Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My gun uses a clip

Does it REQUIRE a clip?

I can never get a magazine to load into the top of my Russian rifles...

 AustonT wrote:
Does it REQUIRE a clip?

technically... no, since it's a bolt-action rifle, but it does have the ability to hold 5 rounds, I mean I could load them by hand, but when I got nat-zees to kill, I can't be bothered with hand loading my Mosin

hehe stripper clips...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.

The clips vs. magazines thing is a classic, and the illusion of what an "assault weapon" is has already been covered (still not sure why "assault weapons" (by the 94 AWB's definition) is at the center of the present discourse, didn't the CT shooter use a pair of pistols/don't pistols cause the majority of gun related deaths nation wide?)

So here's my favorite new terms I've learned:
Heavy Duty - Used by a couple media outlets, still not sure what they mean by it exactly...
High Power - to be fair this actually means something, but it's usually applied to large caliber rifles, not pistols as I've seen it used a couple times now.
Megaclips - No idea. None at all. Maybe it's a super large clip that you put in place with a crane and feed it into artillery pieces? that somehow have internal magazines now? Whatever they need to be banned apparently.

Favorite new things I've learned about me thanks to the kind people on the other side.
I'm a Republican, Christian, uneducated redneck, coward, and I should shoot myself with one of my own guns.

To be fair, not everybody on this site is critical of gun owners. It's a very complex issue. I always try and resist the impulse to make judgements, because I remember a year or two ago when the America Media (and some American citizens) attacked the British National Health Service as part of their attack on Obama's healthcare laws.

My intial reaction was who the feth are these Americans to be lecturing us on the NHS. they know nothing about it. And in my mind it's the same with guns and gun culture. Just as Americans can't understand the NHS (well most of them IMO) it's hard for people in the UK to understand guns in America and so they make snap judgements about American culture, the usual stereotypes of fat rednecks that lynch africans and believe everything in the bible. Obviously, this is not the case 99% of the time and I understand why American posters can get mad sometimes.

Being a student of American history, I understand the historical reasons for guns in the USA and the fear of British Invasion that exists to this day

But if there is one that bugs me about this site is people getting mad at each other over things outwith their control. Debate yes, conflict no.

I was eyeballing a Steyr 95 recently at a show but I can't be bothered to find enbloc clips and find 8mm rimless ammo.

 d-usa wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.

Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense andpublic protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers.

You do realize that is the entire point of Concealed Carry laws right? To be licensed to carry a gun for your own protection...

The number of licensed CHLers in Texas alone is staggering.

This gun control argument is showing me how much of a moderate I am though. I look at facebook as my social barometer, I have one friend who has been posting non-stop anti-gun posts since this happened, and while he is generally very open to the other side's argument, he is very strongly against guns and their place in our society. And while I'm like because I know that trying to get rid of all guns is next to impossible, I know that he knows that, and just wants better forms of gun control in our country...

Then I see several people post thing about Obama's America 2016, and the shadowy government that secretly runs everything, and posts an image along these lines:


And I remind them that there are other forms of gun control that don't involve disarming the population. Mention mental health screenings like Bulgaria has, and then someone mentions taking all the people with mental health issues and putting them in camps, etc...

God people are dumb... You can have both gun control and our guns, we just need to find a good common ground. Though I did say that if the country did ever try and disarm the populace, Texas would be next to impossible to disarm...

Steve steveson wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.

Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense andpublic protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers.
.

100,000 (this is the low estimate, high estimate is well into the millions) defensive gun uses a year disagrees with you Steve.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.

The clips vs. magazines thing is a classic, and the illusion of what an "assault weapon" is has already been covered (still not sure why "assault weapons" (by the 94 AWB's definition) is at the center of the present discourse, didn't the CT shooter use a pair of pistols/don't pistols cause the majority of gun related deaths nation wide?)

So here's my favorite new terms I've learned:
Heavy Duty - Used by a couple media outlets, still not sure what they mean by it exactly...
High Power - to be fair this actually means something, but it's usually applied to large caliber rifles, not pistols as I've seen it used a couple times now.
Megaclips - No idea. None at all. Maybe it's a super large clip that you put in place with a crane and feed it into artillery pieces? that somehow have internal magazines now? Whatever they need to be banned apparently.

Favorite new things I've learned about me thanks to the kind people on the other side.
I'm a Republican, Christian, uneducated redneck, coward, and I should shoot myself with one of my own guns.

To be fair, not everybody on this site is critical of gun owners. .

On no, this is else where, please pro-gun control in the Dakka OT don't think this is you. This is a bastion of sanity and rational discourse... [edited by moderator]

 Alfndrate wrote:
This gun control argument is showing me how much of a moderate I am though. I look at facebook as my social barometer, I have one friend who has been posting non-stop anti-gun posts since this happened, and while he is generally very open to the other side's argument, he is very strongly against guns and their place in our society. And while I'm like because I know that trying to get rid of all guns is next to impossible, I know that he knows that, and just wants better forms of gun control in our country...

Then I see several people post thing about Obama's America 2016, and the shadowy government that secretly runs everything, and posts an image along these lines:

Spoiler:

And I remind them that there are other forms of gun control that don't involve disarming the population. Mention mental health screenings like Bulgaria has, and then someone mentions taking all the people with mental health issues and putting them in camps, etc...

God people are dumb... You can have both gun control and our guns, we just need to find a good common ground. Though I did say that if the country did ever try and disarm the populace, Texas would be next to impossible to disarm...

It's a symptom of the political polarization the Reps and Dems have busily been creating mixed with kneejerk reactions on both sides. On the one hand you have people spasming because of an atrocity and going straight to a "ban all guns bruhaha" and on the other you have a gun owning population that gets a lot of gak on the national and in some areas local level for their sport, hobby and in some cases profession, who feel like they're getting singled out and blamed/lumped in with these nutcases. It's hard to find middle ground when passions are high and reason is short.

I've been reading several various solutions from different sites and I think it's at least worth considering.

Remember, there's no perfect solution.

The question becomes what is the actual solution. Via some various sites can be summarized as:

What if we had the equivalent of air marshals in schools?

What if willing teachers were trained and armed in schools?

What if we treated schools like we do airplanes and advertised the hell out of the fact that there’s a very good chance someone’s in the building who is trained and armed?

Those idea has some merits, but very expensize and/or impractical due to cost, insurance liability and possibly political will.

Here is a simple idea that in less than three months, every school in the country could achieve:

The odds are that in every school district, you can find plenty of students who have grandfathers who are retired ex police, ex military, ex law enforcement etc etc etc.

These are people who have used weapons, have been trained with weapons and know how to use them with responsibility.

While retirement can be pleasant... however, one of the thing that can be hard is no longer having responsibility. Going from a position of respect to a position where people just see you as old and many retirees struggle with (hence, why you see some retiree work at greeter at Walmart, or User at movie theater... not because they need the money, but it's something to do).

How 'bout this for an idea:

What if in each school you had five of those grandfathers volunteering for a day to be in the school to patrol the school either armed, or with a weapon or two in a safe in the principal’s office that only they and one other have the combination to?

That would totally change the equation in several ways:

1. Instead of a an unarmed teacher or an untrained teacher you would have an armed person who knows how to use guns between a shooter and the kids.

2. Before going after the kids the shooter would have to eliminate the armed guardian. That would at the very least complicate the plans of an attacker and at best decide it’s not worth it

3. There is a huge difference in accuracy when someone is shooting back. A shooter who has to worry about being shot can’t kill 15 people with say 12 shots because he is going to have to worry about the guy shooting at him.

4. Even if the guard is killed in defense that purpose is served because the goal is time. Time for the kids to evacuate and time for the police to get there. When seconds count police are minutes away, at worst he would die buying those minutes, at best he would hold off one or more shooters so police would be there and suddenly the shooters are flanked.

5. It would give an actual sense of security to the kids and give them all someone to look up to, an adult that is willing to lay his life on the line to protect them with no reward other than their safety, the cultural implications of such a role model would be incredible.

This idea could be implemented very quickly... with almost no cost. And you would not have to train/compel teachers in a skill that scares them.

As for the men to do the job, I suspect the problem wouldn’t be finding these people, I suspect the problem would be too many people for the slots available because it is an honorable task, a manly task and I suspect the retirees would jump at the chance to defend those they love once more.

I know my Grandparents and Grand Uncles would love to be a part of this.

The expense? the only thing that would take the time would be screening these men and then the cost of the safe.

Practical, simple and low-cost to implement, without a new bureaucracy or the surrender of anyone’s rights.

Because, if the bad guys know that there's a chance that someone there is armed... that knowledge may stop them.

Edit1... trying to get linky to work...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:

And you still haven't answered the point I originally raised - where do you draw the line if believe you need an armed citizenry as a protection against dictatorship? Are you really advocating the unrestricted personal ownership of fully armed main battle tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons for anyone who can afford them? Why is the line seemengly drawn at assault weapons?

Yes, I do advocate the unrestricted ownership of those things, except nukes (due to the risk to the public of radiation exposure due to poor maintenance). Generally speaking, their price tag tends to be prohibition enough that the average madman is not going to buy a tank. To buy new, direct from the factory, an MBT will likely set you back 60 million, if you want to buy Made in the USA. (Weirdly, buying Japanese will set you back even more).


As far as why 'assault weapons', that's easy but two fold: They're comparatively inexpensive, and even without massacres, thanks to the movies, they're linked in most people's minds with violence and evil. This makes them an easy scapegoat.

That is... utterly terrifying.

I'm trying to imagine what kind of damage someone could cause when they own a fully armed MBT and snap.
Or someone who owns several kilos of C4.
Or has 50 hand grenades - much easier then bullets, just one per school classroom!
Or can brew up bioweapons to kill an entire city without any kind of a license.

I think this emphasises the difference in culture between Europe and the US - I'd be very surprised if one person in several thousand in the UK would agree with you there. Are your views extreme even for the US, or commonplace?

And as for your point about the cost - are you saying only wealthy people should be allowed to commit mass slaughter?

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread now - and breath a sigh of relief that I'm not living in the next potential Yugoslavia. I'll stick to the nice, safe UK, where the worst thing I have to worry about is a council tax rise, rather than being slaughtered by madmen with guns the moment I set foot in the country.

Here's hoping that you can find some answer to this problem, before more innocent lives, particularly children, are lost. Given the content of this discussion, I sincerely doubt it.

 Hedgehog wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:

And you still haven't answered the point I originally raised - where do you draw the line if believe you need an armed citizenry as a protection against dictatorship? Are you really advocating the unrestricted personal ownership of fully armed main battle tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons for anyone who can afford them? Why is the line seemengly drawn at assault weapons?

Yes, I do advocate the unrestricted ownership of those things, except nukes (due to the risk to the public of radiation exposure due to poor maintenance). Generally speaking, their price tag tends to be prohibition enough that the average madman is not going to buy a tank. To buy new, direct from the factory, an MBT will likely set you back 60 million, if you want to buy Made in the USA. (Weirdly, buying Japanese will set you back even more).


As far as why 'assault weapons', that's easy but two fold: They're comparatively inexpensive, and even without massacres, thanks to the movies, they're linked in most people's minds with violence and evil. This makes them an easy scapegoat.

That is... utterly terrifying.

I'm trying to imagine what kind of damage someone could cause when they own a fully armed MBT and snap.
Or someone who owns several kilos of C4.
Or has 50 hand grenades - much easier then bullets, just one per school classroom!
Or can brew up bioweapons to kill an entire city without any kind of a license.

I think this emphasises the difference in culture between Europe and the US - I'd be very surprised if one person in several thousand in the UK would agree with you there. Are your views extreme even for the US, or commonplace?

And as for your point about the cost - are you saying only wealthy people should be allowed to commit mass slaughter?

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread now - and breath a sigh of relief that I'm not living in the next potential Yugoslavia. I'll stick to the nice, safe UK, where the worst thing I have to worry about is a council tax rise, rather than being slaughtered by madmen with guns the moment I set foot in the country.

Here's hoping that you can find some answer to this problem, before more innocent lives, particularly children, are lost. Given the content of this discussion, I sincerely doubt it.

Do you really perceive that US is that much more dangerous than the UK or anywhere else in the world?

The problems with the "air marshal in schools" idea are:

1. It does not deal with mass killings outside schools.

2. The USA is already filled with armed people, who have been only moderately successful at stopping mass killings.

3. If it is true that mass killers are in the business of committing "suicide by cop", then advertising armed people in schools will attract more mass killers to schools.

 whembly wrote:


Here is a simple idea that in less than three months, every school in the country could achieve:

The odds are that in every school district, you can find plenty of students who have grandfathers who are retired ex police, ex military, ex law enforcement etc etc etc.

These are people who have used weapons, have been trained with weapons and know how to use them with responsibility.

While retirement can be pleasant... however, one of the thing that can be hard is no longer having responsibility. Going from a position of respect to a position where people just see you as old and many retirees struggle with (hence, why you see some retiree work at greeter at Walmart, or User at movie theater... not because they need the money, but it's something to do).

How 'bout this for an idea:

What if in each school you had five of those grandfathers volunteering for a day to be in the school to patrol the school either armed, or with a weapon or two in a safe in the principal’s office that only they and one other have the combination to?

That would totally change the equation in several ways:

1. Instead of a an unarmed teacher or an untrained teacher you would have an armed person who knows how to use guns between a shooter and the kids.

2. Before going after the kids the shooter would have to eliminate the armed guardian. That would at the very least complicate the plans of an attacker and at best decide it’s not worth it

3. There is a huge difference in accuracy when someone is shooting back. A shooter who has to worry about being shot can’t kill 15 people with say 12 shots because he is going to have to worry about the guy shooting at him.

4. Even if the guard is killed in defense that purpose is served because the goal is time. Time for the kids to evacuate and time for the police to get there. When seconds count police are minutes away, at worst he would die buying those minutes, at best he would hold off one or more shooters so police would be there and suddenly the shooters are flanked.

5. It would give an actual sense of security to the kids and give them all someone to look up to, an adult that is willing to lay his life on the line to protect them with no reward other than their safety, the cultural implications of such a role model would be incredible.

This idea could be implemented very quickly... with almost no cost. And you would not have to train/compel teachers in a skill that scares them.

As for the men to do the job, I suspect the problem wouldn’t be finding these people, I suspect the problem would be too many people for the slots available because it is an honorable task, a manly task and I suspect the retirees would jump at the chance to defend those they love once more.

I know my Grandparents and Grand Uncles would love to be a part of this.

The expense? the only thing that would take the time would be screening these men and then the cost of the safe.

Practical, simple and low-cost to implement, without a new bureaucracy or the surrender of anyone’s rights.

Because, if the bad guys know that there's a chance that someone there is armed... that knowledge may stop them.

Edit1... trying to get linky to work...

That is honestly the coolest and I think the best idea that I have ever heard regarding this issue. Absolutely perfect.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problems with the "air marshal in schools" idea are:

1. It does not deal with mass killings outside schools.

2. The USA is already filled with armed people, who have been only moderately successful at stopping mass killings.

3. If it is true that mass killers are in the business of committing "suicide by cop", then advertising armed people in schools will attract more mass killers to schools.

They've been extremely successful at stopping mass killings when they've actually been present at one, Killkrazy. Extremely successful.

And no, I don't believe they're in the business of suicide by cops. If they were, they'd attack cops, and not nearly so many of them would kill themselves when the cops showed up. They're hunting infamy, and they need defenseless targets for that.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:


Here is a simple idea that in less than three months, every school in the country could achieve:

The odds are that in every school district, you can find plenty of students who have grandfathers who are retired ex police, ex military, ex law enforcement etc etc etc.

These are people who have used weapons, have been trained with weapons and know how to use them with responsibility.

While retirement can be pleasant... however, one of the thing that can be hard is no longer having responsibility. Going from a position of respect to a position where people just see you as old and many retirees struggle with (hence, why you see some retiree work at greeter at Walmart, or User at movie theater... not because they need the money, but it's something to do).

How 'bout this for an idea:

What if in each school you had five of those grandfathers volunteering for a day to be in the school to patrol the school either armed, or with a weapon or two in a safe in the principal’s office that only they and one other have the combination to?

That would totally change the equation in several ways:

1. Instead of a an unarmed teacher or an untrained teacher you would have an armed person who knows how to use guns between a shooter and the kids.

2. Before going after the kids the shooter would have to eliminate the armed guardian. That would at the very least complicate the plans of an attacker and at best decide it’s not worth it

3. There is a huge difference in accuracy when someone is shooting back. A shooter who has to worry about being shot can’t kill 15 people with say 12 shots because he is going to have to worry about the guy shooting at him.

4. Even if the guard is killed in defense that purpose is served because the goal is time. Time for the kids to evacuate and time for the police to get there. When seconds count police are minutes away, at worst he would die buying those minutes, at best he would hold off one or more shooters so police would be there and suddenly the shooters are flanked.

5. It would give an actual sense of security to the kids and give them all someone to look up to, an adult that is willing to lay his life on the line to protect them with no reward other than their safety, the cultural implications of such a role model would be incredible.

This idea could be implemented very quickly... with almost no cost. And you would not have to train/compel teachers in a skill that scares them.

As for the men to do the job, I suspect the problem wouldn’t be finding these people, I suspect the problem would be too many people for the slots available because it is an honorable task, a manly task and I suspect the retirees would jump at the chance to defend those they love once more.

I know my Grandparents and Grand Uncles would love to be a part of this.

The expense? the only thing that would take the time would be screening these men and then the cost of the safe.

Practical, simple and low-cost to implement, without a new bureaucracy or the surrender of anyone’s rights.

Because, if the bad guys know that there's a chance that someone there is armed... that knowledge may stop them.

Edit1... trying to get linky to work...

That is honestly the coolest and I think the best idea that I have ever heard regarding this issue. Absolutely perfect.

Do you have a source for the data on armed civilians stopping crimes generally or mass murders in particular?

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
snip

They've been extremely successful at stopping mass killings when they've actually been present at one, Killkrazy. Extremely successful.

And no, I don't believe they're in the business of suicide by cops. If they were, they'd attack cops, and not nearly so many of them would kill themselves when the cops showed up. They're hunting infamy, and they need defenseless targets for that.

Ditto... they're hunting "infamy".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you have a source for the data on armed civilians stopping crimes generally or mass murders in particular?

That seattle Mall shooter for one. EDIT: here's linky: http://www.fugitive.com/2012/12/16/clackamas-mall-shooter-confronted-by-armed-citizen-caused-gunman-to-stop-shooting-and-commit-suicide/

The shooter turned the gun on himself when he realize someone was packing heat.

I was thinking of something like the Bureau of Justice Violent Crime database, or something a bit more structured than just a recent incident reported in the press.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I was thinking of something like the Bureau of Justice Violent Crime database, or something a bit more structured than just a recent incident reported in the press.

Okay... but, I can find 'em all day long... like this: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1212034090.shtml

Lemme see if FBI or NRA has something...

It can be tedious but enlightening to go back to the source data.

 Hedgehog wrote:

That is... utterly terrifying.

I'm trying to imagine what kind of damage someone could cause when they own a fully armed MBT and snap.
Or someone who owns several kilos of C4.
Or has 50 hand grenades - much easier then bullets, just one per school classroom!
Or can brew up bioweapons to kill an entire city without any kind of a license.

I think this emphasises the difference in culture between Europe and the US - I'd be very surprised if one person in several thousand in the UK would agree with you there. Are your views extreme even for the US, or commonplace?

And as for your point about the cost - are you saying only wealthy people should be allowed to commit mass slaughter?

I would say how commonplace my view is depends on where in the United States you are. Locally, it's a hair above middle of the road, but not much so. (in that most people here don't have tanks. The next thing after my light tank is a few old half tracks, though one farmer got the old kraut mower running again.)

I can walk to my fireproof vault and find more than a few kilos of explosives (granted, it's black powder rather than C4, I don't have a spare fridge for C4)

And Europe has no grounds to talk. I feel much safer that madmen would try to shoot me with a gun than blow up a car full of explosives randomly. I can shoot back against a gunman, IEDs are much worse.

As far a Bioweapons go, you might be horrified but home genetics labs are all the rage atm, since DNA can be patented. And it's not just North America.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It can be tedious but enlightening to go back to the source data.

I doubt there's been a study put together on it. I'm just thinking about/looking back and remembering/finding examples where one of these guys was confronted, even briefly, by a civilian with a gun.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It can be tedious but enlightening to go back to the source data.

There's a gak ton out there...

Try this... I haven't read it in a while...
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It can be tedious but enlightening to go back to the source data.

I doubt there's been a study put together on it. I'm just thinking about/looking back and remembering/finding examples where one of these guys was confronted, even briefly, by a civilian with a gun.

Yeah... just google-fu "statistics on armed citizens stopping crime"... you'll see them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you have a source for the data on armed civilians stopping crimes generally or mass murders in particular?

Crimes yes. FBI statistics reflect that firearms are is responsible for stopping several hundred thousands incidents to 2.5mm incidents a year.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_crimes_are_stopped_by_gun_owners

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problems with the "air marshal in schools" idea are:

1. It does not deal with mass killings outside schools.

2. The USA is already filled with armed people, who have been only moderately successful at stopping mass killings.

3. If it is true that mass killers are in the business of committing "suicide by cop", then advertising armed people in schools will attract more mass killers to schools.

They've been extremely successful at stopping mass killings when they've actually been present at one, Killkrazy. Extremely successful.

have they though? The first officer on scene at Columbine was there within 6 minutes. Shortly thereafter the boys shot 22 people killing 10.
At Aurora the police were on scene in an. Exceptionally fast 90 seconds which stopped exactly zero shots: he was waiting for them.
What are the real odds a cop is actually on scene when a potential mass shooting starts?

 AustonT wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problems with the "air marshal in schools" idea are:

1. It does not deal with mass killings outside schools.

2. The USA is already filled with armed people, who have been only moderately successful at stopping mass killings.

3. If it is true that mass killers are in the business of committing "suicide by cop", then advertising armed people in schools will attract more mass killers to schools.

They've been extremely successful at stopping mass killings when they've actually been present at one, Killkrazy. Extremely successful.

have they though? The first officer on scene at Columbine was there within 6 minutes. Shortly thereafter the boys shot 22 people killing 10.
At Aurora the police were on scene in an. Exceptionally fast 90 seconds which stopped exactly zero shots: he was waiting for them.
What are the real odds a cop is actually on scene when a potential mass shooting starts?

He's talking about armed citizens... not police.

Are not cops "armed people"?

 AustonT wrote:
Are not cops "armed people"?

Well... yeah, but there's a distinction.

Cops responds to the crime after the fact.

Armed citizen can stop or mitigate an ongoing rampage.

 whembly wrote:

Do you really perceive that US is that much more dangerous than the UK or anywhere else in the world?

Compared to other western style countries most definately.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has the US has 3.2 firearms homicides per 100,000 population compared with 1.6 for Canada, 1.0 for Australia and 0.1 for England and Wales, according to a 2012 report.

And this is on top of, apparently, the 100,00 -- possibly even millions -- of non lethal "acts of self defence" that guns enable per annum as well.

And all of this is despite the dreadful statistics you have concerning incarceration of your own population as well.