• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

And yet you quoted your 'overall crime rates' so you still have crime. Huh. Bummer.

And again avoid admitting that your crime is concentrated in certain areas, not all areas of the UK. You were asked a direct question and again...had to resort to denials instead of answering.

As this thread is about initially about firearms I've cited sources from the US .UK and other international as comparators. If you don't like them thats too bad because what they demonstrate is undeniable

More guns = More death
 
So you cant answer my question about personal safety in a rural area either?

I live in a rural area too but unlike you I do not live in grossly exaggerated terror because I do

You just say it's unsafe? It would be no different in a city or suburb.

But you've repeated ad nauseam throughout this thread that your gun crime is concetrated in deprived inner city areas but now you are saying it isn't ? You can't have it both ways

The police dont magically appear.....women are attacked in their homes....in the UK and in the US.

Our women certainly don't indulge the paranoid fears you do, which is odd given all the way through this thread its been claimed the UK is that much more lawless than the US

You didnt offer any suggestions for me to protect myself against multiple attackers in my home at nite....why not?
I didn't offer you any suggestions because the exaggerated fear of this happening is I suspect one entirely of your own making

Again, you cant answer actual real life questions, all you can do is misinterpret statistics.

No I merely present statistics. I'm more than happy to let you do any subsequent 'misinterpreting' of them a suits your agenda
 
Please quote that. I never said it or implied. Quote where I did so. You attempt to insult again when the proof you are wrong is bolded in the previous response.

The fauxrage is palpable.

I guess you're reversing your position now, and think mandatory training will be helpful in reducing accidents.
 
Clearly nobody wanted to read any of this but it at least has some relevence to the OP

The United States accounts for nearly 75 percent of all children murdered in the developed world. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the United States are 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations.

Children from states where firearms are prevalent suffer from significantly higher rates of homicide, even after accounting for poverty, education, and urbanization.

A recent meta-analysis revealed that easy access to firearms doubled the risk of homicide and tripled the risk for suicide among all household members. Family violence is also much more likely to be lethal in homes where a firearm is present, placing children especially in danger.

Crucially, these deaths are not offset by defensive gun use. As one study found, for every time a gun is used legally in self-defense at home, there are “four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” A study of adolescents in California found that there were 13 times as many threatening as self-defensive uses of guns. Of the defensive encounters, many arose in confrontations that became hostile because of the presence of a firearm.


In terms of accidental fatalities, American children younger than 15 are nine times more likely to die by a gun accident than those in the rest of the developed world.

In the developed world, 87 percent of children younger than 14 killed by firearms live in the United States. More American children and teenagers died from gunfire in 2010—a single year—than U.S. troops in Afghanistan since 2001.


Gun deaths in children: Statistics show firearms endanger kids despite NRA safety programs.

Not a lot more to add there really
 
The fauxrage is palpable.

I guess you're reversing your position now, and think mandatory training will be helpful in reducing accidents.

So, you still look like a liar and didnt learn anything from your embarrassing experience with Capt. Courtesy.

Noted. By everyone else as well, since my words and meaning are written clearly.

Silly you, pretending on the Internetz. No worries...just see my signature below, in green.
 
So, you still look like a liar and didnt learn anything from your embarrassing experience with Capt. Courtesy.

Noted. By everyone else as well, since my words and meaning are written clearly.

Silly you, pretending on the Internetz. No worries...just see my signature below, in green.

Can't see it. On a phone.

But your tortuous parsing is pretty clear to everyone not invested in your gun fetish.
 
Can't see it. On a phone.

But your tortuous parsing is pretty clear to everyone not invested in your gun fetish.

Feel free to make that pretty clear by posting where I did so. You've been asked several times, and avoided it.

Put up or shut up, as they say. I mean, you should be able to prove your statements, correct?
 
Feel free to make that pretty clear by posting where I did so. You've been asked several times, and avoided it.

Put up or shut up, as they say. I mean, you should be able to prove your statements, correct?

So mandatory training won't help reduce accidents, right?
 
Still falsely accusing and lying, eh?

Like I said...prove it. Wouldnt that just be simpler for you?

Like I said, on a phone. I'm not searching for posts.

So what's your position then? Mandatory training is not good? Good? Useful? Not useful? A threat to FREEDOMS! ?
 
Like I said, on a phone. I'm not searching for posts.

So what's your position then? Mandatory training is not good? Good? Useful? Not useful? A threat to FREEDOMS! ?

You're asking me? Now? After the accusations? LOL Hey, it's all written out for you.

So mandatory training won't help reduce accidents, right?

You claim I think this. You must remember something...let's see it. (When you can of course)
 
You're asking me? Now? After the accusations? LOL Hey, it's all written out for you.



You claim I think this. You must remember something...let's see it. (When you can of course)

So tell us. What do you think? Odd that you are actively evading that.....
 
So tell us. What do you think? Odd that you are actively evading that.....

It's all here. Written out. Dont you remember? You based your accusations on it. I even reposted it a page or two back, with bolding, post 418....so your attempts to claim I'm evading it are as ridiculous as the original accusations.

You're embarrassing yourself, again. An apology would have been more dignified. Blatant lying should not stand where people are trying to have constructive discussions.
 
It's all here. Written out. Dont you remember? You based your accusations on it. I even reposted it a page or two back, with bolding, post 418....so your attempts to claim I'm evading it are as ridiculous as the original accusations.

You're embarrassing yourself, again. An apology would have been more dignified. Blatant lying should not stand where people are trying to have constructive discussions.

You can't actually say. I understand.
 
You can't actually say. I understand.

I said it clearly in post 418.

Is there some reason you are unable to comprehend and address that?

Your attempt to make me jump thru hoops to avoid further embarrassment is juvenile and transparent.

Your inability to address my existing posts is noted. As is your inability to prove your own accusations.
 
I said it clearly in post 418.

Is there some reason you are unable to comprehend and address that?

Your attempt to make me jump thru hoops to avoid further embarrassment is juvenile and transparent.

Your inability to address my existing posts is noted. As is your inability to prove your own accusations.

Ah. I see. You said there is no evidence training is lacking, so why would one make it mandatory?

Well there's a concept.

I refer you to.....the OP.
 
Ah. I see. You said there is no evidence training is lacking, so why would one make it mandatory?

Well there's a concept.

I refer you to.....the OP.


LOLOL.....the toddler wasnt trained?

The parents were careless, that's not 'training.'

A cop here did the same thing, left his gun where son picked it up and killed his sister. Was the cop not 'trained?'

So correct, there's no evidence that training is lacking so why make it mandatory, force it on people if they already get it on their own?
 
According to your own FBI just under 1% of all firearm fatalities are civilian defensive shootings. The other 99% pay a very high price indeed for such 'security'

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

I love how you tried to skew the results by saying "fatalities" as if everyone shot dies. I guess you don't care about those people who suffer a home invasion and use their firearm, and wound or simply scare off an intruder. Lol.

Oh and yes the source is wiki, but it has all the common sources discussed briefly (the common and potentially inaccurate Kleck study and the opposite and biased Violence Police Center, known for their anti gun agenda, on the other). But all numbers are still higher than the murder rate.

And you still don't address the declining murder rate in America. With a growing gun market.
 
Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love how you tried to skew the results by saying "fatalities" as if everyone shot dies.

I could have skewed them a lot worse given 100,000 people per annum in the US are shot yet don't die

I guess you don't care about those people who suffer a home invasion and use their firearm, and wound or simply scare off an intruder. Lol.

According to your own FBI stats a mere 284 actually did so in 2013. This is some 18 times fewer then those killed in domestic disputes where a firearm was involved

And you still don't address the declining murder rate in America. With a growing gun market.

Its very much a relative thing. We have declining murder rates in the UK too but they are still 5 times less then yours because firearms were not involved
 
Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

Toddler was a good shot, too bad the parents were stupid enough to leave wife's purse with a loaded gun in it for the kid to reach.

More irresponsibility from gun owners.

Authorities have taken their child away from them for the time being, but maybe too late.

In the future, all guns will have fingerprint recognition so only the licensed user can operate it.
 
Back
Top Bottom