Nope.

shitty argument bro, no evidence that it wouldn't be worse if there was no gun control.

As much as I hate gun control I really hate that poster

>>9860881

>crime rates pre-ban
>crime rates post-ban
>chavs stabbing people all day

>>9860892
We're talking a gap of 111 years here with plenty of shit happening in between unrelated to gun control.

that poster is pretty dumb...in 1900 modern weapons didn't mean submachine guns and assault rifles.

you can only do so much with a preWW1 automatic pistol or a Webley revolver.

Opposed to most gun control efforts as they are usually implemented in a stupid stupid way but that poster is silly.

>>9860897

I'm not a Brit I don't know what the fuck you guys have been doing.

You tell me.

>>9860904
they had automatic rifles and machine guns in 1900

>>9860904

This is a stupid argument. You're trying to say guns have evolved and are now more deadly.

If gun control at that point in time was totally unrestricted, you could have the exact same thing the military did. It would be possible to put together groups of hunters (Which would be much more common at that time) that would have the same training and firepower as the army at that point.

>>9860927
Of course back then it was a Madsen Gun or nothing if you wanted full auto and didn't have the funds to have a Peasant child pull your Maxim cart for you, or just didn't trust the little bastards.
because what self-respecting gentleman pulls his own machine gun around? It's like not having a Golf caddy!

>>9860945
>you could have the exact same thing the military did

Only in theory. When you bring real world issues into it the average man in 1900 couldn't afford a Webley, let alone a Maxim.

>>9860914
Not a brit either but it's obvious that shit changes in any industrial civilization over that period of time.

Demographic shifts, socioeconomic changes, cultural shifts, etc.

Also could lower class brits really easily get their hands on a gun in 1900? I'm guessing it was more upper class anyway in Britain that could afford handguns and rifles.

My issues with this poster is:

It implies Britian had no gun control at this time
>firearms had been controlled since 1824
That all Englishmen commonly carried handguns
>Private ownership was very low even when they were fully legal
And that all police now carry MP5's
>Police only carry them outside important buildings and locations such as Government buildings and Airports

>>9860970

What you'll find if you do enough digging is that crime and guns are pretty unrelated. If someone wants to hurt someone else bad enough, they're gonna find a way to do it.

>>9860970
well the decent Mil-Spec stuff anyway. A cheap shotgun or rifle tended to be more or less ubiquitous at this point pretty much everywhere else. I'd presume it would be no different in the UK. Pretty much 10/22s, hand me downs and Satuday night specials for everyone.

>>9860988
GASP! YOU MEAN OLEG VOLK IS A FAGGOT!? I'M SHOCKED!!!

>>9861011
Is that who made this? The guy with the borderline-creepy girl photos?

>In 85,000,000 BC any MAN could own any futuristic weapon, yet crime was non-existant but...
>...FUCKING DINORIDER WARS!!!!!!!

The brady campaighn should look to japan as the model firearm free nation

Short of the few thousand firearms in the hands of organized crime members who refuse to take civillian lives
They're are no mass murders or very much murder at all

>>9861034
here's the rest of his faggotry

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms

To be honest I'd be rather scared if I saw any policeman not apart of SWAT-like team walking around with an MP5. The show of force of a sub-machine gun is state intimidation of the unarmed populace IMO.

That poster is such bullshit. That's the type of Propaganda I'd expect from the Brady Campaign.

Also, we have less gun crime in a year than NYC has in a week. That's probably more due to a host of other factors than the gun control, but still.

But then again. We don't have the hardcore 'thugz' or gangbangers that you have. Most of our crims are of the stupid and or lazy persuasion, which probably helps just as much (if not more) as the lack of firearms.

>>9861536
It's a good thing they don't then. No pistols either. They don't really need them, nor (according to poles) do they want them or think they need them.

>>9861550
>poles

Balls, I meant polls.

>>9861546
you have less gun crime, because you have fewer guns, retard.

DO YOU HAVE LESS VIOLENT CRIME?!?

>>9861574
Well I don't know, I don't have the figures. And I don't know how to account for such things as different countries having different definitions of violent crime.

Why the all caps? You need to calm down, friend.

>>9861524
how about Australia?
We have pretty strong gun control. And yet getting an illegal firearm is so very simple. Just talk to the right people and you can have yourself a cheap gun for a small price.

>>9861574
>violent crime in America: hitting, stabbing, shooting
>violent crime in Britain: spitting, calling someone a cunt, hitting, stabbing, shooting

You see when you compare statistics gathered from different sources by different people who define things differently to others, you end up with unreliable data.

Violent crime isn't so bad in Britain, and it's not so bad in America. Implying availability to weapons affects crime in any way is retarded as anon mentioned above.

Homicide rate=Non vague definition.

>>9861676
>implying the quality of data taken from Mexico is going to be the same as that taken from Britain
>implying certain states or areas don't count suicide as homicide whereas others do

>>9861663
>Violent crime isn't so bad in Britain, and it's not so bad in America
This is a fact. There were 1,246,248 murders, rapes, burglaries, and aggravated assaults in the US in 2010.
It really sounds like a whole bunch, which it is.
Then when you look at see the population of the US is 308,745,538, you see this "violent crime" happens to .4% of the US.
BTW, .0048% of the US population was murdered in 2010. (14,748), while .5% of the US population died from cancer (1,529,560)
You are 103x more likely to die of cancer than to be murdered in the US.

>>9861713
>Then when you look at see
Then when you look and see
I herped, then I derped.

>>9861716
>herping and derping at simple typo's
stay classy douchebag

>>9860862
Considering its stated purpose was to reduce the posibillity of crimes comitted with LEGALLY held weapons, yes.

>>9861713
hot damn, we need to ban cancer.

>>9860988
Also the MP5s are MP5SFs which are semi only.

>>9861692
>implying the quality of data taken from Mexico is going to be the same as that taken from Britain
It is, homicide is not difficult to record, both countries keep periodic check on their citizens.

>implying certain states or areas don't count suicide as homicide whereas others do
No country views suicide as homicide. Suicide has never been or ever will be consider homicide.
But if it makes you feel better.
<

>>9861746
Obesity and the complications that come along with it kill more people every year than all cancers combined.
Heart disease, stroke, falling injuries, heart attacks, depression, diabetes etc.
If such a large percentage of our population wasn't obese then health care and insurance costs would be substantially lower. Why write over 1,500 pages of health care reform when it doesn't even begin to address one of the biggest causes of health care cost? Not to mention the fact that many cancers can be avoided by living a healthy life style.

We need to enact legislation making obesity illegal immediately.
Think of the children!

>>9861775
Even more interesting is that homicide is the #15 cause of death in the US for 2010.
Parkinson's disease was #14.
http://www.howtolivealongerlife.com/2009/07/leading-causes-of-death-in-us.html

>>9861775
There's already a tax on foods containing fat (milk, butter, cheese etc) in Denmark.

>>9861789
I can't think of many off the top of my head that don't contain fat, so basically it's a tax on food right?

>>9861794
Maybe he meant saturated fat.

>>9861794
Correct.

>>9861794
It's probably certain types of fat. Fat is an important part of your diet.....the right fats that is.

Olive oil is a great example. Loaded with fats, but is extremely healthy. It's "good" fat.

>>9861536
> The show of force of a sub-machine gun is state intimidation of the unarmed populace IMO.
Except they're only used around airports and other places where foreigners go.

>>9861804
This. Only place you really see them is in London or when you're flying off somewhere.

>>9861818
and london is full of foreigners,probably more foreigners than british people there.

>>9861811
>I would like a gun for protection but I know if they where legal the uk would end up being full of "blood "crip" wannabes

This. I would trust only a small number of people in the UK to carry around a pistol for protection. There are way too many people with clean enough records that would be able to get a gun but act like a total ass with it.

In the states, it's different, people there grow up around guns and it's not such a huge deal if someone has one. In Britain for 99% of people, their only exposure to guns is through the media, they develop a deformed view of guns and although they may not be criminals, they would be utter menaces if they were allowed to carry one.

That being said, I think it should still be legal to own and carry one for self defense but make it so that total idiots can't get hold of one for carry.

>>9861811

>Normal people would get into arguments and just think fuck this and go home and get there legal gun and go back out and shoot who ever they have been arguing with.

No, that wouldn't happen. That's the same argument the Brady faggots try to use here. They say that if everybody owns a gun, the streets will run red with blood, yet gun laws keep getting more and more lax here, and gun crime is dropping.

>>9861857
The only people in the UK who would be interested in owning firearms if the laws were much laxer are:
1) The upper classes, who already own guns for hunting / shooting clays
2) Military nerds, a very small minority
3) Criminals.
In the US, things like CCW work to disuade crime because people actually own guns. I'm not convinced, personally, that the same would happen in the UK.

>>9861872
Tis a shame that the sport is dying in Britain. Go to a gun show and the average age will be 50+. Young kids either aren't aware that you can own a gun or would rather play cowwa doody.

What are the British laws on carrying a concealed firearm if you have a license for it?

>>9862111

you can't. no licence for cc and no carrying of firearms openly in public. also no pistols. you could carry a gun in a case, unloaded but still expect to get strange rooms and the local firearms team paying you a visit and sticking an mp5 in your face.

>>9862111
What are you going to conceal?

>>9862111
The only legal way to carry a firearm in the UK is barrel broken, tucked under your arm while wearing a flatcap and smoking a pipe.

not creeping, not at all

>>9862115
>you can't.
You can, if you have a VERY good reason. As in, you're a politician who has had a credible death threat.

>>9862121
A pistol. Pistols aren't banned in the UK, just restricted. Section 5 covers, self-loading rifles, automatics, pistols and rocket launchers. You just need to have a VERY good reason to own one.

>>9862115
>no carrying of firearms openly in public.
Meh, I walk through my village every sunday with a shotgun or AR on my back. No-one cares.

Doing the same thing in a town or city however...

I still have no idea why the brits never thought of doing something like this, but with a pistol or something to that effect.

>>9862146
What? Carry a gun in a case?

What a novel idea...

I don't give two shits about what Brits do with guns overseas. Doesn't affect me in the slightest. However, one thing has been bothering me.


Where the FUCKING HELL did these assholes come from, and what are you people doing to ensure that they don't last another generation?

>>9862151
Well I saw one guy said you could have it in a case but it has to be unloaded. That is a picture of a suitcase gun you could just have it concealed under a layer to make it look like a normal briefcase, then if you need to use it just point and squeze the triger on the handle.

>>9862157
Newcastle and Middlesbrough, where they were called charvas.

their prototypes have been around for 30 years.

>>9862139
>A pistol. Pistols aren't banned in the UK, just restricted

The office of the home secretary themselves have to give you a license. Unless you're a Special Branch agent or work for MI5 you aren't getting one

>>9862157
Answer to question one: they came from the welfare estates.
Answer to question 2: They have to rely on the National Health Service for healthcare.

>>9862159
But that's still illegal. You might as well just carry a pistol and not be useless.

>>9862166
>>9860862
where did these pics come from?

>>9862157
Chavs are a laughing stock. The worst thing they do is stab each other and set fire to dustbins.

>>9862162
>you aren't getting one
No shit. Doesn't mean they're banned, however.

>>9862180
the imagination of idiots who make up such pictures thinking that they're making insughtful comments on countries they probably have never set foot in....

>>9862186
It means they're banned for the general population

>>9862192
Technically no. Although in essence, you're right.

>>9862202
>>9862186
unless its a blackpowder muzzle loader, in the UK, you arent getting a handgun, its as simple as that. Section 5 licenses are pretty much nonexistent outside of government use, there is virtually no way to own and use them legally.

>>9862213
>unless its a blackpowder muzzle loader
Or an LBP, or an LBR, or a black powder revolver.

Or you live in NI. Or in the IoM (although technically, that isn't part of the UK, but it pretty much is).

But yeah, you're right.

>>9862115
There's like 3 people left who can carry them because they had personal protection certificates issued before it became not a good reason.

But by now they are probably more concerned about a power outage shutting off their life support machines in the night.

>>9862213
Section 1 for 2 shot revolvers for humane dispatch.

Personally I'd rather have a single shot Contender than be fiddling around with chamber alignment though.

>>9862243
Almost forgot, smoothbore .410 pistols (single/double barrel) for interior pest control.

>>9862232
>black powder revolver

Does that mean Brits could defend themselves against chavs and eventual angry muslims, with Dragoons and the like?

That'd be classy as hell.

>>9862232
>black powder revolver
does this include black powder metallic cartridges?

>>9862282
nope. cap and ball only.

>>9862294
what a shame. shooting chavs with a Webley Mark I would be classy as hell.

>>9862299

There's plenty of classy cap-and-ball revolvers out there.
In face, every blackpowder revolver I've ever seen is classy as hell.

As for brit law, do replicas count?

>>9862312
>As for brit law, do replicas count?
yup.

>>9861801
brb, gonna drink a glass of olive oil now, then soak my toast in moar olive oil.

>>9862325
welcome to spain.

Amerifat speaking but from my view probably on some level gun control has reduced firearm deaths and generally found the intent of the nanny lawmakers.I loved shooting as kid , i shot on a high school rifle team , i love shooting in the Gurad and i love semi auto rifles i can buy with only a simple background check.I enjoy that freedom, those kind of draconian laws are just not worth even if you can pull stats out of your ass.
Look anything can kill you given enough time.

GUN CRIME!!!

I never understood that. I mean, are there vehicle crimes? Or penis crimes? or knife crimes?

>>9862366
>vehicle crimes
Vehicular homicide, yes.

>penis crimes
Rape, public exposure, lewd conduct, yes

>knife crimes
ABH, GBH, homicide, yes

>>9862375
But how often are they referred to as such? and not just as "violent crime"

>>9862390
Knife crime is a very much used word (in the UK at least) the other aren't focused on as much.

>>9862390

Things like rape, molestation, and minor harassment by a drunk guy at a bar have a tendency to be lumped into the concept of "sexual assault" or "sexual violence".

Some forms of media even go out of their way to describe this entire genera of crime as "the war on women".

The term "knife crime" is used a fuck load in the UK. So much that one can not even buy utensils in a store without showing ID. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Vehicular homicide is used less often in regards to "omg he had a car?" but this is due to the understanding that automobiles are vital to a modern economy in most of society, and as such the lack of controversy of being seen with a car in public without concealing it with a tarp.

Point is, its not just guns, its just that people who vote, mainly in the UK and other Queen-adhering states, have a tendency to be paranoid as fuck about common citizens having rights.

>>9861775
>Shark Attack
>One
Man, it would suck to be him.