7 dead, 3 hurt in California Christian college shooting

Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan told The Associated Press that investigators believe Ellen Cervellon was the person sought by suspect One L. Goh. One L. Goh had been upset after dropping out of the nursing program because school officials would not fully refund his tuition, Cervellon said. Goh surrendered to authorities Monday, an hour after the attack at Oikos University that left seven dead and three others wounded.Police say in court documents that Goh admitted to bringing a .45-caliber handgun to Oikos and four magazines of ammunition. The documents say he acknowledged shooting several people before fleeing.

California has the toughest gun control laws in the U.S. Oakland has additional local gun control laws. He was breaking the law carrying a concealed handgun in Oakland, but that law did not stop him from getting and using one. Even if the U.S. outlaws hunting and the ownership of any gun, it still won't stop gun violence by criminals and the mentally ill.

and when it's pointed out to them (again) that other countries do just fine, in fact do much, much better in terms of crime, without guns, they end up telling us that America is populated by nutters. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind want to arm a nation of self-confessed nutters?

The only real crime rate the rest of the European nations do better in is Homicide. The US for the most part has less assaults, rapes, thefts, arson attacks etc. than European nations on average For example the overall violent crime rate in the US is around 450 per 100k while in Canada it is around 900. France is around 500 per 100k and the UK varies between 1000-2000 per 100k. 85% of US counties report an annual murder rate of 0. The US is doing just fine with crime with guns. Because it is exaggerated how many nutters there are.

Let's look at this 'cultural' thing which you seem to think is etched in stone for all eternity.

What are you talking about, I have said the entire time that the primary reason for why violent crime and non violent crime is dropping in the US is because of changing cultural attitudes. No where have I ever said they are etched in stone. Go back through my previous posts on this discussion.

Choosing whether to bow or shake hands is on a level with killing someone or not killing them?

I'm not saying they are equals, I'm using it as an example of how cultural attitudes determine how people interact with one another.

Honour killings are something you want to base your guns-is-culture argument on? Really?

My argument has always been that the US is a nation that is culturally more violent more forceful or aggressive compared to European cultures and East Asian cultures, therefore when american decides to attack someone it is going to be more violent. My argument has always been that banning guns or introducing more strict gun controls laws is nothing more than stop gap measure at best, your not dealing with what is causing violent crime to begin with in the US, your not dealing with the desire to attack someone when you feel disrespected. Banning or further restricting guns will not stop the assault. You honestly think introducing more gun laws will stop people from assaulting one another in the US? The goal instead of banning or introducing more gun laws should be that using violence as a means to get what you want culture needs to change, change the culture away from using violence in general and you will find that gun violence and all other violent crimes will drop in general without the need to introduce more gun laws or just out right banning them. Heck you will even see the US be less likely to use military force to get what it wants.

The good news is that this is happening in the US. Violence is no longer seen as acceptable to get what you want as it once was.

Japan has even lower murder rates than Norway and yet, gun control in Japan is some of the strictest in the world.

Ya but then again Japan suicide rate is higher then the combine homicide and suicide rate of the US and pretty much any other European nation as well. Japan non violent and property crime is a lot lower than any european nation as well, why because of culture. If it was simply gun control was the reason then non violent crime as well as property crime should not be so low.

Most homicides in Norway are not composed of gun murders, unlike the US.

So?

Arguments against the gun violence issues citing other crime rates statistics, such as petty thelf, rape, assault, are higher in Western European countries have nothing to do with the statistics of gun murder rates of Western European countries vs. the U.S. ( An analogy of this would be comparing tomato production and gun murder rates. They have nothing to do with each other. )

Actually, it's not like 'comparing tomato production' to gun murder rates at all. We're told the reason for America's sky high homcide rate is a 'culture which celebrates force', well then other crimes such as assault, rape also reflect this same culture and the rates are not noticeably higher than in other countries. Only America's homicide rate is, five times higher than most European countries in fact, and this obscene homicide rate is composed mostly of gun murders.

And please, you have to pick out one state to compare against Norway, the US as a WHOLE continues to have much looser gun control laws compared to Norway, gun ownership levels in America are higher and the very low homicide rate in Norway is not composed mainly of gun murders, because of Norway's low ownership rates.

Noliving - that's not what I am saying. The pro-gun people go on and on about it's their God-given right, and it's in the constitution, and legal gun owners are mostly responsible people who wouldn't hurt a fly and if more people had guns there would be less crime....and when it's pointed out to them (again) that other countries do just fine, in fact do much, much better in terms of crime, without guns, they end up telling us that America is populated by nutters. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind want to arm a nation of self-confessed nutters?

It is how else do you explain arranged marriages or premarital sex or honor killings or bowing vs. hand shaking.

Let's look at this 'cultural' thing which you seem to think is etched in stone for all eternity.

In Japan the majority of marriages used to be arranged. Now they're not. Culture can change.

When I was growing up in the UK pre-marital sex was, if not unheard of, certainly kept out of the public eye and not something you'd want your Mum to know about. Now it's the accepted norm. Culture can change.

Honour killings are something you want to base your guns-is-culture argument on? Really?

Choosing whether to bow or shake hands is on a level with killing someone or not killing them?

It always comes down to this. The people who are in favour of their society being awash in lethal weapons are the same people who tell us their country is also awash in loonies.

It is how else do you explain arranged marriages or premarital sex or honor killings or bowing vs. hand shaking.

It is all cultural.

However if everyone carried a gun, the shooter would of been stopped very quickly.

And because it wouldn't be clear to the majority of people in the ensuing chaos who it was that first drew a gun, the final death toll would be a lot higher than 7 as everyone waving a gun about became a target for some other gun-toter shooting in 'self-defence'.

And to tie the Oikos University incident proving the validity of the Harvard gun violence study, California has one of the toughest gun control laws in the U.S. Oikos University is in Oakland, California which has even tougher local gun control laws than the state.

It is cultural differences. It is based upon historic attitudes and legacy. If you want to understand this, just watch American western television series made in the 50's and 60's. They show a lot about prevailing attitudes that still exist today.How to solve problems using guns, how to defend yourself with guns, how to maintain order with guns, etc. Thus over the decades the basic premise hasn't really changed, it just evolved with current trends and urbanalities.

Arguments against the gun violence issues citing other crime rates statistics, such as petty thelf, rape, assault, are higher in Western European countries have nothing to do with the statistics of gun murder rates of Western European countries vs. the U.S. ( An analogy of this would be comparing tomato production and gun murder rates. They have nothing to do with each other. ) The facts are bases upon the number of guns vs. gun murder rates. Also gun control laws in Norway may appear more strict than in the U.S. but the fact is that guns are much more easily acquired, than for example, in California which has one of the toughest gun control laws in the U.S.

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/24/norway-strict-gun-laws-circumvented

So basically what facts are showing is that regardless of gun control laws, regardless of how strict they maybe, they cannot be enforced. The reason why criminals are called criminals and nuts are called nuts is simply because they don't obey the law. Thus what happen at Oikos University would of happened even if the toughest gun control laws were passed. However if everyone carried a gun, the shooter would of been stopped very quickly.

Cultural attitudes

It always comes down to this. The people who are in favour of their society being awash in lethal weapons are the same people who tell us their country is also awash in loonies.

What you call cultural attitudes, I call madness.

Ok.....

Cultural attitudes

What you call cultural attitudes, I call madness.

The rate they give for America is 5.0. So if it isn't the guns, basically, what is it? Are you saying that America has a more than fivefold incidence of mental disturbance in its population? What do you reckon can or should be done about it?

Cultural attitudes, even when those European nations didn't have strict gun control, you pretty much have to go to the years before and after WW1 but before WW2 you will find that even then there homicide rates were lower then the US even when they had equally loose or lax gun laws.

peanut - according to nationmaster, all the European countries you mention have a murder rate of less than 1.0 per 100,000. (Norway 0.6: Netherlands, 0.93) The rate they give for America is 5.0. So if it isn't the guns, basically, what is it? Are you saying that America has a more than fivefold incidence of mental disturbance in its population? What do you reckon can or should be done about it?

(hint - usually when mentally disturbed people are considered a danger to themselves or others, steps are taken to make sure they cannot do harm, starting with removing all sharp implements.)

Blaming the 7 dead 3 hurt massacre at Oikos University on the high availability of guns is irrational, illogical, and completely ludicrous. The factual, empirical evidence that is well documented proves this.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.

So basically the tragedy that happened at Oikos University is basically due to a disturbed individual who took his anger out by killing people. If other people had guns to protect themselves, most likely he would of been stopped before continuing his rampage.

These countries in Europe, no matter the varying degrees between them in their gun control, overall still have MUCH tighter gun control laws then to the USA, with its sky high homicide rate which is based 70% on gun violence. In none of these countries in Europe, whether safe Norway or the dangerous Netherlands, is the homicide rate composed mostly of gun violence. Again, America has similar or even lower levels of crime when it comes to burglary, assault, rape etc than Western European countries, but its homicide rate remains many times higher, and this is because of the easy availability and destructive capacity of guns, which the perpertrators of the homicides are aware of, considering that 3 out of every 4 murders in the land of the free is due to someone pulling a gun. 'If other people had guns themselves, he would have been stopped'. Um, if America's gun laws weren't so loose, it would have been much more difficult for him to get a gun in the first place.

Just to mention that finding was based upon a Harvard study sponsored by the ACRU.

Blaming the 7 dead 3 hurt massacre at Oikos University on the high availability of guns is irrational, illogical, and completely ludicrous. The factual, empirical evidence that is well documented proves this.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.

So basically the tragedy that happened at Oikos University is basically due to a disturbed individual who took his anger out by killing people. If other people had guns to protect themselves, most likely he would of been stopped before continuing his rampage.

Borscht commented on why?

Well this reminds me of a famous Indian story of why the man did not move when the elephant was approaching him and the rider yelled to get out of the way. The man believed that God would not hurt him but the elephant hit him and later he asked his teacher about that and the teacher said God was also the rider and he warned you to get out of the way but you were foolish and did not.

So the same for this Oakland story in that the girl who believed in God still runs becuse she was told to run by "God". First thing to understand is that everything is god in one form or another so her belief is not questioned. She followed "God's" instructions.

I have pointed this out for Borscht because many people have no clue about what God is or means.

In other news:

Exasperated God explains "Thou Shalt Not Kill" one more time.

What is the refund policy for Oiko University? Goh had been angry at a school administrator over his unsuccessful attempt to get his tuition refunded after he voluntarily left the school last fall. School administrator Cervellon had a confrontation with Goh over his tuition after he dropped out. Goh had asked Cervellon for a full refund of his tuition and when he was denied suggested prorating the tuition refund. Cervellon said no, Music said. Oikos charges about $19,000 for a 12-month licensed vocational nurse course.

Those factors are cultural attitudes. The US is growing up. There are more guns hitting the streets and there are more gun owners as a grand total hitting the streets and yet grand total gun violence has been decreasing. That means more people are behaving more maturely when it comes to how they handle their guns, in other words they are growing up.

No, the US is not growing up. The violence has been dropping due to other measures, but American's homicide rate remains sky high and this looks even more conspicuous when you compare the homicide rate to other rates of crime, which stand at similar or lower levels to other first world nations. Your nations's worryingly high homicide rate is composed mainly of gun murders, guns are the most effective weapon with the most destructive capacity.

In order to disprove my claims you have to show that as the total number of guns increases the total number of gun crime increases.

I agree it is falling due to other factors and it was those other factors that drove gun violence up in the first place. The US does not have similar assault, rape, burglary, etc. rates they are smaller. The only thing the US is higher in is Murder. What matters is that homicide rate is falling. Again this is not a rat race, the US will eventually reach European levels because rates of this nature can only go so far, 0, once Europe reaches those levels first it will stay there and then US will reach those levels while maintaining their gun laws.

No, I can just point out that gun murders make up 3/4 of the homicide rate year after year no matter how many guns are on the 'street' at each specific point of time. Murder is the most serious crime, and it is here that America towers over the civilised world. The homicide rate is falling due to other measures, like I have to keep saying, but it still remains much higher than it should be, and we can see this is an anomaly because the crime rates in other areas are not higher than other nations. America won't reach 0, not now, or in the future.

Out of a 100k no it is not. It is in fact incredibly negligible out of 100k

No, it really is alot, just because the numbers are small compared to the rest of 100k doesn't make them significant, like I said, even one is too much. America's homicide rate is shockingly high.

Love your idealism.

My 'idealism' is reflected in the laws of civilised countries, which share the same view I do. Once again, crazy America is the odd one out, lol.

If there is no need to carry them then there is no need to ban them because they won't be used.

There's no point in having these lethal weapons if they don't lower the crime rate. They're dangerous, incredibly destructive weapons, so just having them 'lie around' is a disaster.

As long as the homicide rate continues to decrease it will, the lowest it can get is 0 and once Europe reaches that they can't go any lower and so the US will then catch up. Because law enforcement calls it inter-racial, also because believe it or not some crimes are motivated based solely on race, other wise known as hate crimes. It helps show trends and hot spots. Why profile if one is rural vs. urban...

The homicide rate won't go to 0, because those barbaric gun laws are still in place and keep the homicide rate disproportionately higher than it would be otherwise, even when falling. The '0 homicide rate' dream is just that, a dream. OK, so you criticised me for zoning in on specifics when you were speaking generally, sorry, but you've done the same. Not every homicide is a hate crime, the fact that 'law enforcement' still sees everything in terms of colour is part of the problem. Why is everything always seem in terms of skin colour and not the individual? So much for America's 'post-racial' society.

The correct way is to teach how to correctly handle guns not to restrict them. It is the same with drugs and other dangerous things. Or it could be just that when someone assaults another person in the US the goal is to kill, where is in Europe the goal is to just assault them not to kill them.

No, the correct way is to implement much stricter controls on these lethal weapons which have enormous destructive capability. Assault and murder are both obscene, but one is more serious than the other, and I know which one I'd least like to be on the receiving end of.

No where are you saying it is lower.

I said, 'similar or lower' in another post.

Exactly! They had already chosen to commit a crime before they even got a gun, the gun didn't cause the crime, it was only sought after once the decision had been made to commit a crime. As a result guns don't kill people, people do.

No, guns have higher destructive capabilties compared to the weapons available to criminals in other first world countries, hence why they make up 3/4 of your country's homicide rate and why America's homicide rate is the highest in the world. People kill people, but depending on what weapon they have, the potential changes.

For self-defense, for sport shooting, for hunting, for collecting, for overthrowing a tyrannical government. If violence is going down then you don't need to worry about people who choose to get guns for self defense because they won't use them. By your argument Japan shouldn't have a police force.

Again, hunting, and collecting happens in civilised countries which have strict gun ownership laws. What I need to worry about is the people who use guns to kill since these gun murders make up 3/4 of America's shockingly high homicide rate and the reality of it being so easy for others to obtain these weapons illegally to carry out their criminal intent. No, Japan has a police force and also exercises strict gun control for the populace, just like other civilised countries and which America is reluctant to do because people love their guns so much.

Actually it does because those personal and individual reasons are largely a reflection of cultural beliefs. For example Japan and suicide. Suicide is personal and done for individual reasons agreed? So why then is japan's suicide rate larger then America's homicide and suicide rate combined? I'm willing to bet culture plays a pretty big reason.

Again, if you're going to use the culture excuse, that's another argument for exercising stricter gun control laws, because letting these lethal weapons into such a violent culture would be a disaster, and actually is, as we can see from America's obscenely high homicide rate.

Oginome show me where I said the primary reason for why crime rates are falling is because of guns. I have never said that the reason why crime rates are falling is because of the millions of guns being added. I have always stated that the reason why crime rates have fallen is primarily to do with cultural attitudes. And the US has been able to achieve falling homcides rates with out having to introduce stricter gun laws. That means on both sides of the pond gun laws have nothing to do with reducing violent crime.

No, the fall in crime isn't because of 'changing cultura attitudes', but top down measures imposed by the government 20 years to reduce crime, which included severe prison sentencing. In most areas of crime, America has similar or even smaller rates compared to most nations, but the homicide rate is still disproportionately higher, and we can see this is due mostly to guns, the most effective weapon with the most destructive capacity, which are more easily accessed in America than nearly anywhere else. You acknowledge that guns are not the reason for the falling crime rates, so again, why not introduce the same gun ownership laws the civilised countries have? America is an anomaly in its gun ownership laws and an anomaly in its homicide rate.

Why? People enjoy targeting shooting. Have you ever been to a gun range before? To you a gun is a symbol of violence, to most Americans a gun is a sign of a good time at a gun range and possible home defense.

The fact that the most American 'a gun is a sign of a good time at a gun range' speaks volumes on how backward your country is. Guns are lethal toys, not weapon, there is targeting shooting and guns used for hunting in other countries, but their gun ownership laws are still much, much more strict that America's.

For self-defense, for sport shooting, for hunting, for collecting, for overthrowing a tyrannical government.

No, not for self-defence, we already established that guns don't cause a crime rate to go down, in fact they are responsible for ensuring America's homicide rate is so high. Yeah, again, in other countries, guns are used for 'sport shooting, hunting, collecting' etc, but these countries still manage to have sane gun laws. Overthrowing a tyrannical government? LMAO. Typical American thinking.

Just because crime rates are low doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to own a gun for self defense reasons. Japan has a very low crime rate yet crime still happens which is why they still have a police force.

You can have an armed police force and exercise tight gun control laws for the rest of the population, this has been done in many countries, except America.

So what does that tell you then? That gun laws on either side of the pond have no impact either reducing or increasing crime rates. Meaning restrictive gun control doesn't stop crime nor does loose gun laws increase crime.

No, because both countries on both sides of the pond experienced a falling crime rate based on similar actions taken by their government to reduce crime, America's homicide rate has fallen, like the UK's, but it remains disproportionately higher to all the civilised countries, because of the gun laws. Implement sane gun laws and the murder rate will drop even further outside the current drop based on those other policies. Guns are why the American homicide rate remains so high.

To you its not but to most americans including me it is. I would rather have 148.33 less people harmed physically or sexually if that means one additional dead person. 148.33 lives versus 1 life. Yes you are more likely to be murdered then in any civilized country in the developed world but what really are the odds of that happening. Like I said your more likely to fall to your death in the US then you are to be murdered. How often do you fall really?

No, not just to 'you', but to every civilised country which has tight gun control laws, we don't consider these extra lives being taken a worthwhile sacrifice. You keep talking about 'being more likely to fall to my death', but no matter what comparisons, I'll STILL be more likely to be murdered in the US than in the countries of the civilised world.

I know that, what I'm saying is what difference does it make if you check to make sure you have 30 rounds in your 30 magazine if you only carry one magazine? What difference does it make if you check to make sure your revolver's chamber is carrying all 5 rounds when you don't carry additional ammo. Once that magazine or chamber is empty the gun is useless other than a blunt object.

Ok, once again, I'm glad, that living in a civilised country, this problem won't happen to me. You've admitted yourself guns are the most effective weaposn.

the only thing they can do is increase or decrease the severity of a crime.

No, I think your first line was more accurate.

the only thing they can do is increase the severity of a crime.

That is suppose to be:

the only thing they can do is increase or decrease the severity of a crime.

No, it won't reach European levels, because as long as the gun ownership laws remain in place, the homicide rate will remain disproportionately higher compared to civilised countries. The crime rate is falling because of other factors, nothing to do with the millions of guns added to America's 'streets' every year, these other countries also have falling homicide rates and they didn't have to introduce guns to achieve this, these European countries simply implemented the same measures America also did 20 years ago to reduce crime.

Oginome show me where I said the primary reason for why crime rates are falling is because of guns. I have never said that the reason why crime rates are falling is because of the millions of guns being added. I have always stated that the reason why crime rates have fallen is primarily to do with cultural attitudes. And the US has been able to achieve falling homcides rates with out having to introduce stricter gun laws. That means on both sides of the pond gun laws have nothing to do with reducing violent crime.

No, because if the cultural attitude is moving away from violence, then surely people would also turn away from guns, which are a symbol of this violent culture?

Why? People enjoy targeting shooting. Have you ever been to a gun range before? To you a gun is a symbol of violence, to most Americans a gun is a sign of a good time at a gun range and possible home defense.

Changing attitudes is possible as we've seen from Germany, they didn't implement American-style gun ownership laws when they changed their attitude.

They don't have to because gun laws have absolutely no impact on violent crime. Germany and Japan changed their cultures after WW2 and they are no longer violent countries. Keep in mind that in both nations they took away the civilians right to own a gun before WW2.

It makes perfect sense to restrict gun ownership in the face of lower crimes and a 'shifting of the public consciousness'. America is getting safer, why do all you gun-lovers want to hold onto your lethal weapons when the gun ownership wasn't responsible for the homicide rate falling?

By that argument it makes perfect sense to get rid of alcohol too in the face of lower crimes. Because the gun owner wasn't responsible for the increase in crime to begin with. Guns don't cause crime nor do they reduce crime, the only thing they can do is increase the severity of a crime. So why do they want to hold on them:

For self-defense, for sport shooting, for hunting, for collecting, for overthrowing a tyrannical government.

Just because crime rates are low doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to own a gun for self defense reasons. Japan has a very low crime rate yet crime still happens which is why they still have a police force.

No, it would be less than 1.0 for the UK if you were just to focus on the white population. That's still a big difference between the UK and the US. Again, why are you discounting and dismissing one whole group? Oh dear. These people are still Americans, regardless of their skin colour, and America's OVERALL homicide rate soars above the civilised world. The UK's murder rate has continued to drop and drop over the last decade and this has happened without the UK government implementing American-style gun laws

So what does that tell you then? That gun laws on either side of the pond have no impact either reducing or increasing crime rates. Meaning restrictive gun control doesn't stop crime nor does loose gun laws increase crime.

No, that really isn't a fair trade off, considering that they are still three more people killed in the American scenario. Really not ideal, and no kind of trade off any civilised country would consider, because they don't consider these 3 (or more, depending on what country you look at) people expendable or their deaths worth it. It doesn't matter if I'm more likely to be killed by falling to my death, the fact remains that I'm more likely to be murdered in America than any civilised country in the developed world.

To you its not but to most americans including me it is. I would rather have 148.33 less people harmed physically or sexually if that means one additional dead person. 148.33 lives versus 1 life. Yes you are more likely to be murdered then in any civilized country in the developed world but what really are the odds of that happening. Like I said your more likely to fall to your death in the US then you are to be murdered. How often do you fall really?

I was talking about checking your ammo before you decide to go on your killing spree.

I know that, what I'm saying is what difference does it make if you check to make sure you have 30 rounds in your 30 magazine if you only carry one magazine? What difference does it make if you check to make sure your revolver's chamber is carrying all 5 rounds when you don't carry additional ammo. Once that magazine or chamber is empty the gun is useless other than a blunt object.

Oginome and Noliving, you are starting to go around in circles. It is not necessary to be so repetitive.

And the US didn't have to introduce more restrictive gun laws to bring about their drops either. Yes it will reach European levels as long as the gun laws stay in place because gun violence is still dropping. Yes it is due to other factors and it is those other factors that were responsible for why the gun crime was so high in the first place. You know as well as I do that the legalizing drugs will have more effect on gun violence then any future restrictive gun law ever would in the US. Exactly they are already so low they can't really go any lower can they? That means the US can catch up. The US will catch up with its current gun laws. That is what I have been saying decreases are decreases, this isn't a rat race. All that matters is that crime rates are falling. As long as the gun violence is falling we don't need any more restrictive gun laws. Let the laws do their work, they have been working for the past 20 years.

No, it won't reach European levels, because as long as the gun ownership laws remain in place, the homicide rate will remain disproportionately higher compared to civilised countries. The crime rate is falling because of other factors, nothing to do with the millions of guns added to America's 'streets' every year, these other countries also have falling homicide rates and they didn't have to introduce guns to achieve this, these European countries simply implemented the same measures America also did 20 years ago to reduce crime.

Good point, I'll change my argument the US has more people disposed to murder while europe has more disposed to just assaults and raping and petty property crime.

I'd still prefer to live in 'Europe' which has much lower murder rates.

No its an argument to change cultural attitudes not to ban something. Banning guns is nothing but a stop gap measure that won't work because the cultural attitude remains.

No, because if the cultural attitude is moving away from violence, then surely people would also turn away from guns, which are a symbol of this violent culture? Changing attitudes is possible as we've seen from Germany, they didn't implement American-style gun ownership laws when they changed their attitude. It makes perfect sense to restrict gun ownership in the face of lower crimes and a 'shifting of the public consciousness'. America is getting safer, why do all you gun-lovers want to hold onto your lethal weapons when the gun ownership wasn't responsible for the homicide rate falling?

Yes it would be still higher but it wouldn't be that much higher as you claim. At this point you would be arguing about 1.0 compared to 2.0 per 100k.

No, it would be less than 1.0 for the UK if you were just to focus on the white population. That's still a big difference between the UK and the US. Again, why are you discounting and dismissing one whole group? Oh dear. These people are still Americans, regardless of their skin colour, and America's OVERALL homicide rate soars above the civilised world. The UK's murder rate has continued to drop and drop over the last decade and this has happened without the UK government implementing American-style gun laws.

It is not weak at all, it is factually sound. They can't carry guns to protect themselves because the state doesn't allow it. Go to those nations make it legal for them to carry in public and then come back and say they don't carry to protect themselves. And look what the trade off is, Canada has over 900 violent crimes per 100k and the US has 455 per 100k, So there are 445 less violent crimes then canada but in return there are on average 3 more murders. So for every additional murder the US stopped 148.33 violent crimes from happening. That seems like a fair trade off to me, I think that is a very fair trade off considering you are more likely to be killed by falling to your death then being murdered.

No, that really isn't a fair trade off, considering that they are still three more people killed in the American scenario. Really not ideal, and no kind of trade off any civilised country would consider, because they don't consider these 3 (or more, depending on what country you look at) people expendable or their deaths worth it. It doesn't matter if I'm more likely to be killed by falling to my death, the fact remains that I'm more likely to be murdered in America than any civilised country in the developed world.

What are you talking about? How would checking their ammo prevent them from running out of ammo. A gun or a magazine can only hold so much and if you don't carry spare ammo your in trouble after your exhaust it. Most criminals don't carry spare/extra ammunition, they only carry the gun and the ammo in that gun. The most common gun used in a crime is a revolver, the average number of rounds a criminal will fire is 4.5 rounds, the average revolver only holds 4-5 rounds.

I was talking about checking your ammo before you decide to go on your killing spree. Thank God where I live I'll never have to run into problems of 'ammo' and 'jamming' and worry about how many rounds my revolver has. Like I said, dystopia.

No, the correct way to deal with guns in a society is to not make them as easily available as they are in America today, because the ready availability of these guns leads to the highest homicide rate in the developed world for a country which has equal or lower rates in other areas of crime compared to other nations. Weird, isn't it, how America can have very similar or even lower rates of assault, and the like compared to European countries, and yet its homicide rate soars. Looks very disproportionate. And we all know it's due to guns.

The correct way is to teach how to correctly handle guns not to restrict them. It is the same with drugs and other dangerous things. Or it could be just that when someone assaults another person in the US the goal is to kill, where is in Europe the goal is to just assault them not to kill them.

I said assault and rape rates in America were similar or LOWER to those found in other developed countries, I specifically focused on the homicide rate, which in America towers over the civilised world.

This is what you said:

And assault and rape rates in America are at a similar level to most other industrialised nations.

No where are you saying it is lower.

People who commit crimes will use whatever weapons they can find to carry out their intent. In America, uniquely, these people have a level of access to guns which is not the case in civilised countries, and therefore are able to use these most destructive and lethal weapons to carry out their plans, and ther result is the highest homicide rate in the developed world.

Exactly! They had already chosen to commit a crime before they even got a gun, the gun didn't cause the crime, it was only sought after once the decision had been made to commit a crime. As a result guns don't kill people, people do.

Violence is going down, but gun murders still make up the largest proportion of what is by far the largest homicide rate in the developed world. If violence is going down, why do you still need these guns? In many countries, people are granted licences for guns to hunt, but the governments still don't pass laws which allow people to buy guns for their own 'self-protection'.

For self-defense, for sport shooting, for hunting, for collecting, for overthrowing a tyrannical government. If violence is going down then you don't need to worry about people who choose to get guns for self defense because they won't use them. By your argument Japan shouldn't have a police force.

Generally speaking, the reasons are personal and individual, and to blame it on this 'culture of violence' makes no sense.

Actually it does because those personal and individual reasons are largely a reflection of cultural beliefs. For example Japan and suicide. Suicide is personal and done for individual reasons agreed? So why then is japan's suicide rate larger then America's homicide and suicide rate combined? I'm willing to bet culture plays a pretty big reason.

No, America is not growing up, since its insane gun laws are still in place. The crime rate is falling due to other factors, this includes the homicide rates, but the homicide rate still remain disproportionately higher compared to the homicide rates in civilised nations, because of guns.

Those factors are cultural attitudes. The US is growing up. There are more guns hitting the streets and there are more gun owners as a grand total hitting the streets and yet grand total gun violence has been decreasing. That means more people are behaving more maturely when it comes to how they handle their guns, in other words they are growing up.

It does disprove your claims, the homicide rate is falling due to other factors, but the fact remains is that America's falling homicide rate is still much higher than other countries' homicide rates, which also happen to be falling themselves. America, which has similar or even smaller rates of assault, rape, burglarly, etc compared to civilised nations, has BY FAR the highest homicide rate in the first world, due to guns. The homicide rate is mostly made up of guns, because guns are the weapon with the most destuctive capacity and most effective at killing.

In order to disprove my claims you have to show that as the total number of guns increases the total number of gun crime increases.

I agree it is falling due to other factors and it was those other factors that drove gun violence up in the first place. The US does not have similar assault, rape, burglary, etc. rates they are smaller. The only thing the US is higher in is Murder. What matters is that homicide rate is falling. Again this is not a rat race, the US will eventually reach European levels because rates of this nature can only go so far, 0, once Europe reaches those levels first it will stay there and then US will reach those levels while maintaining their gun laws.

These extra 2-5 a ARE alot

Out of a 100k no it is not. It is in fact incredibly negligible out of 100k

, like I said, even one extra is too much.

Love your idealism.

Considering that gun apologists use rape, assault, rates to justify their gun ownership, then you could also say the rates of these crimes out of 100k is 'not a lot'. So no need to carry around those guns.

If there is no need to carry them then there is no need to ban them because they won't be used.

American homicide rate will not reach European levels, maybe in your dreams, LOL. No, racial profiling doesn't work in this case, why call crimes 'inter-racial' in the first place? Why should the skin colour matter? It is Americans who committ these homicides, it doesn't matter if they're white, black, Hispanic, whatever.

As long as the homicide rate continues to decrease it will, the lowest it can get is 0 and once Europe reaches that they can't go any lower and so the US will then catch up. Because law enforcement calls it inter-racial, also because believe it or not some crimes are motivated based solely on race, other wise known as hate crimes. It helps show trends and hot spots. Why profile if one is rural vs. urban...

No, America is not growing up, since its insane gun laws are still in place. The crime rate is falling due to other factors, this includes the homicide rates, but the homicide rate still remain disproportionately higher compared to the homicide rates in civilised nations, because of guns.

Those factors are cultural attitudes. The US is growing up. There are more guns hitting the streets and there are more gun owners as a grand total hitting the streets and yet grand total gun violence has been decreasing. That means more people are behaving more maturely when it comes to how they handle their guns, in other words they are growing up.

It does disprove your claims, the homicide rate is falling due to other factors, but the fact remains is that America's falling homicide rate is still much higher than other countries' homicide rates, which also happen to be falling themselves. America, which has similar or even smaller rates of assault, rape, burglarly, etc compared to civilised nations, has BY FAR the highest homicide rate in the first world, due to guns. The homicide rate is mostly made up of guns, because guns are the weapon with the most destuctive capacity and most effective at killing.

In order to disprove my claims you have to show that as the total number of guns increases the total number of gun crime increases.

I agree it is falling due to other factors and it was those other factors that drove gun violence up in the first place. The US does not have similar assault, rape, burglary, etc. rates they are smaller. The only thing the US is higher in is Murder. What matters is that homicide rate is falling. Again this is not a rat race, the US will eventually reach European levels because rates of this nature can only go so far, 0, once Europe reaches those levels first it will stay there and then US will reach those levels while maintaining their gun laws.

These extra 2-5 a ARE alot

Out of a 100k no it is not. It is in fact incredibly negligible out of 100k

, like I said, even one extra is too much.

Love your idealism.

Considering that gun apologists use rape, assault, rates to justify their gun ownership, then you could also say the rates of these crimes out of 100k is 'not a lot'. So no need to carry around those guns.

If there is no need to carry them then there is no need to ban them because they won't be used.

American homicide rate will not reach European levels, maybe in your dreams, LOL. No, racial profiling doesn't work in this case, why call crimes 'inter-racial' in the first place? Why should the skin colour matter? It is Americans who committ these homicides, it doesn't matter if they're white, black, Hispanic, whatever.

As long as the homicide rate continues to decrease it will, the lowest it can get is 0 and once Europe reaches that they can't go any lower and so the US will then catch up. Because law enforcement calls it inter-racial, also because believe it or not some crimes are motivated based solely on race, other wise known as hate crimes. It helps show trends and hot spots. Why profile if one is rural vs. urban...

Your right it isn't responsible for it, guess what is? Culture. Guess what is responsible for why there haven't been any homicides since the gun law? Culture. The correct way to deal with guns in a society such as the US is to change cultural attitudes on how and when to use force, that also applies on how and when to use guns. That does not mean you have to introduce more restrictive gun laws as Kennesaw, Georgia has shown.

No, the correct way to deal with guns in a society is to not make them as easily available as they are in America today, because the ready availability of these guns leads to the highest homicide rate in the developed world for a country which has equal or lower rates in other areas of crime compared to other nations. Weird, isn't it, how America can have very similar or even lower rates of assault, and the like compared to European countries, and yet its homicide rate soars. Looks very disproportionate. And we all know it's due to guns.

Yes it will.

No it won't.

No you were not you specifically stated that assault and rape rates of America were similar to other industrialized nations and that we look at other violent crimes where the US is higher like murder. That is simply not true. The only violent crime category that the US is higher in is Murder. All other violent crime rates the US is pretty much below average. The UK rape and assault rate is over 1,000 per 100k the US is around 455 per 100k. In France the number of violent crimes is 509 per 100k.

I said assault and rape rates in America were similar or LOWER to those found in other developed countries, I specifically focused on the homicide rate, which in America towers over the civilised world.

Yes they will and can. Guns don't cause crime, people do. Putting a gun in someones hand does not make them any more likely to kill or injure someone then someone who doesn't have a gun in their hand. The crime rates in the US are falling faster then in Europe, they will catch up.

No, they really won't. 'Guns don't cause crime, people do', oh dear, this again. People who commit crimes will use whatever weapons they can find to carry out their intent. In America, uniquely, these people have a level of access to guns which is not the case in civilised countries, and therefore are able to use these most destructive and lethal weapons to carry out their plans, and ther result is the highest homicide rate in the developed world.

Why? If violence is going down why would you need to confiscate guns or get rid of them? Keep them for target shooting and shoot competitions, collect them, or just keep them in case someone does attack you and you want to be able to defend yourself. According to the ATF and FBI people who own guns are less likely to commit violent crimes in the US then non gun owners. Why not just leave the gun owners alone they are not going to hurt you. Over 99.999% of gun owners will never injure or kill another person with their guns. Again more guns in a society does not lead to more gun violence or just violence in general. Putting a gun in someone's hand does not make them more violent.

Violence is going down, but gun murders still make up the largest proportion of what is by far the largest homicide rate in the developed world. If violence is going down, why do you still need these guns? In many countries, people are granted licences for guns to hunt, but the governments still don't pass laws which allow people to buy guns for their own 'self-protection'. Guns are the most destructive of weapons, those with criminal intent will be able to unleash more destruction with a gun than a knife. So glad I don't live in insane, dystopic America.

Yes they are and if you were to get rid of them the murders will remain the only thing that will change is how they were done.

No, the murders would decrease because these killers wouldn't have the same level of access to guns with their huge destructive capacity and would have to find another weapon. Since America's assault and rape rates (which also represent your so called culture of 'violence') are not noticeably higher than countries of Europe, the fact that the homicide rate is so much higher is clearly strange, and when we look at these bizarrely huge homicide figures and see that they are mostly made up of gun murders, which are nearly unheard of in the civilised world, we can then see why.

Even though you knew my point was generalizing in saying that the vast majority of crimes have nothing to do with mentally ill people and that the vast majority of crimes have to do with criminal sane people. You know as well as I do that over 95% of homicides are committed by criminally sane people.

People kill for a variety of reasons, whether it's because they have a mental illness, they're psychopathic, they're jealous, angry etc. Generally speaking, the reasons are personal and individual, and to blame it on this 'culture of violence' makes no sense. The homicide rate is so high because people have access to these lethal weapons, a level of access which just isn't there in civilised countries.

Most European nations HAVE seen their homicide rates drop, and they didn't introduce more liberal gun laws to bring this about, the gap between these countries and America remains huge and America will never reach the European levels of homicide as long as its gun laws stay in place. America's homicide rate is falling faster because it was so incredibly high in the first place, the decline was due to other factors. European countries have had smaller decreases, because their homicide rates were already lower, and even if smaller, these decreases were STILL decreases.

And the US didn't have to introduce more restrictive gun laws to bring about their drops either. Yes it will reach European levels as long as the gun laws stay in place because gun violence is still dropping. Yes it is due to other factors and it is those other factors that were responsible for why the gun crime was so high in the first place. You know as well as I do that the legalizing drugs will have more effect on gun violence then any future restrictive gun law ever would in the US. Exactly they are already so low they can't really go any lower can they? That means the US can catch up. The US will catch up with its current gun laws. That is what I have been saying decreases are decreases, this isn't a rat race. All that matters is that crime rates are falling. As long as the gun violence is falling we don't need any more restrictive gun laws. Let the laws do their work, they have been working for the past 20 years.

No, you pointed out how other crime rates, such as rape and assault are higher in Canada and 'Europe', so the proportion of this criminally disposed is the same as in America.

Good point, I'll change my argument the US has more people disposed to murder while europe has more disposed to just assaults and raping and petty property crime.

If cultural attitudes are so violent, then that's another argument as to why these lethal weapons should be banned.

No its an argument to change cultural attitudes not to ban something. Banning guns is nothing but a stop gap measure that won't work because the cultural attitude remains.

Oh dear, once again, you removed a whole segment of your population based on their skin colour, if you did the same in the UK, and dismissed the black crimes there, and just compared the non-black US and UK populations with each other, then America would still have a higher homicide rate.

Yes it would be still higher but it wouldn't be that much higher as you claim. At this point you would be arguing about 1.0 compared to 2.0 per 100k.

It's weak, because using the excuse of 'culture' as to why people should continue to hold onto these lethal weapons is ridiculous, when there are other countries in the West which have similar or even higher rates of assault, rape and the citizens there don't carry guns to protect themselves, only Americans do, and as a result, they have the highest homicide rate in the developed world, 3/4 which is made up of these gun murders.

It is not weak at all, it is factually sound. They can't carry guns to protect themselves because the state doesn't allow it. Go to those nations make it legal for them to carry in public and then come back and say they don't carry to protect themselves. And look what the trade off is, Canada has over 900 violent crimes per 100k and the US has 455 per 100k, So there are 445 less violent crimes then canada but in return there are on average 3 more murders. So for every additional murder the US stopped 148.33 violent crimes from happening. That seems like a fair trade off to me, I think that is a very fair trade off considering you are more likely to be killed by falling to your death then being murdered.

Most would be murderers will check the ammo in their gun before the kill. Thankfully, living in a civilised country, I'll never have to worry about my gun 'jamming' if I get into trouble.

What are you talking about? How would checking their ammo prevent them from running out of ammo. A gun or a magazine can only hold so much and if you don't carry spare ammo your in trouble after your exhaust it. Most criminals don't carry spare/extra ammunition, they only carry the gun and the ammo in that gun. The most common gun used in a crime is a revolver, the average number of rounds a criminal will fire is 4.5 rounds, the average revolver only holds 4-5 rounds.

The homicide rate was 0 before the gun laws were implemented, so the gun law isn't responsible for that. If it's a 'culture of society' that causes homicide and America is so violent, then, like I said, why are these guns even in circulation. Surely the last thing this 'uniquely violent' society (your view) needs are these lethal weapons being so easy to obtain.

Your right it isn't responsible for it, guess what is? Culture. Guess what is responsible for why there haven't been any homicides since the gun law? Culture. The correct way to deal with guns in a society such as the US is to change cultural attitudes on how and when to use force, that also applies on how and when to use guns. That does not mean you have to introduce more restrictive gun laws as Kennesaw, Georgia has shown.

It won't reach European levels any time soon (or ever).

Yes it will.

I was specifically talking about homicide rate, the most serious of crimes. America has by far the biggest homicide rate in the developed world. I already listed the countries which were experiencing drops. The information on the homicide rates of different countries is widely available.

No you were not you specifically stated that assault and rape rates of America were similar to other industrialized nations and that we look at other violent crimes where the US is higher like murder. That is simply not true. The only violent crime category that the US is higher in is Murder. All other violent crime rates the US is pretty much below average. The UK rape and assault rate is over 1,000 per 100k the US is around 455 per 100k. In France the number of violent crimes is 509 per 100k.

If the lower crime rates in other areas come at the expense of a higher-than-other-countries homicide rate due to this gun ownership, homicide levels will never come down to Europe or East Asia's level.

Yes they will and can. Guns don't cause crime, people do. Putting a gun in someones hand does not make them any more likely to kill or injure someone then someone who doesn't have a gun in their hand. The crime rates in the US are falling faster then in Europe, they will catch up.

If cultural attitudes towards violence in America are going away, then it's time to put away those guns right?

Why? If violence is going down why would you need to confiscate guns or get rid of them? Keep them for target shooting and shoot competitions, collect them, or just keep them in case someone does attack you and you want to be able to defend yourself. According to the ATF and FBI people who own guns are less likely to commit violent crimes in the US then non gun owners. Why not just leave the gun owners alone they are not going to hurt you. Over 99.999% of gun owners will never injure or kill another person with their guns. Again more guns in a society does not lead to more gun violence or just violence in general. Putting a gun in someone's hand does not make them more violent.

Guns ARE used for the vast majority of homicides in America.

Yes they are and if you were to get rid of them the murders will remain the only thing that will change is how they were done.

And I used the mentally ill example to show that its not true people just kill because of 'cultural reasons'.

Even though you knew my point was generalizing in saying that the vast majority of crimes have nothing to do with mentally ill people and that the vast majority of crimes have to do with criminal sane people. You know as well as I do that over 95% of homicides are committed by criminally sane people.

Keyword was, I'm talking about today not then. America has been growing up that is why its crime rate has been falling. It is falling primarily because of cultural attitudes towards violence are changing. I keep telling you it is not a rat race, as long as the homicide rate and gun homicides is falling you just have to wait. Patience. You need patience.

No, America is not growing up, since its insane gun laws are still in place. The crime rate is falling due to other factors, this includes the homicide rates, but the homicide rate still remain disproportionately higher compared to the homicide rates in civilised nations, because of guns.

It does not disprove any of my claims. In order to disprove my claims you have to show that as the total number of guns increases on a yearly basis the total number of gun homicides increases on a yearly basis.

As long as the total number of guns increases and the total number of gun homicides or the homicide per capita rate goes down my claims are proven that guns doesn't cause crime.

All your evidence proves is that it is the primary means in which people choose to kill one another. That's it.

It does disprove your claims, the homicide rate is falling due to other factors, but the fact remains is that America's falling homicide rate is still much higher than other countries' homicide rates, which also happen to be falling themselves. America, which has similar or even smaller rates of assault, rape, burglarly, etc compared to civilised nations, has BY FAR the highest homicide rate in the first world, due to guns. The homicide rate is mostly made up of guns, because guns are the weapon with the most destuctive capacity and most effective at killing.

2-5 additional bodies out of 100k is not a lot. Sorry but it is not. The murder rate is higher but with the current trends it will eventually equal that of western europe. Why am I racial profiling because it works in this case, again less than 5% of homicides in the US are inter-racial.

These extra 2-5 a ARE alot, like I said, even one extra is too much. Considering that gun apologists use rape, assault, rates to justify their gun ownership, then you could also say the rates of these crimes out of 100k is 'not a lot'. So no need to carry around those guns. American homicide rate will not reach European levels, maybe in your dreams, LOL. No, racial profiling doesn't work in this case, why call crimes 'inter-racial' in the first place? Why should the skin colour matter? It is Americans who committ these homicides, it doesn't matter if they're white, black, Hispanic, whatever.

The US will reach the levels of Western Europe. Kennesaw, Georgia can have 0 so why can't USA? Actually the US has been closing the gap in 1990 the homicide rate was around 10 per 100k, today it is anywhere between 4.5-5.5, most European nations have stayed the same, if they have fallen they have fallen only by about .5 per 100k. That means the US has gained on Western Europe by about 4.0-5.0 homicides per 100k. Yes the portion remains consistent that but is irrelevant as long as the total number of gun homicides goes down. A homicide rate that is falling faster then western europe.

The US will not reach the levels of Western Europe. There are towns in countries in Europe which also have a homicide rate of 0, and your average citizen in these towns doesn't own a gun. Most European nations HAVE seen their homicide rates drop, and they didn't introduce more liberal gun laws to bring this about, the gap between these countries and America remains huge and America will never reach the European levels of homicide as long as its gun laws stay in place. America's homicide rate is falling faster because it was so incredibly high in the first place, the decline was due to other factors. European countries have had smaller decreases, because their homicide rates were already lower, and even if smaller, these decreases were STILL decreases.

No its not, there are more criminally disposed people in the US then in Europe. Why? Because of cultural attitudes. They don't need the same access to guns they can compensate with cars for home made flamethrowers. If you take out black on black crime the US homicide rate is the equivalent of the UK.

No, you pointed out how other crime rates, such as rape and assault are higher in Canada and 'Europe', so the proportion of this criminally disposed is the same as in America. If cultural attitudes are so violent, then that's another argument as to why these lethal weapons should be banned. Oh dear, once again, you removed a whole segment of your population based on their skin colour, if you did the same in the UK, and dismissed the black crimes there, and just compared the non-black US and UK populations with each other, then America would still have a higher homicide rate.

How is it weak? Why are arranged marriages more common in south asia then in the west? Culture? Why are honor killings more common in asia then in the west? Culture? Why is premarital sex higher in the west then it is in south asia? Culture? Seeing as deviants and sociopaths don't make up any significant portion of a population that really doesn't disprove anything I have said. The priority is to change the culture away from violence, you don't need to ban/confiscate guns to do that. Ban guns would only be a stop gap measure at best. It wouldn't achieve anything. And not everyone who wants to kill someone and has access to a gun is going to go out and buy a gun. What is your point?

It's weak, because using the excuse of 'culture' as to why people should continue to hold onto these lethal weapons is ridiculous, when there are other countries in the West which have similar or even higher rates of assault, rape and the citizens there don't carry guns to protect themselves, only Americans do, and as a result, they have the highest homicide rate in the developed world, 3/4 which is made up of these gun murders.

Actually the easiest would be a melee weapon, you would have point blank access to the body. A knife stab to the head is just as deadly as a gun shot to head. A knife stab to the jugular vein and your finished just like if I shoot your jugular vein. But I do agree that overall it is the easiest weapon, but it does have one critical flaw if you run out of ammo and or the gun jams your in trouble.

Most would be murderers will check the ammo in their gun before the kill. Thankfully, living in a civilised country, I'll never have to worry about my gun 'jamming' if I get into trouble.

Yes but the gun accelerated that drop and has kept that drop. Yes and isn't it amazing that the homicide rate has stayed zero after that gun law was introduced. You do realize that by having the homicide rate at zero and stay zero after the gun law was introduce is further proves my point that guns don't cause homicide but that it is the culture of the society that causes homicide.

You have yet to acknowledge that the gun law has not resulted in an increase of homicides.

The homicide rate was 0 before the gun laws were implemented, so the gun law isn't responsible for that. If it's a 'culture of society' that causes homicide and America is so violent, then, like I said, why are these guns even in circulation. Surely the last thing this 'uniquely violent' society (your view) needs are these lethal weapons being so easy to obtain.

So be it as long as the gun homicide and overall murder rate continue to fall right....

It won't reach European levels any time soon (or ever).

No they are not Canada's violent crime rate excluding murders is more than twice that of the USA for example, that includes rape. Really which countries are experiencing drops?

I was specifically talking about homicide rate, the most serious of crimes. America has by far the biggest homicide rate in the developed world. I already listed the countries which were experiencing drops. The information on the homicide rates of different countries is widely available.

According to the EU UN they in fact have been rising or at the very least have been stable. They are not decreasing. There have been decreases in some countries but the majority of the European nations the crime rates have either remained the same or have increased slowly.

No, according to the UN, the HOMICIDE rates of most European countries HAVE been dropping, which again, is what I was talking about.

Yes it will, if Kennesaw, Georgia can have a 0 murder rate and make guns mandatory guess what it can happen in the US. US crime rate is falling and has been for 20 years it will eventually catch up to Europe and East Asia.

If the lower crime rates in other areas come at the expense of a higher-than-other-countries homicide rate due to this gun ownership, homicide levels will never come down to Europe or East Asia's level.

How are they insane? Criminals and people with mental illnesses can't get guns legally. It has been that way even when there were no gun laws in Europe. America has always had a higher murder rate then Europe even when Europe had no gun laws. I'm still waiting for you to show me another culture that loves violence just as much as the US currently does. I know that guns are not the primary reason for why homicides have decreased including gun homicides. I have never claimed they were the reason. I have simply been stating that the primary reason for why crime rates have been falling in the US is because cultural attitudes towards violence and using as a form of conflict resolution are going away. It is those very same reasons why homicides are higher in the US then in Europe. Guns don't cause crime, they don't cause people to commit crimes. All they can do is increase the severity of a crime. Again 13.5 million guns were added in the past 3 years and yet homicides went down. Why? Because guns don't cause crimes. You have to concede that guns don't cause crimes. There is no evidence that increasing guns in the population leads to an increase in crime rates. No where is that me saying guns are the primary reason for why homicides are going down or crime in general. Oh for the love of god we are talking about what is the most common cause of crime, of course mentally ill people cause crime but do you honestly believe that mentally ill people make up any significant portion of perps of crimes?

The laws are insane, because they make it extremely easy to obtain an lethal weapon, whether through legal or illegal means. Criminals and people with mental illnesses can get guns extremely easily through illegall means especially compared to their counterparts in civilised countries, since guns are so widespread in the land of the free. If cultural attitudes towards violence in America are going away, then it's time to put away those guns right? Countries which had violence loving cultures, moved away from these norms and didn't introduce the kind of crazy gun laws America has now. So in actual fact, if this shift in consciousness is happening, it's the perfect moment to start making gun ownership laws more strict. Guns ARE used for the vast majority of homicides in America. And my point was that America has one of the most liberal gun laws in the world, and as a result, has a much higher rate of homicide compared to the civlised word, a homicide rate which is mosmade up of these gun murders, a completely different situation from the rest of the developed world. And I used the mentally ill example to show that its not true people just kill because of 'cultural reasons'.

Germany's culture was even more force loving than America's and yes, the vestiges of Prussian militarism are still evident everywhere you go in Germany. 'Peaceful way to resolve conflicts' - I'm sorry, but this something which most human are capable of doing, violence isn't seen as an acceptable way to resolve conflicts even in America. Time for America to grow up. The homicide rate has been falling in America for tweny years now, but that is because of other factors, your country's falling homicide rate still remains extremely high compared to other Western nations, because of the gun murders.

Keyword was, I'm talking about today not then. America has been growing up that is why its crime rate has been falling. It is falling primarily because of cultural attitudes towards violence are changing. I keep telling you it is not a rat race, as long as the homicide rate and gun homicides is falling you just have to wait. Patience. You need patience.

Of course it disproves your 'claims', no matter how many guns go into the 'streets' every year, or what the actual homicide rate is, the vast majority of these homicides are still related to guns. The majority has consistently at remained 3/4, guns are by far the favoured method of killing in the land of the free, unlike the civilised world, where gun murders make up a small part of the overall homicide rate and these countries all have much lower homicide rates in general.

It does not disprove any of my claims. In order to disprove my claims you have to show that as the total number of guns increases on a yearly basis the total number of gun homicides increases on a yearly basis.

As long as the total number of guns increases and the total number of gun homicides or the homicide per capita rate goes down my claims are proven that guns doesn't cause crime.

All your evidence proves is that it is the primary means in which people choose to kill one another. That's it.

No, the murder rate in the US is MUCH higher than the civilised world's murder rate. I love how you love to dismiss this high murder rate as 'not much', well then we can do the same for America's lower assault and rape rates. Why are you racial profiling again?

2-5 additional bodies out of 100k is not a lot. Sorry but it is not. The murder rate is higher but with the current trends it will eventually equal that of western europe. Why am I racial profiling because it works in this case, again less than 5% of homicides in the US are inter-racial.

The US homicide rate won't fall to 0, LOL, keep dreaming. The US will not reach the homicide levels of Western Europe, when the homicide levels in most countries of Western Europe have also dropped in conjunction with America's. Your country is still not bridging the gap. What matters is the question as to why even the falling homicide rate remains so high compared to other nations, and the statistics show that most of this sky high homicide rate is due to guns. Millions and millions of guns will go into the US every year, and the share of homicides related to gun murders will remain disturbingly and depressingly consistent. Even as its crime rates in other areas remain at similar levels to civilised countries, the US will continue to have by far the developed world's highest homicide rate

The US will reach the levels of Western Europe. Kennesaw, Georgia can have 0 so why can't USA? Actually the US has been closing the gap in 1990 the homicide rate was around 10 per 100k, today it is anywhere between 4.5-5.5, most European nations have stayed the same, if they have fallen they have fallen only by about .5 per 100k. That means the US has gained on Western Europe by about 4.0-5.0 homicides per 100k. Yes the portion remains consistent that but is irrelevant as long as the total number of gun homicides goes down. A homicide rate that is falling faster then western europe.

Oh dear, how many murders are a result of 'melee combat'? As we can see, most murders in America are from guns, which like you say, are not generally used in melee combat. The murder rate is so high in the US because guns are the easiest way to kill people and have such huge destructive capabilities. Anyone who has a desire to kill will use whatever they can get their hands on, but if it's a gun, it will have a greater destructive potential compared to other weapons which murderers in other countries use instead.

Agreed, but if the target is only one person you don't need a gun then. You only need access.

Yes, and in other countries, the people who have this desire don't have the same level of access to these lethal weapons as their American counterparts, and lower homicides rates are the end result. The proportion of criminally-disposed people in each country, inside America and outside, is at a similar level, as we can see from the similar crime rates in other areas, except homicide of course, which America SOARS above the rest of the developed world.

No its not, there are more criminally disposed people in the US then in Europe. Why? Because of cultural attitudes. They don't need the same access to guns they can compensate with cars for home made flamethrowers. If you take out black on black crime the US homicide rate is the equivalent of the UK.

'Cultural acceptance of force' is again, WEAK, there are deviants and sociopaths in every country no matter how peaceful that country's culture is. If America has such a strong culture of force like you say, then the main priority should be removing these guns from circulation, since they are such lethal weapons and therefore a menace for a country which celebrates force. Not everyone who doesn't have access to a gun and wants to kill someone is suddenly going to fill a 'super-soaker' and burn an entire crowd to death, again, the rate of incidences like that hasn't risen in civilised countries, because these super soaker murderers didn't have access to guns.

How is it weak? Why are arranged marriages more common in south asia then in the west? Culture? Why are honor killings more common in asia then in the west? Culture? Why is premarital sex higher in the west then it is in south asia? Culture? Seeing as deviants and sociopaths don't make up any significant portion of a population that really doesn't disprove anything I have said. The priority is to change the culture away from violence, you don't need to ban/confiscate guns to do that. Ban guns would only be a stop gap measure at best. It wouldn't achieve anything. And not everyone who wants to kill someone and has access to a gun is going to go out and buy a gun. What is your point?

Guns have more destructive capabilities than knives, I said 'fool proof' to mean that they are the easiest weapons to use to kill someone, and obviously the American public of murderers agree since it's overwhelmingly the weapon of choice used to murder in the land of the free, year after year. The reason why it is the preferred weapon is because it's the one with the most destructive capability and is easy to use, you can't hold up a room with a knife, but you can with a gun.

Actually the easiest would be a melee weapon, you would have point blank access to the body. A knife stab to the head is just as deadly as a gun shot to head. A knife stab to the jugular vein and your finished just like if I shoot your jugular vein. But I do agree that overall it is the easiest weapon, but it does have one critical flaw if you run out of ammo and or the gun jams your in trouble.

Again, the crime rate was dropping before the gun law was implemented. There was already a zero homicide rate before the introduction of gun laws, guns didn't reduce homicides.

Yes but the gun accelerated that drop and has kept that drop. Yes and isn't it amazing that the homicide rate has stayed zero after that gun law was introduced. You do realize that by having the homicide rate at zero and stay zero after the gun law was introduce is further proves my point that guns don't cause homicide but that it is the culture of the society that causes homicide.

You have yet to acknowledge that the gun law has not resulted in an increase of homicides.

Oh dear, did you not read what I said? I already stated the crime rate has fallen, what I also said was that the gun ownership laws have contributed to keeping America's homicide rates so much higher than the rest of the developed world, even if these rates are falling. The fact remains that 70% of murders committed in America are gun related.

So be it as long as the gun homicide and overall murder rate continue to fall right....

And assault and rape rates in America are at a similar level to most other industrialised nations. When this is the case, we look at the areas where American rates are markedly higher - and that is in homicide. Why? Because of guns. No, American really will not reach the level of other western nations, most of which are also experiencing drops in homicide rates, the gap hasn't closed.

No they are not Canada's violent crime rate excluding murders is more than twice that of the USA for example, that includes rape. Really which countries are experiencing drops?

Actually, the crime rates have not been rising in 'Europe', look at each country individually. I specifically said MOST countries, Germany and the UK (which Scotland is a part of) saw their homicide rates drop steadily during the 2000s. The gap is as strong as ever, unfortunately.

According to the EU UN they in fact have been rising or at the very least have been stable. They are not decreasing. There have been decreases in some countries but the majority of the European nations the crime rates have either remained the same or have increased slowly.

No, it won't.

Yes it will, if Kennesaw, Georgia can have a 0 murder rate and make guns mandatory guess what it can happen in the US. US crime rate is falling and has been for 20 years it will eventually catch up to Europe and East Asia.

The US is the only first world country which has those insane gun ownership laws, and it's been that way for a depressingly long time now. America also happens to have the first world's highest homicide rate and it's also been that way for decades, even though America is hardly the only culture which has traditionally admired 'force' (such a weak argument). The increase in the number of guns is NOT what led to the homicide decrease, it's other factors as I have to keep telling you. And no, it's not necessarily 'cultural attitudes' which cause crime, it can simply be a sociopath or a mentally ill person, who are found in all countries. If these individuals are American, then they have a level of access, whether legally, or illegally, to the kind of lethal weapons which are so much more difficult for their counterparts to get elsewhere.

How are they insane? Criminals and people with mental illnesses can't get guns legally. It has been that way even when there were no gun laws in Europe. America has always had a higher murder rate then Europe even when Europe had no gun laws. I'm still waiting for you to show me another culture that loves violence just as much as the US currently does. I know that guns are not the primary reason for why homicides have decreased including gun homicides. I have never claimed they were the reason. I have simply been stating that the primary reason for why crime rates have been falling in the US is because cultural attitudes towards violence and using as a form of conflict resolution are going away. It is those very same reasons why homicides are higher in the US then in Europe. Guns don't cause crime, they don't cause people to commit crimes. All they can do is increase the severity of a crime. Again 13.5 million guns were added in the past 3 years and yet homicides went down. Why? Because guns don't cause crimes. You have to concede that guns don't cause crimes. There is no evidence that increasing guns in the population leads to an increase in crime rates. No where is that me saying guns are the primary reason for why homicides are going down or crime in general. Oh for the love of god we are talking about what is the most common cause of crime, of course mentally ill people cause crime but do you honestly believe that mentally ill people make up any significant portion of perps of crimes?

Does not disprove any of my claims. In order for you to prove your claims you have to show that there is an increase in the total number of gun homicides as the total number of guns increases. That means you have to show that when the US added 13.5 million guns in the past 3 years that the total number of gun homicides increased from 12k to 13k or above. You can't prove that, then when I ask how many lives would have been saved if those 13.5 million guns did not hit the streets in the past 3 years you can't tell me. All your fact does is just show that it is the preferred weapon to kill with, it does not prove that increasing guns in a population leads to an increase in the total number of gun homicides. Gun homicides have been dropping even though millions of guns continue to hit the streets. You have to show that by adding

Again You have yet to show that more guns equals a yearly increase in the total number of crimes.

All you have shown is that guns are the preferred method to kill with. That is all, that does not disprove any of my claims.

Of course it disproves your 'claims', no matter how many guns go into the 'streets' every year, or what the actual homicide rate is, the vast majority of these homicides are still related to guns. The majority has consistently at remained 3/4, guns are by far the favoured method of killing in the land of the free, unlike the civilised world, where gun murders make up a small part of the overall homicide rate and these countries all have much lower homicide rates in general.

No they are not, America's rape and assault rate are lower then other developed countries outside of East Asia and Australia. You might get one or two European countries but for the most part Europe has more assaults and rapes and just more violent crime in general compared to the US. The only violent crime the US is higher in but not by much is murder and as long as your not black in a black neighborhood your chances of being killed are more like 2.00-2.5 per 100k in the US. Because the culture is against guns. Their homicide rates have either stayed the same or have risen they have not decreased or been cut in half the same way the US has.

No, the murder rate in the US is MUCH higher than the civilised world's murder rate. I love how you love to dismiss this high murder rate as 'not much', well then we can do the same for America's lower assault and rape rates. Why are you racial profiling again? If we did the same as what you did and remove the ethnic minorities from the European countries, then you would find their already lower murder rate would drop even further. Like, I said, just comparing the white populations of all these countries together doesn't help your case as America still has the highest homicide rate using that distorted comparison. Oh, and homicide rates have actually decreased in most Western European countries, they haven't 'stayed the same or have risen'. The UK, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Iceland, Norway, Spain, Italy, Denmark and France have all seen their homicide rate DROP in the last ten years. If you were to remove the ethnic populations from all these countries and America's, then America would still have the highest homicide rate.

That depends on the situation, in a melee combat you want a blade not a ranged weapon. The primary reason why murder rates are lower than in the US is because there are less attempts at killing someone, i.e. there is less of a desire to kill someone then in the US. If they desire to kill someone they will recruit a gang or they will use other form of weapon such as a car to kill with. It's all about desire not the availability of a gun.

Oh dear, how many murders are a result of 'melee combat'? As we can see, most murders in America are from guns, which like you say, are not generally used in melee combat. The murder rate is so high in the US because guns are the easiest way to kill people and have such huge destructive capabilities. Anyone who has a desire to kill will use whatever they can get their hands on, but if it's a gun, it will have a greater destructive potential compared to other weapons which murderers in other countries use instead.

It's not a weak argument at all, the argument is that banning guns does not remove desire and it is that desire that causes crime. If the desire remains the they will just adopt a new tactic to adapt to the removal of a firearm.

Yes, and in other countries, the people who have this desire don't have the same level of access to these lethal weapons as their American counterparts, and lower homicides rates are the end result. The proportion of criminally-disposed people in each country, inside America and outside, is at a similar level, as we can see from the similar crime rates in other areas, except homicide of course, which America SOARS above the rest of the developed world.

Which countries, I keep asking for a country that has the same cultural acceptance of force as an acceptable form of conflict resolution that also has lower murder rates and you have yet to name a single one. Name one. Fine take away the gun, they will just wait till you sleep break-in and then slit your throat and then move on to the next person and do the same thing. Or they will just run you over or they will set a gas leak in the house and create a spark. Or they will take a super-soaker fill it with gas/petrol burn an entire crowd to its death.

'Cultural acceptance of force' is again, WEAK, there are deviants and sociopaths in every country no matter how peaceful that country's culture is. If America has such a strong culture of force like you say, then the main priority should be removing these guns from circulation, since they are such lethal weapons and therefore a menace for a country which celebrates force. Not everyone who doesn't have access to a gun and wants to kill someone is suddenly going to fill a 'super-soaker' and burn an entire crowd to death, again, the rate of incidences like that hasn't risen in civilised countries, because these super soaker murderers didn't have access to guns.

No its because there are more attempts at murder. If I take the attempted murder and successful murder rate add them together and then compare that rate to the combined attempted and successful murder rate in a European nation the European nation will still be lower. Gun is not a fool proof way to do it, in fact its probably one of the easiest ways to get caught. Unless your dealing with a .22 caliber the bullet will have the gun barrels groves on it making it the equivalent of a finger print. then you factor in the gun powder that will be on the murderers hand that you can't wash off without using bleach and if you do the police will be very suspicious then you factor in guns are loud and also your more likely to get blood splatter on you. Blunt objects are a lot quiter. That is why gun homicides get convicted all the time in the US. All it shows is that guns are the preferred way to commit a murder. It's not just the overall murder rate, the total number of gun homicides has also been dropping even when you add millions of guns each year. Putting a gun in someone's hand does not motivate them to kill, it does not give someone the thought to kill someone. Guns don't cause crime, they are the preferred weapon of choice when a person desires to commit a crime.

Guns have more destructive capabilities than knives, I said 'fool proof' to mean that they are the easiest weapons to use to kill someone, and obviously the American public of murderers agree since it's overwhelmingly the weapon of choice used to murder in the land of the free, year after year. The reason why it is the preferred weapon is because it's the one with the most destructive capability and is easy to use, you can't hold up a room with a knife, but you can with a gun.

So your saying that right now Germany's culture has the same or just as much love for violence that the US. They have lower murder rates because after WW2, just like in Japan, they changed their culture away from violence being an acceptable way to resolve conflicts. Are you honestly suggesting that Germany is just as "aggressive" as the US.

Germany's culture was even more force loving than America's and yes, the vestiges of Prussian militarism are still evident everywhere you go in Germany. 'Peaceful way to resolve conflicts' - I'm sorry, but this something which most human are capable of doing, violence isn't seen as an acceptable way to resolve conflicts even in America. Time for America to grow up. The homicide rate has been falling in America for tweny years now, but that is because of other factors, your country's falling homicide rate still remains extremely high compared to other Western nations, because of the gun murders.

Yes the but facts show that it accelerated once they were implemented. Exactly so it shows adding guns to a society does not result in homicides.

Again, the crime rate was dropping before the gun law was implemented. There was already a zero homicide rate before the introduction of gun laws, guns didn't reduce homicides.

Crime rates have been dropping because of a cultural shift away from using force as an acceptable means to get respect or get what they want. Again your claim is that adding guns results in an increase in crime. The US has added over 100+ million guns to its streets with an additional 50+ million people in the past 20 years. I'm still waiting to see this crime increase you keep talking about. All I see are decreases in the total and per capita rates of crime.

Oh dear, did you not read what I said? I already stated the crime rate has fallen, what I also said was that the gun ownership laws have contributed to keeping America's homicide rates so much higher than the rest of the developed world, even if these rates are falling. The fact remains that 70% of murders committed in America are gun related.

You can use murder rates but criminologists say that Assault and rape rates are a better indicator due to how more frequent they occur then a murder. You do have a higher chance of being murdered in the US then other developed countries but not by much. Yes they will reach level if not be lower then other western nations in the future.

And assault and rape rates in America are at a similar level to most other industrialised nations. When this is the case, we look at the areas where American rates are markedly higher - and that is in homicide. Why? Because of guns. No, American really will not reach the level of other western nations, most of which are also experiencing drops in homicide rates, the gap hasn't closed.

Actually crime rates have been rising in Europe but slowly, Sweden is a good example of this. Scotland's murder rate has been rising for the past several years. Crime is on the rise in Europe. The gap is not as strong as ever.

Actually, the crime rates have not been rising in 'Europe', look at each country individually. I specifically said MOST countries, Germany and the UK (which Scotland is a part of) saw their homicide rates drop steadily during the 2000s. The gap is as strong as ever, unfortunately.

Yes it will.

No, it won't.

And its those same factors that also drive gun crime. Putting a gun in someones hand does make them more likely to commit a crime. The US has always had a higher murder rate to other western nations even when those western nations had made guns legal for civilians to own for no reason. I'm not implying that. I'm saying that guns don't cause crime, I'm saying that cultural attitudes are what cause crime. I'm saying that when someone commits a crime a gun on the victim can help protect them. Your the one saying that when you add guns to a society the total number of crimes increases. How much higher do they keep it then it otherwise would have been? How much did those additional 13.5 million guns keep homicides higher then they would have been? How much did those additional 100+ million and 50+ million people keep the total number of homicides higher than they would have been? How much?

The US is the only first world country which has those insane gun ownership laws, and it's been that way for a depressingly long time now. America also happens to have the first world's highest homicide rate and it's also been that way for decades, even though America is hardly the only culture which has traditionally admired 'force' (such a weak argument). The increase in the number of guns is NOT what led to the homicide decrease, it's other factors as I have to keep telling you. And no, it's not necessarily 'cultural attitudes' which cause crime, it can simply be a sociopath or a mentally ill person, who are found in all countries. If these individuals are American, then they have a level of access, whether legally, or illegally, to the kind of lethal weapons which are so much more difficult for their counterparts to get elsewhere.

No they are not, in fact in some of them they have been rising. The lowest they can reach is 0, guess what as long as the US homicide rate is falling it can eventually equal that. This isn't a rat race. The US will eventually reach the same levels of homicide rate as western Europe while maintaining their gun rights. What matters in the end is whether or not the homicide rate is falling not whether or not its as good as another country. The US has had 20 years of falling homicide rates and there is nothing to indicate that homicide rates will increase in the future. Everything is pointing that crimes rates and total crimes in general will continue to fall even though millions of guns and millions of people are being added to the US each year.

The US homicide rate won't fall to 0, LOL, keep dreaming. The US will not reach the homicide levels of Western Europe, when the homicide levels in most countries of Western Europe have also dropped in conjunction with America's. Your country is still not bridging the gap. What matters is the question as to why even the falling homicide rate remains so high compared to other nations, and the statistics show that most of this sky high homicide rate is due to guns. Millions and millions of guns will go into the US every year, and the share of homicides related to gun murders will remain disturbingly and depressingly consistent. Even as its crime rates in other areas remain at similar levels to civilised countries, the US will continue to have by far the developed world's highest homicide rate

It proves that gun murder is the largest contributor to the highest homicide rate in the developed world

Does not disprove any of my claims. In order for you to prove your claims you have to show that there is an increase in the total number of gun homicides as the total number of guns increases. That means you have to show that when the US added 13.5 million guns in the past 3 years that the total number of gun homicides increased from 12k to 13k or above. You can't prove that, then when I ask how many lives would have been saved if those 13.5 million guns did not hit the streets in the past 3 years you can't tell me. All your fact does is just show that it is the preferred weapon to kill with, it does not prove that increasing guns in a population leads to an increase in the total number of gun homicides. Gun homicides have been dropping even though millions of guns continue to hit the streets. You have to show that by adding

Again You have yet to show that more guns equals a yearly increase in the total number of crimes.

All you have shown is that guns are the preferred method to kill with. That is all, that does not disprove any of my claims.

America's rape and assault rates are similar to other developed countries, yet I don't see government in those countries calling for American-style gun laws? Why? Because they know the homicide rate will increase in turn. I stated that gun are responsible for keeping a homicide rate, even one which is falling, so high, especially compared to civilised countries with their own falling homicide rates.

No they are not, America's rape and assault rate are lower then other developed countries outside of East Asia and Australia. You might get one or two European countries but for the most part Europe has more assaults and rapes and just more violent crime in general compared to the US. The only violent crime the US is higher in but not by much is murder and as long as your not black in a black neighborhood your chances of being killed are more like 2.00-2.5 per 100k in the US. Because the culture is against guns. Their homicide rates have either stayed the same or have risen they have not decreased or been cut in half the same way the US has.

Knives do NOT have the same destructive capacity guns have hence why the murder rate in other countries is lower It doesn't necessarily follow that if people don't have access to guns, they'll suddenly recruit gangs (what the hell?) to carry out their crimes.

That depends on the situation, in a melee combat you want a blade not a ranged weapon. The primary reason why murder rates are lower than in the US is because there are less attempts at killing someone, i.e. there is less of a desire to kill someone then in the US. If they desire to kill someone they will recruit a gang or they will use other form of weapon such as a car to kill with. It's all about desire not the availability of a gun.

Gun ownership is widespread in America, and yet there are STILL gangs who commit their crimes in a group. Weak argument.

It's not a weak argument at all, the argument is that banning guns does not remove desire and it is that desire that causes crime. If the desire remains the they will just adopt a new tactic to adapt to the removal of a firearm.

Countries which have similar levels of assault and rape compared to America have lower homicide rates because people don't have the same level of access to these lethal weapons. These non-Americans who are determined to carry out a crime will do so, but they won't be able to land one of these lethal weapons, and if they end up using a knife, then the knife doesn't have the same destructive capacity.

Which countries, I keep asking for a country that has the same cultural acceptance of force as an acceptable form of conflict resolution that also has lower murder rates and you have yet to name a single one. Name one. Fine take away the gun, they will just wait till you sleep break-in and then slit your throat and then move on to the next person and do the same thing. Or they will just run you over or they will set a gas leak in the house and create a spark. Or they will take a super-soaker fill it with gas/petrol burn an entire crowd to its death.

No, the reason for the higher homicide rate is because most people have a gun and know that if they want to carry out a murder, a gun is the most fool proof way to do it, compared to knives for example. If gun homicides made up a miniscule proportion of the yearly murders in America, you'd have a point, but they don't, they MAKE UP 70%. Millions of guns are added to the street each year and the same proportion of murders each year remains due to guns, even if the overall murder rate has dropped because of other reasons.

No its because there are more attempts at murder. If I take the attempted murder and successful murder rate add them together and then compare that rate to the combined attempted and successful murder rate in a European nation the European nation will still be lower. Gun is not a fool proof way to do it, in fact its probably one of the easiest ways to get caught. Unless your dealing with a .22 caliber the bullet will have the gun barrels groves on it making it the equivalent of a finger print. then you factor in the gun powder that will be on the murderers hand that you can't wash off without using bleach and if you do the police will be very suspicious then you factor in guns are loud and also your more likely to get blood splatter on you. Blunt objects are a lot quiter. That is why gun homicides get convicted all the time in the US. All it shows is that guns are the preferred way to commit a murder. It's not just the overall murder rate, the total number of gun homicides has also been dropping even when you add millions of guns each year. Putting a gun in someone's hand does not motivate them to kill, it does not give someone the thought to kill someone. Guns don't cause crime, they are the preferred weapon of choice when a person desires to commit a crime.

Lol, I already said Germany, but it doesn't use the culture excuse to implement the same obsene gun ownership laws that Americans have because their culture is so 'traditionally violent'. They have lower murder rates than America, without guns, in fact, every civilised nation has a lower murder rate than America. Germany is still an 'aggressive' country, but you're safer walking through the streets of Berlin than New York.

So your saying that right now Germany's culture has the same or just as much love for violence that the US. They have lower murder rates because after WW2, just like in Japan, they changed their culture away from violence being an acceptable way to resolve conflicts. Are you honestly suggesting that Germany is just as "aggressive" as the US.

For the third time in this post alone, the homicide rates in most civilised countries aren't static, but are also FALLING, because the governments have also introduced similar measures such as more severe prison sentencing. The US' murder rate won't equal that of nations which banned guns either now or in the future. Homicide rates are falling across the board in the developed world, America's still remains the highest and hasn't the closed the gap in any way.

No they are not, in fact in some of them they have been rising. The lowest they can reach is 0, guess what as long as the US homicide rate is falling it can eventually equal that. This isn't a rat race. The US will eventually reach the same levels of homicide rate as western Europe while maintaining their gun rights. What matters in the end is whether or not the homicide rate is falling not whether or not its as good as another country. The US has had 20 years of falling homicide rates and there is nothing to indicate that homicide rates will increase in the future. Everything is pointing that crimes rates and total crimes in general will continue to fall even though millions of guns and millions of people are being added to the US each year.

The facts are that it was dropping before the gun laws were implemented. There is no evidence to show that the continuing decrease was gun ownership related when the rates were decreasing before the law was even implemented. And if the homicide rate was 0 before the law was implemented, then that showed they were doing fine on that front before they decided to introduce lethal weapons for 'protection'.

Yes the but facts show that it accelerated once they were implemented. Exactly so it shows adding guns to a society does not result in homicides.

No the crime rate has been dropping for other reasons, such as the more severe prison sentencing. America's homicide rate, while dropping, remains the highest in the developed world and remains composed 70% of gun murders.

Crime rates have been dropping because of a cultural shift away from using force as an acceptable means to get respect or get what they want. Again your claim is that adding guns results in an increase in crime. The US has added over 100+ million guns to its streets with an additional 50+ million people in the past 20 years. I'm still waiting to see this crime increase you keep talking about. All I see are decreases in the total and per capita rates of crime.

Actually murder rates ARE and have been used to evaluate, you have a higher chance of being murdered in American than you would in the rest of the developed world and the assault and rape rates are hardly miniscule either. US crime stats will not be lower than other Western nations any time in the future, did you forget that crime rates have also been dropping across the board in the civilised nations? The gap between America's murder rate and thse countries' remains as strong as ever.

You can use murder rates but criminologists say that Assault and rape rates are a better indicator due to how more frequent they occur then a murder. You do have a higher chance of being murdered in the US then other developed countries but not by much. Yes they will reach level if not be lower then other western nations in the future.

Actually crime rates have been rising in Europe but slowly, Sweden is a good example of this. Scotland's murder rate has been rising for the past several years. Crime is on the rise in Europe. The gap is not as strong as ever.

No, it really won't.

Yes it will.

Oh dear, the falling crime rate is due to other factors, certainly not because of the 13 million guns added to the 'streets', the fact is is that America continues to have a disproportionately high murder rate compared to civilised countries, which is even more telling considerinng other crime rates are at a similar level. The highest homicide rate in America is mainly composed of people pulling a trigger. Greater gun ownership is not the reason why the murder rates have dropped, as you keep desperately trying to imply. At what point did I deny the 13 million guns or the falling homicide rates? Even with falling homicide rates, the guns keep the homicide higher than it would be otherwise.

And its those same factors that also drive gun crime. Putting a gun in someones hand does make them more likely to commit a crime. The US has always had a higher murder rate to other western nations even when those western nations had made guns legal for civilians to own for no reason. I'm not implying that. I'm saying that guns don't cause crime, I'm saying that cultural attitudes are what cause crime. I'm saying that when someone commits a crime a gun on the victim can help protect them. Your the one saying that when you add guns to a society the total number of crimes increases. How much higher do they keep it then it otherwise would have been? How much did those additional 13.5 million guns keep homicides higher then they would have been? How much did those additional 100+ million and 50+ million people keep the total number of homicides higher than they would have been? How much?

Replace those guns knives and you get the same thing in other civilized world, you get stabbings are disturbingly common. Yes guns do have more destructive capability as a result you can more easily kill someone by your self. You take away the gun the tactic will adapt to make up for that short-fall IE get a gang together to kill that one person or just run them over or just make a home made flame thrower or just come up from behind them and cut their jugular vein.

Knives do NOT have the same destructive capacity guns have hence why the murder rate in other countries is lower It doesn't necessarily follow that if people don't have access to guns, they'll suddenly recruit gangs (what the hell?) to carry out their crimes. Gun ownership is widespread in America, and yet there are STILL gangs who commit their crimes in a group. Weak argument. Countries which have similar levels of assault and rape compared to America have lower homicide rates because people don't have the same level of access to these lethal weapons. These non-Americans who are determined to carry out a crime will do so, but they won't be able to land one of these lethal weapons, and if they end up using a knife, then the knife doesn't have the same destructive capacity.

It's not an excuse it is a reason, it is a reason that criminologist says plays a very big role. Besides you made the claim that there are currently other nations in the world that are just as brutal or currently celebrate force the same way or just as much as the US in their culture and also have lower murder rates. I'm very interested in knowing which countries currently are just as aggressive as the US is culturally that have lower murder rates.

Lol, I already said Germany, but it doesn't use the culture excuse to implement the same obsene gun ownership laws that Americans have because their culture is so 'traditionally violent'. They have lower murder rates than America, without guns, in fact, every civilised nation has a lower murder rate than America. Germany is still an 'aggressive' country, but you're safer walking through the streets of Berlin than New York.

That doesn't disprove any of my claims.

It proves that gun murder is the largest contributor to the highest homicide rate in the developed world, even in a country which has other crime rates which are at a similar or even lower level compared to these same countries it dwarfs in the homicide rates.

The reason why the US has a higher murder rate is because more people made an attempt to kill people not because of guns, if that was the case the total number of gun homicides would not be going down when millions of guns are being added each year.

No, the reason for the higher homicide rate is because most people have a gun and know that if they want to carry out a murder, a gun is the most fool proof way to do it, compared to knives for example. If gun homicides made up a miniscule proportion of the yearly murders in America, you'd have a point, but they don't, they MAKE UP 70%. Millions of guns are added to the street each year and the same proportion of murders each year remains due to guns, even if the overall murder rate has dropped because of other reasons.

I never said guns don't reduce homicides. This is what I said:

you have been saying that more guns lead to more crime which isn't true and even if it did increase crime it would be miniscule.

No where is that me saying guns don't reduce homicide. So why carry them if according to you they don't reduce homicide? To protect yourself against an assault or a rape. I never admitted to anything.

You have yet to show that more guns equals a yearly increase in the total number of crimes.

America's rape and assault rates are similar to other developed countries, yet I don't see government in those countries calling for American-style gun laws? Why? Because they know the homicide rate will increase in turn. I stated that gun are responsible for keeping a homicide rate, even one which is falling, so high, especially compared to civilised countries with their own falling homicide rates.

Ya what is your point? I never said it wasn't possible for countries to do that. How many countries currently celebrate force in their culture to the same degree as the US does and have less homicides? Yes it was dropping but it did not drop as quickly until they passed their gun laws.

Ya you know why there hasn't been an impact on their homicide rate? Because it was 0. It's amazing isn't it your argument is that guns cause homicides and yet this town has an annual homicide rate of 0.

The facts are that it was dropping before the gun laws were implemented. There is no evidence to show that the continuing decrease was gun ownership related when the rates were decreasing before the law was even implemented. And if the homicide rate was 0 before the law was implemented, then that showed they were doing fine on that front before they decided to introduce lethal weapons for 'protection'.

America is that is why there crime rates have been dropping even with over 100+ million guns being added in the past 20 years. You don't need to ban guns in order to change the culture away from force.

No the crime rate has been dropping for other reasons, such as the more severe prison sentencing. America's homicide rate, while dropping, remains the highest in the developed world and remains composed 70% of gun murders.

Actually according to criminologists the main indicator to evaluate safety of nations is the assault and rape rate not the murder rate. Murder is far to rare of a crime to be used as an indicator of a violent society. Those statistics continue to show that the US crime rate including homicide rates, including gun homicide rates as well, for the past 20 years have been dropping and it is still dropping. It is only a matter of time before US crime stats are lower than those other western nations.

Actually murder rates ARE and have been used to evaluate, you have a higher chance of being murdered in American than you would in the rest of the developed world and the assault and rape rates are hardly miniscule either. US crime stats will not be lower than other Western nations any time in the future, did you forget that crime rates have also been dropping across the board in the civilised nations? The gap between America's murder rate and thse countries' remains as strong as ever.

For now, but eventually it won't. Again patience.

No, it really won't. Once again, you've discounted the similarly declining rates in other developed nations. Again, wake up.

Read that part again. I'm not saying gun ownership doesn't lower homicide rates, in fact I even say that your claim isn't true. Actually that is not true, you could have homicide rates fall and still have the same amount of total gun deaths. Ya so what about the 70%, all that show is what the preferred method of killing is.

I haven't conceded anything, I asked you a question, you have yet to provide an answer to. I asked you if you take away 13.5 million that have been added over the past 3 years how many lives would have been saved? You have yet to provide any type of answer or any type of research that shows how many lives would have been saved if those 13.5 million guns were not added over the past 3 years.

You are in denial even in the face of FBI and ATF crime stats that show that even with millions of guns being added each year the total number of gun homicides continues to decrease on a yearly basis. Guns don't cause homicides, desire/culture does. If they did you would think that with millions of guns being added to the streets each year you would think the total number of gun homicides would not go down because of the sheer number of guns being added.

Oh dear, the falling crime rate is due to other factors, certainly not because of the 13 million guns added to the 'streets', the fact is is that America continues to have a disproportionately high murder rate compared to civilised countries, which is even more telling considerinng other crime rates are at a similar level. The highest homicide rate in America is mainly composed of people pulling a trigger. Greater gun ownership is not the reason why the murder rates have dropped, as you keep desperately trying to imply. At what point did I deny the 13 million guns or the falling homicide rates? Even with falling homicide rates, the guns keep the homicide higher than it would be otherwise.

10000 out of 300 million is a context. Yes that is a fact that it is higher then other nations but it is also a fact that the US has been making huge progress in reducing their murder rates and gun homicide rates. With crime rates dropping the way they are it is only a matter of time before they equal those of nations that have banned guns.

For the third time in this post alone, the homicide rates in most civilised countries aren't static, but are also FALLING, because the governments have also introduced similar measures such as more severe prison sentencing. The US' murder rate won't equal that of nations which banned guns either now or in the future. Homicide rates are falling across the board in the developed world, America's still remains the highest and hasn't the closed the gap in any way.

Yes it does, it shows gun homicide make up the largest proportion of the highest homicide rate in the developed world.

That doesn't disprove any of my claims.

No, again, you simply have to look at the homicide rate in America which is the highest in the developed world and is mainly composed of gun murders, this is the evidence which you keep trying to run away from by talking about the 13 million guns 'on the streets' and the falling homicide rate. Again, guns have the most destructive capacity, hence why people use them, and hence why the homicide rate is higher than in countries where these gun laws aren't so easily available for people to carry out their criminal intent.

The reason why the US has a higher murder rate is because more people made an attempt to kill people not because of guns, if that was the case the total number of gun homicides would not be going down when millions of guns are being added each year.

You admit yourself that guns don't reduce homicides, so why carry them around? Thankfully, in civilised countries, lower burglary rates in exchange for higher homicide rates isn't considered worth it. Keep carrying those guns around, though even you admit the homicide rate would fall if they weren't so easily available.

I never said guns don't reduce homicides. This is what I said:

you have been saying that more guns lead to more crime which isn't true and even if it did increase crime it would be miniscule.

No where is that me saying guns don't reduce homicide. So why carry them if according to you they don't reduce homicide? To protect yourself against an assault or a rape. I never admitted to anything.

You have yet to show that more guns equals a yearly increase in the total number of crimes.

No, the word 'rate' implies context in the first place. The fact is, is that the while America ranks equal or even lower in many areas of crime compared with the civilised world, its homicide rate continues to be by far the highest.

10000 out of 300 million is a context. Yes that is a fact that it is higher then other nations but it is also a fact that the US has been making huge progress in reducing their murder rates and gun homicide rates. With crime rates dropping the way they are it is only a matter of time before they equal those of nations that have banned guns.

Guns have much more destructive capabilities than most other weapons, the fact is is that shoot-outs are disturbingly common in America while basically unknown in the civilised world.

Replace those guns knives and you get the same thing in other civilized world, you get stabbings are disturbingly common. Yes guns do have more destructive capability as a result you can more easily kill someone by your self. You take away the gun the tactic will adapt to make up for that short-fall IE get a gang together to kill that one person or just run them over or just make a home made flame thrower or just come up from behind them and cut their jugular vein.

The desire to kill exists among a certain element of the population in every country in the world, but only in America is it so easy for these individuals to obtain these kind of lethal weapons. It's because of guns' greater destructive capabilities that your country's homicide rate is so shocking.

Yes but that desire is greatly amplified in the US because of its culture to use deadly force when it feels it has been wronged. 5 out of 100k is not shocking that is a low number.

Again, not an excuse.

It's not an excuse it is a reason, it is a reason that criminologist says plays a very big role. Besides you made the claim that there are currently other nations in the world that are just as brutal or currently celebrate force the same way or just as much as the US in their culture and also have lower murder rates. I'm very interested in knowing which countries currently are just as aggressive as the US is culturally that have lower murder rates.

It's possible for a country's military and police to have guns and for a government to exercise gun control amongst the rest of the population, many countries do it, many countries celebrate force in their culture, and these other countries have lower homicide rates than America. Burglary rates had been dropping before Kennesaw introduced their gun laws, there has been no impact on the homicide rate.

Ya what is your point? I never said it wasn't possible for countries to do that. How many countries currently celebrate force in their culture to the same degree as the US does and have less homicides? Yes it was dropping but it did not drop as quickly until they passed their gun laws.

Ya you know why there hasn't been an impact on their homicide rate? Because it was 0. It's amazing isn't it your argument is that guns cause homicides and yet this town has an annual homicide rate of 0.

Culture is not an excuse, or can an American use the excuse 'Hey, don't be surprised, I'm an American!' if they're found to have used a gun to kill someone? What a cop-out.

What?

If Germany could change its culture from one based on force to one of peace, then America can and should do the same.

America is that is why there crime rates have been dropping even with over 100+ million guns being added in the past 20 years. You don't need to ban guns in order to change the culture away from force.

Culture is not an excuse and never will be. East Asia? Because Japan has NEVER been a brutal, militaristic nation right? Or South Korea was never a dictatorship either, or North Korea isn't basically today a large scale concentration camp? Or how about the millions Mao murdered in the name of 'progress'? And again, violent America ranks at a similar level to many countries when it comes to other crimes, such as assault and burglary, so can't use the culture excuse here, it's in the homicide levels that America outranks these other countries and the reason is guns.

No its not an excuse its a reason. Yes and what made those countries those ways? Was it guns or weapons or was it culture? So they did not become the peaceful nations they are now until their culture changed. Not their weapons laws. In fact Germany had passed their restrictive gun laws before WW2 even started.

Yes, an increase in the severity of the crime results in a more dangerous nation.

But that is not what your point was, your point was an increase in crime in total violent crimes as more guns were added. Even still violent crime is down including severe violent crime such as murder and rape.

Assault does NOT necessarily lead to homicide and homicide is still a more serious crime. Statistics continue to show, that while America ranks similarly to other Western countries when it comes to other crimes, it's homicide rate continues to consistently rank the highest - because of the archaic gun laws. The homicide rate is generally used as the main indicator in evaluating the safety of a nation.

Actually according to criminologists the main indicator to evaluate safety of nations is the assault and rape rate not the murder rate. Murder is far to rare of a crime to be used as an indicator of a violent society. Those statistics continue to show that the US crime rate including homicide rates, including gun homicide rates as well, for the past 20 years have been dropping and it is still dropping. It is only a matter of time before US crime stats are lower than those other western nations.

Gun homicide is falling just like other crimes, but it still remains the highest in the developed world, because of the gun laws. Homicide rates are generally falling across the boards, so a falling homicide rate in America and a falling homicide rate in other countries still makes the gap between the homicide rates at the same level.

For now, but eventually it won't. Again patience.

Lol, so you even admit gun ownership doesn't lower the homicide rate - so why carry these lethal weapons around in the first place? Again, gun homicides have fallen because homicides levels in general have, but what remains consistent is no matter how many homicides are committed that year, 70% is due to gun homicide, this huge proportion is basically unheard of in the civilised nations. 25.5 and 26% is still lower than 25%, so you've conceded that the homicide rate would be lower if there were stricter gun laws? Finally, you get it.

Read that part again. I'm not saying gun ownership doesn't lower homicide rates, in fact I even say that your claim isn't true. Actually that is not true, you could have homicide rates fall and still have the same amount of total gun deaths. Ya so what about the 70%, all that show is what the preferred method of killing is.

I haven't conceded anything, I asked you a question, you have yet to provide an answer to. I asked you if you take away 13.5 million that have been added over the past 3 years how many lives would have been saved? You have yet to provide any type of answer or any type of research that shows how many lives would have been saved if those 13.5 million guns were not added over the past 3 years.

You are in denial even in the face of FBI and ATF crime stats that show that even with millions of guns being added each year the total number of gun homicides continues to decrease on a yearly basis. Guns don't cause homicides, desire/culture does. If they did you would think that with millions of guns being added to the streets each year you would think the total number of gun homicides would not go down because of the sheer number of guns being added.

That doesn't disprove what I'm saying.

Yes it does, it shows gun homicide make up the largest proportion of the highest homicide rate in the developed world.

In order for them to not remain in my favor you would have to show that as the total number of guns or a per capita gun owners increase over a period of time there is an increase in the per capita rate of murders or just violent and non violent crime in general. In order to disprove any of my arguments you have to show that per capita rates of crime are increasing as the number of guns increases. All you have shown is that the portion of homicides committed by guns out of the total number of homicides has remained the same, all that shows is that when that crime is committed that that is the primary means of doing it. That does not show whether or not a crime rate, in this case homicides, is increasing or decreasing and if the crime rate is decreasing, which it is in this case, then it has absolutely no ability to refute my claims.

No, again, you simply have to look at the homicide rate in America which is the highest in the developed world and is mainly composed of gun murders, this is the evidence which you keep trying to run away from by talking about the 13 million guns 'on the streets' and the falling homicide rate. Again, guns have the most destructive capacity, hence why people use them, and hence why the homicide rate is higher than in countries where these gun laws aren't so easily available for people to carry out their criminal intent.

You admit yourself that guns don't reduce homicides, so why carry them around? Thankfully, in civilised countries, lower burglary rates in exchange for higher homicide rates isn't considered worth it. Keep carrying those guns around, though even you admit the homicide rate would fall if they weren't so easily available.

Gun ownership is waaay up in America, but the rate of violent gun crime remains steady or has decreased. You could add up all the homicides done in America since its inception and you fall short by incalculable magnitudes of the slaughter European and Russian and Chinese armies did to their own peoples.

Oh dear, you have to use the slaughters in European and Chinese history to make the gun homicide rate look better?

No they are not, the military and police force is made up from the civilian population. Yes it does include burglary, their murder and manslaughter rate has been 0 for several years.

It's possible for a country's military and police to have guns and for a government to exercise gun control amongst the rest of the population, many countries do it, many countries celebrate force in their culture, and these other countries have lower homicide rates than America. Burglary rates had been dropping before Kennesaw introduced their gun laws, there has been no impact on the homicide rate.

How is culture a weak excuse? Culture basically defines a societies beliefs, it is what controls how a person reacts when they feel disrespected or if they want something to dating, etc. Show me cultures that are known for their current brutality and show me how their murder rate is lower than the US. South Africa is known for its brutality doesn't look lower then the US. US is known for having a very aggressive culture compared to Europe and East Asia. You do realize your Germany example proves my point about culture. They changed their culture from 70 years ago to not use force and what do you know they have less violent crime.

Culture is not an excuse, or can an American use the excuse 'Hey, don't be surprised, I'm an American!' if they're found to have used a gun to kill someone? What a cop-out. If Germany could change its culture from one based on force to one of peace, then America can and should do the same. Culture is not an excuse and never will be. East Asia? Because Japan has NEVER been a brutal, militaristic nation right? Or South Korea was never a dictatorship either, or North Korea isn't basically today a large scale concentration camp? Or how about the millions Mao murdered in the name of 'progress'? And again, violent America ranks at a similar level to many countries when it comes to other crimes, such as assault and burglary, so can't use the culture excuse here, it's in the homicide levels that America outranks these other countries and the reason is guns.

Your confusing the severity of the crime as increasing a crime. If that wasn't a homicide it would be an assault you would still have one crime being committed the only thing that changes is the severity of the crime.

Yes, an increase in the severity of the crime results in a more dangerous nation. Assault does NOT necessarily lead to homicide and homicide is still a more serious crime. Statistics continue to show, that while America ranks similarly to other Western countries when it comes to other crimes, it's homicide rate continues to consistently rank the highest - because of the archaic gun laws. The homicide rate is generally used as the main indicator in evaluating the safety of a nation.

So guess what that means then? It means that gun crime just like the other crime is being driven by those measures because if it wasn't they wouldn't be falling at the same rate as the other crime statistics. It has already been established that ending the drug war would have more impact on reducing gun violence in the US then any gun law ever would.

Gun homicide is falling just like other crimes, but it still remains the highest in the developed world, because of the gun laws. Homicide rates are generally falling across the boards, so a falling homicide rate in America and a falling homicide rate in other countries still makes the gap between the homicide rates at the same level.

Ok...So then have some patience, this isn't a rat race.

No you didn't say the crime rate wasn't decreasing but you have been saying that more guns lead to more crime which isn't true and even if it did increase crime it would be miniscule. At least 13.5 million guns were added in the past three years and gun homicides decreased by 25%. Lets say we take those 13.5 million guns off the street how much would the gun homicide rate really have decreased? 25.5%? 26%? How much?

Lol, so you even admit gun ownership doesn't lower the homicide rate - so why carry these lethal weapons around in the first place? Again, gun homicides have fallen because homicides levels in general have, but what remains consistent is no matter how many homicides are committed that year, 70% is due to gun homicide, this huge proportion is basically unheard of in the civilised nations. 25.5 and 26% is still lower than 25%, so you've conceded that the homicide rate would be lower if there were stricter gun laws? Finally, you get it.

I'm not dismissing those killed by guns at all, I'm putting them into context.

No, the word 'rate' implies context in the first place. The fact is, is that the while America ranks equal or even lower in many areas of crime compared with the civilised world, its homicide rate continues to be by far the highest.

Love your idealism.

Oh dear.

Theoretically true but its not. All that would end up happening is that instead of one person attacking another you would have multiple assailants killing one person or you would use a different weapon that is just as deadly such as a car to run somebody over or a home made flamethrower from a super-soaker gun.. All you would end up doing is changing the tactic not the number killed because you didn't remove the desire to kill. As long as the desire remains to kill they will kill just as successfully.

Guns have much more destructive capabilities than most other weapons, the fact is is that shoot-outs are disturbingly common in America while basically unknown in the civilised world. The desire to kill exists among a certain element of the population in every country in the world, but only in America is it so easy for these individuals to obtain these kind of lethal weapons. It's because of guns' greater destructive capabilities that your country's homicide rate is so shocking.

Which cultures currently celebrate force just as much as the US does and have murder rates lower than the US?

Again, not an excuse.

No, they really don't, the facts continue to state that gun murders make up 3/4 of the highest homicide rate in the developed world, which is even more telling when the rates for other crimes in America stand at a similar or even smaller level to these very same countries with their otherwise lower homicide rates.

In order for them to not remain in my favor you would have to show that as the total number of guns or a per capita gun owners increase over a period of time there is an increase in the per capita rate of murders or just violent and non violent crime in general. In order to disprove any of my arguments you have to show that per capita rates of crime are increasing as the number of guns increases. All you have shown is that the portion of homicides committed by guns out of the total number of homicides has remained the same, all that shows is that when that crime is committed that that is the primary means of doing it. That does not show whether or not a crime rate, in this case homicides, is increasing or decreasing and if the crime rate is decreasing, which it is in this case, then it has absolutely no ability to refute my claims.

No, they really don't, the facts continue to state that gun murders make up 3/4 of the highest homicide rate in the developed world, which is even more telling when the rates for other crimes in America stand at a similar or even smaller level to these very same countries with their otherwise lower homicide rates.

That doesn't disprove what I'm saying.

Yes, the military and police is a different matter from civilians carrying guns, again, in many countries, the military and police are armed, while much tighter gun control exists for everyone else, and these countries still have lower homicide rates than America. You say the crime rate dropped 70% in Kennesaw, dooes that includes crimes such as burglary, which Alphaape puts on the same level as murder, what about the HOMICIDE rate in particular. Link please.

No they are not, the military and police force is made up from the civilian population. Yes it does include burglary, their murder and manslaughter rate has been 0 for several years.

davekopel.org/Briefs/07-290bsacIntlLawEnforcementEduc&TrainersAssoc.pdf

www.kennesaw-ga.gov/visitors/about-us

No, culture is a weak excuse. There are many cultures across the world which are or have been renowned for brutality and using force and they manage today to have lower homicide rates than America, look at Germany for example and the kind of place it was 70 years ago. We can see from America, which has the most liberal gun ownership laws in the developed world, also happens to have the highest homicide rate, 3/4 of which is made up of someone pulling a trigger, a huge proportion which remains consistent year after year.

How is culture a weak excuse? Culture basically defines a societies beliefs, it is what controls how a person reacts when they feel disrespected or if they want something to dating, etc. Show me cultures that are known for their current brutality and show me how their murder rate is lower than the US. South Africa is known for its brutality doesn't look lower then the US. US is known for having a very aggressive culture compared to Europe and East Asia. You do realize your Germany example proves my point about culture. They changed their culture from 70 years ago to not use force and what do you know they have less violent crime.

No, guns DO increase crime, as we can see from the disproportionate numbers of gun murders which make up the overall HIGHEST HOMICIDE rate in the developed world.

Your confusing the severity of the crime as increasing a crime. If that wasn't a homicide it would be an assault you would still have one crime being committed the only thing that changes is the severity of the crime.

The crime rate has been falling, AGAIN, because of other measures which the article I posted in the other thread talked about, but America's homicide rate remains the highest in the first world, and this is mainly due to gun murders.

So guess what that means then? It means that gun crime just like the other crime is being driven by those measures because if it wasn't they wouldn't be falling at the same rate as the other crime statistics. It has already been established that ending the drug war would have more impact on reducing gun violence in the US then any gun law ever would.

This is due to the guns that Americans feel it is their 'right' to carry around. You don't seem to understand, I never said the crime rate wasn't decreasing, I said that even in a climate where the murder rate is dropping, the murder rate is still the highest in the developed world and and 70% of these murders are gun related. It's the guns that keep the land of the free's murder rate so high.

Ok...So then have some patience, this isn't a rat race.

No you didn't say the crime rate wasn't decreasing but you have been saying that more guns lead to more crime which isn't true and even if it did increase crime it would be miniscule. At least 13.5 million guns were added in the past three years and gun homicides decreased by 25%. Lets say we take those 13.5 million guns off the street how much would the gun homicide rate really have decreased? 25.5%? 26%? How much?

No, it is not disingenous, why are you saying this is a 'minority' of the population anyway? They are Americans, regardless of their skin colour. Racial profiling - again. No, the North Dakota comparison doesn't work, because even if half the North Dakotans made up half the nation's drunk drivers, it doesn't absolve the other half who exist out there, even their numbers are more dispersed.

Because that is the correct terminology. Racial profiling works in this case because inter-racial homicides make up less than 5% of homicides in the US. Yes it does work, taking a state, not actually true but just as an example, that is responsible for more than half of the alcohol crimes in the US and then saying all the other 49 states are just as bad and so should be punished because of North Dakota's problems is stupid. Your argument is because 6% of the population is violent with itself means the other 94% are just as violent. That is not true.

You seem to be very blase in dismissing those killed by guns because the number looks small compared to the rest of the population.

I'm not dismissing those killed by guns at all, I'm putting them into context.

The fact is, even one extra person being killer than what would otherwise have been the had there otherwise been no gun(s) present is too much.

Love your idealism.

If the US had a murder rate composed mainly of knives, then the murder rate would be lower than what it is already, because guns have more destructive capabilities, the murder rate would be more in line with most other developed nations, some of which have cultures which celebrate force.

Theoretically true but its not. All that would end up happening is that instead of one person attacking another you would have multiple assailants killing one person or you would use a different weapon that is just as deadly such as a car to run somebody over or a home made flamethrower from a super-soaker gun.. All you would end up doing is changing the tactic not the number killed because you didn't remove the desire to kill. As long as the desire remains to kill they will kill just as successfully.

Which cultures currently celebrate force just as much as the US does and have murder rates lower than the US?

Gun ownership is waaay up in America, but the rate of violent gun crime remains steady or has decreased. You could add up all the homicides done in America since its inception and you fall short by incalculable magnitudes of the slaughter European and Russian and Chinese armies did to their own peoples.

Debatable. There is evidence that shows that in fact it can lower crime rates. For example in kennesaw, Georgia when guns became mandatory the crime rates dropped significantly, by at least 70% within the first year. Even the FBI's and ATF's statistics show that states with the largest increase in gun ownership also had the largest drops in crime. The military and police are not a different matter, military is designed for large outside threats, police are designed more for a local threat and an armed civilians is more for interpersonal threats, especially when the police can't reach you in time.

Yes, the military and police is a different matter from civilians carrying guns, again, in many countries, the military and police are armed, while much tighter gun control exists for everyone else, and these countries still have lower homicide rates than America. You say the crime rate dropped 70% in Kennesaw, dooes that includes crimes such as burglary, which Alphaape puts on the same level as murder, what about the HOMICIDE rate in particular. Link please.

There is no evidence that it INCREASES crime either. What makes a place safer is cultural attitudes on when it is acceptable to use force, not whether or not some inanimate object is available to the population.

No, culture is a weak excuse. There are many cultures across the world which are or have been renowned for brutality and using force and they manage today to have lower homicide rates than America, look at Germany for example and the kind of place it was 70 years ago. We can see from America, which has the most liberal gun ownership laws in the developed world, also happens to have the highest homicide rate, 3/4 of which is made up of someone pulling a trigger, a huge proportion which remains consistent year after year.

Yes it does matter because your argument initially was that guns increase crime, now your new argument is that they don't decrease crime, and now gun homicides have been dropping as a grand total the only argument you have left is proportion which no one cares about except for you. The reason why no one cares about it is because the grand total of gun homicides has been dropping. Lets say for example you have 20 deaths the first year and 16 of them are gun deaths, then next year you have 10 deaths and 8 of them are gun deaths. You have cut the number of gun homicides in half but the proportion has stayed the same. That is really what you are arguing. If that is what you are arguing then that is you being disingenuous on purpose when it comes to proportion. It also further proves that any new gun laws outside of completely banning and confiscating every single gun will have no effect on reducing gun crime.

No, guns DO increase crime, as we can see from the disproportionate numbers of gun murders which make up the overall HIGHEST HOMICIDE rate in the developed world. The crime rate has been falling, AGAIN, because of other measures which the article I posted in the other thread talked about, but America's homicide rate remains the highest in the first world, and this is mainly due to gun murders. If guns, with their huge destructive capabilities were to be held by Americans in the same proportion that people in civilised countries do, then the homicide rate would drop even further, outside of the drop in rates currently happening because of other measures, such as more severe prison sentencing. The fact is, that, whereas America has equal rates, or even smaller compared to other countries when it comes to other crimes such as burglary, when it comes to homicides, it soars above the rest of the rich world. This is due to the guns that Americans feel it is their 'right' to carry around. You don't seem to understand, I never said the crime rate wasn't decreasing, I said that even in a climate where the murder rate is dropping, the murder rate is still the highest in the developed world and and 70% of these murders are gun related. It's the guns that keep the land of the free's murder rate so high.

Sure I haven't.

No, you really haven't.

Your point with the first sentence? Your further proving my case that guns don't cause crime but that cultural attitudes do with that first sentence. To you they matter but the only time they matter is if crime rates are stable or if they(crime rates) are increasing. Not when they are decreasing across the board for 20 years straight.

My point was to show that the homicide rate is dropping due to other factors, America still manages to have the highest homicide rate in the first world, cultural excuses can't be the answer, when other crime rates in America are equal to or less than simliar crimes in other first world countries. The crime rate is decreasing in many countries, this does not provide get-out-clause for the gun-lovers, when guns still make up the largest proportion of homicides.

The reason why I'm doing it in the first place is to show that is a very small minority of the population is responsible for more than half of the murders and it is that same population that also makes up around 45-50% of the victims. As a result it is disingenuous to apply their numbers to the overall population and say america is dangerous. Your argument is basically like if North Dakota was responsible for more than half of all drunk drivers, alcohol poisonings and drunken assaults that the US as a whole can't contain their liquor and as a result alcohol has to be severely restricted. Your argument is to punish the entire population because 6% of the population is mean to itself.

No, it is not disingenous, why are you saying this is a 'minority' of the population anyway? They are Americans, regardless of their skin colour. Racial profiling - again. No, the North Dakota comparison doesn't work, because even if half the North Dakotans made up half the nation's drunk drivers, it doesn't absolve the other half who exist out there, even their numbers are more dispersed.

Yes they would have lower homicide rates but not by much, heck its not even much now. It would be around 0.3-2 per 100k more. Again the reason why it would even be more is because of cultural attitudes on when it is acceptable to use force. So if the US was to have a murder rate compromised mainly of knives that would make it acceptable or normal?

You seem to be very blase in dismissing those killed by guns because the number looks small compared to the rest of the population. The fact is, even one extra person being killer than what would otherwise have been the had there otherwise been no gun(s) present is too much. If the US had a murder rate composed mainly of knives, then the murder rate would be lower than what it is already, because guns have more destructive capabilities, the murder rate would be more in line with most other developed nations, some of which have cultures which celebrate force.

Yes they do remain the same and in my favor.

No, they really don't, the facts continue to state that gun murders make up 3/4 of the highest homicide rate in the developed world, which is even more telling when the rates for other crimes in America stand at a similar or even smaller level to these very same countries with their otherwise lower homicide rates.

And if you were to go to other Western countries which have similarly sized minority ethnic populations and also removed them from the equation (why are you doing that in the first place?), you'd find that these countries' already-lower-than-America's homicide rates would also fall even further. The murder rate would still be lower than America's if we were just to compare the white population in all these countries with each other. No civilised country has a murder rate which is mainly composed of gun homicide.

The reason why I'm doing it in the first place is to show that is a very small minority of the population is responsible for more than half of the murders and it is that same population that also makes up around 45-50% of the victims. As a result it is disingenuous to apply their numbers to the overall population and say america is dangerous. Your argument is basically like if North Dakota was responsible for more than half of all drunk drivers, alcohol poisonings and drunken assaults that the US as a whole can't contain their liquor and as a result alcohol has to be severely restricted. Your argument is to punish the entire population because 6% of the population is mean to itself.

Yes they would have lower homicide rates but not by much, heck its not even much now. It would be around 0.3-2 per 100k more. Again the reason why it would even be more is because of cultural attitudes on when it is acceptable to use force. So if the US was to have a murder rate compromised mainly of knives that would make it acceptable or normal?

Lol, you can investigate the numbers all you want, but the numbers and the facts remain the same.

Yes they do remain the same and in my favor.

Armed civilians do NOT lower the crime rate of a country, there is no evidence to back this up. The military and the police are a different matter, and like I said, many countries have an armed military and police and still exercise tight gun control law among the populace. There is no contradiction. Loose gun laws for the general populace don't make a place safer and never have.

Debatable. There is evidence that shows that in fact it can lower crime rates. For example in kennesaw, Georgia when guns became mandatory the crime rates dropped significantly, by at least 70% within the first year. Even the FBI's and ATF's statistics show that states with the largest increase in gun ownership also had the largest drops in crime. The military and police are not a different matter, military is designed for large outside threats, police are designed more for a local threat and an armed civilians is more for interpersonal threats, especially when the police can't reach you in time.

There is no evidence that it INCREASES crime either. What makes a place safer is cultural attitudes on when it is acceptable to use force, not whether or not some inanimate object is available to the population.

No matter if the crime rate goes down falls or rises, the PROPORTION (3/4) of the homicide rate due to guns remains the same. This is the reality year after year. Guns are the weapons used for the vast majority of murders, even if the overall murder rate has dropped due to heavier sentencing, amongst other factors.

Yes it does matter because your argument initially was that guns increase crime, now your new argument is that they don't decrease crime, and now gun homicides have been dropping as a grand total the only argument you have left is proportion which no one cares about except for you. The reason why no one cares about it is because the grand total of gun homicides has been dropping. Lets say for example you have 20 deaths the first year and 16 of them are gun deaths, then next year you have 10 deaths and 8 of them are gun deaths. You have cut the number of gun homicides in half but the proportion has stayed the same. That is really what you are arguing. If that is what you are arguing then that is you being disingenuous on purpose when it comes to proportion. It also further proves that any new gun laws outside of completely banning and confiscating every single gun will have no effect on reducing gun crime.

Oh dear, you haven't disproved any argument I made. Again, its not just the number of gun homicides which have dropped, the number of murders OVERALL has, and yet gun homicides continues to make up the same proportion of murders, which is 70%.

Sure I haven't.

Gun homicides as a total have dropped 25% because homicide levels in general have also dropped. Proportions matter hugely, and the consistently huge proportion continues to provide evidence of the danger of America's gun laws and the destructive capability of guns compared to other weapons.

Your point with the first sentence? Your further proving my case that guns don't cause crime but that cultural attitudes do with that first sentence. To you they matter but the only time they matter is if crime rates are stable or if they(crime rates) are increasing. Not when they are decreasing across the board for 20 years straight.

Sorry, just surprised to hear about Koreans in Oakland, but this is just a sad, stupid incident. This fool could not take jokes about his crappy English?? We gaijins in Japan should go ballistic if somebody makes fun of our crappy Nihongo??

Most criminals in in U.S. know that breaking in with people home is a good way to get shot. In fact, if someone were to break into my home when we are home, that is exactly what will happen. The hot burglary rate in the U.S. is 13%. However, in countries with strict gun control, such as England and Canada, the hot burglary rate is closer to 50%. The criminals know that their victims, having been rendered helpless by their governments, cannot defend themselves. If the facts show that gun control legislation does not lower crime rates, then why is there such a push to take guns away from law abiding people?

Oh please, the burglary rate may be higher in England than the US, but the rate of the more serious crime of HOMICIDE is as we know, higher in America. 70% of this homicide rate is due to people pulling triggers. Civilians arm themselves in America because they know that criminals will likely also carry a gun, since it's incredibly easy for these people to obtain one, whether through legal or illegal means. The ones who have been rendered helpless by their governments are American citizens, in how they feel they have to carry a lethal weapon to protect themselves against others who also carry them. In civilised countries, there is no need to carry a gun in public, because the likelihood of running into a troublemaker who also has a gun is much, much lower. Look at all the shooting massacre stories always coming out of America, just like this one, they're basically unheard of in most other developed countries, and when they do happen, the overall rate of occurence is still much lower.

Gun control finds its greatest success in keeping guns out of the hands of ordinary, law abiding citizens. The government will always be armed. And the criminal mind will always find a means of acquiring weapons. That will leave you and me stuck somewhere in the middle between criminal corruption and government tyranny. It’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference.

Riiight. Stricter gun control isn't the step that's going to lead us all into this fascist totalitarian state, no more than universal health care will. For those of who grew up in countries where gun ownership is strictly controlled, the average citizen does not feel that their liberty has been compromised because they don't carry a lethal weapon every time they go out in public.

oginome Apr. 04, 2012 - 04:25AM JST. The UK for example, is ridden with deprived areas and crime ridden spots, but the UK government has never and will never introduce American-style gun laws so that people in these areas can 'protect' themselves, because the UK, like every other normal thinking country, knows that these measures will cause the crime rates to spike even further.

Most criminals in in U.S. know that breaking in with people home is a good way to get shot. In fact, if someone were to break into my home when we are home, that is exactly what will happen. The hot burglary rate in the U.S. is 13%. However, in countries with strict gun control, such as England and Canada, the hot burglary rate is closer to 50%. The criminals know that their victims, having been rendered helpless by their governments, cannot defend themselves. If the facts show that gun control legislation does not lower crime rates, then why is there such a push to take guns away from law abiding people?

Gun control finds its greatest success in keeping guns out of the hands of ordinary, law abiding citizens. The government will always be armed. And the criminal mind will always find a means of acquiring weapons. That will leave you and me stuck somewhere in the middle between criminal corruption and government tyranny. It’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference.

You are very naive about life in the inner city of U.S. If you are a woman or a man who owns a gun, you have an equalizer. Since most assailants will be bigger and stronger than the person that they are attacking, and majority of those assailants will not have a weapon of their own, you and your loved ones stand a much better chance of getting away unscathed if you are armed. Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone, the handgun.

There is 'inner city life' in nearly every industrialised first world country. The UK for example, is ridden with deprived areas and crime ridden spots, but the UK government has never and will never introduce American-style gun laws so that people in these areas can 'protect' themselves, because the UK, like every other normal thinking country, knows that these measures will cause the crime rates to spike even further. Thankfully, things like drive-by shootings are nearly unheard of in the UK. If gun laws are better controlled, then it would be FAR more difficult for the criminally inclined to get one of these lethal weapons, either legally or otherwise, so it's not necessary for everyone else to arm themselves every time you leave your house (how dystopian). The same weapon that 'preserves life and liberty' only does so by taking away others lives and liberty, it is a weapon, not some marker of freedom and life.

@ oginome: Do me a favor, look at the number of people people killed by guns in San Diego. I found data that shows from 2006-2007 that number was 149. Across the border in Tijuana, that number is around 189. They do have strict gun control laws in Mexico and the general public doesn't own guns. The cartels do. So having an unarmed public is not going to do you any good.

You're going to compare a first world country to Mexico? Mexico has a high gun homicide rate, because it's a broken down, dysfunctional state and the center of one the world's largest drug trafficking rings. Corruption and organised crime is rife there. Compare America to the other first world countries, please.

oginome Apr. 04, 2012 - 03:51AM JST. There is no evidence to back up your assertion. There is however, evidence which proves that the vast majority of homicides committed in America each year are due to guns, unlike the civilised countries with strict gun control. Looser gun control laws promote crime, by making guns much more easily obtainable, whether legally, or illegally.

You are very naive about life in the inner city of U.S. If you are a woman or a man who owns a gun, you have an equalizer. Since most assailants will be bigger and stronger than the person that they are attacking, and majority of those assailants will not have a weapon of their own, you and your loved ones stand a much better chance of getting away unscathed if you are armed. Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone, the handgun.

Police Chief of Oakland said Goh had targeted one person, a school adminstrator, for revenge, but that person was not there on Monday. Goh probably grew up around violence and family arguments and had a temper problem. Also he is probably anti-social and was not treated as well or given as much notice felt left out, so felt hatred toward people that he feels are using him and not really there to be his friend, so this person is angered at the way the world is.

It deeply saddens me to think of the horror and pain the victim and the families on both sides must go through. As for Goh, who can easily take anothers life, and be so pompus to think that that life had no value or light in this world, and that their existance was worth destroying I truely have no sympathy for.

Gun control directly promotes crime by disarming victims. Criminals want their victims to be unarmed. It is easier to commit a crime when the victim cannot defend themselves. But when a victim is armed, simply brandishing a gun is often enough to stop a crime. The criminals tend not to be deterred by laws against gun possession. As criminals, they break the law every day and breaking a law against gun possession is not a big deal. Law-abiding citizens, on the other hand, are frightened at the prospect of breaking the law. Because gun control shifts gun production to the illegal black market, criminals are more likely to buy guns than law-abiding citizens.

There is no evidence to back up your assertion. There is however, evidence which proves that the vast majority of homicides committed in America each year are due to guns, unlike the civilised countries with strict gun control. Looser gun control laws promote crime, by making guns much more easily obtainable, whether legally, or illegally.

Gun control directly promotes crime by disarming victims. Criminals want their victims to be unarmed. It is easier to commit a crime when the victim cannot defend themselves. But when a victim is armed, simply brandishing a gun is often enough to stop a crime. The criminals tend not to be deterred by laws against gun possession. As criminals, they break the law every day and breaking a law against gun possession is not a big deal. Law-abiding citizens, on the other hand, are frightened at the prospect of breaking the law. Because gun control shifts gun production to the illegal black market, criminals are more likely to buy guns than law-abiding citizens.

Not ridiculous at all, it is a proven fact that a military helps defend a nation against a very large threat ie other nations military. Armed police help protect civilians against other civilians. Armed civilians themselves can protect themselves when armed police or a nations military is not available in time. Those nations have lower homicide rates because of culture not because of gun laws.

Armed civilians do NOT lower the crime rate of a country, there is no evidence to back this up. The military and the police are a different matter, and like I said, many countries have an armed military and police and still exercise tight gun control law among the populace. There is no contradiction. Loose gun laws for the general populace don't make a place safer and never have.

Exactly, so what we established is that guns do not cause crime, they do not lead to increases in crime, they may not reduce crime but they do not cause crime to go up.

No matter if the crime rate goes down falls or rises, the PROPORTION (3/4) of the homicide rate due to guns remains the same. This is the reality year after year. Guns are the weapons used for the vast majority of murders, even if the overall murder rate has dropped due to heavier sentencing, amongst other factors.

It is not irrelevant at all your only saying that because it disproves your argument that guns cause crimes or that it leads to an increase in violence, it is even worse for you because I have US federal government data to prove it.

70% of homicides are related to guns but you're purposely leaving out the fact that gun homicides as a total have been dropping. In fact you are purposely leaving out the fact that in the past three years gun homicides as a total have dropped by 25%. Three years ago gun homicides were over 12,000, in the past three years that has dropped to less than 10,000 and in those three years at least 13.5 million more guns were added to the streets of the US. So has the proportion stayed the same? Yes it still makes up 70% but you are purposely leaving out the fact that the grand total of gun homicides has been dropping for the past 20 years. As a result proportions don't matter what matters is total homicides.

Oh dear, you haven't disproved any argument I made. Again, its not just the number of gun homicides which have dropped, the number of murders OVERALL has, and yet gun homicides continues to make up the same proportion of murders, which is 70%. Gun homicides as a total have dropped 25% because homicide levels in general have also dropped. Proportions matter hugely, and the consistently huge proportion continues to provide evidence of the danger of America's gun laws and the destructive capability of guns compared to other weapons.

I didn't say it was must to carry around guns because of the criminality of black people. I was pointing out that violence in the US is highly localized and intraracial in the US and because of that it would point to cultural factors in those communities as the cause of violence not guns. I even stated that interracial violence is very rare in the US. What I was also pointing out was that because only 6-8% of the population was responsible for 52% of murders and that same population made up anywhere between 45-50% of homicide victims. That the as long as you were not part of that population and that if you were did not associate with that population the US homicide rate would be cut by at least half. So my overall point was that yes the US has a murder rate between 4.5-5.5 per 100k but that if look at the numbers as long as you were not black and you were not a black person in a black neighborhood the chances of you being murdered were more like 2.0-2.75 per 100k. But if you were a white person in a black neighborhood your chances of being killed were still around 2.0-2.75 per 100k.

And if you were to go to other Western countries which have similarly sized minority ethnic populations and also removed them from the equation (why are you doing that in the first place?), you'd find that these countries' already-lower-than-America's homicide rates would also fall even further. The murder rate would still be lower than America's if we were just to compare the white population in all these countries with each other. No civilised country has a murder rate which is mainly composed of gun homicide.

My other point was that you can't take these numbers at face value as you have been doing, that if you actually investigated these numbers you would get a different picture.

Lol, you can investigate the numbers all you want, but the numbers and the facts remain the same.

Only criminals and the mentally ill should be banned from obtaining guns. Hey wait! There is already a bunch of laws that's in the books which do that.

Hey, wait! America is so awash in legally owned guns that it is MUCH easier for criminals and the mentally ill to illegally obtain one than would be the case in civilised countries.

Only criminals and the mentally ill should be banned from obtaining guns. Hey wait! There is already a bunch of laws that's in the books which do that.

What does all of this mean? If you ban guns in the U.S.?

1.) Regardless of what gun laws you pass in the U.S. criminals and the mentally ill will always be able to get guns because they can steal them or get them illegally from the street.

2.) The law abiding, non-crazy person cannot obtain a firearm to protect himself, his loved ones, or his property.

People forget that not everyone lives in the city. I lived in a rural area where the county sheriff took literally hours to get to my house because the county was so large and there are very few sheriffs. My neighbor hunts and shoots for sport. Someone had broken into his house armed with a machete and came into his bedroom and was standing by his bed, luckily he keeps a registered handgun under his mattress and when he woke up and saw him, he instantly rolled over to the side of his bed, got his gun, and pointed it at the burglar. He had the burglar, drop the machete, lie face down with his hands clasped behind his neck until the sheriff arrived.

3.) Guns will be used as a means of crowd control in a totalitarian state.

If you ban guns, then only the government enforcement will have guns. This usually means that despotism has gotten a hold of the people and fascism is rising.

Guns do not kill people, and niether does people using guns legally. This tragic event is not a result of using a gun but the rage that overtook an idiot to the point to destroy the lives of many of people not limited to those murdered nor even the Korean community which directly felt the impact.

Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn has set a list of items that will be banned as security threats during the Republican National Convention, including masks, plastic or metal pipe, string more than six inches long, and wood slabs longer than a ruler. He has also banned air and water pistols. He has not banned real pistols or other firearms because he cannot under state law.

Surreal country, America.

TWO Koreans, that I have heard of, out of the million or more Korean immigrants to the US, have gone on shootings rampages. So this hardly qualifies as "they come to America and let go of that hostility" really, does it?

Maybe not of hostility, but mental illness, like that of Korean shooter Cho Seung-hui in VA Tech a few years ago. One out of six Koreans suffer from mental illness.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/1-6-koreans-mental-illness-054004867.html

Combine that with the mandatory military conscription that Korean males undergo that gives them experience handling firearms. An unstable Korean plus a sufficient knowledge about guns and you have a recipe for disaster.

The comparison to the police and military is ridiculous, other countries which have armed police and armies also manage to exercise strict gun controls for its citizens and the result is generally lower homicide rates among the populace and the likelihood of the kind of gun massacres which occur in America is reduced.

Not ridiculous at all, it is a proven fact that a military helps defend a nation against a very large threat ie other nations military. Armed police help protect civilians against other civilians. Armed civilians themselves can protect themselves when armed police or a nations military is not available in time. Those nations have lower homicide rates because of culture not because of gun laws.

We already established that the lower crime rate in America over the last 20 years had nothing to do with guns in another thread here before, there are other factors, such as the much more severe prison sentencing for example.

Exactly, so what we established is that guns do not cause crime, they do not lead to increases in crime, they may not reduce crime but they do not cause crime to go up.

You've said that the crime rate has continue to drop and more guns are added to the street yadda yadda, but that is irrelevant, of all the murders committed annually in the land of the free, no matter what the specific number of deaths is that year or how many guns are on the street, 70% of those murders remain gun related!

It is not irrelevant at all your only saying that because it disproves your argument that guns cause crimes or that it leads to an increase in violence, it is even worse for you because I have US federal government data to prove it.

70% of homicides are related to guns but you're purposely leaving out the fact that gun homicides as a total have been dropping. In fact you are purposely leaving out the fact that in the past three years gun homicides as a total have dropped by 25%. Three years ago gun homicides were over 12,000, in the past three years that has dropped to less than 10,000 and in those three years at least 13.5 million more guns were added to the streets of the US. So has the proportion stayed the same? Yes it still makes up 70% but you are purposely leaving out the fact that the grand total of gun homicides has been dropping for the past 20 years. As a result proportions don't matter what matters is total homicides.

no the rate is not too low, it is STILL the highest in the developed world, and you dismissing these deaths because of the size relative to the overall population is really disgusting

I didn't say the rate was too low, I don't think you can have to low of a rate when it comes to homicides. I'm not dismissing them, I'm putting them into context. Putting something into context is not dismissing them. Right now the current gun laws are sufficient, gun violence has been dropping for the past 20 years and they are still dropping even though more guns continue to be added to the streets. The issue here is that you have no patience to let the laws work.

The facts are that America has the highest homicide rate in the first world and that no matter how many guns are added to the street every year, or how much the crime rate is dropping, guns homicide consistently makes up the vast majority of murders in America year after year. Shameful that you defend this.

Yes the US does have the highest homicide rate in the first world but then again that rate has been cut in half in the past 20 years and it is still dropping. Yes gun homicides consistently make up the vast majority of murders in the US but again grand total of gun homicides have been cut in half in the past 20 years even though 100+ million guns and 50+ million more people have been added to the US during that time frame. Again in the past three years the grand total of gun homicides have been reduced by 25%. Why would it be shameful to defend the fact that the US has made major progress on reducing gun violence in the US and is continue to make progress to the point that alcohol is now responsible for more deaths and injuries then guns.

I remember how you said in the other thread that carrying around guns is a must, because the criminality among the black American community is so high, as if other countries don't also have minority groups which are demonised and have higher crime rates

I didn't say it was must to carry around guns because of the criminality of black people. I was pointing out that violence in the US is highly localized and intraracial in the US and because of that it would point to cultural factors in those communities as the cause of violence not guns. I even stated that interracial violence is very rare in the US. What I was also pointing out was that because only 6-8% of the population was responsible for 52% of murders and that same population made up anywhere between 45-50% of homicide victims. That the as long as you were not part of that population and that if you were did not associate with that population the US homicide rate would be cut by at least half. So my overall point was that yes the US has a murder rate between 4.5-5.5 per 100k but that if look at the numbers as long as you were not black and you were not a black person in a black neighborhood the chances of you being murdered were more like 2.0-2.75 per 100k. But if you were a white person in a black neighborhood your chances of being killed were still around 2.0-2.75 per 100k.

My other point was that you can't take these numbers at face value as you have been doing, that if you actually investigated these numbers you would get a different picture.

Yeah, but that society has guns on top of major problems in dealing with them. It's a double whammy.

Not true smith, gun violence has been reduced by at least 50% in the past 20 years, just in the past 3 years they have reduced gun homicides by 25% even though more than 13.5 million guns were added in the past 3 years.

Unfortunately, there are enough people who can't handle a gun responsibly

Disagree with that entirely, there are over 65 million gun owners in the US and counting with over 300 million legally owned firearms. There are less than 10k homicides with guns and less than 250,000 injuries with guns. Less than a tenth of one percent of gun owners are irresponsible with guns. That means that over 99.999% of gun owners will never harms someone with a gun in the US.

In fact, the gun takes away any height, weight, or fighting skill advantage other people may have. You don't even have to be in close range to kill with a gun, as you do with a knife or bat.

Hmm..

The argument that a gun is a good way to defend yourself is pretty lame, as a defender needs to always be ready for any avenue of attack at all times; whereas an attacker with a gun carries the element of surprise and in some cases planning.

So it takes away any physical advantage a person may have and you don't see how that can be a good thing in terms of defense if your are not as physically as strong as your attacker such as a woman or the elderly or even minors in some cases against adults. Seeing as attackers attack people they view to be weaker than them.....

Your second argument would apply to anything that is self defense, by that argument pepper spray wouldn't work seeing as the attacker would carry the element of surprise. Just because an attacker has the element of surprise does not mean they automatically win a battle. It gives you an advantage but not for long especially if that person has the ability to defend themselves. I'm also willing to be you have never fired a gun before, especially a hand gun, hitting a target is not as easy as it looks especially with a hand gun.

Guns have more destructive capability than knives when it comes to massacres....

So? That is irrelevant to my point. My point was that every country every single day has a knife massacre, the way how the massacre is done is ignored by smith because it isn't a gun, as long as the massacre is done with a blade smith doesn't really care. Also a gun is really only as destructive as the amount of ammunition that person is carrying .

Or consider this: you are walking down the street with a gun under your armpit. People are walking down the street past you, as I am passing, I fling a handful of Skittles in your face. Who has the element of surprise?

@ MustardKing: You are making the case for concealed carry. Let's look at your example of tossing skittles in my face. You see me walking down the street minding my own business and you just come up and throw skittles in my face. In CA you may luck out since they recently took away a legally entitled person the right to conceal carry. To do that same stunt in a place like FL or TX or any other state that has a concealed carry law, you may be taking your life in your own hands.

True I a may have to go to court to stand trial for the fact that I may have shot you, but even though I did I would still have a strong case for self defence. I wouldn't know what your intentions were throwing skittles in my face, and in a quick reaction scenario that you describe, I may not know what they were. I was simply defending myself. Now in your same scenario, if I just pull out my gun and shoot you, for no reason, then I would be guilty. But the fact that you decide to come up and throw something at me, you are taking a chance with your life not me.

So if you want to go and thow skittles in someone's face, you had best make sure that you know that person and that they are not carrying a gun.

The comparison to the police and military is ridiculous, other countries which have armed police and armies also manage to exercise strict gun controls for its citizens and the result is generally lower homicide rates among the populace and the likelihood of the kind of gun massacres which occur in America is reduced.

@ oginome: Do me a favor, look at the number of people people killed by guns in San Diego. I found data that shows from 2006-2007 that number was 149. Across the border in Tijuana, that number is around 189. They do have strict gun control laws in Mexico and the general public doesn't own guns. The cartels do. So having an unarmed public is not going to do you any good.

however it's interesting how cowardly nut cases always pick on schools. Where the average teacher nor the students would be legally carrying a defence weapon

The age profile favors people who are school-aged. If you're school-aged and want to kill a bunch of people, you go to school.

Legal gun ownership is not an issue here as a nutter/criminal will get an illeagal gun anywhere if they try hard enough...however it's interesting how cowardly nut cases always pick on schools. Where the average teacher nor the students would be legally carrying a defence weapon. You never hear in the international news where crazed gunman enters school, vice principal of school pulls his 9mm pistol and puts three rounds in the ideots chest. Crisis no longer a crisis and this sort of incident happens way more often than this internationally publisized one. I don't nesesarily condone such proliferation of gun ownership as in the States but these sorts of cases could have used a legally owned and used self defence weapon and more people would have survived the incident.... I have not seen any pics of Zimmermans pulverised/lacerated head in the media so I doubt that claim...

Considering every country has a knife massacre every day......

Guns have more destructive capability than knives when it comes to massacres....

Would you say an armed police force keeps the country safe? Would you say a military keeps a country safe from out side threats? If you say yes to any of those then clearly having a gun on a civilian can help keep that civilian safe. America does have the highest homicide rate in the developed world but it is still a very low number 4.5-5.5 per 100k is a very low number. Yes 3/4 of murders are by firearms but keep in mind that is less than 10,000 out of a nation of 300 million, also keep in mind that homicides by firearms have been reduced in total by at least 25% in the past three years even though 13.5 million more guns were added to the streets during that time. They don't need to wake up from anything. Gun violence as a grand total not just as a per capita have been decreasing for nearly 20 years straight even though more people and more guns exist in the US. For every gun owner that commits homicide there are 6500 gun owners that do not commit homicide.

The comparison to the police and military is ridiculous, other countries which have armed police and armies also manage to exercise strict gun controls for its citizens and the result is generally lower homicide rates among the populace and the likelihood of the kind of gun massacres which occur in America is reduced. We already established that the lower crime rate in America over the last 20 years had nothing to do with guns in another thread here before, there are other factors, such as the much more severe prison sentencing for example. You've said that the crime rate has continue to drop and more guns are added to the street yadda yadda, but that is irrelevant, of all the murders committed annually in the land of the free, no matter what the specific number of deaths is that year or how many guns are on the street, 70% of those murders remain gun related! Guns are definitely the problem, they have more destructive capabilities that most weapons and this law is endangering American citizens. Yes, America needs to WAKE UP. And once again, you've brought out the 'low rate', no the rate is not too low, it is STILL the highest in the developed world, and you dismissing these deaths because of the size relative to the overall population is really disgusting. This 'low rate' you dismissed would be lowered even further if America had gun control laws befitting a civilised country. The facts are that America has the highest homicide rate in the first world and that no matter how many guns are added to the street every year, or how much the crime rate is dropping, guns homicide consistently makes up the vast majority of murders in America year after year. Shameful that you defend this. I remember how you said in the other thread that carrying around guns is a must, because the criminality among the black American community is so high, as if other countries don't also have minority groups which are demonised and have higher crime rates - don't see these countries calling for its citizens to carry guns, in the UK for example, you always hear about how black on black crime is so much higher proportionally to the rest of the population, but never heard any Brit advocating carrying guns to protect themselves. What a backward country America is.

Thats kind of the point of these threads - demonize the US as much as possible

No, America does a pretty good job of doing that all by itself.

if you are allowed to carry a gun, you will have the element of surprise if someone attacks you.

What is it with you and words? You make my friggen head hurt saying the wrong thing so much. its like a trip to Conservapedia! Ouch!

Having a card up your sleeve is not the same thing as the element of surprise. But hell, if you really meant that then look at the Martin/ Zimmerman case. Zimmerman claims Martin attacked him and pounded his head on the sidewalk. Its entirely possible. Zimmerman could have died with that concealed gun staying right where it was. If the story is true, it was Martin who had the element of surprise, because I doubt Zimmerman expected an attack. Its a matter of knowledge, not a matter of larger weapon.

Or consider this: you are walking down the street with a gun under your armpit. People are walking down the street past you, as I am passing, I fling a handful of Skittles in your face. Who has the element of surprise?

Exactly why I left Oakland for Safety Japan.

Someone says people in America have right to own gun or gun is good thing to protect family. Ok, maybe understandable. Someday their constitutional law says people in America could have small fission bomb type 12 for each family to Protect their family or Defend yourself. Both would seem to be same way in the future.

Afraid to say that it is not too different. You can go out and get high (or drunk) and try to drive and have an accident and kill someone.

Using drugs possibly endangers one's self, only. You only want to add driving to the mix because your original point was weak.

I imagine he was going to kill with whatever he had. Maybe not as many with a gun,

Yeah, exactly. Guns let crazy people kill more people easier. Thanks for admitting what we all already knew.

The only place anyone needs a gun for self-defense is a place where everyone else has guns also, for "self-defense".

The majority of American civilians DON'T own a gun.

@freakshow: About 25% of Americans own handguns. I know several people, and one a female relative that has a conceald carry permit and they are not law enforcement.

The argument that a gun is a good way to defend yourself is pretty lame, as a defender needs to always be ready for any avenue of attack at all times; whereas an attacker with a gun carries the element of surprise and in some cases planning.

A gun is a good way to defend oneself. As I stated above, if you are allowed to carry a gun, you will have the element of surprise if someone attacks you. I would hope that a person is at least thinking about having a course of action to defend themselves at all times.

Readers, please stay on topic. Comparisons with drinking and driving are not relevant to this discussion.

Again, it's apples and oranges. If someone messes around with hard drugs, maybe they kill themselves. If someone messes around with guns, maybe they kill someone else.

@ Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land: Afraid to say that it is not too different. You can go out and get high (or drunk) and try to drive and have an accident and kill someone. If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't be such strict drinking and driving laws, nor would there be warnings on drugs to not operate heavy machinery or drive while taking them.

If someone does mess around with guns as you say, and by that I hope you mean "hot dogging" or trying to play wild wild west and quick draw, then they may injure someone. But if people own and use a gun responsibly, and use it for when it is truly needed, then you will have a lower incidence of accidents.

The shooter used the gun in a wrong manner. He shot unarmed people for right now we don't know the reason. If this guy had this much hostility in him, I imagine he was going to kill with whatever he had. Maybe not as many with a gun, but the fact that he went to a place where the odds were that people would not be carrying guns, he had malicious intent in mind. He could have used a knife or a car but he was out to kill.

Hmmm, has the MSM been directed to assign the shooter a whole new identity as " a white Asian" ?

If not I guess we can conclude, as Pravda readers once had to, that the unspoken is where you get the real picture:the victims were all Asians and it's a voting bloc the president couldn't care less about.

I officially stopped keeping track at some point but if memory serves, every single random school and workplace shooting in the US has been committed by someone on psych meds. If anything needs to be banned, it's psych meds.

I like to hear the anti gun crowd and how they say if they ban them, then all will be well. Yet, the same people will say that drugs should be legal, since people will be able to handle them in an adult manner and it will not be a problem. So why can't people handle guns in an adult manner, which by the way the majority does

Again, it's apples and oranges. If someone messes around with hard drugs, maybe they kill themselves. If someone messes around with guns, maybe they kill someone else.

.

This is so sad. Students have enough to worry about without having to think about being caught in a shooting on campus. RIP

So why can't people handle guns in an adult manner, which by the way the majority does.

Alphaape: The majority of American civilians DON'T own a gun. Personally, I only know two Americans who do, and they're both police officers. Yes, a large number do, but not the majority. Unfortunately, there are enough people who can't handle a gun responsibly and make the gun a favorite weapon of choice (in fact the most feasible weapon) in murder, suicide, etc. since the success rate is so high. In other words, an attacker has a much higher chance of killing someone (or themselves) with a gun over other weapons. In fact, the gun takes away any height, weight, or fighting skill advantage other people may have. You don't even have to be in close range to kill with a gun, as you do with a knife or bat. The argument that a gun is a good way to defend yourself is pretty lame, as a defender needs to always be ready for any avenue of attack at all times; whereas an attacker with a gun carries the element of surprise and in some cases planning.

“I was OK, because I know God protects me. I’m not afraid of him.”

And how many of the seven dead people thought the same thing?

Not saying that this is the case here, but many families with a problem child (of any age) get tempted to send the immature kid overseas in the hope that it will do them some good and help them grow up. Sadly some people will be a problem for society wherever they are.

Yeah, but that society has guns on top of major problems in dealing with them. It's a double whammy. But if you buy Alphaape's explanation, it's a Korean problem, not a gun or societal problem.

Never said that it was a specific Korean problem. There are some bad people in society. If you ban guns, then they will use something else to kill someone.

I like to hear the anti gun crowd and how they say if they ban them, then all will be well. Yet, the same people will say that drugs should be legal, since people will be able to handle them in an adult manner and it will not be a problem. So why can't people handle guns in an adult manner, which by the way the majority does.

"I don't think the guns are the problem. It is the society!"

Thats kind of the point of these threads - demonize the US as much as possible

This comment just goes to show how closed-minded some people can be.

@Tahochi: No not closed minded, just stating the facts. If it had been a white male, who shot up a Korean school, his race would have been a major topic of the news reporting. Just look at what is going on down in Florida with the Treyvon Martin case.

When I read the story on another web site not here at JT, they had provided more detail. Sad to say, in most cases where you have Balkanization in America with various ethnic enclaves, you have communities that have their own cultural beliefs, who may not go to the police if there were problems. As I stated before, an example was with the killing of a whole family in the Bay area by an ethnic Chinese man, the reason why over gambling debts. You can see the same thing in other communites like the Armenians, Mexican, etc.

Try talking to US police and they can tell you the problems they have with inter ethnic conflicts that they cant't seem to help. Or closer to home (relativly speaking) take a look at the J-Cops interaction with the foreigners here in Japan.

Disillusioned: "I don't think the guns are the problem. It is the society!"

Yeah, but that society has guns on top of major problems in dealing with them. It's a double whammy. But if you buy Alphaape's explanation, it's a Korean problem, not a gun or societal problem.

...it was a Korean male who did the shooting at VA Tech a few years ago. I am not sure why they come to America and let go of that hostility towards others

TWO Koreans, that I have heard of, out of the million or more Korean immigrants to the US, have gone on shootings rampages. So this hardly qualifies as "they come to America and let go of that hostility" really, does it?

people do not assault police stations.

Actually, people do assault police stations sometimes, but only when they can outgun them.

I don't think the guns are the problem. It is the society!

So there's no hope then.

The world's largest civilian army! The registered guns outnumber the people by 3 to 1.

However, Australia outlawed guns some 20 odd years ago. The result was, it lessened rural suicide by 70% although, it did very little to stop gun related crime. I don't think the guns are the problem. It is the society!

AlphaapeApr. 03, 2012 - 09:53AM JST

...it was a Korean male who did the shooting at VA Tech a few years ago. I am not sure why they come to America and let go of that hostility towards others

This comment just goes to show how closed-minded some people can be. There are thousands of shootings across America every year... robbery shootings, gang shootings, road rage shootings, etc. etc. etc. which involve ALL races and skin colors. Hostile/mentally ill people are everywhere, and they come in all colors, shapes and sizes.... but put a gun in their hands, and they're all the same.

peanuts666/Lieberman (via CBS): The story has been updated on this thread to include such information. The original story said only that he was reported as being 'Asian'. Like I said to Alphaape, given that he was a student there it was a fair assumption, but not fact at the time (at least not on JT). Regardless, thank you for trying to clear that up.

I don't know about that. I think that assumes everyone to be rational, which clearly isn't and never has been the case.

Agreed, but then again even those that are not rational will still be deterred just not as much. Even irrational people do not assault police stations.

I do know that if nobody had them nobody could use them.

Absolutely, unfortunately that world is impossible. Because as long as the knowledge on how to build a nuclear weapon remains.......

In a world where nuclear weapons exist everyone having a nuclear weapon would make it less likely someone would use a nuclear weapon.

I don't know about that. I think that assumes everyone to be rational, which clearly isn't and never has been the case.

I do know that if nobody had them nobody could use them.

Updates say the shooter was a Korean male.

CBS news

" Police have identified the suspect as a 43-year-old Oakland man named One L. Goh, who is in custody after surrendering at a shopping center about an hour after the shooting at Oikos University on Monday morning."

Saying every person having a gun makes a society safer is like saying every country having nuclear weapons makes the world safer.

In a world where nuclear weapons exist everyone having a nuclear weapon would make it less likely someone would use a nuclear weapon. If you only had one nation that had a nuclear weapon and the others didn't that one nation would be a lot more likely to use it then if everyone had a nuclear weapon. Having a weapon acts as a deterrent There is a reason why criminals do not assault police stations.

Jerry Sung, the university’s accountant, said the school offers courses in both Korean and English to less than 100 students. He said the campus consisted of one building.

A one building community college (if that) founded by and serving mostly immigrant Koreans in Oakland, one of the most dangerous cities in the country.But the AP can't resist going with "Californian Christian university."

Saying every person having a gun makes a society safer is like saying every country having nuclear weapons makes the world safer.

Another day, another gun massacre in the US. Someday you guys will learn.

Considering every country has a knife massacre every day.......

it does not specify that he is Korean.

He got that from the news media in the US reporting that eye witnesses said it was a korean.

Another shooting? Wow...Sounds like whatever they are doing to prevent these things just isn't working.

Actually it is, according to the FBI gun violence is down more than 25% in the past three years alone even though more than 13.5 million guns have been added to the streets in the past three years. Gun violence is down more than 50% since the start of 1990 even though the population has added at least 50 million people and around 100 million guns in the past 20 years.

And so many still argue that America's gun ownership laws keep their country 'safe'? These lethal weapons are so easy to obtain, whether legally or illegally. America has the highest homicide rate in the first world and 3/4 of homicides committed every year are due to guns. When will these people wake up?

Would you say an armed police force keeps the country safe? Would you say a military keeps a country safe from out side threats? If you say yes to any of those then clearly having a gun on a civilian can help keep that civilian safe. America does have the highest homicide rate in the developed world but it is still a very low number 4.5-5.5 per 100k is a very low number. Yes 3/4 of murders are by firearms but keep in mind that is less than 10,000 out of a nation of 300 million, also keep in mind that homicides by firearms have been reduced in total by at least 25% in the past three years even though 13.5 million more guns were added to the streets during that time. They don't need to wake up from anything. Gun violence as a grand total not just as a per capita have been decreasing for nearly 20 years straight even though more people and more guns exist in the US. For every gun owner that commits homicide there are 6500 gun owners that do not commit homicide.

Deborah Lee, who was in an English language class, said she heard five to six gunshots at first. “The teacher said, ‘Run,’ and we run,” she said. “I was OK, because I know God protects me. I’m not afraid of him.”

This woman, who is not a spokesperson for anything, faced death, was interviewed shortly after the event - she's on shock and she's relieved and massively freaked out. What she says is hardly material for a meaningful debate (theological or otherwise), is it?

smithinjapanApr. 03, 2012 - 10:49AM JST

Funny you say what you do know are the facts, but here it only says "an Asian male in his 40s"; it does not specify that he is Korean. You pick that fact up somewhere else, or were you just guessing and therefore it isn't fact after all? Now, given that one injured person said the shooter was a classmate and the school seems to be made up of predominantly Korean-Americans it's an easy assumption, but still...

Police identified the suspect as One L. Goh, 43, a Korean national believed to be a resident of Oakland, though Goh surrendered to police at a Safeway supermarket in Alameda, Calif., Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan told reporters.

Another point to make is, let's imagine that the government and the people WANT to get rid of guns. Everyone has to turn them in. Do you know who would still have guns? Criminals, because they won't turn them in. That is why gun control laws are hard to pass and difficult to enforce.

AlphaapeApr. 03, 2012 - 10:33AM JST

I don't know why so please tell me. Is it because people in America can have the right to buy a gun legally? How many guns are sold, and even though this is tragic, how many mass shootings like this that are not crime related occur?

I will tell you why. Criminals can steal guns they don't have to buy them. Thus Americans feel like they need to buy guns to protect themselves from criminals. The American logic is, if someone had a gun at school they could of shot and killed the shooter before he killed more people. Thus everyone should carry a gun. If everyone carried a gun, people would be polite and respect each other. People who are crazy like the mass shooter would eventually all be shot dead, and thus things like these mass shootings would happen less, if any at all.

Another day, another gun massacre in the US. Someday you guys will learn.

Alphaape: "Because I don't know if religion had anything to do with it. What I do know are the facts. That a Korean person (could be immigrant or native American but with a Korean heritage) went on a shooting spree at a school that was founded by a Christian Korean minister."

Funny you say what you do know are the facts, but here it only says "an Asian male in his 40s"; it does not specify that he is Korean. You pick that fact up somewhere else, or were you just guessing and therefore it isn't fact after all? Now, given that one injured person said the shooter was a classmate and the school seems to be made up of predominantly Korean-Americans it's an easy assumption, but still.

RIP to those lost. All they were trying to do was attend school in order to better themselves and hopefully help others in the future. I hope those that survived recover from this incident and go on with what they were doing.

Isn't Okios University one of those Sun Myung Moon cult colleges? I've always wondered about this. It may help explain the violence that happened there. Only a guess though...

Yet, the pro-gun side would argue that if everyone in the classroom was packing there would have been less loss of life, because someone would have taken out the gunman right away.

Sad but life goes on. Nothing that happens in this world surprises me anymore.

Again and again! This kind of incidents will never end in America, Everyone knows whyl

@kwatt: I don't know why so please tell me. Is it because people in America can have the right to buy a gun legally? How many guns are sold, and even though this is tragic, how many mass shootings like this that are not crime related occur?

But why am I not surprised that you laid this at the feet of Koreans rather than Christians?

@MustardKing: Because I don't know if religion had anything to do with it. What I do know are the facts. That a Korean person (could be immigrant or native American but with a Korean heritage) went on a shooting spree at a school that was founded by a Christian Korean minister. From the reports, he wasn;t studying theology but Nursing so I don't think that he was being fed some type of dogma that would make him want to go off the deep end and shoot up people.

My guess, he had some grudge or mental issue or both and decided to take it out at the school where he probably felt that he was wronged. After all, just last week another Asian immigrant (Chinese) shot up a family in San Francisco area due to the fact that he was in debt from gambling. But I am not going to cast a wide net and say that these shootings are the result of Asian ethnics, nor from a particular religious point, but from a point of some guys who were just too tightly wound up.

We are not supposed to jump to conclusions when we see a person with an Arabic sounding name has done something similar, so we shouldn't jump to conclusion just because it happend at a Christian school.

Sounds like a nutter to me.

and that mysterious way included letting the nutter kill lots of people including this little believer?

The answers to that question will ultimately be made up on the spot and manufactured to sound good and be reassuring, just like some much of the delusional bunk we get from true believers.

A double standard will be created to explain why some were shot and some weren't. Like, those shot were also protected, because now, they are surely in Heaven!

Again and again! This kind of incidents will never end in America, Everyone knows whyl.

I am not sure why they come to America and let go of that hostility towards others.

I think I know what you want to say?

And while I agree that there is some serious hostility in the Korean community in America, those two guys are not really representatives, as they are only two guys. Or have more Korean guys been involved in mass shootings in America?

But why am I not surprised that you laid this at the feet of Koreans rather than Christians?

I was OK, because I know God protects me.

But what if today was the day God was going to act in a mysterious way his wonders to perform, and that mysterious way included letting the nutter kill lots of people including this little believer? what if God's purpose was to test her parents by killing their children, like He did to Job?

This is terrible. But if you remember, it was a Korean male who did the shooting at VA Tech a few years ago. I am not sure why they come to America and let go of that hostility towards others. This is sad, and I hope that the Korean community will be open to let the investigators do a good investigation so that they can get to the root of the issue, and not get stonewalled.

So its a Christian school mainly for Koreans, and the killer was "Asian". Easy guesses to make here.

But, we will hear how this has nothing to do with Christianity, nothing to do with Koreans, and nothing to do with guns floating around America free as Skittles. No. But we might here about how it has some connection to Islam!

Another shooting? Wow...Sounds like whatever they are doing to prevent these things just isn't working.

As long as the gun laws designed for cowboys are in place over there, people will continue to behave like cowboys.............or worse

"“I was OK, because I know God protects me. I’m not afraid of him.”"

She is extremely lucky that her lack of good common sense fear didn't get her killed today. Even if God exists, I am sure he expects people to exercise good judgement.

Koreans in Oakland?? Anyway, RIP

What a mess. And so many still argue that America's gun ownership laws keep their country 'safe'? These lethal weapons are so easy to obtain, whether legally or illegally. America has the highest homicide rate in the first world and 3/4 of homicides committed every year are due to guns. When will these people wake up?

This is a terrible incident, as all school shootings are. Now we need some answers: why?

Not to question her beliefs, but:

"The teacher said, 'Run,' and we run," she said. "I was OK, because I know God protects me. I'm not afraid of him."

Then why run?