No. I can feel free to put supreme court justices in place who would interpret the second amendment differently than what you currently believe it should be, denyying you the right to own guns. Don;t like it? Live somewhere else.
The U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people. The Czech Republic has less than a third of that. They have less gun violence.
Which is exactly my point. Less guns = less gun violence. If they had 88 per 100, their statistics for gun homicides would shoot up. If they had less than 31 guns per 100, that "Quarter the homicide rate" would drop even further.
Around half of all violent crimes result in no injury whatsoever (according to both police figures and BCS).
71% of mugging (robbery and snatch theft) incidents result in no injury.
The number of violent incidents has fallen by 36% since 1995.
Certain "yobbish" behaviours (eg minor scuffles) have been reclassified as crime, with the effect of doubling recorded violent crime.
A violent crime with many victims is no longer recorded as a single crime. An incident with 5 victims is now recorded as 5 crimes.
A higher proportion of violent crime is recorded – eg the proportion of common assaults (without injury) recorded rose from around 50% to 68% between 2002 and 2003.
There were 619 muders in England & Wales (population 54 million) in 2010/11
Murder rate lowest for 12 years | UK news | The Guardian
There were 104 murders in London (population 7.85 million) in the last 12 months (down 24% on last year)
Metropolitan Police Crime Figures for London - Metropolitan Police Service - Crime Figures
There were 40 Gun Homicides in England & Wales (population 54 million) in 2009/10
The number of knife attacks and assaults by people in cars is very small. Even in China. A nation of over a billion people, and they have 1 "mass knife attack" a year. We have four times fewer people, and fpour times the amount of mass murders with guns.
Imagine a world where the U.S had Sweden's rate of gun ownership. I wonder if the number of mass murders in the U.S. would drop accordingly....hmmm, what do you think?
In Europe, not only are kids not allowed to bring guns to school, but neither are adults. In fact, guns are very strictly controlled. And they have very few of these sorts of crimes.
I didn't say it wasn't mental illness. The problem is, you have no way of knowing what will cause a person to snap. There's countless different types of mental illnesses and no way to treat them all. But we have a solution to gun violence in the U.S>, and it is very simple: Ban or severely restrict guns.
"The mental illness is not the problem. There are mentally ill people all over the world. They don't go around stabbing up classrooms and theaters. The KNIFE is the problem. Recently a mentally ill woman in Rhode Island went on a car rampage. She drove her car into another car belonging to a woman who claimed to have a romantic relationship with her husband died. No one died. Horrible crime. But no one died (at least from what I read) If she had had a knife, there would have been 1 dead (or more, gasp!). The KNIFE is the problem. Less knives - less knife violence. Pretty simple."
Correct...less knives = less knife violence. Yaaay for Logic! You, sir, are 1000% correct!
And it would be relevant of there were massive amounts of knife attacks that killed lots of people at once! The examples in China and Japan not withstanding, "mass knife attacks" are extremely rare, and more importantly, usually result in less deaths. You can run from a knife.
I am not saying that by banning certain guns we will get rid of all of these attacks. But they will certainly not happen as frequently. So pointing out a bomb attack in 1927 and the attacks in Oklahoma does nothing to my point that lessening the availability of these sorts of weapons will ensure that we have FEWER attacks.
As has been pointed out here many many times, Switzerland and these other countries are horrible examples. WHile they can have guns, ammunition is kept locked up in an armory and is distributed by the government on a select basis.
Did you take this into account in your statistics?
Except that in Europe, gun bans are in place, and by and large, ALL of the types of death by handguns that you mention are much less than in the US. This breaks it down for you.
Go down the list, and countries at the bottom tend to have very strict gun control laws.
Banning handguns would decrease suicides by handguns. Banning handguns would decrease usages by felons. Oddly enough, in England cops don't carry guns...and the amount of deaths caused by guns by cops to others and others to cops is small.
Except they don't. Here on planet earth, people don't generally use your methods for this sort of thing. They choose assault and other types of guns because they are easily accessible.
The problem is not mental health. Its access to guns.
No, moron, they don't shoot people because they don't have access to guns. It doesn't matter if they get mental health help or not; they can sit and stew in their craziness inside their home or wander around the streets speaking gibberish, it doesn't matter. Because they can't easily get access to guns, they have no means of killing massive amounts of people easily.
Even in places without access to mental health care, when there are strict gun control laws, those people don't go around murdering people with assault rifles.
It is true that if you ban Hondas the fewer people will get run over by Hondas. But there are very few people running over people intentionally with a Honda, so it isn't a problem. When, for some reason, people start to use Hondas and only Hondas to run over massive amounts of people, then yes, we should consider banning Hondas!
I was specifically referring to this event, which backs up my claim: "On 14 December 2012, a 36 year-old villager in the village of Chenpeng, Henan Province, stabbed 23 children and an elderly woman at the village's primary school as children were arriving for classes.[23] The attacker was restrained at the school, and later arrested.[24] All of the victims survived and were treated at three hospitals, though some were reportedly seriously injured, with fingers or ears cut off, and had to be transferred to larger hospitals for specialized care.[25]"
The point is, those sorts of attacks usually end up with not as many people killed, and are very rare, and take place in a nation of more than 1 billion people.
"August 2010
On 4 August 2010, 26-year-old Fang Jiantang () slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher, at a kindergarten in Zibo, Shandong province. Of the injured, 3 other children and 4 teachers were taken to the hospital. After being caught Fang confessed to the crime; his motive is not yet known.[16]"
He slashed 20 and killed 3.
Adam Lanza, however, killed every single person in the kindergarten class he targeted.
No, it's not any more complex than that. if you ban assault rifles, these sorts of crimes, with people shooting lots of people with assault rifles, will drop dramatically.
This: "huge influence is growing up in a society or family that glorifies violence but abhors sex. I.e. moral repression and distorted values." has nothing to do with Adam Lanza massacring a classroom. He was cray-cray.
He also had easy access to assault rifles. That right there is the problem.
When there are large amounts of people in sports cars moving at 150MPH mowing down large amounts of people, then yes, at that time we should ban sports cars.
Slashdot Mirror
No. I can feel free to put supreme court justices in place who would interpret the second amendment differently than what you currently believe it should be, denyying you the right to own guns. Don;t like it? Live somewhere else.
So will people in other countries...they love the shoot-em up movies too.
But because they don't have easy access to semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles, they can't emulate what they see quite as easily as we can.
The U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people. The Czech Republic has less than a third of that. They have less gun violence.
Which is exactly my point. Less guns = less gun violence. If they had 88 per 100, their statistics for gun homicides would shoot up. If they had less than 31 guns per 100, that "Quarter the homicide rate" would drop even further.
Read:
Surprising UK Crime Figures
Around half of all violent crimes result in no injury whatsoever (according to both police figures and BCS).
71% of mugging (robbery and snatch theft) incidents result in no injury.
The number of violent incidents has fallen by 36% since 1995.
Certain "yobbish" behaviours (eg minor scuffles) have been reclassified as crime, with the effect of doubling recorded violent crime.
A violent crime with many victims is no longer recorded as a single crime. An incident with 5 victims is now recorded as 5 crimes.
A higher proportion of violent crime is recorded – eg the proportion of common assaults (without injury) recorded rose from around 50% to 68% between 2002 and 2003.
There were 619 muders in England & Wales (population 54 million) in 2010/11
Murder rate lowest for 12 years | UK news | The Guardian
There were 104 murders in London (population 7.85 million) in the last 12 months (down 24% on last year)
Metropolitan Police Crime Figures for London - Metropolitan Police Service - Crime Figures
There were 40 Gun Homicides in England & Wales (population 54 million) in 2009/10
http://www.mediahell.org/violence.htm
The number of knife attacks and assaults by people in cars is very small. Even in China. A nation of over a billion people, and they have 1 "mass knife attack" a year. We have four times fewer people, and fpour times the amount of mass murders with guns.
No, but it will severely lessen their frequency.
Imagine a world where the U.S had Sweden's rate of gun ownership. I wonder if the number of mass murders in the U.S. would drop accordingly....hmmm, what do you think?
We have nearly 3 times as many, at 88.8 per person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country.
Less guns means less gun violence. Thanks for proving my point.
citation needed.
In Europe, not only are kids not allowed to bring guns to school, but neither are adults. In fact, guns are very strictly controlled. And they have very few of these sorts of crimes.
Less guns means less gun violence.
No. Why, because you are shocked that someone has passionately held beliefs about supporting gun control?
I didn't say it wasn't mental illness. The problem is, you have no way of knowing what will cause a person to snap. There's countless different types of mental illnesses and no way to treat them all. But we have a solution to gun violence in the U.S>, and it is very simple: Ban or severely restrict guns.
"The mental illness is not the problem.
There are mentally ill people all over the world. They don't go around stabbing up classrooms and theaters.
The KNIFE is the problem.
Recently a mentally ill woman in Rhode Island went on a car rampage. She drove her car into another car belonging to a woman who claimed to have a romantic relationship with her husband died. No one died. Horrible crime. But no one died (at least from what I read)
If she had had a knife, there would have been 1 dead (or more, gasp!).
The KNIFE is the problem.
Less knives - less knife violence. Pretty simple."
Correct...less knives = less knife violence. Yaaay for Logic! You, sir, are 1000% correct!
And it would be relevant of there were massive amounts of knife attacks that killed lots of people at once! The examples in China and Japan not withstanding, "mass knife attacks" are extremely rare, and more importantly, usually result in less deaths. You can run from a knife.
I am not saying that by banning certain guns we will get rid of all of these attacks. But they will certainly not happen as frequently. So pointing out a bomb attack in 1927 and the attacks in Oklahoma does nothing to my point that lessening the availability of these sorts of weapons will ensure that we have FEWER attacks.
No, but using a knife means you probably won't kill everyone you try to.
As has been pointed out here many many times, Switzerland and these other countries are horrible examples. WHile they can have guns, ammunition is kept locked up in an armory and is distributed by the government on a select basis.
Did you take this into account in your statistics?
Except that in Europe, gun bans are in place, and by and large, ALL of the types of death by handguns that you mention are much less than in the US. This breaks it down for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Go down the list, and countries at the bottom tend to have very strict gun control laws.
Banning handguns would decrease suicides by handguns.
Banning handguns would decrease usages by felons.
Oddly enough, in England cops don't carry guns...and the amount of deaths caused by guns by cops to others and others to cops is small.
It's very simple. Less guns = less gun violence.
Except they don't. Here on planet earth, people don't generally use your methods for this sort of thing. They choose assault and other types of guns because they are easily accessible.
The problem is not mental health. Its access to guns.
No, moron, they don't shoot people because they don't have access to guns. It doesn't matter if they get mental health help or not; they can sit and stew in their craziness inside their home or wander around the streets speaking gibberish, it doesn't matter. Because they can't easily get access to guns, they have no means of killing massive amounts of people easily.
Even in places without access to mental health care, when there are strict gun control laws, those people don't go around murdering people with assault rifles.
It is true that if you ban Hondas the fewer people will get run over by Hondas. But there are very few people running over people intentionally with a Honda, so it isn't a problem. When, for some reason, people start to use Hondas and only Hondas to run over massive amounts of people, then yes, we should consider banning Hondas!
Google is your friend.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/potential_connecticut_school_shooting_8HMOSbP38TXwSYYsVGkYLO
"Lanza used two handguns — a Glock and a Sig Sauer — and a .223-caliber assault rifle, an official said."
I was specifically referring to this event, which backs up my claim:
"On 14 December 2012, a 36 year-old villager in the village of Chenpeng, Henan Province, stabbed 23 children and an elderly woman at the village's primary school as children were arriving for classes.[23] The attacker was restrained at the school, and later arrested.[24] All of the victims survived and were treated at three hospitals, though some were reportedly seriously injured, with fingers or ears cut off, and had to be transferred to larger hospitals for specialized care.[25]"
The point is, those sorts of attacks usually end up with not as many people killed, and are very rare, and take place in a nation of more than 1 billion people.
"August 2010
On 4 August 2010, 26-year-old Fang Jiantang () slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher, at a kindergarten in Zibo, Shandong province. Of the injured, 3 other children and 4 teachers were taken to the hospital. After being caught Fang confessed to the crime; his motive is not yet known.[16]"
He slashed 20 and killed 3.
Adam Lanza, however, killed every single person in the kindergarten class he targeted.
No, it's not any more complex than that. if you ban assault rifles, these sorts of crimes, with people shooting lots of people with assault rifles, will drop dramatically.
This: "huge influence is growing up in a society or family that glorifies violence but abhors sex. I.e. moral repression and distorted values."
has nothing to do with Adam Lanza massacring a classroom. He was cray-cray.
He also had easy access to assault rifles. That right there is the problem.
He was being sarcastic. You either missed it, or are quite dense yourself. The problem is the easy access to assault rifles.
The gun is the problem.
It would be nice to take care of the mentally ill, and we should do so.
But it is only the easy access to firearms that allow these sorts of events to take place with shocking regularity.
The gun is the problem.
There are many mass murders committed by people who were not mentally ill, and who just "snapped."
There are many nuts all over the world. But in most places, they don't have access to assault rifles, and as a result they don't commit mass murders.
When there are large amounts of people in sports cars moving at 150MPH mowing down large amounts of people, then yes, at that time we should ban sports cars.
While the OP had it wrong, it's not by much. Only a few countries have a higher amount of gun violence per capita.
So, citation provided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
This should say, "There are nuts all over the world that don't go around shooting up classrooms and theaters."