All guns and rifles are very bad and must be stopped in all our citys or really bad things will happen to people who should not have them otherwise bad things happen to them. Noone in a town or city need a gun or a rifle ever. Noone at all. In my old country people with guns or rifles are shot with no body warning them, because you get shot if even seen with a gun or rifle, with no questions asked by them either. Guns and rifles are very bad and no reason why anybody need one in the citys or towns at all. Big sign with pictures at railway stations and bus stations and airports of guns and rifles, showing you will get shot if you carry gun or rifle for any reason. Noone asking you why even, you just get shot without any talking or asking why?

"You are getting a little silly now."

Well Suse I was just using a little poetic licence to summarise the thread. A story about drugs and knives gets hijacked, at your instigation, into another (yet another) excuse to lambast the USA for believing things you don't understand.

The homicide rate in the various US towns is less dependent upon the number of guns and/or the level of stringency in that town's or state's gun laws, than upon the relative poverty of that town's inhabitants and the consequent level of drug violence.

Chicago is among the worst cities in the USA in terms of extreme poverty rates. Why? Well its been run by the Democrats for the better part of the last century. Nothing more need be said.

Mhaze, no one hijacked this thread. Didn't Is Mise himself illustrate his intentions above re gun deaths versus knife deaths in the media?

Is Mise, I doubt our media report on every gun or knife related death in the USA, or we would be hearing only those reports 24 hours a day!
The fact remains that there isn't much a Government can do to regulate knife use in homes, obviously.
But they sure should do more on gun control...

Suse,

"But they sure should do more on gun control.."

What should they do, in your opinion?

Don't you think it a little unreasonable that a farmer can take his rifle and go hunting for a dangerous scrub bull and fix a fence or two whilst hunting but if he takes the rifle with him, with the intention of defending himself if the scrub bull should attack him whilst he is fixing a fence, then he is guilty of an offence because no one is allowed to have a firearm for the purpose of self defence?

Oh don't be silly Is Mise.
Who on earth would say anything against a farmer shooting a 'dangerous scrub bull' that was charging him? I know of no such law, and how could that be proved anyway?

You know very well that this law is in place to stop people easily carrying guns and casually shooting anyone who upsets or frightens them, no questions asked first. As I said before, there seems to be an awful lot of shooting deaths in America, but not many seem to be in self defence?

A handy gun left in several places in the house, or on the person, doesn't seem to be 'protecting' many people in the US, so why should we slack off our gun laws so we can be more like the good old shoot-em-up Cowboys in that trigger happy country then?

Suse,

"Oh don't be silly Is Mise.
Who on earth would say anything against a farmer shooting a 'dangerous scrub bull' that was charging him? I know of no such law, and how could that be proved anyway?"

That is the law, are you now saying that some of our firearms laws are silly?
Is it not silly to have a law that cannot be proven?

It's like the offence of taking a brolly out with the intention of defending oneself against nesting magpies or, furled, for protection against dogs etc.

In Australia one is not allowed to possess ANYTHING for the purpose of self defence and that includes a knowledge of Martial Arts if such knowledge was acquired/is possessed for the purpose of self defence.
Knowledge can come under the umbrella of 'thing'.