Mass shooting in the USA - again ?

Fuel for the fire:

Man stabs 22 children at China primary school - Yahoo! News Philippines

 

A thorough study of statistics, without an agenda to find evidence to support a predisposed preferred outcome, will ultimately prove the fallacical nature of your argument Greg.

The USA has the highest guns per capita of any nation.

You claim US citizens are safer because they can have guns..................

There is no evidence of diminished crime rates because of armed citizens.

Yes, there is! Violent crimes rates have gone up against citizens in England AND Australia after guns were outlawed! Chicago has the toughest gun laws, yet has has one of the highest incidents of violent crime. Tougher gun laws and outlawing guns has been proven NOT to work in reducing violent crime.

WRONG!!!

I understand how you can come up with your conclusion, but it is not based on all the facts, just some of them.

THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE

In fact, statistics will show that more citizens get shot BECAUSE THEY HAD A GUN.

What "statistics"? Where is the evidence? This is a misnomer touted by the liberal media and gun control advocates. They will definitely get shot if the do not drop their gun when confronted by a police officer though!

There is a higher % of dead and wounded among gun owners than those robbed who had no gun, I wonder why?

And what would the even higher percentage be if they were unarmed?? What is not included in the "statistics" are the incidents where gun owners stopped a crime. There is no gathered and formal statistic for it. This does not make it untrue. "Statistics" can be manipulated and twisted, by omitting key information.

The truth is, USA has the highest per capita of guns and the highest per capita of gun victims, that's your facts.

And who are these "victims"? Gang members, law-breakers, and ?

True! But it would be MUCH higher without guns!

If you haven't lived there, you wouldn't know.

Garbonzo is so right

 

I know one thing for sure
Nobody can be shot , killed or robed by my gun because I have no gun, did I miss a gun in my 70 years not a second.

Greetings J.Diver

 

While most of you bring up good points I think this is more a testament to the lousy, winner take all, only if you can afford it healthcare system we currently have in the US. If we make healtcare mandatory and a right and change our thinking about this perhaps we can get our mentally ill looked at more carefully and take them off of the street which is where you will find them today because they have not had decent healthcare for the majority of our citizens for too long. They may be free today, yah free to roam the streets but I would rather have them free and healthy and if possible productive. I do not see a problem with these goals even if I and our millionaires in the US have to pay more taxes. Is the alternative worth it? I don't think so.

 

What a good point Pedro. I know absolutely nothing about the USA health care system, apart from, every election from as long as I can remember has had heated debates on that subject. I cannot really understand, why, in 2012, one of the most Technically advanced, and Militairily advanced Countries on the Globe, still has not got their act together with healthcare. I was going to say Richest, but, China knows exactly how "rich" the US Treasury isn't........lol.......and yes, I guess there are plenty of millionaires in the US who could certainly spare a few more cents each year to assist. Or would that extra tax money go to producing more arms and finance more wars ? or go to China to reduce the US debt there ?

 

View attachment 9038

Not sure of the statistics.... But a general Observation?

 

wow, it they are accurate, wow !

NZ was not listed.

Good.

 

knowdafish draws a very pitiful picture of himself and the american population. I wasn't aware it is that bad.
I hope it is not true and really just him

 

Those stats are particularly damning for US gun laws when you consider that those other countries' combined populations add up, approximately, to the USA's population.


You claim US citizens are safer because they can have guns..................

There is no evidence of diminished crime rates because of armed citizens.

WHERE?????????????

Violent crimes may have gone up, yes, stabbings, bashings ETC.
(Stabbings have gone up because of immigrants from violent 3rd world countries)

BUT SHOOTINGS HAVE GONE WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY DOWN!!!!!!

WRONG!!!

Tougher gun laws and outlawing guns has proven to work in reducing people getting shot!!!!

Please don't sink to using the strawman argument.


In fact, statistics will show that more citizens get shot BECAUSE THEY HAD A GUN.

There is a higher % of dead and wounded among gun owners than those robbed who had no gun, I wonder why?
THINK WITH YOUR HEAD AND NOT YOUR GUN FOR A MINUTE

Imagine you are an armed house robber, you invade and rob 2 houses. House A has a man with a gun and house B has an unarmed man, which man are you most likely going to shoot??

(For the intelectually handicapped, you would most likely shoot the guy in House A becoz he pulls a gun on you.

You really think much crime is stopped by gun toting yanks...............
If it happenned much, you would read and hear about it in the news media.
Despite the millions of guns in the USA, 99%+ of rapes overted are because of other means (capsicum sprays etc)
Most of the women who carried guns are probably dead.

The truth is, USA has the highest per capita of guns and the highest per capita of gun victims, that's your facts.

and law abiding citizens, Policemen, school teachers and SCHOOL CHILDREN!!!!!

Man you must feel like a real idiot after leaving yourself wide open with that question!

Yeah, good point, we have not had a school massacre in the country i live in.
Maybe its because we have a much lower citizen/gun ratio because of sensible gun laws

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
1. When the constitution was ratified the Federal Government relied upon the state militias to serve in time of war since the government had very little money or credit to create a standing army. The European settlers were dependent upon guns initially and in the inexorable move across the continent-thus the 400 year history of the "gun culture". When the Government did eventually create a military no one saw a need to clarify gun ownership and those territories that constituted the "wild west" were dependent upon guns whether or not they were in a militia.
2. The interpretation of the right of citizens to have guns independent of a militia wasn't settled until recently by the Supreme Court and many legal scholars found the decision erroneous.
3. The time has long passed, absent an amendment to the constitution, to restrict firearms since the second amendment has been virtually ignored until recently so all the statistics and vitriol mean little on either side. Guns are part of the "American Experience" and the Supreme Court's decision confirmed this view so for good or evil that isn't going to change.