I like the Swiss’ attitude towards guns in private homes :) http://youtu.be/0ufkwTM82e4 , they prove out the adage that ‘an armed society is a polite society’….

  • Dan

    The United States owns 270 million firearms killing 9,146 people in 2007.

    England and Wales owns 3.4 million firearms killing just 41 people in 2007.

    (Source: UNODC & Small arms survey 2007)

    Firearm homicides have halved in the UK since the 1997 handgun ban:


    The United States (9,246) ranks alongside Brazil (34,678), Columbia (12,539), Mexico (11,309), Venezuela (11,115) and South Africa (8,319) in the number of annual firearm homicides in 2007.

    It is said that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’.


    ‘People with guns kill people’.

    • The Engineer’s Daughter

      Then why didn’t homicides drop following the 1997 ban?

    • http://www.theamericanengineer.com/ Charity

      None of the points you make are relevant to the information on this page. If “people with guns kill people” then how come homicides in England went up after they took away the guns? How come in America less that 1% of concealed carry licence holders actually commit a crime? How was there ever even war or murder before guns were invented?

      You are so disconnected from reality. If you keep trolling and lying you will be blocked.

      • Dan

        I don’t troll and I don’t lie. However if you see disagreeing with you as some sort of crime that’s amatter for your own conscience.

        You can only relate the efficacy of banning certain firearms to statistics that relate directly to firearms and not draw in other unrelated numbers.

        Banning hand guns in the UK has led to a 50% reduction in firearm
        homicides. The numbers directly relating to that fact verify it.

        • Dan

          You stated in your headline that ‘Harold Shipman’s homicides have been omitted…’.

          They have NOT been omitted and I would ask you to clarify and correct the misleading bias implied in your statement for the sake of accuracy and honesty.

          Statement from the National Archives: ‘Caution is needed when looking at homicide trend figures, primarily because they are based on the year in which offences are RECORDED BY THE POLICE rather than the year in which the incidents took place.

          There were 172 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman that took place over a number of years. Those homicides have been omitted FROM THE YEARS THEY ACTUALLY OCCURED but were all RECORDED BY THE POLICE during 2002/03.

          Please adjust your statement so as to avoid any possible ambiguity.

          • Dan

            Because of your prejudicial view of the effects of a US firearms ban you have attempted to create a false causal link between the 1997 handgun ban in the UK and a subsequent increase in homicides.

            There is no link.

            You should be made aware of the following facts from the UK Home Office:

            – Year 2005/06 includes 52 victims of the 7 July London bombings.
            – Year 2003/04 includes 20 cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay.
            – Year 2002/03 includes 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman.
            – Year 2000/01 includes 58 Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in a lorry en route in the UK


            The fact remains that banning hand guns in the UK has directly led to a 50% reduction in firearm homicides.

            You have stated in your other piece ‘I don’t care if gun homicides are slashed to 5%…’. Bearing in mind that in the US the number of annual firearm homicides in 2007 was 9,246 (11,078 in 2010) what you appear to be saying is you don’t care if gun homicides are slashed to 550 odd! That is the statistic that directly relates to firearm homicides. Even if it fell by half, as per the UK experience, you would still potentially save 5,500 lives annually. But you don’t seem to care about that!

            I suggest that yours is not a very christian response. In fact your perspective is SO prejudice you’re prepared to make a totally spurious statistical comparison to try and support your belief.

            If the ACTUAL contribution to a peak in homicides is deaths due to a religious extremist bombing, a gang that ignored any safety controls, an insane doctor who took to secretly murdering his patients, and illegal immigrants being suffocated in transit, you have to take separate steps to deal with those matters where it’s possible to do so.

            What is deplorable, dishonest and totally unacceptable is your disreputable attempt to rubbish the true benefits of a firearm ban in pursuit of sustaining your own particular prejudice.

            That seems to me to be rather unchristian.

          • http://www.facebook.com/john.o.mcdonald John Othniel McDonald

            I think the point of the graph is very simple. The British hand gun band did not lead to any reduction in total homicide – it really doesn’t matter if ones gets poisoned, blown up, or shot. Further, the British suicide rate is nearly equal to the US suicide rate – the British prefer to hang themselves, the US shoot themselves – I suppose that you don’t advocated banning rope. Next, the shooting homicide rate in the USA is dominated by Blacks living in heavily democrat areas. Conservative blacks have very low homicide rates – there is a far stronger correlation between being a poor black democrat and homicide than guns and homicide – do you advocate banning liberal dependency view points among the poor blacks? Outside of these poor democrat killing fields (and in the areas with the highest gun ownership) the total homicide rate in the US is lower than the total homicide rate in Britain. Just some things to think about.

          • hobnob25

            I note you’ve blocked me as Dan. That’s a sure sign that you’ve lost your
            argument and you’re simply immersed in your prejudice and not up for factual
            and evidence based debate. The same goes for your daughter who did the same on Twitter against me when SHE made the error claiming that Hitler was an atheist when indeed he wasn’t. That action was based on another prejudice that all atheists are evil, which indeed we’re not.

            Anyway moving on!

            What isn’t lost on me is that you and your family are orientated towards dogmas and will do almost anything to pervert facts in order to support and enhance your prejudices.

            Conversely, I have no preformed views. I look at prime evidence and decide
            matters upon that information.

            I suggest you look at the facts and see for yourself the DIRECT RESULTS of the 1997 handgun ban in the UK:


            View it with no prejudice against blacks (you seem less concerned about black folk in democrat areas than those in republican areas. People are people unless you treat them differently, Mr McDonald) and with no preformed views that take you away from this evidence.

            The fact remains that banning hand guns in the UK has directly led to a 50% reduction in those firearm homicides.

          • hobnob25

            Your daughter Charity has posted on her Facebook page: ‘Yes Piers, I would love if every woman in America owned a gun. No one would mess with us.’

            How can that POSSIBLY be a CHRISTIAN ideal?!!!! That utter supidity would lead to one conclusion that every red-blooded male would own a larger gun. Proliferation!

            What she’s saying is she has the right to kill a male if she doesn’t happen to like the way he behaves for some reason?!! That’s not christian! That’s a hell on earth!

            What you clearly DON’T like from your actions on this board is debate, reason and evidence.

            Thoroughly unpleasant and dangerous people indeed – all sanctioned by god as you see it!

          • aPLWBinAK

            By your premise, Charity has no right to protect herself? Having “love, trust, humanity and empathy” is admirable, and something any real parent would hope their child would grow up to have…….but to think those traits will keep one safe from people who would do you harm, is quite possibly the most bizarre and naive thing I’ve ever heard. Being a Christian does not mean giving up one’s right to self protection, and indeed, it means, among other things, doing everthing within your earthly power to protect the ones you love from those who would bring harm to them, especially those unable to do it for themselves…..the young, the old, weak and infirm.

          • http://navygentleman.com/cvn2 Red47

            The idea that self-defense is atrocious in modern times was introduced into the church in a big way by the Marxism that crept into the seminaries…it goes with the social justice template. It is mostly a twisting of the “turn the other cheek” story which is contextually about escalation of a disagreement.

            The idea that self-defense is not allowed by God is very old and, as I grew up in that church doctrine, I find hard to defend today. It is one of the reasons why I left. Now I have a clearer understanding of the reasons for self-sacrifice, but I think it is not quite what Christ modeled. Plenty of “nice” people disagree. Most of them end up being used by people who don’t mind hurting others in some fashion.

          • aPLWBinAK

            Red!…glad you made your way to this site. Hope you’ll come more often. When Christ instructs us to ‘turn the other cheek’, he means we should not, with anger, seek vengeance….but I don’t see it as instructing us to not defend ourself……and in that vein, how Christian would it be to stand idly by and do nothing as a loved one was being preyed upon by someone with bad intent? To me, that question is rhetorical…..

          • http://navygentleman.com/cvn2 Red47

            Agreed. We have a horrible story of Indians massacring most of one of my ancestor’s family back int he 1700’s. I know why they did not fight back, I just don’t understand how they could do it. Especially when the Indians were not local and were just pillaging where they pleased.
            Yes. I found my way here on your shirttails from my Disqus feed. The site looks interesting. I may learn quite a bit, if I can absorb it! :)

          • aPLWBinAK

            You’ll fit right in here dear…..Charity and her father are impressive writers, she reminds me of a younger you…not sayin you’re old!…just that she’s a generation younger than us, and I have found her to be possessed of an intelligence that is rare among people of any age nowdays….

          • http://navygentleman.com/cvn2 Red47

            We shall see. You recall the gaffe I made that you had to let me know about? I kept the info for a rainy day. Is that okay?

          • aPLWBinAK

            Absolutely it’s O.K…..BTW…did you get the ‘fair is fair’ msg that day?

          • http://navygentleman.com/cvn2 Red47

            I must have as I read all the messages. I cannot rely on my memory yet. It’s getting better, though!

          • danbuoy

            I have been blocked twice as Dan and Hobnob25 and had posts removed by the hosts of this site, John and Charity McDonald, for ‘daring’ to speak out against them over their prejudice and incorrect and invalid ‘statistics’ on the subject of firearm homicide. It’s the closest I will get to a christian ‘shooting’, I suppose, but internet style only, fortunately.

            It might be worth remembering that the US and the UK have fought side by side in the defence of free speech, a factor overlooked by our christian hosts.

            In the UK we possess firearms for specific approved purposes only. We do not possess them for personal protection. Neither do the police, other than under exceptional circumstances, and for border control.

            We experienced just 35 firearm homicides last year as against over 11,000 in the US. I have quoted links to a range of statistics (that still remain undeleted) and urge you to study those impartially,

            You have to ask yourself what illusory situation you are planning to protect yourself from when considering personal firearms. If the status quo is that everyone carries a small handgun I, as a pretend assailant, will carry a larger, more deadly firearm and more than one, in order to ensure the success of whatever is my mission.

            So Charity, out for the day in town with friends, will not survive my automatic nor will her friends…and I will have their car, purses and mobile phones. I will always ensure I have a more effective firearm than Charity.

            So there we have it. Escalation will ALWAYS ensue with the existence of personal firearms.

            Carrying pesonal firearms is born out of irrational fear and harks back to the days of cowboys and Indians.

            Think about it! No personal firearms in the UK and just 35 firearm homicides.

            The peak of homicides in the UK has been fully explained in a previous post and bears no relationship whatever to the 1997 handgun ban. The headline, unfortunately, hasn’t been corrected and clarified as I have respectfully requested of the hosts.

          • danbuoy

            I repeat the deleted post as it is intended as a contribution to the debate. I’ve also removed what might be considered unnecessary. It was made in response to John McDonald’s post.

            Firstly, it’s not illegal to commit suicide. So we can leave that in the ever expanding file of prejudiced statistics.

            Conversely, I have no preformed views. I look at prime evidence and decide matters upon that information.

            I suggest you look at the facts and see for yourself the DIRECT RESULTS of the 1997 handgun ban in the UK:


            View it with no prejudice and with no preformed views that take you away from this evidence.

            If people are not able to financially live in a well structured social environment homicides will increase. You should read the fascinating report at:


            It says that ‘all of the white-latin homicide differential and about half of the white-black homicide gap would be reduced if the characteristics of the minorities were improved to levels currently exhibited by whites’. People are people unless you treat them differently, Mr McDonald.

            The fact remains that banning hand guns in the UK has directly led to a 50% reduction in those firearm homicides…and that’s with no measured ‘minority characteristic improvement’ included.

            May I suggest you respond with debate rather than deletion and blocking.

          • aPLWBinAK

            You spent a lot of time not answering the question I opened my comment with, and then finished with saying I was spiteful and hostile, when the truth is, that it is you who seems hostile to Freedom and Liberty……if you enjoy living with few rights, and with an ever increasing plague of Sharia Law….then why are we talking?……we like Freedom, you don’t….Also, your type of dishonest, arrogant ‘commenting’ is easily recognized as typical of Progressives, and one we know has no design other than to waste our time, as you never quite answer our questions, while posing new ones of your own to keep us off balance, and always dishonestly projecting false intent and motive upon us…..it’s a style that is of the ‘dime a dozen’ variety and is trite and tiresome…..so you’ll no sympathy from me…..off away with you little troll…

          • danbuoy

            aPLWBinAK I’ve not directed any comment in your direction I’m afraid.

          • http://navygentleman.com/cvn2 Red47

            She didn’t say she had the right to kill someone in the context you present.

  • dan_dy_dan

    It is quite staggering, but not in the least surprising, that so-called christians block participants in a discussion offering argument based on primary evidence. I’ve been blocked here THREE times, now, by the hosts Charity and John McDonald.

    You will note that I have provided carefully researched primary evidence and facts supporting the argument for a firearms ban.

    I say not in the least surprised because the hosts are apparently ‘good’ christians. One’s who are SO immersed in their dogma and prejudice that no argument against their beliefs (whatever they are) will be accepted despite primary evidence and facts.

    Free speech is a basic tenet of the US and the UK. It is not the roll of dogmatic christians to usurp that fundamental right.

  • dan_dy_dan

    Today’s very good news:

    Connecticut’s Senate on Wednesday approved sweeping new restrictions on weapons and large-capacity magazines, a response to last year’s deadly Newtown elementary school shooting that would give the state some of the country’s tightest gun control laws.


    Common sense and intelligence prevails in a State that has recently suffered a deplorable firearm massacre!