>>13037821Except that's wrong about the lack of guns. It's an inverse function which stipulates more guns = less violence. In fact, after instating MANDATORY gun ownership in Kennesaw, Georgia, violent crime dropped by 89%. 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate 3x that of the 9 European nations with the highest gun ownership rate (This is per capita and not raw numbers, either). With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had 3 of the worst 6 school shootings, ever.
Think places with firearms banned are safer? Not at all. In the decade following the Labor party's election and banning of handguns in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77% to 1.2 million in '07- or more than 2 attacks every minute. Per 100,000 people, there are 2,034 violent crimes in the United Kingdom vs a STAGGERINGLY HUGE... get ready for it- 466 violent crimes in the United States!
States that adopted concealed-carry laws (as in they allowed them), saw an actual average drop in crime afterwards: -8.5% murders, -5% rapes, -7% aggravated assaults, and 3% reduced robberies (even just a small change towards deregulating firearms makes a profound positive effect on the crime rate)
In other words, the notion that the Zimmerman incident would not have happened in a more "civilized" country without guns is totally false. In fact, there would likely be MORE "Zimmermans" occurring, although less publicized because they're less rare, and thus less marketable in the mainstream media.
