As the Economist pointed out today, you murder four times as many people proportionately every year than we do in the UK, and six times more than do the Germans, yet no-one in his right mind would believe you were that much more murderous: the reason is guns, and only guns. They are so widely available that anyone feeling aggrieved or having a psychotic break has only to pick them up. The fantasy that you are somehow 'free' because you can murder children at will is something only small-town simpletons could believe: you are extremely conformist, and under the thumb of your rich masters, and if you ever tried to get rid of them, professional troops would wipe you out in a day or two. This stuff, obviously, is about the films you watch and your profound doubts about your masculinity. It is very sad, and it has nothibg whatever to do with the threat of George 111's coming back from the grave. If you want to be in a militia, go drill - but stop making your country a laughing-stock for the whole civilized world - except for those who are crying for what you once seemed to be.
Hey. The murder rate in Baghdad is far lower then Dee_troyt or Chitcago and they have rpg's and AK47's. Could the problem be merikants ?
You see, you are way off base and out of touch with reality. Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens and respect the law. Many are more respectful of the law than your average citizen. We have guns for many reasons which include, target shooting, competition, hunting or just for the hell of it. I am disgusted that you would even imply that we feel free because school children were shot. I have kids in elementary school, and I was sick to my stomach at the terrible news of the school shooting. The population of the U.S. is over 300,000,000 with all types of people from all walks of life. We do have a violent culture in or media. This type of thing will continue to happen no matter what is done. It can only be reduced by using common sense. The common denominator with these mass killings is mental illness and "gun-free" zones. These killers have been falling through the cracks. They should call them "defense-free" zones as the killers know they will not meet any resistance. We need to get rid of them. Gun control has been ineffective in controlling gun crime. Washington DC and Chicago had gun bans in place for years, yet had the highest gun-related crime in the country. The crime rate in DC has gone down since the ban was ruled unconstitutional. Chicago is still pretty bad because they have made it almost impossible for a law-abiding citizen to own a gun. The Clinton assault weapons ban has shown that it was ineffective after being in place for a decade. Crime is lower in areas that are most conducive to allowing their law-abiding citizens to carry weapons. What you don't get, is that law-abiding citizens follow the law, and criminals laugh at them. The worst school shootings worldwide did not take place in the United States. Mass shootings in the U.S. have been on the decline over the last several decades. It peaked in the 1920's. So, please get your facts straight, and stop your ignorance about guns and gun owners.
how do you know and on what do you base this? How do you know that "most gun owners are responsible citizens? Evidence points to the fact they are NOT, not responsible that is...... Why do I say that? Because unlike those who come on and spout "what everyone knows" I look up FACTS http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html More guns = more crime and more violence - the evidence is in http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html Not a conclusive correlation but very suggestive that your claim is baseless Yes it is nice to get facts straight - but it is nicer to check first that you DO have the correct facts
You are So wrong,and despite what you claim,you have NOTHING to show you that most gun owners aren't responsible citizens
The graphic doesn't tell us much for several reasons. Death by firearms is not a good way to measure the effectiveness of gun laws designed to protect children. You would need something more specific like children killed or injured by firearms. Second, the way to evaluate the effectiveness of a policy is to see how rates change over time in an area after said policy went into effect, not to compare states that are dissimilar to each other in potentially important ways. Most of what you're quoting there seems to suggest that gun laws don't affect violent crime much, while suggesting that perhaps gun ownernship, especially illegal, does. But if gun laws don't affect violent crime, where is the benefit of gun laws? Even if guns were bad, that wouldn't mean it would be sane to pass a law against them if the law would not have the intended effect. Gun opponents point to America as having high crime and high guns, gun proponents point to Switzerland as having low crime and high guns. Seems that the problem isn't so much guns as something about the culture.
Bowerbird is like so many other subjects that base their ...ahem... "opinion" on seriously outdated and obscure data collected for bin disposal. She claims to be an ICU nurse, but I'm beginning to doubt that as well. Anyone who sould support some addled notion that beating a man to death with a baseball bat or getting carved up into a christmas goose as being the preferred method of defense/attack has not seen these injuries. That takes a certain level of brutality and barbarianism that surpasses the use of a firearm for defense. Funny how she automatically refers to an old and outdated critique as "just in..the Proof I've been a-lookin' fer" and tout as the bible of her defense. She just doesn't get it. The subject is in no postion to offer advice or even critize a Citizen.....oh, well..........subs will never understand Rights because they don't desire them and have never had them. Here, Miss ICU nurse Looking at some of these, I'd rather get shot. This is pretty graphic: knife wounds [video=youtube;I0d46oSJhq4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0d46oSJhq4&feature=player_detailpage[/video] Hard to find any images on line of people who have been killed with a baseball bat. Bats are a common weapon in assaults that do not involve guns.
Gun control has been effective everwhere, when it was meant to be so. You are in some sort of nutty fugue. You kill people in vast numbers because you have guns. Without guns you wouldn't. Try to learn something about statistics instead of allowing yourself to be manipulated by your masters' horror stories.
We notice you never stand and take any responsibility for your posts, just go on to another of your ohso superior posturing.
Have you noticed they never address the issue in Honduras? That little country has the highest murder count with a grand total 94 per 100,00 or Mexico, where gun ownerhip is illegal has a rate of 54 per 100,000. nope, some folks just hate everyone else with the US at the top of their gunsights. That is the only reason the attack us and claim their position as an enemy of this country and all of it's citizens. But for all of their hatred, they have yet to come over here and make war. Cowards, each and every one of them. Aussiefree2ride deserves to be a Citizen.............because he thinks for himself and come to a better understanding.
Hey, bud, she lives in Hong Kong....bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa........ I don't think she's killed anyone...............she's just smarter than you and has been from the beginning........freakin' subjects. No wonder you will never become a true Citizen but will always remain a subject. Slave away for your government.... I'd be willing to bet you've never read Animal Farm......another bwhaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaa.... you sound an awful lot like Squealer.
I guess you don't realize that a majority of guns used by Mexican cartels are from the US? Funny you mention this, since I read this article a few hours ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20825061
I just wanted to enlighten you on a few things. We aren't against gun control because we "hate our government, our country, and our life" we are against it because it will not solve the problems this nation is having. My take on gun control is that it is NOT good. But please, feel free to debate with me and give me your opinions and ideas. I would love to hear them. First of all, I believe that taking away guns is purly unconstutional. I encourage you to look up this link: http://www.youtube.com/watchv=UYbgGV7Yk ... ion_803559 The video is called Gun Control: Leads To More Violence. This video says: "The Second Amendment was put in place to allow you to protect yourself when the police can't or won't." This is true. If they can not help us, if we can not be helped, do you want to be defenceless? It is our legal right to have guns. Once this right starts to be taken away from us bad things begin to happen. The idea of gun control has already been tried. And didn't work. Australia tried gun control and there was a large uprising in violence because people were unable to protect themselves from outlaws who had guns. This link is about just that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv1CRLMTebo It is to a video called Gun Control - Watch What Happens When Guns Are Banned This video takes place in Australia and the uprising in violence is staggering. The banned gun law did absolutely nothing to stop crime. Armed robberies jumped up 69%, assaults with guns jumped up 29%, gun murders jumped 19%, and home invasions jumped 21%. All of this because the good law abiding citizens who had nothing to defend themselves got attacked by outlaws with guns. Outlawing guns will not make it so bad people won't have guns. It will make it so good people don't have guns to defend themselves from bad people. So you right, there may be nothing going on and no reason to worry now. But if they begin to take guns away, the violence will start. And do you really want you and your loved ones to be unarmed when it does? If guns begin to be taken from us the violence won't stop, in my opinion, it will be taken to a whole new level.
my master's horror stories? WFT is that? Unlike you, I do not fall to snake oil salesmen such as you have. Statics don't mean (*)(*)(*)(*) to me. I don't study numbers to drive home a non-point. I have killed on several occassions, mostly in war. You have absolutely no idea what that means and you cannot begin to grasp that concept. The only thing gun control is good for is government control, but since you are a subject, I doubt that has any impact on you. You're just still mad at the last azz wuppin we gave England and pissed because we messed up your grand little war with Hitler. Go move to China, I'm sure they have a nice little hovel for you there. Subjects..........................oh well..............
Yes, those more likely to posses guns illegally, are gang bangers and drug dealers. They don't typically follow laws remember? Yes, the edivence is in: New Cato Institute Study Shows How Private Gun Ownership Reduces Crime, Saves Lives. Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby. John Lott is also the leading gun control expert, and his studies have shown that more guns equals less crime. I'll have to go with the expert on this one. I have to remind you that when Chicago and Washington DC had their gun bans in place, they became the two most violent cities in the U.S.
Your opinions still do not change anything studies have shown, and what experts, like John Lott, have shown.
I am against any bans. However, the States have lost a lot of their power. They need to take it back.
supplied by the very same folks who are looking to disarm America.... guns used to murder unarmed civilians. But you won't see a Lib jump on this one because they favor giving guns to druglords
We can. The proper proviso is outlined. Those powers not given to or held the by states rests with the Citizen. Note: subjects aren't incuded
