Should guns get banned?

Charade said:
In a completely civilized society we wouldn't have a need for any weapons for protection or even hunting. Nor would we need any military.

I highly doubt we will ever see a completely civilized. Great stuff for the movies though.

But that leads me to the question. Civlized by who's standards? Wouldn't that require everyone in the world to agree to what is or isn't becoming of a civilized society?

Good point. For example some societies consider cannibilism to be civilized. And binding women's feet. And cutting off hands to punish thieves. Which standard do we want to go by? I thought some were put out by having the US "enforce" democracy on people. Now we want to come up with a "standard" for what is civilized?
 
septbride2002 said:
Great facts - thank you! We lost a friend to a gun shot - he was a police officer and in a struggle the drug dealer got a hold of his gun and killed him. It was tragic - he was 24. There is no need for anyone to have a hand gun.

~Amanda

So, police officers should not carry guns. I have a feeling that drug dealer was intent on killing the officer...gun or no gun.
 
wvrevy said:
Speaking of delusional... :rotfl: ...Maybe you should do a little research on the subject before deciding to weigh in next time. That way, you won't look so "delusional" in light of the FACTS. :rolleyes:

FACTS are constantly distorted by the media and by government...I know for a FACT that there have been SEVERAL non-publicized incidents that occurred in very well-to-do communities, but because the mere notion of the type of danger/element that was involved there was never any record of it. So why don't you go back to YOUR fact book and keep on reading what the "fact-finders" want you to believe. If the real facts were always published do you think government would stand a chance in having any gun control laws passed. Pathetic that you have been so fooled by what you read - reading doesn't equate to real world experience. :sad2: :sad2:
 
ToyStory Fan said:
FACTS are constantly distorted by the media and by government...I know for a FACT that there have been SEVERAL non-publicized incidents that occurred in very well-to-do communities, but because the mere notion of the type of danger/element that was involved there was never any record of it. So why don't you go back to YOUR fact book and keep on reading what the "fact-finders" want you to believe. If the real facts were always published do you think government would stand a chance in having any gun control laws passed. Pathetic that you have been so fooled by what you read - reading doesn't equate to real world experience. :sad2: :sad2:
I'm just curious about where you came by this information. And why do you think the government wants to pass gun control legislation so badly that they would cover up information.
 

penguinande said:
I'm just curious about where you came by this information. And why do you think the government wants to pass gun control legislation so badly that they would cover up information.

I have several family members in law enforcement (1 is SWAT) and 2 very close friends in the FBI.

Do you really think that people in extremely wealthy communities want to know that the SWAT team had to be called out for a bomb threat at a very large corporation in the area...do they want to hear that there was a shootout in a residential area due to a chase of drug dealers thru the area...they also don't want people to know when a legall armed citizen is involved in a shooting because tehy don't want people to take the law into their own hands...to the extent they can cover it up they will. It's just the way it is.
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1540111,00.html
Police and public gun crime views
From the Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police



Sir, I have responsibility, on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, in assisting police forces (letters, March 19) to tackle the criminal use of firearms across the UK.
The proliferation of weapons available to criminals is a myth. In my own force area the number of fatal shootings and serious woundings involving guns has reduced by 16 per cent in the past two years. Reported increases in gun crime across the UK are mainly due to the inclusion in official figures of non-lethal imitation firearms (mainly ball-bearing guns).



Gun crime is, however, a major cause of public concern and we are finding ways of minimising the disproportionate effect it has on some people. These include working in partnership with leaders and members of the community, changes in the criminal justice system and determined police action, which all help to give witnesses to gun crime the confidence to give us important information.

Yours faithfully,
ALAN GREEN
Deputy Chief Constable,
Greater Manchester Police,
PO Box 22, Manchester M16 0RE.
March 19.


From Mr Michael Jay

Sir, Criticism of Michael Howard’s expression of regret over the handgun ban (reports, March 19) is understandable but misplaced.

As you report, after the UK handgun ban, gun crime and violence have increased. Restrictive gun control helps criminals. Of course, legal gun owners must be properly educated in their safe use but legally held guns rarely cause crime and certainly deter many criminals even when they are not used.

Banning guns here has not stopped criminals getting them and helps criminals because they know their victims cannot do anything to fight back.

Yours sincerely,
MICHAEL JAY,
25 Ringwood Way,
Hampton, Middlesex TW12 1AT.
March 21.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.



Existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place

David Bredin
Campaign for Shooting
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

Smuggling

The campaign's director, David Bredin, said: "It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.

"Policy makers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tighter laws but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety."

He said the rise was largely down to successful smuggling of illegal guns into the country.

Weapons have even been disguised as key rings no larger than a matchbox to get them in, he said.

Other sources of guns include battlefield trophies brought back by soldiers, the illegal conversion of replica firearms including blank firing pistols and the reactivation of weapons which had been deactivated.

Ammunition

Examples of illegally manufactured guns include screwdrivers being adapted to fire off one round, he said.

The Metropolitan Police said its official figures showed a 20% drop in armed robberies of commercial premises between April and July this year, compared with the same period last year.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said that, since April 2001, the Flying Squad has arrested 39 people in connection with 34 armed incidents and seized 52 weapons.

Operation Trident, which investigates "black on black" shootings in the UK, has made more than 300 arrests, recovered 100 firearms and 1,500 rounds of ammunition since it was established a year ago.

The Home Office said measures were being taken to tackle handgun crime, including an intensified effort against illegally smuggled weapons.
 
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/...xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/01/23/ixopinion.html

Today, 96 years ago, London was rocked by a terrorist outrage. Two Latvian anarchists, who had crossed the Channel after trying to blow up the president of France, attempted an armed wages robbery in Tottenham. Foiled at the outset when the intended victims fought back, the anarchists attempted to shoot their way out.

A dramatic pursuit ensued involving horses and carts, bicycles, cars and a hijacked tram. The fleeing anarchists fired some 400 shots, leaving a policeman and a child dead, and some two dozen other casualties, before they were ultimately brought to bay. They had been chased by an extraordinary posse of policemen and local people, armed and unarmed. Along the way, the police (whose gun cupboard had been locked, and the key mislaid) had borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by in the street, while other armed citizens joined the chase in person.

Today, when we are inured to the idea of armed robbery and drive-by shootings, the aspect of the "Tottenham Outrage" that is most likely to shock is the fact that so many ordinary members of the public at that time should have been carrying guns in the street. Bombarded with headlines about an emergent "gun culture" in Britain now, we are apt to forget that the real novelty is the notion that the general populace in this country should be disarmed.

In a material sense, Britain today has much less of a "gun culture" than at any time in its recent history. A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns: there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials". Conan Doyle's Dr Watson, dropping a revolver in his pocket before going out about town, illustrates a real commonplace of that time. Beatrix Potter's journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver.

We should not fool ourselves, however, that such things were possible then because society was more peaceful. Those years were ones of much more social and political turbulence than our own: with violent and incendiary suffrage protests, massive industrial strikes where the Army was called in and people were killed, where there was the menace of a revolutionary General Strike, and where the country was riven by the imminent prospect of a civil war in Ireland. It was in such a society that, as late as 1914, the right even of an Irishman to carry a loaded revolver in the streets was upheld in the courts (Rex v. Smith, KB 1914) as a manifestation simply of the guarantees provided by our Bill of Rights.

In such troubled times, why did the commonplace carrying of firearms not result in mayhem? How could it be that in the years before the First World War, armed crime in London amounted to less than 2 per cent of what we see today? One answer that might have been taken as self-evident then, but which has become political anathema now, is that the prevalence of firearms had a stabilising influence and a deterrent effect upon crime. Such deterrent potential was indeed acknowledged in part in Britain's first Firearms Act, which was introduced as an emergency measure in response to fears of a Bolshevik upheaval in 1920. Home Office guidance on the implementation of the Act recognised "good reason for having a revolver if a person lives in a solitary house, where protection from thieves and burglars is essential". The Home Office issued more restrictive guidance in 1937, but it was only in 1946 that the new Labour Home Secretary announced that self-defence would no longer generally be accepted as a good reason for acquiring a pistol (and as late as 1951 this reason was still being proffered in three-quarters of all applications for pistol licences, and upheld in the courts). Between 1946 and 1951, we might note, armed robbery, the most significant index of serious armed crime, averaged under two dozen incidents a year in London; today, that number is exceeded every week.

The Sunday Telegraph's Right to Fight Back campaign is both welcome and a necessity. However, an abstract right that leaves the weaker members of society – particularly the elderly – without the means to defend themselves, has only a token value. As the 19th-century jurist James Paterson remarked in his Commentaries on the Liberty of the Subject and the Laws of England Relating to the Security of the Person: "In all countries where personal freedom is valued, however much each individual may rely on legal redress, the right of each to carry arms – and these the best and the sharpest – for his own protection in case of extremity, is a right of nature indelible and irrepressible, and the more it is sought to be repressed the more it will recur."

Restrictive "gun control" in Britain is a recent experiment, in which the progressive "toughening" of the regulation of legal gun ownership has been followed by an increasingly dramatic rise in violent armed crime. Eighty-four years after the legal availability of pistols was restricted to Firearm Certificate holders, and seven years after their private possession was generally prohibited, they still figure in 58 per cent of armed crimes. Home Office evidence to the Dunblane Inquiry prior to the handgun ban indicated that there was an annual average of just two incidents in which licensed pistols appeared in crime. If, as the Home Office still asserts, "there are links between firearms licensing and armed crime", the past century of Britain's experience has shown the link to be a sharply negative one.

If Britain was a safer country without our present system of denying firearms to the law-abiding, is deregulation an option? That is precisely the course that has been pursued, with conspicuous success in combating violent crime, in the United States.

For a long time it has been possible to draw a map of the United States showing the inverse relationship between liberal gun laws and violent crime. At one end of the scale are the "murder capitals" of Washington, Chicago and New York, with their gun bans (New York City has had a theoretical general prohibition of handguns since 1911); at the other extreme, the state of Vermont, without gun laws, and with the lowest rate of violent crime in the Union (a 13th that of Britain). From the late Eighties, however, the relative proportions on the map have changed radically. Prior to that time it was illegal in much of the United States to bear arms away from the home or workplace, but Florida set a new legislative trend in 1987, with the introduction of "right-to-carry" permits for concealed firearms.

Issue of the new permits to law-abiding citizens was non-discretionary, and of course aroused a furore among gun control advocates, who predicted that blood would flow in the streets. The prediction proved false; Florida's homicide rate dropped, and firearms abuse by permit holders was virtually non-existent. State after state followed Florida's suit, and mandatory right-to-carry policies are now in place in 35 of the United States.

In a nationwide survey of the impact of the legislation, John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago found that by 1992, right-to-carry states had already seen an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Extrapolating from the 10 states that had then implemented the policy, Lott and Mustard calculated that had right-to-carry legislation been nationwide, an annual average of some 1,400 murders, 4,200 rapes and more than 60,000 aggravated assaults might have been averted. The survey has lent further support to the research of Professor Kleck, of Florida State University, who found that firearms in America serve to deter crime at least three times as often as they appear in its commission.

Over the last 25 years the number of firearms in private hands in the United States has more than doubled. At the same time the violent crime rate has dropped dramatically, with the significant downswing following the spread of right-to-carry legislation. The US Bureau of Justice observes that "firearms-related crime has plummeted since 1993", and it has declined also as a proportion of overall violent offences. Violent crime in total has declined so much since 1994 that it has now reached, the bureau states, "the lowest level ever recorded". While American "gun culture" is still regularly the sensational subject of media demonisation in Britain, the grim fact is that in this country we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States.

Today, on this anniversary of the "Tottenham Outrage", it is appropriate that we reflect upon how the objects of outrage in Britain have changed within a lifetime. If we now find the notion of an armed citizenry anathema, what might the Londoners of 1909 have made of our own violent, disarmed society?
 
http://www.online.ie/news/viewer.adp?article=3217334

n 18-year-old man was found with a powerful submachine gun and 150 rounds of ammunition when stopped by gardaí in Limerick, it was alleged in court today.

Patrick Dowling, Deer Court, John Carew Park Limerick was arrested at 2.40am on St Patrick's Day at the Tipperary roundabout in the Childer's Road area of Limerick city.

The 18-year-old appeared before Limerick District Court this morning and is charged with possession of the Ingrim sub-machine gun, a silencer and 150 rounds of ammunition.

Outling the allegations against Mr Dowling yesterday, Det Garda Dave Nolan said the teenager was stopped while driving a car on the outskirts of the city.

It's alleged the submachine, the silencer and 150 rounds of ammunition - all of which were produced in court today - were found in the car.

Det Garda Nolan gave evidence of arresting and charging Mr Dowling and said he made "no reply" when cautioned.

Solicitor for the defendant Ted McCarthy said he was reserving his position on bail and added that he may make a bail application on behalf of his client next Tuesday.

Judge Tom O'Donnell noted that the State is expected to lodge a formal objection to bail.

Mr Dowling was remanded in custody until March 22 next when he is due to appear before Limerick District Court again.

Dressed in a navy hoody and jeans the 18-year-old remained silent throughout this morning's brief court hearing.

Gee! I wonder how he came about obtaining a banned sub machine gun?

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4280593

Police came up against “a wall of silence” in their investigation of the drive-by killings in Birmingham, the man who led the murder inquiry said today.

The deaths of teenagers Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare at a New Year party in Aston in 2003 “shook the nation” and left a community devastated, said Detective Superintendent David Mirfield.


But a culture of fear surrounding gangs existed in that community in which no one would risk talking to police, he said.

This meant the hunt for the girls’ killers became the longest and most difficult investigation by West Midlands Police in recent times.

Even after witnesses had been arrested, he said, they would only enter the witness box with an unprecedented level of protection.

Today, Mr Mirfield called for better treatment of witnesses in such cases and more stringent controls on the type of activated weapon used in the shootings.

And he praised the two girls injured in the attack – Cheryl Shaw and Charlene’s twin sister Sophia – who gave evidence during the trial at Leicester Crown Court.

He said they were “beacons” for a black community which had been “scarred” by gangsters.

Mr Mirfield said: “This has been immensely difficult from the outset. This has been one of the largest criminal investigations that the West Midlands police force has undertaken.

“The crimes themselves were abhorrent and shook the nation. That meant that the pressure from all angles was extreme.

“The people we were dealing with, the gangsters, the way in which they live their lives, makes any such investigation extremely difficult.

“They try and rule with fear and intimidation. It is a culture, as we have heard in the trial, in which no-one talks to the police come what may. Anybody who does is considered an informant or a grass.”

Mr Mirfield said the gangs felt – and still feel – like “untouchables” because of the fear they instilled in other people.

“These people only move forward by having this fear element surrounding everything they do,” he said.

“It’s indoctrinated into the young men – we are talking about the black community in the main – and they are a huge scar on that community.

“Everything they do, from trying to recruit youngsters at school all the way through, with fear, intimidation and promises of a better future, only goes to undermine everything that the black community leaders attempt to do in their community.

“The sooner this scourge is wiped out, the better.”

Special measures in which witnesses were granted anonymity with screens, voice distortion and pseudonyms had been unique in providing a fair trial, he said.

But the officer criticised defence counsel in the case for their opposition to the measures and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, who had become reluctant to give evidence as the trial neared.

He continued: “The biggest challenge for me has been the care and protection of witnesses, affording them the respect they deserve when giving evidence in court.

“We need, as an organisation, to treat them with respect and care when they initially come forward and not make any false promises.

“We are also right in being able to look towards the justice system as a whole to look after and care for these witnesses when they do give evidence in court.

“At times, when these witnesses have given evidence, their treatment has not necessarily been caring. People don’t seem to be able to take into account the sheer terror of giving evidence.”

He said he was unable to put a figure on the number of young men who were members of gangs in Birmingham or the number of victims killed in gang-related crimes there.

He said he was optimistic the influence of gangs in Birmingham had diminished since the incident in Aston, but warned against complacency.

Pointing to figures which show the number of gang-related shootings in the West Midlands Force area has fallen from an average of 50 a year to 30, he said: “I would like to think that this has been prompted by this investigation and the way we conduct our operations against gun crime and the gangs.

“The community should feel safer – but that’s not being complacent. There are still shootings and we need to do everything we can to make the community as safe as possible.”

Intelligence-led policing was the way forward in combating the gangs, he said, to ensure the gang leaders “are brought to justice and put in prison for a very long time”.

Mr Mirfield said West Midlands Police was prepared for any repercussions after the verdicts and said more arrests could be made based on evidence heard during the trial.

“I have always said, and it has always been the prosecution’s case, that there have been more people involved in this shooting,” he said. “I am not ruling out any further charges.”

And he added: “My wish and vision is that the names ’Johnsons’ and ’Burgers’ become dirty words that no one wants to associate with.”

Mr Mirfield also called for a crackdown on the manufacture of weapons, such as one of those used in the Aston shootings.

The MAC-10 machine gun had probably been constructed in the south of England, he said.

The use of an older weapon in the attack, a World War II pistol, suggested that, with the help of amnesties, other guns were not as readily available on the street as commonly thought.

Mr Mirfield said the families of the victims had been left devastated by the girls’ deaths.

“Whatever the outcome, there are no winners, only losers, and they are the mums of the girls, the girls’ sisters and the close friends of the family,” he said.

“They are devastated, their lives will never be the same. They have to wake up every morning, getting on with their lives, without their daughters. I know Bev and Marcia live that constantly.”

Mr Mirfield said he was pleased that evidence given in the trial proved Charlene and Letisha had nothing to do with gangs or the shootings.

He added: “They were out on what was one of their first nights out together – young 17, 18-year-old girls who were quite immature.

“They were young girls who were dressing up for the night, terrific girls going through college with their whole life ahead of them. That’s now ended.

“Whatever happens, we should never forget that.”

The officer said witnesses who gave evidence in the case, including the key witness Mark Brown, would get as much protection as they needed for as long as they needed it.

Asked why the shootings were so shocking, he said: “You have a situation where three weapons are used, a sub-machine gun to name but one, and dozens of rounds were fired indiscriminately at a New Year party.

“Four young innocent girls were shot and two were killed. At the time it was thought that all four may have died.

“If that does not wake up a community, and a nation, then nothing can.”

What's this? More crimes committed with "banned" guns? How is that possible?
 
Could I get another question answered? Why during the heyday of the 'wild' west did some towns ban handguns on streets without all the fuss and bother that attends such a request today?

For the record in case someone hasn't read all my posts. I am not for a general ban but definitely feel that certain types are unnecessary and serve no purpose except for collectors. Those responsible gun owners who have safes are your weapons loaded when stored, if not is the ammo in the same place or a different place? If unloaded and separate then how does that weapon serve as protection when precious time must be taken to retrieve and load.

The one thing I am adamently against is allowed for concealed weapons. Just because someone can pass the test for such a license does not mean that in a 'fit' of rage it might not be used rather than a verbal assault.
 
DisDuck said:
Could I get another question answered? Why during the heyday of the 'wild' west did some towns ban handguns on streets without all the fuss and bother that attends such a request today?

Gene Hackman in Unforgiven. Nuff said...

Seriously, my guess is it's primarily because the Sheriff was the "law" and it was usually he that banned guns. That's not saying that the people liked it but hardly anybody went against the Sheriff back then.
 
I would think it would be related to the lack of communication options back then. If someone wanted to complain he would just be one guy...or one guy and a buddy. Now, the NRA would send out mailings and e-mails, and many people become involved. And people like getting worked into a frenzy about their "rights."
 
The NRA is infamous about this. Quite bananas.

People have a right to own weapons. But this right does not extend to abuse or protection through the endangering of life, so there have to be controls. One of these controls should be a strict regulation of ownership, akin to a totaltarian ban.

That way people can keep their guns and people don't get hurt.



Rich::
 
DisDuck said:
The one thing I am adamently against is allowed for concealed weapons. Just because someone can pass the test for such a license does not mean that in a 'fit' of rage it might not be used rather than a verbal assault.


Or in a fit of rage they could take their car an drive it into a crowd of people. Ban cars. Or in a fit of rage they could pick up a brick or rock or some other item an beat you over the head. Or in fit of rage I could start sending letter bombs through the mail. Gee, it's looking like the person might be the problem, not the inantimate object.
 
dcentity2000 said:
The NRA is infamous about this. Quite bananas.

People have a right to own weapons. But this right does not extend to abuse or protection through the endangering of life, so there have to be controls. One of these controls should be a strict regulation of ownership, akin to a totaltarian ban.

That way people can keep their guns and people don't get hurt.



Rich::

Rich, any comment on the obvious ineffectiveness of the handgun ban in the UK? I mean, if even one person can get their hands on a gun, despite the ban, and kill you or your loved ones, what does it matter the number of relative deaths?
 
DisDuck said:
The one thing I am adamently against is allowed for concealed weapons. Just because someone can pass the test for such a license does not mean that in a 'fit' of rage it might not be used rather than a verbal assault.
I for one would LOVE to see a stastic on those who have a concealed weapons permit and used their handgun in a fit of rage. I am guessing it is a very small number.
 
I wasn't ragging on the NRA, just stating that it is really easy to get a bunch of people in an uproar, nowadays. Look at how inflamatory this board becomes over controversial stuff.

It was much harder to do that when you had to rely on word of mouth and personal contact.
 
Miss Jasmine said:
I for one would LOVE to see a stastic on those who have a concealed weapons permit and used their handgun in a fit of rage. I am guessing it is a very small number.

My cousin is a DA out in Los Angeles. He carries a concealed weapon because he heads up the division that investigates the mafia from a certain country. I've Googled his name and it shows up on all these websites...I have no idea what they're saying about him because they're in a foreign language, but I'm glad he can carry that concealed weapon. ::yes::
 
Mickey's Monkey said:
Rich, any comment on the obvious ineffectiveness of the handgun ban in the UK? I mean, if even one person can get their hands on a gun, despite the ban, and kill you or your loved ones, what does it matter the number of relative deaths?


The handgun ban isnt ineffective! Ive never even seen a handgun, I dont know anyone that has and I cant remember any gun crime that has occurred in the area I live. Its impossible to eliminate 100% of guns, there will always be a few illgal ones but thats a hell of a lot better than everyone having one! Those articles are misleading, they imply that there are guns everywhere here and I can assure you thats not the case, as I said I dont know anyone that has even seen one!
 
jen_uk said:
The handgun ban isnt ineffective! Ive never even seen a handgun, I dont know anyone that has and I cant remember any gun crime that has occurred in the area I live. Its impossible to eliminate 100% of guns, there will always be a few illgal ones but thats a hell of a lot better than everyone having one! Those articles are misleading, they imply that there are guns everywhere here and I can assure you thats not the case, as I said I dont know anyone that has even seen one!

I so completely agree with you and know how you feel.
 
jen_uk said:
The handgun ban isnt ineffective! Ive never even seen a handgun, I dont know anyone that has and I cant remember any gun crime that has occurred in the area I live. Its impossible to eliminate 100% of guns, there will always be a few illgal ones but thats a hell of a lot better than everyone having one! Those articles are misleading, they imply that there are guns everywhere here and I can assure you thats not the case, as I said I dont know anyone that has even seen one!


And not everyone here owns one and they're not everywhere either.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom