How do you feel about guns?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it wouldn't. Only if a person was an idiot and tried to draw their gun as they were attacked by surprise would that happen because otherwise the assaulter wouldn't even know the person is armed. Concealed weapons are holstered securely on one's ankle, secured inside special pockets made for guns, and also the most common area where they're kept is a fanny-type pack. If attacked by surprise, it's going to be a normal physical fight, the bad guy isn't going to frisk you up and down during it to first see if you're packing or not.

But again, that's not to say incidents don't happen where a gun is used against them as everything is possible. There's been incidents where a victim has taken the weapon of a bad guy that attacked em, but that's pretty darn rare in both accounts.

Yeah, that's why theres over 1.5 million incidents each year where a gun has been used by a civilian to stop a crime, eh?

I will agree with that for regular gun owners who have a shotgun in their own home for protection, but NOT for concealed carry users. A lot of people have a weapon in their home and let it sit there in an emergency where lots of training doesn't even need to be required. Even a blind person can easily shoot a robber with a spread shotgun in a narrow hallway of their home, heh. For concealed carry people though, those people are into firearms. They also have to get more than just the basic handgun training permit. And also people who legally have a concealed carry permit isn't as common as someone who just owns a gun. There are, however, people who illegally carry a handgun on their person without a permit, and those people don't apply as they're breaking the law.

No, only if you're a kid. If you're 18, you just take a written exam and a quick driving test with an instructor if it's your first time ever doing it.

For the people you're worried about -- concealed carriers -- I'd have to say very little take the bare minimum. The average person who owns a weapon for home defense though, I'd say quite a few.

I thought we're talking about concealed carry people? A woman defending her home with a shotgun is a whole separate issue and has nothing to do with being attacked by surprise on the street with a CCW victim. In most states, there are no laws required to take any extra courses to own a shotgun because it's very simple to use and is one of the most common weapons there are due to it's high-range of use, so yes, I wouldn't doubt there being some home-defending n00bs out there, but for concealed carrying people, you're dead wrong. I've no problem with course being required for shotguns and rifles as they are for handguns.

Same response as above. I'd also like more info on that case to see if he wound up directly shooting her or if he was a moron and used too powerful ammunition which went right through your wall. You're supposed to have soft ammo when defending your home because if you have some good stuff, you may wind up shooting into your neighbors home, just as he could have shot through a wall and into his daughter's bedroom. Hollowpoints are required for handguns because they break up upon impact and birdshot or a grade higher for shotguns. Rifles are a bit trickier but also make for the least effective home defense weapon due to it's size which is worse than a shotgun and doesn't have the ease of hitting due to a shotgun's spread.

I never denied those incidents happening, but I'm arguing against is your attempt to try and paint those as every day and common occurances. Those types of accidents are rare.

As for your videos, I know the one you're talking about. I have a better one though where a DEA agent shoots himself in the foot during a class presentation at an elementary school and the moment he shoots himself is complete irony. "Kids, I'm the only one qualified to use this gu....." *POP!* right in the foot as he racks back not seeing the shell in chamber even though he took out his magazine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU

Then quit spouting some pretty redundant comments that have nothing to do with anything. Brains are the best weapon and can't protect you from everything, so that means we shouldn't have guns. Yeah, and spaghetti tastes good and can't protect you from everything either so we shouldn't have guns is pretty much the same type of comment. It's stupid because your brains or even spaghetti has nothing to do with times you may need a gun so why even say that other than to hear yourself talk? Obviously yea, people are gonna use their brains or eat spagetthi at times when they don't need to use a gun. The whole point of owning a gun is to use it when it's required, not relying on something else that won't save you in those moments.

I assume that you're referring to a fully-automatic uzi, yes? Because people CAN own uzi's, AKs, and all sorts of other rifles. The big catch? For the past, oh, I dunno, 20-30 years, fully-automatic weapons have been banned to the public except in rare account where someone who actually needs one is able to get a permit for one, such as a firearms dealer who needs that kind of protection when shipping a truckfull of weapons.

An uzi, AK, AR-15, or any other rifle that ignorant people think is only fully automatic are SEMI-AUTOMATIC in the hands of the public which means one shot per trigger pull, not hold down and spray and pray, which is no different than or any more dangerous than a regular rifle. Actually, most non-gun owners think semi-automatic means fully-automatic too. The uzi is usually banned anyways due to it's smaller size though, but it's actually less effective than a regular handgun or rifle because it's less accurate and has crappy ammo compared toa regular rifle so there's no point in owning one if it's just semi-automatic other than just to say you own an uzi and how it looks. All you wind up with is a big version of a pistol that is a lot less accurate.

So, what's wrong with his beliefs? As long as he's a responsible gun owner, I couldn't care less what his reasons are for owning one. I'd feel more safe with him owning a gun to protect himself from terrorists than a bible-thumper owning a gun to ward off "negroes", "coloured folk", or "homosexual fairies" waiting for the Second-coming of Christ and the End Times to come. And the sad thing is that there's probably more gun-owners that belief in that crap than there are that own a gun strictly to defend themselves from terrorists.

Um, there is no such thing as a law-abiding citizen who starts killing people. That's an oxymoron.. a contradiction. A law-abiding criminal? Heh.

Lots of people own a rifle strictly for shooting it at ranges because it's fun as well. If something is fun, people will wanna do it. I know mechanics who work on cars because they think it's fun but don't care much about driving it or racing it. I know people who like to race cars but hate working on it, etc.

Heh, with a tank, I don't think I'd own a firearm for protection either, lol.

Then the comment I responded to with that was something you shouldn't have said then if it's obvious for you. Kind of like the comment I responded to by Lix which he's getting his panties in a bunch over.

Yeah, because there's no such thing as a guy who has to work in a bad part of night late at night. Yeah, there's no such thing as guys who aren't martial arts experts who are 6'2, 250 pounds or any other numerous examples I can cite just off the top of my head.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Uh, what kind of statement is that? LoL! You're worried about law-abiding citizens that have guns yet you call me paranoid for worrying about CRIMINALS? Uh, hello, law-abiding citizens aren't the ones doing the crimes, babe, it's the criminals. Nice to see you're pointing all the fingers at the wrong side as most liberals do who try and make criminals out to be victims and regular citizens as the bad guys.

As for my worrying about criminals around me, I've already given examples of what I HAVE gone through, HAVE warded off, and HAVE protected others from. I'm not the one living in lala land or some gated townhome with security guards, but rather reality where the majority of people live and where the majority of crimes take place. Go ahead and call other gun-owners who have never had a criminal encounter paranoid, but to say that shit to me is pretty damned stupid.

Okay, THAT RIGHT THERE says it all about you and you're just another ill-informed anti-gun nut brainwashed by the Brady Society. No wonder you hate guns so much and are afraid of people that have them. WTF, automatic weapons? Citizens aren't allowed automatic weapons, only the military and police! SEMI-AUTOMATIC means ONE SHOT. There's a reason why SEMI is there! Oh my friggin' god. Hopefully with me telling you that, you'll at least be SOMEWHAT less worried about citizens with guns, even if you may still not like em.

Um, being prepared for those situations isn't about having it happen on a daily basis, it's about the time it WILL happen, and believe me, it WILL happen. Shit, we've had numerous violent riots in L.A. so there you go right there. Police are also a joke where they arrive many minutes AFTER a crime has been commited so they're as good as gone in my eyes for protection. And yes, governments have been reduced to the ineffectiveness of being collapsed -- look at New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and see how they were absolutely powerless and the people had to fend for themselves.

When the big one hits, or not the big one and just a farily-sized earthquake hits California AGAIN, which WILL happen, it'll be pretty much the same thing. Every single emergency program have said they won't be able to help you for a good number of days. Even Bush himself gives messages all the time on the radio reminding us to always be prepared for an event and how they can't help us.

Anyways, about California.. there are only two highways that lead up and down Northern and Southern California. The coast and behind the mountains. When those are gone, there will be no way to get help or receive goods other than by helicopter, which good luck as you'll need our whole army flying 24/7 just to reach that many people. Those being shutdown have happened times before during non-crisises. Hell, during rainstorms, the PCH has NUMEROUS mudslides, and it practically shuts it down so that means on the other side of the mountains is the only way to travel.

When La Conchita had another big mudslide last year, it shutdown the freeway as usual. I live in Ventura Country and work in Santa Barbara and they're only 35 minutes away from each other with La Conchita between it right on the coast highway. Guess how long it took me to get from SB to VC which is only a 35 minute drive thanks to the freeway being closed? NINE FREAKIN HOURS! I had to reroute all the way around some mountains, through the desert, back around to the mountains, down towards L.A., over the mountains, and swing back around. That was all from a very small and simple mudslide. Imagine both highways closed. And yes, it DOES happen every now and then where both are shutdown.

So am I gonna rely on the government to protect me? Hell no. Heck, even now in regular life they're pretty much non-existant and don't have much effect on my daily life, let alone the times I'd actually need em.

Uh, a person defending their home isn't taking the law into their own hands. It's perfectly legal to shoot someone breaking into your house. The police only say to not take the law into your own hands like that because of the REQUIRED safety crap they have to spout on T.V. for public image. If you talked to that comissioner or most cops in person, they would tell you to always be prepared because they won't be there to help you until after the crime has been committed. And again, the cops on T.V. are talking about their ass because defending yourself in your own home ISN'T taking the law into your own hands. It's perfectly legal so your argument is null and void.

Mentally unstable? No. Foolish? Hell yes. You're only lucky, that's what you are. You're also lucky because citizens WITH guns are protecting you without your knowing it. Again, I hope to god nobody ever breaks into your home when you're alone with your baby and I can guarantee you'll do a complete 180 in regards to your stance on gun-ownership if something happens like that now that you've joined the hard-life reality of the rest of the 20+ million victims of crime each year. But as usual, it'd be too late because a gun after the fact won't do you any good.

Wrong. Only a military-grade uzi can. Again, citizens are restricted to SEMI-automatic weapons. Our rifles are basically giant pistols in that we only get one-shot out of them per pull of the trigger.

Woohoo, a slight gain!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually there IS no need for the police in regards to our public safety in regards to self-defense. The police only exist to enforce laws, NOT protect us. They are the regulators of society, nothing more. The only reason why the police come when you call 9/11 isn't to protect you but rather enforce the law and capture the guy for breaking it. Did you know that the police are NOT required to protect citizens? The same way Fox News isn't required to tell the truth and are able to alter things? Yes, Fox News sued to be able to do so. So in regards to protecting ourselves, yes, we're on our own and the police are practically non-existant.

What's wrong with keeping them in a safe where your child cannot access them? Safes or a combination of trigger locks (so it can't shoot) AND cable locks (so it can't be taken from the spot) are required in the state of California in homes where underage people live. If you live alone or with an adult, you can go ahead and keep it lying around which is pretty stupid though. The reason why you hear of certain mass-murder killings by kids is because those states are some assbackwards laws where you can keep a rifle in a stupid glass cabinet. Yeah, real protection there. I have no problem with parents of those murderers being sued till they're broke as a joke and then beaten by the families of the victims for their stupidity and lack of safety. Hell, and then go ahead and lock the parents up too!

You do realize that home assaults happen in only a couple minutes? They're in and out like that. An alarm isn't going to save you. A door isn't going to save you. You know what the purpose of an alarm is, I hope? It's not to protect you but act as an early warning system. An early warning system does no good if you have no means to protect yourself otherwise you're just left with a loud-ass alarm making your ears bleed as the burglar robs you blind or god-forbid, rapes you. You're only lucky in that you've yet to be burglarized. Your alarm hasn't done jack squat to save you. That's a false belief like saying because no more 9/11's have happened to us, it's because Bush has done such a great job at protecting us. Uh, no, another 9/11 didn't happen just like there wasn't another follow-up to the first attempt of the WTC bombing until 8 years later. Or like saying no more Pearl Harbors didn't happen until 60 years later on 9/11.

Not braindead, but pretty foolish. And highly ignorant and arrogant to say he's stupid for having those reasons when it's a fact those events have happened which means they're bound to happen again. Now perhaps if those events never happened and no criminals existed, you'd be right in calling him paranoid and all that, but reality is against your belief.

You're welcome. And thanks for at least reading those links instead of ignoring it thinking you'd know what it's all about.

Heh, well that's one of the reasons why I posted those links you read because those people state things more eloquently and with a more level-head than myself. Frankly it gets tiring having to be one of the few people here to defend our right to bear arms on these boards having to repeat myself so often in an endless circle that it's bound to get nasty with little jabs here and there. Although that's my primary style of posting though as it adds a bit of spice to the debate, heh heh.

However, what I said wasn't an exaggeration. Look at the first page or two of this thread and you will see anti-gun people say they wouldn't want a gun because they'd misuse it during an act of roadrage or something. How is their insecurity my fault? Because they're whacky in the head doesn't mean I am. Don't base my responsibility off their admitted irresponsibility. And the example I'm referring to isn't the only one as a few people have said similar things multiple times like that showing how bad in the head they are. The article I posted a few posts ago responds directly to those types of people and their mentality.

Anyways, thanks again for reading those links to get a better insight on regular gun-owners. Even if your stance doesn't change, you at least made an attempt to hear the other side of the story rather than debate for the sake of argument. Now if only I could get Bells to read those real-life encounters.. although hey, I'm already satisfied with her agreeing with me on one thing I said, as minor as it may be.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who cares?
Either way, no threat. No point in running around with oozies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Death is Certain, Life is Not

Part of the problem, once again, is your own perception. Vigilance, avoidance, and careful consideration produce better results than obsession and brute force. In other words, you've been answered; that you don't like the answers won't change that fact. Thus, to spell it out as simply as possible, there are two points that answer the question of how to defend oneself:

(1) Through vigilance and awareness, and ...
(2) ... as any given situation demands.​

As it's your own projection of others you're having trouble with, I suggest you look inward. Existentialism is not entirely removed from my outlook, though. It's not that we're already dead, but rather a very simple, two-word outlook: Life is. Three words? Life simply is. There is also the knowledge that, once I'm dead, the fact of my death won't mean anything; this applies to any outlook, whether redemptionist or atheistic. Whatever waits beyond the veil will become the situation.

As to caring about living and dying before the fact of death? If I have time to worry about it while staring death in the face, vigilance and careful consideration will do me better than brute force. If someone really wants to get me, though, I may well not have time to think about it, in which case fear of death matters none.

I may not, by some standards, have much of a life anyway, but I'm certainly not going to waste it being afraid.

 

Yes, and those are the obvious first-choice actions. However, what do you do when those precautions fail? Just say "oh well" and become victimized and perhaps raped or killed? Sorry, but I'm not a cat and don't have nine lives so I'm not willing to take that risk, especially living in an area that isn't as nice as some of you anti-gun people seem to reside in.

That's your own personal spiritual belief and should have no impact on others. I'm sorry if most gun-owners value their lives and the safety of their family more than you may.

To most other's, they don't see death as being so simple. Myself, I don't fear death, but that doesn't mean I want to carelessly try and end my life. When I die, I die, but I'd rather stick around for as long as possible.

- N

 

this place (thread) is like a gun fight...only using text as bullets and keyboard to fire the text.

 

What a lazy answer. Yeah America survived other kinds of war, but we have never had this sorta war in our existance, this is a war that appears to have no timetable. How exactly do we win it? You don't even know. The point is, America would not survive another terrorist attack. What do you think would happen if America were attacked again? Do you pay any attention to polls? Do you actually know anything about the American psyche?

That's because they thought there was a chance they could live. When they went into the superdomes they did not know the leves would collapse on them and flood them out. There were likely horrors beyond calculation, and this happened in America, so really theres no way for you to make hurricane Katrina optimistic, it's impossible, if you can make hurricane Katrina optimistic you can make any natural disaster no matter how many people die optimistic.

Some people were armed. What happened was, people who had businesses hired private security forces to protect their property from looters, then you had criminals who had guns sniping people on the rooftops, then later on you had the national guard patrolling the city with guns. No one armed? come again?

You still arent explaining what you'd do.

It's too late, once you allow some, you allow all, there are no laws ot prevent any sorta business from hiring private security, and there can't be a law like this, and even if there were, how exactly would you enforce it? with the police?

Another insult.

Whats your idea? What should you do? You are supposed to be telling me.

Thats because we have not been attacked by terrorists, and we have not faced avian flu. You seem to think America is even more invincible than Americans think it is, and you are from Europe?

So we should pay people to own guns for us? How efficient is that?

Hospitals won't be functioning. You think the government, or the mayor, or anyone will be going to work when the damn avian flu hits? Yes I think everyone with a brain knows civilization is not sustainable, it can't last forever, you know it, I know it, and so you have to be prepared for any situation, you even have to be prepared for the time when it comes to an end, because there is nothing to guarentee that it won't end.

I bet someone like you wouldnt care if it ended tomorrow, but you don't seem to understand that everything is fragile. You can never assume that just because things are okay at this moment, that something can't or won't happen. You should NEVER plan to die of the avian flu, what kinda stupid plan is that? If you want to die, why wait?

If you don't want to die, then figure out how to live, or at least don't be like "well I plan to die in the hospital like the rest of them", wtf? Can you see how people who are rational at least slightly, would be absolutely confused by that response?

 

yup more bullets flying overhead.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4207856.stm

The government has already collapsed. There's your proof, it happened, read the quotes, read the responses from Americans, and call them paranoid if you want to, but this really happened.

 

wow...that huge block of text was like dynamite in the face.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Finland and guns: A relevant case.

There are only 5.2 million Fins. So 2 million firearms is quite a lot.

This is so typical finnish. Alcohol abuse is the king here.

Is there a large police force to keep all those gun owners in check?

No.

Regulation:

How can you get a licence?

Note that self-defense is not valid reason to obtain a firearms licence.

How to get rid of unlicenced guns?

Security against tyranny and invasion arguments
Finland:

Finland is one of the few nations in the world who had to fight for their independence against superpowers, notably the Soviet Union. One would think that a country who has been under the threat of Sweden (for americans: Sweden used to be a superpower) and Russia throughout its history you would think they actually would be paranoid about being invaded. Especially since it has happened so many times in the past.

However, no, they are not. Weapons are not allowed for defense purposes. The proper weapons of the army are stored by the army. There is merely a stimulus to train for the reservists.
The general public is certainly not allowed guns for defense purposes.

There is a lesson to be learned here, and much unwillingness of gun-owning americans to do so.

 

I'm going to make another point.

Guns are not owned to protect against invasion, or for any political purpose, as anyone with a brain knows that people with guns in 2006, will not be invaded with guns. It's not how it works.

If you are going to be invaded, it won't be with anything you can defend against with mere guns. Guns are what people use or used to balanced the criminals out, thats all. The police have guns, but no one expects the police to defend against an invasion, so it's really simple, theres nothing a citizen can do about invasions or tyranny in 2006, as these thnigs don't happen with guns anymore so guns would not really be any defense for invasions, war, or tyranny.

Guns are a defense against crime, and against robbery, thats it. If tanks are rolling down the street, you can just give it up, anything you own is now owned by whoever is riding in the tank. Technology is so high at this point that no gun owner owns a gun for anything more than self defense, or hunting, as these are the only two reasons to own a gun. A gun is personal security, thats all, and it's cheaper to own a gun than to hire a body guard. Either way, someone has to own a gun, so either people will pay others off to own their guns, or they will own them, but someone will always have guns, it's impossible to have a gun free world. Also, there is no evidence that a gun free world would be better.

Native Americans had no guns. Africans had no guns, It seems every society that had no guns, has been dominated out of existance. America had guns and basically took over the planet, so maybe thats why Americans are now obsessed with guns.

I think a lot of people just fear guns. I understand why people can fear guns, but chances are, if you are going to die, it's not going to be by a gun, and there are a lot of ways to die that are worse than dying by a gun anyway. So I don't see why people worry more about guns than any of the other more painful, slow ways of dying. So yeah, guns are dangerous, but people are more dangerous than guns, and if you want to fear anything, never fear the weapon, always fear the person wielding it. If you want to fear paranoid people thats fine, they fear you even more than you fear them.

 

Gun control in Finland only works for the same reason why socialism does: it's a small country. And those two things go hand-in-hand with another as well as to keeping your crime rates low due to less poverty. Poverty-stricken areas are where the majority of crimes happen in the first place.

With a small country, you can control the entire mentality of the country quite easily. We have cities which have a higher population than your whole country. And guess what? Most of those cities have a TOTAL gun ban! You can't get any more strict with gun control than a total ban, yet violent crimes happen there at an alarming rate and gun crimes still remain even though guns are completely banned. Please explain that one to me.

Laws are just that; laws. Laws don't stop people from committing an illegal act but rather only means they'll get punished afterwards if caught. A gun ban does no good if criminals choose not to follow it and that's why they're called criminals in the first place.

As I mentioned, there are cities with a higher population than your whole country where guns are banned yet those crimes still exist. There are also cities with almost as high populations that have less gun crimes even though guns are legal. It's the mentality of the people that is the problem, not the tool such as guns and getting rid of guns doesn't do anything to address that problem of the mentality of the general people in those cities.

So it works in your country and it also works in some of our cities, but most large cities don't despite having a total gun ban. And guess what? Most likely in the cities where there are less crimes yet guns are legal, they probably have a higher income and quality of life which would be similar to your socialism in that poverty is less frequent. That's what gets rid of crime. I wonder how New York would be if it all of a sudden became a socialist state because even though guns are banned there, that sure as heck isn't stopping em.

The biggest problem with how you all perceive Americans and gun-owners in general is that the statistics are flawed. You do realize that most of the crime in our country occurs in the same few areas? New York itself accounts for 25% of the crime in the U.S. New Jesery which is right next door is another horrible place with a high amount of crime. Imagine taking those two areas out of U.S. statistics and our "carelessness" and "violent nature" won't seem so bad. And let's not forget, those places have guns banned yet crime is ungodly and also gun crimes still happen -- an important fact you all still continue to ignore. Those hellholes do not represent the United States as a whole and only serve to paint us in a bad light.

- N

 

I heard the size excuse for every imaginable thing that is wrong with the USA and franky I am fed up with it.

Split up your country if size prevents you from building a humane society. See if it makes any difference. It will not.

 

That law means nothing if it is not enforced. Do the police go door-to-door to check up on people to make sure their firearms are stored that way? If not, it means nothing. We already have laws like that where in numerous states, it has to be stored in a safe, ammo stored separately, and also have a trigger lock. However, as I said, that means nothing if people aren't there to check and make sure people do that. That's the major reason for accidental firearm deaths where a kid is involved or a kid shoots people at school and whatnot.

Again, that means nothing either. All you have to say is that you want to own a firearm to have as a souvenir or hobby. It means nothing if it's not enforced. Do the police regulary check to see if you have a hunting license or attend hobby shooting competitions? If not then it's just like most laws; meaningless if not enforced and thoroughly checked up upon.

Again, people aren't forced to have to get rid of their unlicensed guns. It's not enforced and people only do it on their own free will. We already have a system like that in the U.S. Heck, we even pay $100 per gun that is given to us to be destroyed. Most people, including your Fins, would value their gun more than $100 or in your case, giving it up for free. Only fools would give up something like that or if they somehow felt they were about to be caught with their unlicensed gun.

No they're not. All you have to do is just not say you want to own your gun for defensive purposes and you can still own one for defensive purposes. Are you really that naive? There's a reason why you still have 14% of your homicides resulting in the use of a firearm. And even though you cannot own a firearm for defensive purposes, I'm sure that means they'll get thrown in jail when they do defend themself in that situation. What sort of prison time would that person serve for doing so? Whatever it is, I'm sure it's well-worth it for being able to remain alive and later released. That's the reason why many people illegally carry a firearm without a CCW permit here because being caught in the act of defending yourself with an illegal firearm is worth the risk.

- N

 

Why? It's the truth.

If California were able to break off from the United States, we'd all be living like kings with our economy ranking 10th in the entire world and I highly doubt there'd be much crime since everyone would be rich. Crime happens where poverty is.

However, thanks to the U.S. being so large, we have to give our hard-earned state wealth to other poorer states which lowers our quality of life which in turn increases our poverty which means more crime. Socialism works in smaller countries because you're able to more easily maintain and share that wealth which is why you have less crime and your citizens have a better mindset from that.

- N

 

whatever. Just live in denial.

 

Yeah, I guess that's why every economist agrees with what I say. It doesn't work for large societies. And since large societies aren't socialists, it means they have more poor people. Everyone except for you agree that poverty is the main cause of crime.

Again, please explain to me how a place that has guns completely banned has such a high crime rate and also a high amount of gun crimes when they're banned? Your strict Finnish gun control laws do not compare when they're COMPLETELY BANNED.

- N

 

Source?

 

Someone really likes guns

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!