|
|
|
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:
MI: Finns could show us the way
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
According to respected criminologist Frederic Lemieux of George Washington University, from 1983 to 2013, statistics show that while the United States had the highest number of guns per inhabitants (88.8 per 100) and 78 mass murders, Finland came in third with 45.3 guns per 100 inhabitants and two mass murders. So, how do we respect our current interpretation of the Second Amendment while also living peacefully? Maybe the Finns could show us the way. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/25/2017)
|
And, was Finland founded upon the same First Principles as the United States?
No. Finland is 'progressive', i.e. state-supersedes-individual.
No sale. |
| Comment by:
jac
(11/26/2017)
|
The Finns also don't have the minority demographics that contributes to most of the crime and shootings in the USA. If you removed the minority crime statistics, the USA would be one of the lowest crime and safest countries in the world.
Any comparison between the USA and Finland crime statistics is meaningless. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(11/27/2017)
|
| You need to compare Finland to Texas for a closer comparison, also see CA, The mid west... Not the USA as a whole!!! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
