Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And so do people with knives, and hammers, and baseball bats and cars, and rocks and clubs and on and on and on. there is one common denominator, PEOPLE kill people, and they will use any means at their disposal. In this nut jobs case, is it ok that he killed 3 with a knife and not a gun ? why are they not calling for knife control ?
People don't kill people. People with a history of violence kill people.
The overall USA non-firearms homicide rate is higher than many developed nations total homicide rate. So clearly there is something different between America and many "developed" nations that lead people to kill one another, regardless of the choice of weapon.
While the overall rate of homicide in the USA, is high, there are some areas of the US (e.g. Northern New England) with lower than average homicide rates, lower even than most developed nations. This suggests that we need localized solutions specific to the people and regions with high murder rates. Why should I, a resident of Northern New England, give up rights just because a few felons in a small part of Chicago and California and Detroit are prone to murdering one another?
People don't kill people. People with a history of violence kill people.
That's a bit of generalization. Not that I don't do the same at times, but... Killers come from all walks of life and every one has a different trigger. A history of violence is probably more likely, but, it's not a requirement.
Quote:
The overall USA non-firearms homicide rate is higher than many developed nations total homicide rate. So clearly there is something different between America and many "developed" nations that lead people to kill one another, regardless of the choice of weapon.
Depends on the rate you look at.. The best figures, to me, are the per-100k rates. It's crap to compare that the US has X number of homicides, by whatever means, and Canada has Y. The US has 10 times the population of Canada.
Quote:
While the overall rate of homicide in the USA, is high, there are some areas of the US (e.g. Northern New England) with lower than average homicide rates, lower even than most developed nations. This suggests that we need localized solutions specific to the people and regions with high murder rates. Why should I, a resident of Northern New England, give up rights just because a few felons in a small part of Chicago and California and Detroit are prone to murdering one another?
And you can't entirely put a finger on the exact cause. In Maine.. There are a lot of guns. In Connecticut, they have some of the strictest gun control laws. So.. You can't pin it on that. It seems to me that the more congested an area is with people, the higher the murder rate. But, even that doesn't totally hold true. NYC had 333 murders last year (all methods).. Chicago had 415, LA had 255, Philly 246.. Obviously, those areas will have higher murder rates, because they have more people. But, if that logic were to TOTALLY hold true, then NYC should have the highest rate in the nation.
I still think, even though the data above doesn't totally support it, in general, the more people you smash together, the more apt one of them is to snap.
How about assault on about 4 separate occasions? One incident, nearly a year ago, finally drew police attention:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WashingtonPost
Last July, shortly before his 22nd birthday, Rodger went to a house party in Isla Vista in what he wrote was a last-ditch effort to “give women and humanity one more chance to accept me and give me a chance to have a pleasurable youth.” If he returned home that night “a lonely virgin,” he wrote, he would plan his “Day of Retribution.”At the party, he drank heavily and felt out of place. As he stood outside the house with other undergraduates, he wrote, a “dark, hate-fueled rage overcame my entire being, and I tried to push as many of them as I could from the 10-foot ledge. My main target was the girls. I wanted to punish them for talking to the obnoxious boys instead of me.”
Other party guests kicked and punched Rodger, and he ended up in the hospital, where on July 21, 2013, he had his first encounter with sheriff’s deputies. Rodger wrote in his manifesto that he lied to the police, alleging that other men pushed him off the ledge. The other men told police that Rodger was the aggressor. Without any evidence, the case was dismissed.
People don't kill people. People with a history of violence kill people.
The overall USA non-firearms homicide rate is higher than many developed nations total homicide rate. So clearly there is something different between America and many "developed" nations that lead people to kill one another, regardless of the choice of weapon.
While the overall rate of homicide in the USA, is high, there are some areas of the US (e.g. Northern New England) with lower than average homicide rates, lower even than most developed nations. This suggests that we need localized solutions specific to the people and regions with high murder rates. Why should I, a resident of Northern New England, give up rights just because a few felons in a small part of Chicago and California and Detroit are prone to murdering one another?
This suggests that we need localized solutions specific to the people and regions with high murder rates. Why should I, a resident of Northern New England, give up rights just because a few felons in a small part of Chicago and California and Detroit are prone to murdering one another?
Perhaps localized solutions are the way to go, though I suspect it's a euphemism for inaction. Re your question - the greater good?
No mention of who stopped this guy? A brave guy who used just pepper spray & his own body to tackle the guy. Can you believe that he didn't even need to have a gun to stop the guy? How can that be? All I ever hear from the gun crowd is the guy carrying his gun on him will be the one to stop the shooter. Fail.
No mention of who stopped this guy? A brave guy who used just pepper spray & his own body to tackle the guy. Can you believe that he didn't even need to have a gun to stop the guy? How can that be? All I ever hear from the gun crowd is the guy carrying his gun on him will be the one to stop the shooter. Fail.
Did anybody who was attacked have a gun to be able to protect themselves?
If nobody attacked had a gun, how could they have stopped the guy?
How about the military? Should we disarm the soldiers since they can't, according to you, defend themselves with guns?
Those cops were ambushed.
Should I post a link to the definition of that word?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
