I'm afraid.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

I'm afraid that many of those who make the claim that self-defense purposed owners of guns do so out of fear are somewhat correct.

Fear: an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.

Well, IMHO, those folks that prepare are correct. Home invaders, muggers, rapists, etc. are dangerous threats and often cause pain. Is preparing to deal a prospective unpleasant dangerous situation based on love, anger or grief? No, but I think many pro-control types believe that any preparation for self-defense demonstrates unreasonable fear. What you decide is reasonable should be based on your own assessment of your situation and capabilities. The law should allow for that without requiring delays and high fees.

In spite of those who've never had an auto accident wearing seat belts, never had a home fire but have smoke detectors and maybe even extinguishers or have never had a health problem but pay for health insurance, those type of preventative prep are fine.

What about those folks who are single, never have overnight guests and have opted to rent a two bedroom apartment? Are they afraid of suddenly having a roommate appear out of the sky?

[Press Virginia]

1. I'm always tickled by those who say gun owners live in fear

right before they express their fear of being shot by someone with a holstered gun in a store.

I don't fear a home invasion any more than I fear a house fire but I've procured the tools to help deal with both should the need arise.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. My personal opinion

Having a first line of means of dealing with a problem is fine and logical. Having a backup plan is always a good idea. Some of those prepper types with $1M bunker are probably going too far.

[Press Virginia]

3. well my first line of defense is the dogs

which will either give us time to get out the back door or get to a safety room (one where a gun is available) until the police arrive.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. That's a good first option, I believe in the USMC rules for gun fighting...

Especially #26: "Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and deescalation."
http://www.snipercountry.com/articles/gunfightrules.asp

[EdwardBernays]

4. Lol

Guns are more likely to hurt someone you love in your home than protect them.

They offer an illusion of safety from a mostly illusory threat and in return they increase the risk of injury or death to a loved one.

If you buy a gun to FEEL safe you aren't being wise, you're being scared. And making desicions based on fear isn't a sign of a rational mind, but a sign of someone not thinking but reacting.

How many people do you actually know who were killed because they didn't have a gun? How many saved their family with their gun?

We KNOW that already this year more than TWO DOZEN TODDLERS in America have shot people with their parents guns. And guess what, in 2015 toddlers with guns killed more Americans than terrorists.

The quickest way to be a gun violence victim is to buy a gun. And access to guns increases the risk of successful suicide attempts.

Your fear is making you behave irrationally and that irrational behavior is putting you and your family at risk.

[gejohnston]

5. there is no evidence to support the claim

and no objective peer reviewed studies that show that either. No, shill studies funded by Bloomberg or the Joyce Foundation don't count.

How many people do you actually know who were killed because they didn't have a gun?

I know three would have been, if they didn't have a gun.

How many saved their family with their gun?

The actual number is unknowable, but the CDC puts it north of a half million.

[EdwardBernays]

9. lol

For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/

In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099?journalCode=ajph

Cross reference that with the FBIs own gun homicide data.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg...

Guns only offer the illusion of safety (remembering that as many people die at the end of a gun per month in America as died on 9/11) and MULTIPLE studies have shown that guns in your home are a large threat to your family...

And c'mere... most of us are just fine without a gun... we aren't scared and nothing happens to us... try being less cowardly??

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. So in order for a action to qualify as...

...a genuine defensive gun use, would the defender have to actually kill the assailant or is just wounding enough?

Are you in the camp that claims a gun is used offensively when it used to threaten in an assault even if it isn't fired but that a gun drawn in self-defense isn't used unless it's fired and injures or kills?

Love your sauce, btw.

[EdwardBernays]

13. I'm not

Saying anything about any of that.

And thank you - that sauce put me through college.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. Well... okay then

And for that sauce.

[gejohnston]

14. you proved my point

You brought up the Kellermann studies, which was debunked as a shill study. He origionally claimed that it was forty something, then seven, then twice. When he attracted the attention of criminologists because his claims was far out of the mainstream of their studies. When asked for his data and methods for peer review, he refused for several years. When he finally did, the flaws were obvious and published. Since then, he adjusted his numbers based on the same flawed data and still failed any kind of peer review.
The same study also showed that illegal drug use, using alcohol, and renting were higher risk factors than guns.
http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html
BTW, Kellerman is an MD who didn't follow the scientific method.
Defensive gun use rarely leads to death of bad guy. There are about three hundred per year. Most of the time the gun is a "mind changer".

Guns only offer the illusion of safety (remembering that as many people die at the end of a gun per month in America as died on 9/11) and MULTIPLE studies have shown that guns in your home are a large threat to your family..

Almost all of which are in the twenty worst cities and in the drug trade or member of a gang. Sixty percent of all gun deaths are suicides. The Homicides don't come close to that number. If you are not a member of a gang in the twenty worst cities, you have a lower chance of being murdered than you do in Germany. Since heroin deaths outnumber murders regardless of weapons, perhaps we should ban heroin? Oh wait. Drug overdoses out number all gun deaths combined.

Come back when you have a collection of peer reviewed studies that were published in CRIMINOLOGY journals. Everything else is agiprop. The consensus of criminologists is that gun laws have zero effect on crime.
Why do you assume I have it for protection? They have always been there growing up, most people own them, and the last gun homicide was two decades ago. The last homicide was last year, killed with bare hands.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. re: "They offer an illusion of safety..."

Which is why the cops carry.

Cops shoot the wrong person at a crime scene more often than civilians do.


As with most adult tools
Proper care is very wise.
Always follow the four rules.
Keep it safe and at your side
Or locked away from kids and fools.

[EdwardBernays]

8. Cops carry

In America

And they kill endless citizens as a result... they don't in most of the rest of the word... and guess what, most of the rest of the world has lower murder rates...

you were saying?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. Are you saying that...

...murder rates are low elsewhere because their cops don't carry or do their cops not carry because murders are less frequent?

[EdwardBernays]

12. I'm saying

That the safety of the populous is not determined by how many guns the cops carry and in fact there's AMPLE evidence that the cops kill a lot of people with their guns... An issue most other countries do not have.

[gejohnston]

15. cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Other countries do not have the gang problems we do, they don't have the illegal drug use that we do, nor the political corruption in our most gang ridden cities that we do. We are a completely different culture, more individualistic, and our crime problems are different than ours. They had the same problems when they had no gun laws as they do now, actually lower since they had a shortage of young men. Cologne is not comparable to Baltimore. Caracas is, not not anyplace in Europe. Why? Poverty, poor infrastructure, gangs, political corruption.
Ours is mostly gangs and other criminals killing each other. Australia's is mostly home invasion and car jacking victims. Australia does have biker gangs, and the Hells Angels and Mongols were at war for a couple of years. During the war, Merrylands area of Sydney had over a hundred drive by shootings. The only bright side being that basement made machine guns fired from motorcycle doesn't hit the target.

[EdwardBernays]

22. Not even vaguely true

You should spend some time looking through the FBI homicide stats.

You should also Google organized crime in Europe. And Asia. It's very very common.

Hong Kong for example has a population of a little more than 7m. And a gang population of over 150k. That's 2.4% of the population. The US gang membership is about 1,000,000 or 0.33% or less.

By your estimation it should have a dramatically higher gun homicide rate.

Let's check.

US gun homicide rate: 10.5
HK: Between 2000 and 2010 it had... 6 gun homicides. Total.

Sure Paris alone has about 10,000 gang members... There's thousands of Italians gang members all over Europe. And Russian mobsters are pretty common even here in Ireland...

And yet... Almost no gun violence in Europe. Despite the 10s of thousands of gang members. Or in Asia. Despite the huge numbers of gang members.

[gejohnston]

23. I do, I also know what I'm reading.

Our gun homicide rate is closer to three, not 10.5. Our murder rates was 4.8 That is our gun death rate, which includes suicides, justifiable homicides, and and stupidity.
Their gangs are like the Mob or Yakusa, which are nothing like street and biker gangs, which are more violent.

And yet... Almost no gun violence in Europe. Despite the 10s of thousands of gang members. Or in Asia. Despite the huge numbers of gang members.

street gangs and the Mob are not the same thing. Also, there are a lot of illegal guns in Europe. You can't seriously claim that gun laws have anything to do with their "business practices" since they ARE in the illegal gun and drug business. That is one reason when there are gun crimes, they are more likely to use machine guns than ours do. Another reason is their "corporate culture" discourages violence, and have nothing in common with the Crips, Bloods, MS13, various biker gangs where violence for violence's sake is part of theirs. Equating them is absurd.

By your estimation it should have a dramatically higher gun homicide rate.

No, because the types of gangs, see above, and the cultures are completely different. BTW, why do countries like Mexico, Brazil, Jamaica, USVI, Venezuela all have stricter gun control laws than anywhere in Europe, including UK, yet their murder rates are astronomical? Like Detroit, Baltimore, etc?

Also, UK and much of Europe under reports their actual statistics, see rapes in Germany during New Years Eve.

[Straw Man]

25. Gun violence.

And yet... Almost no gun violence in Europe.

Let's dispense with the "gun violence" red herring, shall we, and look at overall homicide rates instead. After all, I don't particularly prefer being stabbed to death--or strangled, for that matter--to being shot. Maybe that's just me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

Sorting by region, I look at Europe and I see that Albania, Moldava, Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, and Lithuania have higher homicide rates than the United States. Belarus and Latvia have rates that approach that of the United States.

Going over to Asia, your little Hong Kong city-state does have a lower rate, but Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, and Thailand have higher rates, and Myanmar tops the scale with a homicide rate that is four times that of the United States.

But by far the highest rates are in Central and South America. Honduras stands out with 84.3 homicides per 100,000 population, as opposed to 3.8 for the United States.

Tell us again how it's all about the guns.

[EdwardBernays]

27. well

the problem with that attitude is that access to guns and higher suicide and accidental gun violence go hand in hand...

And a HUGE percentage of non-gun suicide attempts end in the person surviving, and most people don't try more than once... guns + suicide = dead people... and lots of them.

The same go for guns + arguements and guns + crazy.

Yeah, no one wants to be stabbed, but a much higher percentage of people that are stabbed survive than people shot.

If you would like to talk homicide rate, that's fine as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

country + rate

United States 3.8

That's almost 4x higher than the UK. In fact it's higher that 113 other countries.

Here's other countries with similar rates:

Iran 3.9
Maldives 3.9
United States 3.8
Mozambique 3.7
Uzbekistan 3.7

--

Now add in the tens of thousands of gun accidents, the endless police shootings, and mass shootings and ask yourself if arming the population to the teeth is working?

We have endless guns, and a higher homicide rate than Uzbekistan... those guns aren't keeping Americans safe, and there's ENDLESS evidence that they're harming many people that are innocent.

[gejohnston]

28. we don't have tens of thousands of accidents,

unless you are counting over a couple of centuries. No, there aren't "endless police shootings" either.
As for Uzbeckistan

However, non-governmental human rights watchdogs, such as IHF, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, as well as United States Department of State and Council of the European Union define Uzbekistan as "an authoritarian state with limited civil rights"[38] and express profound concern about "wide-scale violation of virtually all basic human rights".[39] According to the reports, the most widespread violations are torture, arbitrary arrests, and various restrictions of freedoms: of religion, of speech and press, of free association and assembly. It has also been reported that forced sterilization of rural Uzbek women has been sanctioned by the government.[40][41] The reports maintain that the violations are most often committed against members of religious organizations, independent journalists, human rights activists and political activists, including members of the banned opposition parties.

The 2005 civil unrest in Uzbekistan, which resulted in several hundred people being killed, is viewed by many as a landmark event in the history of human rights abuse in Uzbekistan.[42][43][44] A concern has been expressed and a request for an independent investigation of the events has been made by the United States, European Union, the United Nations, the OSCE Chairman-in-Office and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

The government of Uzbekistan is accused of unlawful termination of human life and of denying its citizens freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. The government vehemently rebuffs the accusations, maintaining that it merely conducted an anti-terrorist operation, exercising only necessary force.[45] In addition, some officials claim that "an information war on Uzbekistan has been declared" and the human rights violations in Andijan are invented by the enemies of Uzbekistan as a convenient pretext for intervention in the country's internal affairs.[46]

Uzbekistan also maintains the world's second highest rate of human slavery with 3.97%[47] of the country's men, women and children living in bondage to slave masters in both domestic and industrial labour. In real terms, this means that there are currently 1.2 million slaves[47] in Uzbekistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan
We are actually higher than 104 countries but LOWER than 113 countries. Use the sort function.

[EdwardBernays]

32. ummm

in the last 20 years we've easily had 10s of thousands of accidents...

we've had 3000 in the last two years alone...

As for police shootings, yeah their are endless police shootings... Between Jan of last year and now the police have shot and killed about 1500 civilians in America. That's 1500 in 17 months... you might want to use a different word other than endless, but... has it ended? Is it recent? No to both... it's an ongoing problem with no end in site. Endless.

And re: Uzbekistan... yeah?

As for the 104 number, sorry I read it as 228, not 218... off by one..

So yeah, there's only 104 countries with lower murder rates than us...

Here's a few countries with lower murder rates:

Belarus
Latvia
Liberia
Vietnam
Kosovo
Ghana
Bulgaria

[gejohnston]

35. That is pretty low for our population

Here's a few countries with lower murder rates:

Belarus
Latvia
Liberia
Vietnam
Kosovo
Ghana
Bulgaria

None of which have anything in common with the US, there is no guarantee that they are reporting accurate information, and many are police states. BTW, how familiar are you with the gun laws of those places? Bulgaria hurts your argument. Their gun laws are more liberal than Australia's, New Jersey's, New York's, or Maryland's. Certainly more so than DC. In fact, concealed carry is fairly common and socially accepted, like the Czech Republic.

[EdwardBernays]

36. There's some truth

to the fact that America is a special case, insofar as it's unable to safely own guns... I don't disagree, but... but... that's not an argument for Americans continuing to have endless access to guns...

Imagine if your son wrecks your cars 2-3 times in a few months... your neighbour's son never does... does your neighbour's son's ability to drive safely mean that you should let your son continue to have your car?

Put it a different way, if America didn't have 30K people die at the end of a gun every year, with 10s of thousands more injured, no one would be calling for more gun control... people want gun control BECAUSE Americans as a whole can't handle guns safely... at all.

And yeah, that might mean that safe gun owners have to suffer a bit, to save a lot of innocent lives, but so what? Gun owners certainly aren't doing anything to lower the gun death rate... they've had decades to sort it out without government intervention and yet... 10s of thousands of deaths a year... in the last 15 years alone more Americans have died at the end of a gun than died in military action in ww2.

And yet, when even simple gun safety legislation is proposed gun owners flip out and act like their entire self worth as an American is being challenged...

It's absurd..

But hey listen, lets be clear... no one is going to do anything about it... America will still lose thousands of kids to guns a year... don't worry... your freedom as a gun owner to wipe out a few dozen civilians will not be impinged.

[gejohnston]

37. more complete nonsense

to the fact that America is a special case, insofar as it's unable to safely own guns... I don't disagree, but... but... that's not an argument for Americans continuing to have endless access to guns...

the people who are the problem will still have access to guns, just like the heroin and coke they sell.

Imagine if your son wrecks your cars 2-3 times in a few months... your neighbour's son never does... does your neighbour's son's ability to drive safely mean that you should let your son continue to have your car?

which has nothing to do with anything.

Put it a different way, if America didn't have 30K people die at the end of a gun every year, with 10s of thousands more injured, no one would be calling for more gun control... people want gun control BECAUSE Americans as a whole can't handle guns safely... at all.

after you subtract the suicides, there are eight thousand gun homicides. Almost all of them are criminals, gangs, killing each other. Accidents are in the tens, not thousands.
actually, people would still be pushing for stricter gun laws, because it is a culture war. People like Bloomberg and Brady campaign don't give a rat's ass about saving lives. They care about their pet cause and ideology. New York's Sullivan law was not about "saving lives" it was about disarming the victims of Tim Sullivan's gang. Tim Sullivan was not only a corrupt Tammany Hall politician, but he was also a mobster. Former California Senator Leland Yee is no different. He also had connections to organized crime, and was busted conspiring to smuggle machine guns and rocket launchers in the US. Two of the three NY politicians that pushed the SAFE Act were since convicted of extortion and fraud.

And yeah, that might mean that safe gun owners have to suffer a bit, to save a lot of innocent lives, but so what? Gun owners certainly aren't doing anything to lower the gun death rate... they've had decades to sort it out without government intervention and yet... 10s of thousands of deaths a year... in the last 15 years alone more Americans have died at the end of a gun than died in military action in ww2.

Most murder victims are criminals, see Chicago and Detroit. The average gun owner has nothing to do with it. All gun laws attack people WHO ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, and does NOTHING about those who are there.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/
That's just Chicago. Newark, Trenton, New Orleans are no different.

And yet, when even simple gun safety legislation is proposed gun owners flip out and act like their entire self worth as an American is being challenged...

It's absurd..

Putting more restrictions on target shooters and hunters do nothing about the gang violence in Detroit, Chicago, Newark, DC, New Orleans. You know the quickest way to cut our murder rate in half? Give Oakland, Stockton, and Compton back to Mexico and give Detroit and Chicago to Canada.
The conditions in those cities are EXACTLY like the third world countries in Latin America. The poverty, corruption, poor infrastructure, substandard education, and gangs. The rest of the US is safer than most of Europe. That's a fact.

But hey listen, lets be clear... no one is going to do anything about it... America will still lose thousands of kids to guns a year... don't worry... your freedom as a gun owner to wipe out a few dozen civilians will not be impinged.

Nothing you, Bloomberg, Bernie, or any other gun control activist proposes will change that. NOTHING because you ignore the science of what the real issues are. You list countries without even bothering to look up their gun laws or anything else. You listed different countries based on.... I have no idea based on what.

You know who is more responsible, who fuels most of our gun violence? Bong owners. They are more responsible than gun owners because they fund the gangs who kill each other. You are spouting bullshit and claims that have nothing to do with the real issues. Passing laws won't do shit. Out of the peer reviewed studies done on Australia, NOT ONE shows that the National Firearms Agreement had the positive effect John Howard claimed. BTW, in Australia, if you resist the person robbing or raping you YOU will be charged with assault.
http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/bakersamaraijcjs2015vol10issue1.pdf

[EdwardBernays]

39. Lol

And yet lots of countries manage to not be flooded with guns... Huh.

The car analogy is apt. You just don't wanna acknowledge it.

There's not 8k gun homicides

This is 2015



And can I just say that I find it hilarious that you think pot gangs are killing 8000 people a year.

The facts are clear, as much as you don't like them, guns serve no good purpose in society. Most western societies live peacefully without them. Americans in particular can't handle guns and the damage wrought on society is OBVIOUS. Outside of America everyone thinks Americans obsession with guns is akin to mental illness. They stare slack-jawed at a society so desperate to protect from criminals with guns it stuffs homes with guns and then wonders why so many people die or are injured from guns.

I know you've been drinking the gun kool-aid so long I sound like a nut to you. I get that. But the rest of the world thinks your attitude is literally insane. Literally.

[gejohnston]

41. your numbers are still wrong

heroin still kills 14K every year. Still doesn't account for the hundreds of thousands of DGUs that don't result in death, or that all of the countries that have worse murder rates than ours make UK and Australia something Ted Nugent would agree with.

And can I just say that I find it hilarious that you think pot gangs are killing 8000 people a year.

drug gang warfare, often US subsidiaries of Latin American gangs, like MS13 are the majority of our murders. I don't give a rat's ass if you find it hard to believe or not, that is simple fact. Just look at where the murders are. They are not in North Dakota or even the nicer parts of Chicago or DC. BTW, your logical fallacy is argument by assertion.

The facts are clear, as much as you don't like them, guns serve no good purpose in society. Most western societies live peacefully without them. Americans in particular can't handle guns and the damage wrought on society is OBVIOUS. Outside of America everyone thinks Americans obsession with guns is akin to mental illness. They stare slack-jawed at a society so desperate to protect from criminals with guns it stuffs homes with guns and then wonders why so many people die or are injured from guns.

That is a value judgement, not facts.

I know you've been drinking the gun kool-aid so long I sound like a nut to you. I get that. But the rest of the world thinks your attitude is literally insane. Literally.

Actually, no. Angela Merkle is the EU's greatest gun salesperson. Gun rights groups are gaining power. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what much of the world thinks, because they don't share our liberal values and have no respect for the individual. Quite frankly, many of them are corrupt, theocratic, racist shitholes. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. BTW, that is also a logical fallacy called "band wagon". The only reason these laws were passed in Europe, including the UK, was because the ruling elites saw the Russian Revolution and decided "we don't want that".

Come back when you have an intelligent fallacy free argument. Quite frankly, emotional, fact free, and fallacious arguments might work the the stupid and intellectually lazy, but no me. If you want to convince me, provide a valid argument based on real numbers and relevant facts.

Criminologists can not explain the cycles in crime rates, even though many have pet theories. Poverty, lead in the environment, young male population, are among them. None of them are "just guns" outside of a few fringe ideologues.

[Straw Man]

30. Relevance?

Yeah, no one wants to be stabbed, but a much higher percentage of people that are stabbed survive than people shot.

Here's the thing: We were talking about homicide rates. By definition, homicide victims are the ones who didn't survive. Did that little fact elude you?

Now add in the tens of thousands of gun accidents, the endless police shootings, and mass shootings and ask yourself if arming the population to the teeth is working?

Tens of thousands of gun accidents? Since when? The beginning of recorded time? Hyperbole is not your friend.

We have endless guns, and a higher homicide rate than Uzbekistan... those guns aren't keeping Americans safe, and there's ENDLESS evidence that they're harming many people that are innocent.

Leaving aside your endless and inaccurate use of the adjective "endless," your contention that "guns aren't keeping Americans safe" is entirely contingent on which Americans you're talking about. Even conservative estimates of defensive gun uses put them in the hundreds of thousands.

[Straw Man]

24. Yes?

Cops carry

In America

And they kill endless citizens as a result... they don't in most of the rest of the word

Cops don't carry in most of the rest of the world? Only if you consider the U.K., Ireland, Iceland, Norway, and New Zealand to be "most of the rest of the world." I don't.

... and guess what, most of the rest of the world has lower murder rates...

Really? According to the UNODC, we're in the middle of the pack for murder rates: 105 out of 218. See chart below, and sort by Rate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

You were saying?

[EdwardBernays]

26. Sorry

Are you comparing the US to second and third world countries?

Is that what you actually think is appropriate?

And you need to do more than Google which countries have cops with guns. Lol.

Two easy examples that show up your ignorance are Germany and France.

Many German municipal cops don't carry guns and in France municipal police almost never do. That cops in cities.

So if you're in a city in Germany or France you're not likely to run into an armed cop.

Try again?

Oh and yes you're right I was quoting the gun violence rate, not the gun homicide rate... For gun homicides, when you compare it to non 2nd and 3rd world countries the US is the worst. Easily.

I know it somehow makes gun violence advocates happy that America is doing much better than Libya in gun violence, but Europe and Asia are much less swayed by that argument.

[Straw Man]

29. You should be.

Are you comparing the US to second and third world countries?

Is that what you actually think is appropriate?

You defined the field as "most of the rest of the world," so yes, I do think it is appropriate. In many respects, the US resembles a Second World country. I'm thinking in terms of social welfare and economic disparity. Address those issues and you'll see a significant drop in the homicide rate.

And you need to do more than Google which countries have cops with guns. Lol.

Two easy examples that show up your ignorance are Germany and France.

Many German municipal cops don't carry guns and in France municipal police almost never do. That cops in cities.

So if you're in a city in Germany or France you're not likely to run into an armed cop.

I have traveled throughout Europe. I saw plenty of armed cops. When I lived in Japan, I never saw a cop who wasn't armed. Hong Kong too.

"Many" German cops? "Almost never"? "Not likely"? Could you back-pedal any faster from your original unequivocal statement?

Oh and yes you're right I was quoting the gun violence rate, not the gun homicide rate...

No. You weren't. In the post I was replying to, you said "murder rate." Leave those goal posts where they are.

[EdwardBernays]

31. here

We don't disagree that socioeconomic are connected to crime, but hey guess what lots of european countries have those as well... and yet, they have lower murder rates and almost no gun violence... I know you'll find any way possible to say gun violence has noting to do with guns, but it's nonsense.

I have a hard time though ACTUALLY thinking that you believe the US is a second world country, in any respects, as those are basically limited to Eastern Europe and poor countries in Asia.

I live in Europe, and frequently travel around it for work.. I RARELY see cops in German or French cities with guns... In France the municipal police are armed or not on a city by city basis... it came out of a right-wing push to allow them to be armed, but literally it's city by city... in most cities I've been in they are NOT.

In Germany VERY FEW police you'd see on the streets are armed. It's becoming MORE common, but it's not a thing you'd expect or that most Germans I've talked to like...

I may have said murder rate, but I was obviously not quoting the murder rate... you can PRETEND I was lying about that, but I wasn't. You can believe it was an accident or not; your choice.

[gejohnston]

33. wrong

but hey guess what lots of european countries have those as well...

not to the level of our worst cities. I seriously doubt they have third world level break downs, half of the high school graduates being functionally illiterate, and the level of corruption like ours and South and Central America.

and yet, they have lower murder rates and almost no gun violence... I know you'll find any way possible to say gun violence has noting to do with guns, but it's nonsense.

Many of those European countries have more liberal laws and higher gun ownership than, say, New Jersey and Maryland, why not? BTW, the murder rates were even lower when there were no gun control at all in those countries.

In Germany VERY FEW police you'd see on the streets are armed. It's becoming MORE common, but it's not a thing you'd expect or that most Germans I've talked to like...

Really? All of the ones I've seen in Frankfurt Airport were carrying pistols and sub-machine guns. The only country I have been where cops didn't normally carry guns was South Korea.

[Straw Man]

34. ... and there.

I know you'll find any way possible to say gun violence has noting to do with guns, but it's nonsense.

There you are again with the red herring. Obviously "gun violence" is impossible without guns, just as "knife violence" is impossible without knives and "potato violence" is impossible without potatoes. Overall violence as manifested in homicide rates is the issue, the one you're trying desperately to avoid.

I have a hard time though ACTUALLY thinking that you believe the US is a second world country, in any respects, as those are basically limited to Eastern Europe and poor countries in Asia.

It depends on where you are in the US. Have you been to Detroit lately? A society that can't provide all its citizens with clean water is not a First World society in my book.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/special-features/2014/08/140822-detroit-michigan-water-shutoffs-great-lakes/

Then consider where the bulk of the murders are happening. What conclusions can you draw about the relationship between socioeconomic injustice and criminal violence?

I may have said murder rate, but I was obviously not quoting the murder rate... you can PRETEND I was lying about that, but I wasn't. You can believe it was an accident or not; your choice.

And you can PRETEND you meant something you didn't say, but you can't hold me responsible for not divining your intention.

[EdwardBernays]

38. Really

Divine my intention? I made it clear now what my intention was so no divining necessary.

At least you have clearly said that the way to get rid of gun violence is to get rid of guns. We agree.

As for Detroit etc., I grew up in Arkansas and saw abject poverty. But. Have you ever been to Eastern European slums? China is a second world country and even by Detroit standards most of China is pretty abysmally poor.

And still has almost no gun crime.

What I meant - which has I'm sure you actually know - is that pro-gun individuals and groups always have some other factor when it comes to gun violence: poverty, gangs, diversity, etc. There's never a moment when a pro-gun person says "hang on, this thing that I'm advocatibg for is at least partially responsible for 30k deaths in my country each year; there must be a better way".

Instead we get an endless litany of excuses - anything to shift the blame off of their precious guns.

And they agitate so loudly that they get their way. And as a result 30k more Americans die every year.

And - aside from all the paranoid fear that drives many gun owners to stock up on multiple guns and ammunition - they sleep ok at night. All those dead kids be damned. Who cares as long as I have my guns.

[Straw Man]

40. Red herrings and false premises.

Divine my intention? I made it clear now what my intention was so no divining necessary.

Actually, you still haven't. You said this:

most of the rest of the world has lower murder rates...

When I disproved that, you said this:

Oh and yes you're right I was quoting the gun violence rate, not the gun homicide rate... For gun homicides, when you compare it to non 2nd and 3rd world countries the US is the worst. Easily.

But you weren't citing the gun violence rate; you were citing the overall homicide rate. And that's the really important one. Dead is dead, regardless of means.

So what are you actually trying to say?

There's never a moment when a pro-gun person says "hang on, this thing that I'm advocatibg for is at least partially responsible for 30k deaths in my country each year; there must be a better way".

If there were no guns, no one would be killed by a gun. That's a meaningless truism. The reality is that nothing has been proposed that will realistically have an impact on that 3K until and unless the underlying causes of homicide and suicide are addressed. And I'll give you a hint: the answer isn't "Because gunz."

So let's hear your proposals.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

17. I wonder...

...how many posters here are from other nations in which owning weapons for self defense is highly unusual and just not part of the culture.

There are some things that just seem very, very strange, as if an American would time travel back 100 or 150 years to a time before women got the vote and before the Emancipation Proclamation. Wow, how can you treat each other that way......

Or if that same American went to places in the modern world where women cannot drive, where kids work in factories, etc.

Culturally, there are just some things people cannot 'wrap their heads around' no matter what.

As I think back 20 or so years, I remember how difficult it was to carry a handgun in other states. Today, many of the states I applied for CCW licenses now require nothing at all, no license, nothing, to carry a gun, such as Maine and West Virginia.

Times change, distance changes things, and there are no statistics that will make someone not dig their heals in if it just does not fit their paradigm.

Same goes for urban/rural in America. People from the NY metro area get all weird when they see a holstered handgun on someone who is not a cop.

Rural people do that all the time.

No matter, it still looks weird to them.

What I don't understand is the name calling and ridicule. I would never call a non-gunner 'weak' or 'unprepared' or anything insulting. I would never challenge the decision.

I suppose I could say 'hey, what good are you if I ever needed backup during a crime? Not owning a gun could get you killed, and furthermore, if I were in Mickey's and you came in without a gun on your hip, I would run out the door without paying.'

No, I would never say that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. re: "would never call a non-gunner 'weak' or 'unprepared' or anything insulting."

Oh my, Ted Nugent, who all of us pro-gun folks pray to like a god , would cry if he heard you say that.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

19. The Nuge....

...is an A-hole.

Thanks for the follow up post.

I'm shutting down my post because this one is an excellent follow-up.

Let's continue here.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Well, the Nuge kind of 'ran out the door without paying'

Shutting down is kind of extreme but thanks for the vote of confidence.

It's hard to reason with people who have a religion that can be summarized on a bumper sticker.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

21. This is a tricky place.

A discussion that can be going on for over 100 posts...

And then along comes a sucker punch that knocks you to the ground.

Besides, I don't want to have my opinions out there for too long.