What is the real reason that our Government is making gun laws stricter and stricter?

[Brain357]

The Government already made the gun laws more strict. How much more strict can they get until they start to interfere with our constitutional rights. I mean it is the 2nd Amendment, obviously at the time the Amendments of The United States Constitution were first developed, the right to keep and bear arms must of been a pretty important belief to the Government officials responsible in creating them.

The 2nd Amendment declares;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed means that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives all citizens of the United States the irrevocable right to obtain, keep and bear arms, and this right shall NOT be infringed upon by ANYBODY. It means United States citizens have a God given right to keep and bear arms/guns.

Infringe- actively break terms of a law or agreement.

So what is the real reason behind the Government wanting to make stricter gun laws? I hope they know that its not going to stop the violence. If someone wants a gun they can get one off the streets cheaper than a gun store. Strict gun laws aren't preventing criminals or potential criminals from obtaining any firearm. All its doing is preventing innocent citizens from protecting themselves from criminals.

Also restricting places that you can carry a gun on your person isn't doing anything. The law abiding citizen will follow it when the criminal will still carry it.

All its really doing is making innocent citizens more vulnerable to be a victim or target for a criminal.
If gun laws get to strict to the point no one can carry a gun anywhere, strict where you can not purchase a gun, or a longer wait or process, or stricter requirements to legally own a firearm, its just preventing a law abiding citizen to be able to protect their life in a violent situation. It would be like opening season for fishing. Streams are fully stocked with innocent fish with no way to protect themselves from being caught by a fishermen. Criminals will know that there will be less innocent law abiding citizens that have protection on their person, so they will be an easier victim to a crime.

To me, stricter gun laws wont prevent crime it will increase crime.

With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year - CNN

The United States is considered a dangerous country. Making laws harder for the law abiding citizen, is only making them more vulnerable to violent crime. Law abiding citizen is going to abide the law no matter what it is. If the government says you can not carry a gun on your person at anytime, what do you think the law abiding citizen will do? Not carry a gun. What do you think the criminal will do? If they want to carry a gun there going to carry a gun. Then the criminals will know that there will be less of a chance of a person carrying a gun. It will be open season on law abiding citizens. If its harder for law abiding citizens to buy a gun, what makes you think a criminal that may never be able to purchase legally, will not be able to obtain one? You can get guns on the streets for half the price they cost in a store. You can get a gun on the streets just like that.

Stricter gun laws will not decrease crime. Stricter gun laws will increase crime.
Stricter gun laws will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals or potential criminals. Stricter gun laws will not get all the guns of the street.

How do they think stricter gun laws will decrease crime? I wish someone could explain that, one who thinks crime will decrease with stricter gun laws.

How to decrease gun violence? Make the penalties and punishments more harsh and instead on focusing on guns, focus on fixing Americas Poverty Problem. If Americas poverty issue improves and start to decrease the amount of people who suffer from poor conditions, I'm pretty positive that all crime would decrease. Instead of throwing away insane amounts of money, as the government does every year, how bout putting money into rebuilding America. develop programs to clean up the streets and demolish or rebuild abandon homes. Turn empty lots into community gardens. Provide Educational programs for kids in crime riddled neighborhoods. Start a program where funds are available to have odd jobs every day that people without can participate if they want and get paid.

The government can throw away hundreds of millions of dollars every year. They can send supplies, food, medical to other countries in need all while neglecting their own people. They will help a foreign country who has never did a thing for this country, before trying to fix or help the homeless and poverty.

What we have now is an arms race. With so many people armed, criminals also have to be armed. Would you break into a house in the USA unarmed? Fewer guns would mean fewer armed criminals.

While I agree with much of what you are saying with what will decrease crimes, your are ignoring some things that will still be a problem. Mass shootings, cop shootings, toddlers shooting people... We have a lot of issues because we have so many guns.

 

[Brain357]

Tightening Gun Laws Lowered
Firearm Homicide Rates
For skeptics who think that gun laws don’t make a difference, consider what happened in two states, Missouri and Connecticut. In 1995, Connecticut tightened licensing laws, while in 2007 Missouri eased gun laws.

The upshot? After tightening gun laws, firearm homicide rates dropped 40 percent in Connecticut. And after Missouri eased gun laws, gun homicide rates rose 25 percent.

How to Reduce Shootings

 

[ThatDude30]

The Government already made the gun laws more strict. How much more strict can they get until they start to interfere with our constitutional rights. I mean it is the 2nd Amendment, obviously at the time the Amendments of The United States Constitution were first developed, the right to keep and bear arms must of been a pretty important belief to the Government officials responsible in creating them.

The 2nd Amendment declares;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed means that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives all citizens of the United States the irrevocable right to obtain, keep and bear arms, and this right shall NOT be infringed upon by ANYBODY. It means United States citizens have a God given right to keep and bear arms/guns.

Infringe- actively break terms of a law or agreement.

So what is the real reason behind the Government wanting to make stricter gun laws? I hope they know that its not going to stop the violence. If someone wants a gun they can get one off the streets cheaper than a gun store. Strict gun laws aren't preventing criminals or potential criminals from obtaining any firearm. All its doing is preventing innocent citizens from protecting themselves from criminals.

Also restricting places that you can carry a gun on your person isn't doing anything. The law abiding citizen will follow it when the criminal will still carry it.

All its really doing is making innocent citizens more vulnerable to be a victim or target for a criminal.
If gun laws get to strict to the point no one can carry a gun anywhere, strict where you can not purchase a gun, or a longer wait or process, or stricter requirements to legally own a firearm, its just preventing a law abiding citizen to be able to protect their life in a violent situation. It would be like opening season for fishing. Streams are fully stocked with innocent fish with no way to protect themselves from being caught by a fishermen. Criminals will know that there will be less innocent law abiding citizens that have protection on their person, so they will be an easier victim to a crime.

To me, stricter gun laws wont prevent crime it will increase crime.

With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year - CNN

The United States is considered a dangerous country. Making laws harder for the law abiding citizen, is only making them more vulnerable to violent crime. Law abiding citizen is going to abide the law no matter what it is. If the government says you can not carry a gun on your person at anytime, what do you think the law abiding citizen will do? Not carry a gun. What do you think the criminal will do? If they want to carry a gun there going to carry a gun. Then the criminals will know that there will be less of a chance of a person carrying a gun. It will be open season on law abiding citizens. If its harder for law abiding citizens to buy a gun, what makes you think a criminal that may never be able to purchase legally, will not be able to obtain one? You can get guns on the streets for half the price they cost in a store. You can get a gun on the streets just like that.

Stricter gun laws will not decrease crime. Stricter gun laws will increase crime.
Stricter gun laws will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals or potential criminals. Stricter gun laws will not get all the guns of the street.

How do they think stricter gun laws will decrease crime? I wish someone could explain that, one who thinks crime will decrease with stricter gun laws.

How to decrease gun violence? Make the penalties and punishments more harsh and instead on focusing on guns, focus on fixing Americas Poverty Problem. If Americas poverty issue improves and start to decrease the amount of people who suffer from poor conditions, I'm pretty positive that all crime would decrease. Instead of throwing away insane amounts of money, as the government does every year, how bout putting money into rebuilding America. develop programs to clean up the streets and demolish or rebuild abandon homes. Turn empty lots into community gardens. Provide Educational programs for kids in crime riddled neighborhoods. Start a program where funds are available to have odd jobs every day that people without can participate if they want and get paid.

The government can throw away hundreds of millions of dollars every year. They can send supplies, food, medical to other countries in need all while neglecting their own people. They will help a foreign country who has never did a thing for this country, before trying to fix or help the homeless and poverty.

What we have now is an arms race. With so many people armed, criminals also have to be armed. Would you break into a house in the USA unarmed? Fewer guns would mean fewer armed criminals.

While I agree with much of what you are saying with what will decrease crimes, your are ignoring some things that will still be a problem. Mass shootings, cop shootings, toddlers shooting people... We have a lot of issues because we have so many guns.

Sadly We will never be able to prevent tragedies like those. Anyone at anytime could snap. All you need is 1 gun to cause a tragedy of that scale. Less guns don't mean gun violence will decrease. Guns are imported into America by criminal organizations. Guns can be stolen. A person who has not a blemish on his or her criminal record or mental health record that is able to purchase doesn't mean they will never commit a crime with it. Because they can legally purchase one doesn't mean they never committed a crime, its just they never got caught.

Less guns and stricter gun laws will not keep a criminal or potential criminal from obtaining a firearm. There are so many guns out there limiting firearm purchasing wouldn't make a dent in decreasing gun violence.

Stricter consequences for those who commit a crime with a gun, is the only way I believe would decrease gun violence.

 

[MaryL]

If you takes guns away from people, we get less shootings. Guns aren't protecting us anymore than a rabbits foot and the lords prayer. I like guns, as technological artifacts. But we have outgrown them like a child's toy. we need them to protect us from them? Really? Think about the logic behind that. No, we don't NEED guns anymore.

 

[ThatDude30]

Its like the drug problem in America. The government will never be able to keep drugs out of the country. One person gets caught, the next gang banger takes his place. Its a cycle. You take something away by banning it or making it illegal doesn't mean the issue is gone. So how is making something perfectly legal, that is the citizens right, harder to get, stricter approval processes, and more strict regulations going to stop anything. Criminals will find another way. Guns will be imported and available to criminals while the government unarms innocent law abiding citizens. Less guns? yea maybe for law abiding citizen, but not for criminals.

 

[Brain357]

The Government already made the gun laws more strict. How much more strict can they get until they start to interfere with our constitutional rights. I mean it is the 2nd Amendment, obviously at the time the Amendments of The United States Constitution were first developed, the right to keep and bear arms must of been a pretty important belief to the Government officials responsible in creating them.

The 2nd Amendment declares;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed means that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives all citizens of the United States the irrevocable right to obtain, keep and bear arms, and this right shall NOT be infringed upon by ANYBODY. It means United States citizens have a God given right to keep and bear arms/guns.

Infringe- actively break terms of a law or agreement.

So what is the real reason behind the Government wanting to make stricter gun laws? I hope they know that its not going to stop the violence. If someone wants a gun they can get one off the streets cheaper than a gun store. Strict gun laws aren't preventing criminals or potential criminals from obtaining any firearm. All its doing is preventing innocent citizens from protecting themselves from criminals.

Also restricting places that you can carry a gun on your person isn't doing anything. The law abiding citizen will follow it when the criminal will still carry it.

All its really doing is making innocent citizens more vulnerable to be a victim or target for a criminal.
If gun laws get to strict to the point no one can carry a gun anywhere, strict where you can not purchase a gun, or a longer wait or process, or stricter requirements to legally own a firearm, its just preventing a law abiding citizen to be able to protect their life in a violent situation. It would be like opening season for fishing. Streams are fully stocked with innocent fish with no way to protect themselves from being caught by a fishermen. Criminals will know that there will be less innocent law abiding citizens that have protection on their person, so they will be an easier victim to a crime.

To me, stricter gun laws wont prevent crime it will increase crime.

With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Guns kill nearly 1,300 US children each year - CNN

The United States is considered a dangerous country. Making laws harder for the law abiding citizen, is only making them more vulnerable to violent crime. Law abiding citizen is going to abide the law no matter what it is. If the government says you can not carry a gun on your person at anytime, what do you think the law abiding citizen will do? Not carry a gun. What do you think the criminal will do? If they want to carry a gun there going to carry a gun. Then the criminals will know that there will be less of a chance of a person carrying a gun. It will be open season on law abiding citizens. If its harder for law abiding citizens to buy a gun, what makes you think a criminal that may never be able to purchase legally, will not be able to obtain one? You can get guns on the streets for half the price they cost in a store. You can get a gun on the streets just like that.

Stricter gun laws will not decrease crime. Stricter gun laws will increase crime.
Stricter gun laws will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals or potential criminals. Stricter gun laws will not get all the guns of the street.

How do they think stricter gun laws will decrease crime? I wish someone could explain that, one who thinks crime will decrease with stricter gun laws.

How to decrease gun violence? Make the penalties and punishments more harsh and instead on focusing on guns, focus on fixing Americas Poverty Problem. If Americas poverty issue improves and start to decrease the amount of people who suffer from poor conditions, I'm pretty positive that all crime would decrease. Instead of throwing away insane amounts of money, as the government does every year, how bout putting money into rebuilding America. develop programs to clean up the streets and demolish or rebuild abandon homes. Turn empty lots into community gardens. Provide Educational programs for kids in crime riddled neighborhoods. Start a program where funds are available to have odd jobs every day that people without can participate if they want and get paid.

The government can throw away hundreds of millions of dollars every year. They can send supplies, food, medical to other countries in need all while neglecting their own people. They will help a foreign country who has never did a thing for this country, before trying to fix or help the homeless and poverty.

What we have now is an arms race. With so many people armed, criminals also have to be armed. Would you break into a house in the USA unarmed? Fewer guns would mean fewer armed criminals.

While I agree with much of what you are saying with what will decrease crimes, your are ignoring some things that will still be a problem. Mass shootings, cop shootings, toddlers shooting people... We have a lot of issues because we have so many guns.

Sadly We will never be able to prevent tragedies like those. Anyone at anytime could snap. All you need is 1 gun to cause a tragedy of that scale. Less guns don't mean gun violence will decrease. Guns are imported into America by criminal organizations. Guns can be stolen. A person who has not a blemish on his or her criminal record or mental health record that is able to purchase doesn't mean they will never commit a crime with it. Because they can legally purchase one doesn't mean they never committed a crime, its just they never got caught.

Less guns and stricter gun laws will not keep a criminal or potential criminal from obtaining a firearm. There are so many guns out there limiting firearm purchasing wouldn't make a dent in decreasing gun violence.

Stricter consequences for those who commit a crime with a gun, is the only way I believe would decrease gun violence.

Countries with stronger gun control don't have those issues. That's simply a fact. They have much less gun violence. Ours could be reduced also.

 

[Brain357]

Its like the drug problem in America. The government will never be able to keep drugs out of the country. One person gets caught, the next gang banger takes his place. Its a cycle. You take something away by banning it or making it illegal doesn't mean the issue is gone. So how is making something perfectly legal, that is the citizens right, harder to get, stricter approval processes, and more strict regulations going to stop anything. Criminals will find another way. Guns will be imported and available to criminals while the government unarms innocent law abiding citizens. Less guns? yea maybe for law abiding citizen, but not for criminals.

With stricter gun laws even criminals have less need for guns. We have an arms race now, they need guns. We could change that.

 

[ThatDude30]

If you takes guns away from people, we get less shootings. Guns aren't protecting us anymore than a rabbits foot and the lords prayer. I like guns, as technological artifacts. But we have outgrown them like a child's toy. we need them to protect us from them? Really? Think about the logic behind that. No, we don't NEED guns anymore.

You take guns away from people will increase crime. Criminals wouldn't have the fear of breaking into a house, because no one is allowed to have a gun. Criminals will prey on innocent women and children without the worry of them having a gun to protect themselves, and that they can easily over power them. Guns also save lives too not just take them.

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

 

[Flopper]

Look at Wyoming. Not a single major city in Wyoming. Not going to have many homicides without major cities.

Why not? Same number of people. If there's 100,000 people in a city, with 10 murderers, shouldn't there be 10 murderers in 100,000 people from Wyoming, especially if Wyoming has 500% more guns per person than the other place? Or is it because Wyoming has a different socioeconomic situation than that city?

I mean Temecula City is about the same size as Casper Wyoming, but 4 times the murder rate.

Nebraska is about 300k people, 0.4 murders per 100k people. no real gun laws, in a state where 63% of the population has a gun.
St Louis about 300k people, 59 murders per 100k people. Multiple gun laws in a state where 12% of the population has a gun.

San Antonio bigger than the greater baltimore area, triple the gun ownership by state, but with 1/10th the murder rate.

We've done the asault weapon ban, and seen no drop in violence. But something is different between those cities, when one has 1/10th the murder of another but with fewer guns and gun restrictions.

You can't have these scenarios if decreasing gun ownership is the answer.

There are many factors that effect violent crimes. The 4 most important factors are:

• Police expenditures per crime
• Per capita income
• Unemployment rate
• Percentage of people living under the poverty line.

Neither population size nor population density correlates closely with crime rates. Neither does the number households with guns. However, the number of guns in the hands of felons does. Also the number of households with guns do correlate with suicide rates.

Studies that have been made by organization that are neither anti nor pro gun control, show that gun ownership both deters and facilitates crime with no noticeable effect on violent crime rates.

 

[ThatDude30]

Tightening Gun Laws Lowered
Firearm Homicide Rates
For skeptics who think that gun laws don’t make a difference, consider what happened in two states, Missouri and Connecticut. In 1995, Connecticut tightened licensing laws, while in 2007 Missouri eased gun laws.

The upshot? After tightening gun laws, firearm homicide rates dropped 40 percent in Connecticut. And after Missouri eased gun laws, gun homicide rates rose 25 percent.

How to Reduce Shootings

Ok look at those two states out of 50. It may help temporary. There are other states that have way more gun violence then those two.

 

[Brain357]

If you takes guns away from people, we get less shootings. Guns aren't protecting us anymore than a rabbits foot and the lords prayer. I like guns, as technological artifacts. But we have outgrown them like a child's toy. we need them to protect us from them? Really? Think about the logic behind that. No, we don't NEED guns anymore.

You take guns away from people will increase crime. Criminals wouldn't have the fear of breaking into a house, because no one is allowed to have a gun. Criminals will prey on innocent women and children without the worry of them having a gun to protect themselves, and that they can easily over power them. Guns also save lives too not just take them.

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

And yet so many countries with much fewer guns have way fewer crimes. There are only about 250 justifiable homicides each year. Criminals aren't afraid. You need to remember our criminals have gun courage.

 

[Slash]

Tightening Gun Laws Lowered
Firearm Homicide Rates
For skeptics who think that gun laws don’t make a difference, consider what happened in two states, Missouri and Connecticut. In 1995, Connecticut tightened licensing laws, while in 2007 Missouri eased gun laws.

The upshot? After tightening gun laws, firearm homicide rates dropped 40 percent in Connecticut. And after Missouri eased gun laws, gun homicide rates rose 25 percent.

How to Reduce Shootings

And again, these things would be proof of cause and effect if they were in a vacuum.

But Chicago despite tougher gun laws, saw shootings up by 61% last year.

You can't have holes in the argument to have cause and effect.

In 1976 Washington DC banned firearms except if they were taken apart or locked.

Murders climbed every year for 12 years after that ban until they were about double. By 1993 murders had gone from 188 to 454

If gun bans work, we can't have the city with arguably the strictest gun laws having almost the highest murder rates.

Britian as a Country made major gun legislation and bans in 1996. Murder rate of about 11.5 people per 100k. By 2003 that rate was up to 18 per 100k. That's a 65% increase AFTER the ban.

The thing about cause and effect is it's not "well 60% of the time it works" Thats not cause and effect. You CAN'T have all these times of things happening the OPPOSITE way and say that gun bans work.

 

[Brain357]

Tightening Gun Laws Lowered
Firearm Homicide Rates
For skeptics who think that gun laws don’t make a difference, consider what happened in two states, Missouri and Connecticut. In 1995, Connecticut tightened licensing laws, while in 2007 Missouri eased gun laws.

The upshot? After tightening gun laws, firearm homicide rates dropped 40 percent in Connecticut. And after Missouri eased gun laws, gun homicide rates rose 25 percent.

How to Reduce Shootings

Ok look at those two states out of 50. It may help temporary. There are other states that have way more gun violence then those two.

It could help permanently if the country would strengthen our laws.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Actually the 2nd Amendment gives All citizens of the U.S. the irrevocable(not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final) right to obtain, keep and bear arms, and NOBODY can hinder, obstruct, impede, thwart, violate, or prevent ones 2nd Amendment. It means United States citizens have a God given right to keep and bear arms.

So honestly, according to the 2nd Amendment can the Government really prevent and/or deny or take the 2nd Amendment right away from convicts? No where does it say anything about loosing that right? It says that EVERYONE has that right and NOBODY can say otherwise.

The US Constitution cannot protect you (or anyone), from those with the power and resources to obstruct, impede, thwart or violate the rights prescribed therein.

If it could, the 2nd Amendment would have been irrelevant and probably unnecessary.

You see, ALL that is required for evil men (and gun grabbers) to succeed is for good men with guns to stand by quietly and do nothing.
People have misplaced their willingness to defend their freedom through sacrifice for the comfort of believing in a document that is worthless unless said sacrifices are occasionally and willingly made.

 

[Brain357]

Tightening Gun Laws Lowered
Firearm Homicide Rates
For skeptics who think that gun laws don’t make a difference, consider what happened in two states, Missouri and Connecticut. In 1995, Connecticut tightened licensing laws, while in 2007 Missouri eased gun laws.

The upshot? After tightening gun laws, firearm homicide rates dropped 40 percent in Connecticut. And after Missouri eased gun laws, gun homicide rates rose 25 percent.

How to Reduce Shootings

And again, these things would be proof of cause and effect if they were in a vacuum.

But Chicago despite tougher gun laws, saw shootings up by 61% last year.

You can't have holes in the argument to have cause and effect.

In 1976 Washington DC banned firearms except if they were taken apart or locked.

Murders climbed every year for 12 years after that ban until they were about double. By 1993 murders had gone from 188 to 454

If gun bans work, we can't have the city with arguably the strictest gun laws having almost the highest murder rates.

Britian as a Country made major gun legislation and bans in 1996. Murder rate of about 11.5 people per 100k. By 2003 that rate was up to 18 per 100k. That's a 65% increase AFTER the ban.

The thing about cause and effect is it's not "well 60% of the time it works" Thats not cause and effect. You CAN'T have all these times of things happening the OPPOSITE way and say that gun bans work.

Cities don't have walls. It is very easy to get guns in and out.

 

[Brain357]

 

[MaryL]

I am a fashonista, I also like technology. Our forefathers wrote the constitution in a time when single shot muzzle loading flintlocks were the current tech, there were no mass shooting of preschools by mentally ill people with machine guns back in the day, either.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

View attachment 161395

Fuck this and ANY such propaganda created and used by the Lying Left.
Decades ago this type of trickery worked.....people have become a LOT wiser to this BS.

No matter WHAT Bullshit gun grabbers post, it is clear that the benefits of an armed citizenry FAR outweigh the perils of a being a helpless one.

V-E-N-E-Z-U-E-L-A

 

[Slash]

Cities don't have walls. It is very easy to get guns in and out.

Neither do states, which is what you used as your proof. Granted I used an Island nation (Britian) as well.

 

[Brain357]

Cities don't have walls. It is very easy to get guns in and out.

Neither do states, which is what you used as your proof. Granted I used an Island nation (Britian) as well.

Then look at countries. We have the most guns in the world by far and the fullest jails. Yet we still have high homicide rates when compared to countries that are similarly economic and politically stable. Please explain why we have toddlers shooting people if it isn't because we have too many guns.