|
|
|
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:
How Guns Fuel Crime
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Annual crime stats will be released this week, and the number of people killed in gun-related violence is expected to be as high as ever. Chandre Gould and Adele Kirsten argue that interviews with men who are serving time in jail for violent crimes indicate that gun ownership alone is a key problem
Hlupha was eight when he got his first gun. |
| Comment by:
jac
(9/28/2015)
|
Another pair of flaming liberals that want to uninvent gun powder.
Apparently, they actually believe that more gun laws in a country with draconian gun laws will disarm the thugs? That is wishful thinking as it will not happen.
(con't)
|
| Comment by:
jac
(9/28/2015)
|
(con't)
Note that the number of licensed (legal) gun owners in South Africa decreased from 2.4 million to 1.8 million from 1994 to 2011 as the result of very strict gun laws. This in a country with a population of 53 million. Therefor, legal gun owners comprise less than 3.5 percent of the population. They disarmed 600,000 people, but the criminals have no problem getting guns as is documented in the article.
If it were possible to eliminate guns, that would just give the stronger, younger thugs absolute dominance over their victims and eliminate even the minor threat of robbing the wrong person and getting shot.
Be careful what you wish for.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
