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.
But that's the entire point! Just because of omnipresence of guns in American culture we have always had higher crime rates.
The point is, even when those countries had lax gun laws, they still enjoyed crime rates much lower than ours, so pointing to their lower crime rates as compared to our own as proof that gun control is effective doesn't work.
A better example would be to compare a country that had similar crime rates to ours, and then those rates dropped dramatically after new gun laws were passed. So, do you have anything like that?
Quote:
Take the guns away and the entire US will become as safe as New York or New Jersey.
Yeah, because Trenton and Camden are so safe, aren't they? Next time, you should probably pick a state as an example that isn't home to five of the most dangerous cities in America.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 01-03-2015 at 07:42 PM..
Again, no sources and no data to support baseless claims. So typical.
Most other countries including UK and AU and CA all have had lower crimes rates before AND after gun control. Matter of fact, the crime crimes committed with the use of firearms INCREASED in the UK after gun control. The crime rate INCREASED after gun control. The crime rate in back where it was before gun control, but now, more guns are being used to commit crimes in the U.K. Remember YOU didn't do your research before hand, and YOU told me not to use Australia as an example. YOU told told me to use the UK as an example being that YOU THOUGHT the UK fit your narrative when other countries did not. Now that the facts are out, I'm betting YOU wish you would have kept your mouth shut lol.
You're trying to win a debate by playing stupid and trying to interpret and spin data into something it's clearly not and it's pathetic.
Last edited by DoniDanko; 01-03-2015 at 10:50 PM..
Of course people carry guns to be safer, people being safer make the country safer, which we all know is not the case in America as preponderance of guns does not make our country one bit safer then Canada, Australia, the UK, France or Spain. The exact opposite is in fact true.
LOL like Whip already point it to you, but you chose to disregard because it didn't fit your native, these countries have always had lower crime than the U.S. before and after gun control. These counties have lower rates of crime even when it comes to crimes that have absolutely nothing to do with guns. As I already pointed out, the UK has seen an INCREASE in gun use and crime after gun control lol.
People carrying guns are safer than those that are unarmed. That's common sense.
Tell these women that a gun wouldn't have made them safe. There are many more stories of women, men, children, seniors, store clerks, doctors, business owners who have been able to defend their lives and others with a gun. Most crimes have already been committed well before law enforcement shows up. I posted the above videos before, and of course, you pretended not to see that post. Explain to me how these women, most who were in their their own homes, would have been safer being disarmed?
Last edited by DoniDanko; 01-03-2015 at 10:58 PM..
I don't think you actually listen to yourself or at least think before you post because nothing you post makes any logical sense lol. When someone calls you out, you ignore that particular post, change the subject, or outright lie, are dishonest, and act as if you can not comprehend simple data and charts and statistics. You have nothing to back your far fetched rhetoric up with, so you have to resort to pathetic and desperate tactics lol.
Much of the gun violence is violence of one family member against another rather than strangers with guns coming to do a crime.
I will admit to being 70 years old and never having fired a gun. My dh is 73 and is the same and my son is similarly not shooting guns. In the time I have been alive, I have never been a victim of a violent crime even when I lived in the city of Chicago. I lived in a safe neighborhood. When I lived in a suburb of Chicago, the only time I heard a gun fired was when a deer was hit by a train and had to be shot by animal control.
Even when I taught in a gang-infested area, I was never afraid since I was not there during the times when shoot-em-ups occurred only in the daytime hours. I walked through that neighborhood on my way to and from the school I taught at and never saw any guns or heard any gunfire.
The gun violence I knew about in that same suburb involved a man who was going through a divorce and shot his wife and then shot himself leaving four young children orphaned. I knew his wife and children well. He was supposedly a law abiding gun owner until the contention about the divorce made him break down.
Much of the gun violence is violence of one family member against another rather than strangers with guns coming to do a crime.
I will admit to being 70 years old and never having fired a gun. My dh is 73 and is the same and my son is similarly not shooting guns. In the time I have been alive, I have never been a victim of a violent crime even when I lived in the city of Chicago. I lived in a safe neighborhood. When I lived in a suburb of Chicago, the only time I heard a gun fired was when a deer was hit by a train and had to be shot by animal control.
Even when I taught in a gang-infested area, I was never afraid since I was not there during the times when shoot-em-ups occurred only in the daytime hours. I walked through that neighborhood on my way to and from the school I taught at and never saw any guns or heard any gunfire.
The gun violence I knew about in that same suburb involved a man who was going through a divorce and shot his wife and then shot himself leaving four young children orphaned. I knew his wife and children well. He was supposedly a law abiding gun owner until the contention about the divorce made him break down.
What difference does it make if the weapon was a gun? Stop spinning. Domestic violence, murders, rapes with ALL WEAPONS INCLUDING HANDS AND FEET involve someone the victim knows. You posting links of unarmed defenseless people being killed does NOT help your case. If a man or woman wants to kill their spouse or children, having a gun in the home is NOT going to be the deciding factor or cause behind their death.
Answer these questions for me:
Next, because you made it without facing any violence, are you saying that this WILL be the case for everyone else?
Are you saying that when a domestic violence murder occurs with a knife, hands, feet, poison, blunt object, drowning, etc, it's because the murdering has a problem, but when a domestic violence murder occurs with a gun, the access to a gun is the problem and cause for the murder?
Are dead unarmed victims of murder in domestic violence situations better off being that they were unarmed?
Would the women in the Youtube videos have been safer if they didn't have a gun in the home? Do not deflect the question. Actually answer it.
I get that this woman was apparently sincere about being a responsible gun owner...but if your two year-old can obtain your gun right in front of you and put a round in your head, then somewhere along the chain of gun design to manufacture to owner handling...something grossly irresponsible has occurred. This should be obvious to everyone.
I get that this woman was apparently sincere about being a responsible gun owner...but if your two year-old can obtain your gun right in front of you and put a round in your head, then somewhere along the chain of gun design to manufacture to owner handling...something grossly irresponsible has occurred. This should be obvious to everyone.
It's very simple.. It isn't gun design or manufacturer. It is her own poor judgement. She had the gun in her purse and NOT on her person. Had she had the weapon on her person, her child would not have been able to access it without her knowledge and she would be alive today. A purse, fannypack etc, are terrible places to carry a gun. A proper holster is relatively inexpensive and more functional. It is also a safer alternative. Women, don't carry your gun anywhere but on your person...
It's very simple.. It isn't gun design or manufacturer. It is her own poor judgement. She had the gun in her purse and NOT on her person. Had she had the weapon on her person, her child would not have been able to access it without her knowledge and she would be alive today. A purse, fannypack etc, are terrible places to carry a gun. A proper holster is relatively inexpensive and more functional. It is also a safer alternative. Women, don't carry your gun anywhere but on your person...
She husband brought her the purse. She normally carried in a holster. I'm will to bet that her husband also choice to buy her the M&P Shield w/o the safety too because Glocks don't have safeties. M&P shields aren't female friendly guns. Even the women employees at my LGS have issues with racking the extremely stiff slide.
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.
Next time, you should probably pick a state as an example that isn't home to five of the most dangerous cities in America.
