CDZ California has every single gun control law...and the Fresno killer killed 3 people with a gun....

[2aguy]

This article lists all of the gun control laws that California has.....and all of them combined could not stop this guy from shooting 3 people.

The guy was a felon..which means he couldn't buy, own or carry a gun in any other state......and he had multiple gun convictions and he was still walking around free.....

Had they done what I have suggested....and put this felon in jail for 30 years for his illegal possession of guns as a felon......those people would still be alive ....

So......what is the next law that you guys want...that won't work....?

Strict California Gun Control Impotent to Stop Fresno Attack - Breitbart

California has universal background checks, which means no one can legally buy a gun without doing so via a background check under the auspices of a Federal Firearms License (FFL). California also requires all firearms to be registered with the state, and has gun confiscation laws, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, and so much more. Yet not one of these laws prevented Muhammad’s attack.

It is interesting to note that Breitbart News pointed out the futility of a “high capacity” magazine ban, even as California Democrats were pushing it as part of a public safety campaign last year. After all, the Santa Barbara attacker, Elliot Rodger, only used 10-round magazines in shooting three people to death on May 23, 2104. “High capacity” magazines were not necessary.

We saw the same thing in Fresno Tuesday, where the Los Angeles Times reports that Muhammad allegedly used a .357 revolver to kill three innocents. In other words, he used a gun that does not even take magazines; a gun that requires the shooter to open a cylinder, eject the shell casings, and reload every five to seven shots.

In addition, Muhammad was a felon, which means he faced a 100 percent gun ban, yet he had a gun on Tuesday. Moreover, Tuesday’s attack was not the first time Muhammad had possessed a gun as a felon: the Times noted that he “was indicted by a federal grand jury in February 2005 for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm for drug trafficking and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, after a Fresno police officer searched his car and found two large bags of cocaine, a loaded handgun and two rifles.”

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet with very harsh gun laws in the UK, no one was shot in Greater London. Hmmm.

 

[2aguy]

Yet with very harsh gun laws in the UK, no one was shot in Greater London. Hmmm.

And yet your post doesn't mean anything...because it is addressing the wrong question.


Before 1996 British citizens were allowed to own guns. They had a low gun crime and murder rate. They were told in 1996 that banning guns would make the gun crime and gun murder rate go lower.....they banned the guns and the gun crime rate spiked......the violent crime rate went up. So at first, they had increases in gun crime.....their gun murder rate went up slightly, but the gun crime rate went up.......then, after years of increased gun crime the rate went back to where it was before the ban...but the violent crime rate stayed high, they are far more violent than here in the U.S.....now.....after 20 years of the ban....their gun crime rate in London spiked 49%.......and their violent crime rate has increased all over the country....

So what did they get for banning guns there...nothing. As Larry Correia points out...they had a mass public shooting every 15-20 years.....and still have that, they had a mass shooter in Cumbria in 2010......and now they have massive violent crime...all over the place and they are helpless in the face of rapes, robberies, stabbings and beatings.....


The one thing they didn't experience is increased gun murder....not because their criminals don't have guns....they have lots of guns....their criminal culture just does not engage in random or easy murder of victims.....

That was until now.....I predict they will soon be seeing increases in their gun murder rate to go with their massive increases in gun crime and over all violent crime.....

Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.
The Met Police's figures showed there were 2,544 gun crime offences from April 2016 to April 2017 compared to 1,793 offences from 2015 until 2016.
Knife crime also increased by 24% with 12,074 recorded offences from 2016 to 2017.
============

Gun and knife crime soaring in London, official figures show

More worryingly, there was also a rise in the number of guns being fired on London’s streets, up from 239 cases in 2015/16 to 306 cases in the last financial year.

There was also a 20 per cent increase in the rate of knife attacks involving injuries to victims, up from 3,663 to 4,415 in 2016/17.

------

“We are concerned about the rise of gun crime and rise of knife crime offences committed by young people and the changing nature of the offenders. “

He said there was evidence that more young people are carrying knives for a variety of reasons including status, criminality and self-protection but said only around a quarter are affiliated with gangs.

He said police were focusing on reducing stabbings by taking weapons and dangerous offenders off the streets and trying to prevent and divert people from crime.
------

“With double-digit growth in gun and knife crime - and a youth homicide almost every fortnight - the crime challenge for London is real and serious and has serious impacts for London’s most disadvantaged communities.”
He added: “With 600 victims of serious youth violence each month, the Met needs a new plan to tackle the violence on our capital’s streets if they are to help impoverished communities.
==========

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.

 

[JakeStarkey]

2aguy keeps ignoring the logic of the numbers: that in Greater London, despite by accident or deliberate or drug related or suicide or whatever, a person stands12 times to 18 times safer of not being shot than in America (numbers adjusted per capita). 2aguy says that is not because of UK's gun laws, but can offer no serious evidence for his position.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy keeps dodging the numbers: that in Greater London, whether by accident or deliberate or drug related or suicide or whatever, you stand 12 times to 18 times safer of not being shot than in America (numbers adjusted per capita). 2aguy says that is not because of UK's gun laws, but can offer no serious evidence for his position.

And yet, I did. The culture of British criminals does not include easy or random murder. As I just showed you, the gun murder rate stayed the same, spiking for years after the ban, and did not change after they took guns away from normal, law abiding people....the criminals are still using their guns for the same rate of gun murder as before the ban....

So it isn't access to guns that causes their gun murder rate...since it didn't change after they took guns away from their law abiding people. If it was access to guns...then after they took them away from the people who don't use them to kill people....then their gun murder rate would have gone down, not stayed the same..

And.......now that they have decades of single teenage girls being mothers to young males, without fathers......their violence levels are through the roof....and their murder rates are going to go up....

Also...they have imported violent, 3rd world people, who do not have British values towards easy and random murder.....so again, this will drive up their murder rates....

get back to me in a few years.

 

[danielpalos]

This article lists all of the gun control laws that California has.....and all of them combined could not stop this guy from shooting 3 people.

The guy was a felon..which means he couldn't buy, own or carry a gun in any other state......and he had multiple gun convictions and he was still walking around free.....

Had they done what I have suggested....and put this felon in jail for 30 years for his illegal possession of guns as a felon......those people would still be alive ....

So......what is the next law that you guys want...that won't work....?

Strict California Gun Control Impotent to Stop Fresno Attack - Breitbart

California has universal background checks, which means no one can legally buy a gun without doing so via a background check under the auspices of a Federal Firearms License (FFL). California also requires all firearms to be registered with the state, and has gun confiscation laws, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, and so much more. Yet not one of these laws prevented Muhammad’s attack.

It is interesting to note that Breitbart News pointed out the futility of a “high capacity” magazine ban, even as California Democrats were pushing it as part of a public safety campaign last year. After all, the Santa Barbara attacker, Elliot Rodger, only used 10-round magazines in shooting three people to death on May 23, 2104. “High capacity” magazines were not necessary.

We saw the same thing in Fresno Tuesday, where the Los Angeles Times reports that Muhammad allegedly used a .357 revolver to kill three innocents. In other words, he used a gun that does not even take magazines; a gun that requires the shooter to open a cylinder, eject the shell casings, and reload every five to seven shots.

In addition, Muhammad was a felon, which means he faced a 100 percent gun ban, yet he had a gun on Tuesday. Moreover, Tuesday’s attack was not the first time Muhammad had possessed a gun as a felon: the Times noted that he “was indicted by a federal grand jury in February 2005 for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm for drug trafficking and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, after a Fresno police officer searched his car and found two large bags of cocaine, a loaded handgun and two rifles.”

What is your point? We have Ten religious Commandments from a god; yet, we also have, man made laws on the books. If only, Persons could be moral enough, to be legal to our own laws.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy keeps ignoring the logic of the numbers: that in Greater London, despite by accident or deliberate or drug related or suicide or whatever, a person stands12 times to 18 times safer of not being shot than in America (numbers adjusted per capita). 2aguy says that is not because of UK's gun laws, but can offer no serious evidence for his position.

And on the other end....as America went from 200 million guns in the 1990s to close to 400 million guns in 2016.....and from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense, legally, to over 15 million people carrying guns legally for self defense...

--our gun crime rate went down 75%....after banning guns Britains gun crime rate in London is up 42%....

--our gun murder rate went down 49%...after banning guns Britains gun murder rate spiked, then stayed the same.

--Our violent crime rate went down 72%.....after banning guns Britains violent crime rate has kept going up...

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.

No matter how you look at it....law abiding people who own and carry guns for self defense, does not increase the crime rate or the gun murder rate....in fact.....we show the exact opposite effect...making the basic argument of anti gunners untrue......that more guns = more crime and gun violence......

Their fundamental argument against gun ownership by normal people is not true, not based in fact and not supported by any of the evidence here or overseas.

 

[2aguy]

This article lists all of the gun control laws that California has.....and all of them combined could not stop this guy from shooting 3 people.

The guy was a felon..which means he couldn't buy, own or carry a gun in any other state......and he had multiple gun convictions and he was still walking around free.....

Had they done what I have suggested....and put this felon in jail for 30 years for his illegal possession of guns as a felon......those people would still be alive ....

So......what is the next law that you guys want...that won't work....?

Strict California Gun Control Impotent to Stop Fresno Attack - Breitbart

California has universal background checks, which means no one can legally buy a gun without doing so via a background check under the auspices of a Federal Firearms License (FFL). California also requires all firearms to be registered with the state, and has gun confiscation laws, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, and so much more. Yet not one of these laws prevented Muhammad’s attack.

It is interesting to note that Breitbart News pointed out the futility of a “high capacity” magazine ban, even as California Democrats were pushing it as part of a public safety campaign last year. After all, the Santa Barbara attacker, Elliot Rodger, only used 10-round magazines in shooting three people to death on May 23, 2104. “High capacity” magazines were not necessary.

We saw the same thing in Fresno Tuesday, where the Los Angeles Times reports that Muhammad allegedly used a .357 revolver to kill three innocents. In other words, he used a gun that does not even take magazines; a gun that requires the shooter to open a cylinder, eject the shell casings, and reload every five to seven shots.

In addition, Muhammad was a felon, which means he faced a 100 percent gun ban, yet he had a gun on Tuesday. Moreover, Tuesday’s attack was not the first time Muhammad had possessed a gun as a felon: the Times noted that he “was indicted by a federal grand jury in February 2005 for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm for drug trafficking and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, after a Fresno police officer searched his car and found two large bags of cocaine, a loaded handgun and two rifles.”

What is your point? We have Ten religious Commandments from a god; yet, we also have, man made laws on the books. If only, Persons could be moral enough, to be legal to our own laws.

I am asking anti gunners.......what other laws do they think would have stopped this convicted felon, who could not legally buy, own or carry a gun...from buying, owning and carrying this gun and shooting people.

The only law I know that would have kept these people alive.....a 30 year prison sentence for violent criminals who use a gun for a crime....he was arrested for illegal gun possession in 2005...had he served 30 years...like they do in Japan....he would have been in jail, and these 3 people would still be alive....

gun registration, background checks, magazine limits.....none of them would have or did, stop this guy.

 

[2aguy]

And another point.....the British banned and confiscated guns after the mass shooting in Dunblane, Scotland....how many other mass shootings did they have to justify disarming all of their citizens and exposing them to violent criminal attack?

There was one in 1987, the Dunblane in 1996, and then in 2010....after they banned guns....they had one in Cumbria (12 people killed....after they banned and confiscated guns.....which they did to stop these types of shootings after Dunblane)

So.....when the British people were allowed to have guns....they didn't have many mass shootings.....total of about 1 before Dunblane..........after they banned guns and confiscated them...so far they have had....1.......

Their gun ban and confiscation didn't even change their mass shooting number........

 

[JakeStarkey]

2aguy keeps dodging the numbers: that in Greater London, whether by accident or deliberate or drug related or suicide or whatever, you stand 12 times to 18 times safer of not being shot than in America (numbers adjusted per capita). 2aguy says that is not because of UK's gun laws, but can offer no serious evidence for his position.

And yet, I did. The culture of British criminals does not include easy or random murder. As I just showed you, the gun murder rate stayed the same, spiking for years after the ban, and did not change after they took guns away from normal, law abiding people....the criminals are still using their guns for the same rate of gun murder as before the ban....

So it isn't access to guns that causes their gun murder rate...since it didn't change after they took guns away from their law abiding people. If it was access to guns...then after they took them away from the people who don't use them to kill people....then their gun murder rate would have gone down, not stayed the same..

And.......now that they have decades of single teenage girls being mothers to young males, without fathers......their violence levels are through the roof....and their murder rates are going to go up....

Also...they have imported violent, 3rd world people, who do not have British values towards easy and random murder.....so again, this will drive up their murder rates....

get back to me in a few years.

And yet you did not. We are talking about rates now, not rates in the future.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy keeps dodging the numbers: that in Greater London, whether by accident or deliberate or drug related or suicide or whatever, you stand 12 times to 18 times safer of not being shot than in America (numbers adjusted per capita). 2aguy says that is not because of UK's gun laws, but can offer no serious evidence for his position.

And yet, I did. The culture of British criminals does not include easy or random murder. As I just showed you, the gun murder rate stayed the same, spiking for years after the ban, and did not change after they took guns away from normal, law abiding people....the criminals are still using their guns for the same rate of gun murder as before the ban....

So it isn't access to guns that causes their gun murder rate...since it didn't change after they took guns away from their law abiding people. If it was access to guns...then after they took them away from the people who don't use them to kill people....then their gun murder rate would have gone down, not stayed the same..

And.......now that they have decades of single teenage girls being mothers to young males, without fathers......their violence levels are through the roof....and their murder rates are going to go up....

Also...they have imported violent, 3rd world people, who do not have British values towards easy and random murder.....so again, this will drive up their murder rates....

get back to me in a few years.

And yet you did not. We are talking about rates now, not rates in the future.

No...I pointed out that banning guns didn't lower the gun murder rate in Britain. It in fact went up for years after they took guns away from normal, law abiding British people....and simply went back to the same level it was at before the ban...showing that gun crime is not a problem of armed law abiding people...and that they banned guns in Britain and didn't get anything for it other than more gun murder, and more gun crime.....

Their gun murder rate was the same after the ban as before the ban...so access to guns wasn't the problem....British criminals don't commit murder...American criminals in democrat voting districts commit murder......

 

[2aguy]

So.....as this attack shows we already have all the laws on the books the anti gunners want...and yet they keep saying we need more.......and they can't come up with actual laws that will stop this attack....

 

[2aguy]

France has more extreme gun control laws than California....you cannot buy, own or carry guns there...they have no gun stores and no gun shows...so they don't need registration or background checks, since you can't get these guns....

and another terrorist got another AK-47 and murdered a police officer...in a country and a city with extreme gun control.....

Champs-Élysées‬‬ attack: 1 police officer killed, another injured in Paris shooting

 

[2aguy]

So...the guy in France was a convicted criminal who had served 15 years on a 20 year sentence for trying to kill police officers....and had been arrested the month before for trying to buy illegal guns as a convicted criminal.....and he still got a fully automatic rifle, that is completely banned in France where you can't go to a gun store or gun show or buy one in a private sale.......which means they don't need background checks or registration because normal people can't own rifles or pistols...and this guy, as a convcited criminal couldn't even if they allowed it.....and he was even on a government terrorist watch list......

So anti gunners...be brave....France has all of the gun laws you say you want...every, single, last one......and this guy still got a fully automatic military rifle....

And the only thing that kept him from killing lots of people....he chose to shoot at armed police.....instead of one of the many gun free targets he could have chosen......

Pure, dumb luck is not an intelligent gun control policy...

 

[esthermoon]

This article lists all of the gun control laws that California has.....and all of them combined could not stop this guy from shooting 3 people.

The guy was a felon..which means he couldn't buy, own or carry a gun in any other state......and he had multiple gun convictions and he was still walking around free.....

Had they done what I have suggested....and put this felon in jail for 30 years for his illegal possession of guns as a felon......those people would still be alive ....

So......what is the next law that you guys want...that won't work....?

Strict California Gun Control Impotent to Stop Fresno Attack - Breitbart

California has universal background checks, which means no one can legally buy a gun without doing so via a background check under the auspices of a Federal Firearms License (FFL). California also requires all firearms to be registered with the state, and has gun confiscation laws, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, and so much more. Yet not one of these laws prevented Muhammad’s attack.

It is interesting to note that Breitbart News pointed out the futility of a “high capacity” magazine ban, even as California Democrats were pushing it as part of a public safety campaign last year. After all, the Santa Barbara attacker, Elliot Rodger, only used 10-round magazines in shooting three people to death on May 23, 2104. “High capacity” magazines were not necessary.

We saw the same thing in Fresno Tuesday, where the Los Angeles Times reports that Muhammad allegedly used a .357 revolver to kill three innocents. In other words, he used a gun that does not even take magazines; a gun that requires the shooter to open a cylinder, eject the shell casings, and reload every five to seven shots.

In addition, Muhammad was a felon, which means he faced a 100 percent gun ban, yet he had a gun on Tuesday. Moreover, Tuesday’s attack was not the first time Muhammad had possessed a gun as a felon: the Times noted that he “was indicted by a federal grand jury in February 2005 for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm for drug trafficking and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, after a Fresno police officer searched his car and found two large bags of cocaine, a loaded handgun and two rifles.”

Unfortunately you can't stop a criminal who wants to find guns. No matter how many gun control laws you have
Even where citizens are not allowed to handle guns criminals have all the guns they want...

 

[2aguy]

This article lists all of the gun control laws that California has.....and all of them combined could not stop this guy from shooting 3 people.

The guy was a felon..which means he couldn't buy, own or carry a gun in any other state......and he had multiple gun convictions and he was still walking around free.....

Had they done what I have suggested....and put this felon in jail for 30 years for his illegal possession of guns as a felon......those people would still be alive ....

So......what is the next law that you guys want...that won't work....?

Strict California Gun Control Impotent to Stop Fresno Attack - Breitbart

California has universal background checks, which means no one can legally buy a gun without doing so via a background check under the auspices of a Federal Firearms License (FFL). California also requires all firearms to be registered with the state, and has gun confiscation laws, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, and so much more. Yet not one of these laws prevented Muhammad’s attack.

It is interesting to note that Breitbart News pointed out the futility of a “high capacity” magazine ban, even as California Democrats were pushing it as part of a public safety campaign last year. After all, the Santa Barbara attacker, Elliot Rodger, only used 10-round magazines in shooting three people to death on May 23, 2104. “High capacity” magazines were not necessary.

We saw the same thing in Fresno Tuesday, where the Los Angeles Times reports that Muhammad allegedly used a .357 revolver to kill three innocents. In other words, he used a gun that does not even take magazines; a gun that requires the shooter to open a cylinder, eject the shell casings, and reload every five to seven shots.

In addition, Muhammad was a felon, which means he faced a 100 percent gun ban, yet he had a gun on Tuesday. Moreover, Tuesday’s attack was not the first time Muhammad had possessed a gun as a felon: the Times noted that he “was indicted by a federal grand jury in February 2005 for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm for drug trafficking and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, after a Fresno police officer searched his car and found two large bags of cocaine, a loaded handgun and two rifles.”

Unfortunately you can't stop a criminal who wants to find guns. No matter how many gun control laws you have
Even where citizens are not allowed to handle guns criminals have all the guns they want...

Thank you.....

 

[esthermoon]

This article lists all of the gun control laws that California has.....and all of them combined could not stop this guy from shooting 3 people.

The guy was a felon..which means he couldn't buy, own or carry a gun in any other state......and he had multiple gun convictions and he was still walking around free.....

Had they done what I have suggested....and put this felon in jail for 30 years for his illegal possession of guns as a felon......those people would still be alive ....

So......what is the next law that you guys want...that won't work....?

Strict California Gun Control Impotent to Stop Fresno Attack - Breitbart

California has universal background checks, which means no one can legally buy a gun without doing so via a background check under the auspices of a Federal Firearms License (FFL). California also requires all firearms to be registered with the state, and has gun confiscation laws, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, and so much more. Yet not one of these laws prevented Muhammad’s attack.

It is interesting to note that Breitbart News pointed out the futility of a “high capacity” magazine ban, even as California Democrats were pushing it as part of a public safety campaign last year. After all, the Santa Barbara attacker, Elliot Rodger, only used 10-round magazines in shooting three people to death on May 23, 2104. “High capacity” magazines were not necessary.

We saw the same thing in Fresno Tuesday, where the Los Angeles Times reports that Muhammad allegedly used a .357 revolver to kill three innocents. In other words, he used a gun that does not even take magazines; a gun that requires the shooter to open a cylinder, eject the shell casings, and reload every five to seven shots.

In addition, Muhammad was a felon, which means he faced a 100 percent gun ban, yet he had a gun on Tuesday. Moreover, Tuesday’s attack was not the first time Muhammad had possessed a gun as a felon: the Times noted that he “was indicted by a federal grand jury in February 2005 for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm for drug trafficking and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, after a Fresno police officer searched his car and found two large bags of cocaine, a loaded handgun and two rifles.”

Unfortunately you can't stop a criminal who wants to find guns. No matter how many gun control laws you have
Even where citizens are not allowed to handle guns criminals have all the guns they want...

Thank you.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

2aguy keeps dodging the numbers: that in Greater London, whether by accident or deliberate or drug related or suicide or whatever, you stand 12 times to 18 times safer of not being shot than in America (numbers adjusted per capita). 2aguy says that is not because of UK's gun laws, but can offer no serious evidence for his position.

And yet, I did. The culture of British criminals does not include easy or random murder. As I just showed you, the gun murder rate stayed the same, spiking for years after the ban, and did not change after they took guns away from normal, law abiding people....the criminals are still using their guns for the same rate of gun murder as before the ban....

So it isn't access to guns that causes their gun murder rate...since it didn't change after they took guns away from their law abiding people. If it was access to guns...then after they took them away from the people who don't use them to kill people....then their gun murder rate would have gone down, not stayed the same..

And.......now that they have decades of single teenage girls being mothers to young males, without fathers......their violence levels are through the roof....and their murder rates are going to go up....

Also...they have imported violent, 3rd world people, who do not have British values towards easy and random murder.....so again, this will drive up their murder rates....

get back to me in a few years.

And yet you did not. We are talking about rates now, not rates in the future.

Our murder rate is less than 4 per 100000 if we look at those rates without just a few major urban shit holes where gun violence is rampant our murder rate plummets to levels more akin to those European countries you love so much

Our problem lies in the state of our ultra-violent urban areas not with law abiding people owning firearms

 

[Defiant1]

Yet with very harsh gun laws in the UK, no one was shot in Greater London. Hmmm.

You are referring to a country of people who believe they are servants.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet with very harsh gun laws in the UK, no one was shot in Greater London. Hmmm.

You are referring to a country of people who believe they are servants.

No, I am not. You clearly do not understand that the numbers indicate that you are safer in Greater London than in Los Angeles or New York on any given day. That has nothing to do with servitude.