MadsL wrote: » If you are claiming that is due to gun control (I assume you are not though) then why is that not true for Chicago where the homicide rate has jumped by a third.
MadsL wrote: » Switzerland for one, begs to differ.
ray2012 wrote: » People (mainly Americans themselves) that are completely against the banning (or stricter laws) on guns, I can't understand at all. We had the Colorado shooting not too long ago, and now this. When is it going to get into their minds that a ban on guns WOULD help .
kincsem wrote: » From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a historical list of countries by firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year ... I see Switzerland and Finland have high death rates. In Finland there are 32 privately owned firearms per 100 civilians. By the end of 2006 there were more than 1.6 million licensed firearms. In Switzerland the total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million. My guess is more guns result in more deaths.
Suryavarman wrote: » People are more likely to die in the US because it is a more violent country. There's no proof that it is because there are more guns.
The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate
Wompa1 wrote: » I'm no expert when it comes to Switz laws but I'm pretty sure when I talked to a Swtiz guy they said he had to go to training...
Suryavarman wrote: » Interesting that you bring that up. Only last week I threw together an excel spreadsheet comparing gun ownership and homicide rates for 156 different countries. Some countries are excluded because they either had homicide rates missing or because gun ownership rates were missing. The general relationship was that more guns were present in societies with less homicides. Homicide rates are taken from here and gun ownership rates are taken from here. The excel spreadsheet is at the bottom of the post.
darced wrote: » This post has been deleted.
You as in america,I dont get personal on the interwebz.
I'm bowing out anyway it is natural for you to defend your own.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » What a fcuking bastrad
statesaver wrote: » Maybe since this is Obama's last 4 years and does not need votes he might make one final attempt to take on the gun lobby in the US.
aloyisious wrote: » Even though this might sound silly or illogical, there's a push by the Gun-owners lobby to have state laws banning concealed-weapons overturned, so that those with licensed fire-arms can carry weapons under their clothing. Some of the states have laws licensing licensed fire-arms owners to carry concealed weapons.
Was the guy not Kevlared up to the teeth?
In previous school shootings, people have been armed with fully automatic guns
All because they are afraid of their government ... can you believe this sh1t ? you could not make it up. The Land of the Free .... the Greatest Country in the World .... you know ... all the garbage they keep telling the rest of us ? Yet they are so afraid of their Government that they want everyone to have guns.
The problem in this case is the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. I don't know how difficult it is in America to repeal this, or get the sufficient support to do so. It's clear that it was brought in quite early in the history of the US - and was mainly to prevent against tyranny. The 2nd Amendment as it is currently understood would never consider that as an option
kincsem wrote: » From Google. The term militia, or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.
Suryavarman wrote: » And you have met over 150 million Americans to come to that conclusion?
90,000 people shot a year in the us not including suicides from various sources works out at about 250 a day or 10 or so an hour.
There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.
What war crimes are you refering to?
Pique wrote: » Well the restriction on the ownership of weapons to bolt action rifles or non repeating weapons wouldn't be anti constitutional though. For the sake of future generations of America, I hope something is done.
uncleoswald wrote: » Oh I agree, gun ownership does not in itself lead to higher gun crime. But the countries used as proof of this static are hardly comparable to the USA. I believe a tightening of gun laws is a more likely solution than the US suddenly resembling a Scandinavian country socially and economically. Australia might be a better example to follow:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
Here is the actual data from Australia. First note that homicides didn't fall until eight years after the laws. It is not clear what theory they have for why the long delay would occur. Nor can I even find an acknowledgment of that long lag in the cited literature.
This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the NFA on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects—that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods. ... Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.
China has been mentioned here an awful lot as proof that random acts of mass violence isn't an America only problem but the amount of fatalities aren't comparable at all. Something has to give in the US and I don't see any solutions from the pro gun lobby.
wonderfullife wrote: » Surely a straight comparison between gun ownership and homicides is meaningless if the statistics are not broken down into the type of guns legally available. Ireland according to that chart has 8.6/100 but you can bet your bottom dollar that these are not automatic/semi-automatic/high caliber guns. There's a vast difference between legal gun ownership by farmers, shooting enthusiasts etc to being able to legally own guns capable of killing 30 people in double quick time.
Pique wrote: » That's a pathetic comment. I'm a recent father in a country 3000 miles away and I was welling up watching the news. You're a pretty heartless ****er if you mean that imo.
wonderfullife wrote: » sadly true Not defending anybody for a second but early reports suggest the shooter suffered mental illnesses (according to the facebook page of the shooters brother labelled him "developmentally disabled" whatever that means). May turn out he didnt get the help he needed. People are right though in a sense that guns dont kill people and it's hard to stop every mentally unhinged person doing this - but having legally attainable high powered weapons sure makes it easier for people to commit these atrocities. I strongly doubt he kills 20 kids armed with a knife anyway.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
