Upload
Login or register
x
Anonymous comments allowed.
14 comments displayed.
#1 - anon (01/08/2016) [-]
I don't see whats so complicated. In countries where guns are only held by the police, and have similar economic and social structures to the united states, there is less gun crime. That is demonstrable and correct. That is the core of the argument.
User avatar #15 to #1 - mortolife (01/09/2016) [-]
And those countries also have a dramatically smaller population than the US, (until recently) a mostly homogeneous population, and don't share a border with a country boasting many illegal arms-dealers. Congrats that heavy gun control "worked" in Britain and the like, the US isn't Britain and the like, things need to be done differently here because of how different things are.
User avatar #21 to #15 - stifflerxchong ONLINE (01/09/2016) [-]
the right to own to me isn't a problem but in order to possess one you should get a ******* license&training, its just common sense.

licenses
background check for criminal record(we aint talking about car tiket here m8)
and training

having gun almost free for all over the country is crazy.
i'm from canada, i have a gun myself
i'm friend with many hunters and we all agree states laws on gun are stupid.
its to easy to get one, not control enough and way to dangerous for stupid reason
if a ******* schizophrenic can go buy a gun tomorrow morning it makes no ******* senses.
#5 to #1 - anon (01/08/2016) [-]
#3 to #1 - anon (01/08/2016) [-]
but compare those countries to a state like Georgia where concealed carry is a thing and so is open carry, and it is know that most of the population owns guns. The crime rate is so much lower than most other countries.
#2 to #1 - deepterror ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-]
Britain banned most guns and saw a significant lowering of gun crime. Gun crime. Not all crime, not violent crime, but just simply gun crime. Not only did it not have any positive effect at all on the actual crime rates, it actually worsened them, by allowing for 40% increase in violent crime. (stabbings, muggins, ect..)

This also does not even address the fact that regardless of statistics, it is inherent within my basic human rights to be able to both defend myself to a capable degree as well as my rights.

Nothing ever good comes out of giving the government a monopoly on violence.

pic very much related
#4 to #2 - anon (01/08/2016) [-]
#6 to #4 - theruinedsage (01/08/2016) [-]
If you had done just a little research, you would know these numbers are complete bogus because the British definition of violent crime is much, much. wider.
If you had done just a little research, you would know these numbers are complete bogus because the British definition of violent crime is much, much. wider.
User avatar #9 to #6 - lean ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-]
4-5 times wider?
#20 to #9 - theruinedsage (01/09/2016) [-]
Considering that a bar fight counts, as opposed to being held at gunpoint, I'm gonna go with yes
Considering that a bar fight counts, as opposed to being held at gunpoint, I'm gonna go with yes
User avatar #12 to #9 - xProjectZerox (01/09/2016) [-]
Yes actually, Britain includes all crimes against the person as a violent crime, any assault, any robbery, and all sexual offenses. America on the other hand only counts aggravated assault, armed robbery, murder and forced rape. Less than half of Britains numbers even involved injury.

America has significantly higher gun based deaths and 4 times the murder rate of britain.
User avatar #16 to #12 - mortolife (01/09/2016) [-]
America's population- 318.9 million
Britain's population- 64.1 million

318,900,000 / 64,100,000 = 4.97504

Looks like America's population is also nearly 5 times larger than Britain's. With the numbers adjusted to compensate for that, Britain and the US almost tied for murder rates, with Britain edging slightly ahead actually.
User avatar #19 to #16 - theruinedsage (01/09/2016) [-]
These statistics are always in pr capital...
0
#18 to #16 - theruinedsage has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)