silver and silent

Hey there. Kelly, 22, New Jersey/Singapore. I post a lot of political as well as personal stuff, so if either of those bother you, go away.

more details & links  
ask
Submit

Honestly September was an awesome month

Now I’m afraid of what October has in store for me lol.

bey0nd-grey:

logicd:

liberalpropagandagroup:

There’s no better time to call your representatives and encourage them to support reasonable legislation than now. 

You can contact your senator here.

And you can contact your representative here.

If you want to contact your local government/governor/state legislature/etc, but don’t know how, you can always ask us and we will help you find out how. 

-Eli

Hitler loosened gun restrictions but not for Jews. He disarmed them eventually after making it harder of not impossible for Jews to own guns.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/harcourt_fordham.pdf
Compare Section III, in “Gun Control” Gateway to Tyranny at 18–19, to Section III, in Lethal Laws at 165
Section II, §3(5), in Lethal Laws at 163
Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons, 11 November 1938, in Lethal Laws at 183

———

>for every 1% increase in gun ownership there is 1% increase in crime

This study was already proven be false and misused the data and use a bad methodology. The existence of numerous research and studies showing now correlation between gun ownership and crime increase not only in America, but in other countries also proves this wrong.

A good start for the problems with the study below
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/problems-with-public-health-research-michael-siegel-craig-ross-and-charles-king-the-relationship-between-gun-ownership-and-firearm-homicide-rates-in-the-united-states-1981-2010-ajph/

The study noted that while gun ownership is a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates, the correlation did not necessarily mean that higher ownership directly caused more gun-related killings.

It also failed to look at the relationship between gun ownership and the reason for it. EX. In areas with high crime, it would be logical to buy a gun for self defense. This study you used would simply look at the raw numbers and not the relationship they have, and conclude that because there is high gun ownership, there is crime. It also makes no mention of how gun ownership nation wide is on the rise, while gun laws are laxer than ever before, with overall crime on a decline in this country. And I dont see anything about homicide being classified between justifiable homicide and non justifiable homicide. They even say they could not find causation.

Consider the following information

https://i.imgur.com/AhF5g2o.png
https://i.imgur.com/Yo7QhaI.png
https://i.imgur.com/drYpY7I.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/0StHbUI.jpg


Banning guns would not reduce murder and suicide
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

No rise in mass shootings
http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-185700637.html

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware

Guns are excellent self defense tools
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

DOJ Study Fails to Show 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Worked
http://ivn.us/2012/07/23/doj-study-fails-show-1994-assault-weapons-ban-worked/

Defensive gun usage high as 1.5 million
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

>64% of gun control advocates believe the incorrect assumption that gun crime has gone up
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/64_who_favor_more_gun_control_believe_gun_crime_has_gone_up

Defensive Gun Use

55,000-80,000 DGUs/year - David Hemenway, Chance, Vol 10, No. 3, 1997

1 million DGUs/year - Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern) 87 (1997) / Harry L. Wilson, Guns, Gun Control, And Elections: The Politics And Policy of Firearms, ISBN 0742553485, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007

108,000 DGUs/year - National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997)

250,000 to 370,000 DGUs/year - Paul Barrett (27 December 2012). “How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense?”

497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) DGUs/year - Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994.Ikeda RM1, Dahlberg LL, Sacks JJ, Mercy JA, Powell KE. Violence Vict. 1997 Winter;12(4):363-72.

I threw in some DGU to show the importance of gun ownership in crime prevention vs crime that actually happens, which is very little if you do not try to inflate the number with suicide, which makes up nealy 2/3 of the numbers you guys like to push.

——————

>people with CCW’s are 480% more likely to hold you at gun point

This is a gross exaggeration and twisting of the data you sourced, that makes no mention of, or even alludes to the claim you present.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23153139

>RESULTS: CHL holders were much less likely than non licensees to be convicted of crimes.

Your own source works against you. Even if there were a credible study on this, I would like to them differentiate from violent and non violent crimes, and arrests vs convictions and so on.

Here is some more information about CCW holders and crime:
5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public

Source:
An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Carry Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population, William E. Sturdevant, PE, September 11, 1999

—————-

>stand your ground increases murder rate by 7-10%
>pic of crosshairs over the word minority

Like with your claims of crime increase and violent CCW holders, the FBI crime stats do not agree. Every year all violent crime including murder has been decreasing along side with an increase in gun ownership and looser gun laws and implementations of SYG laws, that merely says you do not have to run away first before you try and defend yourself.

The main flaw of the source you used is that the authors attempted to “guess” what the crime rate SHOULD have been, without SYG or Castle Doctrine, by comparing them to states that did not have those laws in place. As well as ignore the many many factors involved in how the numbers play out. They claimed that Missouri enacted Stand Your Ground and civil protection, but Missouri law includes limited enhancements and shouldn’t be counted. Even so, their dataset contained many other errors. For example, they claimed 17 states removed the duty to retreat during their study period — actually, 19 did. Twenty-two states provide civil liability protection — the authors included only 17 (see graph below). They correctly noted that 13 states enacted Presumption of Reasonable Fear, but they ignored four states that enacted “castle doctrine” laws: Idaho (2006), Maine (2007), Wisconsin (2008), and Wyoming (2008).

And it the crosshairs bit was some cheap shot and attempt to underhandedly suggest that SYG is racist or bad for minorities, here is some info from Florida on that:

"Blacks make up 16.6 percent of Florida’s population but account for 31 percent of the defendants invoking the stand your ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute are actually acquitted 8 percentage points more frequently than whites who use this very same defense."

Source:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-28/opinion/ct-oped-1029-guns-20131029_1_ground-laws-blacks-ground-defense

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/#ixzz2ZLLvPZjN

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases

http://www.newsherald.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/the-racial-statistics-behind-stand-your-ground-1.186953

—————-

>40% of legal gun purchases require no background check

Based off 2 decade old data off 251 people that even the Vice President admitted is a bit shaky and probably inaccurate.

Here is the document with the claim
http://www.policefoundation.org/sites/pftest1.drupalgardens.com/files/Cook%20et%20al.%20%281996%29%20-%20Guns%20in%20America.pdf

And this is the 1994 “phone survey” they used to make the claim
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/studies/06955

The 40% figure is off of a 30-40% estimate, in which the anti-gun crowd decided to use the 40% 20year number.

The survey asked:
“Was the person you acquired this gun from a licensed firearm dealer?”

The answer choices were “yes,” “probably was/think so,” “probably not,” “no/definitely not,” “don’t know” and refuse to report. Cook and Ludwig found that 64.3 percent of those surveyed (Table 3.14) said that they had purchased or traded for a gun that came from a licensed dealer or “probably” did. The 40 percent figure comes from assuming that the remaining 35.7 percent — which has been rounded up — did not.

Thats right, the 40% figure is based off a 20 year old assumption, off of 251 people in 1994 over the telephone.

Ha.

————————

>50% of defensive gun uses are illegal

This is based off 2 studies. One from 1996 and the other from 1999. 18 and 15 years old. Each a phone survey. They asked about their DGU and then asked 5 judges if the DGU was legal or not.

The studies called 1905 people in the 1996 one, and 2521 in the 1999 one.

In the 1996 survey, 27% refused to participate and in the 1999 survey 35% refused. In some of the calls they used it in their study even though the participant did not give any information when asked about gun use.

The 5 judges asked to determine legality were from California, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.

California has the strictest gun control laws in the nation rated at #1 by the Brady Campaign

Massachusetts comes in 3rd place

Pennsylvania in 10th

Each with their own laws on what you can and cannot do in self defense in general or with firearms. They were asked to give their best “GUESS” on if the DGU was legal or not.

In the end a couple hundred stories were given to the judges, of which half the cases were deemed “likely as not legal, unlikely legal, or very unlikely legal. “

Bam, 50% of all DGU are illegal today.

Haha.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730664/
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

—————-

>5000000000000000000000000000000000000000% more likely to be killed in an attack if you use a gun for protection

What a gross exaggeration and abuse of research and data on your part. Not only do multiple studies disagree, common sense would dictate if that were true, that criminals are all some operator tier special op gun experts who will always win, what kind of bullshit logic is that?

These disagrees with you

Guns are excellent self defense tools
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/study-using-guns-for-defense-leads-to-fewer-injuries
>Citing four separate studies between 1988-2004, the assessment from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council says crime victims who use guns in self-defense have consistently lower injury rates than victims who use other strategies to protect themselves (other strategies include stalling, calling the police or using weapons such as knives or baseball bats).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00539.x/abstract

The previous links of DGU numbers and crime dropping since the 90’s also disagree.

The study you link is bogus itself anyway for many reasons:

The authors conclude that “on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault” and that successful defensive gun uses are unlikely.  In fact, none of the evidence presented by the authors actually has any relevance to the issue of the effectiveness of defensive gun use, for the simple reason that at no point do they ever compare crime victims who used guns defensively with victims who did not.  Instead, they made only the essentially irrelevant comparison between people who were shot in assaults with the rest of the population, noting whether gun possession was more common among the former than among the latter.  Not surprisingly, after controlling for a handful of (badly chosen) control variables, they found that gun possession is more common among gunshot victims.

This pattern, however, says nothing about the effectiveness of defensive gun use, but rather is merely a reflection of the fact that the same factors that place people at greater risk of becoming assault victims also motivate many people to acquire, and in some cases carry away from home, guns for self-protection.  In sum, this is what researchers refer to as a “spurious” association – a non-causal statistical pattern due to the influence of some third factor(s) on the purported cause (gun possession) and the effect (gunshot victimization).  For example, being a drug dealer or member of a street gang puts one at much higher risk of being shot, but also makes it far more likely one will acquire a gun for protection.

Previous published research, however, has directly compared crime victims who used guns with victims who used other self-protective strategies (including doing nothing to resist), and reached precisely the opposite conclusions from those at which Branas et al. arrived (Kleck 1988; Kleck and DeLone 1993; Southwick 2000; Tark and Kleck 2004).  Significantly, Branas et al. ignore all but one of these studies, and do not share with readers the main finding of the one study they do mention in passing (Kleck and DeLone 1993) – victims who resisted with guns were less likely to be injured that those who did not.  Indeed, all published research to make such direct comparisons has yielded the same conclusion.

The most authoritative study (Tark and Kleck 2004) used data from large-scale surveys conducted by the federal government (the National Crime Victimization Survey), covering large samples that were representative of the entire U.S. population, compared 18 different self-protection victim strategies, and controlled for far more confounding variables than Branas et al. did.   The results indicated that the probability of success in defensive uses of guns approaches 100% - it is virtually unheard of for a crime victim to be injured after using a gun for self-protection.  More specifically, only 2% of gun-wielding victims were injured after using a gun for self-protection (p. 878).  On the rare occasions that gun-using victims were hurt, it was almost always injury that came first, followed by armed resistance – i.e., injury provoked previously reluctant victims into finally using their guns.

Strictly speaking, the results of Banas and his colleagues do not conflict with those of prior researchers; rather, they are simply irrelevant, and do not actually bear on the use of how effective defensive gun use is.  The authors draw a non sequitur conclusion from irrelevant evidence.  They find that gun shot victimization is more common among those who have guns, and conclude that gun possession raises one’s risks of being shot.   It is precisely as if medical researchers found that insulin use is more common among persons who suffer from diabetes than among those who are not diabetic (something that is most assuredly true), and concluded that insulin use raises one’s risk of diabetes.  This silly conclusions would certainly come as a surprise to medical researchers, and is obviously wrong.  So is the conclusion drawn by Branas et al.

Cited Studies
Kleck, Gary 1988 “Crime control through the private use of armed force.”  Social Problems 35:1-21.

Kleck, Gary and Miriam A. Delone
1993 “Victim resistance and offender weapon effects in robbery.”  Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 9:55-81.

Southwick, Lawrence
2000   “Self-defense with guns.”  Journal of Criminal Justice 28: 351-370.

Tark, Jongyeon, and Gary Kleck. 2004.  “Resisting Crime.”  Criminology 42:861-909.

Not to mention the biggest flaw of all with these sorts of numbers people like to push out, most of them always include “suicide” to inflate the numbers of dying or being hurt by your own gun AKA “having it used against you”

——————————-

>gun ownership is decreasing
>same people keep buying the guns

Wrong. It is rising back up.

Page 15
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/tkzv4c1e8v/econTabReport.pdf

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2541876

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

Besides distrust in the government is getting bigger and bigger, one has to take into consideration how many people were willing to even tell the truth on these surveys. Its no secret that a lot of the anti gun crowd and people in power want outright bans or registrations.

—————-

Outside of the dated and misleading “facts” you present, the pictures you use and the language you use do not help you if filled with name calling (gun nuts) and inaccuracies on how a gun works (the mini uzi shooting rounds bigger than the magazin the gun takes) and using Nazi Swastikas to represent the NRA and using crosshairs over the words “minority” and “you”

Then you go on to include “reason>fear”

Ha.

Lets talk some other facts you may unwilling to acknowledge.

>64% of gun control advocates believe the incorrect assumption that gun crime has gone up
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/64_who_favor_more_gun_control_believe_gun_crime_has_gone_up

>53% of Americans oppose stricter gun laws
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2014/53_oppose_stricter_gun_control_laws

>64% of Americans believe it would be bad if only the government had guns
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/64_think_it_would_be_bad_if_only_government_had_guns

>62% of Americans believe that the government wouldn’t fairly enforce gun laws
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/62_don_t_trust_government_to_fairly_enforce_gun_control_laws

>74% of Americans believe that the Constitution allows them to own a gun.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/74_think_americans_have_constitutional_right_to_own_a_gun

I would like to post the official numbers from the centers for disease control and Federal Bureau of Investigation
In 2013 there were roughly 32,000 deaths from guns.
19,200 were suicides, thats 60% of what the media reports as “gun violence”
960 were accidents
1280 were justified homicides
10,560 were actual homicides
The FBI reports that approximately 80% of homicides are directly gang on gang violence
That leaves 2112 in a society of 312,000,000 people

Now lets do some basic math
>You have a 0.000102564% chance of being shot
>0.00000984% chance if you arent a gang member or planning on killing yourself

The United States has a staggeringly low rate of gun violence. Period.

Sauce- http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

15,000+ Police surveyed on Gun Control. Turns out they dont like gun control much and feel safer when citizens are armed.

Article
http://www.policeone.com/corporate-profile/press-releases/6188461-PoliceOne-com-Releases-Survey-of-15-000-Law-Enforcement-Professionals-about-U-S-Gun-Control-Policies/

PDF with all the questions asked to officers and results:
https://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/5de089825c00843e872579b80079912d/$FILE/SenState0305AttachB.pdf

>Upon interviewing convicted felons, these researchers found that

>74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, due to fears of being shot
>57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police
>40% of the felons had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed

Gun homicide rate down 49%

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Banning guns would not lower crime or suicide

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Most Americans do not want gun control or gun bans
http://i.imgur.com/pfalHAN.png
http://i.imgur.com/DLU3Oxu.jpg
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

The following is your chances of being killed by a knife vs a gun in a “mass shooting” vs being killed by a cop

http://pastebin.com/ZGKtmB2t

tl;dr

You are 75% more likely to get stabbed to death than killed in a random public mass shooting.

You are THIRTY-TWO times more likes to be killed by LAW ENFORCEMENT than by a random mass shooter.

0.00000396% chance of being killed by mass shooting. Or 1 / 25,253,000 chance of being a random mass shooting death

Chance of dying by a gun in general? 0.0095%

Chance of dying by a gun not including suicide that is often used to pad the numbers against gun owners? 0.0032%

What about other things?
Unintentional fall deaths

    Number of deaths: 26,009
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

    Number of deaths: 33,687
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9

Unintentional poisoning deaths

    Number of deaths: 33,041
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All poisoning deaths

    Number of deaths: 42,917
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9

All Drug poisoning deaths

    Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)

All firearm deaths

    Number of deaths: 31,672
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3

Guns?

10.3 for deaths total in general (remember how suicide was the bulk here)

Broken down

3.6 for homicide 6.3 for suicide
0.30 for unintentional
0.10 undetermined

You are more likely to fucking trip and die than be killed by a gun.

Sources are FBI and CDC, just google for once.

Gun control also fails to explain how it will deal with home made guns. They are really easy to produce, even in full auto. It does not explain how it will take away the millions of guns from ciminal hands or what it will do with unregistered guns or Mexico bringing them in along with their guns and people. They time and time again show we cannot secure our boarders. Let alone that it is the right of the people to own guns, protected by the constitution. And that the police are under no obligation to protect you thanks to a Supreme Court ruling. And I see no one explaining why most “mass shootings” happen in gun free zones as opposed to  everywhere else, and why crime is always highest in areas with very strict gun control and until recently, where guns were outright banned.

——————

But please tell me more about guns and how we need to ban these dangerous evil things.

GET. FUCKING. REKT.

I inadvertently sat next to a whole section on Nietzsche.

proudgayconservative:

disneybombshell:

copperwindchime replied to your post “But government run programs do so much good we should let the…”

The problem is less “the government is in charge” and more “we don’t hold them to a high enough standard and the majority of our budget is going to militarization instead of social / public programs when it shouldn’t be”. -shrugs-

The Obamacare website had the budget of a BILLION DOLLARS I’m pretty sure budget was not the problem here.

Sometimes the problem isn’t budget, it’s government sector incompetence 

Almost anyone in the private sector could have done this better. Built a better website, with actual security, and in half the time. 

Instead we got this dung heap that still crashes, has no security, and sells a product that no one really wants. It cost us millions of dollars because it was a no-bid contract that was handed to a school friend of Michelle Obama, who is apparently even more incompetent at his job than the rest of his social circle. 

They could have let companies bid on it, you know, let the free market do its thing, but instead they had to use nepotism and look what we ended up with. 

sentimental-slop:

My professor just said, “Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution.” Um…Can you show me?

I think people think the First Amendment is separation of church and state

i think i’ll just go sit in the library all night

(Source: nubbsgalore)

there’s a guy who always comes to our floor (the girl floor) to use the bathroom.

he smells good, though…

(Source: nubbsgalore)

communismkills:

Give me some stuff to cheer me up. Definitely just started crying in the middle of campus over my research paper and the retarded databases.

The leaves are changing? That made me happy earlier.

Expensive weddings

Here’s what I think bothers people, me included, about them:

I find it a tad disappointing sometimes when I hear how much certain rich, famous people’s weddings cost. I know many of them, such as George Clooney and his new wife Amal, have done a great deal to help people. It makes you think, though, that if they care so much about using their wealth for the good of others, they should have taken some of the money spent on their wedding and put it towards charity.

But you can say that about anything, right? Why buy a house worth millions? Why not donate some of that money instead? But a house is somewhere you’re going to be for years, perhaps your whole lifetime. It makes more sense to spend a lot of money on things you’re going use for a long time than on one day. 

Two justifications, though:

Experiences are worth spending money on. We travel. We go to concerts. We visit museums. We go out to dinner. That’s mostly for our own personal enrichment. Our vacations are not going to be put to use in the material sense. 

Weddings mean several people get paid to do various jobs. Event planners, DJ’s, photographers, caterers, and more are earning a living because of expensive one-time events. It’s like how some of our hobbies that seem frivolous necessitate jobs for others. We write, and we need editors and publishers. We paint, and we have to buy canvases and paintbrushes.

But still, is it an even trade? Is it better that you spend seven figures and have an experience and some people get paid than you use that money for charity? I don’t know.

Of course, for those who aren’t wealthy, it’s more important that they buy something they’re going to use for many years, such as a house, or save money for the future than have an elaborate ceremony.

life-life-goose replied to your post:now someone in my dorm has a cello

oh goodness.

you know… i’ve never tried to play a cello. it seems hard. or possibly fun. idk.

claphne:

imagine: a court system where you do not know the gender, race, sexual orientation, wealth, name, ect. of the person being charged

think of how different the punishments would be

Wondering, though, if you might have to at times see pictures - pictures of lacerations on their body, perhaps. Maybe a surveillance video. Maybe hear a recording where their name is mentioned. And what of the victim? To avoid bias, should we not know their gender or race? But you might have to see pictures of the victim. 

now someone in my dorm has a cello

craiganthonywells:

nightbringer24:

rtrixie:

wheellock:

oinonio:

NRA Values are a health risk to America’s youth.

In the following decade violent crime in the UK would skyrocket 77% leaving citizens of the UK with no way to defend themselves in what would become known as “The Violent Crime Capital of Europe.” The UK would gain a rate of violent crime several times higher than that of the US and would continue to fall apart as lawmakers scrambled to ban more and more items.
Revisionism and lack of context are a health risk to the youth of not just America but every state that would steal the rights of its citizens overnight.

They moved on to knife control now, and it’s still not working. I guess they’ll have to resort to banning clenched fists until they realize that disarming law abiding citizens is not the answer.

You’d think we’d learn, but no.

I love how people always say that the UK has such a high violent crime rate in response to people saying that they also have a low murder rate.
1. “Violent crime” includes robbery. Robbery and homicide are incomparable.
2. America has the second highest homicide rate in the world, behind Mexico.

The distribution of homicide and crime is not uniform across America, however.
People should be able to effectively defend themselves against all crime, even if they wouldn’t have been murdered.

craiganthonywells:

nightbringer24:

rtrixie:

wheellock:

oinonio:

NRA Values are a health risk to America’s youth.

In the following decade violent crime in the UK would skyrocket 77% leaving citizens of the UK with no way to defend themselves in what would become known as “The Violent Crime Capital of Europe.” The UK would gain a rate of violent crime several times higher than that of the US and would continue to fall apart as lawmakers scrambled to ban more and more items.

Revisionism and lack of context are a health risk to the youth of not just America but every state that would steal the rights of its citizens overnight.

They moved on to knife control now, and it’s still not working. I guess they’ll have to resort to banning clenched fists until they realize that disarming law abiding citizens is not the answer.

You’d think we’d learn, but no.

I love how people always say that the UK has such a high violent crime rate in response to people saying that they also have a low murder rate.

1. “Violent crime” includes robbery. Robbery and homicide are incomparable.

2. America has the second highest homicide rate in the world, behind Mexico.

The distribution of homicide and crime is not uniform across America, however.

People should be able to effectively defend themselves against all crime, even if they wouldn’t have been murdered.

More Information