No, because you're arguing for a cause that you know is wrong, deep down.
Actually, no.
Another one of your moronic conclusions. I didn't look up your numbers because I was working on my laptop with a relatively tiny screen and a slow connection, but also because they don't actually make a difference. They don't validate your point, at all. What's sad is that you don't see it.
1) My stance against guns has very little to do with what almost happened to my sister. 2) Fewer guns means fewer gun-related crimes. More gun restrictions means fewer gun-related violence. There are many studies that prove this, among them the Harvard study I quoted. 3) Actually, deaths related to cars, tobacco, etc bother me a lot but they belong to another discussion. Are you saying that if you were a doctor, you'd only treat the epidemics? 4) I'd like you to explain your views on freedom and your right to guns to the parents and relatives for the twelve students and one teachers that died in the Columbine massacre.
1) OK. That would otherwise have been a very plausible explanation.
2) But there will still a price to be paid: More unarmed citizens killed or wounded by illegally armed criminals. There is always a price to be paid, but you seem to be comfortable with the law abiding, decent people paying it rather than the criminals. Actually almost 30000 people are killed by guns yearly in the US, but 19000 of them are criminals, killing each other or being killed by the police or law abiding people shooting in self-defense. So in the US more criminals than decent people are killed by guns. In Sweden it's the opposite, since most killed by guns are people committing suicide with a legally owned gun.
3) No, but I say that if fat food causes 30-40 times more deaths than guns, it should be as restricted or even more. That puts it in the right--absurd--perspective. Give me a reason why it shouldn't. Fat food isn't made to kill people but it does and anybody knows it.
4) Sure. It's a precious right to keep and bear arms. Bringing a gun into a school is a crime, even in the US. Killing people on random is first degree murder. It has nothing to do with guns. They could have killed people with axes or machetes, though not as many, but they broke against the fundamental law that it's wrong to kill other than in self-defense. And everybody is responsible for his/her actions, in Sweden from 15 years of age, in anglosaxon countries often even earlier.
Btw, a technicality, the "law-abiding" people in Sweden wanting to "protect" themselves with guns stop being law-abiding the second they get those guns. Thankfully.
What are you talking about? You can have a gun if you have a license, it's just that a license for a pistol is extremely hard to get, and you're not allowed to carry the gun in public. But you can own a gun legally and keep it in your home. If you use it in self-defense, it's up to the court to decide whether it was self-defense or not. But since Swedish legislators, judges and jury people usually are pussies and cowards, who don't live in the real world, it might very well be you ending up in jail for killing, hurting or just scaring the poor burglar. Alas.
Oh, and btw, did you or did you not ever come face to face with an armed criminal?
No, not myself and not an
armed criminal, but I know a rape victim that still is being harassed by the rapist, after that the Swedish "justice" made him pay about $3000 for raping a (then) 13 year old. That was his only "punishment" for destroying a child. And he was 10 years older, so he wasn't too young for a real punishment. The police can't/won't stop him, since he hasn't raped or committed a crime of violence again since. That victim actually wants a gun for self protection but is too young to have one, and it would anyway take 2 years(!) to get a license to have a pistol in your home according to the local shooting club. Hail the Divine Swedish Justice! Hail!
Those percentages make perfect sense, actually, because we are talking about privately owned guns in people's homes. The numbers add up, as they say. And there's more in that study. A lot more. The problem here is that you don't understand, or you don't want to understand.
No, illegal guns are up to the police to stop. N.Y.C. has even harsher (local) gun laws than Sweden but much higher crime rates with guns...The question is: Do
legal access to guns make the crime rate with guns raise dramatically? Have there been any "Columbines" in Vermont, where guns are totally free? No.
