My Professor

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tommouse
Yes that example is extreme but it has some merit. Knowing who to shoot is the hardest part. It's easy with 1 bad guy 1 good guy, but what if multiple people have guns and want to stop the bag guy. How are 4 or 5 good guys going to know not to shoot the other good guys? The criminal/shooter isn't going to always be wearing a ski mask, he could look just like anyone else, and in that situation, how will you know which out of the 4 or 5 people is the real bad guy? What if you take out the wrong one? What if someone takes you out because he thinks you're the original shooter.

No, it doesn't have merit, and I already addressed why. It assumes a standoff situation, which is rare. In almost all cases, the standoff occurs after the victims are already dead.
Turn off your TV and come back to reality.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: jemcam

But of course you crazy righties would howl at the top of your lungs if buying a gun was at all limited to smart, sane people.

While I agree that guns should not be accessible by those with mental illness. Your comment about IQ tests is stupid. Ever heard of the second amendment?

Your requirements remind me of the "reading tests" adminstered in the 20's in order to vote, which kept a lot of blacks from voting.

The 2nd amendment was made at a time where police didn't exist, alarm systems connected to call centers didn't exist, and 911 didn't exist. The only way to protect yourself was with a gun. Things have changed. No need to have a gun anymore for protection.

either you are the most ignorant person ever or you are just trolling.

lol...he's either european or he failed US history

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tommouse
Yes that example is extreme but it has some merit. Knowing who to shoot is the hardest part. It's easy with 1 bad guy 1 good guy, but what if multiple people have guns and want to stop the bag guy. How are 4 or 5 good guys going to know not to shoot the other good guys? The criminal/shooter isn't going to always be wearing a ski mask, he could look just like anyone else, and in that situation, how will you know which out of the 4 or 5 people is the real bad guy? What if you take out the wrong one? What if someone takes you out because he thinks you're the original shooter.

No, it doesn't have merit, and I already addressed why. It assumes a standoff situation, which is rare. In almost all cases, the standoff occurs after the victims are already dead.
Turn off your TV and come back to reality.

so...which standoffs documented in this data involve a situation where everyone in the area are armed, private citizens--those who wouldn't have near the training that an officer would?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: jemcam

But of course you crazy righties would howl at the top of your lungs if buying a gun was at all limited to smart, sane people.

While I agree that guns should not be accessible by those with mental illness. Your comment about IQ tests is stupid. Ever heard of the second amendment?

Your requirements remind me of the "reading tests" adminstered in the 20's in order to vote, which kept a lot of blacks from voting.

The 2nd amendment was made at a time where police didn't exist, alarm systems connected to call centers didn't exist, and 911 didn't exist. The only way to protect yourself was with a gun. Things have changed. No need to have a gun anymore for protection.

The 2nd Amendment was not created for self-protection. Self-protection is part of an individual's right to life, and thus was considered to be inherent.

The intent of the 2nd amendment was for citizens to be able to protect and defend themselves against a tyrannical governemnt that infringes on its rights as guaranteed by the constitution (the colonists were not allowed to own guns by the crown, this was a protection guaranteed for citizens should the need arise in the future)

The spirit and intent of the amendment is sound; unfortunately it is largely ignored and misunderstood.

The revolution would never have been successful had not the colonists long been ignoring the crown about not owning guns. That is the spirit and intent of the amendment. Private gun ownership is BENEFICIAL to a government of the people, and is only considered harmful by a government that is contrary to the people.
I have said it 1000 time before here and will say it again: if you don't believe in private gun ownership, you don't believe in democracy. Period.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tommouse
Yes that example is extreme but it has some merit. Knowing who to shoot is the hardest part. It's easy with 1 bad guy 1 good guy, but what if multiple people have guns and want to stop the bag guy. How are 4 or 5 good guys going to know not to shoot the other good guys? The criminal/shooter isn't going to always be wearing a ski mask, he could look just like anyone else, and in that situation, how will you know which out of the 4 or 5 people is the real bad guy? What if you take out the wrong one? What if someone takes you out because he thinks you're the original shooter.

No, it doesn't have merit, and I already addressed why. It assumes a standoff situation, which is rare. In almost all cases, the standoff occurs after the victims are already dead.
Turn off your TV and come back to reality.

so...which standoffs documented in this data involve a situation where everyone in the area are armed, private citizens--those who wouldn't have near the training that an officer would?

There aren't any such standoffs. That's my point. Are you actually reading or it is still 3am where you're at?
Private citizens, when dealing with an armed individual bent on criminal action, are not concerned with protecting the life of the criminal the way that police typically are. So, if armed, they shoot to defend themselves and then it's over. Like that. The "problem" in this article involves a hypothetical situation that almost never occurs in reality, and yet that blogger tries to prentend that it is (or would be) commonplace.
Armed standoffs are something that only occur between the police and the criminal AFTER the victims are already dead (or otherwise incapacitated). Encounters between the criminal and an armed victim always end almost immediately in the death of the criminal or the victim (but usually the criminal if victims happens to be plural).

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
rofl@the gun control peeps....lolol...guns don`t fire by themselves.....

I really expect nothing but nonsense to come from you anymore--as do many others im sure. No one said guns fire themselves. Some people should not be allowed to have them. Period. I mean, come on, a green card and a drivers license is all he needed to get one? That plus a quick check for warrants. A psych eval, an IQ test, and a questioning by authorities about why one WANTS (there is no "need" here) a gun should be adminstered before anyone gets a gun. But of course you crazy righties would howl at the top of your lungs if buying a gun was at all limited to smart, sane people.

i want to live in this utopian society you live in!

here in az when you try to buy a gun you are put on a waiting list, and your background is checked. you cant have any felonies, any history of mental illness or any number of other things on the list that prevents you from buying a gun here. id say your "needs" are already being fulfilled. if that gun shop sold him a gun with the institution stay on his bg check, they are liable. if he bought it off the back of a truck, it was an illegal sale to begin with, and goes back the whole criminals dont care about gun bans issue. sometimes i wish they would do sanity checks for internet forum access. it would make these discussions at least a bit more adult. of course, id probably be on the banned list too.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: George P Burdell

Originally posted by: Shivetya
the problem wasn't that the bad guy had a gun, the problem was that no one else did.

The problem with your argument

Even though that opinion appears on a partisan site, it is still worth a read.

The problem is you might miss... ?


It's literally astounding the logical leaps that people will go to in order to push their agenda. Your minds are like a tabloid newspaper -- you come to your conclusions first.

no. the problem clearly states that in a 100% armed society, you now have the problem of identifying the target. Everyone has a gun, so who is the criminal? what are the cops supposed to think when they arrive?

theres no such thing as a 100% armed society. some people just dont have the ilk for it. others dont want the responsibility, and even others are just against violence too much to even consider it. but, having a few gun carriers around is a good thing. one thing for sure, if a cop comes up and i have my gun out in an altercation, once they say "drop it!" mines on the ground. i doubt the criminal would do the same. easy to id me at that point.

 

[Cutterhead]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: jemcam

But of course you crazy righties would howl at the top of your lungs if buying a gun was at all limited to smart, sane people.

While I agree that guns should not be accessible by those with mental illness. Your comment about IQ tests is stupid. Ever heard of the second amendment?

Your requirements remind me of the "reading tests" adminstered in the 20's in order to vote, which kept a lot of blacks from voting.

The 2nd amendment was made at a time where police didn't exist, alarm systems connected to call centers didn't exist, and 911 didn't exist. The only way to protect yourself was with a gun. Things have changed. No need to have a gun anymore for protection.

I just can't understand how you could possibly think this way... No need to have a gun anymore for protection?? By that logic, if your own son or daughter was in one of those classrooms you would have prefered they were unarmed with no way to protect themselves?? And don't try to say that is not what you are implying here, because that is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from what you just said. Get a f*cking clue you ignorant dipsh!t.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: George P Burdell

Originally posted by: Shivetya
the problem wasn't that the bad guy had a gun, the problem was that no one else did.

The problem with your argument

Even though that opinion appears on a partisan site, it is still worth a read.

The problem is you might miss... ?


It's literally astounding the logical leaps that people will go to in order to push their agenda. Your minds are like a tabloid newspaper -- you come to your conclusions first.

no. the problem clearly states that in a 100% armed society, you now have the problem of identifying the target. Everyone has a gun, so who is the criminal? what are the cops supposed to think when they arrive?

That's irrelevant, cops always arrive after the fact. If you have ever been in a violent situation, the most shocking thing is how quickly it occurs. Literally, BAM! and it's over. That is to many people the hardest part to deal with in the psychological aftermath. The frailty of the human body is, quite frankly, astonishingly and alarmingly pathetic.

Next, the argument of a 100% armed society is a straw men. Typical of the bipolarization of internet discussions, I am aware, that the argument should devolve into either 100% armed or "ban all guns, illegal or otherwise," but neither extremist argument has any foundation in reality. See my argument earlier in this thread against the callous stupidity of the knee-jerking "simple solution" crowds.

Oh BTW, about the "conservative talking points." My 74 year-old father is a life-long liberal and Democrat who walks with a limp he leans so far to the left. At the same time, he's a CCW holder and carries most everywhere he goes. The issue of gun rights is NOT bipartisan (except, of course, to the usual partisan sheep arguing straw men on the internet... ).

I never advocated for one extreme solution on either side, either.

Cops' involvement aside, you didn't address teh situation in which all customers in a store bring robbed, now draw their guns when the threat is obvious. Those that run form one side of the store into the situation have no idea who the actual criminal is, neither do the majority of those in teh immediate vicinity. I'm sure the natural reaction would be to aim for the armed black dude, or latino, or what have you.

Either way, it's still a rational argument for why that extreme side of the argument is not valid.

anyone who is packin heat in the immediate vicinity wont pull their gun on a whim (usually), and anyone from the other side of the store would do a double take and try to evaluate the situation before acting rashly. the consequences of pulling that gun are very heavy, and something that goes thru any gun owners mind whenever faced with the ordeal of pulling it out. sure, its pretty quick decision, but it is thought of. the CCW classes go thru this in great detail and with much weight, as do all gun safety classes. stop thinking that anyone with a gun will just run up and start capping people with guns willy-nilly. its not likely to happen.

 

[BlancoNino]

My English professor said the same thing. He said the student used guns that would have been banned if the weapons ban had been renewed and pretty much blamed the whole thing on that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: George P Burdell

Originally posted by: Shivetya
the problem wasn't that the bad guy had a gun, the problem was that no one else did.

The problem with your argument

Even though that opinion appears on a partisan site, it is still worth a read.

The problem is you might miss... ?


It's literally astounding the logical leaps that people will go to in order to push their agenda. Your minds are like a tabloid newspaper -- you come to your conclusions first.

no. the problem clearly states that in a 100% armed society, you now have the problem of identifying the target. Everyone has a gun, so who is the criminal? what are the cops supposed to think when they arrive?

theres no such thing as a 100% armed society. some people just dont have the ilk for it. others dont want the responsibility, and even others are just against violence too much to even consider it. but, having a few gun carriers around is a good thing. one thing for sure, if a cop comes up and i have my gun out in an altercation, once they say "drop it!" mines on the ground. i doubt the criminal would do the same. easy to id me at that point.

The "100% armed society" is just a nonsense false dilemma argument by the anti-gun rights crowd. They have to create an illogical and extreme opposing argument in order to polarize their own illogical illogical and extreme argument.
It's comparable to the way the drugs warriors argue that if drugs were legalized then everyone would suddenly start doing drugs.

If we need to outlaw anything, I think it should be the extremists with their ever-ready "WHY THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!" simple solutions to complex social problems.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
My English professor said the same thing. He said the student used guns that would have been banned if the weapons ban had been renewed and pretty much blamed the whole thing on that.

Your professor is ridiculously ignorant of the facts.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Report him to the dean and call the news. Expose him for what he is.

Laughable response. No University in this country (except maybe Bob Jones and Regent) would move against this prof for what he said. It is called academic freedom.

That said, I think he sounds insensitive and some what know-it-all.

 

[sundev]

Statistics on homocides completed with a firearm from different countries based on a United Nations report on crime trends from the period of 1998-2000 (stats from 1999):

Country / Homocides completed with firearm / Rate per 100,000 inhabitants

Canada / 165 / 0.54
Australia / 62 / 0.33
Germany / 414 / 0.50
Japan / 674 / 0.53
USA / 8259 / 2.97

Take what you will from those statistics, but no matter how you look at it the United States has a problem.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Vic
The "100% armed society" is just a nonsense false dilemma argument by the anti-gun rights crowd. They have to create an illogical and extreme opposing argument in order to polarize their own illogical illogical and extreme argument.
It's comparable to the way the drugs warriors argue that if drugs were legalized then everyone would suddenly start doing drugs.

If we need to outlaw anything, I think it should be the extremists with their ever-ready "WHY THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!" simple solutions to complex social problems.

Has there historically been a society where the majority of the citizens are armed?

 

[FoBoT]

united nations stats :laugh: :laugh:

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: sundevb
Statistics on homocides completed with a firearm from different countries based on a United Nations report on crime trends from the period of 1998-2000 (stats from 1999):

Country / Homocides completed with firearm / Rate per 100,000 inhabitants

Canada / 165 / 0.54
Australia / 62 / 0.33
Germany / 414 / 0.50
Japan / 674 / 0.53
USA / 8259 / 2.97

Take what you will from those statistics, but no matter how you look at it the United States has a problem.

im confused... are the firearms from different countries, or are the shooters from different countries? if its the shooters, then we have an immigrant/ alien visitor problem, not a gun problem. if its the guns themselves, then why arent more people buying usa made weapons? personally i like ruger.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sundevb
Statistics on homocides completed with a firearm from different countries based on a United Nations report on crime trends from the period of 1998-2000 (stats from 1999):

Country / Homocides completed with firearm / Rate per 100,000 inhabitants

Canada / 165 / 0.54
Australia / 62 / 0.33
Germany / 414 / 0.50
Japan / 674 / 0.53
USA / 8259 / 2.97

Take what you will from those statistics, but no matter how you look at it the United States has a problem.

Ah... lies, damned, and statistics. It's all in the presentation, isn't it?

Text

Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) by country

#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
#11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people
#12 Czech Republic: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people
#13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people
#14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people
#15 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0127139 per 1,000 people
#16 Bulgaria: 0.00845638 per 1,000 people
#17 Portugal: 0.00795003 per 1,000 people
#18 Slovenia: 0.00596718 per 1,000 people
#19 Switzerland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people
#20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
#21 Germany: 0.00465844 per 1,000 people
#22 Moldova: 0.00448934 per 1,000 people
#23 Hungary: 0.00439692 per 1,000 people
#24 Poland: 0.0043052 per 1,000 people
#25 Ukraine: 0.00368109 per 1,000 people
#26 Ireland: 0.00298805 per 1,000 people
#27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people
#28 Denmark: 0.00257732 per 1,000 people
#29 Spain: 0.0024045 per 1,000 people
#30 Azerbaijan: 0.00227503 per 1,000 people
#31 New Zealand: 0.00173482 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Vic
The "100% armed society" is just a nonsense false dilemma argument by the anti-gun rights crowd. They have to create an illogical and extreme opposing argument in order to polarize their own illogical illogical and extreme argument.
It's comparable to the way the drugs warriors argue that if drugs were legalized then everyone would suddenly start doing drugs.

If we need to outlaw anything, I think it should be the extremists with their ever-ready "WHY THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!" simple solutions to complex social problems.

Has there historically been a society where the majority of the citizens are armed?

Of course. But what relevance does that have to what I said?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: txrandom
Criminals and crazies will find a way to get a hold of a gun. Might as well let citizens have guns to protect themselves.

Yeah. And what do you do when a crazy ass citizen comes up and shoots somebody for no reason. Are you going to have your gun on you at all times?

Why not? I do.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sundevb
Statistics on homocides completed with a firearm from different countries based on a United Nations report on crime trends from the period of 1998-2000 (stats from 1999):

Country / Homocides completed with firearm / Rate per 100,000 inhabitants

Canada / 165 / 0.54
Australia / 62 / 0.33
Germany / 414 / 0.50
Japan / 674 / 0.53
USA / 8259 / 2.97

Take what you will from those statistics, but no matter how you look at it the United States has a problem.

Ah... lies, damned, and statistics. It's all in the presentation, isn't it?

Text

Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) by country

#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
#11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people
#12 Czech Republic: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people
#13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people
#14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people
#15 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0127139 per 1,000 people
#16 Bulgaria: 0.00845638 per 1,000 people
#17 Portugal: 0.00795003 per 1,000 people
#18 Slovenia: 0.00596718 per 1,000 people
#19 Switzerland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people
#20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
#21 Germany: 0.00465844 per 1,000 people
#22 Moldova: 0.00448934 per 1,000 people
#23 Hungary: 0.00439692 per 1,000 people
#24 Poland: 0.0043052 per 1,000 people
#25 Ukraine: 0.00368109 per 1,000 people
#26 Ireland: 0.00298805 per 1,000 people
#27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people
#28 Denmark: 0.00257732 per 1,000 people
#29 Spain: 0.0024045 per 1,000 people
#30 Azerbaijan: 0.00227503 per 1,000 people
#31 New Zealand: 0.00173482 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

Don't forget that there are quite a few countries that traditionally have lower total murder rates than we have just pertaining to murders with a firearm. And that they had these low rates even before they implemented gun control.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: George P Burdell

Originally posted by: Shivetya
the problem wasn't that the bad guy had a gun, the problem was that no one else did.

The problem with your argument

Even though that opinion appears on a partisan site, it is still worth a read.

Not really because it's ridiculous. Gunfights end in less than a magazine 99% of the time. Once the threat is cleared you put the gun away (or at least to low ready). Even in the absolutely ludicrous instance where 20 classmates are armed and a shooter walks in guess what? It's 20 people all shooting at the same guy. No one else is going to come into the middle of the shooting because it's going to end in 3 seconds.

Stupid, stupid, stupid argument.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: txrandom
Criminals and crazies will find a way to get a hold of a gun. Might as well let citizens have guns to protect themselves.

Yeah. And what do you do when a crazy ass citizen comes up and shoots somebody for no reason. Are you going to have your gun on you at all times?

So we should ban guns so that the "crazy asses" will be guaranteed unarmed people to shoot?

You sure make a lot of sense...

Like I said, ban all guns. Illegal or otherwise.

Yeah, because banning all drugs has completely removed them from society. :roll:

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: txrandom
Criminals and crazies will find a way to get a hold of a gun. Might as well let citizens have guns to protect themselves.

Yeah. And what do you do when a crazy ass citizen comes up and shoots somebody for no reason. Are you going to have your gun on you at all times?

So we should ban guns so that the "crazy asses" will be guaranteed unarmed people to shoot?

You sure make a lot of sense...

Like I said, ban all guns. Illegal or otherwise.

Yeah, because banning all drugs has completely removed them from society. :roll:

Ding ding ding! you get the prize for being the 100th poster to make this statement in the last 24 hours! Please show him what he has won

 

[Vic]

And about statistics, as people can kill themselves using instruments other than handguns:

Text

Crime Statistics > Murders (per capita) by country

#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
#26 India: 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
#27 Yemen: 0.0336276 per 1,000 people
#28 Dominica: 0.0289733 per 1,000 people
#29 Azerbaijan: 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
#30 Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
#31 Slovakia: 0.0263303 per 1,000 people
#32 Romania: 0.0250784 per 1,000 people
#33 Portugal: 0.0233769 per 1,000 people
#34 Malaysia: 0.0230034 per 1,000 people
#35 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0229829 per 1,000 people
#36 Mauritius: 0.021121 per 1,000 people
#37 Hungary: 0.0204857 per 1,000 people
#38 Korea, South: 0.0196336 per 1,000 people
#39 Slovenia: 0.0179015 per 1,000 people
#40 France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
#41 Czech Republic: 0.0169905 per 1,000 people
#42 Iceland: 0.0168499 per 1,000 people
#43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
#44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
#45 Chile: 0.014705 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
#47 Italy: 0.0128393 per 1,000 people
#48 Spain: 0.0122456 per 1,000 people
#49 Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
#50 Tunisia: 0.0112159 per 1,000 people
#51 Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
#52 New Zealand: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people
#53 Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people
#54 Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people
#55 Ireland: 0.00946215 per 1,000 people
#56 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
#57 Indonesia: 0.00910842 per 1,000 people
#58 Greece: 0.0075928 per 1,000 people
#59 Hong Kong: 0.00550804 per 1,000 people
#60 Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people
#61 Saudi Arabia: 0.00397456 per 1,000 people
#62 Qatar: 0.00115868 per 1,000 people

Wow... look at that... suddenly, the US doesn't look so bad after all. How can this be?

Of even greater interest is that most of the countries at the top of the list have outlawed gun ownership. For example, private gun ownership is completely outlawed in Russia, yet that have 5 times the murder rate as that of the US.
Or Finland, which a decade ago had one of the lowest murder rates on earth, saw its murder rate skyrocket up after it outlawed gun ownership in the late 90s. Now you could argue that that is because of its proximity to high-crime Russia, but oops, that would kill the gun control argument, now wouldn't it?

My God! Could this be YET ANOTHER situation where correlation and causation don't equate and there is no single simple solution for the knee-jerkers to rally legislative action around?? NOES!! How can this be???

:roll: