Check this link first with the fact that I was born and raised in Puerto Rico:
Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk
I was born and raised in Puerto Rico (PR) and joined the Army at 18 years old in 1990 from there. I am still a soldier in active duty. From as far as I can remember the thought of guns in the hand of a puertorrican was only spoken in context of "rich people" and "criminals". I remember, some time during my youth, hearing an all out outcry to ban violent toys, or "juguetes belicos" because they promoted violence. To this day, the average cost to just being able to posess a gun in PR is $370 just for the paperwork and process involved (that is the most basic approximation according to my research as of yesterday). That does not count the cost of the gun, which are at least 25% costlier than here in the US.
I have a brother who is a firefighter, another who is a police officer, a sister who is a teacher. Their average salary for this profesions in between $1700-$2500 per month, depending on tenure.
PR is a highly democrat/liberal "state", eventhough, living there, you can not vote in US elections. I grew up with the idea that "GUNS ARE EVIL", as well as unobtainable because of the prohibitve cost. To this date I can not find a percentage of LEGAL gun owners for PR. But I can tell you, that besides my brother the police officer, no one in my family back home has ever even shot a single round out of a gun their lives.
Yet, 94.8% of murders in PR are firearms related? That is why I have made the personal decision to NEVER move there, even after retirement next year, and with all my immediate family living there. Ever since I left PR for the military I have, and continue, to worry every day about the safety of my family, a feeling re-enforced every time I go for a visit, or read PR related news, as well as accounts from my family.
The US has one, if not the largest percentage of gun owners in the world, yet firearms related crimes is one of the lowest of them? How does that work? What is so hard to, not just infer, but to understand about it? Is it the same idea that led to the outcome of the last elections?
I do not want to get into the politics of the situation. Politicians are so very few, and WE are so very many. My "catch 22" has been, now for many years, that I hate arguing with those who, like the insurance comercial, belive that "YOU CAN'T PUT NOTHING ON THE INTERNET THAT IS NOT TRUE" ... until it is not what you want to hear. I have used the following analogy in a lot of situations: in any sporting event (or any gathering for that matter) there is always that one SMALL section, group or whatever that is noisier, inappropriate, and flat out ruin the experience of the great majority. For the most part, those with better morals, common sense and best nature, dismiss them a nuisance and stupid and decide to just ignore them until they go away because we do not want to be bunched with them in any way. At what point does that no longer apply? When and how do we put aside the fear of sounding "crazy, overzealous, etc", like the other side should be considered and acted upon? I would like to know because my level of frustration is reaching "critical mass". And I know I am not alone in this. Thank you all in this forum for providing an outlet for my rant. Blessing to all, MERRY CHRISTMAS and all those things I am afraid I will soon not be able to even utter for fear of capital punishment.
Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk
I was born and raised in Puerto Rico (PR) and joined the Army at 18 years old in 1990 from there. I am still a soldier in active duty. From as far as I can remember the thought of guns in the hand of a puertorrican was only spoken in context of "rich people" and "criminals". I remember, some time during my youth, hearing an all out outcry to ban violent toys, or "juguetes belicos" because they promoted violence. To this day, the average cost to just being able to posess a gun in PR is $370 just for the paperwork and process involved (that is the most basic approximation according to my research as of yesterday). That does not count the cost of the gun, which are at least 25% costlier than here in the US.
I have a brother who is a firefighter, another who is a police officer, a sister who is a teacher. Their average salary for this profesions in between $1700-$2500 per month, depending on tenure.
PR is a highly democrat/liberal "state", eventhough, living there, you can not vote in US elections. I grew up with the idea that "GUNS ARE EVIL", as well as unobtainable because of the prohibitve cost. To this date I can not find a percentage of LEGAL gun owners for PR. But I can tell you, that besides my brother the police officer, no one in my family back home has ever even shot a single round out of a gun their lives.
Yet, 94.8% of murders in PR are firearms related? That is why I have made the personal decision to NEVER move there, even after retirement next year, and with all my immediate family living there. Ever since I left PR for the military I have, and continue, to worry every day about the safety of my family, a feeling re-enforced every time I go for a visit, or read PR related news, as well as accounts from my family.
The US has one, if not the largest percentage of gun owners in the world, yet firearms related crimes is one of the lowest of them? How does that work? What is so hard to, not just infer, but to understand about it? Is it the same idea that led to the outcome of the last elections?
I do not want to get into the politics of the situation. Politicians are so very few, and WE are so very many. My "catch 22" has been, now for many years, that I hate arguing with those who, like the insurance comercial, belive that "YOU CAN'T PUT NOTHING ON THE INTERNET THAT IS NOT TRUE" ... until it is not what you want to hear. I have used the following analogy in a lot of situations: in any sporting event (or any gathering for that matter) there is always that one SMALL section, group or whatever that is noisier, inappropriate, and flat out ruin the experience of the great majority. For the most part, those with better morals, common sense and best nature, dismiss them a nuisance and stupid and decide to just ignore them until they go away because we do not want to be bunched with them in any way. At what point does that no longer apply? When and how do we put aside the fear of sounding "crazy, overzealous, etc", like the other side should be considered and acted upon? I would like to know because my level of frustration is reaching "critical mass". And I know I am not alone in this. Thank you all in this forum for providing an outlet for my rant. Blessing to all, MERRY CHRISTMAS and all those things I am afraid I will soon not be able to even utter for fear of capital punishment.
