View Single Post
Old January 13th, 2013 (5:48 PM).
Captain Gizmo's Avatar
Captain Gizmo Captain Gizmo is offline
Legit Boss
  • Gold Tier
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 4,824
Originally Posted by kelario27 View Post
Paragraph 1: Where are you getting your information? States with lax gun laws, such as Kansas and Alaska, for example, have quite low murder rates, and at least in Alaska it's big news to hear about a homicide. Then you take places like NYC and DC, where guns are banned and extremely hard to get, respectively. Just LOOK at their murder rates! It's ridiculous!

Paragraph 2: What I'm saying is that gun laws hurt the law-abiding instead of criminals. To quote Paul Ryan, "Criminals by definition don't obey the law." If guns are banned, the law-abiding people will go "okay" and bury their guns. Criminals on the other hand go either to Mexico or somewhere else or make their own guns, and then when they invade a law-abiding person's home the latter can't defend themselves. Gun laws actually increase the crime rate, not the other way around.

Paragraph 3: While assault rifles and such aren't really necessary, they do come out to be useful sometime, especially in times of war. Other guns are necessary for self-defence. Take a look at Britain and Sweden, for example. A buttload of types of guns are illegal there, and it's illegal to defend yourself. As I've said before, if a murderer or robber decides he wants to murder or rob you, you have to let him do it or you can face years in prison. The state of New York is actually considering this. Imagine being in the position of the guy being murdered or robbed, and being unable to defend yourself.

You're comparing a state that got around 19,000,000 to a state up which got around 731,000? Obviously there's going to be some murders.. and NYC have a history of high crime rate.
And for one, New York doesn't allow guns, but the other states around it allows purchasing them. Making the no gun rule kinda pointless.

So you would let people buy guns so they can reproduce the massacre that happened to the elementary school? Because by allowing guns, that's basically what you're allowing. And as I said above, just because criminals won't obey the law, means that we shouldn't make rules at all? By thinking like that, you're making it all the more easier for criminals to commit crime. You're also talking about criminals going to Mexico to get guns. Well I'm pretty sure people would rather have them travel to another state and take their chances with the border instead of them running to their local grocery store buying a gun and going on a killing spree 5 minutes later.

Why would anyone need an assault rifle? War? What war? I think you're playing too much Call Of Duty and Grand Theft Auto.
You wanna compare crimes in different states? How about we compare Canada to USA? In 2000 USA's robbery rate was 65% higher than Canada's, aggravated assault was was around the double of Canada, murder rate? Triple of Canada.
Also, 70% of murders made in the US are committed with firearms. How about Canada? 30%.

Why is it so low? Because Canada got a very strict policy about gun control.
Around 15% of Canadians own a gun. 2.9% of those owners own handguns. Whereas 42% of Americans own firearms and 17% of them own handguns. Also, automatic rifles are completely completely illegal to own for Canadians. Also, it's illegal to carry handguns in the street, unless you can prove that your life is in danger and you really need protection. Even then, it is very rare that those cases happen.

So what do you prefer? Allowing guns and also allowing murder to still be committed or having a very strict gun control and have a very low murder rate?
♥Plusle bro of Synerjee♥ | ♥Pink Mommy♥
|3DS FC|
Reply With Quote