London Murder Rate Is HIGHER Than NY's: 1st Time Ever After 12 Killings In 19 Days

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

dailymail
Cheyenne Roundtree For Mailonline
Published: 04:10 EDT, 1 April 2018 | Updated: 11:25 EDT, 1 April 2018

[excerpt]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5566689/London-murder-rate-overtakes-New-York-time-including-11-killings-just-16-days.html

London's murder rate has overtaken New York City's for the first time ever as the twelfth person has been killed in just 19 days.

February marked the first month in history books that London had more murders than the American city with a total of 15 homicides. Out of the 15 killed, nine were aged 30 or younger.

In March, there were 22 murders, which is likely to match if not beat out New York's numbers.


(this might as well have been posted under Immigration)

[Sanguine]

But - gun control!

[rangerrebew]

I guess London murderers are more creative in their killing than Americans.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

I guess London murderers are more creative in their killing than Americans.

And England already Has knife control.

So much for the idiocy of demonizing the instrument used to commit the murder.

[Fishrrman]

I'd like to see a demographic breakdown of the murderers. At least their names.

Of course, you're not going to get that from the PC police of Britanistan-to-be...

[The_Reader_David]

But - gun control!

Yes, I'm sure it's a comfort to the victims' relatives and friends, knowing they weren't victims of gun crime.

In the UK they have the same sort of morally specious thinking the American left has about "gun crime" and fret about "knife crime", as if there were any morally or legally meaningful distinction between dying of gunshot wounds, knife wounds or blunt force trauma.

[240B]

Likely Muzzies killing other Muzzies...which they do all the time. The press would have you believe that Islam is strictly a religious war against "the infidel". Not true. Muslims kill 10 other Muslims for every 1 'infidel' they murder. Killing is their game. Who they kill is a secondary consideration.


So here is the thought process in England. (this is not Monty Python) "Hey! I have an idea!"
Let's go to the most barbaric, violent, rape filled, diseased, decrepit place on the globe...and...and...then, then we will bring all of those people HERE with us, to be with us right. Jolly good, what!


Jolly good idea. Grand. Let's do that! After all old salt, how could anything go wrong?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yes, I'm sure it's a comfort to the victims' relatives and friends, knowing they weren't victims of gun crime.

In the UK they have the same sort of morally specious thinking the American left has about "gun crime" and fret about "knife crime", as if there were any morally or legally meaningful distinction between dying of gunshot wounds, knife wounds or blunt force trauma.

Here's a liberal response to how we need to address this, by licensing and registration.  Just substitute 'knives' for 'guns' or 'firearms' and am sure no one will ever die in the future in London by knives.  Why? Because lawyers will be involved and insurance companies.

The purpose of registration is to link each firearm to the owner who is legally responsible for it.  With that linkage,  the incentive exists for transfers and dispositions to be documented, and stolen firearms to be reported to the police.   No one will report as stolen a firearm that's been bought off the back of a truck.

While I reject your premise that registration is a prelude to confiscation,  I acknowledge your concern given that the 2A doesn't protect your right, but only a court decision that was decided by a bare 5-4 majority.   The court decision may soon be gone with the political winds.

So there we are - my desire for reasonable regulation vs. your worry that no regulation can be reasonable because it will lead to confiscation.   I see no middle ground - unless we can first agree to codify Heller.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion,  that the law provides for the individual RKBA as a permanent, protected condition.  With that crucial protection, a regime of registration cannot Constitutionally be a prelude to confiscation.   How would such a lawful registration regime work? 

First,  the purpose of registration must be limited to assigning a firearm to the person responsiible for its custody and care.   It must not be a tool by which government can limit or restrict the number and quality firearms one can own.  So long as you're willing to register and be legally responsible for the firearms you own, then you should be able own whatever your heart and means desire. 

Second,  the concept of legal responsibility must be narrowly defined.   The cost of such legal responsibility cannot be so onerous as to make it practically impossible to own a firearm for personal protection.  Putting aside the separate matter of criminal responsibility,  I would define legal responsibility to narrowly consist of responsibility for the medical bills and lost earnings of those persons harmed by a firearm within the legal owner's responsibility.  That's it.  Nothing more.  That is similar in some respects to PIP protection mandated by many states' motor vehicle registration/insurance regimes.   

Third,  the conditions must be created for the establishment of an insurance market that gunowners can access to protect themselves from legal liability at reasonable cost.  I would not mandate the purchase of such insurance, but it is unConstitutional to impose potentially ruinous financial responsibility on the exercise of the gun right.   That is why legal responsibility must be both limited and insurable.  As is the case with employers who establish employee benefit plans under the federal law known as ERISA,   a victim of gun violence should be strictly prohibited from being able to recover punitive damages and other extraordinary damages such as compensation for pain and suffering.   Just documented medical bills and lost earnings.  Maybe a simple no fault system will work.   It is crucial to create a liability regime that is not a feast for lawyers. 

Because the owner's legal responsibility is both limited and insurable,  the question of how to assign liability when the owner is not the perp can be addressed.   IMO, the owner should be strictly liable for the LIMITED, INSURABLE damages described above for any harm caused by a firearm for which he is responsible, until the first to occur of the date that registration of the firearm is transferred to another in a documented sale or exchange,  the date the owner otherwise reliquishes ownership in a documented manner, or the date the firearm is reported as stolen to the authorities. 
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309647.msg1647196.html#msg1647196