All the gun control zealots will be quick to point to their classic "studies" showing how the United States is so much much worse off than certain European and Asian nations with superior gun control laws----however, what areas of the world with massive gun control laws are the worst killing grounds?
I was going to make a multiple choice list when the site went down. I see the world's most violent cities and nations in the Congo, Honduras, Mexico, Belize, Brazil, and so on as being the worst. But of course our Muslim brothers have made so many of their strongholds a living nightmare. http://www.escapehere.com/destination/10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-to-travel/10/
To answer the thread title. Where guns already exist in abundance. Still... It should help diminish the number of guns in the long run.
one of the major failures of gun control advocates is their silly belief that all guns are bad guns in the hands of good people don't increase crime and generally diminish it guns in the hands of criminals and nut cases-cause violent crime gun control laws diminish the former far far more than the latter and thus usually increase crime. the people least likely to be disarmed by laws that impede or ban the acquisition of firearms are those most likely to cause problems with firearms. the people most likely to be disarmed by gun control laws are the ones most likely to use their firearms properly
Yeah... People who already have the right to own guns seem to feel like you. People in Europe, whether in Italy or Portugal or Denmark do not dream about owning guns. It is a complete non-issue. Our societies are safer because of it and our crimes are less deadly. I am happy with neither crazy people, criminals or emotionally unstable people having guns... And so is almost everyone around me. I know perfectly well I will never convince you otherwise so there is no need to start an infinite discussion on the subject. I do think that technology will force issue upon you either way. Weapons when the 2nd was written are not the same as today and in 100 years they will be even worse. I doubt the second amendment will survive another 100 years. But that's just me.
well the history of Europe is one where the elites were armed and the peasants were fair game. our crime rate among those of us who own guns legally is rather low. Our war on drugs and our open borders is what causes most of the gun violence. If you don't associate with criminals, don't engage in narcotics trade, your chances of being a victim of gun violence are extremely low. I like to compete as a shooter. I came close to making two Olympic teams as a shooter. I was a national junior champion, a top collegiate shotgun shooter, and at 57, still one of the top competitive shooters in my state, having one a recent state shotgun championship and ranked in the top three in SW Ohio in the most popular pistol event. I also coach youth and adults in another shooting sport-two boys from my club were in the final eight of the recent USA olympic trials with one being named the first alternate
I say quite the opposite, where gun control laws are in abundance, and criminals and terrorists are allowed to operate in abundance---is where there is going to be the most violence. Look at how well Globalists, such as yourself, were instrumental in allowing genocide to occur: The Rwanda Model According to the recent United Nations disarmament propaganda film Armed to the Teeth: The World-Wide Plague of Small Arms, only those weapons that are "used by armies and police forces to protect us" can be considered "legal." Small arms in private hands, by way of contrast, constitute a pestilence: "Small arms are not fussy about the company they keep. They can murder indiscriminately. The gun that killed in Africa can do it again in Latin America, or in Asia .... Humankind is beginning a new millennium under the sign of the gun. Small arms are like uninvited guests who won't leave. Once they take over a country, they are virtually impossible to get rid of." The film proudly displays "peacekeepers" in Africa, Latin America, and the Balkans doing their part to rid the world of the "plague" of privately owned firearms. The weapons are collected, often as part of what would be described in this country as a "gun buy-back," and destroyed. Only by creating global mechanisms to prevent civilians from having access to "illegal weapons," insists the agitprop film, "can genocide as happened in Rwanda be prevented." In fact, it was precisely the model of "gun control" championed by the UN that facilitated the genocide in Rwanda. In a special supplement to their valuable study Lethal Laws, the group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) documents the fact that civilian disarmament was a precursor to the 103-day orgy of violence that killed at least 800,000 people and perhaps as many as 1.1 million in 1994. "This genocide, like all genocide, was planned," explains the JPFO report. "It did not just 'happen.' The primary intended targets were easily identified in advance by community leaders, by appearance, and by their 'national identity' cards .... In pre-genocide Rwanda, every adult was legally required to have a 'national identity' card, which stated the bearer's ethnicity. These 'national identity' cards became death warrants for tens of thousands of victims." At the time, Rwanda was ruled by a faction drawn from the Hutu ethnic group, which sought to exterminate outright the Tutsi sub-population, along with politically unreliable Hutus. Once the targeted group had been identified, it was demonized relentlessly as "cockroaches" by the government-controlled media, and killing squads of politically reliable Hutus, called Interahamwe militia, were organized. Most of the lnterahamwe cadres were armed with machetes, rather than firearms. According to the JPFO report, however, "the genocide regime's police and troops had government-issued firearms. The genocide regime also gave firearms and training to trusted civilians. In other cases, the regime issued to its supporters permits to buy firearms." Most importantly, the victims "were not armed, even though they knew they were at risk. They had previously been subject to smaller-scale attacks. However, 'gun control' laws enacted on 21 November 1964 and 7 May 1979 kept them from legally buying firearms for self-defense. Many had the money to do so, despite Rwanda's general poverty. Many members of the target groups were of the former political or current business elite .... Almost all the intended victims of Rwanda's genocide regime tried to resist. They did not submit quietly to their murderers. The intended victims used stones, clubs, and improvised weapons. In literally a handful of cases, they used firearms, taken from their would-be murderers." "They take them [the victims] from this building, this church," declared Jeanne Niwemutesi, a former secretary in the U.S. embassy, to a New York Times reporter. After taking refuge in the Holy Family Church in Kigali, Mrs. Niwe-mutesi watched in horror as the government-controlled mobs annihilated their unarmed victims: "They have guns and knives and machetes, the people from the Government party, so we can't fight back. We don't have arms." Due in part to Rwanda's strict "gun control" measures, the genocide regime achieved a remarkable efficiency rate, liquidating 80-90 percent of the targeted population and leaving many thousands of survivors maimed. Many victims were left limbless; others had what one Belgian doctor described as "very, very deep [wounds] to the back of the neck." http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue12/disarmament_and_destruction.htm Yes the disarmed sheep were as helpless as those attacked by Muslims in Paris and Brussels.
You are talking about feudalism? To justify having guns today? I did some shooting as a kid in Denmark. You can actually compete as a shooter in Europe if you didn't know. In fact the best biathlon athletes are European. Well... As I said... I do not see any rational arguments for the second amendment today nor do I see the need to be armed in the society of today. You see it differently.
well we have a second amendment and you don't you seem happy to have a government that doesn't trust you to own the same weapons your civilian police use. I don't tolerate that. if civilian cops need weapons to deal with criminals, so do the rest of us who don't pick the time and place when we are attacked. Europe has some good shooters. France has the best IPSC shooter in history according to some-though the many different classes now has diminished the talent pool in the OPEN division as many top shooters are shooting "production" or standard since that is what the sponsors want. England has some great clays shooters, and one of their athletes won the double Trap at one of the recent olympics. But the average American is a far better shooter than the citizens of other nations. and I like that
The thread title was "Where are Gun Controls Laws Most Useless?". Are you arguing my statement saying that gun laws are most useless in countries where guns already exist in abundance? I deleted your wall of text because it is irrelevant and quite annoying. Try arguing your case yourself if you can. Of course you would as the typical American gun advocate use the tragic murder of people to advance your agenda. I don't really see much point in arguing with people who have religious beliefs about guns. Enjoy your society full of guns!
The European countries I have lived in have police officers who go through their whole life without needing to draw their gun. Now I am in a country where police don't even have guns when walking around the city. Your emotional outcry does not effect me or my position on this issue. You might like the fact that you can have better shooters. Comparing the numbers on gun violence though kinda ruins that for me.
its fun watching people who are afraid of guns, who don't trust their fellow citizens to own guns talk about emotion. we also are smart enough to realize that restricting honest people in our country from owning guns doesn't do a damn thing to decrease gun violence. we also have never been invaded successfully in 200 years either
You are trying to make this into an emotional issue. This anti-government fear that permeates America and its gun owners is quite scary and unhealthy honestly. I don't trust my fellow citizens to vote for a treaty so why would I trust them with deadly weapons they can use to kill en masse? There is absolutely no reason for guns in a modern Western society. The only reason why you can still justify it is because you have created a catch 22 where you have so many guns that you can argue that you need guns to defend yourself from people with guns. No country I know of restricts people from having guns for sport or hunt. Given you pass the background checks and don't have a record of course. I see though that emotions is all you have to argue your case. Fear of guns, government, fellow citizens etc. Quite interesting that you who use emotion all the time then accuse me of it. Oh well... Rational discussion with 2nd amendment proponents is more or less impossible. At least on the internet.
do you think you can bolster a weak argument by claiming the other side is "emotional". when you say something as idiotic as "no reason for guns in modern wester society" the rest of your comments are dismissed as being the opinion of someone who has no clue
There is no reason. Neither in Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Norway, Italy or Portugal. I can talk from personal experience. Come live here and you will be able to say the same But those are not emotional arguments. Those are facts. Police don't need guns. They rarely use them if ever in their career. Your arguments? Fear your neighbour, fear your government, fear the elites, fear the criminals. Fear fear fear fear. Unless you have created the catch 22 you have there is no need for them. Not in any of the Western societies I have lived in.
I would qualify that statement saying gun laws are most useless in areas that have legions of bad people doing crimes with guns they are not supposed to have in abundance. Certainly, if guns WERE the problems themselves, then the areas with many guns like North and South Dakota, Iceland and most of rural America would have the most crime. However, it is the general rule that where gangs and morally debased people predominate in areas with strict gun control, is where crime is going to be highest such as in Cape Town, Rio, Belize, Chicago, Baltimore, Stockholm, Mexico and so forth. Where evil is in abundance, likewise will high violent crime. Your faith in the religion of One-World Global gun control seems quite devout.
