Quote from: vampire on August 28, 2012, 07:29:14 PM

Quote from: TheBitcoinChemist on August 28, 2012, 07:16:39 PM

But less restrictive than ten, no? Do you think that supports your position?

No. I somewhat padded my answer, and I wanted to see if you gonna fall for it too. I can't recall a state that is more restrictive than Liechtenstein.

Liechtenstein is about as restrictive as California, which is like the most restrictive state. You can try to argue about open carry, but Liechtenstein has restrictions also, and California allows open carry in unincorporated areas.

40 states are shall issue.
11 states are may issue, with few shall issue in practice.

I am not sure what are you trying to prove to me? That gun control reduces crime?

I'm not really trying to "prove" anything, but it does show how much culture matters. And cali is not the most restrictive from a legal perspective, that honor goes to Wisconsin, Illinois or the District of Columbia, all of which (until very recently) are no-issue states. Cali is a may-issue state, but has more restrictive 'valid reasons' than Liechtenstein according to the link I referenced, because Cali doesn't honor "personal protection" as a legitimate cause unless you're a member of the state justice apparatus already, such as a prosecutor. Granted, I could get a shotgun in Cali for inside my own home, and I can't determine if that is the case in Liechtenstein, but all of these comparisons are apples to oranges, due to variations in local culture and demographics. Both San Fransico & Detroit are very liberal politcally, and have very restrictive gun regulations, with populations well in excess of Leichtenstin; but while San Fran is about as dangerous as my own mid-sized mid-eastern city (which is to say, not very dangerous) Detroit is one of the most dangerous places on Earth. There is no definitive evidence that gun control has any non-neglible effect on crime, and all the evidence in the world that it does have an effect on the legal availability of firearms and only the legal availablilty of firearms. We can both produce plenty of studies that confirm our biases, no doubt. What you guys seem to lack ability to do is justify why? By what logic do you guys justify subjugating my daughter to her armed rapist? Maybe gun control would exchange the rapist's primary weapon from a handgun to a legth of iron pipe or a knife, but what consolation is that? So that I can say at her funeral, "at least he didn't shoot her"? Even if gun control laws did suppress overall crime rates, who are you to deny my daughter her basic human right of self-preservation?