Shooting in Connecticut

[ItIsWhatItIs]

Forum Sponsor

That propaganda is outdated. The fact is gun violence spiked immediately after the ban and it has since declined to levels below where it was when the ban was imposed.

This graph shows gun crime stats in England and Wales from 2000-2010. The same pattern applies to homicide rates and a variety of other crime stats in the UK. Check it out for yourself here (download data table);
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public.../research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/

Here's a graph of the homicide rate (per million) in the UK in the past 45 years.

The red lines indicate points in time when new gun restrictions were legislated. In the first case ( 1988 ) semi-auto long guns were severely restricted. There is no noticeable change that registers in the homicide rate. The next one is 1998 when handguns were outright banned, and after the sharp increase in homicides, they begin to decrease steadily for the first time since records were kept. This difference in the impact between the two laws could possibly be explained by the fact that handguns are far more commonly used to commit crimes in the UK than long guns, as the first graph shows.

Now if we're going to be honest for a second, the fact is that the correlation between the gun laws and fluctuation in the homicide rate does not mean causation. But, since you so eagerly posted that propagandist crap about the increase in UK violence at one point in time, then you either believe the causal relation yourself, or you were being disingenuous. Hopefully it's the former, in which case this new evidence should have you convinced that all handguns should be banned. Right?

Why should society as a whole protect the few scumbags that should not be walking about. There are some bad people out there. Good people with guns is the way to to tilt the scale to eradicate and snuff out the bad apples.

 

[D23]

Doesn't matter. There are millions more "assault rifles" and handguns out in the US public now. More were sold in the last two weeks than this year. All this ban BS (which is what it is since there won't be a ban) has driven every American with a permit to stock up on guns, magazines and ammo. Cleaning out every dealer and putting backorders deep into the end of this coming year.

What else would you expect to happen in a nation of terrified cowards?

 

[RockerGuy]

Doesn't matter. There are millions more "assault rifles" and handguns out in the US public now. More were sold in the last two weeks than this year. All this ban BS (which is what it is since there won't be a ban) has driven every American with a permit to stock up on guns, magazines and ammo. Cleaning out every dealer and putting backorders deep into the end of this coming year.

What else would you expect to happen in a nation of terrified cowards?

Lol, the irony eh?

Sent from my phone using my paws

 

[murf]

Doesn't matter. There are millions more "assault rifles" and handguns out in the US public now. More were sold in the last two weeks than this year. All this ban BS (which is what it is since there won't be a ban) has driven every American with a permit to stock up on guns, magazines and ammo. Cleaning out every dealer and putting backorders deep into the end of this coming year.

What else would you expect to happen in a nation of terrified cowards?

Would this mean all canadians that own restricted firearms are cowards as well?

 

[D23]

Would this mean all canadians that own restricted firearms are cowards as well?

A nation of cowards applies to gun owners and non gun owners alike. Look how quickly they gave up their constitutional rights to privacy and due process because of the threat of terrorists

As for Canada....figure that out for yourself. You live here.

I find Canadians are only brave behind the steering wheel of their cars (granted it's not at a red light) and behind their keyboard, safe in their masturbation chairs.

Your findings may vary.

 

[murf]

So that would be a yes.
What nationslity is brave?

 

[BusaBob]

[video=youtube;KU24i3Th27U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU24i3Th27U&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

[D23]

Good question.

Short answer, not this one.

 

[BusaBob]

...
Now if we're going to be honest for a second, the fact is that the correlation between the gun laws and fluctuation in the homicide rate does not mean causation. But, since you so eagerly posted that propagandist crap about the increase in UK violence at one point in time, then you either believe the causal relation yourself, or you were being disingenuous. Hopefully it's the former, in which case this new evidence should have you convinced that all handguns should be banned. Right?

I'm inclined to take stats and graphs with a grain of salt. I see those graphs and see firearm crime rates and homicides going up after the banning.
That would suggest to me that the bans and confiscations were completely ineffective at reducing such crime. I'm also inclined to suspect that there is probably another factor(s) responsible for the decline in crime rate over the following 9 to 10 years after that spike. I also note that the drop in crime does not appear to have significantly dropped below the levels they were prior to the restrictions/bans/confiscations, again suggesting to me that such measures were largely ineffective, if we are going by these graphs.

I would also question why it seems that you are incapable of expressing a point of view without putting other people down in the tone of your replies.

 

[ItIsWhatItIs]

Humans are not to be trusted, in Canada or out. Anyone who stands in the way of guns or wants to disarm the public ought to rethink their attitude.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2012/12/29/03/01/indian-rape-victim-takes-turn-for-worse

Politicians or police will not be there in the dark of night.

 

[fastar1]

I'm inclined to take stats and graphs with a grain of salt. I see those graphs and see firearm crime rates and homicides going up after the banning.
That would suggest to me that the bans and confiscations were completely ineffective at reducing such crime. I'm also inclined to suspect that there is probably another factor(s) responsible for the decline in crime rate over the following 9 to 10 years after that spike. I also note that the drop in crime does not appear to have significantly dropped below the levels they were prior to the restrictions/bans/confiscations, again suggesting to me that such measures were largely ineffective, if we are going by these graphs.

I would also question why it seems that you are incapable of expressing a point of view without putting other people down in the tone of your replies.

I've been spending a lot of time looking into the pro-gun arguments and they all come up hollow. Like this hit I got from Google http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528 , or on this thread there's the lie about the Bay of Pigs failure, and the very thorough defence of gun laws that johnp linked to at [URL="http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/"]http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/[/URL]. There's just a lot of irresponsible garbage being thrown up from the pro gun side and I got fed up with it right around the time I replied to you, so I apologise for my tone.

Maybe we can both agree to try and post more responsibly from now on? Your second link for example does a whole lot to open up the discussion into aspects of the problem that we really haven't been looking at, which can only be a good thing even if the information it contains proves to be inaccurate.

 

[johnp]

ummm the U.K. example for one is hardly a slam dunk in favour of gun control.

"
Jewish World Review December 18, 2012
Invincible Ignorance
By Thomas Sowell

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.
The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.
But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries— and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.
In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.
Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.
Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.
In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s— after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions— there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.
Gun control zealots' choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.
You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem— including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.
There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.
Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a "study" that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."


from http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell121812.php3#.UN-DC29X3X0

 

[ItIsWhatItIs]

ummm the U.K. example for one is hardly a slam dunk in favour of gun control.

"
Jewish World Review December 18, 2012
Invincible Ignorance
By Thomas Sowell

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.
The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.
But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries— and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.
In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.
Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.
Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.
In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s— after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions— there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.
Gun control zealots' choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.
You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem— including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.
There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.
Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a "study" that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."


from http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell121812.php3#.UN-DC29X3X0

Commenting on the UK is a waste of breath. The Queen is still about and the stench that remains is the political construct designed to streamline power to one person, the king or Queen. Without a King or Queen, a majority government wields absolute control being decided by unelected prime minister who wields power over the laws created and the mechanics of government. Fortunately there is the charter, the notwithstanding clause, and the supreme court to throw water on the to radical. The UK and Canada have failed to grow up and become a democracy. The United States is a democracy where the people vote to decide. The founders of the US constructed the constitution to insulate itself from the tyrants and dictators which Canada and the UK can easily fall victim to. Canada is corrupt in the way the political parties reward supporters with government contracts and bureacratic jobs and the union that strangles the public with their entitlement to pay and benefits that is twice what the public sector gets. Canada is a jerk off Country for its lack of democracy and the reasons listed. Those who oppose guns are those who want to make sure the public is disarmed to enable them to continue to pillage and pluender the public as they have for the last hundred years. In many ways, Canada is operated like China, where the communist Red party reaps the wealth of china, while the rest of the serfs get to serve them. These propogandists will stand against any action that would erode their position. These propogandists would certainly be the ones with the strongest voice against guns in Canada or the UK. They have to keep the gravy coming.

 

[fastar1]

I'm going to try and make this quick because it's getting tiresome.

ummm the U.K. example for one is hardly a slam dunk in favour of gun control.

"
Jewish World Review December 18, 2012
Invincible Ignorance
By Thomas Sowell

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

DC suffered the most from gang violence when it was at it's height. The reason gun violence increased was because the gun-free "safe haven" was unenforcible. If a border can be drawn between restrictive and permissive gun zones, then accurate comparisons can be made. For example, courts and airports are pretty damn good at reducing gun crimes, and they have no gun policies. In the case of DC, criminals just drove a few minutes to get guns and drove back into their 'hoods. One of the ways to improve safety in DC, THE REST of country would have to have much more highly restricted gun laws. As it was, the gun ban probabily had an immesurably small effect on reducing gun crimes, simply because it required a tiny bit more effort for criminals to acquire guns.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.
The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

First of all, the rate of of gun ownership isn't at issue. If people want to own a hundred .22 rifles then fine. They are hardly going to present a major threat to society. Secondly, lack of uniformity in gun restrictions across a borderless area means that the most lenient laws are the ones that criminals will exploit. They are the weak link in the chain, so to speak.

But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries— and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.
In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

There's a reason why the US was called the Wild West. And again, as long as weapons are easily available somewhere, then local gun laws can't overcome the criminal element.

Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

Yes, violent people were the difference, and easy access to guns enabled them to make their mark.

Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals. In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s— after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions— there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

A clear case of selective statistics. Besides, he doesn't account for the change in population. My graph (earlier post) puts this comment into it's proper context, and crimes have decreased since guns were restricted.

Gun control zealots' choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

Great, let's compare the US to nations with the most organised crime, corruption, and weak democracy. Wow, the US is better, pat on the back everyone!

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

Again, selective stats. In any case the rate of gun ownership is not the issue as I said, the problem is ease of access and lethality of the weapons.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem— including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

ACTUAL statistics show otherwise.

There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.

Agreed, and it goes for both sides.

Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a "study" that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."

Details?

 

[johnp]

I'm going to try and make this quick because it's getting tiresome.

........

A clear case of selective statistics. Besides, he doesn't account for the change in population. My graph (earlier post) puts this comment into it's proper context, and crimes have decreased since guns were restricted.
........Again, selective stats. In any case the rate of gun ownership is not the issue as I said, the problem is ease of access and lethality of the weapons.


ACTUAL statistics show otherwise.



Details?

Thanks for your quick post. Some comments.

[1] About your graphs. You worry about whether there's causality or just correlation. I think you should worry about whether or not they even support what you're saying. There is some gun control in 1988 and crime goes up. There is more gun control in 1997 and crime shoots up even more. Then 5 or 6 years later crime starts to fall to around where it was before gun control started - so what am I missing?

[2] And how can you say Sowell doesn't account for the change in population? And where are your "ACTUAL statistics"? And if you're saying that gun control doesn't affect ease of access to lethal weapons by criminals then what's the point of gun control - and aren't you agreeing with Sowell?

[3] About the study that was discredited:

"The more recent anti-gun book by Michael Bellesiles of Emory University has been lavishly praised in such organs of the left intelligentsia as The New York Times and The New York Review of Books, and was awarded a prestigious prize for historians. Then other scholars began checking out his evidence.

The net result is that Professor Bellesiles has now resigned from Emory University after an investigation into his research led to a report that raised questions about his 'scholarly integrity.' But that is unlikely to stop his study from continuing to be cited by advocates of gun control."

which is from

EDIT http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell120202.asp

[4] For more info:

And here's the NY Times resources page on the subject of gun control, frequently updated:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/gun_control/index.html

which includes a link to an abstract of a government meta analysis

http://journalistsresource.org/stud...rograms-reduce-firearm-violence-meta-analysis

also note study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

 

[TwistedKestrel]

also note study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

That last study is a bit frustrating. It basically says at the time it was done (which is 10 years ago), there is insufficient evidence to come to conclusions about any firearms control laws in the states. It's thorough, though! An expanded version of basically the same study: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

 

[johnp]

^^ whoaa. Nice find. Will take me a while to plow through this.

 

[fastar1]

Thanks for your quick post. Some comments.

[1] About your graphs. You worry about whether there's causality or just correlation. I think you should worry about whether or not it even supports what you're saying. There is some gun control in 1988 and crime goes up. There is more gun control in 1997 and crime shoots up even more. Then 5 or 6 years later crime starts to fall to around where it was before gun control started - so what am I missing?

[2] And how can you say Sowell doesn't account for the change in population? And where are your "ACTUAL statistics"? And if you're saying that gun control doesn't affect ease of access to lethal weapons by criminals then what's the point of gun control - and aren't you agreeing with Sowell?

[3] About the study that was discredited:

"The more recent anti-gun book by Michael Bellesiles of Emory University has been lavishly praised in such organs of the left intelligentsia as The New York Times and The New York Review of Books, and was awarded a prestigious prize for historians. Then other scholars began checking out his evidence.

The net result is that Professor Bellesiles has now resigned from Emory University after an investigation into his research led to a report that raised questions about his 'scholarly integrity.' But that is unlikely to stop his study from continuing to be cited by advocates of gun control."

which is from

EDIThttp://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell120202.asp

[4] For more info:

And here's the NY Times resources page on the subject of gun control, frequently updated:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/gun_control/index.html

which includes a link to an abstract of a government meta analysis

http://journalistsresource.org/stud...rograms-reduce-firearm-violence-meta-analysis

also note study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Thanks for the info, that’s going to be a lot more stuff for me to analyze and I’d rather just get going on the critique of all the stuff that’s already been posted, such as that long response to all the most common anti-gun arguments that you posted a few days ago. I also intend to answer your first question about what’s missing, because I think there is a very big element of the discussion missing and it’s posing a very big obstacle to understanding.

But let me answer your second question first, so I can get some feedback on the pro-gun side about what my “actual statistics” mean to them.

The first graph shows the homicide rates of comparable countries side-by-side. I did not cherry-pick the countries to compare against, I listed all countries according to the IMF’s list of “advanced economies” as the list was a manageable size, and it included all the countries that I knew to be comparable such as Australia, Japan, Canada, and all the European countries that keep coming up in discussions. Source: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/pdf/text.pdf

I also didn’t cherry pick the dates to compare. I used the very latest available data from each nation according to the UN, data is available here: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls

The homicide rate is assumed to be fairly representative of overall crime rates, and at least in the case of the UK data I posted earlier, that assumption appears to be justified.

A few countries stand out in this graph, notably Estonia, Taiwan, and the US. In particular, the US stands out for its abnormally high rate of gun homicides compared to all other nations, on top of its already high non-gun homicide rate. We also know that the US has the most lax gun rules of any of these nations.

So that begs the question to gun lovers here; is there a relationship between gun rules and gun violence and if so, what is that relationship?

In case anybody thinks that particular snapshot in time just happens to reflect poorly on the US, the second graph illustrates that this is in fact an ongoing concern over the years. The data is pulled from the same UN source, but in this case it is not separated by type of weapon used.

Broadly, we can see that crime rates are declining everywhere amongst developed nations, including in the US. However, the US crime rate has remained at around 4.5x the average for all other nations listed, while the other worst offenders, Estonia and Taiwan, have seen their homicide rates plummet. In the case of Estonia, it is a former Soviet state that is modernising very quickly, and at last count was about neck-and-neck with the US for honours of the worst homicide rate. Taiwan is a mystery to me, perhaps something to do with its criminal underworld, I don’t know, but it is still improving faster than the US.

This leads to my next question to pro-gun advocates here: What’s the US’s excuse?

 

[ItIsWhatItIs]

This leads to my next question to pro-gun advocates here: What’s the US’s excuse?

You can't ignore US history, nor can you can you ignore how they arrived at their expansion. The horse is attributed to the growth and modernization of Societies around the world until industrial innovation replace them with motorized vehicles. Like horses, guns attributed to the establishment of the US and paved the way for the societal innovation required to bring about Rockets, which is leading to space exploration. Societal Expansion has its costs.

For the anti democracy, pro government, regulate everything posters, what's Canada's excuse for not populating it's own country and depriving infrastructure required to facilitate this expansion?

 

[D23]

This leads to my next question to pro-gun advocates here: What’s the US’s excuse?

There is no excuse. They are a nation of violent people that think the solution to any conflict is killing. Isn't that obvious without walls of text and graphs and links to websites?

If you are afraid of America, don't go to America.

Forum Sponsor