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.
You're focusing solely on the number 100,000. Put that into perspective with the total population and you have less than 1/2 of 1/100th.
In 2009, 33,808 people were killed and 2,217,000 people injured in vehicle accidents due to "distraction or inattention."
33,808 + 2,217,000 / 312,000,000 = 0.72%
0.72% / 0.0325% = 22
Clearly, your risk of being killed or injured by an idiot driver who was "distracted" is 22 times greater than being shot and killed by a weapon.
Using your logic, we can conclude that vehicle operators are not less than 22x more irresponsible than gun owners.
You're comparing apples and oranges! You can't compare the number of gun related deaths to the number of deaths and injuries caused by distracted drivers.
Assuming your numbers are correct your risk of being killed by a gun is 3 times greater than being killed by a distracted driver! (100,000 / 33,808 = 2.95)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Then you might want to study anatomy, biology and physiology.
Abortion after the 1st Trimester is murder, according to the US Supreme Court.
I know that abortion after 12 weeks is murder. But that's not my point. We're talking about firearms here. But rbohm implied that the legalisation of abortion somehow cheapens life and makes it easier/more casual for people to shot somebody... Or at least that's what I understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Did you know that the very first school shooting in North America took place in Canada?
And that based on the number of school shootings per capita, a child is more likely to be shot and killed in a Canadian school than an American school?
And then look at Canada's gun control laws.
Why would it matter were the first shooting took place? And even if you're right I don't think that extraordinary events like school shootings or the massacre in Aurora are your real problem. Last year a similar attack happened in peaceful Norway but that doesn't mean Norway has a violence problem. It was just a simple coincidence that this maniac happened to live in Norway. And because America has over 300 million people it's statistically more likely that those maniacs live in the US. In my opinion your problem is the degree of violence in everyday crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Fail. America is not a nation. Neither is Switzerland by the way.
Nations are homogenous. Countries are heterogeneous.
A nation is a people of common ancestry who:
1] have the same culture;
2] culture
3] speak the same language;
4] use the same alphabet;
5] worship the same god(s);
6] revere the same heroes;
7] cherish the same history;
8] celebrate the same holidays; and
9] share the same music, poetry, art and literature
Please use the correct political science terminology, or I'll have to accuse you of spreading propaganda and disinformation.
I wasn't trying to spread any propaganda. I just thought nation and country were synonyms. But I'd be more than happy to continue this discussion in my native language if you wish. Let's see how good your political science terminology is in German...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
There is a correlating relationship between homogeneity and peace, and heterogeneity and violence or conflict.
22% of Switzerland's population are immigrants. 72.5% of the residents with Swiss citizenship are German-speaking (or to use American terminology: 72% are of German ethnicity), 21% are French and 4.3% are Italian. So Switzerland is very heterogenous. But we are a neutral country, we haven't been involved in any international military conflict since 1515 and we haven't had any internal military conflict since 1847 and our violent crime rates are very low (especially compared to yours). So obviously you can lead a very peaceful and non-violent life in a very heterogenous country!
And btw Somalia is a very homogenous nation and still one of the most violent ones...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Another way of looking at it, in a nation, you have "birds of a feather (who flock together)."
In a country, you also have birds, but then you have lions and tigers and bear, plus armadillos, wolverines, orang-u-tans, and apparently unicorns (at least in the US).
Homogeneity leads to cohesiveness in society, heterogeneity does not.
I hope we have that straightened out.
Anyway, comparing nation-States to countries is, well, totally stupid.
I mainly compared Switzerland to the United States. Both are heterogenous countries as you said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
So?
Such claims are irrelevant, immaterial and meaningless unless there is a standardized means of comparison.
A great example is rape. In many countries rape is not a "crime"; it is often not reported or under-reported, or reported as an alternate (like assault) or not investigated or prosecuted.
That might be the case in Muslim countries or developing countries in general. But we should compare the US to other developed western democracies like western Europe, Australia and Canada. And rape is a crime and being reported in all of those countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I already pointed out your lack of critical thinking skills and ignorance on the subject matter, but going back to the vast differences between nation-States and countries, size and population are also relevant.
Mobility, which all European nation-States lack, is an important element of societal control.
A Brit cannot go to Germany to live and work, unless they speak German, or are willing to learn German. Likewise, a Spaniard cannot go to Denmark and work, unless they speak Danish.
Not so in the US. You can pick up and move hundreds, even thousands of miles through a language continuum.
I'm presently staying in Ohio, and Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands are dinky nation-States half the size of Ohio, fitting nicely in the area between I-70 and the Ohio River. Luxembourg? I got bored after I had eaten at every single restaurant in Luxembourg City and started driving to Belgium to have a nice dinner. And why was I able to do that? Because driving through Luxembourg would be like driving from Clermont County to Butler County via Hamilton County.
In the United States, there are States with counties larger than European countries.
Figure it out yet?
The issue here is anonymity.
Before the advent of the automobile, there was very little crime. Why? No anonymity; you cannot be anonymous. Your whole life revolved around your tenement building, the block it was situated in, and maybe one or two blocks around. That was your neighborhood and everyone knew you.
The fact that you were known was a controlling factor in limiting crime. There was also the fear of embarrassment to your family, in part because your actions could bring negative consequences on your family, like shame.
Enter the automobile. Now people can drive to other towns and cities to commit crimes where they are not known. Enter the Interstate Highway System, and now you have people moving from one city to a distant city, or to a distant State where they are anonymous.
In addition to that, mobility results in the loss of familial support. In the teeny-tiny European countries, you have the hyper-extended family of parents, both sets of grandparents, aunts, uncles, great aunts, great uncles, and dozens and dozens of cousins and nephews and nieces.
Not so in the US. The American family is dysfunctional and broken, with no support. Relatives are scattered at great distances.
The whole anonymity thing might be true in really small countries like Lichtenstein (36'000 inhabitants) but even they could easily travel to neighbouring countries to steal a car or rob a bank. If you travel from Zurich to Geneva or even from Zurich to Basel you are just as anonymous. Or do you know everybody in your county or state? No you don't! There's no need to travel from Seattle to Miami to become anonymous. It's more than enough to travel from Seattle to Portland and nobody will know who you are.
The size of your country is only relevant in regard of very rare and extraordinary events (serial killers, 9/11, Aurora, Columbine, Oklahoma city) because there are very few such maniacs in the world. And as I said before it's statistcally more likely that they live in the US than in Luxembourg or Switzerland. But regarding everyday crime it doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
And who many single-parent "families" are in Switzerland? And the other teeny-tiny Euro nation-States?
You're going to ignore that? But, of course, you are! Because it totally debunks your own arguments.
Yes there are many single-parents families in Europe as well. Maybe not as many as in America. But I don't see what point your trying to make... Disfunctional families have some influence on crime rates. But it doesn't explain why the US has a homicide rate of 4.7 per 100,000 while most countries in the European Union, Canada and Australia are below 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
And you have 3-5 drug crazed men trying to beat down the door to get in?
No, you don't. That goes back to what I said previously. Come here to the US and live, and I guarantee you that you'll shoot a burglar coming into your home.
I agree with you on this one. If I'd live in the US right now I would definetly have a loaded gun besides my bed. But imo the reason why the drug addicts team up and kick your door in is BECAUSE they know that many home owners are armed and willing to shoot. They would be stupid to break into a house alone and unarmed if there is probably an angry guy with a shotgun inside.
But in Switzerland (and most of Europe) the home owner will not attack the burglar. And because of this there is no need for criminals to be violent or even armed. That will only draw attention and get them in trouble. Instead they are alone and run away if they encounter anybody inside the house.
America is trapped in a vicious circle: Law abiding citizens need to be armed because the criminals are armed. And criminals need to be armed and violent because their victims are... And none of them can put their guns away because then they'd get killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Your life is at risk no matter what. You do not know the intentions of the people entering your home, and I seriously doubt they have the credibility to be believed no matter what they claimed their intentions were.
If you lock the door to your room, call the police and have your (swiss army) assault rifle in your hand then the risk of being hurt or even killed by a burglar is near zero. Especially if the criminal in your house isn't violent and just as scared as you are. (As it is the case where I live).
If you leave your room with your gun in your hand and try to kill the intruder(s) he/they could ambush you. And they will use violence to defend themselves against you. (I know they invaded into your house first. But in my opinion there is absolutly no reason to shoot a burglar just because he's trying to steal a TV. So if you try to kill them even though they are no threat to you, then they are kinda defending themselves. I know you will not understand my point of view here... but whatever)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Removing those people from Planet Earth permanently is the right thing to do all the time, and everybody wins.
Culturally...
Mircea
I actually am in favor of the death penalty other than most of my fellow Europeans. But people should only be killed in very special cases (Bin Laden, Breivik, Fritzl, James Holmes, the guys from the Columbine massacre, the 9/11 terrorists etc.) But there is no reason to kill somebody who isn't violent...
Puh finally... it took for ever to write this post
Wanted to say that first and foremost, America IMO has a culture of fear. A large percentage of Americans are afraid of something and seem to enjoy being afraid and pushed into anxiety about a variety of subjects. When people are afraid of things all the time, they want to try to protect themselves and in this country, for many, protection comes from guns and they feel very threatened if even the thought of taking their guns comes into your head.
Wanted to also respond to the bolded below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson
Actually, the term "well organized" is very ambiguous and subject to broad interpretation. If you knew people in this country who were gun enthusiasts, you would know that they are often members of groups and that those groups are very well organized. And the amendment does not specifically mention what a "group" or "militia" consists of. In theory, it could consist of two, or even "just one" person. If one person is sworn to uphold the liberty of the country, then I would say that makes them a "well organized militia". Who are you (or anyone else) to say differently?
It has been statistically proven time and time and time again that restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens DOES NOT reduce gun related crime and deaths. In fact, places in this country that did pass laws restricting gun ownership have seen a DRASTIC increase in gun crime and deaths. If you do not believe me you can google Chicago and Washington DC for yourself and see the numbers and statistics.
the fact is that criminals DO NOT CARE IF THEY BREAK THE LAW. Therefore, even if guns are outlawed, they are going to find a way to acquire illegal ones. If they do not use guns, then they will use machetes or knives or swords or something else and the defenseless VICTIM of the crime will have no way to defend themselves.
It has been shown conclusively over and over that guns are a DETERRENT to crime - especially violent crime. To remove the only means of defense is not the answer. Besides, I'm sure you are well aware that in both Nazi German and Communist Russia, before mass atrocities against innocent men, women and children, stringent gun laws were put into place.
There are two problems. One is generic crime on the streets and that can best be solved by increasing the number of law enforcement officers in difficult areas and not tying their hands with laws that benefit the criminal. And the other problem is insane monsters who go on killing sprees. All you can do is hope that someone is present with a weapon who can stop them. And by encouraging the "man on the street" to carry a firearm, that is the best defense.
It might interest you to know that gun sales in the US are higher now than they have been in recent history and that more and more people are getting licensed to carry a concealed weapon. You cannot always count on someone else to protect you when a crazy person decides to become a murderer.
20yrsinBranson
The bold above is a reflection of those particular cities. I live in Atlanta and we have open carry laws in GA and our murder rate is higher than both DC and Chicago. There are other southern cities with liberal gun laws who also have very high murder rates compared to major cities in our country.
You (the poster above) also blamed the high amounts of murder in our country on black people, as if getting rid of black people will solve murder problems. Scotland, which has a very small black population and which has stringent gun laws, has the highest rate of violent crime than any other first world country, even higher than that of America (they stab people to death versus shooting them, which will bring me to another point). The majority of the black people in this country have been here for generations. No matter what a lot of white or hispanic or Asian or native americans want to believe, black people represent American values since most of us have roots in this country much longer than recent white immigrant descendants. America, with its culture of fear, is also a culture of violence. It was a country began with violence, it was sustained through violence and subjugation of others, it is a country with a history filled with drunkeness and lawlessness. During the late 19th century Chicago also had a very high murder rate FWIW and there were not many black people in the city. That city has a violent past and it is just retaining its culture.
In regards to what I alluded to earlier with the Scottish violent crime reference, I wanted to state that I personally don't believe that removing guns from Americans will do anything to diminish murders or other violent crimes in which guns are involved. If someone gets mad at another person and wants to kill them, they can kill them with various sorts of weapons and tools, like a knife or a bat. Violent, criminally minded people, will do the horrible things they want to do. I do admit that they may not kill as many people, like the nutso guy in CO if they didn't have access to specific types of weapons, but criminals will get weapons like that if they want them no matter the regulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
Respect people who can only feel safe when carrying a gun all of the time? No, that is just sad. I feel sorry for them.
As a person who has a concealed carry permit, I feel the same way. I only got it because my husband was afraid of me being home with the kids when he was out of town. I am just not a scary person and don't frighten easily. I used to be but it is something that I chose to purge from myself. I don't understand why people feel the need to carry a gun all the time. I think it has to do with them wanting to feel important or respected. But I don't respect people who are afraid of everything or who want to feel important just because of a material item they possess. I also feel sorry for them. My gun is at home and accessible if someone breaks in the house.
I have a co-worker that carries a gun all the time. Even though I joke with him about it, I pity him in that he is so afraid of the world that he sees it necessary to carry around a pistol all the time.
As a person who has a concealed carry permit, I feel the same way. I only got it because my husband was afraid of me being home with the kids when he was out of town. I am just not a scary person and don't frighten easily. I used to be but it is something that I chose to purge from myself. I don't understand why people feel the need to carry a gun all the time. I think it has to do with them wanting to feel important or respected. But I don't respect people who are afraid of everything or who want to feel important just because of a material item they possess. I also feel sorry for them. My gun is at home and accessible if someone breaks in the house.
I have a co-worker that carries a gun all the time. Even though I joke with him about it, I pity him in that he is so afraid of the world that he sees it necessary to carry around a pistol all the time.[/quote]
This describes me pretty well. I have a concealed carry permit as well; however, I don't ever remember carrying one. I do have an accessible gun at home and a large dog.
i fail to understand why people attack an inanimate object that is merely a tool. guns dont kill people, bullets dont kill people, cars, knives, baseball bats, etc. DONT KILL PEOPLE. ALL of these items and more require a human agency to make them work.
as to deaths caused by firearms, would these people be any less if they were tossed out a 10 story window?
why has there been an rise in violent deaths since the 60s? we have been cheapening human life by making abortion easy to get, and working hard to remove god from society. we make movies that embrace drugs, and violence, and the more violent the movie, the more we like it. same with TV shows, and video games, etc. we need to get societies moral compass set straight again, and stop coddling criminals.
Specious argument. Guns (held by people - since that point is sooooo important) kill people from a DISTANCE. Try killing someone in a drive by with a knife or a bat from 50 feet away. Throwing that knife or bat at a crowd or a store window will get you little result without a lot of luck. Shooting a dozen bullets will have a much greater chance of injury or death.
Killing up close requires a personal commitment. It's a visceral, emotionally charged moment. Killing from 10 feet away using a gun is entirely different and requires much less emotion and commitment.
Respect people who can only feel safe when carrying a gun all of the time? No, that is just sad. I feel sorry for them.
Again, there is no need to feel sorry for anyone. They made a choice to carry a firearm. I respect their decision. I likewise respect your decision not to carry a weapon. Its called freedom.
Again, there is no need to feel sorry for anyone. They made a choice to carry a firearm. I respect their decision. I likewise respect your decision not to carry a weapon. Its called freedom.
I can appreciate the fact that you don't want people to feel sorry for those who can only feel safe when they have a gun on them, but I believe that they have some real issues. I don't know whether it is extreme paranoia or some deep seated insecurity about themselves. Either way, I do feel sorry for them. I respect their right to do it if they need it to get through the day. I am just glad that I don't. As to freedom, yes people are free to have whatever neurosis they are inflicted with.
I know that I wil cop varying degrees of flack over this posting but I feel so strongly about the subject that I will just have to take what comes on the chin.
First up, I would like it known that I am a retired Aussie bloke with 25 years experience in most aspects of law enforcement including uniform patrol and supervision, criminal investigation, undercover narcotics, organised crime, police college instructor etc. I am also a military veteran having served n the Australlian Army in South East Asia during the 1960s (Yes, we were also there.). Bottom line - I know a bit about firearms and am not some 'pinko Commie' and am in fact a right-wing conservative.
What I don't get is how citizens of the USA (which I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting on several occasions) can continue to tolerate the rising numbers of firearm related deaths and injuries each year, which I think it is somewhere around 100,000 at present. Surely if these were casulaties sustained in some sort of military action, US citizens would want to know why!
And I also don't understand why your law makers haven't had a serious look at the Constitutional right of Americans to bare arms. I have only a basic understanding of the Second Ammendment to your Constitution but 2 things in this stand out to me - "militia" and "well-regulated". "Militia" I get as being an organised body of civilians as opposed to a permanent military force. And when your founding fathers drafted the Constitution, this ammendment was quite justified; not so much need for a 'militia' now days though I would think. But surely the term "well-regulated" is self-explanatory and seems today to be wide of the mark in the USA. I have read that is some US States, firearms can be purechased at gun shows without adequate background checks being carried out on the prospective buyer. That seems crazy!
Some of you may be aware that in April 1996 36 people were killed and 23 wounded in the massacre at Port Arthur here in the State of Tasmania. This horrific event was a watershed for gun ownership in Australia. Under federal government co-ordination all Australian States and Territories banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavy controls on their legal use. The governmenyt initiated a "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of AUS $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised AUS $500 million.
Perhaps it is time that some of your politicians at federal and state level showed some intestinal fortitude and had a good look at firearm ownership in the USA.
Okay, let the bullets fly!
No way to say this a nice way...Stay out of our politics.
I can appreciate the fact that you don't want people to feel sorry for those who can only feel safe when they have a gun on them, but I believe that they have some real issues. I don't know whether it is extreme paranoia or some deep seated insecurity about themselves. Either way, I do feel sorry for them. I respect their right to do it if they need it to get through the day. I am just glad that I don't. As to freedom, yes people are free to have whatever neurosis they are inflicted with.
Will you at least acknowledge that there is, in fact, danger out there - the home invasions, the car jackings, the muggings etc?
An alternative to a firearm is the taser - wonderful se lf protection device also.
My wife and I travel a LOT in the RV. We even go into Mexico to visit wonderful little pueblos (although not as much these days). We are primarily responsible for our safety - not law enforcement (this is true even at home)
Again - will you acknowledge that there are dangers in our day to day lives?
Will you at least acknowledge that there is, in fact, danger out there - the home invasions, the car jackings, the muggings etc?
An alternative to a firearm is the taser - wonderful se lf protection device also.
My wife and I travel a LOT in the RV. We even go into Mexico to visit wonderful little pueblos (although not as much these days). We are primarily responsible for our safety - not law enforcement (this is true even at home)
Again - will you acknowledge that there are dangers in our day to day lives?
I don't worry about every forseeable and unforseeable danger of every minute of every day. That seems like a very sad way to live. Do you take a gun to the bathroom with you or do you have a spare in there?
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.
