Tell that to the 250,000 cases a year where firearms were used to prevent crime.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
That second one is totally BS!😂😂😂
Because the states with the strongest gun laws actually have the highest homicide rates.
Source?And are you sure you're not thinking of cities?
For those states to have that now of gun homicide they'd have to exclude those cities.
Actually they didn't have to exclude them.
Tell me how many times a year you think a firearm is used to stop crimes?
Not as much as they cause (or are associated with people having access to them).www.scientificamerican.com/.../
So you can't understand a basic analogy. Nice...
@Xyline789Oh I can get the analogy made in the picture. It is just incorrect
Explain how its incorrect.
@Amur8711Because the argument usually is that banning guns to an extent would decrease gun-related incidents as the legal owners of guns (who become perpetrators of shootings) would not own guns in that scenario. Sure, you can twist it and argue that they are doing nothing to decrease the number of gun-crime but rather purposefully remove any possibility of defending , but that is just a biased, corrupted version of the argument you disagree with.
We already had the Assault weapons ban of 1994 and after it expired they found no correlation that it increased or decreased crime.
If you want to commit a crime with the gun you won't return it when the govenment asks you to do so. While i am not content with the gunlaws in the usa, taking the guns away is not really a solution anymore unless you can guarantee that you take them away from everyone.
crack is bad lets make it illegal (makes crack illegal). Officer pulls someone over and they have crack...Laws dont stop criminals.
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!