Media's Anti-gun Narrative Destroyed By Justice Dept. Report

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Nikolaz72:

A gun cannot create, nor improve, nor heal. It's made to destroy, and unlike you whom consider it a blessing I think of it as a curse. I would really not want such a thing forced upon me and my system, endangering my family and those close to me under the guise of it being a 'right'

Just a quick question, and then I will leave this since it seems that I am argueing a brick wall, while you are argue a concreate wall of a fortress[1]:

Do you live in a rural area, or an urban area? Becuase that may color your opinion of this topic. Looking at the polls here in the US, that is exaclty the case. Those in urban areas want guns restricted an banned because they only see them being used for crime and murder. Meanwhile, in rural areas, they are tools just as important as your tractor, and the type of gun doesnt matter because they all hold a purpose (you wouldnt use a shotgun at long range, and you wouldnt use anything except semi-auto against big game).

And I know for a fact that I will be owning at least 2 guns when I live on my own. I will have a Mossberg 590A1 (with bayonet, shell saddle, and flashlight) for defending my home, and I will conceal carry a Smith and Wessen Model 29 (or other .357 Magnum/.44 Magnum) revovler. ESPECIALLY if I get a job in politics like I am hoping. And I will be teaching any children I have too shoot at an early age, although for this I will use airsoft guns instead of real guns, so that if something goes seriously wrong, we get a bruise as the worst outcome, and not a trip to the emergancy room. And I am sure that what I just said (especially that last bit) might as well be sacralige, and I can already hear the gasp, but where I live, that is just the way things are, like your girlfriends father scaring the shit out of you before you start dating her by cleaning his gun and say "Im not scared to go back to jail." (even if hes never been to jail), or your dad taking you to an empty gravel road and sitting you in the pickup truck and saying "Drive."

And I would just with a song (With Pictures or With Lyrics) That I think sums up how me and many others like me feel, and just to quote the choras: "As long as Im alive and breathin', You wont take my guns!"

EDIT: Or if you cant stand that song, heres another one that is less in your face and might be abit more "politically correct."

[1] Just said that since its something gun related. Holds the same value as "argueing brick wall"

Nikolaz72:

BOOM headshot65:
and at all murders, which puts us on about the same footing as the Europe. Because as someone said earlier, homicides dont disappear just because there was no gun. It just turns into a knife homicide instead.

No it doesn't, like.. Really no it doesn't. Usually I try to rebute but like, really.. I mean. How did you reach that conclusion? If you look at the overall picture its 'twice' that of most of Europe.

image
image

I would post more sources and actual links but.. I think you're mixing up 'looking at the bigger picture' with all those NRA statistics that just outright remove guns from the equation. Which mind you, isn't looking at the big picture. Just the

Notice how they not only took out guns, but also all crime commited by black people and hispanics and native americans. Huge parts of the American lowerclass, while not taking out the Canadian Lowerclass.

Also, if you wanted to know. The underspecified weapon is machineguns/assault rifles, and actual unspecified weapons. Hence why America is so much higher, it's not like American Murderers use blowdolls and other heavily improvised weapons more than other countries, considering how little reason they have to.

So, ehem. Canada has ofcourse a bit more stabbing/beating going on, but 'If' we are to follow your logic, and I don't suspect following your own logic and proving you wrong will change your opinion on guns. But following your logic, the US have chosen to trade 2 murder by stabbing/beating for 6 murders by guns. How is this in any feasible way an equal trade?

I don't think you said what you did, deliberately so I won't try to rub it in. You were most likely fooled.

Note: As for your surgeon example, you simply restated my point. Knives has other uses than killing, guns do not. Same analogy, different dangerous item.

If not in the hands of a surgeon, a knife may also be used to cut meat, rope, vegetables or cut other things that we might use for things for other things than killing.

Edit: Wait, here's another one. And this one has the EU average printed on to it for 'your' convenience. Only reason I posted it.

image

A gun cannot create, nor improve, nor heal. It's made to destroy, and unlike you whom consider it a blessing I think of it as a curse. I would really not want such a thing forced upon me and my system, endangering my family and those close to me under the guise of it being a 'right'

In case Washingtonpost is considered a valid source, all things considered it's been used by rightwingers on the forum all the time.

image

As Kopikatsu said earlier, no. Mass-shootings don't make up a whole lot of the total gun-deaths, but I still wanted to post it to disprove those whom would claim that the guns used in such shootings are acquired illegally, always.

Ehem, the last part wasn't pointed at you. Just tripped over it while find OECD/Washington/Other Neutral sources.

Oh please. Mass shootings have been going down.

Gun crime. all down. In fact EVERY CRIME is going down.

You keep going on about regulation, but it doesn't fucking matter because crime does down regardless.

America isn't the wild west. It isn't a damn frontier. America is stabilizing, and you have failed to notice the problems America faces.

It isn't guns, and it ain't the "darkies."

Its the drugs, and the money that fuels the violence. The same gangs America started in the cold war when it kept South America DOWN over fear that they might become "communist."

But god forbid basic logic manages to get into your argument. You won't know the factors until you see the country and its problems for yourself, not using 3rd hand information like a European telling starving tribal Africans to "get a job."

And stop citing "NRA conspiracy." Its a stupid argument, and even stupider fallacy to keep citing conspiracies without any damn evidence.

What's next? Telling us the illuminati puts chemicals in our drinking water? Stop with the fear mongering, and even better, stop with the intellectually dishonest graphs you keep spouting around.

This "us vs them" mentality is getting sickening. Stop ignoring the big problem that not only America but every country in the Americas is facing. Its the drug trade, which is kept up by treaties in the UN and American politics.

That's the root of the majority of gun crime. Gun deaths are a mental health issue because of suicide, and America has no safety net for the mentally ill anymore. Not since the 1970s.

Guns in America are a red herring factor in its crime.

Ultratwinkie:
Gun controls been going down since time immemorial and will never go up again, ever. You just want to increase gun control because reasons, also you're dumb *throws bunch of mud* Also UN is to blame for drugtrade.

First I will start out by saying that, aye. Gun controls been going up lately, and just like it was going down earlier, it will probably go down again, and up again. But I'm not looking at how much its going up and down because its doing so constantly, I'm looking at the facts. And facts tell me that the guns in the U.S cause it to have massive amounts of killing, so I choose not to like them. Not you can go get your panties out of a knot and accept that, or you can keep quoting me and trying to paint me as some-sort of authoritarian villain.

Also, the U.S could legalize a whole lot of those drugs, but try and ask the general public. Do they want to?.... Thought not. Their fault, not your Governments, nor the UN. Stop blaming your own shortcomings on others, it makes you look weak.

But yea, keep getting mad over facts. I'll be waiting the day you say something constructive to further your arguments.

BOOM headshot65:
Just a quick question, and then I will leave this since it seems that I am argueing a brick wall, while you are argue a concreate wall of a fortress[footnote]Just said that since its something gun related. Holds the same value as "argueing brick wall"

Better than arguing the likes of Twinkie whom don't just disagree. But takes the extra step to insult, turns debates sour. Although I had hoped that you'd admit your mistake in regards to the homocide-rate rather than ignore it... Although I'd understand the wish to not wanna continue the debate and such an answer would probably have dragged it out further.

BOOM headshot65:

Nikolaz72:

A gun cannot create, nor improve, nor heal. It's made to destroy, and unlike you whom consider it a blessing I think of it as a curse. I would really not want such a thing forced upon me and my system, endangering my family and those close to me under the guise of it being a 'right'

Do you live in a rural area, or an urban area? Becuase that may color your opinion of this topic. Looking at the polls here in the US, that is exaclty the case. Those in urban areas want guns restricted an banned because they only see them being used for crime and murder. Meanwhile, in rural areas, they are tools just as important as your tractor, and the type of gun doesnt matter because they all hold a purpose (you wouldnt use a shotgun at long range, and you wouldnt use anything except semi-auto against big game).

And I know for a fact that I will be owning at least 2 guns when I live on my own. I will have a Mossberg 590A1 (with bayonet, shell saddle, and flashlight) for defending my home, and I will conceal carry a Smith and Wessen Model 29 (or other .357 Magnum/.44 Magnum) revovler. ESPECIALLY if I get a job in politics like I am hoping. And I will be teaching any children I have too shoot at an early age, although for this I will use airsoft guns instead of real guns, so that if something goes seriously wrong, we get a bruise as the worst outcome, and not a trip to the emergancy room.

I live in a rural area, on a farm. Hunters give us some of their game in return for being able to hunt on our land, and we have little need for guns ourselves. But there is, to me. A large difference between .22LR rifles and the guns most typically used in Urban Crime.

I think you will admit that pulling off mass-shootings with 22cal rifles, or bolt-actions in general would be incredibly hard, and foolish. Especially in a country with a well-functioning police-force that is able to act quickly and respond to reports of such matters. Easier to commit arsony or try to go on a stabbing rampage, but even that Isn't easy. Its a slow process and has a habit of not killing things as much as you want to.

BOOM headshot65:
And I am sure that what I just said (especially that last bit) might as well be sacralige, and I can already hear the gasp, but where I live, that is just the way things are, like your girlfriends father scaring the shit out of you before you start dating her by cleaning his gun and say "Im not scared to go back to jail." (even if hes never been to jail), or your dad taking you to an empty gravel road and sitting you in the pickup truck and saying "Drive."

And I would just with a song (With Pictures or With Lyrics) That I think sums up how me and many others like me feel, and just to quote the choras: "As long as Im alive and breathin', You wont take my guns!"

EDIT: Or if you cant stand that song, heres another one that is less in your face and might be abit more "politically correct."

Man, I wish I could do that today. I have to spend thousands of dollars on driving lessons because 'tis only legal to drive without license if you have a licensed driving instructor with you. I have to travel to Sweden to find large enough abandoned gravel roads to do such a thing, and even then no-one in the family in their right mind would lend me their expensive cars. Bar the land-rover we have sitting in the backyard which my father and his sister learned how to drive in before they even took license, but it's in such a sorry state. And I'm not even close to considering myself to know enough about such things to begin tinkering with it.

As for the songs.. .. .. ..

Nikolaz72:
And I do not think hunters need handguns, I don't think they need AR20's either. Actually I don't think they need anything else than hunting rifles for their hunting.

Er, do you mean the AR20 air rifle? What's so bad about that?

thaluikhain:

Nikolaz72:
And I do not think hunters need handguns, I don't think they need AR20's either. Actually I don't think they need anything else than hunting rifles for their hunting.

Er, do you mean the AR20 air rifle? What's so bad about that?

Edited the post, just had a brainderp. I was thinking AR22 Heavy Assault Rifle which some hunters in the U.S insisted was necessary to use in their hunt for deer and birds. Decided to take it out of the argument though, as those are just extremists. Like the guys who hunted ducks with the equivalent of tank-cannons mounted to boats. Some of the U.S hunting community really is something.

Nikolaz72:
Edited the post, just had a brainderp. I was thinking AR22 Heavy Assault Rifle which some hunters in the U.S insisted was neccesary to use to hunt deer.

Ah, ok. Though:

Nikolaz72:
I think you will admit that pulling off mass-shootings with 22cal rifles, or non-automatic's in general would be incredibly hard, and foolhardy.

IIRC, the vast majority of mass shooting aren't committed using automatic weapons, and the ones that are are using illegal weapons anyway. The restrictions on legal automatic weapons are very tight already.

And...you might want to specify .22 rimfire, if that's what you mean, you can get .22 in centrefire and that's not much smaller than the .223.

thaluikhain:

IIRC, the vast majority of mass shooting aren't committed using automatic weapons, and the ones that are are using illegal weapons anyway. The restrictions on legal automatic weapons are very tight already.

image

Just some food for thought. Also, while I said non-automatic. I guess what I meant was 'Few Mass-shootings are commit-ed with Bolt-Action Rifles' Its not hard to kill a lot of people with handguns if you know where to aim it. Whereas Bolt-Action Hunting Rifles would, ideally. Require you to be in a stationary location and a good distance from your target. To my knowledge.

thaluikhain:

And...you might want to specify .22 rimfire, if that's what you mean, you can get .22 in centrefire and that's not much smaller than the .223.

Truth be told, being in a country without guns. Having lived most of my entire life without guns. And not wanting to much of anything to do with guns. What is the difference between a .22 Rimfire and a .22 centrefire?

Nikolaz72:
Just some food for thought.

Does that include legal weapons illegally modified, though?

Anyway, my point was that the use of legal automatic weapons in crimes is exceedingly rare in the US. Not legal weapons in general.

Nikolaz72:
Truth be told, being in a country without guns. Having lived most of my entire life without guns. And not wanting to much of anything to do with guns. What is the difference between a .22 Rimfire and a .22 centrefire?

Rimfire ammunition is very old, it's not used by militaries anymore except in very specialised areas. The .22LR is a very popular round, used for hunting small animals like foxes, though you can kill people with it.

Centreifre ammunition has a lot more oomph behind it, it's what's used by militaries.

Anyway, various types of ammunition vary, but for example, from wiki:

.22LR (rimfire)
40 gr (3 g) Solid[1] 1,080 ft/s (330 m/s) 104 ft·lbf (141 J)

.22 Accelerator (centrefire)
55 gr (4 g) .30-30 SP 3,400 ft/s (1,000 m/s) 1,412 ft·lbf (1,914 J

Now, I took the .22 centrefire round mostly at random though, but it has more than 10 times the energy of the .22LR. OTOH, I'm being pedantic, mostly people mean .22LR when they say .22, though I think it's important to be pedantic in this sort of discussion.

thaluikhain:

Nikolaz72:
Just some food for thought.

Does that include legal weapons illegally modified, though?

Anyway, my point was that the use of legal automatic weapons in crimes is exceedingly rare in the US. Not legal weapons in general.

Nikolaz72:
Truth be told, being in a country without guns. Having lived most of my entire life without guns. And not wanting to much of anything to do with guns. What is the difference between a .22 Rimfire and a .22 centrefire?

Rimfire ammunition is very old, it's not used by militaries anymore except in very specialised areas. The .22LR is a very popular round, used for hunting small animals like foxes, though you can kill people with it.

Centreifre ammunition has a lot more oomph behind it, it's what's used by militaries.

Anyway, various types of ammunition vary, but for example, from wiki:

.22LR (rimfire)
40 gr (3 g) Solid[1] 1,080 ft/s (330 m/s) 104 ft·lbf (141 J)

.22 Accelerator (centrefire)
55 gr (4 g) .30-30 SP 3,400 ft/s (1,000 m/s) 1,412 ft·lbf (1,914 J

Now, I took the .22 centrefire round mostly at random though, but it has more than 10 times the energy of the .22LR. OTOH, I'm being pedantic, mostly people mean .22LR when they say .22, though I think it's important to be pedantic in this sort of discussion.

Ehem, I meant the LR. Aye, you can kill people with it.. Recently I believe a small child had to give her life to one, although that's not the fault of the rifle being too easy to kill with, or too powerful. But the fault of the parents of trusting any gun short of a water-pistol to a fiveyearold.

There's a reason it requires a hunting license here to be allowed to have one.

Nikolaz72:
Ehem, I meant the LR. Aye, you can kill people with it.. Recently I believe a small child had to give her life to one, although that's not the fault of the rifle being too easy to kill with, or too powerful. But the fault of the parents of trusting any gun short of a water-pistol to a fiveyearold.

There's a reason it requires a hunting license here to be allowed to have one.

Oh certainly, the Reagan shooting used .22Lr (the bullets were supposed to explode, but didn't, though), everyone survived, but it was close. Kennedy (not JFK, the brother) was murdered by a .22LR, IIRC, there was an Australian Assistant Commissioner in the AFP killed by two shots of .22LR to the head, they were used by special forces in WW2 etc

Over here, you need a reason to have any firearm, but for a (not self-loading) rimfire rifle or a shotgun (not pump or self-loading), being a farmer is good enough.

thaluikhain:

Nikolaz72:
Ehem, I meant the LR. Aye, you can kill people with it.. Recently I believe a small child had to give her life to one, although that's not the fault of the rifle being too easy to kill with, or too powerful. But the fault of the parents of trusting any gun short of a water-pistol to a fiveyearold.

There's a reason it requires a hunting license here to be allowed to have one.

Oh certainly, the Reagan shooting used .22Lr (the bullets were supposed to explode, but didn't, though), everyone survived, but it was close. Kennedy (not JFK, the brother) was murdered by a .22LR, IIRC, there was an Australian Assistant Commissioner in the AFP killed by two shots of .22LR to the head, they were used by special forces in WW2 etc

Aye, they can be dangerous. But with the right regulations it can be made safer, over here. Outside hunting you have to keep them locked tight inside a safe, separate from ammunition, sure a hunter could. At any time, take the rifle out and put it in a suitcase and try and shoot the prime minister.

But most hunters choose not to. Mainly because most hunters with hunting licenses have an interest in hunting things they want to eat, and few people want to eat our Prime Minister.

image

<_<.... >_>....*contained snicker*

Nikolaz72:
Aye, they can be dangerous. But with the right regulations it can be made safer, over here. Outside hunting you have to keep them locked tight inside a safe, separate from ammunition, sure a hunter could. At any time, take the rifle out and put it in a suitcase and try and shoot the prime minister.

But most hunters choose not to. Mainly because most hunters with hunting licenses have an interest in hunting things they want to eat, and few people want to eat our Prime Minister.

Heh, same here.

Mind you, when former PM John Howard was getting tighter gun controls put in, he once went to a press conference or something wearing a bullet proof vest, and there was outrage. The idea that gun owners would attack the government just because there'd be new gun laws...they've still not forgiven him for that one.

Nikolaz72:

Ultratwinkie:
Gun controls been going down since time immemorial and will never go up again, ever. You just want to increase gun control because reasons, also you're dumb *throws bunch of mud* Also UN is to blame for drugtrade.

First I will start out by saying that, aye. Gun controls been going up lately, and just like it was going down earlier, it will probably go down again, and up again. But I'm not looking at how much its going up and down because its doing so constantly, I'm looking at the facts. And facts tell me that the guns in the U.S cause it to have massive amounts of killing, so I choose not to like them. Not you can go get your panties out of a knot and accept that, or you can keep quoting me and trying to paint me as some-sort of authoritarian villain.

Also, the U.S could legalize a whole lot of those drugs, but try and ask the general public. Do they want to?.... Thought not. Their fault, not your Governments, nor the UN. Stop blaming your own shortcomings on others, it makes you look weak.

But yea, keep getting mad over facts. I'll be waiting the day you say something constructive to further your arguments.

BOOM headshot65:
Just a quick question, and then I will leave this since it seems that I am argueing a brick wall, while you are argue a concreate wall of a fortress[footnote]Just said that since its something gun related. Holds the same value as "argueing brick wall"

Better than arguing the likes of Twinkie whom don't just disagree. But takes the extra step to insult, turns debates sour. Although I had hoped that you'd admit your mistake in regards to the homocide-rate rather than ignore it... Although I'd understand the wish to not wanna continue the debate and such an answer would probably have dragged it out further.

BOOM headshot65:

Nikolaz72:

A gun cannot create, nor improve, nor heal. It's made to destroy, and unlike you whom consider it a blessing I think of it as a curse. I would really not want such a thing forced upon me and my system, endangering my family and those close to me under the guise of it being a 'right'

Do you live in a rural area, or an urban area? Becuase that may color your opinion of this topic. Looking at the polls here in the US, that is exaclty the case. Those in urban areas want guns restricted an banned because they only see them being used for crime and murder. Meanwhile, in rural areas, they are tools just as important as your tractor, and the type of gun doesnt matter because they all hold a purpose (you wouldnt use a shotgun at long range, and you wouldnt use anything except semi-auto against big game).

And I know for a fact that I will be owning at least 2 guns when I live on my own. I will have a Mossberg 590A1 (with bayonet, shell saddle, and flashlight) for defending my home, and I will conceal carry a Smith and Wessen Model 29 (or other .357 Magnum/.44 Magnum) revovler. ESPECIALLY if I get a job in politics like I am hoping. And I will be teaching any children I have too shoot at an early age, although for this I will use airsoft guns instead of real guns, so that if something goes seriously wrong, we get a bruise as the worst outcome, and not a trip to the emergancy room.

I live in a rural area, on a farm. Hunters give us some of their game in return for being able to hunt on our land, and we have little need for guns ourselves. But there is, to me. A large difference between .22LR rifles and the guns most typically used in Urban Crime.

I think you will admit that pulling off mass-shootings with 22cal rifles, or bolt-actions in general would be incredibly hard, and foolish. Especially in a country with a well-functioning police-force that is able to act quickly and respond to reports of such matters. Easier to commit arsony or try to go on a stabbing rampage, but even that Isn't easy. Its a slow process and has a habit of not killing things as much as you want to.

BOOM headshot65:
And I am sure that what I just said (especially that last bit) might as well be sacralige, and I can already hear the gasp, but where I live, that is just the way things are, like your girlfriends father scaring the shit out of you before you start dating her by cleaning his gun and say "Im not scared to go back to jail." (even if hes never been to jail), or your dad taking you to an empty gravel road and sitting you in the pickup truck and saying "Drive."

And I would just with a song (With Pictures or With Lyrics) That I think sums up how me and many others like me feel, and just to quote the choras: "As long as Im alive and breathin', You wont take my guns!"

EDIT: Or if you cant stand that song, heres another one that is less in your face and might be abit more "politically correct."

Man, I wish I could do that today. I have to spend thousands of dollars on driving lessons because 'tis only legal to drive without license if you have a licensed driving instructor with you. I have to travel to Sweden to find large enough abandoned gravel roads to do such a thing, and even then no-one in the family in their right mind would lend me their expensive cars. Bar the land-rover we have sitting in the backyard which my father and his sister learned how to drive in before they even took license, but it's in such a sorry state. And I'm not even close to considering myself to know enough about such things to begin tinkering with it.

As for the songs.. .. .. ..

Yes, Americans do want to legalize drugs.

Anyone who knows anything about American politics knows that.

But guess what? Politics don't allow for it, we aggreed to treaties and now we are stuck with the trade until the other nations think its worth it.

Spoiler: They won't, because they don't deal with the effects of a cartel on their doorsteps.

Guns cause the killing? Do you SEE the amount of fucking MONEY the gangs have to BUY AND SKIRT THE LAW? Even the FBI is scared of the US military being corrupted. They can buy anything they want.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

Surprise surprise, violent crime resources are used to fight gangs, and has increased its fight over the recent years.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs/recent-statistics
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/Documents/Bulletin-6.pdf

In this report, while crime goes down the gang crime stays the SAME.

Ans guess what falls into violent crimes? Guns. Bought by drug money, to fight other gangs to take over supply lines and kill who ever they wanted.

America, according to the FBI, has 1.4 million active game members from 33,000 gangs.

How many is estimated for, say, the UK?

http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/cls/esytc/findings/digest8.pdf
http://lsgdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/bjc-2004-bennettt_hollowayk-gangmembershipdrugscrimeuk.pdf
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2932813/London-gangs-are-aligning-themselves-to-LA-based-Bloods-and-Crips.html#ixzz0l8GvzVT1

Not high at all. Estimated have it at mere 1,000 gangs. With the most prominent are American gangs from Los Angeles, which means the gang problem is so big it spreads to other countries.

Gangs are a problem in America, and gangs use the guns they get from the drug profits.

How much profit? $321 Billion dollars.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/06/30/un_report_puts_worlds_illicit_drug_trade_at_estimated_321b/
http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/international-drug-trafficking-and-terrorism

And no one can deny how big a part drug cartels play in American crime:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/drug-trafficking-violence-in-mexico-implications-for-the-united-states

So here it all is. The FBI calls your statements patently false and fear based.

And that's what bugs me most, your entire argument is fear based and cookie cutter. Lacking any other strength than "well look at these pretty graphs!"

Those graphs mean nothing, and the FBI has enough fucking reports on gangs to destroy any other argument for guns being the cause.

Unless of course you think you're somehow smarter than a whole bureau dedicated to investigation of threats to American society.

Ultratwinkie:
But guess what? Politics don't allow for it, we aggreed to treaties and now we are stuck with the trade until the other nations think its worth it.

Spoiler: They won't, because they don't deal with the effects of a cartel on their doorsteps.

I don't buy that, the US has backed out of any number of important treaties, or forced them on other nations. Foreign concerns wouldn't be why the US hasn't changed it's drug policy.

thaluikhain:

Ultratwinkie:
But guess what? Politics don't allow for it, we aggreed to treaties and now we are stuck with the trade until the other nations think its worth it.

Spoiler: They won't, because they don't deal with the effects of a cartel on their doorsteps.

I don't buy that, the US has backed out of any number of important treaties, or forced them on other nations. Foreign concerns wouldn't be why the US hasn't changed it's drug policy.

Actually the UN urged America to stay the course on the treaties.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/21/1226581/un-agency-head-says-state-marijuana-laws-violate-treaties/

Critics call the law ineffective and made the trade even worse, so it would be interesting to see if America sticks with the UN treaty or leaves it behind.

Although change isn't exactly conductive in the current congress.

Ultratwinkie:
Actually the UN urged America to stay the course on the treaties.

The UN has urged a lot of people to do a lot of things that haven't been done. Some of those were less powerful countries, and bigger things.

Ultratwinkie:
UN is stupid, American politicians are stupid, FBI ftw (They clearly have nothing to do with the Government). Also you're stupid.

52% of America is in favor of legalizing small, light drugs.

I'm damn certain that less than that are in favor of legalizing hard drugs.

And less than 50%, whats that? Whats that?

A minority.

As for the UN, America quit UNESCO without a seconds concern, ignored several treaties and arent' even paying their bills. The UN is not a concern when it comes to the U.S Government. So that BS argument is out the window. Not to talk about the fact that a person employed by, does not necessarily represent a common consensus within an organization.

I'm sorry Twinkie. This conversation is over, it's just a series of insults and you ignoring evidence and creating conspiracies where there are none. 'Oooh, lets ignore all these graphs from various renowned centrist news-sites and fanatically quote FBI stats that has nothing to do with the subject at hand and 'The Sun' that will surely show him not to post things related to the discussion at hand'

Nikolaz72:

Ultratwinkie:
UN is stupid, American politicians are stupid, FBI ftw (They clearly have nothing to do with the Government). Also you're stupid.

52% of America is in favor of legalizing small, light drugs.

I'm damn certain that less than that are in favor of legalizing hard drugs.

And less than 50%, whats that? Whats that?

A minority.

As for the UN, America quit UNESCO without a seconds concern, ignored several treaty and arent' even paying their bills. The UN is not a concern when it comes to the U.S Government. So that BS argument is out the window.

I'm sorry Twinkie. This conversation is over, it's just a series of insults and you ignoring evidence and creating conspiracies where there are none.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/marijuana-legalization-co_n_2056890.html

Pot makes a up a good chunk of Cartel profits. Its pot that is the popular drug. Up to 30% profit margins.

According to a calculator, 30% of 321 billion is 96,300,000,000.

A lot of money for anyone to lose. There are even arguments that pot being legalized can get even deeper by taking away the thunder of other drugs.

And frankly, calling me a conspiracy nut when you accuse people of working for the NRA? Are you serious?

And taking criticism of your arguments as insults? Really?

And ignoring evidence? you IGNORED all of my post. You IGNORED THE FBI STUDIES.

I talked about your entire post, and you talked about none of mine. Who is ignoring evidence here?

Ultratwinkie:
You're saying 'BOOM headshot65' works for the NRA!

I've accused nobody of such thing, and you are crazy to believe as such. I told him that since he fancies their magazines and what he said was basically a copypaste of something from one of their misleading graphs,so I suggested he might have fallen for one of their misleading graphs. Then I explained to him 'why' those graphs are untrue and gave him the real, true information. Based on things happening in the real 'real' world. A thing he did not honestly seem to mind, and is in progress of having a civilized discussion with me at this moment. Unlike what's going on here.

Ultratwinkie:
THEY ARE TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA, YOU SAID THEY WEREN'T! *Links further support to an argument which Isn't going on*

I was saying that the majority of the U.S public is not in favor of legalizing hard drugs, and despite what that Mexican studies says, the majority of its wealth lies with Hard Drugs. Which is what the drug war is in large about, till now when someone smoking Marijuana has been found they are usually sent to rehab, the drug war is about the likes of Crack, Cocaine, and PCP.

Ultratwinkie:
Critique Isn't insults.

No, but insults are.

Ultratwinkie:
I talk about your entire posts

No.

For one you left out anything about dirt roads, land rovers, and hunters dining on politicians, and Country music.

And the rest you just misinterpreted completely.

Nikolaz72:

Ultratwinkie:
You're saying people work for the NRA!?

I've accused nobody of such thing, I told him that since he fancies their magazines so much he might have fallen for one of their misleading graphs. Then I explained to him 'why' those graphs are untrue and gave him the real, true information. Based on things happening in the real 'real' world. A thing he did not honestly seem to mind, and is in progress of having a civilized discussion with me at this moment.

Ultratwinkie:
THEY ARE TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA, YOU SAID THEY WEREN'T!

I was saying that the majority of the U.S public is not in favor of legalizing hard drugs, and despite what that Mexican studies says, the majority of its wealth lies with Hard Drugs. Which is what the drug war is in large about, till now when someone smoking Marijuana has been found they are usually sent to rehab, the drug war is about the likes of Crack, Cocaine, and PCP.

The drug war focuses a lot on pot. Its the most used drug of them all in America. Lose pot, and you lose a large accessible chunk of your market.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/drugs/a/nsduh_drugs.htm

Its harder to market cocaine now, its isn't the 1980s. The same for every other harder drug. Cocaine is haarder to make a profit on because they need to transport from much farther away, in South America, than pot in Mexico.

The cocaine users aren't as numerous as pot users.

Ultratwinkie:
All other hard drugs are not as important as pot because its not as important as pot in the U.S. Also we are arguing about Pot now.

Don't even need to address that mate. You will figure out how stupid that sounds if you think about it for a couple of minutes. The Drug War will continue with or without.... How did we get to talk about Pot? I thought you were talking about Marijuana? Nevermind. You have to legalize 'all' drugs to strike them out for good.

Anyway, this entire thing has gone off topic. I suggest we cut it short.

-We won't agree-
-We won't agree to disagree-

But never the less.

-I won't reply to you in this thread again if you insist on keeping the topic on drugs and government conspiracies-

Nikolaz72:

Ultratwinkie:
Cocaine is not as important as pot because its not as important as pot in the U.S

Don't even need to address that mate. You will figure out how stupid that sounds if you think about it for a couple of minutes.

Pot vastly outnumbers any other drug use in the US. Other countries don't matter because this is about crime in the US.

Most of the drug war is on pot, billions of dollars of it.

Cocaine doesn't have the profit margins that pot does, nor does it sell as briskly. Losing pot would still be a grievous loss, even if you sell other drugs like cocaine and heroin. They don't have the pull or accessibility.

Its like Gamestop losing the ability to sell Call of Duty, but still has Gears of War, Battlefield, and Halo. The marketability difference is astronomical. If offered the four, more people would go for COD than the other 3 because its accessible.

You fail to get that. legalized pot takes away the biggest poster boy, and the biggest market share. The market share is what matters most in selling any product.

EDIT: Oh yeah, "off topic" when drugs are the reason gun crime is so high. Then turning around and claiming I use conspiracies when you are the one throwing the NRA around.

TechNoFear:

psijac:
[snip]

If you are going to make statements of 'fact' please provide sources.

You appear to not be very well informed on this subject and do not understand the complexity of the subject matter.

For example;

psijac:
The murder trend began going down before the 1994 assault weapons ban.

No it did not.

The only time in the last 50 years that the US homicide rate has risen above 34,000 is 1991 and 1993.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

And what exactly in your mind happened in 1992? Nothing! because that hurts your stance on this subject

TechNoFear:

psijac:
And the trend continued even after the assault weapons ban expired.

Did the rate of decline remain the same or decrease?

According to your logic it should have shot back up through the roof. I will take a decline in murders no matter how small any day of the week

TechNoFear:

psijac:
Studies show the AWB had no significant effect on crime,

Have you actually read a study on the AWB 1994?

If you have, why do you not understand what the AWB actually banned?

If you haven't, how can you argue it had no effect?

I recommend Koper's study (revised in 2004).

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

psijac:
because crime are committed with handguns not rifle class weapons.

The AWB also banned handguns and shotguns, not just rifles.

here are the two handguns that were banned by name in 1994
The TEC-9
image

and the MAC-10/MAC-11
image

Holy shit I feel safer already! And those two any guns account for what exactly, especially considering the Glock is the most popular handgun out there

TechNoFear:

Prior to the AWB ~5% of firearm crime was committed with firearms banned under the AWB and ~20% with LCMs covered under the AWB.

As Koper states the AWB had difficulty achieving the stated objectives due to the grandfathered weapons.

psijac:
While gun violence has gone up slightly murder is still trending downward.

Correlation does not imply causation...

Do you understand how statistical analysis works? Do you understand what an instrumental variable is?

I completely agree Correlation does not equal causation. I am not sure why number that support your line of thinking are "completely fact based and grounded in realizty", and any number that support mine are dumped in the "Well all numbers are bullshit anyway" category. Secondly I am not arguing that less gun control leads to less crime. I am arguing that more gun control does not lead to less crime.

I think the legalization of abortion is leading to our dramatic drop in crime. there have been 50 million abortion since it was legalized. if only 1 in 100,000 would have become a murderer then you just stopped 500 murders, that's also 50 million less potential victims of crime and maybe 50 million less people competing for jobs in our broken economy. of course that's all conjecture

dmase:

I read your link and gave you a rebuttal if you don't like the facts then continue to ignore them fine with me.

Do you think telephone survey of 241 is an scientific representation of 350 Million Americans?

Consider also that some participants responded about gun that were bought 2 years before the NCIS background check system was even built

Nikolaz72:
snip

If less guns equals less murder please tell my why this happens

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2322706/Teenage-boy-17-stabbed-death-16-year-old-injured-knife-attack-London-street.html

or this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/25/teenager-stabbed-london-bus-named

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/25/gang-murder-olympics

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/25/boy-dies-stabbing-london-bus

and even this

http://www.ibtimes.com/girl-stabbed-death-birmingham-bus-britains-plague-knife-crimes-1115707

Gun laws have NO AFFECT on murder rates

Infact murder rates peaked in England after their extreme guns laws in the mid 90's reaching a peak in 2003. It took nearly a decade for a decrease the show. They are barely back to 80s level of Murder. When you have to say things were better in the 80s you know your shit is fucked up.
image

Why did crime drop in america after a gun ban but in uk it increased? It's almost as if there is no correlation between strict gun laws and murder! HOLY SHIT YALL!

psijac:
Snip

Gunbans in the US caused a massive fall in homocides (From 8 to 4.5 per 100.000), but due to the ammount of guns and the liberal gun laws in the country, it still has two times, and in some cases three times the amount of murders than the comparison across the atlantic (0 to 2.2 per 100.000).

Despite all the single examples you point out, fact is that many more die in the U.S than need to, because of the guns. Already posted plenty of sources that you have just chosen to ignore so I will leave it at this. Gonna dig some of them up again for your convenience though...

image

There we go, interested in more. Open your eyes, other than that I have little advice to give. Because you aren't gonna change your opinion nomatter what evidence is stacked against you, and I certainly aint willing to change mine unless you find something more convincing.

Certainly something else than Tabloids and Singular cases. I think theres a fallacy somewhere in that. I'd prefer to see a statistic showing how the U.S has half/a third of the total murders in all homocide than the West-European average.

There is simply the fact that gunbans have decreased the deaths in the U.S, upon removal we see them increase. And in equal economies where they are completely banned we see a dramatic lower rate of homocide.

Nikolaz72:

psijac:
Snip

Gunbans in the US caused a massive fall in homocides (From 8 to 4.5 per 100.000), but due to the ammount of guns and the liberal gun laws in the country, it still has two times, and in some cases three times the amount of murders than the comparison across the atlantic (0 to 2.2 per 100.000).

Despite all the single examples you point out, fact is that many more die in the U.S than need to, because of the guns. Already posted plenty of sources that you have just chosen to ignore so I will leave it at this. Gonna dig some of them up again for your convenience though...

image

There we go, interested in more. Open your eyes, other than that I have little advice to give. Because you aren't gonna change your opinion nomatter what evidence is stacked against you, and I certainly aint willing to change mine unless you find something more convincing.

Certainly something else than Tabloids and Singular cases. I think theres a fallacy somewhere in that. I'd prefer to see a statistic showing how the U.S has half/a third of the total murders in all homocide than the West-European average.

There is simply the fact that gunbans have decreased the deaths in the U.S, upon removal we see them increase. And in equal economies where they are completely banned we see a dramatic lower rate of homocide.

You are just as closed minded and ignore all of my evidence and are actively trying to reframe the entire conversation. America has NEVER had a lower murder rate than the UK. No matter how strict or loose gun laws are in either country. And there were times when both countries had no significant gun laws on the books. Saying the murder is lower in the UK because of gun laws is just as bullshit as saying murder is higher in Mexico because of the gun laws.

You just keep feeding me bullshit analyst of other countries. You might as well say That having a Queen means having less murder and American Democracy has failed. At least that would be an interesting Discussion

Honestly I don't give a shit about how many murders are in the UK, Mexico, or Canada(no offense), or whether or not they have more or less. All I care about are the Murders in my home country. Is it any comfort to the mother of a teen that was stabbed to death, that hey, at least they didn't use a gun.

psijac:
You are closeminded for ignorning the articles about individual cases of murder by stabbing

Caring more about the individuals reported rather than the collective murdered seems closeminded to me.

But that's just my opinion. I think the conversation is both going off topic and no-where constructive, so I'd prefer to just agree that we majorly disagree.

psijac:

Nikolaz72:

psijac:
Snip

Gunbans in the US caused a massive fall in homocides (From 8 to 4.5 per 100.000), but due to the ammount of guns and the liberal gun laws in the country, it still has two times, and in some cases three times the amount of murders than the comparison across the atlantic (0 to 2.2 per 100.000).

Despite all the single examples you point out, fact is that many more die in the U.S than need to, because of the guns. Already posted plenty of sources that you have just chosen to ignore so I will leave it at this. Gonna dig some of them up again for your convenience though...

image

There we go, interested in more. Open your eyes, other than that I have little advice to give. Because you aren't gonna change your opinion nomatter what evidence is stacked against you, and I certainly aint willing to change mine unless you find something more convincing.

Certainly something else than Tabloids and Singular cases. I think theres a fallacy somewhere in that. I'd prefer to see a statistic showing how the U.S has half/a third of the total murders in all homocide than the West-European average.

There is simply the fact that gunbans have decreased the deaths in the U.S, upon removal we see them increase. And in equal economies where they are completely banned we see a dramatic lower rate of homocide.

You are just as closed minded and ignore all of my evidence and are actively trying to reframe the entire conversation. America has NEVER had a lower murder rate than the UK. No matter how strict or loose gun laws are in either country. And there were times when both countries had no significant gun laws on the books. Saying the murder is lower in the UK because of gun laws is just as bullshit as saying murder is higher in Mexico because of the gun laws.

You just keep feeding me bullshit analyst of other countries. You might as well say That having a Queen means having less murder and American Democracy has failed. At least that would be an interesting Discussion

Honestly I don't give a shit about how many murders are in the UK, Mexico, or Canada(no offense), or whether or not they have more or less. All I care about are the Murders in my home country. Is it any comfort to the mother of a teen that was stabbed to death, that hey, at least they didn't use a gun.

Don't bother with Nikolaz. I destroyed his entire argument and he ran off.

He is only interested in guns because he fears them, and fear is not a rational response.

If he doesn't want to believe the FBI, he doesn't want to. No better in a debate than BlahBlahb.

psijac:

dmase:

I read your link and gave you a rebuttal if you don't like the facts then continue to ignore them fine with me.

Do you think telephone survey of 241 is an scientific representation of 350 Million Americans?

Consider also that some participants responded about gun that were bought 2 years before the NCIS background check system was even built

once again the survey didn't ask whether a background check was run just whether they bought their gun for a registered dealer. This would indicate whether a background check would have been run under the new laws.

I can't completely comment on whether the data is an accurate sample because I don't know how it was weighted. Also the sample size wouldn't be 350 million Americans because not everyone owns a gun and that is what's important.

Few things that are really bugging me here

Nikolaz72:

image

This poster is completely false.
For Cars
Title and tag at point of sale: Not Required
Driving Training: Not Required
Written Test: Not Required
Practical Test: Not Required
Heath Requirements: Not Required
Liability Insurance on each Vehicle: Not Required
Renewals and Inspections at Intervals: Not Required

This poster is nothing but a complete fail.

Nikolaz72:

Regardless of the falling amount of deaths, the reduction of a problem does not necessarily mean it Isn't a problem. US Gunviolence has fallen like this before, only to be expected to rise again. Which it is, by 2015 it's predicted that the amount of homicides in the US will surpass that of,

wait for it.

Deaths caused by automobiles.
image
If as many people actively KILL others with guns, as are killed by car-accidents. It's logical that it would be the least the Government could do to enforce the same restrictions. Either that or remove restrictions from automobiles until the numbers even out a bit more.

Also, Isn't it funny They picked 1993 for a reason, you can see on that list. And they released the numbers now, while firearms related homicides are on a quick rise once again. Because wait a couple of years, and these numbers wont mean jack fucking shit.

Rather than say Gun Homocides have risen 22% from 2000 due to say, the George Bush administration, 9/11, less restrictions on guns.

They say it's fallen 33% from 1993 due to... What exactly? Because it's most certainly not falling. It's going up, and fast. It fell during the Democratic Administration of the 90's then went on the rise again under Bush. Only to further steadily rise under Obama as little is done to restrict guns.

LOL That chart does not mean what you think it means. In fact that chart is showing the opposite of what you claiming. It does in fact show firearm related deaths are on the decline, though it does a great job of hiding that fact from those that do not put any critical thinking into the information being displayed. For starters it is using the raw totals and not accounting for population increases. If you look at 2005 it shows gun deaths point at 30,694. The population of the US has increased on average of 2.6 million people from 2005-2012. Using that projected growth for 2015 and gun death rate of 2005, there would need to be 33,345 projected firearm deaths in 2015 just to stay the same much less an increase in firearm related deaths. So 32,929 is actually a decrease.

Of course that is not the full story either. Notice How I was using the term "Firearm related deaths" instead of homicides. That's because that chart is combining homicides, suicides and accidents. If that chart was only showing total homicides committed with firearms the numbers would be showing a decrease even not accounting for the fact that the population has been increasing. ( http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 ) What has been increasing has been the rate of suicides. Even than the percentage of suicides committed with a firearm has been decreasing since 2005. In 2005 52.1% of all suicides where committed with a firearm while in 2010 50.4% of suicides where committed with firearms
( http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm )

Of course the rate of suicides has increased combined with population increases more than cancels out the smaller percentage of people committing suicide with firearms.

dmase:
[quote="psijac" post="528.407817.17059533"]
once again the survey didn't ask whether a background check was run just whether they bought their gun for a registered dealer. This would indicate whether a background check would have been run under the new laws.

I can't completely comment on whether the data is an accurate sample because I don't know how it was weighted. Also the sample size wouldn't be 350 million Americans because not everyone owns a gun and that is what's important.

That's where that survey runs into a problem the answers to that question included "probably was/think so" and "probably not,". Specifically that "probably not" answer which was included as was considered a "No". Before background checks the only way you would know for sure would be to ask if they were, which most people tend not to ask. When it comes to the small dealers (which are very common), it would be very common mistake to believe they were probably not dealers before background checks. For example I once went to a gun show and saw a table selling a bunch of WWII equipment. The guy also had two receivers for sale as well. Considering the fact that he only had two receivers I figures he was only a private seller, and if this was 1993 which was when that survey took place I would have answered that survey as a "probably not" or even a "no" if that was an option. Well after I negotiated a price for the M1903A3 receiver he handed me the forms to run the background check. Turns out he was a licensed dealer. Before background checks I would have never known he was a dealer. It is very easy to mistake a small dealer as not a licensed dealer, and before background checks became a requirement a person would never have realize his mistake. Small dealers work out of there own houses, have very small selections, and often just seem like a random person selling of a couple of firearms from their own collection, until they hand you the background check forms.

JSF01:

This poster is completely false.
For Cars
Title and tag at point of sale: Not Required
Driving Training: Not Required
Written Test: Not Required
Practical Test: Not Required
Heath Requirements: Not Required
Liability Insurance on each Vehicle: Not Required
Renewals and Inspections at Intervals: Not Required

What, really? In what jurisdiction is that?

Ultratwinkie:
Snip

If by 'Destroying argument' you mean. Post no sources to support your argument and switch the entire debate off topic from guns to drugs, I concur. If you think refusing to carry on a discussion wildly off topic is considered 'running' I will continue to think you as wildly irrational.

Nikolaz72:

Ultratwinkie:
Snip

If by 'Destroying argument' you mean. Post no sources to support your argument and switch the entire debate off topic from guns to drugs, I concur.

I did, all by the FBI and how drugs cause the high crime in America.

You didn't care and went off about guns. Because you are fearful and refuse to acknowledge anything else.

You don't care about facts, only to try to rationalize your fear of something that isn't the true blight on American society.

Ultratwinkie:

Nikolaz72:

Ultratwinkie:
Snip

If by 'Destroying argument' you mean. Post no sources to support your argument and switch the entire debate off topic from guns to drugs, I concur.

I did, all by the FBI and how drugs cause the high crime in America.

You didn't care and went off about guns. Because you are fearful and refuse to acknowledge anything else.

You don't care about facts, only to try to rationalize your fear of something that isn't the true blight on American society.

In my eyes you are the one that ignores facts, early on I posted plenty of sources, you just utterly disregarded it and threw the entire debate off-rails. I do not quite see the reason for doing that still, as for you posting sources to debate how much drug is trafficking through the west, and that pot is more prevail-ant than cocaine. It shows that if you legalize drugs you might stop some violence, aye. But before the drug trade the violence was still higher, as a lot of people said themselves, it's been higher than Europe for as long as people in America has had freer access to guns than in Europe.

Ofcourse Drugcartels are gonna settle down in places where its easier to fight the authorities. And with America having hundreds of guns per head there is no lack of means to fight 'back'.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0902/Guns-drugs-and-La-Barbie-Why-America-is-responsible-for-Mexican-drug-cartels/%28page%29/2

America Isn't responsible for the Drug Cartels 'just' for being costumers. The guns have a larger part of play aswell. It's not as if there aren't costumers in the rest of the world, America just happens to have easily accessible firesticks and a soddy law-enforcement.

FBI is a fine source, but when you have dozen times more violence than the rest of the developed world, and have had such since before modern-day problems developed. There is deeper going problems than 'just' drugs, it may contribute.

image

IT almost certainly contributes, but it is not the only factor, and a large factor 'is' guns. Even at it's lowpoints it's still had two-three times the violence of comparable nations, so why refuse the possibility of corralation? Even in the face of evidence? Yet it is you who must brand 'me' as someone unwilling to accept your evidence. I accept your Evidence Twinkie, however I do not believe it is 'enough'

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?_r=0
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-04-21/correct-answer-gun-violence-not-more-guns.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/

Fewer guns, fewer people owning guns = Less homocides.
Regions with more guns (South) more people die due to acts of assault [Fact], fewer guns = less homocides.

With stricter law, we saw a fall in nationwide homocides, however stricter law was implemented because of Public Opinion.

image

And as public opinion swings to the other side we see the former gun-control laws being abolished, and violence rises.

image

I may not be without fault, but in this case I'm reasonably sure that evidence points to one thing, and that is more guns = more deaths. More deaths = A generally bad thing. As such more guns = A generally bad thing.

To me it seems like logic, to you? Probably not so much... Alright, tell you what, I'll find an extremist rightwing libertarian graph to support me, does that sound good to you?

image

According to this extremist rightwing american libertarian source, which mysteriously added an extra one to the Canadian homocides and took 0.20 away from the American, disregarding minorities entirely (Aka the almost 'sole' contributers to gang-violence) America is still almost twice as violent as their neighbor with stricter gun laws.

And Canada still has a lot more gun violence than most European nations.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked