Trump vs London Mayor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smitty55

That's rather odd. I didn't realize that criminals in Britain didn't have guns.

Cheers

---

Not in the quantities that American ones do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossh

Still comes down to " people kill "

---

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention site above lists that in 2014 (most recent statistical year posted) that 10945 (29 per day) Americans died in gun homicides. That's 3.4 per 100k. There were 15809 homicides in total in 2014.

UK was a little harder to find but one site listed the gun homicides in the UK as 23 in 2013, 12 in 2012, 38 in 2011. That's an average of 24.3 per year.

That's .04, .02 and .06 per 100K.

And total homicides in the UK were: 653 in 2012, 765 in 2011 and 712 in 2010.
(2012 was not listed)

This whole thing shouldn't be about US v UK and/or gun control (the stats really don't reflect well on the US btw and should make you wonder why this is the direction some want to take it). It should be about dealing with terrorists and terrorism. Politicians (and the rest of us in the peanut gallery) can disagree about how to deal with terrorism/terrorists, but using an attack to take shots at another politician/country/city (even if he didn't live in a glass house) and then to also make it about something it isn't really demonstrates everything that's wrong with the lack of leadership being exhibited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

You are correct. With few exceptions they just stab or beat their victims to death. The violence offences people in the UK commit are the same as every where else. They just use different tools. The rate of violence is quite high in the UK.

---

Compared to where? Remember someone wanted to make this about gun control in the US.

If someone has some extra time to do the research,why not compare countries of almost equal population demographic instead of countries that have such a large disparity (UK-US). It may be far more interesting to compare Canada (pop:34M with 3% licensed ownership) and the UK (pop:33M with virtually 0% licensed ownership). I'll bet that will be an eye-opener.

Buy this guy a pint.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/sa...ndo-terrorism/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

If someone has some extra time to do the research,why not compare countries of almost equal population demographic instead of countries that have such a large disparity (UK-US). It may be far more interesting to compare Canada (pop:34M with 3% licensed ownership) and the UK (pop:33M with virtually 0% licensed ownership). I'll bet that will be an eye-opener.

---

Population of UK in 2015 , was 65 million where did you get the 33 million from ?

I don't understand this debate... Are Trump and those whom interpret his tweet as anti-gun gun control suggesting that if guns were more available in the UK there would have been fewer deaths and injuries as a result of the London Bridge attack?
Someone needs to explain that to me real slow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Population of UK in 2015 , was 65 million where did you get the 33 million from ?

---

Yep,I screwed that one up. My bad. It seems there's no way to draw an accurate comparison. Just an aside,though,the UK has a population double that of Canada jammed like sardines into an area less than the area the size of Ontario.

Comparing one country's gun deaths to another country is missing the point - the main issue is the freedom and right to defend yourself - if we're really worried about how many people are killed then why stop with guns - how about cars, how about drugs, how about alcohol - how about smoking - etc.

If guns were the final solution to stopping the three scumbags in London why weren't guns the initial solution to PREVENTING or MINIMIZING the carnage?

Missing the point is right. Imagine living in a country where a chunk of the population didn't feel the need to have to arm themselves to protect themselves.