Are firearms a deterrent?

Mike, why no link to your so called facts?

Here are my facts with link to prove them.

Washington DC, some of the most strict gun control laws in the US:132 murders, murder rate at 22 per 100,000.

Chicago some of the most strict gun control laws in the US:432 murders murder rate 15.4 per 100,000

New York city some of the most strict gun control laws in the US: 536 murders, murder rate 6.45 per 100,000

Then there are those cities with hardly any gun control laws.

Fargo ND. 0 murders murder rate 0 per 100,000.

Cheyenne Wyoming, 0 murders, murder rate 0 per 100,000

Bennington VT, 0 murders, murder rate 0 per 100,000

Now try correlating what's happening on the ground with the true facts.

You'll hear a lot of hoo-ha on this, and people like to cite various sources that they claim support their particular views. I look at it this way: it's entirely possible that occasionally an armed person can successfully resist an attack. What seems far more likely to me is that an armed person simply starts or increases the gunfire, and increases the likelihood that somebody else gets shot. To those who claim that shootings can be prevented by armed people, I would ask how it is that so many policemen get shot every year? We had a mass shooting on an army base not long ago as well. If we're going to throw around hearsay and dubious cites, why not use some real-world events? From what I've seen, household guns often end up either being used by one member of the household on other members of the household (or people at random) or being stolen and used to commit crimes. The vast majority of these are handguns. A lot of the stuff you hear is simply noise-mongering and twisted use of statistics to justify a pre-determined conclusion, so you would be well-advised to take any assertion with a lot of skepticism, and whenever possible to look up the raw data yourself to at least get a sense of whether the claims being made are actually supported by the numbers. It never hurts, also, to keep the principle 'cui bono' in mind - look for the money, as that often determines what people will believe (or at least say they believe). Political power, as well, is a currency that fear-mongers like to trade in. As someone who grew up well out in the sticks, I have no problem with shotguns and hunting rifles, but as someone who now lives in a gang-infested neighborhood, I have to say that handguns and auto, or even semi-auto weapons seem to me to be something that should be regulated as tightly as machineguns and hand grenades are now. This "second amendment" stuff is a self-evident crock - the "right of citizens to keep and bear arms" is already infringed - we can't own RPGs or SAMs, let alone AA guns or cannons. We're already limited in what we can "keep and bear", so why talk as if it's all-or-nothing? What criteria do we use to determine what's acceptable? Personally, I'd say that when kids are being killed by other kids by accident, or killed by spray from a nearby shooting, or killed by a guy paying people back for his emotional traumas, that's all the reason I need to shut those murderous gun profiteers down. YMMV.

Yes, Britain has the highest crime rate in Europe.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/Th...

Cities in general tend to go liberal for whatever reason. I guess its because people become more dependent on government in cities.

I think so

Having a gun will not help all the time but being defenseless will never help..

Isn't it better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!