|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
UK: UK Struggles to Combat Gun and Knife Crime as London Murder Rate Tops New York City
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
If these acts of violence strike you as the goings-on in Chicago or Baltimore, you’d be wrong. These incidents occurred under the “gold standard” of gun control in London, England.
The killings are part of a surge in firearm and knife crime in the England and Wales. The increase in London homicides has been so profound that for the first time in recorded history the UK capitol’s murder rate has surpassed New York City’s.
According to New York Police Department data gathered by The Sunday Times, the law enforcement agency initiated 14 murder investigations in February and 21 murders investigations in March. London’s Metropolitan Police reported 15 murder investigations for February and 22 for March. |
| Comment by:
-none-
(4/8/2018)
|
| in sweden such as malmo the islamic kiddos roam the streets with AKs and there has been a spate of grenade attacks on police and other islamics...bosnia/balkans war surplus stuff |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
