• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

No guns, still have violent crime

Sandhusker

Well-known member
John Muir lost his son nearly two years ago to the savagery of knife crime and he is determined to put an end to the sudden, horrific damage caused by Scotland's blade culture.

A total of 1,170 people were admitted to hospital in Scotland in 2007, the last year official figures were available. That year 73 murders involved knives, including Damian Muir's in Inverclyde.

His father launched a campaign last year for those who are caught carrying knives to be given an automatic prison sentence. Mr Muir took his case to the Scottish Parliament and has raised awareness across the nation to the serious issue.


He told STV news on Wednesday: "The blight of knife crime is greater than when we first started out. When we first started to talk to people within the powers to be, they didn't want to know - we're just someone making noise.

"We have a very, very angry public who are losing the streets to the thugs and the neds."

Knife-related crimes in Scotland is about 3.5 times higher than south of the border.

Mr Muir, from Inverkip, near Greenock, said many thousands of people have signed his petition for prison sentences to be handed out to all those caught carrying knives.

The Greenock Telegraph are in support of his campaign. The newspaper were to host a conference on the subject on Wednesday night at the town hall.

Damian Muir, 34, was stabbed eight times in Greenock by 21-year-old Barry Gavin.

Gavin had twice avoided prison after being caught carrying knives. He was later jailed for a minimum of 15 years for the killing, which took place in July 2007.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Okay, so now my conclusion is we should lock away all males until age of 40! :lol: :lol: :lol:

How many gun murders and woundings were there in the U.S. last year Sandhusker? Compare that to knifings in Scotland.

What have you libs ever proposed that would end those gun murders and woundings?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.[30] Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a gun.[31] The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.

OMG I need to start studying more, I thought you had a better case than you actually have. You are telling me out of 300 Million people only 10,000 homicides happened with guns? What is that like .004% of the population? 4 thousandths of a one percent?

I think more people probably died slipping in the bath tub than that in one year :lol: :lol:

Are you liberals really this stupid??????????? .004% and you want to crap on the constitution over it! You guys are truly retarded!!!!!!!!!! Idiots!!!!!!!!

And we are not even factoring in how many lives were saved due to guns, how many crimes did not happen because of the fear of owners having guns. How many countries keep their azzes out of the U.S. with war because they know we would be an armed civilian army if needed.

You are absolutely Retarded! 10,000 homicides, crap if you are that worried about them many lives, outlaw Gum I am sure that many died swallowing gum in any year choking to death!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
More knee-jerk emotional stupidity; 4% out of those 10,000 fatalaties were caused by rifles - so what is the rationale behind the assault weapons ban?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Funny thing is how many other deaths occur by so many other means. Death by gun is a grain of sand in a Beach of death.

In 2006 Deaths

Fall 21,200
Poison 25,300

If you look at unintentional death statistics kept by the National Safety Council firearms are the least deaths kept in their statistics with 680 deaths. Firearms were out done by every category, such as choking, drowning, falling, auto etc........ You are more likely to die by a falling accident than a gun.

Guns cause so little accidents and death they would only show up on Liberal loon radar! :roll:

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/injuriesinamerica08.aspx
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Funny thing is how many other deaths occur by so many other means. Death by gun is a grain of sand in a Beach of death.

In 2006 Deaths

Fall 21,200
Poison 25,300

If you look at unintentional death statistics kept by the National Safety Council firearms are the least deaths kept in their statistics with 680 deaths. Firearms were out done by every category, such as choking, drowning, falling, auto etc........ You are more likely to die by a falling accident than a gun.

Guns cause so little accidents and death they would only show up on Liberal loon radar! :roll:

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/injuriesinamerica08.aspx

That tells you that they have alterior motives, they're idiots, or both.
 

alice

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
aplusmnt said:
Funny thing is how many other deaths occur by so many other means. Death by gun is a grain of sand in a Beach of death.

In 2006 Deaths

Fall 21,200
Poison 25,300

If you look at unintentional death statistics kept by the National Safety Council firearms are the least deaths kept in their statistics with 680 deaths. Firearms were out done by every category, such as choking, drowning, falling, auto etc........ You are more likely to die by a falling accident than a gun.

Guns cause so little accidents and death they would only show up on Liberal loon radar! :roll:

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/injuriesinamerica08.aspx

That tells you that they have alterior motives, they're idiots, or both.

I think you mean "ulterior" motives, Mr. Journalism wannabe major...

Alice
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
alice said:
Sandhusker said:
That tells you that they have alterior motives, they're idiots, or both.

I think you mean "ulterior" motives, Mr. Journalism wannabe major...

Alice

I think you are confusing Sandhusker with me now! Must be past your bedtime, you are getting a little confused! :wink: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
alice said:
Sandhusker said:
aplusmnt said:
Funny thing is how many other deaths occur by so many other means. Death by gun is a grain of sand in a Beach of death.

In 2006 Deaths

Fall 21,200
Poison 25,300

If you look at unintentional death statistics kept by the National Safety Council firearms are the least deaths kept in their statistics with 680 deaths. Firearms were out done by every category, such as choking, drowning, falling, auto etc........ You are more likely to die by a falling accident than a gun.

Guns cause so little accidents and death they would only show up on Liberal loon radar! :roll:

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/injuriesinamerica08.aspx

That tells you that they have alterior motives, they're idiots, or both.

I think you mean "ulterior" motives, Mr. Journalism wannabe major...

Alice

I stand corrected. Thank you, Alice. So tell me, what is the motive of the liberals - what is the logic behind those bans?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Okay, so now my conclusion is we should lock away all males until age of 40! :lol: :lol: :lol:

.


Oh...no...R2...that's just when they start to get ' crazy'.................lock'em up from 35-60!
 
Top