The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early Liberal Edition
|Subject: Re: Connecticut||Date: 12/14/2012 10:56 PM|
|Author: MissEdithKeeler||Number: 46800 of 71935|
They have gun control in England. The only ones now with guns are the criminals and drug gangs and they are running amok. There are thousands of robberies a week where the homeowners are stabbed and killed with KNIVES by gangs and the homeowners are defenseless. They target the elderly. Yeah..the police get there to find the dead bodies and dying elderly after they've been stabbed, clubbed over the head with iron bars.....maybe days later.....
Check out the statistics on firearm related deaths in various countries:
9 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people in the US. 2.98 firearm related homicides in the US.
.22 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people in the UK. .03 firearm related homicides.
Check out the homicide rates by country:
4.2 homicides per 100,000 people in the US
1.2 homicides per 100,000 people in the UK.
Your argument is unsupported by the actual facts. You insinuate there are just as many murders in the UK as there are in the US, only by means other than guns. Simply isn't true.
And , let's limit cars to 1 per person. same for everything else that is dangerous. we could start with dogs. They bite people. Give them rabies!.....cause massive injuries to people. One dog per person. One cat per person! let's go nuts regulating things. Oh, and no more than one bottle of booze in your house, and no more than a six pack to limit drunk driving!......think of all those millions of bottles of booze causing domestic violence and drunk driving!..
Seriously dude? This is the argument you're making? First of all, a lot of municipalities do have ordinances which set the number of pets you're able to have. Where I used to live, it was 4 pets per household. You have to register your pets, make sure they have rabies shots, etc. You know, so they don't spread rabies, which can hurt people. If your dog bites someone, you may have to surrender it because it hurt people. So we regulate pets, which have the capacity to hurt people, but in most cases, do not. But you're not allowed to own a lion, right? You're not allowed to keep a tiger in your backyard.
We regulate booze. A lot of places you can't buy it on Sunday, or after a certain time of day. There are regulations governing the alcohol content of booze. Booze is taxed heavily. Do some people drink and drive? Yes. The majority of people enjoy alcohol fairly responsibly. But 190 proof and even 151 proof alcohol is not available everywhere--there are regulations prohibiting it.
Guns are specifically designed to hurt people and animals. Sure, they can be used for target practice, skeet shooting, etc. And there are certainly regulations that govern guns. And I know that a lot of gun owners are very responsible. And again, I'm not personally advocating that all guns in the US be banned. First of all, I'm smart enough to know that will NEVER happen, and second, I do recognize that sportsmen use guns, etc. But do we need so many? How hard is it to understand the simple argument that fewer guns mean fewer gun accidents? Fewer gun murders? Ban automatics and semi automatics, and maybe the whacko at least has to work a little harder to get a hold of one before he can go out and shoot someone.
I don't understand how someone can see the news today and not want to try to do SOMETHING to make it a little more difficult for the next crazy dude to take guns into a school or a crowded theater or a mall to kill innocent people.
But I also know there's no point in arguing with you about it. You will continue to believe things that simply are untrue, and I suppose that I'm one of those horrible liberals who believes that you have every right to continue to be as stupid as you want to be.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|