- This topic has 620 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 14, 2011 at 4:28 PM #655077January 14, 2011 at 4:31 PM #653950DjshakesParticipant
Also, the murder rate in NY has been nearly 5 times that of London for two centuries. During this time, neither city had any gun control laws. In 1911, NY instituted some of the most severe gun control laws. Such gun control laws weren’t enacted in London for nearly a decade later. However, NY still continued to have a higher murder rate than London.
In England, crime dropped as guns became available. England’s bill of rights in 1688 allowed private citizens to own guns. England’s remove of the guns was not due to a gun crisis. At the end of the 19th century there were only 59 fatalities from handguns with a population of 30 million. 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and three were homicides. It wasn’t until the 20th century when more gun laws we enacted did the crime rate start to rise.
January 14, 2011 at 4:31 PM #654016DjshakesParticipantAlso, the murder rate in NY has been nearly 5 times that of London for two centuries. During this time, neither city had any gun control laws. In 1911, NY instituted some of the most severe gun control laws. Such gun control laws weren’t enacted in London for nearly a decade later. However, NY still continued to have a higher murder rate than London.
In England, crime dropped as guns became available. England’s bill of rights in 1688 allowed private citizens to own guns. England’s remove of the guns was not due to a gun crisis. At the end of the 19th century there were only 59 fatalities from handguns with a population of 30 million. 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and three were homicides. It wasn’t until the 20th century when more gun laws we enacted did the crime rate start to rise.
January 14, 2011 at 4:31 PM #654602DjshakesParticipantAlso, the murder rate in NY has been nearly 5 times that of London for two centuries. During this time, neither city had any gun control laws. In 1911, NY instituted some of the most severe gun control laws. Such gun control laws weren’t enacted in London for nearly a decade later. However, NY still continued to have a higher murder rate than London.
In England, crime dropped as guns became available. England’s bill of rights in 1688 allowed private citizens to own guns. England’s remove of the guns was not due to a gun crisis. At the end of the 19th century there were only 59 fatalities from handguns with a population of 30 million. 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and three were homicides. It wasn’t until the 20th century when more gun laws we enacted did the crime rate start to rise.
January 14, 2011 at 4:31 PM #654738DjshakesParticipantAlso, the murder rate in NY has been nearly 5 times that of London for two centuries. During this time, neither city had any gun control laws. In 1911, NY instituted some of the most severe gun control laws. Such gun control laws weren’t enacted in London for nearly a decade later. However, NY still continued to have a higher murder rate than London.
In England, crime dropped as guns became available. England’s bill of rights in 1688 allowed private citizens to own guns. England’s remove of the guns was not due to a gun crisis. At the end of the 19th century there were only 59 fatalities from handguns with a population of 30 million. 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and three were homicides. It wasn’t until the 20th century when more gun laws we enacted did the crime rate start to rise.
January 14, 2011 at 4:31 PM #655067DjshakesParticipantAlso, the murder rate in NY has been nearly 5 times that of London for two centuries. During this time, neither city had any gun control laws. In 1911, NY instituted some of the most severe gun control laws. Such gun control laws weren’t enacted in London for nearly a decade later. However, NY still continued to have a higher murder rate than London.
In England, crime dropped as guns became available. England’s bill of rights in 1688 allowed private citizens to own guns. England’s remove of the guns was not due to a gun crisis. At the end of the 19th century there were only 59 fatalities from handguns with a population of 30 million. 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and three were homicides. It wasn’t until the 20th century when more gun laws we enacted did the crime rate start to rise.
January 14, 2011 at 4:36 PM #653969DjshakesParticipantAnother great followup. This should put this debate to rest.
January 14, 2011 at 4:36 PM #654035DjshakesParticipantAnother great followup. This should put this debate to rest.
January 14, 2011 at 4:36 PM #654622DjshakesParticipantAnother great followup. This should put this debate to rest.
January 14, 2011 at 4:36 PM #654758DjshakesParticipantAnother great followup. This should put this debate to rest.
January 14, 2011 at 4:36 PM #655087DjshakesParticipantAnother great followup. This should put this debate to rest.
January 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM #653994desmondParticipantCap,
Instead of making things up: “And if you do have access to your weapon you are more likely to get hurt if you try to use it. If an armed robber is in your house he will run if you start yelling how you have a gun and you called the police. And the robber is more likely to shoot back if you start shooting” pure B.S.
Why not refer to the recent Arizona shootings when a legal gun carrying citizen did not use his gun and instead tackled and held the criminal shooter. The gun carrying citizen was able to make a rational decision and choose a physical takedown instead of using his gun. Again, the only person using his gun was the criminal.
January 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM #654060desmondParticipantCap,
Instead of making things up: “And if you do have access to your weapon you are more likely to get hurt if you try to use it. If an armed robber is in your house he will run if you start yelling how you have a gun and you called the police. And the robber is more likely to shoot back if you start shooting” pure B.S.
Why not refer to the recent Arizona shootings when a legal gun carrying citizen did not use his gun and instead tackled and held the criminal shooter. The gun carrying citizen was able to make a rational decision and choose a physical takedown instead of using his gun. Again, the only person using his gun was the criminal.
January 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM #654647desmondParticipantCap,
Instead of making things up: “And if you do have access to your weapon you are more likely to get hurt if you try to use it. If an armed robber is in your house he will run if you start yelling how you have a gun and you called the police. And the robber is more likely to shoot back if you start shooting” pure B.S.
Why not refer to the recent Arizona shootings when a legal gun carrying citizen did not use his gun and instead tackled and held the criminal shooter. The gun carrying citizen was able to make a rational decision and choose a physical takedown instead of using his gun. Again, the only person using his gun was the criminal.
January 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM #654783desmondParticipantCap,
Instead of making things up: “And if you do have access to your weapon you are more likely to get hurt if you try to use it. If an armed robber is in your house he will run if you start yelling how you have a gun and you called the police. And the robber is more likely to shoot back if you start shooting” pure B.S.
Why not refer to the recent Arizona shootings when a legal gun carrying citizen did not use his gun and instead tackled and held the criminal shooter. The gun carrying citizen was able to make a rational decision and choose a physical takedown instead of using his gun. Again, the only person using his gun was the criminal.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.