On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 09:22:43AM +0000, Ben Tasker wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Ray Cis <ray...@sigaint.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 31 01:45:24 -0100 > > > "Ben Tasker" <ben at bentasker.co.ck> > > > > > > An alternative view of that situation, of course, > > > > Comes from a cucked citezen of the UK who cannot lawfully own a handgun. > > > > > > Given that the per-capita rate of crimes the US counts as "Violent Crimes" > are an absolute shitload lower in the UK, I'm more than happy not to own a > handgun in exchange. Given the huge variance between what the US and UK > classify as a "Violent crime" the categorical numbers can't be compared > directly. If someone breaks into my house overnight, the probability of > them having a firearm is incredibly low, so I've got the option to go > downstairs and lamp them with whatever's at hand without worrying about > getting shot the second I appear on the stairs. > > We had a shooting at a primary school, and it was decided that the costs of > handgun ownership were too high. Australia had something similar too before > they tightened controls.
I've posted our longer term stats before, but despite a one-year drop in certain gun related crimes after the Port Arthur false flag (abhorrent crime in the extreme just to get legislation on the books), crime ended up rising again, and ultimately gun ownership and crime rates both now exceed what they were pre-Port Arthur massacre. So, Australia's not an example of "effective gun control legislation". > The US had the Sandy Hook massacre, but seems to have decided that owning a > weapon is more important, despite repeated school shootings. > > You might call the UK cucked, but that's still comparably better than > willingly standing by and watching the NRA fuck your kids to death.