (and should) shoot him.

Carina Reinhardt
18th February 2015, 17:06
If a guy is attacking with a knife and is within 20 feet, a cop will (and should) shoot him.
Depending on the distance, this article is very interesting
http://www.policeone.com/edged-weapons/articles/102828-Edged-Weapon-Defense-Is-or-was-the-21-foot-rule-valid-Part-1/

And I hope they would shoot in a leg for example, so not a deadly shot

gendzwil
18th February 2015, 17:48
And I hope they would shoot in a leg for example, so not a deadly shotCentre of mass, every time. Shooting to wound is very high risk and not taught. I don't have the stats to hand but IIRC some very large percentage of trained LEOs miss even the centre of mass target in a real life situation. Asking them to risk serious injury or death out of concern for the criminal attacking them is ludicrous.

Carina Reinhardt
18th February 2015, 17:58
Centre of mass, every time. Shooting to wound is very high risk and not taught. I don't have the stats to hand but IIRC some very large percentage of trained LEOs miss even the centre of mass target in a real life situation. Asking them to risk serious injury or death out of concern for the criminal attacking them is ludicrous.

I suppose so

WVMark
18th February 2015, 18:56
Yes ,the outcome could have been similar, but most likely that if he only had a knife, the police could have controlled him differently and he would be now in a reha center. But having a gun, now there are 3 people who suffer: the wife and son of the victim and the police who shot.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/04/a-note-on-mass-victim-knife-attacks/

No. A knife is no less lethal than a gun.

Kendoguy9
18th February 2015, 19:15
https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/26257255/sydney-police-confrontation-ends-in-tragedy/

Something similar happened in Australia. A mentally ill woman was brandishing a knife in public. When police approached her she lunged at them with it. They shot her. Many Australians were enraged with the police and said the same thing; they should have shot her in the leg or shot the knife out of her hand. This is where ignorance of "gun culture" and the human stress response comes into play. Anyone who has read Kit's numerous and excellent posts knows that under stress we lose fine motor skill abilities. This is the purpose of training, to try to condition ourselves to deal with he stress and adrenaline dump. Even the best trained people still have a certain level of stress response. It is unrealistic to expect a patrol officer with a handgun to have sniper like abilities when they are faced with a life threatening attack. It is the product of ignorance about combatives and the product of Hollywood. I think many people in the world are very lucky that they do not have to take these things into consideration in their daily lives. Most folks here have the luxury to practice their budo for health, self improvement and friendship. They don't have to worry if they can really execute their technique under a full load of stress in the face of mortal danger, but they should be mindful there are folks here that do just that and they should take that into consideration.

And Mark is very right a knife can be just as bad as a gun. About this time last year in Kunming China several suspects stabbed and killed 29 people and wounded another 130. Two years ago at Lone Star College in Cypress, Texas, USA a suspect stabbed and wounded 14 victims. The sad part is if a person is intent on doing great harm to other people they will find a way. We happen to have a lot of guns in the US so that seems to be the most popular method but where there are no guns they'll find something else to do it with.

Carina Reinhardt
18th February 2015, 19:25
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/04/a-note-on-mass-victim-knife-attacks/

No. A knife is no less lethal than a gun.

Yes we can read in this article that there can also be a mass killing with knifes, and the case mentioned by Chris in Australia, yet I think it takes more courage, as it is necessary a shorter distance and to face the victims to kill somebody with a knife , that would not stop mentally ill people, but it still is easier to kill a person with a gun

allan
19th February 2015, 00:38
Carina,

Another reason that police are trained to shoot centre-mass is that every time a round is fired there is the risk of hitting a bystander or even someone quite far away. This risk must be minimized so the highest percentage shot is usually taken.

I commend everyone for keeping this discussion civil.

P Goldsbury
19th February 2015, 03:53
I think it is quite reasonable and proper to have such a discussion here and, it is hoped, to maintain a higher quality than I have found on Facebook etc.

However, there is a wide gap in the perceptions of those are members of a 'gun-culture' such as the US and a non-gun culture, such as Japan (but where the police are also armed).

I think the first step might be to establish some common ground.

Raff
19th February 2015, 11:04
Raff

Courts have ruled that it is not the duty of the police (the government) to protect the individual citizen, unless a duty is somehow otherwise created. This is basically serves to prevent lawsuits due to extended response times, etc. "when seconds count, the police are minutes away" sorta thing. They can't be responsible to you as an individual, they are not your personal bodyguard, because it is simply unworkable.

You call 911 to have the police come because a guy is kicking down your door. But there was just a major drunk driving accident and a shooting on the other side of the city and the five cops working tonight are all busy. Its going to take a while for the cops to get there...

Joe goes out, gets drunk, is contacted by an officer that learns that though Joe is drunk he is certainly not gravely disabled, the officer releases him to walk home and he jaywalk and gets hit by a car. In the US, many think it is of course the officers fault that Joe got hit by a car, so the individual officer and the agency he works for is often sued over things like this.

But in general, and when the police can do so, they will do what they can to Protect a citizen that calls for help.


Thanks Kit, it is much more clear now. I see that we all face the same kind of problems, whatever the country, when "out in the field".

gendzwil
19th February 2015, 15:22
"Gun culture" is a media take on this, largely built by the media.Not for me. That is my personal impression from talking to quite a few Americans. My father is from northern Michigan, I spent a good chunk of my summers there as a kid, I have a lot of American relatives and friends. The attitude in general is much, much different than in Canada. It's a cultural thing.

WVMark
19th February 2015, 16:37
Not for me. That is my personal impression from talking to quite a few Americans. My father is from northern Michigan, I spent a good chunk of my summers there as a kid, I have a lot of American relatives and friends. The attitude in general is much, much different than in Canada. It's a cultural thing.

In West Virginia, it's a cultural thing, but nowhere near what the media makes it out to be. I think that might have been his point. In West Virginia, part of that culture was growing up with guns, yes, but it also included hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, hiking, etc. You were taught safety with many things. Guns being one part. It was common to see people carrying rifles and pistols around. No big deal, especially during hunting season. The media's view of "gun culture" is distorted and perverted. Largely because they psychologically project their own subconscious fears upon another group.

jdostie
19th February 2015, 19:28
In West Virginia, it's a cultural thing, but nowhere near what the media makes it out to be. I think that might have been his point.

Basically, that's correct.

For sure there are some gun nuts, etc. And maybe I live a slightly sheltered life (but I don't think so), but in my experience, the "gun culture" is magnified greatly in the media compared to what I see in day to day life.

JS3
20th February 2015, 22:02
Funny how the US is picked on for it "gun culture" but in this article we not even close to the top of the list:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

10821

Another thing to remember is that people who what to take lives will takes lives.
Banning guns will not solve the problem because the problem is not with guns it's with the criminals.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/

That said what does a county do when it has already banned guns but still has issue with violent crimes?
They ban everything else:
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/11/british-police-calling-for-knife-ban/

Carina Reinhardt
20th February 2015, 22:23
Funny how the US is picked on for it "gun culture" but in this article we not even close to the top of the list:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

10821



We had something similar already in a video in #6

CEB
20th February 2015, 22:32
Carina,

Another reason that police are trained to shoot centre-mass is that every time a round is fired there is the risk of hitting a bystander or even someone quite far away. This risk must be minimized so the highest percentage shot is usually taken.

I commend everyone for keeping this discussion civil.

A gunfight isn't target shooting. The tunnel vision and other impacts of wholesale adrenline dump cannot be understated.

CEB
20th February 2015, 22:41
Yes we can read in this article that there can also be a mass killing with knifes, and the case mentioned by Chris in Australia, yet I think it takes more courage, as it is necessary a shorter distance and to face the victims to kill somebody with a knife , that would not stop mentally ill people, but it still is easier to kill a person with a gun

Murder and courage do not have jack shit to do with each other. Some of histories greatest cowards were/are murderers.