Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Gun Control

Should firearms be controled? 27 members have voted

  1. 1. Should firearms be controled?

    • Yes
      62%
      17
    • No
      37%
      10

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Featured Replies

Insight - what BM is saying - people are responsible not the weapons themselves.

I believe this to be true as well. You could argue over this all day. Just like the chicken & the egg argument.

The fact remains that firearms, whether legal or not, will always be available to anyone that has a strong enough desire to obtain them. Since this much is true, responsibility for the operation of the firearm always rests with the person holding it.

Anyone that believes the government placing an "illegal" label on guns will lessen the amount of gun-related crime a great deal, is truely naive.

If a criminal wants to commit a crime against a person and knows that this person legally has a gun to protect himself, with the ability to shoot in self-defense, it will lessen the likelihood of the criminal act in the first place. This is undisputable.

No it is not.

It is a mythological fantasy.

An examination of gun crime statistics in countries that have severe gun control will prove this statement.

Anyway if I was a criminal, in your world, I'd just make sure I had a bigger gun so I could blow the stupid MF away before he could get his his little pop gun out of the closet, from behind his pillow, out of his pant's pocket or where ever else he thinks its safe to hide his weapon.

  • Replies 119
  • Views 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Insight - what BM is saying - people are responsible not the weapons themselves.

Anyone that believes the government placing an "illegal" label on guns will lessen the amount of gun-related crime a great deal, is truely naive.

No it is not.

It is a mythological fantasy.

An examination of gun crime statistics in countries that have severe gun control will prove this statement.

Ok TM, you've made your statement. Now back it up.

Case in point to the previous comments (which are right on the money, IMHO), and contrary to your pontification:

In the UK, where handguns are outlawed to virtually everybody, including the majority of the police force, there is currently a huge upsurge wave in handgun violence particularly among young people.

Does anyone in their right mind believe this is because of strong legislation and enforcement of anti-gun laws? (pretty scary for those of you who may answer yes)

It is a anti-social and behavioral problem, often related to other types of crime (e.g., narotics trafficking, burglary, etc.). People are making conscious choices and decisions to resolve their issues with guns. Why is that?

The answer is not "because they're there" or "because there aren't enough laws."

People that choose to make these kinds of decisions as youths and young adults are missing something in their upbringing that pushes them in the direction of anti-social, sociopathic and violent behavior.

Don't look to the government to solve these problems anytime soon. They never have. They never will. The root cause of the problems lies with the parents.

You want to do something? Figure out a way to teach people how to be better parents.

Insight - what BM is saying - people are responsible not the weapons themselves.

Anyone that believes the government placing an "illegal" label on guns will lessen the amount of gun-related crime a great deal, is truely naive.

No it is not.

It is a mythological fantasy.

An examination of gun crime statistics in countries that have severe gun control will prove this statement.

Ok TM, you've made your statement. Now back it up.

Case in point to the previous comments (which are right on the money, IMHO), and contrary to your pontification:

In the UK, where handguns are outlawed to virtually everybody, including the majority of the police force, there is currently a huge upsurge wave in handgun violence particularly among young people.

Does anyone in their right mind believe this is because of strong legislation and enforcement of anti-gun laws? (pretty scary for those of you who may answer yes)

A few points:

1. The United States has the highest rate of youth firearm-related violence in the industrialized world.

Many premature deaths and injuries are related to youth gun violence. During the late 1980's and early 1990's, youth firearm-related violence increased dramatically in the United States. Juvenile gun arrests rose sharply as more teens began to carry guns, and the number of gun homicides committed by juveniles more than doubled. Youth suicides with handguns also increased rapidly during that same time period.

2. Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country (the UK) is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:

* a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms

* a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms

3. Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws

Latest official data from Australia shows a marked reduction in gun-related crime and injury following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.

Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results.

"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."

4. In their book, Crime is Not the Problem (1997), Frank Zimring and Gordon Hawkins identified the "use of firearms in assault and robbery as the single environmental feature of American society that is most clearly linked to the extraordinary death rate from interpersonal violence in the United States." Their research led to the conclusion that, "without strategies for the reduction of firearm use in assaults, no policy can be accurately characterized as directed at the reduction of American lethal violence." This study, Saving Lives by Taking Guns Out of Crime, an analysis of FBI crime statistics, presents compelling evidence that implementation of the Brady Law has led to a reduction in the use of firearms in robberies and assaults, preventing thousands of deaths since the law took effect.

It is a anti-social and behavioral problem, often related to other types of crime (e.g., narotics trafficking, burglary, etc.). People are making conscious choices and decisions to resolve their issues with guns. Why is that?

The answer is not "because they're there" or "because there aren't enough laws."

People that choose to make these kinds of decisions as youths and young adults are missing something in their upbringing that pushes them in the direction of anti-social, sociopathic and violent behavior.

Don't look to the government to solve these problems anytime soon. They never have. They never will. The root cause of the problems lies with the parents.

You want to do something? Figure out a way to teach people how to be better parents.

This is an interesting red herring you introduce here, especially as all non-liberals resist most vociferously any suggestion of introducing social programs that could address problems such as these.

TM - what is interesting gun related crime went down when states enacted concealed carry permits to ordinary citizens. One could theorize if you dont know who's carrying you might be little hesitant to do a nasty on someone.

TM - what is interesting gun related crime went down when states enacted concealed carry permits to ordinary citizens. One could theorize if you dont know who's carrying you might be little hesitant to do a nasty on someone.

Show us the survey and the figures.

Are they accepted by all, or just the gun-toters?

It doesn't surprise me that no one posted an English pedophile has been arrested with the evidence group sex vdo with 9-12 years old boys.

People are quick to make complaint when they don't feel good but keep silence if they feel they might get caught with something.

FBI Uniform Crime Report (1992) shows that 70% of violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, many of whom are on probation or are given parole and released early. Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% state that they have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.

The FBI's statistics also concluded: "Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense."

Some Links:

http://www.beast-enterprises.com/ccw.html

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gunslott.html

Not Photoshopped:

looters_beware.jpg

Never fear - the 2nd Ammendment is alive and well in the Land of the Free! :o

Not Photoshopped:

looters_beware.jpg

Never fear - the 2nd Ammendment is alive and well in the Land of the Free! :o

But where in the Land of the Free?

The Big Easy.

Just another indication of the desperation caused by the neglect of the basic rights of protection that should be afforded citizens by their government.

It doesn't surprise me that no one posted an English pedophile has been arrested with the evidence group sex vdo with 9-12 years old boys.

People are quick to make complaint when they don't feel good but keep silence if they feel they might get caught with something.

FBI Uniform Crime Report (1992) shows that 70% of violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, many of whom are on probation or are given parole and released early. Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% state that they have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.

The FBI's statistics also concluded: "Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense."

Some Links:

http://www.beast-enterprises.com/ccw.html

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gunslott.html

Keep slinging unrelated P quotes around like this, Brit, and you'll be on my ignore list at least.

TM - woops that was mistake. Anyways the links are there for your perusal! Anyways I think as Butterfy says - relax you are stressing yourself out today. :o

People that choose to make these kinds of decisions as youths and young adults are missing something in their upbringing that pushes them in the direction of anti-social, sociopathic and violent behavior.

Don't look to the government to solve these problems anytime soon. They never have. They never will. The root cause of the problems lies with the parents.

You want to do something? Figure out a way to teach people how to be better parents.

This is an interesting red herring you introduce here, especially as all non-liberals resist most vociferously any suggestion of introducing social programs that could address problems such as these.

Well if my statement is a red herring, then your's must be a blue whale.

Why is it that you liberals think that the right way to solve problems is through social (read: government-sponsored) programs?

TM - woops that was mistake. Anyways the links are there for your perusal! Anyways I think as Butterfy says - relax you are stressing yourself out today. :o

I never get stressed.

My arguments might get tougher, my language more vitriolic in direct relation to the enormity of e.g. the failure of federal prevention and aid, but my blood pressure and pulse is normal.

After all I'm sitting in my living room not sinking into the mud and sewage of the city of New Orleans.

The insect you mention is already on my ignore list, so I have no knowledge or interest in anything it may say.

Anyway - back on topic - do you really believe that carrying a gun will make you safer?

Did you used to carry a knife in school, just in case?

4. In their book, Crime is Not the Problem (1997), Frank Zimring and Gordon Hawkins identified the "use of firearms in assault and robbery as the single environmental feature of American society that is most clearly linked to the extraordinary death rate from interpersonal violence in the United States."

Well, sorry, I don't buy it for a millsecond. Crime and career criminals are precisely the problem.

As one who lived, worked and spent a lot of time in large predominantly black east coast cities, I can assure you that the vast majority of handgun violence there is committed by known criminals, using illegally obtained handguns, in illegal situations.

These animals don't give a FLYIN' <deleted> about handgun or any other laws. Their laws are the law of the jungle and the law of the street. They understand living, dying, power, intimidation, money and very little else.

For example since you are into quotes these days:

From:

http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/news/crime/victims.html

"Although the motives for most of these murders remain unclear, 58% of the murders in 1999 have been classified as "unknown," it is widely believed that drugs are the engine driving the murder rate in Baltimore."

Oh and by the way, this is largely black on black crime, and within that, largely black criminal on black criminal crime. Unfortunately, this is probably why it persists, because most people either don't care or are too busy exploiting the situation. I guarantee you that murder is very often treated completely different if it was white on black crime or black on white.

Cops that I used to know in some of these big east coast cities used to tell me that their large drug buy stings, busts, and related raids used to often take place on or around the 14th and 29th of every month.

Why?

Because the welfare checks come out on the 15th and 30th of the month, and represent the largest drug sale days of each month. The dealers would always stock up just prior in order to meet the demand. So the cops would plan to interdict just beforehand.

There is cause and effect to everything that happens. Everyone sees the effect, but often people turn their heads on the root cause.

... Everyone sees the effect, but often people turn their heads on the root cause.

:o Isn't that a fact.

An examination of gun crime statistics in countries that have severe gun control will prove this statement.

You will bring out your own stats that show what you believe in and when someone else produces stats that do not agree with your own, you tell people not to bring out stats! Just like what BritMav did a couple of posts up.

For every argument and study you show trying to prove your point, there is another argument or study debating your point but you will refuse to look at them and slander the report as false because it doesnt agree with your opinion. Having a meaningful discussion with you is impossible Thomas.

I would like everyone to answer this question for me:

If you are a criminal and you're about to go mug someone, but before you do you're informed that the person you want to mug might be carrying a handgun on them, are you or are you not going to think twice before proceeding? I know sure as he** I would!

Gangbangers and other criminals attack each other all the time, and know full well that the other is packing. Guns do not stop gun violence.

Gangbangers and other criminals attack each other all the time, and know full well that the other is packing.  Guns do not stop gun violence.

Kat, I wasn't asking some moronic gangbanger what they would do because those people probably have an aggregate IQ of 50. I am asking what you would do?

You would have no reservation about attacking somone that is carrying a gun?

Here's the thing: I wouldn't attack anyone period, unless in self defense.

Since I'm not the one robbing or initiating gun attacks, then I think the issue is to consider what violent criminals would do. And I know that it is a miscalculation to assume that all gangbangers or criminals are stupid. They are more likely to be people without formal education.

So, in my view, your question should ask: what would I do if I was a criminal confronted with the prospect of choosing a victim with a gun?

I would be prepared to shoot to kill at the slightest perception of resistance, or even before. I think it would simply increase the incident of fatal homocides, rather than eradicate crime.

"Anyway if I was a criminal, in your world, I'd just make sure I had a bigger gun so I could blow the stupid MF away before he could get his his little pop gun out of the closet, from behind his pillow, out of his pant's pocket or where ever else he thinks its safe to hide his weapon."

--TM

Nobody has addressed this point I made earlier, in fact when I have been quoted, this sentence was edited out.

I personally feel much safer with a dog (or two), anyway.

They make good companions, won't kill anyone, but sure as he££ protect my house - nobody comes within a hundred yards, without me, and the rest of the neighbourhood, getting plenty of warning.

And don't come with that doodoo about a robber poisoning them. They never leave my side and sleep under my bed.

Your pistol swinging, pumped up junky is going to have to be smarter than Crocodile Dundee to get to them.

A probability of greater odds than a happy ending to any resulting shoot-out between the said junky and a terrified, unpractised house owner who has only ever fired a shot in anger in his dreams, let alone, taken someone out.

If they want to kill you, they will find a way. How they do it matters little.

It matters a lot. It's far easier to kill somebody with a gun. Especially considering the "heat of the moment" factor.

They have to go get first, and if they already have it...I'd stop arguing with them.

How would you know?

If firearms were controlled, the chances of him owning one are extremely unlikely (given the type of character I've already described).

Okay, okay.

First, you should learn to controll your temper and not fight with people. I know you will laugh but where I come from you don't open your mouth unless you are prepared to back it up. If you are willing to get in a screaming match with someone you need to be prepare for the very real possiblity that it will turn violent.

I don't feel comfortable speaking for any other western country but I will for America. Too many people here feel that the law will protect them so they feel that they can behave any way they like and no one will do anything about because no one wants to go to jail. Then every one here is shocked when someone loses their cool and unloads.

So, I will it again. Part of firearm education is anger mangement. You don't wanna get your ass kicked, or shot full of holes, don't call people names and pick any fights. Don't start none, won't be none. :o

"Anyway if I was a criminal, in your world, I'd just make sure I had a bigger gun so I could blow the stupid MF away before he could get his his little pop gun out of the closet, from behind his pillow, out of his pant's pocket or where ever else he thinks its safe to hide his weapon."

--TM

Now that TM is a statement made by one who is afriad of little dicks. You think you could win a gun fight because you have the "bigger" gun?

A larger gun does not a kill produce. Skill produces a kill. You can die just as well from a well placed shot from a .22 as you can from a .45 or M-16.

Nobody has addressed this point I made earlier, in fact when I have been quoted, this sentence was edited out.

I personally feel much safer with a dog (or two), anyway.

They make good companions, won't kill anyone, but sure as he££ protect my house - nobody comes within a hundred yards, without me, and the rest of the neighbourhood, getting plenty of warning.

And don't come with that doodoo about a robber poisoning them. They never leave my side and sleep under my bed.

Your pistol swinging, pumped up junky is going to have to be smarter than Crocodile Dundee to get to them.

A probability of greater odds than a happy ending to any resulting shoot-out between the said junky and a terrified, unpractised house owner who has only ever fired a shot in anger in his dreams, let alone, taken someone out.

Nobody has addressed this point I made earlier, in fact when I have been quoted, this sentence was edited out.

I personally feel much safer with a dog (or two), anyway.

They make good companions, won't kill anyone, but sure as he££ protect my house - nobody comes within a hundred yards, without me, and the rest of the neighbourhood, getting plenty of warning.

And don't come with that doodoo about a robber poisoning them. They never leave my side and sleep under my bed.

Your pistol swinging, pumped up junky is going to have to be smarter than Crocodile Dundee to get to them.

Merton no one bit on your arms race argument

Use a gun go to prison. It doesn't matter what size. But if you would like some recognition of gun size in this issue then add 2 years to the prison sentence for each caliber larger than a .22.

Merton's dogs will be under the bed where no one can get to them. And during the day they bark. Just so I don't get the wrong picture about your barking dogs have the neighbors ever had to call the authorties out to quiet them?

.

"Anyway if I was a criminal, in your world, I'd just make sure I had a bigger gun so I could blow the stupid MF away before he could get his his little pop gun out of the closet, from behind his pillow, out of his pant's pocket or where ever else he thinks its safe to hide his weapon."

--TM

Now that TM is a statement made by one who is afriad of little dicks. You think you could win a gun fight because you have the "bigger" gun?

A larger gun does not a kill produce. Skill produces a kill. You can die just as well from a well placed shot from a .22 as you can from a .45 or M-16.

You missed it there thaibebop: it is the criminal who thinks like in my sentence above - not me.

I think logically and lawfully - that's why I'm not a criminal and have never owned a gun.

Nobody has addressed this point I made earlier, in fact when I have been quoted, this sentence was edited out.

I personally feel much safer with a dog (or two), anyway.

They make good companions, won't kill anyone, but sure as he££ protect my house - nobody comes within a hundred yards, without me, and the rest of the neighbourhood, getting plenty of warning.

And don't come with that doodoo about a robber poisoning them. They never leave my side and sleep under my bed.

Your pistol swinging, pumped up junky is going to have to be smarter than Crocodile Dundee to get to them.

A probability of greater odds than a happy ending to any resulting shoot-out between the said junky and a terrified, unpractised house owner who has only ever fired a shot in anger in his dreams, let alone, taken someone out.

"Anyway if I was a criminal, in your world, I'd just make sure I had a bigger gun so I could blow the stupid MF away before he could get his his little pop gun out of the closet, from behind his pillow, out of his pant's pocket or where ever else he thinks its safe to hide his weapon."

--TM

Now that TM is a statement made by one who is afriad of little dicks. You think you could win a gun fight because you have the "bigger" gun?

A larger gun does not a kill produce. Skill produces a kill. You can die just as well from a well placed shot from a .22 as you can from a .45 or M-16.

You missed it there thaibebop: it is the criminal who thinks like in my sentence above - not me.

I think logically and lawfully - that's why I'm not a criminal and have never owned a gun.

Nobody has addressed this point I made earlier, in fact when I have been quoted, this sentence was edited out.

I personally feel much safer with a dog (or two), anyway.

They make good companions, won't kill anyone, but sure as he££ protect my house - nobody comes within a hundred yards, without me, and the rest of the neighbourhood, getting plenty of warning.

And don't come with that doodoo about a robber poisoning them. They never leave my side and sleep under my bed.

Your pistol swinging, pumped up junky is going to have to be smarter than Crocodile Dundee to get to them.

A probability of greater odds than a happy ending to any resulting shoot-out between the said junky and a terrified, unpractised house owner who has only ever fired a shot in anger in his dreams, let alone, taken someone out.

I understand.

I think this thread has run its course. We'll never achieve total agreement on this issue. I know what I know and everyone else knows what they know and thats where it stands. Nobody is changing anyones mind here.

HB 823 Clarifies Right to Carry Handgun in Vehicle

NRA-ILA | August 30, 2005

The following press release was issued today by State Representative Terry

Keel regarding HB 823.

TO: Media

FROM: Terry Keel, State Representative, Austin

RE: HB 823 by Keel, Effective 9/1/05 Clarifies Right to Carry Handgun in Vehicle While Traveling

DATE: August 30, 2005

PRESS RELEASE

It is well established in Texas that a person who is traveling has a right to possess a handgun for personal protection. The practical problem with this right has historically been that courts have disagreed on the definition of “traveling”. The legislature has likewise never defined “traveling” because a definition invariably has the unintended effect of unfairly limiting the term to a narrow set of circumstances.

HB 823 becomes effective September 1, 2005, shoring up the right of citizens to carry a concealed handgun while traveling. There have been many inquiries to my office from citizens and media regarding the upcoming change in the law and what it means.

HB 823 provides for a legal presumption in favor of citizens that they are travelers if they are in a private vehicle with a handgun that is not in plain view, they are not otherwise engaged in unlawful activity nor otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, and they are not a member of a criminal street gang.

In plain terms, a law-abiding person should not fear arrest if they are transporting a concealed pistol in a motor vehicle. There is no longer the need for a law enforcement officer to apply a subjective definition of what constitutes “traveling” where the citizen is cloaked with the presumption per the terms of the new statute. Under those circumstances the citizen should be allowed to proceed on their way.

HB 823 represents the first time a presumption has been crafted in favor of a defendant in the modern penal code of Texas. The presumption applies unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist. If the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists. By enacting this evidentiary standard in conjunction with the presumption, the legislation is intended to have the practical effect of preventing in the first place the arrest of citizens who meet the newly specified prerequisites of being a presumed traveler.

It should be noted that the very real problem of citizens having to prove their innocence after arrest by the assertion of their right to carry a firearm while traveling was the reason for a 1997 legislative change which replaced the “defense” of traveling with a classification of the statute of UCW as instead entirely “inapplicable” to a traveler. This change was well-intentioned but did not have the intended effect of protecting honest citizens from potential arrest because the term “traveling” was still left to individual police or judicial officials to define on a case-by-case basis. As a consequence, law-abiding citizens who availed themselves of their right to have a handgun while traveling continued to face arrest and often later prevailed only in a court of law after proving that they were indeed traveling.

In enacting HB 823, the 79th legislature, like all previous legislatures, declined to define traveling as a narrow set of particular circumstances. For example, to require someone to have an overnight stay in a journey in order to be classified as a traveler would be unfair to persons traveling great distances in one day. Likewise, a requirement that a citizen be “crossing county lines” may make no sense, such as in areas of Texas where travelers drive hundreds of miles without leaving a single county. Moreover, the ability of police to elicit such evidence and consistently apply its subjective terms on the street in a traffic stop has not proven practical, at all. The new statute instead focuses on a defined set of relevant, objective facts that are capable of being determined on the spot by law officers.

There are several additional important points that should be made in regard to the enactment of HB 823 and its interface with current law.

HB 823 does not give “everyone the right to carry a gun in a car”. State and federal laws applicable to firearms must be noted in conjunction with the new statute’s terms, particularly the limitation of the presumption to persons who are “not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.” For example, persons subject to an active protective order are not covered by the presumption, nor are persons with any felony conviction or even some misdemeanor convictions for offenses, e.g., family violence. The presumption is likewise inapplicable to persons associated with a criminal street gang, even if they have no conviction for any offense. These as well as all other existing limitations on firearm ownership and/or possession make the new statute inapplicable to persons covered by such prohibitions.

Furthermore, as stated in the statute, the presumption will not apply to persons who are otherwise engaged in any criminal conduct. This would include persons who are driving while intoxicated, driving recklessly, committing criminal mischief, or committing any other criminal offense outside that of a minor traffic infraction.

The presumption also does not apply where the gun is openly displayed.

The enactment of HB 823 was the culmination of study, committee hearings and debate by the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence. I am confident that the new law will assist law enforcement in doing its job while at the same time protecting law-abiding citizens from the threat of arrest for merely exercising their right to arm themselves while traveling----a right to which they are already entitled.

For further information, contact State Representative Terry Keel, 512-463-0652.

Perhaps if there are any Texans here they can verify this....I seem to remember hearing in a televised gun control discussion that in Texas if a burglar is in your house and you wake up and confront him/her...and then they pull out a gun....and then you pull out a gun... and then they shoot you....then you are dead and the burglar's actions are justified as self defense......basically by pulling out a gun you have made a hostile action threatening death and anyone in Texas that is treatened with death no matter what the circumstances has the right to defend themselves with deadly force.

The right to bear arms is slightly less ludicrous than the right to arm bears.

- Chris Addison

  • 1 month later...

Here's a piece by a John Stossel titled: Myths About Gun Control that sheds morelight on the continuning controversary whether to ban or not.

"Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people.

“Don’t tell me this bill will not make a difference,” said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.

Sorry. Even the federal government can’t say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth."

Here's a piece by a John Stossel titled: Myths About Gun Control that sheds morelight on the continuning controversary whether to ban or not.

"Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people.

“Don’t tell me this bill will not make a difference,” said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.

Sorry. Even the federal government can’t say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth."

“Got a problem? Talk to the gun”

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.