You still have not answered my question. When someone with a gun stops a crime and sees no need to get the police involved, how is Harvard to know about that event?
What difference does your opinion make? It's to prevent this insanity that we have the second amendment. That doesn't make any sense. We have gun regulations.
so you have to go through a psych eval before you ask Mommy for permission. Thank God for the second amendment. so he's not allowed to defend himself ever again? What a parade dead law at a ****ed up system that is so he's charged with murder because he's not allowed to defend himself. That's ****ed. So your government says get ****ed if someone tries to rob you and you're going to be convicted of murder if you try to stop them. That's awful. This should be a component of great national shame for you. No it's not complicated, it's just terrible.
There was one instance one of these people were saying that someone turned on a light and it frightened the burglar away it only frightened the burglar away because the possibility that that person who turned on that light had a gun and it turns out they did. That possibility doesn't exist if it isn't a possibility I think it was nonnie, he actually tried to convince me that burglars are afraid of light. Lol
Sounds like you have to bow to your government and let them decide what can and can't be taken from you. That's messed up
Then it didn't happen, in the same way as discussed before in the thread, the poster believes the violent crime didn't happen because they fought them off.
Read up on the English civil war. And correct, the colonies in America (many that were British), were not happy in world events and how they were being governed by more British taxation. So the war of independence broke out, and as you will know from history class, the colonies were on the verge of defeat, until the French came to the colony's aid. Here's a statue in Paris when I was on holiday - This was in July 2020. I thought, why the reference to America's independence? So when I looked into it, the French won America's independence. Then it gets me thinking, why do Americans fail to mention this, or is America's education system poor?
No, they cannot deny you a shotgun, as I have mentioned before, that is up to you. I believe if you're a felon in America, you can't own a gun. In the UK, if you take the government to court, you will get a fair trial. The government have lost many cases. If only Americans would make an effort to update their knowledge beyond their doorstep, rather than trying to be the expert on all countries. Only 20% of Americans own a passport, I suggest they all get one and go visit the world instead of spouting the same rhetoric.
yeah but if you used one to defend yourself you wouldn't get charged with murder. Felon in possession of a firearm yeah. you just got finished telling me how a man got convicted for murder for disobeying a gun law. That's the farthest thing possible from Fair. This entire thread is about you bossing around Americans cuz if you had the first clue about what you were talking about. You rented raved about common sense but kept posting things that were absolutely devoid of common Sense. You need to look at the mirror.
The American education system fails to mention it because it's false. Our education system is poor because it doesn't stroke your ego?
It’s actually not debunked which I’ve shown you several times. The studies you claim debunk that body of research are based on much smaller data sets and done years before the main data sets confirming Klecks work was available. Klecks high end number of 2.5 million is certainly too high—which Kleck revised in subsequent publications. His revised numbers are confirmed by CDC data released AFTER the Hemenway study in 1997 and by results of the 2021 National Firearms Survey. If you have something from Hemenway or anyone else “debunking” the huge data sets from the CDC and the National Firearms Survey by all means present the evidence. But stop pretending one researcher’s opinion (Hemenway did not invalidate Klecks work with a study, just provided a critique and his opinion) from 25 years ago is meaningful today.
The above is disinformation. Here is the correct information. https://www.gov.uk/shotgun-and-firearm-certificates The prohibitions for those with criminal records are similar to those in the US. https://unlock.org.uk/advice/firearms-licence-holder/ How is this relevant? I suggest people in the UK educate themselves on the law in their own country. Might save what shred of credibility they may have left on PF. Probably not, but maybe. It’s pretty well toast at this point. Is ignorance of UK and US law a result of your travels or something else? I’m assuming you have a passport, why are your posts full of disinformation and misinformation?
Thanks for the video. It’s a pretty good idea. My only critique would be since the annual expenditure on subsidies is capped annually, those who are poverty line or below get priority over wealthier individuals. Those in poverty are at most risk from firearm death as well as least able to afford security. Money should be targeted to those most at risk.
How often do you think people get burglars in the UK with guns?? You'll probably have more chance getting struck by lightning 16 times than rely on the gun protection fallacy. Tony Martin broke the law, twice. He held a shotgun without a valid certificate, and he used unreasonable force with it. What would he sue the government over? So to say it wasn't fair, maybe you're misunderstanding the subject. It's not bossing around, it's called regulation, just like how you are regulated on food, vehicles, Health & Safety at work, crossing the road, building code etc.. If you were the only one on the planet, knock your pan in, eat what you want in any manner you wish to cook and store food, run across any road in any direction, build a poor structural house, be as dangerous as you want at height and with power tools etc.. But in the real world we all share the planet, so why not be responsible and safe in society because there are others, not just you. So unfortunately, not everyone is as fantastic as you, idiots warrant regulations on food, vehicles, work, buildings etc.. Just because you deem yourself safe, doesn't mean everyone is, and some aren't. So because of this, you comply with a driver's licence. A driver's licence hopefully reduces the number of idiots on the road, and it provides a legal framework to prosecute someone driving with no or a suspended licence. A gun licence tries to reduce the unsuitable owning a shotgun/firearm, it creates a legal framework to prosecute those who get it wrong. If you are a safe person with a clean background, then you have no worries. In fact, you should have peace of mind knowing those with an unsuitable background are denied a licence. The legal framework means, those gun shops selling to someone without a licence will lose their livelihood etc.. And as the decades go on, buy back programs carry on, cultural orientation to guns change just like since the English civil war, shops and police take gun regulation seriously, the 2nd Amendment is scrapped, safe Americans can enjoy guns with the vast majority of gun incidents eliminated, just like in the UK, Australia etc..
Misinformation, you just merely made reference to the the certificates, that means you can't legally obtain a shotgun or firearm without the appropriate paperwork. When I owned shotguns and went through the procedure, the Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) dutifully came to my address to interview me, and then came back to check that I had the appropriate cabinets secured to the wall. I had to sign the certificate Infront of him. In casual chat, he told me that they have to have a reason to refuse my shotgun application, hence why they check your police record background, your medical and driving records, and then the referee you give. They interview those over 18 at your address as well. If everything is clear, the FEO said they issue a certificate because if I appealed and they didn't have a reason to refuse the shotgun licence, they would lose in a court of law. In addition to that, you need to check legislation where the police have to demonstrate they applied one of the five reasons if they wish to remove a firearm. Or again, they will lose in a court of law. So I suggest proper research and a good starting point is, listen to those who live in those countries and ask them questions. It was a pleasure correcting the misinformation someone supplied you.
Your statement posted here again is disinformation. Bold is to help your comprehension. The statement in bold is disinformation. I provided the correct information from YOUR GOVERNMENT. Nobody supplied disinformation except yourself and it’s definitely disinformation as your GOVERNMENT’S sources show. You most assuredly CAN be denied a shotgun.
Yet again, you are incorrect and continue to spread misinformation. You can be denied because you failed the police background check, your medical records gives concern, there's some serious offence on your driving record, and your referee backfired on you. The police need a reason not to issue you with a shot gun certificate. So if everything checks out they MUST authorise a certificate. They just can't deny you because they decided to, they have to comply with the acts of law, and thus, a challenge in the courts would make them lose. With a firearm (long barrel revolver, rifle, Uzi rimfire etc. ) then you must have a good reason, in addition to supplying two referees, having a clean police record, and adequate medical and driving history. So yet again, you are totally wrong and I've educated you twice now. For some reason, it doesn't seem to be sinking in with you. The firearm act points out that you must apply for and have a valid certificate to purchase a shotgun and firearm. Speak to a British FEO to glee all the information you want/need. Personally, I've not known of anyone being denied a certificate, although I do believe some get denied each year throughout the country. So do try to carry on with disinformation, but you have been corrected twice. All I can do is simply refer you to this post if your feet keep stamping on this issue.
I’ve not provided ANY disinformation. Every piece of information I’ve provided came directly from YOUR GOVERNMENT. Please be specific and show where your government is incorrect. Your statement below is INCORRECT. If you will read my posts you will find I haven’t provided any information or opinions. I simply quoted YOUR GOVERNMENT to show your claim one can’t be denied a shotgun is incorrect.
Yet again, you are incorrect and continue to spread misinformation. You can be denied because you failed the police background check, your medical records gives concern, there's some serious offence on your driving record, and your referee backfired on you. The police need a reason not to issue you with a shot gun certificate. So if everything checks out they MUST authorise a certificate. They just can't deny you because they decided to, they have to comply with the acts of law, and thus, a challenge in the courts would make them lose. With a firearm (long barrel revolver, rifle, Uzi rimfire etc. ) then you must have a good reason, in addition to supplying two referees, having a clean police record, and adequate medical and driving history. So yet again, you are totally wrong and I've educated you three times now. For some reason, it doesn't seem to be sinking in with you. The firearm act points out that you must apply for and have a valid certificate to purchase a shotgun and firearm. Speak to a British FEO to glee all the information you want/need. Personally, I've not known of anyone being denied a certificate, although I do believe some get denied each year throughout the country. So do try to carry on with disinformation, but you have been corrected three times All I can do is simply refer you to this post if your feet keep stamping on this issue.
@557 twisting and repeating will simply keep you getting diverted to my already said post. I live in the UK, I know the law, I've experienced the law, and I inform others free of charge to help their knowledge.
Your country charged a guy convicted him for murder he didn't commit murder what he did was break a gun law you should charge them with that. I'm glad we don't do that crap here.
