How’s that gun ban working out?

The headline tells the story–London gun crime rises as shootings nearly double.

It must be that someone somewhere needs to have their gun show loophole closed, have one gun a month law passed, or “assault weapons” banned.

Oh yeah. I forgot. They are way past that point with a complete ban on nearly all guns and people increasingly use guns in the commission of violent crimes.

And it’s not just a little bit either:

…[T]he number of actual shootings has almost doubled from 123 to 236 in the last six months compared with the same period last year, a rise of 91.8%. Serious firearms offences have risen by 47% across the capital.

So what’s the reason they want to ban the guns in our country? What do they think the benefit will be? We know it and they know it. It’s not about making people safer. They have some other motivation because the data tells everyone that gun bans do not make people safer.

So what is the real reason for wanting to restrict firearm ownership? After failing to get an answer to Just One Question that should be follow up when they still insist on “common sense” regulation. Either that or just tell the bigots Μολὼν λαβέ.

11 thoughts on “How’s that gun ban working out?

  1. Aaaaaand how so, lady with the earrings?

    All talk and no substance…just like Linoge says.

  2. “Whatever the situation is there, it would be far worse if you were in charge. ”

    That would be like a doctor force-bleeding a patient with low blood pressure.

    As the patient’s vitals crash the doctor says: “He would have died sooner if I hadn’t bled him out!”

    Translations: “Jesus MikeB you’re not just an idiot, but a FUCKING idiot!”

  3. Weer’d; you remind me of a description I once read, of a charlatan doctor, selling a fake cure;
    One of three things will happen. Either the patient gets better, the patient stays the same, or the patient gets worse. If the patient gets better, the charlatan says, “My cure worked.” If the patient stays the same, the charlatan says, “more of the cure is obviously needed.” If the patient gets worse, the charlatan says, “I didn’t get to him in time.” At no point is the “cure” itself ever blamed, for to do so would put the doctor out of business.

    Now, it’s easy to understand the charlatan doctor’s motivations, but the motivations of the anti-libertarians are much more sinister.

    Prove their predictions and assertions wrong, and they won’t accept your proof. Mikeb is good at demonstrating that. This is the reason why I’ve so often argued against taking on the antis on their own assertions– it’s never really been about crime and safety. It’s always been about human rights, and the Left has to destroy the very concept to get anywhere. So what do we have left, once reason, facts, and principle are abandoned? That’s right– brute force. But all this has been said, and demonstrated, generations ago, for anyone who gives a damn.

  4. I have to question something though…

    Didn’t the British also disarm their policemen? What would have happened if the police would have stayed armed?

    I don’t believe it’s reasonable to ever expect the USA to be a “gun free” nation. For one thing, a lot of people live in places where they absolutely need to have guns. If the Brady organization is going for a Gun Free America, it’ll never happen.

  5. ubu52, just the opposite. Back when guns were more prevolent in the hands of the lawful police routinely went unarmed (well they had clubs and such, but no sidearms)

    Now post ban the London cops are carry Sub-Machine Guns, and most police are now armed.

    So lawful people were disarmed, police were up-armed, and the Criminals are winning.

    As Joe said “How’s that ban working out for you?”

  6. “…a lot of people live in places where they absolutely need to have guns.”
    You mean like in the city, in the suburbs, in rural areas and in the winderness, i.e. anywhere a situation could arise wherein a gun would useful? Yes, those are the places where people should have guns.

  7. Oh, and I meant to write this comment earlier, but thanks, AntiCitizenOne! I sincerely hope that particular meme catches on… 🙂

  8. Lyle,

    I’m not talking about places where people “should” have guns. I’m talking about places where people actually USE their guns at least once a year for various reasons, usually involving the wildlife.

  9. “I’m not talking about places where people “should” have guns. I’m talking about places where people actually USE their guns at least once a year for various reasons, usually involving the wildlife.”

    Like inner cities…that is if anti-freedom louts like you didn’t have your way.

    Now they just do their duty to die peacfully.

  10. The situation here in the UK is insane. I live in south London and the kids around here are offing each other (and reasonably often people they mistake as members of other gangs) with fully automatic MAC-10s.

    I’ve never broken a law in my life, and I can’t even own a .22 to defend myself and my partner with. It’s crazy.

    It gets better though, a few years ago it became illegal to own a replica firearm unless you were on a register of air-soft players. That’s right, the UK has mandatory registration of toy guns.

Comments are closed.