Fatal Explosions reported at Ariana Grande concert in Manchester England.

[Hype job]

First off, please don't mimick me. It's childish and smug. I asked earlier (maybe not you) to cut the snark and jabs.

That said, ok, you have no data points to cite.

I have one data point, the unsuccessful muslim attack in Texas.

So I have proof my theory that an armed populace can foil terror attacks worked in the real world.

Try again. That one was not "foiled". Several innocents were wounded in that case.

Good grief, stop being so pedantic. His intention was to kill, he failed in that regard, I think it's safe to say it was 'foiled'.

[1bad65]

Of course in a country with more guns, more people murdered would be murdered by guns.
However removing guns from a country doesn't drop the overall homicide rate. The same amount of people are still being murdered, just with different weapons.

Ding! ding! ding!

This is EXACTLY what happened when Australia banned guns.

And on top of that, rapes, robberies, and assaults all went up.

Yup, criminals love unarmed victims.

[1bad65]

Good grief, stop being so pedantic. His intention was to kill, he failed in that regard, I think it's safe to say it was 'foiled'.

After he stabbed several people!!!

Call me nuts, but I'd prefer someone shooting a knife attacker from a safe distance as opposed to grappling with him unarmed and people getting stabbed.

Whats so horrible about law-abiding folk having the right to defend themselves with a firearm???

[Hype job]

After he stabbed several people!!!

Call me nuts, but I'd prefer someone shooting a knife attacker from a safe distance as opposed to grappling with him unarmed and people getting stabbed.

Whats so horrible about law-abiding folk having the right to defend themselves with a firearm???

They quelled the attack, period. His example was as good as your single example.

These types of questions are best answered with a meta analytic review of how effective being armed is in preventing these attacks. You could be right, but I'd like to see the weight of evidence.

[1bad65]

Good grief, stop being so pedantic. His intention was to kill, he failed in that regard, I think it's safe to say it was 'foiled'.

Ok, one terrorist foiled with multiple injuries.

Contrast that to Texas, where armed citizens killed multiple terrorists with only one minor injury.

So again I ask:
Which scenario ended up with a better result in terms of us innocent citizens?

[1bad65]

Tackle this one too, please:

Whats so horrible about law-abiding folk having the right to defend themselves with a firearm???

[Hype job]

Ok, one terrorist foiled with multiple injuries.

Contrast that to Texas, where armed citizens killed multiple terrorists with only one minor injury.

So again I ask:
Which scenario ended up with a better result in terms of us innocent citizens?

They're two singular examples. Not a very good scientific basis for forming any kind of conclusion.

Tackle this one too, please:

Whats so horrible about law-abiding folk having the right to defend themselves with a firearm???

In a country with limited access to firearms (such as the UK) legalising such weapons would result in a dramatic increase their circulation, which would improve their availability to all types of dangerous people who are experienced in combat (think ISIS fighters returning, there are many in the UK).

Most UK citizens 95+% have probably never touched a firearm, so they won't have any kind of proficiency for an effective defence.

All in all it would do more harm than good.

As for America, that's a whole different situation, you guys are a lot more experienced with firearms.

[1bad65]

You could be right, but I'd like to see the weight of evidence.

Thanks. Maybe we can find common ground. We do both want to stop muslim terror, right?

As I said earlier, we don't have a large data set, but in Texas we're perfect so far in foiling them.

Why not give more credence to policies like ours shown to work, even if the data set is small?

[Citizen Koba]

Of course in a country with more guns, more people murdered would be murdered by guns.
However removing guns from a country doesn't drop the overall homicide rate. The same amount of people are still being murdered, just with different weapons.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...d-States/Crime

Yeah, you're correct to bring that up, my post was kinda misleading in that aspect (not deliberately, I just didn't think it through). Hard to say from the stats exactly why, but definitely the gap closes. The overall homicide rate is about 4 times as great in the US than in the UK (rather than about 50x the rate of gun homicides). I think the argument goes that access to guns simply makes it a lot easier to kill people and makes murder more likely, especially in the spur of the moment, but there could be other reasons.

[1bad65]

They're two singular examples. Not a very good scientific basis for forming any kind of conclusion.

Correct, but you're arguing AGAINST the data (albeit a small set), while I'm arguing WITH the data.

I don't mean this rude ( I gather and interpret data for a living) but why are you arguing against what available data we do have?

In a country with limited access to firearms (such as the UK) legalising such weapons would result in a dramatic increase their circulation, which would improve their availability to all types of dangerous people who are experienced in combat (think ISIS fighters returning, there are many in the UK).

Valid point. I'll even concede that will likely happen.

But I believe that's a temporary problem and in the long run you'll be better off. Again, look at US cities with weak gun control laws vs cities with strict gun control laws. There isn't even a debate on that any longer.

Most UK citizens 95+% have probably never touched a firearm, so they won't have any kind of proficiency for an effective defence.

Another valid point.

That said, at least here in Texas, you have to take a gun course (which involves a live shooting test) to be licensed.

Are you opposed to a program like that, where you have to take an approved firearms course and prove proficiency first?

As for America, that's a whole different situation, you guys are a lot more experienced with firearms.

I understand, and that's indeed a variable we must consider.