Freeman11 & UT Brit,Interesting perspectives from both, thank
you. I have to agree with UT Brit, though, murder trumps assault. I would say
that a country with more assaults but fewer homocides is a safer country,
although it is a sad way to have to look at it.
@Freeman11Problem is when definitions of violent crimes differ
between countries.A verbal threat in the UK no matter how flippant
is classed as assault and would be in the violent crime stats. The vast majority
of violent crime in the UK does not end up with actual physical assault on a
person.One stat you cant misunderstand though is murder rates. You
are 4 times more likely to be killed in the US than the UK.
Emajor,While you are correct that many European have strict gun control and
lower homicide rates that doesn't mean they are less violent.For
example;England has aprox.3 per 100,000 compared to our rate of 32 per 100,000
gun homicides.However their overall rate of violent crimes is 2034 per 100,000
to our 466 per 100,000.The most violent countries are England and Australia with
26% and 30%(The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden
University in Holland)of their citizens being victimized by violent
crime.America didn't even make the top 10 on that list.Coincidentally both
England and Australia both have strict gun control and we don't.Something
to think about anyway.I agree that something needs to be done but don't
think gun control is the answer.
Legal drugs? Okay, as long as those who use them pay for all the
consequences they inflict on society with their drug use.But alas,
they can't. Drug users use all they have to get more drugs. That is why
drugs are illegal, too huge a toll on society.
Mountain Man: the only logic that makes sense is to keep gun ownership legal and
to legalize drugs. Both liberals and conservatives have it wrong.
One old man: How often have we heard from liberals that we should legalize
drugs? Legalize drugs but make owning guns illegal! Liberal logic! LOL
So, MM, are you advocating legalizing crack cocaine and meth?
Wait a minute! You mean laws against selling and using crack cocaine and meth do
not stop some people from selling and using? Then why do liberal think more gun
laws will keep bad guys from using them?
We lack a controlled study on gun restrictions, and will never get one because
it would violate the constitution. So we have to look at the less
than "control group" evidence we have. Tossing the data from Chicago, or
any other place, just because it doesn't support your point of view, makes
the data less reliable. It is just cherry picking. And with the
current climate, no one is willing to look at this holistically. Lets deal better with our mentally ill. The mother of Lanza tried to get help
for him, but couldn't. I am not for carelessly locking people up, but
perhaps we need to adjust our commitment requirements, a little bit. With all these shooters, there are those who knew them, coming forward and
saying they could see it coming. That is where we need preventive measures and
The murder rate in Chicago can be blamed on drug wars. Almost all the deaths
are gang members. Obviously illegal guns are as available as illegal drugs.
Yet another argument that assumes causality when there is not enough information
to do so. Chicago has strict gun control laws and high homocide rates, therefore
gun control causes homocides. Well, the opposite of that are many European
nations with strict gun control laws and very low homocide rates. Can we get
some actual evidence and facts on this debate, or should we all just assume
whatever we want and stick our heads in the sand?I'm just
waiting for the "gun in my hand better than cop on phone" comments to