It does not, however, protect such things as shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater or incitement to riot. Why not should the 2nd be subjected to equally as reasonable restrictions?
Erm, no, we don’t.
Millions of dollars spent by dozens of researchers concluded:
I love the “Yes, but…” clause they stuck in right after the sentence I highlighted.
Keep digging, guys. There’s got to be a pony underneath all that shit; if you just dig deep enough, long enough, I’m sure you’ll find it.
No, but gun crimes are only one aspect of undesirable gun use. A large aspect, perhaps, but still just one.
Let them disagree. Until they can point to any other factors which show an equally (or even nearly) significant correlation with reduction in gun crime, it’s all just hot air.
In any case, they usually don’t. In my experience, the standard response to “Britain has strict gun control laws, and virtually no gun crime,” is “Britain is in the throes of a massive gun crime wave! There are mobs armed with assault rifles roaming the streets! The police are afraid to venture outside!”
A poster here even linked to a trailer for the video game The Getaway as evidence of the massive wave of gun crime that he believed was sweeping London.
You might want to look up “nation-state” right quick before the edit window expires, or you’re going to look kinda silly.
You might want to post a cite.
And a CDC (a U.S. government agency) sponsored study falls within your “nation-state” classification.
ETA: Goodnight. I’ll check back in tomorrow.
Probably due to a mistaken assumption, that everything I say is directed to you. I was responding to Algher’s snide assertion that I was ignoring his cite, rather than simply not being very interested. So, the quote comes from there, you gotta beef, he’s the guy.
I’m not going to get thick in the weeds of a statistical discussion , mostly because I haven’t got the math chops, had to take algebra one twice to squeeze a “mercy D”.
Some things kinda leap out at me. Like that bit about people who used guns nearly unanimously reporting that they felt themselves at risk. So, what? exactly? How many people like that are going to tell someone “No, not really, I just got a big charge out of playing tough guy and scaring the shit out of some punks.” Of course they’re going to report they were under threat, what the fuck else are they gonna say? And that “83%” number, I mean, whoa!
But, basicly, I just wasn’t talking to you. Which seems a pretty good idea, you being determined to play it like a Dickosaurus Rex. Who needs?
My straight opinion? Nobody of any consequence is after your guns, its just not possible. Don’t have one, don’t want one, I loathe the fucking things. Fear has found me before, may very well find me again, but I’m damned if I’ll carry it around with me.
I know this isn’t the first gun control debate you’ve turned out for, so I don’t know why you’d ask for a cite. Nonetheless:
The United Nations has a good one.
And here’s a map!
You can’t apply gun control laws in Utah and then act surprised when people are still being shot in Nevada. That’s why I specified nation-states which observe strict gun-control policies- this is not one.
ETA: And goodnight to you, sir.
Take a look at that Wiki site. Do so see any direct correlation between murder rates and gun control?
USA has some gun control and a rate of 7.52.
Switzerland requires all able-bodied men to keep a fully-automatic assualt rifle in their home. Rate= 1.52. No it’s true that most of Western Europe has a low murder rate, but it doesnt seem to have anything to do with availability of guns. I mean- fully auto assualt rifles in nigh every home? That’s a gun-controler’s worst nitemare. But it seems to work for the Swiss… but they aren’t Americans, either.
Mexico has extremely strong gun control, but rate =17.73.
Now sure, nations with fewer firearms sometimes have a lower Firearm homicide rate, but do you care if you are hacked to pieces by a machete or shot? I’d prefer to be shot, actually.
And some nations flat-out lie. For example, for decades in Northern Ireland, all the deaths caused by “the troubles” were not counted as “murder”. See the UN’s caveat "*“The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic.”
*
Lot of countries missing there, too- China, Japan, Russia, etc.
If I could legally carry a gun, I would have shot 3 men so far. Legally.
Glad I cannot then.
Your point?
Just guessing here, he uses a lot of big words, but its something along the lines that the number of people who think they are morally and psychologically qualified to possess lethal force far exceeds the number who actually are.
Just a stab at it, mind you.
Fuck off.
I want for him to answer for himself.
Oh, I’m sure he will if you ask right. Have you a cookie, by any chance?
The big, bad lack of gun control would force you to carry a gun, and force you to fire it?
Oh wait, no it wouldn’t. You’re just being a moron.
And to add to the general derision towards your comment, a legal right to simply carry a gun does not confer upon you a legal right to shoot people.
Might I interject with a question or three?
First, I’d like to know how best to enforce to a sufficient degree the laws currently in place.
Then I’d like to know what, short of the complete repeal of the 2nd amendment, anti-gunners might propose in the way of so-called gun control or gun laws that aren’t already on the books.
Next I’d like to know how the anti-gunners plan to enforce those laws.
See, the problem in total with “gun control” laws is enforcement. Gun laws state-to-state are essentially solid and sufficient, the problem is law enforcement is a reactive force, so they wait until the law is broken, assuming as we all must that we are innocent until proven guilty. Repealing that or preventing ownership places a “guilty until proven innocent” stink on what was a freedom, set forth by the constitution, the basis for every law in the land.
Common sense restrictions make sense, but in truth, they’re already in place. Illinois for instance prevents felons from obtaining firearms ID’s, purchasing ammo requires a valid firearms ID. Yet determined bad guys still manage to get guns and would even if you banned then entirely.
The facts still remain that guns are safer than cars, pills, fire and water, statisically.
As with most things of a societal nature like this, there is a root cause. That root has several tendrils, but everything pretty much comes back to economics, guns are not the problem, they are a symptom of a much deeper problem.
What kind of gun owner are you? Oodles of guns, and not a single homicide, suicide, or felony assault.
Bad shot, apparently. 
Everyone save the bottom-feeders understood it clear enough.