If no clear solution can be found I always would rather err on the side of liberty. In this case being free to own property that you desire to own (a gun) is by definition more freedom then not being free to own property that you desire to own.
To address the question of the OP, I draw the line at explosives.
Owning plenty of guns, many of them "high-capacity assault weapons" or whatever weird politi-speak they're using these days, hasn't done my neighbors any bad. We take them shooting every once in a while, we enjoy learning about them, we actively follow the safety rules, and now, we stow them for a future in which such things are a priceless commodity. Which may be sooner, rather than later. Of course, we have a couple strategically located for home defense.
I'm going to be blunt: I don't like guns. The reason? Guns were made to kill. That's all they've ever been made for. They've been remade over and over again for the sole purpose of being better at killing; not just wild animals but other people.
It sounds like a blinding flash of the obvious, but it's surprisingly, disturbingly easy to forget.
It's all very well firing down a range, working on your groupings, learning about how the mechanisms work, what happens from between the moment you squeeze that trigger to the bullet shooting off... But at the end of the day, all of this? It comes from the intention and desire to kill another living thing.
As my morals stand, that disturbs me. Yes, I'm a pacifist. I try as hard as I can to avoid killing any other organism on this planet. It's my general passion in life - Life itself. I'm a person of science, someone with a desire to learn. When I see something dying, I see learning being extinguished with it.
To me, learning about how a gun works? Is learning about killing. It's having an interest in a tool of killing.
To me it's disturbing because it's a reminder of the atrocities humanity can commit to others of its kin.
When it comes to gun control, I'm quite firmly against the free possession of guns. Why? Because it's advocating the admiration of tools which are, have been and always will be made for killing. And we can do better than that.
Statistics to me are generally quite meaningless; is deterrence really that great a thing? What it's saying is that the sole reason someone might not shoot someone else, is that someone might shoot them in return. Is that really a particularly desirable situation?
Personally, I think the romanticism of these tools for killing is a major part of the problem. It leaves subtle violent, aggressive undertones in the mindset of a society.
In the face of the inevitable shouts of "Gay!", I'm going to say that the best solution for violent crime is (As the best solutions are) one that tackles the cause. If you can cut off the intent to harm, it doesn't matter what tool they might use. People never do things without a reason. Part of the solution? What really wouldn't hurt is to just encourage some caring and kindness. The world's a far too selfish place. When people care more about themselves than anyone else, that's when the bullets start to fly.
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;39176368]I'm going to be blunt: I don't like guns. The reason? Guns were made to kill. That's all they've ever been made for. They've been remade over and over again for the sole purpose of being better at killing; not just wild animals but other people.
It sounds like a blinding flash of the obvious, but it's surprisingly, disturbingly easy to forget.
It's all very well firing down a range, working on your groupings, learning about how the mechanisms work, what happens from between the moment you squeeze that trigger to the bullet shooting off... But at the end of the day, all of this? It comes from the intention and desire to kill another living thing.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget that the Olympics were born as a "playground" for the fundamentals of ancient warfare:
Chariot racing, javelin throw, marathons, pugilism, etc. They even had running events in full armour.
What I'm saying is that judging things based on their original intent is often incorrect and heavily fallacious, you need to take into account the whole picture (99% of gun owners make fair use of their guns).
Then you can easily extend your argument to other objects and activities: NASCAR (born out of bootlegger races), martial arts and contact sports, fencing, radars, archery, GPS systems... The list is infinite.
[QUOTE=Black Milano;39176579]Don't forget that the Olympics were born as a "playground" for the fundamentals of ancient warfare:
Archery, javelin throw, marathons, pugilism, etc. They even had running events in full armour.
What I'm saying is that judging things based on their original intent is often incorrect and heavily fallacious, you need to take into account the whole picture (99% of gun owners make fair use of their guns).[/QUOTE]
That's a fair point, but you have to bear in mind that guns are *DESIGNED* to kill. It's all they've ever been designed and built for; to be the most effective killing tool possible.
On the other hand, bows, javelins? They're just sporting tools now. They're designed and made for sport. True, this is, again, comparable to guns - The bows and arrows designed to get a fast, accurate arrow movement, the javelin for that smooth, streamlined shape and correct arc. But look at it this way:
When you think of any gun's purpose, the thing most likely to come to mind? Killing, whether it's an animal or human or whatever.
When you think of a bow and arrow, a javelin? You're probably going to think of those olympians, shooting the bow down a range or getting a good throw of the javelin.
It's the mindset, the attitude that's just as important as the purpose.
When I think of a gun, 3 things come to mind: Target shooting in its many forms first, hunting second, and self-defence third. Only 2 of these involve the killing of something, and I am of the opinion that hunting is actually one of the most ethical ways to acquire meat, and target shooting is actually internationally the most common use for firearms.
When I think of a bow, the first thing that comes to mind is target shooting, the second hunting, the third medieval warfare. Bows are still used to this day in murder, they're still used today very widely for hunting, and they were used in the past very widely for warfare.
When I think of Javelins the first thing that comes to mind is actually the rocket launcher of the same name, followed by the Olympics.
The attitude of firearms is not to go murder people with them, the attitude is that you have a very powerful tool in your hand that becomes a weapon if misused, it involves a great deal of respect for the power of the tool you hold and responsibility to use that tool in a safe manner. The mindset of the vast majority of America's some hundred million gun owners, Britain's million, and Canada's 4 million is not that they hold a murder machine that they intend to kill children with, it's that they hold a powerful sporting tool they use to have fun, compete, to provide food for their families with, and if necessary, if the worst happens, they may have to use it to defend their lives by ending someone else's, but that is not a consideration that is taken lightly by those who own firearms in a responsible manner.
All bows were designed for initially is to kill, but like guns there are bows with an exclusive target purpose, just as there are target guns, designed for punching holes in paper or shattering clay discs, not for killing. Not every gun is built to kill and not every gun that was built to kill is used in such a manner, as a matter of fact, the act of surplusing guns, selling old military firearms that are not illegal, is incredibly common and popular, and many of these military rifles designed to kill people are re-purposed as deer rifles and/or target rifles by their owners, many without modification. As you said, mindset and attitude is just as, though I will contend more, important as/than the purpose it was built for.
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;39176657]That's a fair point, but you have to bear in mind that guns are *DESIGNED* to kill. It's all they've ever been designed and built for; to be the most effective killing tool possible.
On the other hand, bows, javelins? They're just sporting tools now. They're designed and made for sport. True, this is, again, comparable to guns - The bows and arrows designed to get a fast, accurate arrow movement, the javelin for that smooth, streamlined shape and correct arc. But look at it this way:
When you think of any gun's purpose, the thing most likely to come to mind? Killing, whether it's an animal or human or whatever.
When you think of a bow and arrow, a javelin? You're probably going to think of those olympians, shooting the bow down a range or getting a good throw of the javelin.
It's the mindset, the attitude that's just as important as the purpose.[/QUOTE]
But if we look at what people actually use guns for (which in my opinion is the most important thing) we find out that murder is extremely rare. A gun owner committing homicide is as rare as being hit by lightning in any given year (9000 murders, 80.000.000 gun owners). What's the real mindset then? sporting purposes or killing people?. Judging from what people do with their guns, i think it's the former.
We tend to lose our sense of proportion when discussing emotional topics like guns, the problem is much smaller than we think.
Guns are *DESIGNED* to use a small explosion to propel a lead slug at a target. It might be wildlife, it might be another human, it might be a piece of paper. The vast majority of gun owners use their guns for the latter. They go target shooting. Many own a gun because they feel like if they are in danger, the police might not arrive in time. Many more own a gun to kill Bambi. But it is up to the person holding the gun to determine what it will do. Guns are morally ambiguous.
To quote the History Channel (back when it was based in historical events):
[QUOTE]"THE GUN HAS PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE IN HISTORY.
AN INVENTION WHICH HAS BEEN PRAISED AND DENOUNCED...SERVED HERO AND VILLAIN ALIKE...AND CARRIES WITH IT MORAL RESPONSIBILITY.
TO UNDERSTAND THE GUN IS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HISTORY"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;39176368]I'm going to be blunt: I don't like guns. The reason? Guns were made to kill. That's all they've ever been made for. They've been remade over and over again for the sole purpose of being better at killing; not just wild animals but other people.
It sounds like a blinding flash of the obvious, but it's surprisingly, disturbingly easy to forget.
It's all very well firing down a range, working on your groupings, learning about how the mechanisms work, what happens from between the moment you squeeze that trigger to the bullet shooting off... But at the end of the day, all of this? It comes from the intention and desire to kill another living thing.
As my morals stand, that disturbs me. Yes, I'm a pacifist. I try as hard as I can to avoid killing any other organism on this planet. It's my general passion in life - Life itself. I'm a person of science, someone with a desire to learn. When I see something dying, I see learning being extinguished with it.
To me, learning about how a gun works? Is learning about killing. It's having an interest in a tool of killing.
To me it's disturbing because it's a reminder of the atrocities humanity can commit to others of its kin.
When it comes to gun control, I'm quite firmly against the free possession of guns. Why? Because it's advocating the admiration of tools which are, have been and always will be made for killing. And we can do better than that.
Statistics to me are generally quite meaningless; is deterrence really that great a thing? What it's saying is that the sole reason someone might not shoot someone else, is that someone might shoot them in return. Is that really a particularly desirable situation?
Personally, I think the romanticism of these tools for killing is a major part of the problem. It leaves subtle violent, aggressive undertones in the mindset of a society.
In the face of the inevitable shouts of "Gay!", I'm going to say that the best solution for violent crime is (As the best solutions are) one that tackles the cause. If you can cut off the intent to harm, it doesn't matter what tool they might use. People never do things without a reason. Part of the solution? What really wouldn't hurt is to just encourage some caring and kindness. The world's a far too selfish place. When people care more about themselves than anyone else, that's when the bullets start to fly.[/QUOTE]
Guess you shouldn't cut up your food at dinner tonight seeing as knives were invented and refined for killing
The "designed for" argument is probably the weakest crock of shit I've come across. It's also naive to think that any desire to learn about guns or to use them is a (possibly subconscious) desire to kill.
Pretty much every piece of modern technology originated from the desire to make killing more efficient. Warfare drives technology, every major war leads to the creation of new technologies whose intent is to either kill more people or kill them more efficiently
[QUOTE=download;39177673]It's also naive to think that any desire to learn about guns or to use them is a (possibly subconscious) desire to kill.[/QUOTE]
If someone feels like them being handed a weapon will turn them into a bloodthirsty monster, I appreciate them declining the tool, as it is safer. I tend to have strong inhibitions, so pass it over here.
Chainsaws, axes, and lumbersaws are tools designed for mass deforestation. I don't give two craps that people use these to build homes, maintain gardens, demolition etc. the fact of the matter is that this tool was originally DESIGNED to cut down trees, and deforest. Our Amazon forest is getting WRECKED out there. Therefore I am against the free possesion of these deforestation tools which by the way can also kill people.
/darthGW7's argument paraphrased
Also, Darth, sorry to break it to you but human beings are by nature, selfish and evil. "Learning to live together in peace and harmony and all that romantic stuff" is, honestly, unrealistic and will never happen as long as we tread this Earth.
We've had religious institutions dedicated to this idea of love for all for thousands of years, and sure it has helped a lot but when it comes down to the nitty gritty and you get down to the core of it, no amount of teaching of any sort can change the fact that humans are untrustworthy and assholes.
If Americans should be allowed to carry guns I would say limit it only to pistols and hunting rifles (for the huntsman out there).
Allow everything else to only those with proper military training. Make them earn their right to use such weapons. I heard from a friend in the army that there a lot of psychological training (aside form the physical stuff) which is used to break you down and build you up into being a stronger minded individual.
I don't know how accurate that statement is but if a depressed person or someone mentally ill wanted to use a more powerful weapon to kill, this could prevent them from getting it or maybe even cure their mind as they undergo training. Plus making extra friends wouldn't hurt curing that depression.
Probably a stupid idea but I thought I'd throw that out there.
[QUOTE=tsaweeos;39178198]If Americans should be allowed to carry guns I would say limit it only to pistols and hunting rifles (for the huntsman out there).
Allow everything else to only those with proper military training. Make them earn their right to use such weapons. I heard from a friend in the army that there a lot of psychological training (aside form the physical stuff) which is used to break you down and build you up into being a stronger minded individual.
I don't know how accurate that statement is but if a depressed person or someone mentally ill wanted to use a more powerful weapon to kill, this could prevent them from getting it or maybe even cure their mind as they undergo training. Plus making extra friends wouldn't hurt curing that depression.
Probably a stupid idea but I thought I'd throw that out there.[/QUOTE]
You do know that most gun crimes are done with handguns right?
What would limiting the types of guns to pistols and hunting rifles do, except piss off people who like to collect other types of guns?
[QUOTE=tsaweeos;39178198]If Americans should be allowed to carry guns I would say limit it only to pistols and hunting rifles (for the huntsman out there).
Allow everything else to only those with proper military training. Make them earn their right to use such weapons. I heard from a friend in the army that there a lot of psychological training (aside form the physical stuff) which is used to break you down and build you up into being a stronger minded individual.
I don't know how accurate that statement is but if a depressed person or someone mentally ill wanted to use a more powerful weapon to kill, this could prevent them from getting it or maybe even cure their mind as they undergo training. Plus making extra friends wouldn't hurt curing that depression.
Probably a stupid idea but I thought I'd throw that out there.[/QUOTE]
I actually kinda support this but only because it encourages military-esque training for civilians, which would come in handy in a revolt should it come to that
[editline]11th January 2013[/editline]
I still don't like how it restricts all other weapons though.
[QUOTE=Valnar;39178261]You do know that most gun crimes are done with handguns right?
What would limiting the types of guns to pistols and hunting rifles do, except piss off people who like to collect other types of guns?[/QUOTE]
I am aware most gun crimes are done with handguns but the limitations would prevent weak minded individuals from causing more harm if given a stronger weapon.
I did forget about gun collectors when typing my previous post. Personally I think it's a useless hobby (unless its an antique) but I can understand how such a suggestion would be an annoyance. Perhaps my suggestion isn't so good after all.
I am sick of the excuses for people to try to keep there guns and trying to ban them. Here is and pretty accurate representation
of America when school shootings happen.
[img]http://cmsimg.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B2&Date=20121220&Category=OPINION03&ArtNo=312200041&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Clay-Bennett-America-reacts-Sandy-Hook-massacre[/img]
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39184863]I am sick of the excuses for people to try to keep there guns and trying to ban them. Here is and pretty accurate representation
of America when school shootings happen.
[img]http://cmsimg.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B2&Date=20121220&Category=OPINION03&ArtNo=312200041&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Clay-Bennett-America-reacts-Sandy-Hook-massacre[/img][/QUOTE]
You realize that you used a newspaper comic strip to illustrate your argument, right?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39181128]I actually kinda support this but only because it encourages military-esque training for civilians, which would come in handy in a revolt should it come to that
[editline]11th January 2013[/editline]
I still don't like how it restricts all other weapons though.[/QUOTE]
The sole purpose of American gun ownership is to fight against tyranny. And Obama doesn't want any resistance for his socialist agenda.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39184863]I am sick of the excuses for people to try to keep there guns and trying to ban them. Here is and pretty accurate representation
of America when school shootings happen.
[img]http://cmsimg.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B2&Date=20121220&Category=OPINION03&ArtNo=312200041&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Clay-Bennett-America-reacts-Sandy-Hook-massacre[/img][/QUOTE]
You're hanging the wrong man, the culprit is still out there (and no one knows who is it). Gun debate is either a smokescreen or a coping device to cover how little we know about violence and insanity in general.
[editline]12th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=tsaweeos;39183682]I am aware most gun crimes are done with handguns but the limitations would prevent weak minded individuals from causing more harm if given a stronger weapon.
I did forget about gun collectors when typing my previous post. Personally I think it's a useless hobby (unless its an antique) but I can understand how such a suggestion would be an annoyance. Perhaps my suggestion isn't so good after all.[/QUOTE]
1º Almost no crimes are committed with "stronger" weapons. Rifles account for something like 3% of all gun related murders. Get things in proportion.
2º What makes a hobby useless or useful? Who are we to judge?.
[QUOTE=GravyKing;39186700]The sole purpose of American gun ownership is to fight against tyranny. And Obama doesn't want any resistance for his socialist agenda.[/QUOTE]
Please, none of this partisan rhetoric. Neither party has been looking out for our rights and freedoms.
Also any of you who say that putting guns in the hands of more people won't help the problem. Something or someone could easily piss those people off.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39186675]You realize that you used a newspaper comic strip to illustrate your argument, right?[/QUOTE]
And you realize though comical, it does have some truth to it.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39188403]Also any of you who say that putting guns in the hands of more people won't help the problem. Something or someone could easily piss those people off.[/QUOTE]
Care to prove that? All I've been hearing for the past few weeks is "Hurr, arming people is bad, M'kay? They'll just shoot innocent people/kill more people in the cross fire/arming underpaid and possible angry teachers is dumb/hurr more guns = more crime"
[QUOTE=download;39188621]Care to prove that? All I've been hearing for the past few weeks is "Hurr, arming people is bad, M'kay? They'll just shoot innocent people/kill more people in the cross fire/arming underpaid and possible angry teachers is dumb/hurr more guns = more crime"[/QUOTE]
Adding 'hurr' to your representation of the opposing side's argument is not a way to come across intelligent or respectable. Don't do it again.
[QUOTE=Megafan;39188672]Adding 'hurr' to your representation of the opposing side's argument is not a way to come across intelligent or respectable. Don't do it again.[/QUOTE]
Very well then.
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;39176368]I'm going to be blunt: I don't like guns. The reason? Guns were made to kill. That's all they've ever been made for. They've been remade over and over again for the sole purpose of being better at killing; not just wild animals but other people.
It sounds like a blinding flash of the obvious, but it's surprisingly, disturbingly easy to forget.
It's all very well firing down a range, working on your groupings, learning about how the mechanisms work, what happens from between the moment you squeeze that trigger to the bullet shooting off... But at the end of the day, all of this? It comes from the intention and desire to kill another living thing.
As my morals stand, that disturbs me. Yes, I'm a pacifist. I try as hard as I can to avoid killing any other organism on this planet. It's my general passion in life - Life itself. I'm a person of science, someone with a desire to learn. When I see something dying, I see learning being extinguished with it.
To me, learning about how a gun works? Is learning about killing. It's having an interest in a tool of killing.
To me it's disturbing because it's a reminder of the atrocities humanity can commit to others of its kin.
When it comes to gun control, I'm quite firmly against the free possession of guns. Why? Because it's advocating the admiration of tools which are, have been and always will be made for killing. And we can do better than that.
Statistics to me are generally quite meaningless; is deterrence really that great a thing? What it's saying is that the sole reason someone might not shoot someone else, is that someone might shoot them in return. Is that really a particularly desirable situation?
Personally, I think the romanticism of these tools for killing is a major part of the problem. It leaves subtle violent, aggressive undertones in the mindset of a society.
In the face of the inevitable shouts of "Gay!", I'm going to say that the best solution for violent crime is (As the best solutions are) one that tackles the cause. If you can cut off the intent to harm, it doesn't matter what tool they might use. People never do things without a reason. Part of the solution? What really wouldn't hurt is to just encourage some caring and kindness. The world's a far too selfish place. When people care more about themselves than anyone else, that's when the bullets start to fly.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate this sentiment, but as admirable as it may be it is also highly unrealistic. The biggest thing I'd like to address here is deterrence/self-defense. To me, if someone decides not to shoot someone else because they might have been shot attempting to do so, that's still someone deciding not to commit a crime. It's more desirable than the alternative, which is said criminal shooting someone because there was nothing to stop him. In this scenario, it's basically "Nobody gets hurt or an innocent person dies, which do you prefer?" For me, as long as nobody gets hurt, I couldn't care less about the reasons.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39188403]Also any of you who say that putting guns in the hands of more people won't help the problem. Something or someone could easily piss those people off.
And you realize though comical, it does have some truth to it.[/QUOTE]
I suppose so. Parents of children fear for the possibility of losing their child in a similar tragedy.
People with guns and no children fear for the possibility of losing their sport because of a similar tragedy.
I feel like most US gun owners are so stubborn about this because they're attached to the idea that owning a gun or guns is necessary, like how a lot of people feel about a computer or a car. Partly due to their culture, partly out of fear. I'd imagine most gun owners would feel quite vulnerable without their firearms. Can't blame them with the US' history with gangs, crime, violence and fear-mongering media. Now no one wants to admit they feel naked without a gun so they tend to justify them with the notion that they're needed for self defense or otherwise, even though it's fairly unlikely you'll ever be in that situation.
Also here's a fun little study on how little guns are used in self-defense compared homicides, suicides and accidental shootings:
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182[/url]
[quote]For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.[/quote]
Now do I think a ban will solve the problem? It's hard to argue with stats like 0.07 gun related homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for the UK but the UK never had the gun culture, gang problems or connection to Mexico either. Plus that would be an all-out ban which lets be honest, isn't going to happen in the US. It's not possible. So all we are left with are these smaller bans which don't do much of anything and just piss off gun owners who frankly I believe are overreacting anyways.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;39190192]I feel like most US gun owners are so stubborn about this because they're attached to the idea that owning a gun or guns is necessary, like how a lot of people feel about a computer or a car. Partly due to their culture, partly out of fear. I'd imagine most gun owners would feel quite vulnerable without their firearms. Can't blame them with the US' history with gangs, crime, violence and fear-mongering media. Now no one wants to admit they feel naked without a gun so they tend to justify them with the notion that they're needed for self defense or otherwise, even though it's fairly unlikely you'll ever be in that situation.
Also here's a fun little study on how little guns are used in self-defense compared homicides, suicides and accidental shootings:
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182[/url]
Now do I think a ban will solve the problem? It's hard to argue with stats like 0.07 gun related homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for the UK but the UK never had the gun culture, gang problems or connection to Mexico either. Plus that would be an all-out ban which lets be honest, isn't going to happen in the US. It's not possible. So all we are left with are these smaller bans which don't do much of anything and just piss off gun owners who frankly I believe are overreacting anyways.[/QUOTE]
Study does not include times where guns are used in self defence but when no shots are fired or where no one dies.
Just brandishing a gun during a home invasion makes most people scamper off
[editline]12th January 2013[/editline]
With careful selection you can make any stats swing your way
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;39190192]I feel like most US gun owners are so stubborn about this because they're attached to the idea that owning a gun or guns is necessary, like how a lot of people feel about a computer or a car. Partly due to their culture, partly out of fear. I'd imagine most gun owners would feel quite vulnerable without their firearms. Can't blame them with the US' history with gangs, crime, violence and fear-mongering media. Now no one wants to admit they feel naked without a gun so they tend to justify them with the notion that they're needed for self defense or otherwise, even though it's fairly unlikely you'll ever be in that situation.
Also here's a fun little study on how little guns are used in self-defense compared homicides, suicides and accidental shootings:
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182[/url]
Now do I think a ban will solve the problem? It's hard to argue with stats like 0.07 gun related homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for the UK but the UK never had the gun culture, gang problems or connection to Mexico either. Plus that would be an all-out ban which lets be honest, isn't going to happen in the US. It's not possible. So all we are left with are these smaller bans which don't do much of anything and just piss off gun owners who frankly I believe are overreacting anyways.[/QUOTE]
Except the UK used to have a gun culture but the populace was disarmed and brainwashed. I'd cite the post if I were on a computer. I might try that in an edit later.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;39190192]
Now do I think a ban will solve the problem? It's hard to argue with stats like 0.07 gun related homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for the UK but the UK[/QUOTE]
Gun related murders are irrelevant, we should care about overall murders. If taking away the guns only means that now people stab instead of shooting each other, the policy was useless and detrimental to freedom.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
