News Analysis "More Guns = More Killing"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Criminals strike where they anticipate least resistance. That's all I am going to say on this subject.
 
36.gif
 
Originally Posted By: MrQuackers
Criminals strike where they anticipate least resistance. That's all I am going to say on this subject.


Thats a fine argument to make, but why not back it up with stats... like crime rates in fully functional, non third-world countries to make the point valid.
 
How many times has somebody walked into a police station and opened fire? They chose schools, malls and movie theaters for a reason.
 
More news reporters and globalization = more coverage of killings.

Murders and killings are way down compared to 100 years ago, even 50 years ago.
 
Crime in Switzerland doesn't seem too bad and they have a very high gun/person ratio. It seems the problems lie in big cities where drug use and other crimes are high. All is good out here in the suburbs.
 
Look at Chicago..

Then look at DC. It used to be illigal to even possess a firearm in DC until just a few years ago. This year they had their lowest homicide rate since the 60's.
 
Originally Posted By: Danno
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: MrQuackers
Colorado


Devil's advocate here, but what about Canada?
smile.gif



Gangs and criminals don't care about gun laws - never have, never will. Childern's block party was the shoot out location in Toronto.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/...tion-to-toronto


I'm speaking more in a general sense, comparing Canada's gun crime statistics to our neighbours to the south.
 
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
This is why we need to ban sports cars. Then there will be no more accidents.


LOL, I think statistically, we'd have to ban soccer mom's and teenage boys
grin.gif
 
"Post-Sandy Hook, gun groups in the United States are now offering teachers firearms training. But do I really want my kid’s teachers packing a weapon?"

Well...um, if they did, perhaps mind you, maybe, just maybe one of the teachers would have stopped the young lad from killing little kids.

Most, not all, bad guys won't attack armed people. But they will, for sure, attack a known UN-armed person.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: MrQuackers
Criminals strike where they anticipate least resistance. That's all I am going to say on this subject.


Thats a fine argument to make, but why not back it up with stats... like crime rates in fully functional, non third-world countries to make the point valid.

http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB11.pdf

As a start...

we've never had a "right" to bear arms in tis country, they are only for hunting, vermin control, and targets (must mean that only the crooks have "weapons").

Post the gun ban, crooks (with weapons, of any variety, cutting, bludgeoning, or shooting) found that it was easier to "ask" the occupants of a house where the valuables were than they did prior to the gun confiscation.
 
As a start...

we've never had a "right" to bear arms in tis country, they are only for hunting, vermin control, and targets (must mean that only the crooks have "weapons").

2nd Ammendment? If I can't bear arms? How do I hunt?
 
Oz hasn't got a second amendment.

Firearm use is a "conditional privilege", which me must request from our Lords and Masters, citing one of a few "genuine reasons" for using such firearms.

Unless you are a media magnate or somesuch, when you can actually aquire such a licence/permit for self protection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top