Guess it depends on the people and not the gun laws then.Honduras and Venezuela have very strict gun laws and have the highest murder rates in the world.
It must be terrifying to live in a county like the UK or Russia where thieves or corrupt police could invade your home at 3 am and take you and your family away without any resistance,
Pot meet kettleThey cherry pick from one specific list while ignoring associative pages that show a more meaningful picture.
Personally, I draw the lines at grenade launchers. Ruins the venison.I think they prohibit hunting dear with automatic weapons
You can't because those details are not forthcoming. The statistics are incomplete for the majority of those amongst the higher tier and are provided independently by each national government. Consistent data seems to only be available for peer level countries.Those citing cherry picked "gun" violence stats shouldn't look at relative rates at a fixed point in time. Try graphing violent crime rates for each country over time, so that you can see trends in those rates.
drilling down a bit, isn't the question really about which firearms policy delivers optimum public safety results?
That last FBI report does tend to indicate that the US approach of loosening legal restrictions on gun owners (because that is what gun control laws really are; they're people controls - you can't punish guns) is having a markedly more positive effect on public safety than Canada's harsher restrictions on gun owners.
This is why they need to take away the guns.
Who is "they" and how exactly does that (taking away guns) happen? This is always the anti-gun cry but with 300 million + guns in this country, exactly how? Under certain circumstances, I can imagine law-abiding citizens complying but criminals (by definition) do not follow laws.
Not a perfect analogy, but how is the war on drugs working out? Related, how does the drug trade contribute to gun-related violence and deaths.
Suppose one were to compare the gun homicide rate of our inner cities with violent and/or developing countries. Eerily similar?
This is interesting, Illinois, as a whole, has a low gun homicide rate (deaths per 100,000 people) but Chicago (where guns are banned) is among the highest in the nation. I am not saying that guns being banned in this city is causal toward gun homicides, the problem is more complex and multifactorial (i.e. involves drugs, socioeconomic status, etc.).
It is sad when these things happen...http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/us/chicago-tyshawn-lee-shooting/index.html ...likely by gang members (criminals) with illegal firearms in a city that prohibits possession of firearms.
I am not a gun zealot but I own firearms and possess a concealed carry permit although I also choose to live in an area where neither are likely necessary for survival. If I had to move to an inner city my feelings would be quite different.
In any event, everyone should be prepared for catastrophic events and responsible for their own survival. Whether this involves a firearm is up to the individual but given the current state of affairs in the US, possessing a gun would likely be helpful rather than harmful. And, of course, a pipe and tobacco for, if nothing else, a final smoke.
This is the issue that I originally responded to. What is this catastrophic event looming near on the horizon that people would be wise to pack a bug out bag? What bugs me is that packing a bag full of guns presupposes violence, not collaboration. Back in the depression if we had just shot all those destitute farmers in the dust bowl, heck, just think of all the food we could have saved on feeding them. Oorah!In any event, everyone should be prepared for catastrophic events and responsible for their own survival. Whether this involves a firearm is up to the individual but given the current state of affairs in the US,