https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZF8G1ux9Gg
According to GunPolicy org:
Deaths by firearms in the U.S. in 2011:
32 351
Rate per 100 000 citizen in U.S. in 2011:
10.38
The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in the United States is 101.05 firearms per 100 people
Deaths by firearms in France in 2011:
1 781
Rate per 100 000 citizen in France in 2011:
2.73
The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in France is 31.2 firearms per 100 people
Deaths by firearms in UK in 2011:
146
Rate per 100 000 citizen in UK in 2011:
0.23
The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in the United Kingdom is 6.7 firearms per 100 people
Not that I wouldn't understand that if there are many guns that one wants to protect against them (especially if a minor against an adult wanting to do stuff), but besides the issue of a few filling their pockets with sale of what is called a necessity and not everyone can afford really and the same people apparently not being shy to sell to e.g. cartels from what I heard, but as if endless arms race while even making indirect remark towards as if U.S. citizen are justified to rise in arms against a "dictator" such as even Hillary Clinton apparently if the citizen want to say so (which btw would probably mean even more spending for U.S. defense even tho already quite high surprisingly considering that many consider personal arms to be sufficient to combat crime and whatnot), I do not find it to be a proper policy about anything, particularly then in regard to a proper economy which is not simply based on a few years of spending for technically luxury goods such as guns arguably are.
On the other hand, if I were a shareholder too I could of course also just argue in role of a citizen for stuff which makes my shares go up (even tho with policy of inflation increase due to money printing ultimativly in value down even if nominally up), but I would not find such argumentation worthy of a citizen respectivly of a properly political engaged person. I mean, even if I would see no problem with guns considering them the same as if a thrown knife, a country where one has to have their back covered at all times does not seem a country which could really be considered social or civilized. So to me a policy of "let's maximally allow one six-round revolver per person" might still not be what one would consider as if a proper country where it isn't as if castle kings fending each for themselves (instead of being really one society such as some would call nation), but sounds to me still way better than some policy of what comes off as "everyone having the money should spend it on anti-tank weapons because you may never know when a tank does attack, and don't forget to pick up flak too, and heard about sniper weapons? Well, a rocket launcher may be able to help with that, or just get yourself a tank. etc. etc."
0 hlasů
Nejdiskutovanější názory