i like the british solution - get rid of most privately owned guns, except for registered ones (and a registration is hard to get). also, regular cops dont carry guns.
most gun crimes in the us are done with legally-acquired guns, and many fights end up as murders because someone happened to have a gun handy.
tyranny can be ended without resorting to violent means - the toniculace has the power to destroy the economy of the country in question. the ussr, pol pot's regime... they fell for that reason. nazi germany was on the brink of economic collapse, and went to war mainly because its military buildup was unsustainable and they had to get rid of their extra weapons and soldiers.
In london homicides, rapes, and robberies, just to name a few of the crimes are up over more than X10s the amount of New York city's. Not to mention that even till this day illegal guns are constantly turning up in gun crimes all over over there. Although gun related deaths may be lower statistically you're making a very bad labeling mistake, and that's the mistaking of mislabeling of crime control for gun control - gun control is not crime control. While guns may make it easier to kill somebody, their absence creates a world of an even worse horror: where the most barbaric rule supreme against those whom are physically weaker, and that place you love so much for its gun control has just that taking place, and upon my judgment I'd rather take a walk where they allow people to carry handguns than have to walk threw a busy city where no one is even allowed to touch a gun. The point is guns can't be held responsible for deaths, and murders anymore than rosey o donald's fork can be held responsible for her triple chin, however the harmony which they create among society is necessary.
Any man who has widely preached peace has been killed, and tyranny is a state of control which will not listen, and become unfair by punishing those who do not follow it. Unfortunately it's completely unrealistic for peaceful demonstrations to defeat a tyrannical rule, and not to mention that your political understandings of Nazi-Germany are completely lacking in any reality, and any critical thought. Ghezz, what the hell?
* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
* When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20 were turned in.
* After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.
* Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
* 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the toniculation - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
* New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons:22
By the way all guns were once legally purchased, and at this point I do not expect you to become welcoming at all to firearms, but I do hope that you now question the outcome of gun control a little more to the point of even making disagreement's with england.
Show Posts