Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And taking away guns from law-abiding people would solve these problems how?
I have no problem in guns possessed and well kept by law-abiding citizens.
But the problem is many law-abiding gun-owners don't behave responsibly -- they are so negligent that up to 600,000 legal guns -- 1,600 guns per day nationwide -- are stolen, burglarized, or just forgotten and gone astray. Most of these guns wind up in the hands of gangs and robbers.
Guns are not toys. Gun owners should behave responsibly and they should provide proof that the guns are well kept under their possession.
If you look at the comparison I did, you'll see that whites have a higher murder rate than the entire UK population, so in one sense you're correct. But at the same time, when you include the stats for black and Hispanics in the murder numbers, there's a jump from 1.4 murders per million, to 4.9 per million. That's a huge jump that can't be ignored. One thing is, though (and I'm guilty here, but I was curious), that the two issues should be separate. Inner city murder rates have pretty much nothing to do with Las Vegas (or San Bernardino, or Sandy Hook).
The common denominator is access to firearms. As I mentioned in an earlier post, illegal guns, were legal at one time. Stats say between 300,000 to 600,000 guns are stolen in the US from legal gun owners EVERY year. That adds up pretty quickly.
Even though I understand the issues of violence can be separated and addressed, the very fact that so many guns are too accessible to the wrong people, should send out alarm bells.
Those inner city killers got there guns from somewhere.
Facts are facts. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them any less true. Why are Blacks much more likely to commit violent crimes (including violent gun crimes) than any other race/ethnicity?
How is it not my problem? I've already posed the question... Since it's clearly NOT a gun problem but rather a problem with a certain demographic group being much more violent (in committing all violent crimes) than all the others, should we ban that demographic group from the US in order to reduce violent crime?
This is where we will never agree. Just because the underlying issues for violence may be different in different groups, the fact that too many guns in the US get into the hands of the wrong people. That surely is something that can not be denied.
So what are your plans on doing something about it?
Another opinion article to reaffirm ones ideological bias and worldview.
Check out the recent Scientific American article on the issue of guns and then we'll talk. Overwhelming studies show more guns don't make us safer and in fact make situations more deadly. This is just a fact and a reason the rest of the developed world restricts gun use.
The wealth goes exactly where it should: to those who work hard, produce, create, and bring value to their own lives and the lives of others around them.
Wealth avoids those who live their lives waiting to die.
Except it really isn't working out that way, is it now?
I'm not certain there is a causal linkage, but it is interesting data nonetheless.
It's not clear if this is controlling for number of guns owned by people...it is possible the "guns per person" went up because a small number of people acquired a significant amount of guns. In that scenario, gun ownership as a portion of the population could have actually gone down. If that were the case, I don't see a causal linkage to "more guns" making us necesarilly "safer".
Of course, I'm just speculating - I'd like to see that data.
Gun ownership is pretty widespread. 41% of adults live in a household that has at least one gun. 59% have friends who own guns.
You seem to forget that Hitler and Stalin signed a non aggression pact in 1939. They could have been allies except Hitler considered the Russians to be subhuman mongoloids. It wasn't until "Operation Barbarossa" in June of '41 that the war against Russia began. Followed by the siege at Leningrad in September which lasted 2 1/2 years and cost over a million lives. Just two years before "Operation Barbarossa" the Russians got their ass kicked in their war against the Fins who were better equipped for winter warfare. At that time famine was common place in the Soviet Union and their armed forces were all but decimated.
Operation "Lend Lease" also supplied the Soviets with food and supplies. Without which they may have starved let alone have the supplies to fight against Germany. So I'll stand by my statement that without the United States agricultural and industrial power the war would have been lost.
Although we only aided Russia out of necessity in order to defeat Germany. Germany could never succeed fighting a war on two fronts. The Soviets were never really our allies and in fact Stalin and Hitler were about equal when it came to committing atrocities against their own people. For Hitler it was genocidal, for Stalin it was paranoia against those that opposed him, his regime and his reign of terror. In fact when Germany first invaded Russia they were welcomed as liberators coming to save them from Stalin. Stalin at first had trouble getting them to fight for their own homeland.
I don't care what the Washington Post and their propagandists would have you believe. Those are historical facts not open to interpretation.
Well, you might need to study WW2 history more in that case. Germany was done after Stalingrad and Kursk, following that, the ending of the war was a just matter of time and more lives. "Lend Lease" helped but it was not the deciding factor. And most was coming in later years. In fact during 1941 when Moscow was on the brink and the Soviet army in disarray, there were hardly any deliveries. If anything, it was actually the British aid in 41-42 that did help, even though still small in amount.
You seem to forget that Hitler and Stalin signed a non aggression pact in 1939. They could have been allies except Hitler considered the Russians to be subhuman mongoloids. It wasn't until "Operation Barbarossa" in June of '41 that the war against Russia began. Followed by the siege at Leningrad in September which lasted 2 1/2 years and cost over a million lives. Just two years before "Operation Barbarossa" the Russians got their ass kicked in their war against the Fins who were better equipped for winter warfare. At that time famine was common place in the Soviet Union and their armed forces were all but decimated.
Operation "Lend Lease" also supplied the Soviets with food and supplies. Without which they may have starved let alone have the supplies to fight against Germany. So I'll stand by my statement that without the United States agricultural and industrial power the war would have been lost.
Although we only aided Russia out of necessity in order to defeat Germany. Germany could never succeed fighting a war on two fronts. The Soviets were never really our allies and in fact Stalin and Hitler were about equal when it came to committing atrocities against their own people. For Hitler it was genocidal, for Stalin it was paranoia against those that opposed him, his regime and his reign of terror. In fact when Germany first invaded Russia they were welcomed as liberators coming to save them from Stalin. Stalin at first had trouble getting them to fight for their own homeland.
I don't care what the Washington Post and their propagandists would have you believe. Those are historical facts not open to interpretation.
We will never agree. The war would of been lost, without the Soviet Union, without the UK ( including countries of the commonwealth ) and without the US.
The point you seem to miss, is that the US alone did not win the war. This is the stuff of Hollywood. The US played an important role, and could be said to have won the portion of the war in the Pacific, but Europe was not won by just the US.
The rest of the world, that participated in those two world wars, are sick and tired of the mantra " we saved your asses " when in fact it is much more complicated than that. It was an allied effort, and the US taking credit for winning the war is historically inaccurate and the stuff of propaganda.
Gun ownership is pretty widespread. 41% of adults live in a household that has at least one gun. 59% have friends who own guns.
Thank you for that figure. But it wasn't the exact data I'm talking about - what are those figures over time as it relates to gun violence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
