should they why?
I wholeheartedly disagree. There should be strict limits on who can have firearms and who can purchase them. Enforce our existing laws to the fullest.
Conservatives always do this. They play on your rights whenever you want to legislate something they don't want, saying you are loosing your freedoms. Then when they want to slap regulations or bans on something they say it is protecting your freedoms.
You either are willing to sacrifice rights and freedom for the illusion of security or you are not. It isn't a play on anything. It is what it is. People who argue to restrict firearms ownership do so because they believe that such restrictions will make them safer all the while ignoring the fact that the states with the strictest gun control measures in place have the highest gun crime rates.
Ultimately, you are responsible for your own protection and safety.
Interestingly though countries with strict gun control measures do not.
In england, since the broad gun ban went into effect in 1997,violent crime rate has risen 69 percent with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. From 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent.
Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the
population -- have been victimized by violent crime. In Australia more than 30 percent of its population have been victims of violent crime. In the US, less than 2% of the population have been victims of violent crimes.
Very similar trends can be seen in canada and australia.
Muder rate is not the same as "murder via firearm"...do you have stats on that?I found some interesting stats - that are surprising and disturbing. In terms of violent crime - particualrly murder, US is #24 - but note numbers 1-23, all pretty Third World countries or countries with substantial amounts of unrest, corruption, and lack of law. Australia and Canada are 42 and 43 respectively. UK is 46, Ireland is 55. Source is http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita.