On 7/11/2014 8:10 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/11/14, 8:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/11/2014 7:55 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/11/14, 6:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/11/2014 2:11 AM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:40:45 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:02:33 -0700, jps wrote:
The vast majority are suicides, somewhere around 17 - 19,000 a year.
Murders are around 11,000 a year.
So you think if there were no guns, there would be no suicides?
Just look at Japan, one of your ideal countries. No guns and a much
higher suicide rate than the US.
The more you drill down on the numbers, the worse your case gets.
I have pointed out Australia many times. They got rid of most of
their
guns and it had very little effect of on the slope of their murder
rate.
Well, we certainly did shift real quick there, eh? Went from 31,000
gun deaths a year coming out of my ass to, wouldn't it happen anyway?
And you're dead wrong about Australia, they've virtually eliminated
mass shootings from their society.
My point is, if guns make a country safer, we should be the safest
****ing country on the planet. They don't and we're not.
Greg said that getting rid of most of their guns has had little effect
on the slope of the murder rate in Australia.
Your rebuttal was that Australia has virtually eliminated mass
shootings.
If both statements are true, the elimination of guns has had little
effect on Australia's murder rate. I think that was his point.
One thing that is totally ignored in this great gun debate is the
cultural and ethnic diversity of the United States compared to any
other
country on the planet. It has both positive and negative ramifications
on our society. The "Great Melting Pot" isn't utopia.
Guns don't create racial intolerance, conflicts based on religious
beliefs, conflicts of cultural or ethnic traditions or the inner city
gang wars that Wayne accurately points out represents the vast majority
of gun related deaths. Personally I also think that the slow
shredding
of unifying traditions that have been challenged by groups focused only
on their belief system serves to further polarize the country and puts
an emphasis on our cultural, religious and ethnic diversity as we slide
into a "progressive" liberal never-never land. We are slowly removing
the measuring sticks of our societal structure that includes the good
with the bad and replacing it with a free-for-all "anything goes"
mentality that is increasingly based on an entitlement philosophy.
So, going back to guns. They are not the *reason* for our problems.
My guess is that JPS believes guns do not make a country safer. I agree
with him.
As a 65 year old living in an increasingly drug infested society and a
growing expectation of "what's your's is mine" ... I feel somewhat
safer having a last resort means of self defense available. I never
felt that way when I was younger.
Not to make light of a serious issue but it's like having a fire
extinguisher. Hopefully and statistically you will never need it but
if you should, it could save lives and property.
In *this* country, you are assuredly correct, but that's not my point.
Not to sound like Wayne LaPierre (who goes to extremes) there are
*many* things in our society that we'd be safer without but it's not
practical or beneficial to eliminate them.
As long as we have gun toting criminals, out of their mind meth addicts
and an "entertainment" industry that glorifies killing, blood and guts
that increasingly desensitizes people .... especially young people ...
we are all at some level of risk of becoming a victim. The risk may
small and not as high in all areas but it still exists. I feel a little
"safer" knowing I may be able to protect myself and my wife.
In other words, if we became the victim of a violent crime and my wife
was seriously hurt or even killed ... I don't think I could live with
myself knowing that I may have been able to prevent it.
If some of our societal problems were addressed maybe there would be no
need for guns in the interest of self defense but we are moving in the
wrong direction to achieve that.