4 ms·

I'm English but have lived in California for half my life. London now has a higher murder rate than NYC, which gives a different perspective. http://www.bbc.co

I'm English but have lived in California for half my life. London now has a higher murder rate than NYC, which gives a different perspective. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936 I've never owned a gun but I respect the second amendment which seems to have been cleverly crafted primarily to give the citizens options to overthrow a future oppressive government. I find the whole pressure to 'ban guns' sinister in Trump's America...

mehrdadn 9y ago
...the federal government, yeah. The mistake was extending it to the states instead of letting their own constitutions say what should happen in their jurisdiction.
bduerst 9y ago
Only if you include stabbings: >The Met Police has launched 44 murder investigations in 2018, 31 of which have been as a result of stabbings. If you look at gun homicide rate, then the U.S. has 30 times the homicide rate of the U.K.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604 Do you still say a 30x gun homicide rate a "sinister" reason to 'ban guns'?
- freedomben 9y ago
  Why wouldn't you include stabbings? Are you suggesting that murder is better if it's done by knife than by gun? Of course you're going to get lower gun homicide rates by banning them. You'd get lower knife homicide rates by banning knifes (I think it's time to consider an assault-knife ban), but aren't you "fixing" the wrong problem? Shouldn't we be trying to stop murder?
  - bduerst 9y ago
    Because when accusing gun control of being sinister in the U.S., using stabbing statistics creates a false equivalence with the U.K. Nobody is promoting murder here so why would you even ask that?
    - freedomben 9y ago
      So what is to be gained then by pointing out that gun crime is much higher in a nation where they are legal than in one where they are not? Unless you view gun ownership in and of itself as a bad thing, then it's a useless statistic. You're not reducing crime/murder by banning guns, you're just changing the weapon. That hardly seems like justification for violating somebody's rights (in the US, it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right).
      - bduerst 9y ago
        That it's not "sinister" (as you said) to want gun control when the gun homicide rate is 30x that of the U.K. Why are you trying to equate knives with guns all of a sudden?
        freedomben 9y ago
        I didn't use the word sinister, only you did previously that I can see. I'm not equating guns and knives at all. My entire point is about what we are measuring, and what we are trying to prevent.
        bduerst 9y ago
        >I didn't use the word sinister, only you did previously that I can see. >I find the whole pressure to 'ban guns' sinister in Trump's America...
        freedomben 9y ago
        That's not a quote of mine. I think you're confusing me with someone else. Edit: yes, you appear to be quoting olivermarks
      - mpweiher 9y ago
        If you're claiming guns are substituted 1:1 by other weapons when not available: you're wrong. Guns make killing far easier than weapons like knives.
khedoros1 9y ago
The issue that I see here: Yes, I believe that the second amendment was primarily intended to help overthrow an out-of-control government. It was authored in a time where memories of the Revolution were fresh. Muskets, bayonets, and cannon were the weapons they had in mind, and a lot of the country was close to frontier wilderness. Now, there is no militia to speak of. The federal government and its assets span the width of the continent. It's hard to imagine how civilian guns would help overthrow that. Obviously, things would come down to guerrilla warfare. 231 years have changed the situation a lot. The assumptions that were made then don't really apply...and the interpretation of the amendment, and the discussion around it, have shifted in that time, as well.
- olivermarks 9y ago
  > Now, there is no militia to speak of. The federal government and its assets span the width of the continent. It's hard to imagine how civilian guns would help overthrow that. Obviously, things would come down to guerrilla warfare. 231 years have changed the situation a lot. The assumptions that were made then don't really apply...and the interpretation of the amendment, and the discussion around it, have shifted in that time, as well. .. I used to think that too, but I think the assumptions made then still do apply. We have a heavily militarized police and an increasingly oppressive surveillance state. It's a grim thought but surrendering the ability to rise up en masse has happened before and not ended well...
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    I guess I wasn't clear about the assumptions that I'm talking about. The power balance between citizens and government has shifted drastically in favor of the government, and there isn't any citizen-controlled, organized force. The police are militarized, and I'd expect them to be on the side of enforcing the status quo. My point was that I think that maintaining citizens' gun rights wouldn't be sufficient to allow the people to overthrow the government, giving its overwhelming advantage in resources.
    - olivermarks 9y ago
morsch 9y ago
London now has a higher murder rate than NYC, which gives a different perspective. Does it, though? The homicide rate in NYC has dropped hugely in the last couple of decades (an order of magnitude!); it's still much higher than London's when you look beyond a timeframe of two or three months. Meanwhile other large cities in the US, including LA, fare much worse than either London or NYC.

mehrdadn 9y ago

...the federal government, yeah. The mistake was extending it to the states instead of letting their own constitutions say what should happen in their jurisdiction.

bduerst 9y ago

Only if you include stabbings: >The Met Police has launched 44 murder investigations in 2018, 31 of which have been as a result of stabbings. If you look at gun homicide rate, then the U.S. has 30 times the homicide rate of the U.K.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604 Do you still say a 30x gun homicide rate a "sinister" reason to 'ban guns'?

freedomben 9y ago
Why wouldn't you include stabbings? Are you suggesting that murder is better if it's done by knife than by gun? Of course you're going to get lower gun homicide rates by banning them. You'd get lower knife homicide rates by banning knifes (I think it's time to consider an assault-knife ban), but aren't you "fixing" the wrong problem? Shouldn't we be trying to stop murder?
- bduerst 9y ago
  Because when accusing gun control of being sinister in the U.S., using stabbing statistics creates a false equivalence with the U.K. Nobody is promoting murder here so why would you even ask that?
  - freedomben 9y ago
    So what is to be gained then by pointing out that gun crime is much higher in a nation where they are legal than in one where they are not? Unless you view gun ownership in and of itself as a bad thing, then it's a useless statistic. You're not reducing crime/murder by banning guns, you're just changing the weapon. That hardly seems like justification for violating somebody's rights (in the US, it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right).
    - bduerst 9y ago
      That it's not "sinister" (as you said) to want gun control when the gun homicide rate is 30x that of the U.K. Why are you trying to equate knives with guns all of a sudden?
      - freedomben 9y ago
        I didn't use the word sinister, only you did previously that I can see. I'm not equating guns and knives at all. My entire point is about what we are measuring, and what we are trying to prevent.
        bduerst 9y ago
        >I didn't use the word sinister, only you did previously that I can see. >I find the whole pressure to 'ban guns' sinister in Trump's America...
        freedomben 9y ago
        That's not a quote of mine. I think you're confusing me with someone else. Edit: yes, you appear to be quoting olivermarks
    - mpweiher 9y ago
      If you're claiming guns are substituted 1:1 by other weapons when not available: you're wrong. Guns make killing far easier than weapons like knives.

khedoros1 9y ago

The issue that I see here: Yes, I believe that the second amendment was primarily intended to help overthrow an out-of-control government. It was authored in a time where memories of the Revolution were fresh. Muskets, bayonets, and cannon were the weapons they had in mind, and a lot of the country was close to frontier wilderness. Now, there is no militia to speak of. The federal government and its assets span the width of the continent. It's hard to imagine how civilian guns would help overthrow that. Obviously, things would come down to guerrilla warfare. 231 years have changed the situation a lot. The assumptions that were made then don't really apply...and the interpretation of the amendment, and the discussion around it, have shifted in that time, as well.

olivermarks 9y ago
> Now, there is no militia to speak of. The federal government and its assets span the width of the continent. It's hard to imagine how civilian guns would help overthrow that. Obviously, things would come down to guerrilla warfare. 231 years have changed the situation a lot. The assumptions that were made then don't really apply...and the interpretation of the amendment, and the discussion around it, have shifted in that time, as well. .. I used to think that too, but I think the assumptions made then still do apply. We have a heavily militarized police and an increasingly oppressive surveillance state. It's a grim thought but surrendering the ability to rise up en masse has happened before and not ended well...
- khedoros1 9y ago
  I guess I wasn't clear about the assumptions that I'm talking about. The power balance between citizens and government has shifted drastically in favor of the government, and there isn't any citizen-controlled, organized force. The police are militarized, and I'd expect them to be on the side of enforcing the status quo. My point was that I think that maintaining citizens' gun rights wouldn't be sufficient to allow the people to overthrow the government, giving its overwhelming advantage in resources.
  - olivermarks 9y ago

morsch 9y ago

London now has a higher murder rate than NYC, which gives a different perspective. Does it, though? The homicide rate in NYC has dropped hugely in the last couple of decades (an order of magnitude!); it's still much higher than London's when you look beyond a timeframe of two or three months. Meanwhile other large cities in the US, including LA, fare much worse than either London or NYC.