2011-01-09, 08:54 AM
Satellite Wrote:Yahh right, you don't get it. What I'm saying is that people should need to go through personality and background tests and so on.Personallity and Background checks will not stop criminals from obtaining guns. The criminals will just simply find another way to obtain a gun. These restrictions would only stop law abiding citizens that are unwilling to break these laws.
We do this in Finland and it works quite well. There is about 0-2 shootings/year. This speaks for itself:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mu...h-firearms
# 4 United States
Finland is not even listed (in the top 46+).
For your link, the United States as a whole should not be ranked in this manner. Our country is larger than most, and our laws vary greatly between states and even cities. I should also mention that our greatest centers of gun and gang violence are areas like Chicago that either have strong gun control laws.
Edit: You should also use the per capita rating. It gives the rating per person (pre 1000 people on that site) and shows the rate of gun violence instead of just how many occur. And of course, the US is knocked down to 8th when you use this comparison, but I maintain that it is not a fair comparision, because gun violence varies greatly across the US and our laws also greatly vary.
Interestingly enough, many students after the Virgina Tech shooting didnt want stronger gun control. They wanted to be able to carry guns on campus. Its quite simply why. If multiple law abiding students had guns, then they would be able to defend themselves from the random crazy people that attempt these school shootings. Of course, we all know how well things went when students where unable to carry guns, only the shooter had one.