[Boudica]

I'm sure several of us have heard about Trumps recent speech in Dallas to the NRA. Lots of controversy about comparing regions/countries with strict gun laws and what might be different about their situations if they allowed guns. One of the places mentioned was London. British crime rates are pretty high for robbery, assault etc. London has disproportionately higher knife crime (homicides, assaults etc) than other places in the UK.

It was implied the issues with knife crime, and knife related deaths, are related to gun control laws in London. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. I found it a strange comparison to make, given the differences in the weapons and nature of the crimes.

I came across this article, a clearly biased response from a senior London surgeon from the hospital Trump mentioned in his speech. It sums up some of the controversy about Trumps comments and how some people have interpreted his comments. Also, it does provide some links to crime statistics and related information (though obviously all posted by the BBC).

[Dismas]

People don't blame cars when there are accidents, but they blame guns when there is a shooting. Both countries have a propensity for violence and theft, regardless of what inanimate objects we allow civilians to possess. Some people would rather ban a weapon, than admit that we have a serious problem with the criminally-minded or the mentally-ill.

Solving problems of criminal behavior or mental illness would be more efficient than trying to ban the 300+ million firearms that are currently owned here (implying it would even be possible to seize them all). Also worth mentioning, but it's generally accepted that areas have more crime/violence if they are suffering socioeconomically.

[Boudica]

People don't blame cars when there are accidents, but they blame guns when there is a shooting. Both countries have a propensity for violence and theft, regardless of what inanimate objects we allow civilians to possess. Some people would rather ban a weapon, than admit that we have a serious problem with the criminally-minded or the mentally-ill.

Solving problems of criminal behavior or mental illness would be more efficient than trying to ban the 300+ million firearms that are currently owned here (implying it would even be possible to seize them all). Also worth mentioning, but it's generally accepted that areas have more crime/violence if they are suffering socioeconomically.

I guess your response was more of a general response to people wanting more gun restrictions, but I do agree. Removing the object doesn't always solve the problem. I think they difference for London, is that knife stabbings are generally less fatal than gunshot wounds. So from the perspective of removing gun restrictions, that wouldn't be favoured from that viewpoint. But I think looking at the root cause of violence, as opposed to the tool used, while more difficult, may be more effective.

[mothered]

Simply put, It's "what you do with the gun", and not what the gun can do. In my views, It's the Intention(s) of a given Individual that should be (more so) addressed.

For example, there may be thousands of Individuals each armed with guns, knives and other weaponry with no malicious Intent whatsoever- solely hobbyists. Or there could be a single person who's just purchased a gun with the Intention to kill. Looking at the comparison, the equation Is pretty simple.

[Boudica]

Simply put, It's "what you do with the gun", and not what the gun can do. In my views, It's the Intention(s) of a given Individual that should be (more so) addressed.

For example, there may be thousands of Individuals each armed with guns, knives and other weaponry with no malicious Intent whatsoever- solely hobbyists. Or there could be a single person who's just purchased a gun with the Intention to kill. Looking at the comparison, the equation Is pretty simple.

I completely agree. People aren't enabled by the gun per se, they are enabled by what they choose to do.

[mothered]

Simply put, It's "what you do with the gun", and not what the gun can do. In my views, It's the Intention(s) of a given Individual that should be (more so) addressed.

For example, there may be thousands of Individuals each armed with guns, knives and other weaponry with no malicious Intent whatsoever- solely hobbyists. Or there could be a single person who's just purchased a gun with the Intention to kill. Looking at the comparison, the equation Is pretty simple.

I completely agree. People aren't enabled by the gun per se, they are enabled by what they choose to do.

Although It's an arduous task, If the allocation of guns can be assessed and assigned on a case-by-case basis based on both the merit and background of the Individuals Involved, perhaps It may alleviate Issues to some degree.

[Boudica]

Simply put, It's "what you do with the gun", and not what the gun can do. In my views, It's the Intention(s) of a given Individual that should be (more so) addressed.

For example, there may be thousands of Individuals each armed with guns, knives and other weaponry with no malicious Intent whatsoever- solely hobbyists. Or there could be a single person who's just purchased a gun with the Intention to kill. Looking at the comparison, the equation Is pretty simple.

I completely agree. People aren't enabled by the gun per se, they are enabled by what they choose to do.

Although It's an arduous task, If the allocation of guns can be assessed and assigned on a case-by-case basis based on both the merit and background of the Individuals Involved, perhaps It may alleviate Issues to some degree.

I would agree. Though, nobody wants to pay for that process and the monitoring involved.

[Blink]

Nah, let's just ban knives too. And water, don't want people drowning now, do we

My opinion with guns is kind-of in between, restricted in some ways (ability of the gun, and record of the user) but not outright banned.

[Boudica]

Nah, let's just ban knives too. And water, don't want people drowning now, do we

My opinion with guns is kind-of in between, restricted in some ways (ability of the gun, and record of the user) but not outright banned.

Ha, that was a great way to put it. I do think it would be pointless to bring gun laws into the situation with London (I am saying this having met individuals who hang out in gangs with guns, in the shitty areas of London). I do believe in trying to treat the cause of violence over spending time and money on legislation for changing access to weapons. They will always find another weapon.

[Qlova]

The majority of this sort of crime mentioned is gang related and the majority of gangs also have firearms. People from outside of the UK believe that just because firearms are illegal, people don't have them, when actually this is completely wrong. There are a lot of shootings across the UK, even where I live up north and I wouldn't say I live in a terrible area, but I know people who carry knives and guns.

Making them legal would make them easier to be obtained and the problem would just spiral and would get out of control, like it has in the states. Gang related crime would worsen, therefore having a knock on effect and causing an increase in robberies, assaults etc.


@"Dismas" People don't blame cars when there are accidents, but they blame guns when there is a shooting.

Cars are made to drive. Guns are made to kill.

Also, trying to fix millions of "mentally ill" minds is definitely a harder task than restricting gun laws.