FYI- did u know 28 Americans die daily due to gun violence

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT

warpig 4/25/2009 9:36:59 PM

Not that I consider this an acceptable concept to begin with regardless of any effiicacy thereof, but licensing, registering, and limiting purchase numbers accomplishes basically zippo regarding the firearms in the hands of criminals unless it somehow is useful in the process of actually separating criminals from their already-possessed unlicensed, unregistered, and however-obtained firearms, and keeping them separate.

Now I admit I'm not sure this actually is a proper solution, as I have never really researched it for myself, but I suspect it certainly would have a greater impact on reducing the effects of crime than any gun control measure would: How about we just enforce the federal law that has existed for something like 15-20 years (or more?), and actually impose the required mandatory minimum 5 years in prison added onto any conviction of any crime that involves the use of a firearm? Combine that with a three strikes you're out approach for violent felonies, and the crime rate would plummet by default. I do caveat that by saying something seems improper to me about a fedeerally-imposed sentence on convictions under state laws, and it would make sense to me if that extra penalty is therefore only applicable to federal convictions (and of course part of me dislikes the idea of most "crimes" as currently defined under *federal* law). However, states could certainly adopt similar measures if desired.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Warpig 4/26/2009 3:08:51 AM

I agree that appropriate law enforcement and sentancing measures are needed to get illegal guns out of the community. However, while enforcing the law that you outline might get some violent criminals out of the community, the problem is that the authorities have to wait for them to commit a crime with a firearm in order to do anything. A proper, nationally applied licensing and registration regime would allow police to take guns off criminals at any time that they become aware that they have them and for the courts to punish them for possessing unregistered weapons, complementing zero tolerance policing approaches. It would gradually get the weapons out of the communty and would make it more difficult given that they wouldn't be able to get them from the next state. This research article shows how licencing an registration can work to reduce the number of guns owned by criminals.

injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/3/184

"Results—In cities located in states with both mandatoryregistration and licensing systems (five cities), a mean of33.7% of crime guns were first sold by in-state gun dealers,compared with 72.7% in cities that had either registration orlicensing but not both (seven cities), and 84.2% in cities withoutregistration or licensing (13 cites). Little of the differencebetween cities with both licensing and registration and citieswith neither licensing nor registration was explained by potentialconfounders. The share of the population near a city that residesin a neighboring state without licensing or registration lawswas negatively associated with the outcome.

Conclusion—States with registration and licensing systemsappear to do a better job than other states of keeping gunsinitially sold within the state from being recovered in crimes.Proximity to states without these laws, however, may limit theirimpact.^"

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Warpig 4/26/2009 3:11:21 AM

I agree that appropriate law enforcement and sentancing measures are needed to get illegal guns out of the community. However, while enforcing the law that you outline might get some violent criminals out of the community, the problem is that the authorities have to wait for them to commit a crime with a firearm in order to do anything. A proper, nationally applied licensing and registration regime would allow police to take guns off criminals at any time that they become aware that they have them and for the courts to punish them for possessing unregistered weapons, complementing zero tolerance policing approaches. It would gradually get the weapons out of the community and would make it more difficult for criminals to get them given that they wouldn't be able to get them from the next state. This research article shows how licencing an registration can work to reduce the number of guns owned by criminals.

injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/3/184

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger In comparison 4/26/2009 4:08:58 AM

About 3,700 deaths occur in the US every day from "safe", legal abortions.

Compared to 28 from guns.

To be fair, gun violence in the US doesn't even make the top 10 causes of deaths in the US. Given that gun ownership is a right in the US (as plainly stated in the Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court) and abortion has an admittedly dubious legal and constitutional basis, perhaps we ought to be look at banning plenty of other things first.

Quote Reply

buzzard 4/26/2009 11:38:22 AM

I agree that appropriate law enforcement and sentancing measures are needed to get illegal guns out of the community. However, while enforcing the law that you outline might get some violent criminals out of the community, the problem is that the authorities have to wait for them to commit a crime with a firearm in order to do anything. A proper, nationally applied licensing and registration regime would allow police to take guns off criminals at any time that they become aware that they have them and for the courts to punish them for possessing unregistered weapons, complementing zero tolerance policing approaches. It would gradually get the weapons out of the community and would make it more difficult for criminals to get them given that they wouldn't be able to get them from the next state. This research article shows how licencing an registration can work to reduce the number of guns owned by criminals.

There are quite a number of foibles here.

In the U.S. you can't simply stop someone and search them arbitrarily (unless it is an airport, but don't get me started on that nonsense). As such, it doesn't matter what new gun control scheme you propose, you will still need to wait for a criminal to commit a crime before you can arrest them for having the firearm (or have already committed a felony at some time in the past which I suppose is restating the above). As it is already illegal for a convicted felon to own a gun, I'm not exactly sure what you expect to accomplish with licensing and registration. If a felon has a gun, it is illegal, this doesn't require a DB of guns to understand or enforce. It requires a DB of criminal records, which every cop car in this country is already tied into and can access in seconds. If you have cause to apprehend them (or even to suspect they are carrying a gun), you check their background, and if they have a felony and are carrying a gun, voila, they get slammer time.

Also, you have to get over the myth of interstate transfers being the big source of guns. While I don't doubt guns cross state lines, it is not as if a felon from State A can simply go into State B and buy a gun without a hitch. Things don't work that way. You pretty much can only buy guns in your state of residence. That is on the form you fill out with every purchase. If you apply on the form with any state other than the one you are in, they just won't sell it to you. Though in any case, say you did decide that you wanted to buy a gun in State B, even if they did sell to outside residents- we still have a national background check DB which you need to pass when you purchase a firearm. It doesn't matter what state you are in, your criminal record for the whole country is always available.

And to get you past your smarmy nonsense about the NRA, they are the ones that pushed for the above electronic background check. The NRA is not a trade organization. Gun manufacturer trade organizations do exist and are separate. The NRA is primarily an organization dedicated to the promotion of the shooting sports. They do this mostly through organization of competitions, by promoting training, and by extensive offering of firearms safety information. To be quite honest their lobbying is really a side note, no matter how much they get vilified in the press. They might be a convenient boogeyman, but they don't actually advocate arming everyone, felons included. As I said to the other fellow from down under, get over Hollywood.

Let me put this bluntly, licensing and registration only serve one purpose. Control of law abiding citizens. Criminals will experience nothing different whatsoever in the face of such a schema. It is already illegal for them to own such arms, and they can already be arrested for possession of such (oh, and BTW the NRA was very vigorous in supporting tight enforcement of such laws against felons possessing weapons, and worked closely with the feds on expanding such enforcement programs). Licensing and registration merely make it easier for the State to confiscate any guns in the eventuality that they decide to outlaw some of them.

Quote Reply

warpig 4/26/2009 11:52:08 AM

I agree that appropriate law enforcement and sentancing measures are needed to get illegal guns out of the community. However, while enforcing the law that you outline might get some violent criminals out of the community, the problem is that the authorities have to wait for them to commit a crime with a firearm in order to do anything. A proper, nationally applied licensing and registration regime would allow police to take guns off criminals at any time that they become aware that they have them and for the courts to punish them for possessing unregistered weapons, complementing zero tolerance policing approaches. It would gradually get the weapons out of the community and would make it more difficult for criminals to get them given that they wouldn't be able to get them from the next state. This research article shows how licencing an registration can work to reduce the number of guns owned by criminals.

1. Considering the high recidivism rate among violent criminals and the high precentage of violent crime committed by recidivists, removing the recidivists from society should accomplish a great deal toward reducing violent crime (which all stats show has been significantly dropping over the last decade-plus already).

2. Authorities can already take guns off of criminals anytime they become aware they have them, and the courts can already punish them merely for having weapons (whether registered or not) to the extent that "criminals" is defined as convicted felons, as it is already illegal for convicted felons to ever be in possession of a firearm. Furthermore, there is already court decision precedent that criminals are not required to register their firearms precisely because of this fact, due to their right to avoid self-incrimination. Even with a registration law in effect, the criminals (i.e., convicted felons) would be exempt by definition, and thus would be the only group not punishable for disobeying any such law!

3. Tougher measures to ensure firearms are not sold to criminals (i.e., convicted felons) merely means that they would have to get their guns though other means. This proposal is not yet demonstrated to have any ultimate effect (again, not that that would particularly matter to me anyway, as it is already invalid for Constitutionally-related reasons to begin with) until it can be shown that the criminals can not find other effectual means to still end up obtaining a firearm.

Quote Reply

enter_space_disco 4/26/2009 12:18:32 PM

Buzzard

Let's examine my quote taken from an article.

"In 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, guns were used in the murders of 1285 children and another 120 were killed in firearm accidents. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention says the rate of firearm deaths of children under 15 is almost 12 times greater in the US than in 25 other industrialised nations." h**p://www.smh.com.au/news/world/when-boys-and-guns-come-out-to-play-133/2007/06/01/1180205513585.html The first sentence does not give an age range. The reporter does not quote an age range, but from the website you quoted, h**p://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html , the age range used by him seems to be 0 to 18 years. Homicide with firearm from the CDC website is 1291, and accidents come out to 121. The CDC website gives a proviso that it's figures might not correspond to figures used by other authorities, and that it's figures are adjusted yearly. "During 1989-1995, annual counts of deaths prepared by some States differ from those of NCHS. Differences between State and NCHS counts are generally concentrated among selected causes of death, principally Symptoms, signs, and ill-defined conditions (ICD-9 Nos. 780-799) and external causes (homicides, suicides and unintentional injuries). These differences occurred mainly because NCHS did not receive changes resulting from amended records. Affected States are as follows: Alaska, 1989-1995; Alabama, 1991-1992; Hawaii, 1991; New Jersey, 1991-1993." h**p://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/aboutmrt.htm On the same page , "Updates to the data presented on these pages will occur annually". (The CDC website uses data tapes provided by the NHCS)

The author may have been using an earlier version of statistics from the same website, or from another authority, but the differences in the figures are neither here nor there.

As you have said, "For the U.S. in 2004, the total number of firearm related deaths of children ages 0-15 is 565. Of these, there were 73 accidental deaths." This seems to support the argument in the second sentence from the artice I mentioned. "The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention says the rate of firearm deaths of children under 15 is almost 12 times greater in the US than in 25 other industrialised nations" . This is cited from h**p://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5214.pdf page 11, (page 13 of 24 on pdf reader).

Also from this link "Despite claims by the National Rifle Association that guns protect the owners from crime, the Johns Hopkins University's Centre for Gun Policy and Research found that in households with guns, the murder of a family member is three times more likely than in homes without guns. Also, the risk of a suicide of a family member increased by about five times in homes with guns." [From h**p://www.smh.com.au/news/world/when-boys-and-guns-come-out-to-play-133/2007/06/01/1180205513585.html ]

You actually should be more careful citing that source. They've been debunked repeatedly in the past for extremely poor methodology. Their approach to analysis is to look at the murder rate for people with firearms in their house without any measure of controls for other circumstances. Why is this important? Well let's think about this. If I live in a crime ridden neighborhood, I will probably be inclined to buy a gun to protect myself. Did the authors of the study correct the analysis on the basis of the crime rates? No. Did they correct on the basis of whether the murder victim was in the process of committing a criminal act (crack house, meth lab, etc)? No.They simply took a sampling of murder victims and checked to see if their had been a gun in the house. They didn't even correct by checking to see what the percentage of gun ownership was in that neighborhood. Say you have a bad neighborhood where everyone owns a gun for self protection. Will it come as a shocker that a murder victim will have a gun in their house? Maybe for you, but not for the rational.

I have looked at the paper from the John Hopkins University h**p://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/IPV_firearms2.pdf which was cited in the above link. It deals with firearms and intimate partner violence. It has nothing to do with the committing of felonies. In this paper, "Compared to homes without guns, the prescence of guns in the home is associated with a 3-fold increased homicide risk within the home. The risk connected to gun ownership increases to 8-fold when the offender is an intimate partner or relative of the victim and is 20 times higher when previous domestic violence when previous domestic violence exists."

Also in this paper "Family and intimate assaults with firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm assaults. This research suggeststhat limiting access to guns will result in less lethal family and intimate assaults."

Again from this paper, "A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners revealed a 5-fold increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a firearm."

So you think owning a gun will make you safer? Again from this paper, "Homicide risks were found to be 50% higher for female handgun purchasers in California compared with licensed drivers matched by sex, race and age group. Among the woman handgun purchasers who were murdered, 45% were killed by an intimate partner owning a gun. In contrast, 20% of all women murdered in California during the study period were killed with a gun by an intimate partner."

Your argument is self defeating. You say, "Say you have a bad neighborhood where everyone owns a gun for self protection. Will it come as a shocker that a murder victim will have a gun in their house? Maybe for you, but not for the rational. "

But if so many who support guns say people should have guns for self protection, why is it not working? Why, as the study shows, do owners of guns have a 3-fold increased homicide risk within the home? It's not a "shocker" at all, really. Guns increase the chances of violent death. See the quotes above.

Of course the study also ignores the multitude of other studies which demonstrate the rate at which firearm possession both deters and prevents crime. Those facts are simply blithely ignored.

The high rate of other crimes committed with guns more than negates this supposition. h**p://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

Live in the US?

Unless you are poor and in the wrong area

Let's see how you all go with the economic crisis. It seems you might be having many more poor and many more "wrong areas" ;)

RockyMTNClimber

You may not be aware of your own history. Here is your Gov't's homicide statistics from the period before the gun ban through today. You will see that in 1997 when your gun ban took effect your homicides went up drastically. Not a little, drastically.

They may have gone up for various reasons. In Australia we went through a recent period of gang related murders. Gansters were going down like flies, and the police caught up with the rest. Some crims may have hidden away guns which were used in a last hurrah of violence.

But in the long run, as the graph you supplied shows, murders went down...drastically.

From Dr Simon Chapman in h**p://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html "The most important impact of the buyback was that there had been no mass shootings. He said 112 people had been killed in 11 mass shootings in the 10 years up to Port Arthur, and removing the semi-automatic weapons used in those shootings was a principal aim of the policy."

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Aga reply, John Lott, Australia, and UK 4/26/2009 12:24:59 PM

Of course you must dismiss the statistical trends that resulted with the Australian and UK gun bans. In order to carry your argument you must not look to measurable facts and data. Instead you must create a "religion" of reason. If we restrict the debate to factual before and after effects of these policies we see a consistent sociological reaction. Disarming honest, law abiding citizens creates an environment where criminals can easily prey upon their victims. This is universally supported by the observed crime rates in Australia, UK, and the USA. Your policy has been tried and its sociological effects are known.

John Lott: I have posted for you research and peer reviewed materials. His research stands the test of time and although many people subscribe to the "religion" of gun control, they have had no success in refuting his data analysis. In fact one major paper actually ended up finding errors in his assumptions that made the effect of his conclusions even more dramatic. It is easy to simply post on a blog that "others have been critical" and not be able to document specific cases where he is wrong. In order to do it with credibility is a completely different thing.

To summarize, we know what happened when Australia and UK banned guns. We know what happened when the US liberalized the ownership and possession of guns. We also can compare jurisdictions within the USA where guns effectively remain banned today. All of that data points US inescapably to the conclusion that gun control does not work.

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Disco reply 4/26/2009 12:34:46 PM

Thank you for your reply. Like Aga, you must ignore the data and push on with what I describe as a "religion" of reason. We have seen in Australia it took a decade to return to the previous homicide rate trend. Many hundreds of your countrymen suffered directly as a result of this policy. At the very least it had no effect in the homicide rate so the policy amounts to seizing private property for no tangible positive result. IMV it takes an incredible leap of logic to say that that spike, exactly coinciding with the banning of guns, did not represent cause and effect. Plus, Australia saw increases in gun crimes in as well that took years to return to the normal trend lines.

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Buzzard and Warpig 4/26/2009 12:35:21 PM

Buzzard,

Try pulling your head out of the sand on the NRA. I've dealt with lobbiests from various industries over the years and many undertake services other than lobbying, but at the end of the day they are there to protect their paycheck by protecting that of their members. This mob are no different and if you look at their list of sponsors below you will see whose interests they are representing.

www.friendsofnra.org/National.aspx?cid=2

As for the rest of your arguments I could argue them point by point but the most important thing to note is that virtually all of the domestically produced guns that the criminals are getting originated from a legal source. This means that they can be stopped at that source or in transit from it by appropriate and well-enforced regulation. The article that I posted suggests that registration of firearms is effective in reducing firearms ownership by criminals, but if you have a better idea then by all means feel free to share it. I'd note that just saying existing laws will do clearly doesn't cut it though because crooks don't seem to have any trouble getting guns in the US at the moment.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Buzzard and Warpig 4/26/2009 12:41:24 PM

Check Six

Rocky

LOL!!!! You haven't even addressed any of the points that I have made, you just keep repeating yourself and lamely attempting to insult me in the hope of drowning out the opposition!! Keep droning on goofball, there are a few dopes on here that will be convinced but anybody with a brain will see otherwise.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Incidentally Rocky 4/26/2009 12:59:34 PM

Have you heard of the Monash University mass shooting? It took place in October 2002, with a handgun owner shooting 7 people of whom two died. Heres it link about it en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting#Bravery_awards. From your graph which I have posted above you will note that this occurred in a year where Australia's murder rate peaked. In 2003 the murder rate dropped to below trend and additional restrictions were placed on handgun ownership and a gun buyback was initiated (see wiki article for details). What happenned in 2004? The murder rate dropped again, as it did in 2005!!!! So where does that leave your argument about gun controls increasing crime? Well and truely down the toilet me thinks.

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Additional sourced analysis of Australian Crime 4/26/2009 1:08:13 PM

h**ttp://gunowners.org/op040809hn.htm

Australia Experiencing More Violent Crime Despite Gun Ban

Written by Howard Nemerov

Wednesday, 08 April 2009 00:00

In a previous article, we examined the revisionist history of anti-rights proponents who claim that since Australia instituted their gun ban, there have been no mass murders, despite the recent ?gun-free? massacre of 135 Australians.

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. Peace Movement Aotearoa, based in New Zealand, calls itself a ?national networking organization?interested in peace and social justice.? A fact sheet on their site is entitled Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws. It?s very revealing that gun ban organizations validate gun control by focusing on gun-involved violence while avoiding any mention of overall violent crime trends.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there was a slight drop in the percent of murders committed with a firearm between 2001 and 2007 (16.0% and 13.4%, respectively). However, the percentage was highest in 2006 (16.3%) and remains higher than the low of 8.9% in 2005. There is no difference in the use of a firearm in robbery: Guns were used in 6.4% of all robberies in both 2001 and 2007.

In 2002?five years after enacting its gun ban?the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime: ?The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued its declining trend since 1969.?

Even the head of Australia?s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, acknowledged that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards. I don't think anyone really understands why. A lot of people assume that the tougher laws did it, but I would need more specific, convincing evidence ?

There has been a more specific ? problem with handguns, which rose up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don't think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws.

Weatherburn also acknowledged that the best crime measure consists of ?the arrest of those responsible.?

Moreover, Australia and America both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9% decrease; without a gun ban, America?s rate dropped 31.7%.

Now for the rest of the story

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2% and robbery 6.2%. Sexual assault?Australia?s equivalent term for rape?increased 29.9%. Overall, Australia?s violent crime rate rose 42.2%. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8%: rape dropped 19.2%; robbery decreased 33.2%; aggravated assault dropped 32.2%. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women (whom ABC reports are arming themselves at record rates because of safety concerns):

More women, from soccer moms to professionals like the ones at the Blue Ridge Arsenal gun range in Chantilly, Va., are packing heat for sport, self-empowerment and protection.

While this doesn?t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Moreover, for groups like Peace Movement Aotearoa, it?s apparently social justice when more people are raped, robbed, and assaulted, as long as they cannot defend themselves with firearms. This highlights the most important point: Gun banners promote failed policy irregardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them.

References

Violent crime rates compiled from Australian Bureau of Statistics and U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation sources. Email request for Excel workbook.

For in-depth analysis of the dangerous side-effects of Britain?s and Australia?s gun bans, read Chapter 2 of Howard?s book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn?t It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense

Posted from link

Quote Reply

buzzard 4/26/2009 1:09:14 PM

You don't even vaguely know what you are talking about. Follow the money. The NRA uses maybe 10% of it's funding on lobbying. Also you might want to note that those are "friends of the NRA", which means companies which donate some amount of sales proceeds to the NRA because they feel it helps promote the sport they provide equipment for. If you think your arguments hold water, try again.

Not that it will be worth pointing it out, but you are already talking about illegal circumstances. Selling a gun to a felon is illegal. Do I need to try phonetics or something here?

You are citing statistics in a vacuum. Sure, you say 33% is the rate from local gun stores in places with licensing and registration. Did you every think of what the guns costs in places like that, and how difficult it is for ANYONE to get one there? This is law abiding or not. If your goal is to restrict all guns (not just illegal ones, which I doubt you will admit), then you can have your licensing and registration, but I doubt it will have any impact on crime.

Say we talk NYC. To buy a gun there is a real pain. Lots of hoops to jump through, and you have to suck up to the cops real hard (or grease some palms which is probably normal). Your average household in NYC won't have a gun in it because getting one is arduous. As such, firearms stolen from domiciles will be rarer. Thus, criminals will have a harder time getting ahold of a gun. As for other sources, yes people sell guns to criminals thereby acting as middlemen. This is already illegal. It is already something the BATF watches pretty closely contrary to any delusions you might have to the contrary.

Look at Hawaii. They have some of the strictest gun control in the U.S., including even your holy licensing and registration. Did their crime rate go down since they introduced all this? Umm, no. Can you import the guns from adjacent states? Umm, not so much.Want to explain all of that?

You say the article claims that the rules are effective in reducing firearm ownership by criminals. It doesn't state any such thing, and don't start making things up. It merely makes claims about where guns come from. It doesn't talk about the rate of ownership of firearms by criminals, nor does it say anything whatsoever about the crime rates.

The article you cite is pretty much meaningless twaddle. It doesn't point out anything useful at all.

Now I don't expect you to try and actually rebut anything I've said since I've seen your par on this so far, and it usually involves obfuscation and dodging because you don't have a valid case to make. The facts simply don't bear it out. Prove my Hawaii case first, and then maybe you will have some vestige of a point.

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Aga, NRA 4/26/2009 1:14:25 PM

It is often the tactic of those who believe in the "religion" of gun control that they assail the NRA. As if attacking that organization in itself is reason for justification of gun control. It isn't. There is no argument that says because the NRA exists there are crimes. The connection appears to be when gun control is instituted, crimes go up. Again, refer to your own country's crime trends.

Free yourself from your baseless cult.

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT

	News As History - March 19, 2010
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us