RE: More shootings.
December 29, 2012 at 10:36 am
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2012 at 10:37 am by CapnAwesome.)
(December 29, 2012 at 8:59 am)Anymouse Wrote: The II Amendment, while its militia clause was only (in the last twenty years) interpreted to mean "anyone with money to buy a gun" rather than how it is written, does not prohibit the stringent regulation of firearms.
And note that New York has released its firearm related deaths for this year, and in keeping with its strict laws on gun ownership had its lowest homicide rate this year by firearms in living memory.
A couple of points in response to these two statements. First you totally incorrect about the interpretation of the second amendment coming to mean personal ownership of a gun in the last 20 years. People have owned personal firearms since the beginning of this country. George Washington in fact owned personal firearms, as did many of the founders. I don't know where you got that piece of information.
Second, firearm related murders are irrelevant, who cares how you are murdered. If my loved one is stabbed to death, do I go "Well phew, at least it wasn't a firearm." This is a blatantly propagandized statistic that has no relevance on actual murder rates. The UK has less "handgun deaths" than Switzerland, but 5 times the actual murder rate. Get the difference? So the actual murder rate is the important statistic.
Yes, New York's actual murder rate has fallen too. But so has the murder rate for the entire country. In places where gun regulation hasn't changed at all, we've seen the same drop in murder and violent crime. You have to look at these statistics in a larger context to really understand their significance, or lack thereof.
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)