There are so many easy ways to get guns legally or illegally it dosnt matter what the law says. But if a criminal has 1 so should I.
Stupid an ignornat, knives were designed to faciltate cutting materials such as food and materials. Guns were invented to kill and maim...S3v3N wrote:
In England, how many deaths are the result of stab wounds.
So should knives be outlawed?
From the posts here gun being present and used has been justified. I really hope someone tries to rob your ass, you fight back and get shot. Maybe then you'll have a better perspective.
Estaban, you are an idiot. Your right, there are a lot of deaths caused by guns. That's what they're for. But you've been given a lot of examples of things that kill more people, why don't you focus on those?
Besides, as stupid Americans we don't even CARE who dies, as long as it isn't us right? Why are you trying so hard to save our ignorant lives. LET us kill ourselves you dick.
Besides, as stupid Americans we don't even CARE who dies, as long as it isn't us right? Why are you trying so hard to save our ignorant lives. LET us kill ourselves you dick.
Holy Shit... Wow...=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
“It’s in our constitution”
This falls flat on its face at the first hurdle as this is in an “Amendment”. Any basic dictionary will tell you that means “a change to”. So arguing that a decision made in the late 1790s is somehow ‘set in stone’ or ‘sacred’ is ridiculous as the right to bear arms has already broken this rule to be there in the first place.
It is commonly accepted that the Bill of Rights was largely inspired by the English Bill Of Rights. This formed the basis of laws we have in the UK today and include things like the right to petition the King/Queen etc. However it also included these two: -
“Freedom for Protestants to carry arms for defence”
“Freedom from fines or forfeits without trial”
I’d like to see you try and carry a sawn-off shot gun around wearing a “Jesus Loves You” T-Shirt without a Police Gun Unit being called out to shoot your ass down. As for the second one, well you don’t seriously think that we don’t have fines in the UK do you?
It is also obvious that there were a lot of things that were legal in 1791 that aren’t today, most notably slavery but you wouldn't find anyone arguing we should bring that back because of its traditional value. As time goes on we learn more, adjust our morality, live in war and live in peace and so it follows that laws change to suit the current climate. This is quite simple, obvious logic but the Pro-Gun brigade would have you believe it doesn’t apply to “their” law...sorry “constitution”......sorry “amendment”.
It is for self-defence.
Pretty much the same as the first argument said in a different way. This comes from the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the second amendment from the constitution. Basically it says you can have them for defence but not for killing people.
“The citizen has at all times the right to keep arms of modern warfare, if without danger to others, and for purposes of training and efficiency in their use, but not such weapons as are only intended to be the instruments of private feuds or vengeance." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.
Here the good ol’ Americans invented the World’s first circular argument; because if the aggressor in a feud didn’t have the same right to bear arms then the victim wouldn’t need one to defend against it. It’s akin to saying you have the right to beat up your kid to prepare him for the bullying he’ll inevitably receive at school.
The bill's other purpose was to “keep a well-organised militia” in case the British and/or other nations tried to invade after the US’ independence. Apart from the fact that just giving people guns doesn’t make them “well-organised”, it is obvious today that: -
1) An invasion aint gonna happen any time soon.
2) If it did and the aggressor did enough to defeat the US army, I’m sure it would make light work of anyone with a handgun.
Finally it is incongruent with the government’s position (and usually the pro-gunners’ also I suspect) on the right of other countries to own nuclear arms. If they thought the way they do on this as they do on the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” that they religiously recite, then they should have no problem with Iran developing an A-Bomb for self-defence needs.
It isn’t easy getting guns/there are limits on automatics etc
Apart from this argument being different from state to state (Virginia’s being one of the most lax as we all now know), the one about autos being illegal is the same as me saying “make all illicit drugs legal except heroin”. Apart from being a fan of legalising cannabis I think most wouldn’t accept my suggestion. On a side note, the gun used in Virginia was a 9mm Pistol so you don’t need an automatic to go on mass killing sprees.
I’ve heard some pro-gunners complain in defence of their argument that where they live they had to wait a week before they could get their hands on a gun. A week? What a hardship that must have been having to wait a whole seven days. I have certainly held grudges longer than week in my life but luckily I’m not crazy and don't live in the US. I’d like the pro-gunners to compare their laws with the average developed country instead of whining about how tough they perceive their state’s to be vs (insert state with laxer laws here).
Would you legalise crack as long as there was a seven day waiting period? Didn’t think so and if you’ve noticed the drug comparisons here and want to tell me I shouldn’t be comparing the use of drugs with the right to own guns, I’ll leave you to ponder this statistic,
Causes of death in USA, 2000
Guns: 29,000
Illicit use of drugs 17,000
1st. What fucking bussiness do YOU have in the area of American History and how "it should be", ya fucking karsi.
First of all. The Constitution is a set of 'rules' that were made by the founding fathers of America, so that the new country they made, will NOT become corrupt (like its becoming today).“It’s in our constitution”
This falls flat on its face at the first hurdle as this is in an “Amendment”. Any basic dictionary will tell you that means “a change to”. So arguing that a decision made in the late 1790s is somehow ‘set in stone’ or ‘sacred’ is ridiculous as the right to bear arms has already broken this rule to be there in the first place.
Also, you are wrong. The term "Amend" means to change. The term "Amendment" is a change that has already happened. Example: "Hey guys, i made an amendment to the rules you should all check it out"
Therefore, the Amendments were a change the the old rules (before the constitution)
Ok now that thats out of the way...
Just check the proof. I dare you. You liberals are all about proof when its on your side. Look at EVERY state in the USA the has little to no gun control(Like Texas). Ok. Write down there yearly crime rate. Now, Look at states with HIGH gun control(like California, or Washington DC) Also write down the yearly crime rates...
Now compare the 2. I will BET YOU every cent i have that if you made a chart of the 2 states you would see that the states with HIGH gun control, also has High crime rates.
Now, newbs, im gunna say this one last time
Pretend your a criminal, your going to mug this lady in the streets.
You have a gun. Even though theres high gun control in your state, you still obtained a gun illegaly. BECAUSE YOUR A CRIMINAL AND THATS WHAT CRIMINALS DO!. Now. If this woman has a gun hidden under her shirt, your going to be in big trouble. She going to pull out her gun and attemp to shoot you (most likely)
Now. Which is more intimedating, a man that MIGHT have a gun, or a man that you know doesnt have a gun?
You see, by enforcing gun control the state helps criminals. Because you can never take every gun away, no matter how hard you try.
Wouldn't you feel a hell of a lot safer if you were walking down a dark street with a gun rather then unarmed?
Look at your pathetic country of England, they've got huge crime rates, because theres high gun control.
All the stuff i said above is PROVEN by
1. Logical thinking
2. Places like Texas are much safer.
This is why Washington DC (formerly known as the strongest in gun control) had the highest crime rates, its because no matter what you couldnt own a gun.
If you dont understand this, im sorry to say, but your a fucking dumbass. Simple as that.
END OF DISCUSSION
15 more years! 15 more years!
Why is it you bad toothed brits hate guns so much?
A friend of mine years ago was in Englad and he went to Paul McCartneys farm. He said Paul came out with a pistol in his belt and told them to get the fuck of his property.
So, should Sir Paul not be allowed a firearm?
btw, this was before George was attacked in his home, maybe 15 years ago, and I have no idea if its a true story.
Dezerteagal5, will you kindly stop with the common sense, it's just not popular here.
A friend of mine years ago was in Englad and he went to Paul McCartneys farm. He said Paul came out with a pistol in his belt and told them to get the fuck of his property.
So, should Sir Paul not be allowed a firearm?
btw, this was before George was attacked in his home, maybe 15 years ago, and I have no idea if its a true story.
Dezerteagal5, will you kindly stop with the common sense, it's just not popular here.
Last edited by ATG (2007-04-17 14:05:38)
And your point being?. If I wanted to kill you or any other person I don't need a gun speaking of which....=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Stupid an ignornat, knives were designed to faciltate cutting materials such as food and materials. Guns were invented to kill and maim...S3v3N wrote:
In England, how many deaths are the result of stab wounds.
So should knives be outlawed?
I've said this before and i'll say this again.
An Unloaded Firearm is pretty much useless. You gun control types have it all wrong. Ammunition is responsible for a persons death. Ask any medical professional, what killed the person, Its not the colt 1911A. IT was the .45ACP round fired out of it. The only way a gun without bullets can kill somebody is if you impale it in their eye and it hits the brain or if you pistol whip them enough.
Just remember...
can't argue with thatS3v3N wrote:
And your point being?. If I wanted to kill you or any other person I don't need a gun speaking of which....=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Stupid an ignornat, knives were designed to faciltate cutting materials such as food and materials. Guns were invented to kill and maim...S3v3N wrote:
In England, how many deaths are the result of stab wounds.
So should knives be outlawed?
I've said this before and i'll say this again.
An Unloaded Firearm is pretty much useless. You gun control types have it all wrong. Ammunition is responsible for a persons death. Ask any medical professional, what killed the person, Its not the colt 1911A. IT was the .45ACP round fired out of it. The only way a gun without bullets can kill somebody is if you impale it in their eye and it hits the brain or if you pistol whip them enough.
Just remember...
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i124/ … 0yc8wc.gif
Ah, great - turn it into a flame-war! NemeSiS-Factor makes the first step, Dezerteagal5 the second! C'mon! Lets just throw insults at this guy because he disagrees with our constitution! After all, it's ours, and therefore none of the world's business! /sarcasm
And for all the death-wishes! Great, thank you! I with being able to own a gun legally without thorough checks - yes, very thorough, not just the skimming over background that they are doing right now in many parts of the USA. Sure, you'll have to wait for an additional week to have it, but ffs, that way you'll keep maniacs from going psycho!
-konfusion
And for all the death-wishes! Great, thank you! I with being able to own a gun legally without thorough checks - yes, very thorough, not just the skimming over background that they are doing right now in many parts of the USA. Sure, you'll have to wait for an additional week to have it, but ffs, that way you'll keep maniacs from going psycho!
-konfusion
If you are a criminal you can get a gun regardless of the law (he's a criminal remember, he doesn't care what the law says). Why shouldn't I be allowed to have a gun to defend myself against criminals?
If I'm crazy enough to kill loads of people, I will also find a way to kill without guns. For example any 10 year old with some half-decent instructions can make a bomb. Sure it doesn't have the blast radius of C4 but its still deadly. What are you going to do about it. Forbid coal and fertilizer?
Yes I own a gun (a 9mm Pistol). My dad has a 9mm as well and a shot gun. A guy few houses down the road has a working WW2 era flak in his garden. Petty much ever swiss male has a fully functional and ready to go assault rifle in his bedroom. Yet we have next to no crime with firearms. There are nearly no murders here. In the UK (which has some tightest gun laws) there are way more murders. What does that tell us? If the people are violent, there are going to be deaths regardless of laws. If I kill someone I don't give a shit about some stupid gun law.
If I'm crazy enough to kill loads of people, I will also find a way to kill without guns. For example any 10 year old with some half-decent instructions can make a bomb. Sure it doesn't have the blast radius of C4 but its still deadly. What are you going to do about it. Forbid coal and fertilizer?
Yes I own a gun (a 9mm Pistol). My dad has a 9mm as well and a shot gun. A guy few houses down the road has a working WW2 era flak in his garden. Petty much ever swiss male has a fully functional and ready to go assault rifle in his bedroom. Yet we have next to no crime with firearms. There are nearly no murders here. In the UK (which has some tightest gun laws) there are way more murders. What does that tell us? If the people are violent, there are going to be deaths regardless of laws. If I kill someone I don't give a shit about some stupid gun law.
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
*gasp*.. Logic....max wrote:
If you are a criminal you can get a gun regardless of the law (he's a criminal remember, he doesn't care what the law says). Why shouldn't I be allowed to have a gun to defend myself against criminals?
If I'm crazy enough to kill loads of people, I will also find a way to kill without guns. For example any 10 year old with some half-decent instructions can make a bomb. Sure it doesn't have the blast radius of C4 but its still deadly. What are you going to do about it. Forbid coal and fertilizer?
Yes I own a gun (a 9mm Pistol). My dad has a 9mm as well and a shot gun. A guy few houses down the road has a working WW2 era flak in his garden. Petty much ever swiss male has a fully functional and ready to go assault rifle in his bedroom. Yet we have next to no crime with firearms. There are nearly no murders here. In the UK (which has some tightest gun laws) there are way more murders. What does that tell us? If the people are violent, there are going to be deaths regardless of laws. If I kill someone I don't give a shit about some stupid gun law.
Dunblane.ATG wrote:
Why is it you bad toothed brits hate guns so much?
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):max wrote:
If you are a criminal you can get a gun regardless of the law (he's a criminal remember, he doesn't care what the law says). Why shouldn't I be allowed to have a gun to defend myself against criminals?
If I'm crazy enough to kill loads of people, I will also find a way to kill without guns. For example any 10 year old with some half-decent instructions can make a bomb. Sure it doesn't have the blast radius of C4 but its still deadly. What are you going to do about it. Forbid coal and fertilizer?
Yes I own a gun (a 9mm Pistol). My dad has a 9mm as well and a shot gun. A guy few houses down the road has a working WW2 era flak in his garden. Petty much ever swiss male has a fully functional and ready to go assault rifle in his bedroom. Yet we have next to no crime with firearms. There are nearly no murders here. In the UK (which has some tightest gun laws) there are way more murders. What does that tell us? If the people are violent, there are going to be deaths regardless of laws. If I kill someone I don't give a shit about some stupid gun law.
Homicide Suicide Unintentional
USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
Actually, you have 5 times more than us...
I agree aexcept that over(canada) here the criminals all have illegal guns. They are taking guns away from people who paid for them and registered them(which cannot be done if u have been to jail.). This makes a confrontation between a criminal and a honest citizen unfair in favour of the criminal.TigerXtrm wrote:
There is nothing wrong with regulation laws on guns. Here in Holland, the country so well known for drug abuse and paid sex, guns are extremely illegal IF you don't have a permit to have one. Get a permit and you can have as many guns as you want (or as many as your permit allows). And whether or not you get a permit is based on your personal history. If you've ever been in jail, no permit. History of violence? No permit. Ect. Ect. In other words only people who are deemed responsible enough to own a gun can have one.
Now don't throw the argument 'some states in America also require permits' at me because you know just as well as I do that even a 4 year old with a fake ID can get a permit.
You need guns for your protection? Protection against who? The other lunatics who also own a gun and got their hands on it just as easily as you did? Protection against burglars? Better make sure he doesn't fall down and hit his head when you shoot him, he might sue you.
If you think having a gun in your night drawer makes you saver then what would be the harm in having a decent permit system in place to make sure only normal people can have guns? If you are so confident that you are responsible enough to handle it then you shouldn't be opposed to a rule like this. Instead everyone is shouting that guns should be completely legal and at the same time all these idiots are wondering where kids get the weapons to commit these school shootings. The people shouting for legality are the exact reason a permit rule should be in place because deep down these people know they wouldn't pass a permit background check, along with more then half of the American population.
Tiger
hahaha, that made me laugh, thanks ATGATG wrote:
Why is it you bad toothed brits hate guns so much?
I was talking murders in general. Put knife kills into the equation and you will get a completely different picture. Also our crime rate has gone down considerably. This statistic is 8 years old.Shem wrote:
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):max wrote:
If you are a criminal you can get a gun regardless of the law (he's a criminal remember, he doesn't care what the law says). Why shouldn't I be allowed to have a gun to defend myself against criminals?
If I'm crazy enough to kill loads of people, I will also find a way to kill without guns. For example any 10 year old with some half-decent instructions can make a bomb. Sure it doesn't have the blast radius of C4 but its still deadly. What are you going to do about it. Forbid coal and fertilizer?
Yes I own a gun (a 9mm Pistol). My dad has a 9mm as well and a shot gun. A guy few houses down the road has a working WW2 era flak in his garden. Petty much ever swiss male has a fully functional and ready to go assault rifle in his bedroom. Yet we have next to no crime with firearms. There are nearly no murders here. In the UK (which has some tightest gun laws) there are way more murders. What does that tell us? If the people are violent, there are going to be deaths regardless of laws. If I kill someone I don't give a shit about some stupid gun law.
Homicide Suicide Unintentional
USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
Actually, you have 5 times more than us...
Also many of those kills will be in self defence.
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
so... what you're saying is...S3v3N wrote:
An Unloaded Firearm is pretty much useless. You gun control types have it all wrong. Ammunition is responsible for a persons death. Ask any medical professional, what killed the person, Its not the colt 1911A. IT was the .45ACP round fired out of it. The only way a gun without bullets can kill somebody is if you impale it in their eye and it hits the brain or if you pistol whip them enough.
/joke
Last edited by CoronadoSEAL (2007-04-17 14:30:36)
That is exactly what I was thinking. I forgot Chris Rock even said all that.CoronadoSEAL wrote:
so... what you're saying is...S3v3N wrote:
An Unloaded Firearm is pretty much useless. You gun control types have it all wrong. Ammunition is responsible for a persons death. Ask any medical professional, what killed the person, Its not the colt 1911A. IT was the .45ACP round fired out of it. The only way a gun without bullets can kill somebody is if you impale it in their eye and it hits the brain or if you pistol whip them enough.
y throw sucide in there? Like you cant kill your self any other way then with out a gun? Completely reatrded. And yes the US is higher. We have bigger cities and such a diverse culture not every 1 gets along. But the real question is how many people have been saved?? If 1 out of the 26,000 people at VT had a gun 33 people wouldnt be dead right now. Think about the bigger picture b4 posting.
very true. If I can't shoot myself, I'll jump off a building. Where's the difference?Desolater wrote:
y throw sucide in there? Like you cant kill your self any other way then with out a gun? Completely reatrded. And yes the US is higher. We have bigger cities and such a diverse culture not every 1 gets along. But the real question is how many people have been saved?? If 1 out of the 26,000 people at VT had a gun 33 people wouldnt be dead right now. Think about the bigger picture b4 posting.
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
If that guy couldn't have walked into walmart and bought himself a gun in the first place, they wouldnt of NEEDED a gun to defend themselves, I doubt that geeky south korean loner would of been able to build up the contacts had it been in the UK, to be honest, I've never even heard of a shooting in my town the entire time i've lived here, had it been america, there would of been 3 per year..Desolater wrote:
y throw sucide in there? Like you cant kill your self any other way then with out a gun? Completely reatrded. And yes the US is higher. We have bigger cities and such a diverse culture not every 1 gets along. But the real question is how many people have been saved?? If 1 out of the 26,000 people at VT had a gun 33 people wouldnt be dead right now. Think about the bigger picture b4 posting.
Perhaps you yourself should listen to your own advice
Suicide was just in the table I had found. Not my fault it was included was it?Desolater wrote:
y throw sucide in there? Like you cant kill your self any other way then with out a gun? Completely reatrded. And yes the US is higher. We have bigger cities and such a diverse culture not every 1 gets along. But the real question is how many people have been saved?? If 1 out of the 26,000 people at VT had a gun 33 people wouldnt be dead right now. Think about the bigger picture b4 posting.
Last edited by Shem (2007-04-17 14:41:59)
LOL=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Stupid an ignornat, knives were designed to faciltate cutting materials such as food and materials. Guns were invented to kill and maim...S3v3N wrote:
In England, how many deaths are the result of stab wounds.
So should knives be outlawed?
another person from europe thinks he knows what will solve all these shootings.
let me tell you something, its not a fucking invasion i fear. i live in the #1 most dangerous city in the united states, highest homicide rate, period. i have comfort in knowing that my kimber 1911 will spit pure fire if need be to protect my family and myself. see, you dont understand because you dont have to deal with gangbangers and drive-bys.
dont think for a second you know what you are talking about when you try to dictate OUR rights.
oh and as far as knives go, i have seen alot of knives that are used as tools. on the other hand i have seen MANY knives that were made with the intention of being used in combat. the very design of said knives are to withstand the abuse of stabbing into bone, cutting flesh and the ability to penetrate the body much more than other knives. you dont get to decide that knives are tools and firearms are weapons, sorry it just doesnt work like that.
Why Is England Arming Their Cops And Issuing Bullet Proof Vests , If Their Gun Control Works So Good
But it's still acceptable to ammend an ammendment.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
First of all. The Constitution is a set of 'rules' that were made by the founding fathers of America, so that the new country they made, will NOT become corrupt (like its becoming today).
Also, you are wrong. The term "Amend" means to change. The term "Amendment" is a change that has already happened. Example: "Hey guys, i made an amendment to the rules you should all check it out"
Therefore, the Amendments were a change the the old rules (before the constitution)
Most gun control laws are reactionary to existing problems. They wouldn't have bothered to introduce new laws if there wasn't a problem in the first place.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Just check the proof. I dare you. You liberals are all about proof when its on your side. Look at EVERY state in the USA the has little to no gun control(Like Texas). Ok. Write down there yearly crime rate. Now, Look at states with HIGH gun control(like California, or Washington DC) Also write down the yearly crime rates...
Now compare the 2. I will BET YOU every cent i have that if you made a chart of the 2 states you would see that the states with HIGH gun control, also has High crime rates.
So in your example the lady tried to pull a gun and gets killed, I'm not seeing the vast advantage there.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Now, newbs, im gunna say this one last time
Pretend your a criminal, your going to mug this lady in the streets.
You have a gun. Even though theres high gun control in your state, you still obtained a gun illegaly. BECAUSE YOUR A CRIMINAL AND THATS WHAT CRIMINALS DO!. Now. If this woman has a gun hidden under her shirt, your going to be in big trouble. She going to pull out her gun and attemp to shoot you (most likely)
As I've said so many times, the source of the vast majority of illegal guns is legal gun owners and gun shops. Remove the source and most criminals will not have access to guns. Yes there will be some, but nothing like the current amounts. Would you rather 1 in 5 criminals had a gun or 1 in 500?Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Now. Which is more intimedating, a man that MIGHT have a gun, or a man that you know doesnt have a gun?
You see, by enforcing gun control the state helps criminals. Because you can never take every gun away, no matter how hard you try.
Wouldn't you feel a hell of a lot safer if you were walking down a dark street with a gun rather then unarmed?
Erm, USA has about 4 times the homicide rates that the UK has, twice the rape rate and more violent crime. The UK is far safer than the US. The main areas that the UK exceeds the US in is non-violent burglary, mugging and fraud.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Look at your pathetic country of England, they've got huge crime rates, because theres high gun control.
All the stuff i said above is PROVEN by
1. Logical thinking
2. Places like Texas are much safer.
This is why Washington DC (formerly known as the strongest in gun control) had the highest crime rates, its because no matter what you couldnt own a gun.
If you dont understand this, im sorry to say, but your a fucking dumbass. Simple as that.
END OF DISCUSSION
Why is it then, if guns reduce crime, that the USA has HIGHER homicide, violent crime and rape rates than the UK? If you're right then if the UK introduced legal gun ownership our rates would drop. Clearly there must be something going horribly wrong in the USA. Any ideas?
Fashion?logitech487 wrote:
Why Is England Arming Their Cops And Issuing Bullet Proof Vests , If Their Gun Control Works So Good