2005 Murder andnon negligent homicide ranks and Brady campaign grades for gun laws, top 4 and bottom 4 states .
Ranking State Grade
1 DC B Murder Capital of the Nation
2 MD A-
3 LA F
4 NV D
48 ME D-
49 IA C+
50 VT D
51 ND D
How can you give the top two murder centers in the US high marks based on laws and not on results?
2007-02-13 22:09:27 · 10 answers · asked by pretender59321 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
4 What its Worth: And that with a solution that will not work.
Timothy B: I think we agree that enforcement and follow through (punishment for crimes) is a major issue!
2007-02-13 22:36:45 · update #1
b: You have a much higher opinion of the intelligence of Liberal Politicians than I do. LOL
2007-02-13 22:38:10 · update #2
Of course. Many think that this sort of thing validates their arguments for gun control. So what would their solution be I wonder? Make sure everyone is UNarmed except of course for the criminals and who will ALWAYS have access to guns. This guy was crazy and he was determined to kill people If it hadn't been a gun, it would have been something else. Some times you just may need MORE than a nice hug, understanding and a chat over a cup of coffee. Hard to get that through to some of those on the far left though who would love to take away another one of our rights.
2007-02-13 22:32:53 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The question is: "How can you give the top two murder centers in the US high marks based on laws and not on results?"
I Respond: Maybe because gun laws are not necessarily the only factor in the amount of murders committed in a geographic area.
In 2008, Americans should DEMAND that the candidates make local law enforcement THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE. Period!
2007-02-14 06:31:10 · answer #2 · answered by Timothy B 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Regrettably, there will be more calls for gun-control. People answer to politicians, and sinc emost people focus on treatign symptoms of societal problems, rather than the porblems, so will the politicians.
Canada has restrictions on guns, yet Vancouver isn't suffering from a lack of firearms-related crimes. One of the safest nations is Switzerland, which requires all military-age males to have a firearm. Not a lot of Swiss serial-killers.
2007-02-14 06:21:04 · answer #3 · answered by ericnifromnm081970 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Two words: good intentions. They figure that because they try to stop crime and put all these good-looking measures into effect, crime will stop. Let me tell you, letting people keep their guns as is expressly stated in the Bill of Rights as well as the Declaration of Independence (the whole life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness thing) makes life a lot safer. I love how the places with the strictest gun laws have the highest rate of gun-related crime -- it just goes to show, making something illegal only draws attention to it and makes demand for it skyrocket.
2007-02-14 17:56:17 · answer #4 · answered by Richard S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There's already too many gun laws.
And any new law would not have solved this problem.
As Abe Lincoln kind of said, - "If any man is willing to die in the attempt to kill the President (Lincoln), - nothing can stop him".
Same way at the Utah mall.
2007-02-14 06:17:38 · answer #5 · answered by MK6 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You know they will. They actually appear to believe that
if the Terrorists take over America that The terrorists will
allow them freedom and rights,& be able to rule this nation
with them,but that isn't gonna happen. The enemies of our
nation just uses them,& will try to kill them too once they get
what they want from them. The terrorists know that they are
traitors to their own country so they don't wanna run the risk
that they will betray them to their enemy too if they don't have
their demands met.
2007-02-14 06:16:26 · answer #6 · answered by babyd0ll621 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Um... What happened in Utah wasn't a gun control problem. It was a social problem. An individual with a lot of social problems.
So as a liberal... um... you know the saying... Guns don't kill people...
2007-02-14 06:18:43 · answer #7 · answered by shiroi 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You need to stop listening to biased reports. I am a liberal and own a gun as do all my liberal friends. We figure one day we may need them to protect ourselves from having our rights taken away. Whether we are fighting an outside enemy or one within our own borders, it helps to be prepared. Do I think some guns should be banned? Yes. Like assault weapons. Hand grenades are illegal, why shouldn't other weapons capable of wide destruction be? But I have no issue with people owning handguns or rifles. In fact, I'd like to recommend that all liberals who don't have guns arm themselves. We may need to.
2007-02-14 06:54:26 · answer #8 · answered by Hillaryforpresident 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
They lost big time the last time they tried to take our guns. I don't think they are stupid enough to try it again.
2007-02-14 06:36:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Guns don't kill people;
PEOPLE kill people.
2007-02-14 06:17:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋