Does that mean there were less than 30 UK deaths and less than 20,000 US deaths by guns? That's better.
What were the number of crimes committed with legally owned firearms, as opposed to illegally possessed firearms?
They care about their body count, which will be significantly lower if they attack folks that are armed.
BS.... prove it. Considering there are about north of 400 to 500 million guns in the US, that would be an amazing proof.
Why do gun banners always dishonestly only compare gun violence when the pro gun people are talking total violent crime? If you remove the guns from a population and the thugs simply change their preferred weapon to something else such as a knife and the crime rate stays the same then it's obvious that removing guns did not help prevent violent crime.
In the US there are over 300,000,000 firearms and a trillion rounds of ammo in the hands of responsible gun owners. If we were the problem you'd know it.
Even if such were indeed factually correct, it is ultimately irrelevant. Firearms cannot legally be restricted from the public simply because of the actions of the criminal element. That is the legally binding and established precedent by which the entire united states is bound.
You are both wrong. "RESULTS: Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144624 Legally justifiable defensive gun uses are rare.
Regardless, why would you choose to own something that is far more likely to be used for criminal purposes than for self defense? How does it make sense?
100+ Americans being killed/injured every single day with guns tells me there is a very serious problem. You're part of the problem if you're in denial about its existence.
Factually incorrect. An absence of firearms, specifically legally owned firearms, does nothing to make incidents of violence any less deadly. Deadliness is related to intent. Furthermore, the phrase "removing firearms" means nothing unless one is advocating for confiscating legally owned firearms from the public, thus constituting a deprivation of private property.
The only way for something to be more likely to be used for criminal purposes, rather than legal purposes, is if those who own them are inclined and predisposed towards engaging in acts of criminal violence. Thus meaning it is a matter of intent on the part of the individual, thus making the individual the problem, not the implement itself. Beyond that particular matter, there is simply no evidence, read none whatsoever, to demonstrate conclusively it is legal firearm owners who are responsible for any significant degree of firearm-related violence overall. The vast majority of all incidents of firearm-related violence, indeed the most murders committed through the use of firearms, are committed by those who cannot legally possess firearms under any circumstances.
Such is largely due to their being involved in illegal activities. Even Arthur Kellermann recognized such as being the case.
Not true... the CDC and many other studies disagree with you. Like most on the left you parrot their anti gun dogma without knowing the source or validity of the source... I know presisely the original source of assertion you made that excites CGA’s and is repeated as fact; do you?
How many of those "100 a day" are killed while in the act of committing a crime? I don't see a problem here.
