The illegal drug trade is a big part of that. Legalizing drugs would go a long way to reducing the murder rate.


 

Of course death by overdose may skyrocket. But maybe not, if drugs are legal and quality-controlled.

Death by overdose is a victimless crime.

---

Why is it not comparable?

Pretty obvious if you even just read wikipedia on the country.

---

What happened in that facility in California was awful; but the awful truth is that mass shootings will continue unless there is someone there to stop them from happening.

 

Part of the tragedy of what happened was that there was no one there with the means to prevent or at least resist what took place. More gun laws have not prevented those who should not have firearms from obtaining them and more laws will not stop them in the future. Criminals and the insane, by definition, do not care about laws!

 

I am a former police officer and I (and others who know far more than I) can tell you that the best hope anyone has when a bad guy shows up with harmful intent is a good guy/gal on scene with a gun. That's why so many police officers are so outspoken about supporting personal firearm possession by law abiding citizens.

 

I realize that what I've said is the very embodiment of what so many anti gun lobbyist hate with a passion. So be it. If those people don't want to be armed, that's their choice; I will do what I deem is in the best interest of mine. 

 

I hope I never have to shoot anyone, but I'd rather be armed and never need it than find one day I need it and don't have it... 

---

The problem is you aren't thinking broadly. The best case scenario is not to have that situation arise at all. With the US awash with good guys with guns you would expect a lower homicide rate than the likes of the UK, where even the average policeman is unarmed. Yet you are far more likely to be murdered in the US? Why could this possibly be? Yes I'm sure the terrible inequality doesn't help.

---

And now we have another mass shooting in California. Clearly, the system we have is broken, and is not keeping guns away from those who have no business touching them. More guns isn't the answer, nor is an overhaul of the mental health system without affecting gun rights, and the NRA's preferred course of action-do nothing-is getting people killed.


It's time for registration and stricter regulations on who can own a gun, what type and how many they can have and how much ammo they can possess. This is a generational problem. Violent crime may well go up initially, but over the course of a decade or more, we could greatly reduce the number of mass violent incidents just by limiting access to guns and bringing the flow of new ones to a trickle.

But why would terrorists and criminals bother to buy guns and ammo LEGALLY when they can just get it off the black market or through a third party? it's time this country realizes that we are not dealing with petty thief's but rather with dangerous people who have no respect for law and order. I believe that this would only harm law abiding citizens in our country and make it even easier for terrorists and criminals to strike-and despite what some reports might say about the effects of a lot of people owning firearms, I would rather be stuck in a crowded supermarket knowing that every person there had a conceal and carry permit, then being stuck in any place where I could not defend myself, or other people could not try to defend me and my family. I'm willing to take that gamble.

 

Did prohibition stop the smuggling of alcohol in this country? no. Has the War on Drugs been successful? no. Why should we believe that gun control would be anymore successful? and besides, the 2nd Amendment was created to insure that the American people have a chance to defend themselves against totalitarian government. Why should we trust the government on this given the numerous historical abuses? I.E. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Khmer Rouge, and Communist China to name a few.

---

Pretty obvious if you even just read wikipedia on the country.

 

So basically you don't know since you can't put it into your own words.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

So basically you don't know since you can't put it into your own words.

Yeah you got me. If you insist on walking down this stupid path...Honduras?

---

Yeah you got me. If you insist on walking down this stupid path...Honduras?

 

Venezuela has very strict gun laws and is among the countries with the highest percentage of gun murders. What I asked was in what ways is it different from England that explain the vastly different rates of gun murder? You apparently have no clue, since you didn't answer.


 

And what is your point on Honduras?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Well I told you to Google Venezuela. You obviously have no idea about the slums, poverty and the awful state of the economy. Go ahead and educate yourself.


In Honduras people can own lots of guns and is one of the most dangerous places in the world. But I wouldn't use if as a comparison because that would be stupid.

---

What happened in that facility in California was awful; but the awful truth is that mass shootings will continue unless there is someone there to stop them from happening.

 

Part of the tragedy of what happened was that there was no one there with the means to prevent or at least resist what took place. More gun laws have not prevented those who should not have firearms from obtaining them and more laws will not stop them in the future. Criminals and the insane, by definition, do not care about laws!

 

I am a former police officer and I (and others who know far more than I) can tell you that the best hope anyone has when a bad guy shows up with harmful intent is a good guy/gal on scene with a gun. That's why so many police officers are so outspoken about supporting personal firearm possession by law abiding citizens.

 

I realize that what I've said is the very embodiment of what so many anti gun lobbyist hate with a passion. So be it. If those people don't want to be armed, that's their choice; I will do what I deem is in the best interest of mine. 

 

I hope I never have to shoot anyone, but I'd rather be armed and never need it than find one day I need it and don't have it... 

 

Given your experience and training, does it not worry you that not everyone carrying a gun will be able to recognize a valid threat and shoot safely without killing innocents?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Given your experience and training, does it not worry you that not everyone carrying a gun will be able to recognize a valid threat and shoot safely without killing innocents?

 

No, the overwhelming majority of us want you to be armed. Despite what you see on TV, most gun owners take the time to learn about justifiable use-of-force situations. If anything, I've found that they don't use it as often even when law would permit the lawful use of the weapon. Anything can happen so your concern isn't completely unfounded, but I can't remember the last time a gun owner created a more dangerous situation. At least not personally. I can, however, recall many times when a robbery or dangerous situation was resolved or ended by a lawful gun owner simply presenting his weapon to the offender.

 

Also, almost all gun-related crimes are committed by those that are in unlawful possession of the gun. It isn't the gun owners we should worry about. 

 

I'd go as far as saying that the court system doesn't punish criminals enough, and you'd see a drastic decrease in murders and robberies if they'd just punish criminals accordingly. Most murderers start with petty crimes like stealing from cars and gradually increase into burglars until they become comfortable enough with killing someone. Stopping them early would influence these statistics. 

---

Well I told you to Google Venezuela. You obviously have no idea about the slums, poverty and the awful state of the economy. Go ahead and educate yourself.


In Honduras people can own lots of guns and is one of the most dangerous places in the world. But I wouldn't use if as a comparison because that would be stupid.

 

I know Venezuela's economy is in terrible shape under the Socialist rulers. Shouldn't that make gun murders lower? How can you buy a gun if you can't afford food? But in any case, you seem to agree that gun murders correlate to the economy rather than gun-control laws.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I know Venezuela's economy is in terrible shape under the Socialist rulers. Shouldn't that make gun murders lower? How can you buy a gun if you can't afford food? But in any case, you seem to agree that gun murders correlate to the economy rather than gun-control laws.

This may be a crazy thought but maybe there are a multitude of factors? Just like when the jags lose it isn't just the QBs fault?


However in comparable countries to the US it has shown it works. Australia has proven that mass shootings are lowered/stopped by gun control. That's a fact, now please note I'm not saying that all crime or violent crime has stopped that is impossible.

---

This may be a crazy thought but maybe there are a multitude of factors? Just like when the jags lose it isn't just the QBs fault?


However in comparable countries to the US it has shown it works. Australia has proven that mass shootings are lowered/stopped by gun control. That's a fact, now please note I'm not saying that all crime or violent crime has stopped that is impossible.

See that's your problem. You are trying discuss nuance.

---

This may be a crazy thought but maybe there are a multitude of factors? Just like when the jags lose it isn't just the QBs fault?


However in comparable countries to the US it has shown it works. Australia has proven that mass shootings are lowered/stopped by gun control. That's a fact, now please note I'm not saying that all crime or violent crime has stopped that is impossible.

 

It correlates very well to the economy, and very poorly to the number of guns. And I wouldn't say that the US is more comparable to Australia than to Venezuela. I'm not that familiar with Australia, so please enlighten me: does Australia have poverty-stricken inner cities where drug dealing is rampant?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

It correlates very well to the economy, and very poorly to the number of guns. And I wouldn't say that the US is more comparable to Australia than to Venezuela. I'm not that familiar with Australia, so please enlighten me: does Australia have poverty-stricken inner cities where drug dealing is rampant?

All of their koalas have chlamydia, so there's that...

---

It correlates very well to the economy, and very poorly to the number of guns. And I wouldn't say that the US is more comparable to Australia than to Venezuela. I'm not that familiar with Australia, so please enlighten me: does Australia have poverty-stricken inner cities where drug dealing is rampant?

Yes.. Currently has a huge problem with Ice.


Well obviously it compares poorly for guns, they now have gun control. 20 years no mass shootings.

---