D
Deleted member 509215
Guest
So fucking what?
Not the criminals. I used to live in a county that went almost 75 years without a murder and was heavily armed. The high school parking lot was full of pickup trucks with a gun rack in the rear window with long arms in it.
Growing up in the 60s and 70s guns supplemented our food.
There's no such thing as a final stage of biological evolution.
So you would be in favor of arming everyone?
But exactly how strict are those countries? The lesser murder rate may have nothing to do with gun control, but have everything to do with how restrictive everything else is or how harsh the penalties are for everything.
Statistics comparing countries aren't anecdotes. You obviously don't even know what anecdote means.
Here is a bit of trivia for you. In the 50s and early 60s kids in the ROTC program at school used to haul their Anschutz rifles on the subway. There was never a problem but that came to an end. This was in New York City.
Just because it worked in one state/county doesn’t mean it works everywhere..
And you say don’t arm the criminals, but how do you spot the criminal that hasn’t been caught yet?
I'll disagree with that with low-end confidence. At least when it comes to adaptation, humans are at a point where we can make our environment adapt to us. I would say it's mostly aesthetic at this point, but plastic surgery has even thrown that up in the air genetically. We're now on a hamster wheel with genetic traits.
So we have a subway here as well. On that subway nobody is armed and I can’t recall of any shooting on it ever..
I'm not sure of what your mental handicap here is, but you have two countries with two different homicide rates, and among all the differences you could look at, and without considering them, you just vomit "must be the guns"...
What a smart cookie you are. Almost as sharp as @My2Cents "Guns make places more dangerous because reasons. Don't worry about any evidence just take my word for it. Bagoo!"
I'm not sure of what your mental handicap here is, but you have two countries with two different homicide rates, and among all the differences you could look at, and without considering them, you just vomit "must be the guns"...
What a smart cookie you are. Almost as sharp as @My2Cents "Guns make places more dangerous because reasons. Don't worry about any evidence just take my word for it. Bagoo!"
London murder rate overtakes New York's
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936
April 2nd 2018.
And think kids taking their guns to school legally didn't do any shooting on the subway either.
Culture, gang violence, arguments, mental illness, drugs and alcohol and many more variables are at play and all these things fluctuate a lot. Very hard to use these statistics to find an obvious answer. That said I do think if you took any city and add a shit ton more weapons then there are going to be more deaths due to these weapons. It's just common sense. USA is a special case now because there are already so many guns and criminals and gangs would take advantage if guns were outlawedIt is not clear cut at all. If you take the top ten safest places it will be split between heavily legally armed and very restrictive. The same will be true on the dangerous end of things.
Just because it worked in one state/county doesn’t mean it works everywhere..
And you say don’t arm the criminals, but how do you spot the criminal that hasn’t been caught yet?
So if the outcome is the same (no shootings) would you prefer to have those kids with or without guns?
Statistics aren't anecdotes. You're simply abusing language. Do you think England is some kind of outlier as a high income country with a much lower murder rate than the US? Do you want me to post the homicide rates of other high income countries?