Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 11, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 315

Information about gun control in the U.S. and the 2nd amendment

:icongunshai:
Gunshai Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
Firearms and the laws regarding them have been an issue of controversy since the birth of this nation. Usually the most compelling arguments focus on the "need" of an individual to own firearms. That people in a civilized society don't "need" semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

There may be some truth to this, and I'd be the first to say the only thing that bothers me more than mindless gun control activists regurgitating someone else's opinions are irresponsible gun owners who treat rifles and handguns as toys. And add ridiculous modifications in place of practice and a basic respect for firearms.

However the 2nd amendment was not referring no an individuals "need" it was a satisfactory safeguard to protect the citizens of this new country from being oppressed by anyone ever again, even their own government. This was an attempt to ensure that if an event similar to the American revolutionary war happened again, that the people would be allowed to fight to protect their rights if a peaceful solution could not be reached. Battle of Athens TN This was an event in the U.S. wherein people suffering oppression used their weapons but were still able to show some restraint and decency in resolving their conflict. And would not have had the same results had they been unarmed.

The recently purposed firearm restrictions to be placed on U.S. citizens are somewhat ridiculous, considering it's only slightly different from the original assault weapons ban put in place by the Clinton administration. Which, while in effect, had no noticeable change in the almost random nature of murders and other shootings. In fact, because of this suggested ban gun stores are selling out of "scary black rifles" faster than they can restock. And still there's been no increase in crime. In fact the crime rate has been dropping steadily even without any firearm restrictions. 5 facts on guns and gun violence Here is some further reading that is simple and valid to the conversation.

Please forgive me if my opinions would cause friction between us in conversation. Thanks for reading.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconhungryartistsunited:
hungryartistsunited Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013
Pixel art-vertising: [link]
Reply
:iconmeanus:
meanus Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
first make the government give up their guns, then we will have a discussion about regular folk giving up theirs
Reply
:iconholly-mellor:
Holly-Mellor Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Laws restrict those that follow them, criminals don't follow the law. So HOW will restricting CIVILIANS from having guns prevent CRIMINALS from committing gun crimes?
Reply
:iconmclandis:
Mclandis Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
The new laws include strengthening background checks, which exist to stop criminals from getting ahold of guns.

Also, if gun laws don't work, explain why countries with strict gun laws (like France or Japan) aren't being overrun with gun-toting outlaws.
Reply
:icongunshai:
Gunshai Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
Well said. It's unfortunate that many of the existing laws are in fact well written and exist to allow civilized life to flow more smoothly. . . In theory.
Communism works perfect on paper, all it takes a human mind (which is never without vice) to fuck it up.
Reply
:iconnovuso:
Novuso Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
I love the story of Athens TN. It is a great story of the people fighting back against corruption.

Will add a 6th gun fact here: 446 school age children were shot in Chicago a city with the strongest gun control laws in the country. Gun control does NOT work as it increases violence.
Reply
:icongunshai:
Gunshai Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
Thank you for your comment :)
Normally I would try to turn the conversation towards finding a compromise (even though I agree with you 100%) and make an argument to support gun-control. Because I'd like to be able to examine this problem with you, without bias.
Unfortunately it's apparently impossible to have a mature conversation with the indoctrinated gun control supporters on this site. For all the peace and love crap they spout they are the most hateful and close minded collective I've ever seen. I'm so tired of reading garbage text supporting gun control. Your comment is one of the few oases of intelligence in a wasteland of cowards and fools.
Reply
:iconnovuso:
Novuso Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
You should check out my newest Journal. I think you will like it. One way or another we will beat the collective tyranny. Human beings are not farm animals to be controlled. We are free sovereign individuals with rights sans the government.
Reply
:iconnovuso:
Novuso Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
Some links I forgot:

[link]
[link]

Liberals shed only crocodile tears and only when it suits there gun grabbing agenda. Tally: 62 Children killed in Chicago and 446 shot. Where is the wall to wall 24/7 coverage of this liberals? Crocodile tears indeed.
Reply
:iconferricplushy:
FerricPlushy Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Actually, compared to when the ban was in place, shootings are much more prevalent since the ban was lifted [link]
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
That chart actually shows that the number of shootings increased during the ban. Only their misleading inclusion of 1982, 1983, and 1984 allows them to suggest the ban decreased shootings.
Reply
:iconferricplushy:
FerricPlushy Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
no it doesn't, you goddam fucking liars, it's PER YEAR, so the number of years doesn't have an affect on the average
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I am legion?

And I'm referring to the number of shootings, not the average. There were more shootings during the gun ban than in the ten years previous.
Reply
:iconferricplushy:
FerricPlushy Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
That's because there were more people......but the rate of people shooting each other went down, do you even know what statistics mean? How old are you?
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
(Also, that wasn't statistics, that was data.)
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I have graduated college, and took cal-based statistics coursework. I assure you that I know what statistics mean.

Indeed, I'm working on a comprehensive set of massacre data, including familial massacres. Some preliminary data:
Total massacres:

1970-1979: 28; 2.8 per annum. Population: 203 million-226 million. 0.01305361 massacres annually per million population.
1980-1989: 41; 4.1 per annum. Population: 226 million-248 million. 0.01729957 massacres annually per million population.
1990-1999: 28; 2.8 per annum. Population: 248 million-281 million. 0.01058601 massacres annually per million population.
2000-2009: 45; 4.5 per annum. Population: 281 million-301 million. 0.01546391 massacres annually per million population.
2010-2012: 15; 5.0 per annum. Population: 301 million-301 million. 0.01661129 massacres annually per million population.

Shifting over five years (my data only goes back to 1970, so I'm starting at 1975):
1975-1985: 44; 4.4 per annum. Population: 203 million-226 million. 0.02051282 massacres annually per million population.
1985-1995: 28; 2.8 per annum. Population: 226 million-248 million. 0.01181434 massacres annually per million population.
1995-1985: 29; 2.9 per annum. Population: 248 million-281 million. 0.01096408 massacres annually per million population.
2005-2012: 45; 4.5 per annum. Population: 281 million-301 million. 0.01546391 massacres annually per million population.

For the "per million population" calculations, I took the average of the populations during that timeframe. Population data is from the census, massacres have been tabulated from Wikipedia's list of massacres. (There are a couple of duplicates; Fort Hood shows up twice in my data set, for example, because Wikipedia lists it in two different places. I'm working on resolving this issue, but until it's completely resolved, I'm going with the uncorrected data set.)

(I'm working on similar data for the UK, Australia, etc.)

What's this data tell us? Well, it tells us that the period prior to the assault weapon ban was approximately as safe as the period following it. It also tells us there have been more massacres since it expired than before.

Some very preliminary data from other countries:

United Kingdom
Victims Year Locale
81 1971 Biddenden
19 1980 London
2 1987 Hungerford
86 1989 Monkseaton
97 1994 Birmingham
4 1996 Dunblane
35 1999 London
91 2007 Omagh
9 2010 Copeland, Cumbria
87 2012 Cardiff
1970's - 1 massacre.
1980's - 3 massacres.
1990's - 3 massacres.
2000's - 3 massacres.
No real trend there.

Canada:
11 1970 Creston, BC
60 1972 Kettle Valley, BC
46 1975 Brampton, ON
68 1982 18 km north of Clearwater, BC
112 1983 Coquitlam, BC
93 1984 Quebec City, QC
8 1989 Montreal, QC
21 1996 Vernon, BC
120 2001 Kirkland, QC
121 2002 Quatsino, BC
49 2006 Montreal, QC

1970s - 3
1980s - 4
1990s - 1
2000s - 3

Similar trend to that seen in the US; the early 80's were relatively dangerous, the 90's were relatively safe, the 2000's have seen an increase.

France:
46 1972 Beaurecueil
69 1972 Angoulême
24 1980 Saint-Jean-de-Losne
51 1981 Pont-de-Roide
30 1982 Aire-sur-l'Adour
69 1982 Berre-l'Étang & Mallemort
49 1983 Saint-Martin-le-Noeud
26 1985 Ille-et-Vilaine
7 1989 Luxiol
13 1992 Besançon
85 1993 Metz-Magny
86 1994 Coudekerque-Branche
87 1994 Châtillon-sur-Chalaronne
3 1995 Solliès-Pont & Cuers
88 1995 Paris
67 2001 Tours
18 2002 Nanterre
24 2007 Berrwiller

1970's - 2
1980's - 7
1990's - 6
2000's - 3

France saw a relatively dangerous period in the 80's and 90's, and saw a relatively safe period in the 2000's.

Germany:
14 1970 Fahrdorf
45 1972 Erlangen
33 1980 Munich
31 1983 Eppstein
84 1986 Geisenfeld
44 1994 Euskirchen
20 1996 Frankfurt
71 1999 Bad Reichenhall
34 1999 Bielefeld
39 2000 Salzgitter
5 2002 Erfurt
33 2003 Düsseldorf
29 2006 Berlin
93 2006 Berlin
57 2006 Emsdetten
7 2009 Winnenden & Wendlingen
64 2009 Ansbach
74 2010 Lörrach

1970's - 2
1980's - 3
1990's - 4
2000's - 9

Germany has seen a sharp increase in massacres in the 2000's.

Japan:
90 1970 Shimabara
71 1975 Aki
43 1980 Kumano
28 1982 Tokyo
123 1996 Kokura Station
1999 Shimonoseki, Yamaguchi
18 2001 Ikeda, Osaka
2004 Kakogawa
27 2005 Hikari
45 2008 Tokyo
2010 Hiroshima

1970s - 2
1980s - 2
1990s - 2
2000s - 5

Japan sees a similar trend as Germany; after 3 relatively peaceful decades, the 00's have seen an increase in the number of massacres.

I have other countries; the absolute data in my set is not, nor should it taken to be, comparable (countries report these things differently), but the trendlines are/should be (absent major changes in the way individual countries report their crimes that aren't reflected here).

Why am I collecting all this data? You might eventually see in a post, if I ever get around to finishing compiling it, and run some regressions against it.
Reply
:iconferricplushy:
FerricPlushy Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
If you're so smart then why do you think it's meaningless to compare murders per capita and think only raw murders is relevant?
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Nice strawman. But you're not talking about murders per capita, you're talking about the number of people killed in mass shootings - you're claiming to be able to isolate a single variable in black swan events.

You'd need around 90 mass shootings just to pin down the expected number of casualties with any kind of scientifically-acceptable accuracy. (And then you're talking about the kind of scientific accuracy which is acceptable in shit sciences like sociology. Real science doesn't stop at 1/20 odds of being wrong.) And that would be the number of mass shootings in a given time period, because you need to be able to determine how the expected number of casualties changes over time.

Or, in other words, your source is operating on statistically insignificant data. My data is statistically significant; I've managed to accumulate enough data, about the US at least, to make some statements about expected casualties with something -approaching- a reasonable level of accuracy. (However, unlike the people in your source, I know what the fuck I'm doing, and recognize that it needs a lot more work.)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Actually, discard the victim numbers. I think I transposed a column there. (As I said, the data is very preliminary.)
Reply
:icongunshai:
Gunshai Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013
These charts certainly display the random nature of mass shootings. If we covered random patches of earth with different colors, sprinkled on some birdseed and counted the number of birds to occupy each color we'd probably end up with a similar chart.

The morale is at an all time low, meanwhile our population has been increasing exponentially. Consider the population increase WHILE considering the number of victims.
Yes, there was a massive spike this past year. And your chart shows one fixed number from each year. The spike in 99' (During the assault weapons ban.) Was higher per capita. I'm not saying this is an acceptable number. I'm saying: "Please stop talking and let this thread die." I was attempting to give some simple, accurate pro-gun information (since there were a few well written and intelligent anti-gun arguments and too many of the pro-gun folks commenting were repeating themselves or talking about made up wannabe comando bullshit.) So that a more accurate conversation could be had. Instead everyone went straight to insults and regurgitation. Further proving my point that guns are not the problem, people are.
Thank you for your comment, hope you have a great evening :) I'm gonna go have a glass of probably.
Reply
:iconferricplushy:
FerricPlushy Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
No wrong answer, you can't write this off to population increases. Between 94 and '04 shooting were down but population obviously increased, all during the assault rifle ban
Reply
:icongunshai:
Gunshai Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013
No you totally can, thank you for responding in such a negative manner while offering no new information and failing to respond in defense of any of your defeated arguments. You're done.
Reply
:iconthelamadude:
TheLamadude Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Student Filmographer
Well, I'm from the UK so I'm not 100% up to speed on the gun laws, amendments and constitutions...

But from the outside looking in, the fact that 47 percent of America's population, nearly half feel the need to own a gun, which has the sole function of injuring or killing things, regardless of self defence or hunting, is really shocking to me. Practically half of the population of one of the biggest super-powers in the world feels that they need to own an item designed solely for injuring/killing others! Am I not the only one who can't quite get over that?

Whatever your opinion on gun laws/your personal freedom/'murica, you cannot deny that the pure function of a gun, the reason it has been created is to harm other living creatures.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
No offense, man, but it was your government's actions that pushed the Founding Fathers to include specific protection for gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, so you're not in much of a position to lecture Americans on the issue.

And considering not a single one of those guns picks your pocket or breaks your leg, what are you pissing your pants for?
Reply
:iconthelamadude:
TheLamadude Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Student Filmographer
For no offense, that was actually pretty offensive.

First of all, American history isn't taught in British schools, so I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Secondly, believe it or not, I had absolutely no part in 'my governments' actions that caused the founding fathers to change the bill of rights. This happened hundreds of years ago and it's idiotic to have a dig at me for something that simply happened in the same country that I was born in and live in.

Thirdly, I'm 'pissing my pants' because that gun can actually break a leg or worse, take a life.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
"For no offense, that was actually pretty offensive."

Go whine to your momma then.

"First of all, American history isn't taught in British schools, so I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about."

Then perhaps it would be to your benefit to educate yourself on a subject before presuming you're in a position to make a declaration on it.

"Secondly, believe it or not, I had absolutely no part in 'my governments' actions that caused the founding fathers to change the bill of rights. This happened hundreds of years ago and it's idiotic to have a dig at me for something that simply happened in the same country that I was born in and live in."

I'm simply pointing out the irony of an Englander lecturing Americans on gun ownership. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

"Thirdly, I'm 'pissing my pants' because that gun can actually break a leg or worse, take a life."

And the time to deal with it is when that actually happens, not treat everyone who owns a gun as guilty until proven innocent because you lack a backbone. The mere ownership of a gun does nothing to you; zero, zilch, nada, not a damn thing. Ergo, by what right, by what code, by what standard do you punish the owner of said gun?
Reply
:iconthelamadude:
TheLamadude Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Student Filmographer
Nope.

I'm not going to get dragged into a pointless argument with you. I posted here to have a friendly debate, not to be insulted.

I'm done. You can go on believing that Americans have the right to own a weapon, and I'll go one believing that we live in a civilised society.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013
Hmm, give reality my regards when it wakes you up the hard way.

Also, I'm not arguing for American's "right to own a weapon" (if it's not too complicated for you...what ISN'T a potential weapon?), I'm arguing for their right to their property and not be deprived of it without due process.
Reply
:icongunshai:
Gunshai Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
I wish there were more people like you in the world.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
There are. We're just mostly on strike.
Reply
:iconrandomrobskii:
RandomRobskii Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student Filmographer
No offense, but is that even slightly relevant in today's context? Did we Brits of the now do anything to those founding fathers? :unimpressed:
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
Considering that the events back then led to the way things are today...yes.
Reply
:iconrandomrobskii:
RandomRobskii Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student Filmographer
Wow. Pardon me while I personally apologise to guys hundreds of years dead that I, singlehandedly, caused the US to 'need' a gun. :unimpressed:
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
Turn off the wiseass and you might see my point.
Reply
:iconrandomrobskii:
RandomRobskii Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student Filmographer
What point? What's done is done and yes, we have valid points to make about the US and its gun laws. Just because whatever the fuck happened in US history happend, doesn't mean the people of today can't say anything.


Sorry, what was your point again? Or will I go back in time to Abe Lincoln or whoever and get on my hands an kneed to tell him 'no'?
Reply
:icongunshai:
Gunshai Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
Most gun owners don't have any fantasy about harming anyone else. Most gun owners are responsable adults who like to keep their options open. It's important to have the option to defend and feed yourself and your family as well as your rights.
The violent crime rate in England and Wales is much higher than the violent crime rate in the U.S. believe it or not [link] You don't need a gun to harm living creatures. :(
Honestly I don't even hunt, I don't like the idea of killing anything or harming anyone. Like I said though, it's about having your rifle as an option, as well as the respect to handle one appropriately. I believe for Americans gun ownership is as much a responsibility as it is a right.
Thank you for your comment :)
Reply
:iconrandomrobskii:
RandomRobskii Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Student Filmographer
Pretty much everyone in the UK has your exact same opinion. We have no guns, we have pretty much no gun crime. I don't understand how people can not get that. I don't know about you, but that sounds like the smartest way forward.
Reply
:iconthelamadude:
TheLamadude Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student Filmographer
Thank you! :)
it's not like we're arguing about someone's right to express themselves or anything like that.. It's about whether normal people should be allowed to own an item that has been designed purely to hurt, or kill. Doesn't get much worse than that.

If only we could have such an easy solution here at home about the 'knife culture' :(
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
I don't recognize your right to decide that for anyone but yourself.
Reply
:iconthelamadude:
TheLamadude Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Student Filmographer
I'm not saying it's my right, I'm saying it's not anyone's right to own a means to kill. We live in a civilised society. There is absolutely no need for the population to feel like it is their 'right' to own a weapon.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
"I'm saying it's not anyone's right to own a means to kill."

That's what I was referring to, chum. You do not have a right to make that decision for anyone but yourself.

By the way, you can walk into your kitchen and find numerous means to kill, so...are you saying one shouldn't have anything at all?

"There is absolutely no need for the population to feel like it is their 'right' to own a weapon."

I'm sure that means a lot to a woman as she's getting raped, or a family as their house is being broken into.

And before you start wailing about the police, did you know that the courts in the US have ruled the police have ZERO obligation to protect people?
Reply
:iconrandomrobskii:
RandomRobskii Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student Filmographer
Yeah, it's kind of impossible to put a ban on a kitchen utensil. It's a shame,really. The best we can do is make sure knife crime isn't tolerated at all. Harsh jail sentences to make examples of people. And even then I doubt it would do the trick. :no:
Reply
:iconthelamadude:
TheLamadude Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Student Filmographer
You'd have to start doing ID checks on everyone who owns a sharp object - which is just stupid :/
I think it's the whole 'knife culture' thing we've got going on that's the main problem.. People only carry/ use knives because, well, everyone has got a knife. It's so silly, really.
Reply
:iconthelamadude:
TheLamadude Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Student Filmographer
You'd have to start doing ID checks on everyone who owns a sharp object - which is just stupid :/
I think it's the whole 'knife culture' thing we've got going on that's the main problem.. People only carry/ use knives because, well, everyone has got a knife. It's so silly, really.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
[link]

Wanna try that again and actually tell the truth this time?
Reply
:iconrandomrobskii:
RandomRobskii Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student Filmographer
Tell the truth that we have very minimal gun crime because of the very wide lack of guns? ^see upwards. Compare that statistic of 49 to, sorry, how many in the US? :unimpressed:


And if this is 'ohhhh but you have knife crime', I'm well aware. We can't put a ban on kitchen utensils.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
You also understand the US is about three times as large as Britain, so it's kinda unfair to compare crime in the two, not to mention Britain isn't known for its respect of individual rights. Even I will admit crime is easier to control when you don't have to worry about individual rights.
Reply
:icongunshai:
Gunshai Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013
You have a much higher violent crime rate in the UK. Your criminals do not use guns as often because they are not readily accessible but they still find ways to inflict damage. Statistics on violent crimes in the U.S. that involve firearms shouldn't be inflated as much as they are, as nearly all of these crimes are committed in impoverished neighborhoods in metropolitan areas, the same is probably true for the majority of the violent crimes in the UK. The U.S. government should focus more on improving these areas and the quality of life of the inhabitants instead of lumping all the data collected into one number and saying all gun owners are bad.
It would be better to take the time to fix the actual problem, and only the actual problem. Suddenly issuing strict gun control laws in a country where crime has steadily been decreasing for the past 20 years will not help. It would be like incinerating an entire bountiful forrest to remove only a handful of noxious weeds.

P.s. I like your gallery, very cheerful :)
Reply
:iconferricplushy:
FerricPlushy Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
"probably" is not admissible in rhetoric
I've never seen any government official ever say gun owners are bad
there were 10,000 gun related homicides in the US last year, were 400 in the UK
Reply
:icongunshai:
Gunshai Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013
Probably is a wonderful word you yourself have used on occasion when describing situations and events. I'm sorry this was so offensive it required mentioning. I'll replace it with the word "alcohol" to avoid further discomfort.

Fortunately we've both alcohol lived very different lives. This brings a wonderful diversity of experience. Unfortunately instead of sharing that experience without contempt, most prefer (and not just alcohol) to remained locked in the mindset that their way is "best." Even though "best" is relative to the owner of said belief. You're alcohol wishing you weren't so compelled to read all this, I'll finish shortly and you can go out and have some probably to celebrate. . . unless you're not old enough.
Thank you for reading my jokes, here's my actual response.

You're comparing a country with a population of 315,114,000 to a country with a population of 63,181,775. Criminals in the U.S. have more access to firearms so they're going to use firearms. However I didn't compare firearm related homicides in the U.S. to firearm related homicides in the UK. You're statement is as undisputed as it is out of place. As it fails to include anything outside of firearm related homicide and I was referring to ANY violent crime, which according to statistics is higher in the UK. It's also unfortunate I haven't witnessed impoverished areas in the UK or seen area specific crime reports from the UK. But like I said before, they alcohol have the same kind of problems as people in bad parts of U.S. cities where people prefer to settle their problems violently.
Reply
Add a Comment: