And yet in spite of that and the adoption of sidearms by many British police officers on the beat their nation still registers just a handful of gun murders per year.
Now how do you explain that?
And when British criminals and mental patients could buy guns freely, they had even fewer
gun murders, one year hitting zero
. Their gun murder rate went up
when they restricted guns. How do you explain that?
Festivus Toad wrote:
As far as your random invocation of Luxemborg. It's great they're homicide rate is more than Germany. Their rate is also half of ours.
From the Harvard Law Review, their murder rate is twice
ours, at nine point one per hundred thousand, but their rate bounces around because the data set is so small, whereas Russia always
has a higher murder rate than the US, and handguns are illegal there.
That's why the US Supreme Court not only couldn't find a positive public safety effect of DC's gun restrictions, which they sought to weigh against Constituional restrictions, they pointed to data showing the ban made things worse
. When top government lawyers a criminologists can't make a case than gun restictions clearly decrease the homicide rate, and can't refute arguments that widespread gun ownership correlates to decreased
homicide rates at the county, state, and international levels in countless studies, you really run out of coherent arguments that don't invoke magical thinking and childlike ignorance.
Thus the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution grants Americans the right to own useful, commonly used guns as a personal
constitutional right. Good luck getting the Constitution amended.