I'm sure someone has posted about this before, I'm just too lazy to look it up _____________ Anyways, Instead of worrying about legal gun control, why don't we use that money to crack down on illegal gun trading (black market, etc.) illegal gun trading seems like much more of a threat... just a thought. what does the Armorverse think?
Here's my theory. Without guns there is no defense. Without guns there is no attacks. Basically, being lazy and banning both will get us a lot of angry defenseless people. Great!
But They limited the availability of swords and stuff to the soldiers, knights, etc. in that time period. Normal people were jailed or even killed for handling swords and such
which is the same control as gun control.
That's a big if. Furthermore, violent crimes will increase.
please explain to me how violent crimes would increase. many to most murders (i wouldn't be able to give the actual numbers for i haven't looked it up) but many murders that are committed are committed with registered, legal guns. with higher gun control, less of those registered legal guns would be given away, and much less to those who do not deserve them.
with more gun control, there is less gun circulation, overall less availability of guns, so therefore less gun-related crimes.
please explain to me how violent crimes would increase.
Thanks. I did explicitly state that I had no intention of building an argument. The thing I quoted supplied no back up or reasoning whatsoever. I felt I should do the same.
many to most murders (i wouldn't be able to give the actual numbers for i haven't looked it up) but many murders that are committed are committed with registered, legal guns.
Most murders are committed with trained hunting hawks. Not that I did any research on the subject, but making stuff up is clearly a valid form of logic.
so therefore less gun-related crimes.
I wasn't aware that I ever said gun-related crime would increase.
i'd like to see how violent crimes could increase with gun control.
my source #1 my source #2 According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from - a flea market or gun show: for fewer than 2% a retail store or pawnshop: for about 12% family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source: for 80%
think what you will of it, more gun control = less gun-related crimes.
also, the topic you replied to was about gun related crimes.
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from - a flea market or gun show: for fewer than 2% a retail store or pawnshop: for about 12% family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source: for 80%
I don't see how this backs up your following point, think what you will of it,
more gun control = less gun-related crimes.
Just to re-iterate: I don't have a side right now. I debate with you because you're here.
Why? What is the reason for not allowing people to own such weapons?
If we are to assume the reason people need weapons is to defend themselves (something I don't agree with by the way), then why on earth would you need such a powerful weapon, much less a sniper rifle. I cannot think of a weapon less suited to defence of your self/home.
If we are talking about hunting, the same argument applies. You don't need anything more powerful than a regular semi automatic rifle. There is no reason that anything you should be shooting at would be bulletproof, unless of course someone has introduced a mutagen to deer giving them kevlar hides.
That's a big if. Furthermore, violent crimes will increase.
That explains the high loss of lives due to firearms incidences in the UK. Oh wait..
UK, 2004+ (this is after tightened legislation followed by an anmesty on turn ins).
