Good thing Britain doesn't have the 2nd Amendment and banned guns.....these criminals would be getting shot all over the place.

[2aguy]

That happened in the UK?

Across the pond, and Americans, with guns, stopped the mass murder and kept the British from having to send their Jews and others to death in the German socialist death camps.

 

[otto105]

Also, the majority of those killed in gun murder in the U.S. 70-80% of the victims are criminals...not innocent people. Of the other 20-30% of the victims, the vast majority are the friends, family and associates of criminals hit by mistake.....

Meanwhile, the 15 million people murdered between 1936-1945 in Europe after they banned guns......in order to keep their citizens safe.........they were not criminals, they were innocent men, women and children..........

Additional figures from the CDC show there were 19,384 firearm-related homicides in the US in 2020 – 646 times greater than the UK which recorded 30 murders and manslaughters in the year ending 31 March 2020, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Why do you want to murder 19,354 more people in the UK?

 

[2aguy]

Additional figures from the CDC show there were 19,384 firearm-related homicides in the US in 2020 – 646 times greater than the UK which recorded 30 murders and manslaughters in the year ending 31 March 2020, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Why do you want to murder 19,354 more people in the UK?

Which is why I also used 20,000 a year to cover years where the number of gun murders was above average.......and even with that increase, over 246 years, it doesn't even come close to the 15 million murdered across Europe...after they banned guns......

and, of course, gun crime in the U.K. is increasing...which is the point. Their criminals are becoming more and more violent, and their gun laws are not stopping them. The British police state they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into their country.......

And you still didn't answer the question....

Which do you prefer, that the woman and her 14 year old daughter were brutally raped, or that they use a gun to shoot and kill the rapist?

Why won't you answer that question?

 

[otto105]

Which is why I also used 20,000 a year to cover years where the number of gun murders was above average.......and even with that increase, over 246 years, it doesn't even come close to the 15 million murdered across Europe...after they banned guns......

and, of course, gun crime in the U.K. is increasing...which is the point. Their criminals are becoming more and more violent, and their gun laws are not stopping them. The British police state they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into their country.......

And you still didn't answer the question....

Which do you prefer, that the woman and her 14 year old daughter were brutally raped, or that they use a gun to shoot and kill the rapist?

Why won't you answer that question?

Why are you answering a question about gun violence and crime with war statics. Your crime ones don't support your fetish with guns?

 

[2aguy]

Why are you answering a question about gun violence and crime with war statics. Your crime ones don't support your fetish with guns?

Not war statistics.....the 15 million people murdered were not casualties of the war. These people lived in European countries that did what you wanted...they banned guns, and 15 years after banning guns, they murdered 15 million people...more people murdered in 6 years than in 246 years of gun murder in the U.S.....

Now....

why don't you answer my question.....your cowardice is showing....

Which do you prefer, the woman and her 14 year old daughter brutally raped by a repeat criminal offender, or they use a gun to shoot and kill the criminal?

Why won't you answer that question?

 

[Vagabond63]

or they use a gun to shoot and kill the criminal?

You have a fixation on KILLING people with guns, why is that?

 

[Vagabond63]

Across the pond, and Americans, with guns, stopped the mass murder and kept the British from having to send their Jews and others to death in the German socialist death camps.

That was the Russians, more than the Americans. Sadly the Nazis in America took over the NRA and gradually evolved into the current GOP.

 

[otto105]

Not war statistics.....the 15 million people murdered were not casualties of the war. These people lived in European countries that did what you wanted...they banned guns, and 15 years after banning guns, they murdered 15 million people...more people murdered in 6 years than in 246 years of gun murder in the U.S.....

Now....

why don't you answer my question.....your cowardice is showing....

Which do you prefer, the woman and her 14 year old daughter brutally raped by a repeat criminal offender, or they use a gun to shoot and kill the criminal?

Why won't you answer that question?

Sure, the NAZIs again.

Now what relevance does that fascist regime from history have to do with gun crime in the UK?

 

[2aguy]

You have a fixation on KILLING people with guns, why is that?

No, I have a fixation on innocent people being able to live their lives without being raped, robbed, beaten, stabbed or murdered......having the means to stop that....

 

[2aguy]

That was the Russians, more than the Americans. Sadly the Nazis in America took over the NRA and gradually evolved into the current GOP.

No....that is another leftist lie.....the Russians were losing to the Germans, Bigly, until the United States entered the war, re-supplied the Russians since they lost the vast majority of their war material when they staged it for the invasion against Germany, but the Germans invaded first capturing or destroying their stock piles, and Stalin murdered his best and most competent military commanders during the great purges.....the U.S. also distracted the Germans during their Russian campaign at least twice, giving the Russians breathing room to regroup....

The socialists in the U.S. are the democrats, not the NRA or the GOP...

 

[2aguy]

Sure, the NAZIs again.

Now what relevance does that fascist regime from history have to do with gun crime in the UK?

Answer my question.........

Which do you prefer, that the mother and her daughter are brutally raped by a repeatedly released violent offender, or they are able to use a gun to shoot and kill him?

 

[Vagabond63]

No, I have a fixation on innocent people being able to live their lives without being raped, robbed, beaten, stabbed or murdered......having the means to stop that....

Most people in Europe manage to live their lives without needing guns at all, it's called civilisation. From what you preach, America seems to be a barbarous country full of murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. that requires everyone to carry guns to protect themselves, sad.

 

[Vagabond63]

No....that is another leftist lie.....the Russians were losing to the Germans,

Certainly when the Nazis invaded in June 1941 and the Soviets lost a lot of garrison troops and outdated equipment, but the Nazi offensive ran out of steam (much like Putin's in the Ukraine) and on the 5th December 1941 the Soviets launched a major counter attack and started pushing the Nazis back on their own. American aid didn't start flowing until October 1941, so had minimal effect until 1942.

 

[Vagabond63]

Which do you prefer, that the mother and her daughter are brutally raped by a repeatedly released violent offender, or they are able to use a gun to shoot and kill him?

There you go again, "shoot and KILL him", why does every criminal have to be killed in your world?

 

[2aguy]

Most people in Europe manage to live their lives without needing guns at all, it's called civilisation. From what you preach, America seems to be a barbarous country full of murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. that requires everyone to carry guns to protect themselves, sad.

You have lived post World War 2 for a few decades now, but life in Europe is changing....your welfare states have created more and more fatherless children and they are turning to drugs, gangs and violence ..... and you imported 3rd world males who do not appreciate British culture, British law, and do not fear the British police....

 

[2aguy]

Certainly when the Nazis invaded in June 1941 and the Soviets lost a lot of garrison troops and outdated equipment, but the Nazi offensive ran out of steam (much like Putin's in the Ukraine) and on the 5th December 1941 the Soviets launched a major counter attack and started pushing the Nazis back on their own. American aid didn't start flowing until October 1941, so had minimal effect until 1942.

Wrong.....


A second mention is in the Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev, who wrote, "If the U.S. had not helped us, we would not have won the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me." A third appraisal comes from Marshal Georgy Zhukov, who in a reported private conversation in 1963 said, "It cannot be denied that the Americans sent us material without which we could not have formed our resources or continued the war."

Read more: Lend-Lease: How the US Kept the Soviets Afloat in World War II
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Lend-Lease: How the US Kept the Soviets Afloat in World War II

=========


Russia's D-Day message: You're welcome

It’s true that Russia had to contend with more German units than the Allies did in France. This ignores the fact that the Allies had fought the Nazis in North Africa and up the Italian peninsula for several years prior to D-Day, not to mention the naval warfare that the US and UK conducted. Furthermore, even after the Soviets allied with the US, UK, and Free France, they pointedly refused to declare war on Japan, where the US and the Commonwealth were committing massive forces against Hitler’s ally. Stalin declared war on Japan only after the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to demand territorial gains.

----------

Only after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union did Stalin and the communists begin shrieking about a “second front,” ignoring the fact that the Brits had been fighting one in North Africa. (The US joined that front soon after Pearl Harbor.)

The Italian campaign tied up a number of German units as well, especially after Mussolini ran out of Rome and the Italians switched sides.
=========

This article looks at the Soviets during world war 2, their intention to invade the west, which was beaten by Germany invading two weeks early and why they lost so quickly at first...

Russia In World War 2

But what Russian historiography censored for decades, is the large scale of total morale collapse of Soviet armed forces and Communist party establishments which escaped, 'disappeared', or surrendered before they even were engaged in battle. Millions, from privates to Generals, individually or as entire units, abandoned their tanks, guns, air bases, without battle, and escaped on vehicles or on foot, or simply disappeared into the nearby villages and forests.
Fighting and then losing is one thing. Massive and rapid escape without a fight and massive voluntary surrender, are another, and Soviet censorship tried to hide that, by further intensifying the myth of the destructiveness of the German attack, and by further intensifying the belief that the entire red army was right on the border. There are reports of entire unit staffs which escaped without battle and were found again hundreds of kilometers to the East. There were tens of Generals who disappeared and were never located again. There are reports of tank divisions which, although they were not right on the border and were not engaged in fighting in the first day, miraculously 'lost' 100% of their tanks and other fighting equipment in the second day of fighting, without actually being engaged in battle, and then escaped hundreds of kilometers eastwards almost without losing a single truck even to technical malfunction. There are reports of entire Air Force regiments which reported that they suffered negligible or no losses in the air or on the ground at the first day, and then simply abandoned their air bases and escaped by trucks and on foot. In 1941 Russia lost millions of soldiers. Only 32% of the reported losses were the dead and wounded. Millions surrendered, many of them as fast as they could, and so many others escaped from the front, either disappeared or remained in service, but only after a distant escape and after abandoning every weapon or equipment, even rifles and light mortars, that could force them to stay and fight.
The apparent reasons for this mass unwillingness to fight were:

• A further intensified mental shock of those who were always trained educated and taught others that attack and victory are the only possible option, and suddenly found themselves under massive surprise attack for which they never planned or prepared.
• Stalin, the murderous dictator, was surrounded with people who told him much too often what he wanted to hear about Russia's preparations for war. The enormous reported numbers of material production and manpower training were perhaps correct. For example the figures of vast mass-training of pilots (which, by the way, were NOT volunteers, unlike pilots anywhere else in the world), and received minimal training, in order to keep up with the enormous training quotas dictated by Stalin.But what Stalin never suspected, was the possibility that in his regime of mass terror and fear, where so many millions were imprisoned and millions others killed by the police, and where tens of millions starved for years in order to pay for the enormous cost of the vast effort to convert Russia with a period of just two decades from a mostly agricultural country to an industrial militarist super-power with gigantic military power. Stalin never suspected that under a massive attack on his brutal regime, the people, the millions of soldiers who previously suffered from the regime, millions were former political prisoners of which many were recruited from hard labor prisons directly to war front military service, will favor surrender to defending their homeland, or will have no willingness to fight immediately as they realized that since they're country is being massively attacked there's a good chance that they can escape from the war without being punished by the formidable regime. Given the possibility that for the first time in their life non-cooperation with the Communist regime will NOT be severely punished, so many favored that option, and that's something the Russian censorship could never admit.
  So while in all material aspects Russia was enormously prepared for war, and could therefore theoretically manage much better than it did, even under a massive surprise attack, in morale terms, the Russian people in the front (which rapidly moved East all across the long front), were generally unwilling to fight for their terrible terror regime once fear of it was lost since the regime itself was being attacked and in danger.

Click to expand...

Also...The Biggest Mistakes In World War 2

• In 1941, Stalin received a stream of information from military intelligence and spies, that Germany is going to invade Russia, as Hitler promised since the 1920s. After discussions, Stalin decided that the information was inconclusive and perhaps deliberate disinformation, and decided that there will be no invasion. As the invasion came nearer, the stream of information indicating invasion intensified, but then Stalin forbid his advisors from further disturbing him with it. Anyone who still suggested that there might be a German invasion, risked execution. Fear was such that when the invasion started, no one dared to awake Stalin and tell him about it, until Zhukov, the deputy supreme commander, told Stalin's bodyguards that he takes responsibility for awakening the dictator and telling him the bad news.

• Both Hitler and Stalin refused to allow retreats, as a matter of principle and regardless of the military situation. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers in each side died in vain because they were not allowed to retreat when was necessary. Russia almost lost the war because of that in 1941, and Hitler's army suffered horrible losses because of that, mainly in the winter of 1942 and in Stalingrad a year later.

Until April 1941, Russia was at war with Japan in the far East, and in 1941-1942 it fought desperately against the German invasion. But since the end of the battle of Stalingrad in Feb. 1943, Russia knew that it was going to win the war, and that Germany and Japan were losing it. It was convenient for Russia to focus entirely on defeating Germany and leave the war against Japan entirely to the US, which also provided Russia with enormous material support. During the war, Russia provided air bases for British heavy bombers which bombed Germany, but refused to provide such bases for American bombers in the Russian far East, apparently in return for a quiet Japanese agreement not to attack American supply convoys sailing to Russia's far East ports.

And from wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_World_War_II

At the same time, Hitler was worried about American popular support after the U.S. entry into the war following the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and a potential Anglo-American invasion on the Western Front in 1942 (which did not occur until the summer of 1944). He changed his primary goal from an immediate victory in the East, to the more long-term goal of securing the southern Soviet Union to protect oil fields vital to the long-term German war effort.[82] While Red Army generals correctly judged the evidence that Hitler would shift his efforts south, Stalin thought it a flanking move in the German attempt to take Moscow.[81]

----In 1943, Stalin ceded to his generals' call for the Soviet Union to take a defensive stance because of disappointing losses after Stalingrad, a lack of reserves for offensive measures and a prediction that the Germans would likely next attack a bulge in the Soviet front at Kursk such that defensive preparations there would more efficiently use resources.[142] The Germans did attempt an encirclement attack at Kursk, which was successfully repulsed by the Soviets[142] after Hitler cancelled the offensive, in part, because of the Allied invasion of Sicily,[143] though the Soviets suffered over 800,000 casualties.[144] Kursk also marked the beginning of a period where Stalin became more willing to listen to the advice of his generals.[145]

In the initial hours after the German attack commenced, Stalin hesitated, wanting to ensure that the German attack was sanctioned by Hitler, rather than the unauthorized action of a rogue general.[SUP][53][/SUP] Accounts by Nikita Khrushchev and Anastas Mikoyan claim that, after the invasion, Stalin retreated to his dacha in despair for several days and did not participate in leadership decisions.[SUP][54][/SUP] However, some documentary evidence of orders given by Stalin contradicts these accounts, leading some historians to speculate that Khrushchev's account is inaccurate.[SUP][55][/SUP]
In the first three weeks of the invasion, attempting to defend against large German advances, the Soviet Union suffered 750,000 casualties, and lost 10,000 tanks and 4,000 aircraft.[SUP][56][/SUP] In July 1940, Stalin completely reorganized the Soviet military, placing himself directly in charge of several military organizations, which gave him complete control of his country's entire war effort; more control than any other leader in World War II.[SUP][57][/SUP]
A pattern soon emerged where Stalin embraced the Red Army's strategy of conducting multiple offensives, while the Germans soon overran each of the resulting small newly gained grounds, dealing the Soviets severe casualties.[SUP][58][/SUP] The most notable example of this was the Battle of Kiev, where over 600,000 Soviet troops were quickly killed, captured or had gone missing.[SUP][58][/SUP]
By the end of 1941, the Soviet military had suffered 4.3 million casualties[SUP][59][/SUP] and the Germans had captured 3.0 million Soviet prisoners, 2.0 million of which would die in German captivity by February 1942.[SUP][56][/SUP] German forces had advanced c. 1,700 kilometers, and maintained a linearly-measured front of 3,000 kilometers.[SUP][60][/SUP] The Red Army put up fierce resistance during the war's early stages. Even so, according to Glantz, they were plagued by an ineffective defense doctrine against well-trained and experienced German forces, despite possessing some modern Soviet equipment such as theKV-1 and T-34 tanks.
Click to expand...

At the same time, worried by the possibility of American support after their entry into the war following the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and a potential Anglo-American invasion on the Western Front in 1942 (which would not actually happen until 1944), Hitler shifted his primary goal from an immediate victory in the East, to the more long-term goal of securing the southern Soviet Union to protect oil fields vital to the long-term German war effort.[SUP][69[/SUP]

The Germans did attempt an encirclement attack at Kursk, which was successfully repulsed by the Soviets[SUP][78][/SUP] after Hitler canceled the offensive, in part, because of the Allied invasion of Sicily,[SUP][79][/SUP] though the Soviets suffered over 800,000 casualties.[SUP][80][/SUP]

Yeah, it is hard to understand the Soviets...



also from wikipedia on the Red Army...


Red Army - Wikipedia

The unprepared Soviet forces suffered much damage in the field because of mediocre officers, partial mobilization, an incomplete reorganization and mainly because they were arranged to attack Central Europe, and not to defend Soviet territory.[SUP][39][/SUP] The hasty pre-war forces expansion and the over-promotion of inexperienced officers (owing to the purging of experienced officers) favored the Wehrmacht in combat.[SUP][39][/SUP]

And another great mistake by Stalin that almost lost the war for the Soviets...

Purges

Further information: Case of Trotskyist Anti-Soviet Military Organization
The late 1930s saw the so-called Purges of the Red Army Cadres, which occurred concurrently with Stalin's Great Purge of Soviet society. In 1936 and 1937, at the orders of Stalin, thousands of Red Army officers were dismissed from their commands. The purges had the objective of cleansing the Red Army of the "politically unreliable elements", mainly among higher-ranking officers. This inevitably provided a convenient pretext for the settling of personal vendettas or to eliminate competition by officers seeking the same command. Many army, corps, and divisional commanders were sacked, most were imprisoned or sent to labor camps; others were executed. Among the victims was the Red Army's primary military theorist, Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky, perceived by Stalin as a potential political rival. Officers who remained soon found all of their decisions being closely examined by political officers, even in mundane matters such as record-keeping and field training exercises.[SUP][72][/SUP] An atmosphere of fear and unwillingness to take the initiative soon pervaded the Red Army; suicide rates among junior officers rose to record levels.[SUP][72][/SUP] Most historians believe that the purges significantly impaired the combat capabilities of the Red Army. However, the extent of the consequential damage attributable to them is still debated.
Recently declassified data indicate that in 1937, at the height of the Purges, the Red Army had 114,300 officers, of whom 11,034 were dismissed. In 1938, the Red Army had 179,000 officers, 56% more than in 1937, of whom a further 6,742 were sacked. In the highest echelons of the Red Army the Purges removed 3 of 5 marshals, 13 of 15 army generals, 8 of 9 admirals, 50 of 57 army corps generals, 154 out of 186 division generals, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars.[SUP][73][/SUP]
The result was that the Red Army officer corps in 1941 had many inexperienced senior officers. While 60% of regimental commanders had two years or more of command experience in June 1941, and almost 80% of rifle division commanders, only 20% of corps commanders, and 5% or fewer army and military district commanders, had the same level of experience.[SUP][74][/SUP]

 

[2aguy]

There you go again, "shoot and KILL him", why does every criminal have to be killed in your world?

He might not die....and which would you prefer, that the woman and daughter are brutally raped by the repeatedly releases violent criminal or they shoot him....? To stop the attack or merely get lucky, point the gun at him and he runs away to rape a woman who doesn't have a gun?

 

[2aguy]

Certainly when the Nazis invaded in June 1941 and the Soviets lost a lot of garrison troops and outdated equipment, but the Nazi offensive ran out of steam (much like Putin's in the Ukraine) and on the 5th December 1941 the Soviets launched a major counter attack and started pushing the Nazis back on their own. American aid didn't start flowing until October 1941, so had minimal effect until 1942.

You don't know what you are talking about even on this issue....without the U.S. the Soviet Union would have been conquered by the Germans....

The Germans sustained MASSIVE casualties on the various fronts in which they were compelled to engage the Americans. You see, there was this fellow named General George Patton you may have heard of him whose genius and aggressive tactics gave the German high command many nightmares.
Not only did the Germans have to contend with Patton, but America’s presence meant that Germany’s own greatest General, Erwin Rommel, and millions of his tenacious fighting forces were tied up in Africa and later Italy and France. Had it not been for Americas entry into the war, Britain would have been out of the picture as well. Rommel’s armies would thus have been fighting and tipping the balance against what would have been an under-supplied Red Army on the Eastern front.
------
Oh, and by the way need we remind of the utter devastation wreaked upon German industry and German civilians by the “Bomber Boys” of the US & UK Air Forces? Wave upon wave upon wave of Allied heavy bombers mercilessly banged Germany throughout 1943 and 1944. ‘Ya think’ all of that urban destruction, railroad-bombing, refinery bombing, factory bombing, deliberate dam-busting and straight-up primitive warfare might have hindered the German war effort, just a tad? Maybe
-----

Certainly at key times western allied intervention did much to alleviate considerable pressure for the Russians on the eastern front.

The American and British descent on North West Africa in November 1942 forced the Germans to not only deploy scare troops and tanks to Tunisia, but also to occupy Southern France, thus seriously spreading German forces even more thin just right before the Russians launched their powerful counter-attack at Stalingrad.


Likewise the allied invasion of Sicily in July 1943 was extremely problematic for the Germans as they were attempting their last great offensive on the eastern front at Kursk to regain at least some initiative against the Russians. It was in fact the reason why Hitler halted the offensive, which marked the point in the war where the Russians seized and retained the initiative for the rest of the conflict.

Hitler ordered significant formations from the eastern front to the Mediterranean, and while ultimately much of them were not sent, the Germans lost any chance, however small, of winning at Kursk, and thus it could be argued the Western Allies had a significant effect on the result of the battle.

Even the much criticized invasion of Italy had appreciable effects for the Russians. The Germans rightly feared the Italians were poised to switch sides to the allies and they deployed perhaps 20–25 divisions in Italy from mid-1943 to the end of the war.


The invasion also forced the Germans to disarm countless Italian divisions which ultimately amounted to nearly 1 million soldiers in Italy, the Aegean, Greece and Yugoslavia. These soldiers had to be replaced, by German ones, and it is obvious that having to disarm and replace 1 million Axis soldiers, along with considerable amounts of tanks, planes, artillery and other equipment, could be nothing but beneficial to the Russians who fought the lion-share of the German army.
-----


Finally, the ever increasing threat of a western allied invasion of Western Europe in 1944 forced the Germans to keep significant forces, perhaps 60 divisions and a disproportionate amount of armor, in the west.


Hitler was so obsessed with defeating such an invasion that he drained reinforcements to the eastern front and the lack of such forces helped the Russians to inflict perhaps the biggest defeat the Germans suffered during the war in the summer of 1944. As Nigel Davies noted in a piece regarding misleading statistics for the war “in sheer combat power, the removal of ten percent of divisions (say 20 divisions) from the Eastern Front to face the Western Allies (happened 3 times — Tunisia/Mediterranean 1942, Sicily/Italy 1943, and France 1944) looks a lot more significant if it involves moving 50% of the available Panzers and 70 or 80% of the high quality, full strength, specially equipped, Paratroop or Mountain or Waffen SS divisions.”

 

[otto105]

Answer my question.........

Which do you prefer, that the mother and her daughter are brutally raped by a repeatedly released violent offender, or they are able to use a gun to shoot and kill him?

Geezsus! Now it’s a repeat offender and damn must be a minority and possibly a muslim….


I choose a gun restricted society which doesn’t have the gun crimes that we have.


Even in the olde west the sheriff took your guns at city limits to reduce crime.

 

[2aguy]

Geezsus! Now it’s a repeat offender and damn must be a minority and possibly a muslim….


I choose a gun restricted society which doesn’t have the gun crimes that we have.


Even in the olde west the sheriff took your guns at city limits to reduce crime.

You assume, as the ass that you are, that the gun control laws keep criminals from getting and using guns......ask Sweden how that is working out for them....their criminals are on the escalation path, having gone from shooting each other in the legs and butt, to now killing each other....and they are using grenades like confetti too....

Britain is on that path, their criminals are using guns to kill now, where before they would shoot to wound.......

Our gun crime is 95% due to the policies of the democrat party releasing violent gun offenders, and attacking the police to the point they will not do their jobs for fear of persecution, and are quitting and retiring in huge numbers......

How do I know this.....?

Because as more Americans bought and carried guns our gun crime rate went down...until 2015 when the democrat party adopted their anti-police, pro-criminal policies.....


You have to explain away the following.....

Over 27 years, from 1993 to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019 (in 2020 that number is 21.52 million)...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
======

The gun murder and gun suicide rates in the U.S. both remain below their peak levels. There were 6.2 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2020, below the rate of 7.2 recorded in 1974.


What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?

What changed in 2015?

The democrat party did 3 things...

1) they began a war on the police that forced officers to stop pro active police work, allowing criminals to run wild.

2) they began to release the most violent and dangerous gun offenders over and over again, not matter how many times they had been arrested for gun crimes

3) they used their brown shirts, blm/antifa to burn, loot and murder for 7 months in primarily black neighborhoods while the democrat party mayors ordered the police to stand down and not stop them......in order to hurt Trump during the election.