Despite increases in gun sales, gun crimes continued to decrease in the United States for the fourth straight year in 2010, according to the FBI. The FBI recently released its Crime in The United States statistics for 2010. Overall, murders in the U.S. have decreased steadily since 2006, dropping from 15,087 to 12,996. Firearms murders which made up 67 percent of all murders in the U.S. in 2010 have followed this trend, decreasing by 14 percent. http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/gun-crime-continues-to-decrease-despite-increase-in-gun-ownership/ If gun grabbing does not reduce crime, why do it?
We had decreasing crime rates when we had stricter gun laws and less gun sales as well. How does this fit with your belief that increased gun sales means less crime?
It shows that crime is not associated with gun sales. Hence, we should get rid of restrictions on guns, as they don't seem to do much of anything. If a law does nothing useful, it should be eliminated in the name of increased liberty.
I am not convinced by "more gun less crime" being that there is not a correlation between crime and states with strict gun control and states with lax gun control. Not to say more gun control would be effective, just that the notion that an increase in firearms will reduce crime is unfounded. Guns are not used enough for self-defense to prevent a notable number of crimes, and even less are used in crimes to contribute significantly to the number of crimes. Guns =/= crime
That's what I was expecting him to say when I clicked on this thread, but he actually only says that more guns does not lead to more crime. I agree on that point. And I think the NRA is an insane right-wing organization that is more disposed to seers of black helicopters than sportsmen these days. I think the second ammendment is clearly about a right to defending ones' property and community against invaders-- not against the US government. I think it's complete BS that more guns makes people more secure. But I do believe that gun laws do little to lower crime, if anything. We should focus on other things.
I didn't claim either. However, that said, if the amount of guns doesn't seem to change the crime rate, either way, why restrict guns?
Yes I can. They also have higher education and lower poverty rates. China has stricter gun laws than Europe and they have higher crime rates.
The US also has higher crime rates than at least one European country that gives all of its citizens rifles. Can't explain that either (at least not with just a gun/no gun spectrum).
That's only violent crimes. European countries have more property crimes. We are a different culture than Europe. Part of our culture is violent. Our non-gun murder rate is higher than most European country's total murder rate. No laws will change that. That said, despite the increased availability of guns, our murder rates have dropped. They are currently lower than they were in 1960.
I agree. I'm pro-gun and own several. But the OP and several other Rightists on here do make that claim.
I'm in favor of the second amendment, screwy grammar and vague wording notwithstanding. But I think the current backlash against it results from those tea partiers a while back who were showing up to public meetings armed, just to make a point ... what point, I'm not sure, but they seemed to feel pretty strongly about it. It made everyone start thinking: do we really want a bunch of wild-eyed republicans running around with assault rifles? And, yes, I do think we want a bunch of wild-eyed republicans running around with assault rifles. In the long term. But in answer to your question, why restrict guns? It's because the most vocal champions of gun rights are scary people who look entirely too much like they'd like to shoot people. I know they thought they were making some kind of critical political point, and I agree with the point that I think they were trying to make, but when some people bring their rifles to a public meeting, you should expect some nervousness on the part of the people that brought their kids.
I think everybody should be allowed to opencarry side arm.. in a stage 3 holster. Unless your a felon.. or a sheepfu*8er of course...
Holster classifications go by the levels of retention devices. A stage 1 will have only a retention loop/ trigger guard... a stage 2 will have a retention loop/ trigger guard and brake.. a stage three will add a mechanical lock .. Stage three.. notice the trigger block.. the hood over the trigger and the side button for the mechanical release. This stage 1 holster has nothing but a trigger guard.
Why should felons or bovinophiliacs (I made that word up, I think) not be able to defend themselves? Particularly non-violent ones.
If you were a bovino.. would you feel safe knowing that primates that want to copulate with you are now armed? Felons already have shown a sociopathic bent and are not to be trusted with gus.. would you want bernie madoff running around with a gun?.. Even Chris Christie doesnt want that.. and he worked for the guy..
Oh really... Here is an article I found. I'll quote it below. It's a bit outdated, I'm looking for a newer source right now.
Are you seriously afraid Bernie Madoff would shoot someone? And somehow he would be deterred if the law said he couldn't have a gun?
Here is another one, this one more recent. The UK has around 4 times the crime rate of the US. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html