Will all these firearm laws actually help reduce violence?

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (49 posts)

58
FreedomFighter33posted 11 years ago
In short the answer is no. Liberals say that less guns out in the people's hands the safer everyone will be, but the truth is the only people that will be safer are the criminals. There is a reason most mass shootings occurred in gun free zones, the perpetrator wants to do the most amount of damage possible and what better way to do that then go where you are sure there will be no good guys or gals with firearms that could defend themselves and everyone else. I am proud to say that I am a registered trained CCW permit holder and I exercise my right to carry and defend my family legally. I urge everyone out there to do some research into this topic. I could keep typing but what is the point you won't believe me, you don't know me. And before you snap judgment on firearms go out and shoot them, please try them out. I did this with one of my co-workers and guess what her and her husband went that same day and bought their first guns. These are people that were completely against guns they didn't even like pellet guns that's how bad they were, but two hours on the range with a variety of firearms they went and bought a Kimber 1911 and S&W AR-15.
reply report
1. 65
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Gun regulations and buy-back programs significantly reduced gun-related homicides and suicides in Australia.
  reply report
  77
  Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph has always had a very weak understanding of the concept that freedom may be abused by some people, but that doesn't mean that freedom is not worth protecting and fighting for.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes they did. Gun laws reduced gun related homicides in Australia.
  
  And at the same time increased homicides using other tools, so your point is?
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "And at the same time increased homicides using other tools, so your point is?"
  
  Are you sure about that? Not according to this chart showing homicides in Australia:
  
  Source:http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opini … n-too.html
  
  "In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996."
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  1) While you may view a decrease in homicide rate 8 years after the action (gun buyback) as indicative that the buyback caused the decrease I don't. And don't believe that anyone without an axe to grind will view it that way, either.
  
  The quote, in an editorial from a man very obviously patting himself on the back for political "points" claims that gun related homicides fell; a no brainer that I've never contested. He also claims that suicides in general fell, without offering any evidence whatsoever. Again, should you choose to believe a politician "on the stump" it is your prerogative but something I decline to do without supporting evidence.
  
  Same thing for gun massacres; a very careful statement that homicides in that category decreased with no mention of the wider, more important, category. Care to guess why the statement was so carefully limited?
  
  Are you beginning to understand where I'm coming from, Ralph? Every single piece of data you've presented is for gun related homicides and completely ignores the proven fact that homicide rates don't fall with gun ownership. You keep producing the same tired old stats, and getting the same tired old replies from me, but isn't it about time you actually looked at those stats? You're a smart man - put it to use, drop the preconceived common sense notion and look at it with an open mind questing for answers.
  reply report
  77
  Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are asking the impossible.
  
  The best use of Ralph is as a straight man so that we can show the fence-sitters the willingness of the anti-firearm side to knowingly using non-factual material, to eagerly presenting emotions as discussion-points instead of reason and logic, and to be bankrupt in any ideas that can help solve the problem.
  
  A number of hubbers and readers have mentioned to me that reading Ralph helped change then from anti-gun to pro-gun. All in all, he is actually a "plus" for our side.
  reply report
  54
  whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I can see that.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Lol, I still can't believe that someone can be perfectly willing to use Source A as a source for an argument, until they find out it actually says the opposite of what they thought, then all of a sudden it's not a valuable source.
  
  Even harder when all of your arguments are on the internet, can't be changed, and anyone can see your hypocrisy. That's just typical of the emotionally-driven though.
  reply report
  54
  whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Most of the arguments against the second amendment usually boil down to we shouldn't have that right. Its too bad for them that we do.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I wouldn't go that far. The problem is that this, particularly after Newtown, is a very emotional issue. It hurts to see something like that happen.
  
  It is also a very "common sense" problem in that the answer to the solution is obvious. It takes time, effort and a very objective mind set to understand and accept that guns aren't the problem, and few are willing to provide any of the three, let alone all of them.
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'm a moderate -leaning towards gun control- on this but I have to say that both sides look like bloody morons.
  
  Just an observation from a fence sitter.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I agree! (I include myself in the 'bloody morons' )
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Every single piece of data you've presented is for gun related homicides and completely ignores the proven fact that homicide rates don't fall with gun ownership. "
  
  Not true. The data I presented were ALL HOMICIDES. Contrary to your previous comment, total homicides decreased following the passage of gun control laws in Australia:
  
  Homicide statistics
  
  Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population.
  
  Murder is the predominant charge and has been throughout the 18-year data-collection period. In 2006-07, there were 230 murder charges, 28 manslaughter charges, one infanticide charge, and one unknown. The type of charge against an offender may change once the incident proceeds through the judicial process.
  
  In 2006-07, there were 260 homicide instances, involving 266 victims and 296 offenders.
  
  Note: The majority of homicide data presented below is derived from two main sources with different data collection cycles. The charts and tables derived from the Institute's National Homicide Monitoring Program data set is collected on a financial year cycle. The other charts and tables are based on ABS data which is collected on a calendar year cycle.
  Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)
  
  Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)
  
  The number of murder victims fluctuated slightly from 1993 to 2007, whereas manslaughter remained relatively stable.
  The number of murder victims peaked in 1999, at 344; the number of manslaughter victims peaked in 2002, at 48.
  The 253 murder and 29 manslaughter victims recorded in 2007 were the lowest annual number yet recorded.
  
  Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 to 2006-07 (number)
  
  Chart: Trends in homicide incidents
  
  The figure shows that although there have been fluctuations from year to year, the number of homicide incidents has shown a steady decline since the inception of the NHMP in 1989. 2006-07 saw the second-lowest number of homicide incidents in the collection period.
  
  Source: AIC National Homicide Monitoring Program 1989-90 to 2006-07 [computer file]
  
  Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003
  
  Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003
  
  Source: Adapted from ABS causes of death 1915-2003 data
  
  The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Did you even read my post? Sure, look at homicide rates from '93 to '07 and you will find a decrease. Look at the rate from '93 to '03 (including the big gun buyback in '96) and there is no decrease; they actually increased slightly until '93. Guns are gone, there is no discernible change in homicide rate but a gun buyback caused a decrease in that rate?
  
  When you declare that a buyback program that happened in '97 and took 600,000 guns out of circulation in that one year but had no effect for another 7 years whereupon it caused a big decrease, I have to question that line of reasoning.
  
  "The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968." (bolding and italics added)
  
  Your point in this? I believe it's exactly what I'm complaining about with your stats. Or are you explaining that gun related homicides began declining long before the big buyback and the rate of decline was unaffected by that buyback?
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'll stick with Prime Minister Jon Howard's statement:
  
  "And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996."
  
  Moreover, the Australian government statistics I cited show that all homicides in Australia declined following the gun control laws adopted in 1996. This refutes your unsupported theory that if guns are banned homicides will continue unabated using knives, baseball bats, poison, etc.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Lol Ralph, you didn't read what he said.
  
  He said X.
  
  You said 'Nu-uh, X'.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  ' "And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996." '
  
  I don't think any more need be said on that account.
  
  Moreover, the very stats you provided clearly show that for 7 years after the gun buyback the total homicide rate remained very constant. Coupled with the statement from the prime minister that "gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996" I can only conclude that non gun-related murders increased sharply. When the total does not change but a subset does it indicates (to me anyway) that a different subset had to change in the opposite direction to maintain the total. Your arithmetic may be a little different, but that's how I see it.
  
  You have a good day, Ralph. When you not only refuse to read what I post but also refuse to read what you yourself post I don't see any reason to continue the debate. Another day, another subject perhaps.
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Did you actually look at your graph?
  
  Yes? Is it your claim then that a steady decline beginning in '79 is the result of a gun buyback in '97?
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The Chart's label didn't appear. The graph represents gun homicides as a percentage of total homicides. It does appear to show a decline in homicides due to guns following the adoption of gun control laws. It's true that gun homicides had begun to decline previous to the gun controls and buy back program. Here's the title that I thought would appear on the chart. Contrary to some 2nd amendment supporter claims, homicides didn't increase with more stringent gun controls and a reduction in the number of guns in the country.
  
  Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003
  
  Here's Politifact's take on the effect of gun control in Australia:
  
  http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-co … australia/
  
  FULL ANSWER
  
  The e-mail says that "[i]t has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms." Actually, it’s been 13 years since Australian gun law was originally changed. In 1996, the government banned some types of guns, instituted a buyback program and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. Gun ownership rates in Australia declined from 7 percent to 5 percent. Another law in 2002 tightened restrictions a bit more, restricting caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.
  
  Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.
  
  Homicides in Australia
  
  Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.
  
  Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.
  
  So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect. But the only argument we’ve seen arguing that it caused an increase in murder comes from our anonymous e-mail author.
  
  The claims about Australian gun control were circulating as far back as 2001, when Snopes.com went over them and concluded that they were a "small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics" signifying little.
  
  Deeds comment: I accept that correlations don't prove cause and effect relationships, because most effects have multiple causes. [For example some blame the president when gasoline prices go up when the truth is oil and gas prices in the short run especially are determined by factors beyond his control.]
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, that makes more sense.
  
  As far as I know, Australia (is that the graph?) had no really strong gun laws prior to '96, where the chart ends. Some, but not terrible restrictive.
  
  If, however, gun ownership decreased during the period, it clearly shows that the percentage of homicides using guns decreased at the same time. As the homicide rate did not decrease (or at least not at the same rate of decrease), it thus shows that when guns aren't available something else will be used, which is just what I've been saying.
  
  Of course, that's simply combining this graph with the earlier one, that started at 1993. From that point on, this graph shows a first derivative of something around -1 while the previous graph showed about a 0. Which is what tells us that no guns = other weapons.
  report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  See my amplified comment acknowledging that cause and effect relationships are hard to
  prove.
  report
  96
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  1) I at least have never claimed the homicide rate goes up without guns; on the contrary I have repeatedly said there is NO correlation. Because there is no correlation a causal effect is denied. Not unknown; denied. If there is a causal relationship then there will be a correlation in these graphs; no correlation = no causal relationship. Basic logic 101; A. B. Not B. therefore, not A.
  
  2) Again (third time, I think) looking at numbers 8+ years after an action gives no correlation at all. There is no need to keep pointing at it as I don't accept it.
  
  3) More rhetoric about gun homicides as similarly rejected as irrelevant just as it was before.
  report
  57
  taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This is the current Australian figures. Gun laws did little to slow anything down.
  reply report
  54
  whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … on_LEADTop
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. Another "authoritative" link just went into my gun control hub. It's good to see that someone else looked at the same data I did and came to the same conclusion.
  reply report
2. 59
  ib radmastersposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I agree.
  
  The real problem with guns is suicide and gangs.
  reply report
60
movingoutposted 11 years ago
I don't believe people are against all guns. Just those that have clips/magazines that have the ability to shoot more then 10 shots. Many like me, would require private sales to involve a background investigation as well.
reply report
1. 58
  FreedomFighter33posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I am all for the background investigations. But as for the magazine topic I think it is ridiculous. Criminals don't care about the laws so they will keep their large capacity mags and that means that we as law abiding citizens will be even further out gunned.
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And they will gradually be taken away.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, because no more guns could possibly be smuggled into the US. And none could possibly be made, especially since we can now print 3D objects at home.
  
  You could print a metal rifle, at home. How do you propose we prevent that from happening?
  reply report
2. 77
  Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And when reducing the number of rounds that guns hold to ten doesn't help in the least little bit to reduce crime then the mantra will be: If we reduce the number to only FIVE then THAT will solve the problem. And when that doesn't solve the problem then the hue and cry will be to reduce the number of rounds that a gun holds to one...
  
  And, of course, when THAT doesn't work...
  
  And when requiring background checks for everyone doesn't do a thing to reduce crime then...
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is no, one silver bullet. A variety of measures will have a good result.
  reply report
  77
  Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And when Ralph is shown to be 100 percent wrong...Those who knew in advance that the first step, the second step, and the tenth step would not work to reduce crime will be the loudest in shouting for the next step.
  
  And Ralph lets freedom dribble away in the vain hopes of actually keeping criminals from being criminals.
  reply report
60
movingoutposted 11 years ago
I remember a study years ago in Phili. The 2 year study showed people carrying weapons to protect themselves, were more likely to be shot or killed. Maybe it makes sense? If confronted by an armed individual robbing you with no gun, he probably won't shoot you. But confront that robber with a gun of your own and he will immediately shoot out of being shot himself. Your thoughts?
reply report
1. 77
  Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I remember a study that said a woman was much better off just laying back and letting the rapist have his will. Otherwise she ~really~ might get hurt.
  reply report
  60
  movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  @Jack Burton...My example shows many who have guns for protection will hesitate to the point of getting shot or killed just by showing that gun. Your example, as ludicrious as it its, might not end in death. And to go further on your example, as i remember the your study, it also said a "man" was much better off just laying back and letting the rapist have her will. I'm not saying don't fight back if confronted but yours obviously does.
  reply report
  77
  Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately for you, your "example" doesn't match reality. I can show you thousands of actual articles directly from the mainstream media where ordinary citizens saved themselves and others with the judicious use of a gun against a social deviant who was victimizing them. You can't show me bupkis to back up your claim.
  
  Doesn't that give you a clue about something? At some point in time you people have to stop living in the fantasy land in your head and confront reality.
  reply report
53
Laura Prado-Ochoaposted 11 years ago
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Plain and simple.
reply report
1. 54
  whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We've tried that fact and they still don't get it.
  reply report
60
movingoutposted 11 years ago
If people didn't have guns, perhaps people wouldn't get killed?
reply report
1. 54
  whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Are you serious?
  
  No guns no deaths?
  reply report
2. 77
  Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This reminds me of my favorite Bible verse in Genesis where Abel asked his brother, Cain, "Crikey, mate, where'd you get that Glock?"
  reply report
58
FreedomFighter33posted 11 years ago
Also if I remember correctly Philly is a no carry city. That means even if you do have a CCW in PA you cannot legally carry in that city. Furthermore if you do carry and hesitate at the opportunity to defend yourself, you should not have that weapon. I for one do carry, I have had extensive training both civilian and military, and won't hesitate to pull the trigger.
reply report
1. 77
  Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This is not true. You can legally carry in Philly if you have a CCW.
  reply report
58
FreedomFighter33posted 11 years ago
Sorry for the incorrect data the laws have changed since I last renewed my CCW but the fact still remains a person who carries is safer than one that does not. And thank you for pointing out my error.
reply report
56
Education Answerposted 11 years ago
Guns protect people a lot better than "No Guns Allowed" signs.
reply report
57
taburkettposted 11 years ago
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Will all these firearm laws actually help reduce violence?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Will all these firearm laws actually help reduce violence?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies