Re: Wasn't stupid.
"Any fool can draw a straight line between two points. Comparing the US and UK does not show any meaningful correlation"
It does, actually. as the gun lobby in the US (by which I mean those who cannot see beyond the 2nd amendment, not merely the NRA etc) use their devotion to the gun to justify why carrying the things is vital to keep themselves safe, frequently using false data (such as knife crime) from the UK to support their notions. Pointing out that mass shootings (2 or more dead) in the US, land of massive civilian gun ownership, are so commonplace they barely make the news and comparing it to an example I know well - the place I live - is not foolish or unthinking, despite your attempts to sound superior and throw little insults at me - how old are you for gods sake?
But lets look at your assertion that the UK and it relative homicide rate in Europe - in 2015 the UK had 1.1 murders per 100000 people. France had 1.31/100000, Sweden 1.08/100000, Hungary 1.61/100000, etc etc. So, on the surface, your claim that licenced gun ownership doesn't much affect murder rates looks reasonable. Now lets look at gun related deaths, shall we? The UK had 0.02 gun homicides per 100000 people in 2015, Denmark (since you brought it up) had 0.18/100000 (that's nine times higher than the UK) Belgium 0.25/100000 (12.5 times higher), France 0.12/100000 (6 times), etc etc.
Amazingly, it appears that limiting public access to guns DOES severely limit the number of gun related deaths. Who would have thought it?
You are just another sad apologist for gun ownership, sorry. Yes, mass shootings in the UK (ignoring the psychos in NI) have always been relatively rare, thankfully, yet they did happen. What Dunblane did was create a massive public revulsion for handguns, and as a consequence that kind of thing hasnt happened since. You miss pointing your handgun at a target that much? I used to shoot pistols too, I dont miss them that much - archery has debatably more skill in any case.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
