Quote:
Originally posted by Sir Heinrich Godfrie IV:
Amen brother! Amen!
for those who still think that GUNS are the problem (Dramnek), i want to let you know that every fall there is a thing called hunting. and where i live there are hundreds of thousands of people who head out into the woods (within Minnesota & Wisconsin). and nobody gets murdered! and for that matter, very very very few people get killed accidentily.
sooo wwhat dooes that prove??? hhmm...need i say more??[/QB]
|
Here in Britain, very few criminals carry guns or many other people for that matter. And the murder rate is much smaller than in the U.S.A, look at the figures, a disarmed populace is a safer populace.
The criminals that do have them mostly use them on each other. You see, if you do carry a gun the police come and shoot you.
There is *ALWAYS* going to be ways to get hold of a gun if you really want to. But it makes sense to makes it as hard as possible to get hold of them as possible, since this will make it harder for crimes to get hold of them.
Anyway the whole your better off if you have a gun argument is flawed, since if your victim potentially could own a gun, you are going to take one along, you might also choose to shoot first since your victim might have access to a gun.
If however your victim is not likely to have a gun, you are not likely to have to take one along.
If you look at the figures for murders, in countries where guns are more easily aviavlile, they are always higher, and more murders are always committed with firearms.
In countries where guns are tightly controlled, murders figures are always lower & less murders are committed with firearms. Evidence proves this to be correct.
The choice is yours, freedom to own guns *AND* to be killed by one, or no chance of owning a gun, but at least a smaller chance of being murdered.
For example:
In 1976 the murder rate per 100,000 in the U.S. was 9.1, but in England and Wales 1.1.
[ 05-21-2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]