Sorry 'bout that. My intention was to bring a bit of humour in and not to ridicule.

that's a bit of a generic fact man, according to that theory states like Arizona and Texas should be deserted wastelands..

What was shocking to me about the riots is seeing that they were allowed to carry on for DAYS, and mind you, I'm not blaming the cops on the streets, cos they have no support or adequate directives from the chain of command, it's the system that is utterly inadequate.

it's ok, it's just not the way I think, I agree we need to loosen the spirit a bit, but there are other ways to do it. No hard feelings mate :)

it's surprising btw how the ones without firearms are way more violent and offensive than the armed ones, tells a lot about the spirits really..

Bad spelling, posts about swedish bikiniteam and polarbears, socialist pov. And I thought I really stood out as a swede. :-D

2nd amendment is not about freedom as a hole but freedom to bear firearms. A major difference there. When talking to pro-guns I get the feeling that they think I want to severely limit their freedom which is totally wrong - just a tiny bit of it. ;-)
Reason I highlight the year the 2nd amendment was adopted is because life was different back then. People needed guns to hunt and protect them selfs from wild animals plus that the lawenforcement system was more or less non existing compared to today.
I totally support the right to bear arms in 1791 and actually I support it for people who live lifes similar to back then (like some distant places like Alaska). However, I can't see the need for a gun when living uptown Dallas (as an example).

Sternjaeger II, you really don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about. Troll elsewhere.

Well, I can't vent myself on the range so I do it on the Internet. :-D

Glad to see the spirit of the old PL coming back. I predict Nearmiss will get his hands full shortly. :-D

Well fortunately there's people like yourself that can enlighten us poor imbeciles on what's right and wrong.. I, unlike you, motivate my statements with suitable examples, you don't. You remind me of a certain other forum member that was banned recently and adopted your same style.. you, sir, are the troll here.

So:

US - guns are good because you can defend yourself plus it's a right and you don't want to let that right go because that's giving in to the government. High gun crime but less petty crime per capita.

UK - guns are bad but you pretty much never need to defend yourself. Most people have never owned guns or been involved with or threatened with them so don't really mind laws against them as it isn't a big deal. Not a lot of gun crime but more petty crime.

Italy - same as the US with minor differences. Less gun and petty crime.

To summarise I've looked at various websites with various stats. I have no idea if they're correct or not and I can't bother quoting them as everyone can look themselves. For the US I have no doubt that gun crime in some areas is high and in others non existent. You can't really consider the US as in many ways it is 50 different countries.

What was suprising is that per capita Sweden and Switzerland came out quite high up, though with small populations any gun crime will bump the figures up.

And despite the tragedy of Norway and its currently bad gun crime rating (and just typing that makes me curse myself for almost trivialising the tragedy) it is a fantastic beautiful place with friendly, generous and great people; it just has its share of malcontents or lunatics. Just like everywhere else really.

Anyway, this started off about the UK riots. They're done and dusted now and we won't see them again for a long time. Can we shoot this thread in the head?

Hood

That's another interesting aspect. Most shootings here are done by organised crime having some disputes like HA fighting Bandidos or russian mafia killing off some ukranian mafia.
Very seldom are the victims innocent.
Instead we're going for world domination by selling furnitures with hidden intelligence in em.