Comments Thread For: Hearn on Joshua Foe: I Spoke To 16 Heavyweights in 24 Hours

[Deus]

I personally think that some people should not be allowed to obtain guns. But often times those same groups of people are still able to obtain them.

I have no issue with placing restrictions on certain people based on their behavior or history, but saying that outlawing guns will lead to no guns, it just isn't true. Again look at the tragedy in Paris a few years ago.

Also, the US borders Mexico and Canada, as opposed to the UK and Australia which are islands. Guns will always find a way in here from Mexico, in Mexico's current state anyway.

Outlawing guns obviously doesn't lead to no guns because hardened criminals find a way to obtain them, but it would lead to far less instances of gun crime.

You've mentioned the Paris incident which was shocking but that itself was an isolated incident that is not commonplace in France because guns are not readily available. Whereas gun crime is rife in the US.

Granted i'm not saying the US should ban guns... it's too late for that now because literally everybody has them and thus there is a need to be able to protect yourself. For countries where guns are not readily available it is much safer for guns to be banned.

[Boxing_1013]

Outlawing guns obviously doesn't lead to no guns because hardened criminals find a way to obtain them, but it would lead to far less instances of gun crime.

You've mentioned the Paris incident which was shocking but that itself was an isolated incident that is not commonplace in France because guns are not readily available. Whereas gun crime is rife in the US.

Granted i'm not saying the US should ban guns... it's too late for that now because literally everybody has them and thus there is a need to be able to protect yourself. For countries where guns are not readily available it is much safer for guns to be banned.

I disagree - especially when I consider my freedom of speech as part of my safety.

[Deus]

I disagree - especially when I consider my freedom of speech as part of my safety.

You might but the numbers do not. I can't say I can overly blame you for your opinion though... guns are very much a part of your culture.

[Ilpo]

I disagree - especially when I consider my freedom of speech as part of my safety.

Banning guns (or making acquiring one much harder) also leads to rapid rise of the price of the weapons. It has been seen all over the world. Obviously criminals will always get them, but it would be harder and harder to obtain them, so fewer guns would be on the streets.

Plus a big amount of the mexican weapons are actually bought from the US. They traffic American weapons to cartells in S.A, and bring them back in to the US if need be. And they are able to do this becouse of the extremely loose markets in some states in the US.

the affects of tightening control would also lead to fewer manslaughters. People get mad, they fight. Or, if armed, use them. Actual murders would still happen as much or nearly as much. if you reallly want someone dead, you do not need a gun.

[Boxing_1013]

You might but the numbers do not. I can't say I can overly blame you for your opinion though... guns are very much a part of your culture.

How do you feel about the fact that you can go to jail for calling someone a 'black cu.nt' in your country? (I presume you are from the UK.)

[Boxing_1013]

Banning guns (or making acquiring one much harder) also leads to rapid rise of the price of the weapons. It has been seen all over the world. Obviously criminals will always get them, but it would be harder and harder to obtain them, so fewer guns would be on the streets.

Plus a big amount of the mexican weapons are actually bought from the US. They traffic American weapons to cartells in S.A, and bring them back in to the US if need be. And they are able to do this becouse of the extremely loose markets in some states in the US.

the affects of tightening control would also lead to fewer manslaughters. People get mad, they fight. Or, if armed, use them. Actual murders would still happen as much or nearly as much. if you reallly want someone dead, you do not need a gun.

We agree here - the statistics more or less show this.

But how do you explain what goes in Brazil? They have very strict gun laws and one of the highest gun crime/gun homicide rates in the world. Same for countries like Colombia and Jamaica.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Another example - we have 6 times as many guns per person as Venezuela. Yet they have 6 times the number of gun related homicides in their country compared to the US.

You are 30x more likely to be killed with a gun in Venezuela, if the amount of guns in each country was the same.

[Weebler I]

Give the fight to KUBRAT

Isn't he banned for kissing the reporter?

It should be an American really, Brooklyn fans will at least want to see one of their own have a crack.

[Bmore18]

Isn't he banned for kissing the reporter?

It should be an American really, Brooklyn fans will at least want to see one of their own have a crack.

Still suspended and he had a nasty cut. Bob just using him for purse bid later. Lol no American left who anyone here cares about, so just make the best fight available

[Weebler I]

Still suspended and he had a nasty cut. Bob just using him for purse bid later. Lol no American left who anyone here cares about, so just make the best fight available

Hunter? Arreola?

Having two Brits fight in NYC is a bit pointless from a promotional point of view.

Ortiz is a good opponent but hard to see Hearn going with it.

[Boxing_1013]

Banning guns (or making acquiring one much harder) also leads to rapid rise of the price of the weapons. It has been seen all over the world. Obviously criminals will always get them, but it would be harder and harder to obtain them, so fewer guns would be on the streets.

Plus a big amount of the mexican weapons are actually bought from the US. They traffic American weapons to cartells in S.A, and bring them back in to the US if need be. And they are able to do this becouse of the extremely loose markets in some states in the US.

the affects of tightening control would also lead to fewer manslaughters. People get mad, they fight. Or, if armed, use them. Actual murders would still happen as much or nearly as much. if you reallly want someone dead, you do not need a gun.

Also the gun homicide rate differs drastically in different pockets of the US. In St Louis and Chicago and other urban centers, for example, the gun murder rate is incredibly high compared to more rural and suburban locations.