Yeah I can. It's called Japan, Australia, England (somewhat), South Korea.
Last edited:
CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’
- Thread starter DEAD7
- Start date
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
It's quite obvious that there aren't enough guns around as it is.
ill
Superstar
Lol at naming homogenous countries. England is the exception except all their gun crimes converted into knife crimes. Also, the gun ban didn't stop the murders. Murders actually increased after the gun ban
Heres some reading material on that gun culture.
Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org
Problem with the US is we already have guns. So u cant really compare us to them. Plus legal gun holders aren't killing anybody.... it's mainly criminals, who doesnt give a fukk about gun laws as is.
Basically what Im saying is it's too late for us to become a Japan or Australia or w/e. We shat in our bed and now we have to sleep in it
ill
Superstar
I said England is the exception. And no, we most certainly cannot compare homogenous and heterogenous societies in regards to gun crime.
Agreed, except for the criminals part. It would undoubtedly prevent at least SOME gun violence and mass shootings from occurring, which seems to me to be much better than no difference.Problem with the US is we already have guns. So u cant really compare us to them. Plus legal gun holders aren't killing anybody.... it's mainly criminals, who doesnt give a fukk about gun laws as is.
Basically what Im saying is it's too late for us to become a Japan or Australia or w/e. We shat in our bed and now we have to sleep in it
You're right though, I have no idea how a gun ban would be possible right now in the US. Gun nuts would probably lose it and start causing violence.
You can and should implement universal background checks though
ill
Superstar
Agreed, except for the criminals part. It would undoubtedly prevent at least SOME gun violence and mass shootings from occurring, which seems to me to be much better than no difference.
You're right though, I have no idea how a gun ban would be possible right now in the US. Gun nuts would probably lose it and start causing violence.
You can and should implement universal background checks though
I fully support background checks and a more stringent vetting process to possess a gun but that doesn't equate to banning guns in any way. Legal gun violence is a blip on the radar. Its so insignificant that it literally doesn't matter. Yes, its a tragedy when a mass shooting occurs or an innocent gets gunned down. However, the numbers are so low that in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. I can find a million things that cause more deaths than legal guns. Your irrational fear of guns doesn't outweigh my rights to protect myself, my property, or my family. Nor does it outweigh my enjoyment of going to the range and firing off a few hundred rounds. 99.99% of legal gun owners are just and do not commit any shootings or crime. Vilifying the 99.99% because of what a handful of people have done is egregious.
Its arguable that gun culture deters crime. That's a wash. We do need better regulation though. WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS CLAIMING GUNS NEED TO BE BANNED.Agreed, except for the criminals part. It would undoubtedly prevent at least SOME gun violence and mass shootings from occurring, which seems to me to be much better than no difference.
You're right though, I have no idea how a gun ban would be possible right now in the US. Gun nuts would probably lose it and start causing violence.
You can and should implement universal background checks though
Hows that working out with drugs?
Hows that working out with drugs?
How many guns can you fit down your esophagus or your a$$hole b? How many guns can you cook up in your kitchen? How many guns can you grow in the woods or your closet? How many guns make up 1lb?
Not very comparable. Outside of 3d printer guns.
“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.
I'm confused, while its great and rather obvious that defensive uses of guns resulted in less injuries for the victims, if these people were "crime victims", crime wasn't "deterred".
and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
I need to see the full report.
Switzerland(which i know lefties love) has relatively lenient gun control for Europe, and has the third-lowest homicide rate, what gives?