world

One dead, 4 wounded in Ohio school shooting

111 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

111 Comments
Login to comment

again? yes, once again, a sad story.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Before the anti-gun gang jumps in on this, I would like to say that this is a bad case that probably could have been helped if the kid who did the shooting had received some sort of mental counseling. I know the old adage "kids will be kids" and some bullying is expected, but this guy was obviously pushed to the edge, and I wonder did anyone responsible for him see any changes in his behavior.

No matter if you ban guns or knives, there are still going to be some people who just can't handle outside pressure and will snap.

The people killed may have been bullies, but they didn't deserve to die for it.

-1 ( +6 / -8 )

Fellow students described the gunman as a 17-year-old “outcast” who had suffered bullying and said he had posted warnings on Twitter and left disturbing messages on Facebook.

It will be very interesting to see how this holds up. Back when Columbine happened, every media outlet declared that the shooters were "social outcasts" who had been "bullied" and were part of the "trench-coat mafia". None of that information turned out to be true.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Alphaape-Great post!

I do wonder where the real problem lies with all these shootings at high schools, etc. Many will blame the guns. However, in my day (the 80's), you never heard of these types of shooting being reported....and there were just as many guns out there. Is it the secluded lifestyles of the 'new age' teens that sit behind computers all day? Is it the video games? It's definitely something, but not guns.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

guns again! America is a guns country. I saw TV video. Everybody has a gun, even children practicing how to shoot with guns given by parents. Americans are shooting each other everyday. Nobody gives up guns. America is really blessed by guns.

-1 ( +8 / -8 )

@kwatt: Every American in America has a gun? I don't. Please tell me where you are getting your misinformation? LOL

0 ( +4 / -4 )

"Please tell me where you are getting your misinformation"?

" I saw TV video"

That narrows it down!

1 ( +7 / -6 )

NRA told Americans have guns. If you don't have one, you aren't an American.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

only in the USA. Sad.

-5 ( +7 / -11 )

We need not look at the weapon, but how this kid - after warnings - was able to carry this out. He was bullied? How? What about this kid's parents? The sad part is, if this 17-year-old just waited a little longer he'd be graduating soon enough and getting away from that school and life. He must have really needed attention from someone to take matters this far. Now he's screwed for life. Idiot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Okinawamike: You may want to watch a few more videos, ad the "one tv video" that you watched, gave you some faulty information. Just a suggestion.

@kwatt: Thank you so much for the laughs. I like your sense of humor. LOL

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I was heavily bullied as a kid in school. I was smart, a little quirky, mixed race in a mostly white school, and from a single parent family. All that added up to painting a target on my head.

My friends were the same. And it made life a living hell for most our school years. It made some of us sick and hurt others academically.

We were lucky, we had loving supportive families who taught us that life would go on after school was over. They believed in us and encouraged us to persevere. But I can tell you that we all dreamed about harming those who tormented us. We didn't because we were well loved by family and dear friends.

I am sad that this kid probably did not have the right support to prevent this tragedy. And I am even more sad to see that schools and parents allow this kind of torment and bullying to continue in this day and age.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

AlphaApe: "Before the anti-gun gang jumps in on this,"

There were something like three mass shootings last week (none made this page), and one incident of a little girl being critically shot by a gun a nine year old boy had brought to school in his back pack. YES, people are going to snap and attack others, but when given guns they are able to attack a lot more without a chance for the others to fight back. You came on here KNOWING people would 'attack' the US gun laws, and there's a good reason for that -- you know the laws are not just lacking, they are wrong.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

If only the other students had been armed....

-7 ( +1 / -7 )

there you go... you wanna legalize firearms but cannot do a good job at regulating it. its like allowing terrorism. what's the difference????!!

now you know.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"If only the other students had been armed...."

I continue to be amazed that people have the audacity to advocate gun ownership in the wake of something like this. As if untrained teenagers with weapons would have made anything better.

This kind of thinking ignores the statistics that clearly illustrate that having guns around greatly increases the opportunities for people to die as a result of those guns.

Guns are the problem people, not the solution.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Alphaape

The people killed may have been bullies, but they didn't deserve to die for it.

I feel sorry for everyone but the bullies.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

tkoind2: "I continue to be amazed that people have the audacity to advocate gun ownership in the wake of something like this."

Laguna was being sarcastic, I'm quite sure.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Guns are the problem people, not the solution.

Guns are not the problem. People are. With that said, people are also the solution.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

How many more high school shootings will it take before the government takes action to put stricter laws on guns?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Just think how many lives would have been saved if everyone had been carrying guns. /sarc

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This is the fourth of fifth shooting incident by minors in the US I've read in the past week. If it's become that common, I question its value as news any more.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Every time this happens in the US I think of that harebrained NRA bumper-sticker slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Sad that there are people out there who actually believe that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

A lot you are making assumptions that just based on what you think. In the eighties there were plenty of shootings in school. They happened among poor area high schools and were blamed on gang violence, but had anyone looked deeper it would that those shooting all were payback for percieved bullying. What hadn't really happen was upper middle income schools getting this type of violence.

Jforce, I am not sure about your situation but I am tell you from experience sometimes high school feels like the longest hell you could ever take. Having had Oreo wrapper stuffed in my locker and bags, being pushed down stairs, spit on, having to fight almost every day, and other various stupid things I can sympathy for those getting bullied.

However, the whole problem also might be the way the schools are dealing with. When I was a kid even though I never started a fight I was threaten with explusion and if not for my mother handling the school adminstration I would have been, for just protecting myself. A fight where I am from, never involves a one on one experience it is more like the main antagonist and is four other friends beating the crap out of you. When you are getting bullied like that come talk to me again about being an idiot because you couldn't wait.

Again we don't know his full story. However there is a long list of things in American society that need to be fix before I just call someone an idiot for this. It is a tragedy and I wish it had't happen but kids on a whole can do a lot of dumb things and it is very hard just to get up and leave in high school. Imagine continually having to go back into hell for four years.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

People call for stricter gun laws, but fail to realize that someone that is determined to commit murder will do so, regardless of any laws. Many people are killed by drunk drivers but how many are actually calling for a ban on alcohol or motor vehicles? If someone murders with a baseball bat, are we then going to call for stricter laws or total bans on baseball bats? If the laws were made stricter, who would they really be for?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

There were something like three mass shootings last week (none made this page),

Bottom line, people with mental issues will use whatever is near to strike out. You may get to kill only one with a knife vice more with a gun, but the bottom line is someone will get killed because of another persons anger. Not the device that actually did the killing.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If someone murders with a baseball bat, are we then going to call for stricter laws or total bans on baseball bats?

@toguro

Another facile gun lobby argument.

This shooter would probably have done much less damage if he had been wielding a baseball bat instead of a gun. Guns often give the shooter a feeling of invincibility, probably not the case with baseball bats.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The argument many leftists make regarding ulterior utilities possessed by alternative weapons is facile. While alcohol, cars, knives and baseball bats certainly have uses other than the cause of mayhem, whether those are their primary purpose is beyond the knowledge of anyone but their creator - and thus known only to God. Firearms, also, have multiple uses - as paperweights or back-scratchers or highly inefficient cigarette lighters, say, or a way to silence the TV when you can't reach the remote. To claim firearms have no other use than the abrupt insertion of lead hunks into unlikely places is unsupportable.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Toguro your argument is flawed, but typical of the guns rights crowd. Bottom line, hand guns serve no justifiable purpose in the hands of civilians in a modern society. They can and should be relegated to licensed shooting ranges and made available only on the premises for hobbyists. They do not need to be in circulation.

Further, I would far rather have an angry student running around a campus with a bat than with guns. And I am sure if you were on the receiving end of such an attack you would agree.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

School gun free zones = sitting ducks.

RR

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

@Alphaape

Bottom line, people with mental issues will use whatever is near to strike out.

The people with mental issues are the bullies, not the bullied. Standing up for yourself is normal. Shooting is excessive but I feel more sorry for the guy getting sent to jail than any bullies he knocked off. Hope he gets out quick and gets over it once released.

Moral of the story - don't mess with people if you're not prepare to deal with the consequences.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Alphaape: "You may get to kill only one with a knife vice more with a gun, but the bottom line is someone will get killed because of another persons anger. Not the device that actually did the killing."

So laws should be relaxed to allow these people uzis? You are attempting to justify the deaths of these people by suggesting they would have been killed anyway if the person in question had another tool instead of a gun. What was the cause of death and wounding of these people? anger? No, it was bullets.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

How many more high school shootings will it take before the government takes action to put stricter laws on guns?

What gun laws do you feel are missing? Keep in mind you are more likely to be struck by lightning then be shot in a school shooting in the US.

Bottom line, hand guns serve no justifiable purpose in the hands of civilians in a modern society.

Self defense in the case someone attacks you would be a justifiable purpose in the hands of a civilian.

but when given guns they are able to attack a lot more without a chance for the others to fight back. You came on here KNOWING people would 'attack' the US gun laws, and there's a good reason for that -- you know the laws are not just lacking, they are wrong.

That is the why people argue the would be victims should be armed because it puts them on equal footing. How are the guns laws lacking? Furthermore how are they wrong?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

kwatt,

NRA told Americans have guns. If you don't have one, you aren't an American.

Although Japan has much much stricter gun laws, we do express support for traditional American conservative values. For example, on Seibu railway there is express train which is called "NRA."

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

What was the cause of death and wounding of these people? anger? No, it was bullets.

No it was an angry, mentally unstable person that caused the death and wounding. The tool of choice was bullets. I have bullets back home and they are doing fine. They aren't attacking, wounding or killing anybody.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@KariHaruka

How many more high school shootings will it take before the government takes action to put stricter laws on guns?

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain that in all 50 states, the minimum age to purchase a firearm is 21. And in those states which issue carry permits, the minimum age is always 21-25. Which means this shooter was already breaking the law by having the gun on them.

Also, every public school in every state is a "gun-free zone". Pretty sure all the private schools are too. So again, the shooter broke another law.

Seeing that the existing laws did not prevent this shooting, what law(s) would you suggest?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@tkoind2

Bottom line, hand guns serve no justifiable purpose in the hands of civilians in a modern society.

The fact that I'm still here to type this is proof that you're wrong. I've told my story several times before on JT, so you may have seen it. I have used a legally owned handgun in self defense. I'm not a member of any law enforcement agency, and not a member of the military. I'm just a normal civilian. Someone snuck up behind me in a grocery store parking lot and choked me with a nylon strap. He had no gun, but he could have killed me. I prevented that by immediately dropping my groceries and pulling my handgun and sticking it into his torso. The instant he felt that, he let go of the strap and took off running in the opposite direction. I didn't even have to fire my weapon (but was juuuust about to).

It takes much longer to describe than it took for it to happen. It was probably less than three seconds from the moment I felt the strap on my neck. So while you may not be able to see a justifiable purpose for handguns among civilians in a modern society, you may be able to understand why I do.

Now if a (reasonably) fit 6' tall male in his 30's can be a target for a criminal, what about petite women? Again, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that women don't like being rape victims. In my state, women with carry permits outnumber men with carry permits almost 3 to 1. Would you like to tell them that handguns have no justifiable purpose in their hands? Go and try. I'll get the icepack ready.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

As this story unfolds, it's quite possible that there were unheeded warning signs. That seems to be the worst pattern.

In the case of the Tuscon shooting last year at Giffords' public meeting, a very disturbed person was able to buy a handgun because his previous "episodes" had been mishandled. Most, ironically, by the very sheriff who later tried to blame politics. Had he been treated appropriately in the past according to laws and guidelines already in place, he either wouldn't have been violent, or wouldn't have been able to legally buy a handgun. Or both.

But that would have been considered "insensitive" by those who protected him, I'm sure.

In the case of the Ft. Hood shooting, the perpetrator's behavior was also mishandled. Had he been properly dealt with according to laws and regulations already in place, he would not have been in a position to carry out his attack.

But that would have been considered "intolerant" by those who protected him, I'm sure.

Like I said, we'll have to see how this story unfolds. In the meantime, sympathies go out to the families dealing with loss tonight.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Way too many guns, not only in the USA but apart from Japan in too many countries, just way too easy to blow somebody away Dirty Harry style.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

too easy to blow somebody away Dirty Harry style.

Nothing wrong with that if you are in the right.

As with OldHawk, I too was in a predicament a few years back in the states. Walking home from a baseball game with my son, I felt something hard on my back and a voice that said to hand over my wallet. I stated that it was in my rear pocket and to just take it and go. He grabbed my wallet, then he grabbed my sons arm. That's when enough was enough. Try and harm my family and someone is getting hurt. I pulled my .45 out of my holster strapped to the side of my chest and literally put the barrel down this guys throat. it took alot not to empty the gun down his esophogus that day. In the end, I got my wallet back, my son wasn't hurt and the guy.....well.....it turned out to be his lucky day...because he lived to tell this story to someone he knows.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I would not like to ever have to live in the kind of world that Gurukun and OldHawk inhabit, where people feel the need to be armed just going about their everyday business. Sounds like hell.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

happened, every media outlet declared that the shooters were "social outcasts" who had been "bullied" and were part of the "trench-coat mafia". None of that information turned out to be true.

That's interesting, I've heard all this is vetted and have heard it rereported as such even recently. If you have another source for the info, please post it, I want to read up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

shootings at high schools, etc. Many will blame the guns. However, in my day (the 80's), you never heard of these types of shooting being reported

Okay that's just untrue. Perhaps you werent as news savvy or something, but there were often reports of smaller scale school shootings reported back into the 70s even.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

only in the USA. Sad.

Again, misinformation. Would be a better world of it only happened in the US.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Gurukun, but if he just shot you in the back and then took your money, you having 6 guns and 5 grenades wouldn't have made any difference.

How about.

We stop bullying. Teachers are on the look out for and stop bullying. Have some teachers look on Facebook/Twitter for messages by kids indicating that they're on the edge. No guns.

So we have a small town of only 5000 people, so the school is probably only a few hundred, and students know that there is a kid who has been bullied, is an outcast, has posted disturbing messages on social media, and he gets to have a gun somehow. Yep, I'd say Americans need to start thinking about not only guns, but their culture and their schools.

But my right-wing friends will probably just go out and buy more guns.

Okay I'll go duck while the Americans who like to analyze and offer advice to Japan based on a crime explode with righteous indignation.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

So laws should be relaxed to allow these people uzis?

Smith he isn't saying mentally ill or people with criminal backgrounds should get guns. Don't put words in his mouth. Besides you can legally buy fully automatics in the US, there are around 230k fully automatics that are for sale legally in the US. Since the 1940's there have only been two deaths caused by a legally owned fully automatic.

What was the cause of death and wounding of these people? anger? No, it was bullets.

No it was his anger and hurt and depression, the young man was from a different school. One for children at risk.

Lets say for example someone is depressed and decides to commit suicide by hanging themselves. What killed the person, there depression or the rope? I say depression.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Court records showed that the suspect's father, Thomas Lane Jr., had been arrested several times for abusing women he had children with, including the teen's mother, the newspaper reported. The father had been warned to stay away from the teen's mother at least once, the records reportedly showed.

Interesting.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"...struggled to come to terms with being thrust into the media spotlight of America’s latest school shooting tragedy."

I think this pretty much sums it up. Wasn't the first school shooting, won't be the last. Heck, I won't even be the last this year, though likely the last this month.

Noliving: "No it was his anger and hurt and depression, the young man was from a different school. One for children at risk."

No, it was the guns. Do you really think anger can kill another person? What did the second person, now dead, die from? Here's a hint: start's with "bullet woun" and ends with "d". He didn't die of the suspect's anger, much as you try and claim emotions can cause fatal wounds in another person.

"Lets say for example someone is depressed and decides to commit suicide by hanging themselves. What killed the person, there depression or the rope? I say depression."

Nope. It would be asphyxiation or else the rope breaking the neck, not emotion. The REASON would be the depression you state, but not the cause of death. Is 'depression' what the coroners would write as COD?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Since gun laws will not change I don't much see the point of rehashing old arguments.

When I was bullied in Detroit schools my father told me to figure out who the ringleader was and hit him as hard as I could as many times as I could next time it happened, and it worked for the most part. Nobody but gang members shot anybody and they had better things to do than go to school. Frankly I think that school policy in most public schools makes this a whole lot worse. Bullies are clever, in the old days they'd periodically rob you so you found some people that you didn't necessarily like and move in groups, problem mostly solved, but because there's been such a crackdown on low-scale encounters they've switched gears and engaged in the psychological bullying which is difficult to prove and that most school administrators ignore, this is what causes these kids to snap. These years of being made to feel terrible with no recourse. I got to hit people that hit me but students today don’t have the chance to resolve their own problems, instead you have students punished for defending themselves. So it builds to these sudden, awful outbursts of violence.

That said, this student made the decision to kill other students. His actions on social media sites and other actions on his part show that he made a decision to carry out the attack. With that taken into account I believe this student should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. As there is no death penalty they should seek life in prison.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing is going to happen in the U.S. as far as gun control. The NRA and the gun lobby is just too strong. What I've always wondered, is there a work-around. Can we allow access to guns but make it extremely difficult to buy bullets? I think that's the only angle a pro-gun control lobby could take. There's nothing in the Constitution about bullets.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Nothing is going to happen in the U.S. as far as gun control. The NRA and the gun lobby is just too strong. What I've always wondered, is there a work-around. Can we allow access to guns but make it extremely difficult to buy bullets? I think that's the only angle a pro-gun control lobby could take. There's nothing in the Constitution about bullets.

It's likely that any such restriction would be challenged and defeated. Arms is widely interpreted to include anything needed to make the arms work as well. Considering I can buy teflon coated and incindiary rounds I don't think ammo laws are going anywhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, if guns are not the problem, then it must be mean that family values in America is crumbling and that there are way too many loonies running around in America. I for one would hate to think the latter. People often say "if only everyone was armed with a gun". I say, "If only everyone DID NOT have a gun".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Piltdown Man: You took a very narrow minded view to my point. The baseball bat was just one example. Say he wanted to drive a car into a crowd of students, or cause injury and death using a Molotov cocktail or pipe bomb? Who are the stricter laws going to affect other than the law abiding people who already obey the laws?

@tkoind2: Please show me where my argument is flawed? And to you point about being on the receiving end, I was shot at 6 years ago and yet I still disagree with you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What about the times when guns weren't even invented yet, yet there were still mass murders?

It was a HELL of a lot harder to become a mass murderer before the invent of the modern firearm. Firearms make it a lot easier. Just the twitch of a finger is all it takes to become a mass murderer. The twitch of a finger.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's likely that any such restriction would be challenged and defeated. Arms is widely interpreted to include anything needed to make the arms work as well. Considering I can buy teflon coated and incindiary rounds I don't think ammo laws are going anywhere.

Really? I thought the teflon bullet thing was banned. Those things are made to kill cops, nothing more.

And while I agree with you, I am just looking at possible avenues. The Constitution truly doesn't say anything about bullets. Just sayin'.

I'm a gun owner myself but I see real need for reform. It's easier to get a gun than it is a driver's license. I think that's wrong. A law enforcement officer has to account for every round of ammunition they expend. Every bullet is accounted for. I would like to see that level of accountability put on civilian gun owners. I would also like to see the gun shows shut down. They circumvent the law and don't do background investigations on people. I'd shut them all down. I think with those two measures alone, we could significantly reduce gun violence in America.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Oh look Americans are regaling us with stories of how they once saved the day with their gun. What a dystopian society, populated by people who have deluded themselves into thinking they have the highest standard of living in the world. Of the 12,996 murders in America in 2010, 8,775 came from firearms. Gun ownership is a right, but universal health care isn't? OK. What a messed up country. This lack of health care, coupled with this macabre weapon culture lead to the collective death of thousands every year. The land of the 'Free' where people only feel free when they have a gun in their back pocket because they're scared of what their fellow citizens who also have guns might do. God Bless America!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Really? I thought the teflon bullet thing was banned.

The armor piercing ban deals almost exclusively with cored rounds and a few specific types of bullet coating, and even those laws are vague. Its not illegal to own or sell them, it's just illegal to manufacture them so there's still millions of armor piercing core rounds floating around.

I think that's wrong. A law enforcement officer has to account for every round of ammunition they expend. Every bullet is accounted for. I would like to see that level of accountability put on civilian gun owners.

A little to late for that. I invested in an automated reloaders for my shells and bullets years ago and there's so many rounds and materials that the level of scrutiny you're talking about is essentially impossible. Frankly there's no political will to do it especially with public support for stricter gun control at near all time lows.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@oginome

Oh look Americans are regaling us with stories of how they once saved the day with their gun.

Considering that I'm still here to read your condescension because I was armed...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If I'm not mistaken, Ted Bundy didn't shoot any of his victims. Neither did John Wayne Gacy, or Geoffrey Dahmer. Tomohiro Kato used a truck to kill three people, and then a knife to kill four more. Whenever a news story comes out about a missing wife, it often turns out that the husband killed her. Not by shooting her, but by strangulation, or drowning her in a bathtub, or some quieter means. So does anger kill people? Yes, it does. Do people still find the means to kill others when guns are not available? Yes, they do. Do people use guns to kill people without legally obtaining them? Yes, they do.

The question that is not being addressed by the "ban guns" debaters is "How many legally owned guns are used to commit crimes or murder?" Let's see, there was the Tuscon shooting last year, but I've already discussed what went wrong there. And then there is... hmmm...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Noliving

Interesting.

Yes, that is interesting. A friend of mine works for a non-profit that assist victims of domestic violence. I asked her once about why children from violent homes repeat the violent behavior as adults. One would think that they would not want to repeat the behavior that scarred them as children, whether they were a direct victim or witnessed it happening to someone else. She said that it's "learned behavior" and very difficult to overcome, because it's the only method they know. She even said that she had to learn not to yell at her partner, because her parents yelled at each other when she was a child.

It may be that for this shooter, there was something else going on at home. Abusive parents aren't going to see warning signs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@cleo

I would not like to ever have to live in the kind of world that Gurukun and OldHawk inhabit, where people feel the need to be armed just going about their everyday business. Sounds like hell.

I admit it can be a bit high-pressure at times. But some of us do try to improve the country we live in. We're opposed by those who prefer to exploit "victims" and manufacture crises and situations that they can then further exploit for political gain, but occasionally we make a bit of true progress against those who call themselves "progressives".

Personally, I wouldn't mind living in Japan (without my gun), which is one of the few countries where one can have a reasonable expectation to live a violence-free life. Well, other than violence against women, who are at a physical disadvantage. But I am committed to caring for my parents as they age, so I can only visit for now.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@The Truth Matters: A HELL of a lot harder, but not impossible if one was determined, correct?

@oginome: I feel very free and yet I am not a gun owner, nor do I have any fear of what my fellow citizen who owns a gun might do. If I do evidence to own a gun, I surely wouldn't keep it in my back pocket. I do agree with your last sentence though, "God Bless America!" America sure is a hell on earth place to live. Much worse than that paradise Syria.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Considering that I'm still here to read your condescension because I was armed...

Lucky you that you got to read my post. Still doesn't take away from the fact that 3/4 of murders committed every year in America are due to guns andthat America remains a deeply dangerous society in which violence is glorified and gun ownership is treated with reverance by the same people who scoff at those who die because they cannot afford health care. Like I said, dystopia.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I feel very free and yet I am not a gun owner, nor do I have any fear of what my fellow citizen who owns a gun might do. If I do evidence to own a gun, I surely wouldn't keep it in my back pocket. I do agree with your last sentence though, "God Bless America!" America sure is a hell on earth place to live. Much worse than that paradise Syria.

Even if you feel free, you live in a dangerous society and America's obscenely high crime rates and social dysfunction is the usual argument put forward by advocates of gun ownership so the law won't change and they keep their guns. And oh look, what a surprise, an American uses a third world hell hole to make their own country look better, so many of you have done this on this site, and its really tasteless. Compare yourselves against the rest of the developed world.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I admit it can be a bit high-pressure at times. But some of us do try to improve the country we live in. We're opposed by those who prefer to exploit "victims" and manufacture crises and situations that they can then further exploit for political gain, but occasionally we make a bit of true progress against those who call themselves "progressives".

How is nearly 10,000 people killed every year from guns a 'manufactured crisis'? So you're saying true progressives are the ones who remain in favour of a law that is largely responsible for keeping the murder rate so horrifically high? Right.

Personally, I wouldn't mind living in Japan (without my gun), which is one of the few countries where one can have a reasonable expectation to live a violence-free life. Well, other than violence against women, who are at a physical disadvantage. But I am committed to caring for my parents as they age, so I can only visit for now.

Japan is not 'one of the few countries', yes, it is safer that almost anywhere else in the world, but in the rest of the DEVELOPED world, despite the differing crime rates between nations, you can reasonably expect to go through life without being shot. Unlike America.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Fadamor: The death toll is up to 3 now. 2 more died in the hospital today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A HELL of a lot harder, but not impossible if one was determined, correct?

VS.

The twitch of a finger.

Kind of puts it into perspective, don't you think?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I'm still here to read your condescension because I was armed...

You were armed because you live in fear of what your fellow citizens might do to you. That's the issue that needs to be addressed, not giving up on civilisation because you can't live in Japan. Like others have said, it isn't that Japan is 'one of the few countries where one can have a reasonable expectation to live a violence-free life', it's that America appears to be the only so-called developed country where people expect to meet violence on a day-to-day basis and feel they need to arm themselves just to stay alive.

At least the people in Syria seems to be killing each other for a 'cause', not a wallet.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"had suffered bullying"

Thanks a lot, bullies. Thanks a lot.

That being said, I also suffered bullying, but I stood up to the bullies and gave them a bloody nose, which was enough to make them stop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really? I thought the teflon bullet thing was banned. Those things are made to kill cops, nothing more.

bwahahahaha. The teflon bullet was created for law enforcement in fact it was created by people who were currently in law enforcement. It is designed to penetrate hard surfaces such as glass and steel. The teflon bullet isn't even an armor piercing round when it comes to Kevlar and nylon vests. In fact the teflon actually makes it more difficult for the bullet to penetrate kevlar and nylon. So no its not a cop killer whatsoever.

I'm a gun owner myself but I see real need for reform. It's easier to get a gun than it is a driver's license. I think that's wrong. A law enforcement officer has to account for every round of ammunition they expend. Every bullet is accounted for. I would like to see that level of accountability put on civilian gun owners. I would also like to see the gun shows shut down. They circumvent the law and don't do background investigations on people. I'd shut them all down.

The primary reason why law enforcement have to account for every round is for budgetary reasons. Gun shows do not in any way circumvent the law. The vast majority of gun sellers at gun shows are FFL's meaning by law they are required to do background checks. The only people who don't are private sellers who are not FFL's and they can do a private sell anywhere in the country at anytime. A gun show has absolutely nothing to do with private sellers or circumventing background check laws, they are just conventions thats it.

**Based off of your ignorance on teflon bullets, the fact that you want to make bullets extremely expensive as a work around the NRA on your goal of banning guns, your complete ignorance on gun shows and your false claim that they circumvent background checks tells me that you are not a gun owner and that you most likely have never even held a firearm in your hand in your entire life.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Noliving: Excellent post!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Based off of your ignorance on teflon bullets, the fact that you want to make bullets extremely expensive as a work around the NRA on your goal of banning guns, your complete ignorance on gun shows and your false claim that they circumvent background checks tells me that you are not a gun owner and that you most likely have never even held a firearm in your hand in your entire life. Who here honestly believes that The Truth Matters is a gun owner?

The only thing that can be concluded from this comment relating to the article is that a person, who, in fact, wants to make bullets extremely expensive, is not really knowledgeable when it comes to teflon bullets and gun shows and what happens there is probably not a gun enthusiast, also referred to casually as "gun nut".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@The Truth Matters: LMFAO... Nice weapon, TMI, and point taken.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@oginome

Lucky you that you got to read my post.

I don't consider myself "lucky" to read the opinions of inexperienced or mal-informed people. Besides, it wasn't luck, but rather my gun.

Still doesn't take away from the fact that 3/4 of murders committed every year in America are due to guns andthat America remains a deeply dangerous society in which violence is glorified and gun ownership is treated with reverance by the same people who scoff at those who die because they cannot afford health care.

I'll get to how you count "murders" in a moment. Legal gun owners don't glorify violence. Did you see the NRA video game? Shooting at paper targets in a range environment. Contrast that to pretty much any non-NRA shooting game. There's lots of violence in the James Bond film franchise, but American gun owners don't make those movies. The non-gun-owning Brits make them. Now sure, the Americans do make hip-hop or rap (or whatever it's called this week) videos that glorify violence, belonging to gangs, etc., but I doubt you'll find many NRA members among the folks in that industry. In fact, it's not hard to guess which party they ironically vote for.

And nobody - and I do mean nobody - scoffs at those who die because they cannot afford health care. If you're going to vilify anyone, base it on facts you can prove, and not on your prejudice against them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@oginome

How is nearly 10,000 people killed every year from guns a 'manufactured crisis'?

I didn't say it was. In fact, I wasn't talking about gun-related deaths at all. "Progressives", as they like to call themselves, are enablers of a culture that destroys itself. They make a group of people out to be victims (whether they genuinely are or not) and exploit their victim status for political gain. If the "progressives" truly wanted to tackle the core causes of "social injustice", they could have done so decades ago and brought about true reform, which would naturally lead to a reduction of violent crime in America. Instead, they vilify anyone who even attempts to have an honest discussion about the problems facing certain groups in society, and then complain that we can't have an honest discussion about the issues. Even one of my own friends from (waaaaay) back in my school days is like that. We recently got into a somewhat heated debate on FB. But we've done that before, and know not to take our debates too personally.

So you're saying true progressives are the ones who remain in favour of a law that is largely responsible for keeping the murder rate so horrifically high? Right.

True progressives support personal self-defense. Personal responsibility, in other words. Others might find it more civilized to wait for the police to arrive. If that's what you want, then practice it. But don't make me live by your moral standards, especially if it puts my life at risk. False progressives pressure reluctant gun dealers to sell weapons to Mexican drug cartels so they can "see where they end up". Like anybody couldn't guess...

Besides, the shooter in this case was 17. I'll bet that he can't legally buy a handgun in his state, much less get a carry permit. And then he carried it on schools grounds, which is also against the law. So tell me, what law would have prevented this tragedy?

As for how murder stats are counted, I would have to see what source you are referencing. Just a couple of weeks ago, I saw a press release by an anti-gun group, and it turned out that they were manipulating the numbers in a very big way. They counted every single gunshot death as a homicide, inluding those made in self-defense. And that certainly wan't an isolated case. Years ago, the CDC was caught counting 25-year-olds shot during drug deals as "children" so they could pad the numbers for child deaths caused by guns.

Japan is not 'one of the few countries', yes, it is safer that almost anywhere else in the world, but in the rest of the DEVELOPED world, despite the differing crime rates between nations, you can reasonably expect to go through life without being shot. Unlike America.

Would you rather be strangled, as I almost was? I thought I made it clear with my personal story that criminals are criminals, and are going to use whatever they can get their hands on. It might be a gun, it might be a kinfe, or it might be a strap. But outlawing or banning guns won't remove violent criminals from society nor prevent violent crime. Just see Chicago or D.C. for examples.

Earlier, I wrote:

The question that is not being addressed by the "ban guns" debaters is "How many legally owned guns are used to commit crimes or murder?"

Care to answer that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@cleo

You were armed because you live in fear of what your fellow citizens might do to you.

I don't know that I would call it "fear". I would have fear if I could not prepare for such an event. But I can prepare, so I do. "Readiness is all." Still, one of my fellow citizens justified my being prepared.

That's the issue that needs to be addressed, not giving up on civilisation because you can't live in Japan. Like others have said, it isn't that Japan is 'one of the few countries where one can have a reasonable expectation to live a violence-free life', it's that America appears to be the only so-called developed country where people expect to meet violence on a day-to-day basis and feel they need to arm themselves just to stay alive.

I agree. I've certainly tried not to give up on civilization, but as I pointed out to oginome, I can't make a difference in my country. Even honestly discussing the roots causes cannot happen any more. So the only option one has is to prepare for themselves.

Here's an example: In Japan, people living on welfare get audited, correct? No such audits exist in the U.S. Forget trying to implement them, even suggesting such would get one vilified beyond recovery in the media. Now you'll probably say that the Japanese take it too far, and I agree. Elderly people shouldn't lose their air conditioning in a country known for humid, stifling summers. But the American system is at the other end of the spectrum. And it's creating a system of broken families, entitlement mentality, and ingratitude. Imagine "poor" people living more comfortably than many who work, and then behaving like trust-fund babies, never being satisfied with what they have, because they it was handed to them instead of them working for it. If they do work, it's illegal work, under the table and hidden from taxes. It's prostitution, or selling drugs, or robbing people for drug money. That's what we have now, and the percentage of Americans living in that manner grows every year. And it's intentional on the part of the "progressives".

At least the people in Syria seems to be killing each other for a 'cause', not a wallet.

Here in America we have fought for causes, even on our home soil. And we might have to again. If we do, I want to be armed for that.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The question that is not being addressed by the "ban guns" debaters is "How many legally owned guns are used to commit crimes or murder?"

The question that is not being addressed by the "we love our guns" debaters is "How easy is it for a potential criminal or madman to get his hands on a weapon, when society is awash with 'legally-owned' guns?"

And a much more important and pertinent question, "How come a supposedly privileged society - the richest, most advanced in the world, we are told - finds itself unable to raise its kids to be decent, law-abiding citizens, to the extent that ordinary people feel the need to walk around armed, and the first response to a stranger at the door is to grab a gun and tell him to Freeze?"

0 ( +2 / -2 )

OldHawk.

Your story don't ring true. As I done my Military service(seen war), trained MA for 37yrs in realistic MA and lived in some spots that make the USA look tame. In addition I am also a MA Instructor and close with law-enforcement officers worldwide. So I know how things go down.

Doubt me. Anyone can try that with a friend get choked from behind, draw a gun and point it at someone behind. Won't work unless the guy is a total idiot.

And why did he target you in a super? You were the only guys there no-one else around no staff, etc.

Sounds more like you upset someone and were set-up as a target. Stories like yours don't happen out of the blue.

Plus how did you know what the material was that he choked you with? He left it behind and CSI would love that one.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Give me all the thumb-downs you like.

But it don't change the facts and they don't add up, unless he is SAS or similarly trained. Real life don't just work that way as the stores cameras would have also recorded it.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Related the story to marines, police officers, etc and the general response was "Huh, no way".

Looks like the experts don't buy it and those are guys that been there and done it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It"S ME

Related the story to marines, police officers, etc and the general response was "Huh, no way". Looks like the experts don't buy it and those are guys that been there and done it.

Its very rare but l tend to agree with you It"S ME, the BS meter is going off on that one.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would have fear if I could not prepare for such an event.

In a civilised country there is no need to prepare for such an event.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I don't consider myself "lucky" to read the opinions of inexperienced or mal-informed people. Besides, it wasn't luck, but rather my gun.

How is it 'mal-informed' to correctly state tha 3/4 of all murders committed in America are related to guns? Facts are't opinions.

I'll get to how you count "murders" in a moment. Legal gun owners don't glorify violence. Did you see the NRA video game? Shooting at paper targets in a range environment. Contrast that to pretty much any non-NRA shooting game. There's lots of violence in the James Bond film franchise, but American gun owners don't make those movies. The non-gun-owning Brits make them. Now sure, the Americans do make hip-hop or rap (or whatever it's called this week) videos that glorify violence, belonging to gangs, etc., but I doubt you'll find many NRA members among the folks in that industry. In fact, it's not hard to guess which party they ironically vote for.

Wow, way to detour. Learn to distinguish between reality and movies. Whether James Bond comes from Britain or hip-hop stars in America glorify gun culture are both irrelevant to the fact that America is the only developed country that has an ACTUAL gun culture, not just in music videos and books. Trying to put a link between pop culture and the nearly 10,000 killed is a bit desperate, don't you think? Or are you going to say the producers of Battle Royale are hypocrites, because Japan in real life doesn't actually send a school class off to a remote island to slaughter each other every year? This is actually hilarious, justifying real life America's gun culture because other countries MAKE MOVIES with characters that shoot guns.

True progressives support personal self-defense. Personal responsibility, in other words. Others might find it more civilized to wait for the police to arrive. If that's what you want, then practice it. But don't make me live by your moral standards, especially if it puts my life at risk. False progressives pressure reluctant gun dealers to sell weapons to Mexican drug cartels so they can "see where they end up". Like anybody couldn't guess...

No, true progressives support a system where the kind of gun culture America has no longer exists, because this same gun culture has created soaring murder rates as we can see blatantly from America's wondrous example.

Besides, the shooter in this case was 17. I'll bet that he can't legally buy a handgun in his state, much less get a carry permit. And then he carried it on schools grounds, which is also against the law. So tell me, what law would have prevented this tragedy?

Um, in any other developed country, he wouldn't have been able to get a gun, definitely not legally or it would have been much much more difficult if illegally. You're making one of the arguments people who are against gun ownership make themselves, the laws are subject to abuse and corruption. It's because your country has its gun culture and guns are so available to purchase that he was able to illegally obtain one (maybe he just brought the one his family keeps at home - you know, for 'safety').

As for how murder stats are counted, I would have to see what source you are referencing. Just a couple of weeks ago, I saw a press release by an anti-gun group, and it turned out that they were manipulating the numbers in a very big way. They counted every single gunshot death as a homicide, inluding those made in self-defense. And that certainly wan't an isolated case. Years ago, the CDC was caught counting 25-year-olds shot during drug deals as "children" so they could pad the numbers for child deaths caused by guns.

Keep detouring and talking about the 'agenda' of your maligned 'progressives', it doesn't take away from the fact that thousands are MURDERED every year in America by guns. Here are the facts.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdGhycDRPQlN1dTBoMzJWOTk0Uk9DRVE&hl=en#gid=9

Would you rather be strangled, as I almost was? I thought I made it clear with my personal story that criminals are criminals, and are going to use whatever they can get their hands on. It might be a gun, it might be a kinfe, or it might be a strap. But outlawing or banning guns won't remove violent criminals from society nor prevent violent crime. Just see Chicago or D.C. for examples.

Yes, criminals will use whatever weapons they get their hands, but guns are BY FAR the most dangerous and have much more deadly potential than knives or straps. As we can see from the shocking murder rate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Legal gun owners don't glorify violence.

Excellent statement.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Excellent statement.

Irrelevant statement. Most murders in America are due to guns, regardless of whether legal gun owners glorify violence or not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And a much more important and pertinent question, "How come a supposedly privileged society - the richest, most advanced in the world, we are told - finds itself unable to raise its kids to be decent, law-abiding citizens, to the extent that ordinary people feel the need to walk around armed, and the first response to a stranger at the door is to grab a gun and tell him to Freeze?"

The answer to that is media rather than the availability of firearms. That was actually one of the key points of Michael Moore's bowling for columbine was that compared to Canada's media, the US is one that instills fear in its people and so when you have a fearful society they are more likely to respond in fear of someone or something and so are more likely to use some type of force. If you look at US media, primarily its local news media, its primarily about instilling fear into the people. The good news though is that US violent crime levels continue to decrease year after year even though the number of guns continues to increase on average by about 4.5 million+ each year. So if violence across the board including gun violence has been dropping for the past 18-19 years that would mean the current laws are working and so there is no need for new laws. I think the primary reason for wanting to carry a firearm in public is to exercise your rights, if you don't exercise them then people are just going to take them away, the other reason why is that if one of the main arguments of owning guns is for protection but you are only allowed to use them for protection in your own home that kind of defeats the point then if you spend the majority of your day outside of your home. The good news is that people that have concealed carry permits have the lowest crime rates in the nation.

If I can not be politically correct, the primary reason for why US crime rates appear to be so high is because of black on black crime. If you take out black on black crime the US crime rates are basically that of Western Europe. Although to be fair if you take out black on black and white and white and just leave asian on asian then US crime rates would fall to those found in Japan.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In a civilised country there is no need to prepare for such an event.

That is not true at all, if anything that makes you naive. Seeing as people from other cultures are constantly traveling to the US for pleasure and others to immigrate to the US permanently there is always the risk that one of these people who do not come from a "civilized country" and are still "assimilating" to a civilized country would still pose a danger. That is an ethnocentric view but one that is possible. I mean look at the UK, in London it is estimated that nearly 25% of crime is committed by foreigners there. The argument your making really only works in a nation that doesn't have a lot of immigrants like for example Japan.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Noliving: "Seeing as people from other cultures are constantly traveling to the US for pleasure and others to immigrate to the US permanently there is always the risk that one of these people who do not come from a "civilized country" and are still "assimilating" to a civilized country would still pose a danger."

So one person out of millions may present a threat so it's better to present the option to everyone of threatening everyone else? Carrying a gun with you all the time because a tourist or immigrant MAY be a threat would be like carrying an AED device with you in case someone falls into respiratory arrest (save that in that case you would be SAVING a life!); would it not be better just to learn the skills to help/fend off without having to carry the machine (and in the case of the gun, instead of just inconvenience of the AED, you're putting other lives at risk just by carrying it)?

And haven't there been two more shootings since this story came out? I guess if you reported ALL the shootings that occur in the US we'd have five to ten threads or more a day.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Noliving, by your logic in tourist spots around the world locals would have to walk around armed and ready to protect themselves against 'uncivilised' outsiders. Your logic would also suggest that all the perpetrators of crime in America are 'outsiders', which isn't the case - unless (taking your word for it that most gun crime is perpetrated by African Americans, though I've seen no valid statistics saying that that is the case, most of the gun-lovers seem to be 'rednecks') you want to state that 'black' Americans are not 'real' Americans? Maybe that us vs them mentality is the real problem.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The answer to that is media rather than the availability of firearms. That was actually one of the key points of Michael Moore's bowling for columbine was that compared to Canada's media, the US is one that instills fear in its people and so when you have a fearful society they are more likely to respond in fear of someone or something and so are more likely to use some type of force.

This isn't civilised - a media terrifying its people in to feeling they have to carry firearms around all hours of the day. The media has a responsibilty to refrain from scare mongering (but this is definitely NOT unique to the USA). And you still can't really blame the media, they're not the ones who made gun ownership legal. Them exploiting this obscene law to create fear and paranoia is another debate.

The good news though is that US violent crime levels continue to decrease year after year even though the number of guns continues to increase on average by about 4.5 million+ each year. So if violence across the board including gun violence has been dropping for the past 18-19 years that would mean the current laws are working and so there is no need for new laws.

The bad news is that thousands will again die this year because of gun violence. 3/4 of America's murders will again be down to someone pulling a trigger. Gun ownership laws are not helping in this area, even if the crime rate has dropped. You can't say increased gun ownership is why the crime rates has fallen. It's actually ridiculous imply that when the vast majority of killings STILL come from guns even in a society which is supposedly safer than 20 years ago. The fall in crime rate is down to various factors, certainly not because there are more trigger happy gun owners. Offenders and criminals for example, are given much more severe sentences today than 20 years ago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/21/america-serious-crime-rate-plunging

"We now incarcerate four times as many people as we did 20 years ago," said John Roman, director of the District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute, who has spent years studying crime trends in the city and the US. "Just by sheer size you've removed a lot of potential offenders from the street. I don't think that's very popular in many circles but it's very hard to argue with."

Not because of guns.

I think the primary reason for wanting to carry a firearm in public is to exercise your rights, if you don't exercise them then people are just going to take them away, the other reason why is that if one of the main arguments of owning guns is for protection but you are only allowed to use them for protection in your own home that kind of defeats the point then if you spend the majority of your day outside of your home.

'Exercise your rights'? I'm sorry, but those of us who live in countries where gun ownership is illegal do not feel like devoid of a human right when we leave our house and don't have a gun in our back pockets. Oh wait, it's because we know no else we meet, whether stranger or friend, is armed either. If I lived in a society where I had to carry a gun around all hours to protect myself against those who also have guns, I would definitely not feel safe. In fact, I would feel my right to live life in safety is being taken from me.

The good news is that people that have concealed carry permits have the lowest crime rates in the nation.

The bad news is that because of the vast number of these legally owned guns, that it becomes very easy to obtain one illegally.

If I can not be politically correct, the primary reason for why US crime rates appear to be so high is because of black on black crime. If you take out black on black crime the US crime rates are basically that of Western Europe. Although to be fair if you take out black on black and white and white and just leave asian on asian then US crime rates would fall to those found in Japan.

That's a really desperate move to make. Black Americans are still Americans, and this attempt to wash your hands off them, as if to brush them off and imply they don't represent white (read: 'real) Americans is completely laughable. Racial profiling - the last refuge of the 'carrying guns is a human right' debaters? Oh dear .

That is not true at all, if anything that makes you naive. Seeing as people from other cultures are constantly traveling to the US for pleasure and others to immigrate to the US permanently there is always the risk that one of these people who do not come from a "civilized country" and are still "assimilating" to a civilized country would still pose a danger. That is an ethnocentric view but one that is possible. I mean look at the UK, in London it is estimated that nearly 25% of crime is committed by foreigners there. The argument your making really only works in a nation that doesn't have a lot of immigrants like for example Japan.

25% of crimes committed by foreigners in London will never result in the UK adopting a legal gun ownership law. So it's perfectly acceptable to cultivate fear and paranoia in the populace and have people carry guns in their back pocket, because immigrants and tourists may represent a threat? This gets more and more laughable. America isn't the only developed country which has a flow in of immigrants. Germany's population is made of up of 10% immigrants, yet I don't see Germans carrying guns because they're afraid of what immigrants and tourists will do.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Noliving, by your logic in tourist spots around the world locals would have to walk around armed and ready to protect themselves against 'uncivilised' outsiders.

Nice try. You said a civilized society wouldn't need guns, I would agree with that statement but there is just one problem. In order for that to work you can't allow for immigration of people that have different values. People from different societies have different values and in there mind their beliefs are correct and they will act accordingly. In a civilized society men won't beat their women or expect women to be servants for them. But if you allow immigration of such people from such cultures such as middle-east or south Asia guess what is going to happen? I'm not saying locals would have to walk around armed and ready to protect themselves, if they want to they can if they don't want to they don't have to. Also my logic is correct, talk to law enforcment in LA, NY city, and Chicago and Minneapolis about how they deal with different cultures and the crimes, whether they be non violent or violent crimes.

Your logic would also suggest that all the perpetrators of crime in America are 'outsiders', which isn't the case - unless (taking your word for it that most gun crime is perpetrated by African Americans, though I've seen no valid statistics saying that that is the case, most of the gun-lovers seem to be 'rednecks') you want to state that 'black' Americans are not 'real' Americans? Maybe that us vs them mentality is the real problem.

That is because your logic about how a society is civilized requires that everyone in that society hold the same values. The most likely people in a society to not hold the same values of the society that they interact with are immigrants. Look at Japan, if Japan had nearly 30% of their population being foreign born just like US and Canada do you believe their crime rates would be higher then if they kept the same demographics? I myself don't believe that all perps are outsiders or that the majority of them, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your logic and that is in order for it to work you have to have a highly homogeneous culture and the best way to have a highly homogeneous culture/society is to have a very low "outsider" population such as Japan or China. That is why Japan crime is so low.

The reason why you haven't seen anything is because you don't do research. If you did you would know for example in 2005 according to the Department of Justice 52% of murders in the US were committed by Black people.and that 90%+ of their victims were black.

So one person out of millions may present a threat so it's better to present the option to everyone of threatening everyone else?

Carrying a firearm is not threatening anyone especially if its in its holster. That would be like says that a police officer is threatening you because they have a gun in their holster. Considering Concealed carriers have a lower crime rate then non Concealed carriers that would suggest that those who don't carry are more a threat then those that do. In my state of Minnesota. Concealed carriers have a lower crime rate then police officers do.

Carrying a gun with you all the time because a tourist or immigrant MAY be a threat would be like carrying an AED device with you in case someone falls into respiratory arrest

If a person wishes to carry a gun on them at all times its there choice. If someone wants to carry an AED on them at all times fine. Who cares. My point that I was making to cleo is that it is naive to assume that when you are out in public that everyone has the same values you do and the most likely people who don't have the same values are immigrants. Try and prove me wrong on that point.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This isn't civilised - a media terrifying its people in to feeling they have to carry firearms around all hours of the day. The media has a responsibilty to refrain from scare mongering (but this is definitely NOT unique to the USA). And you still can't really blame the media, they're not the ones who made gun ownership legal. Them exploiting this obscene law to create fear and paranoia is another debate.

Why Michael Moore does, in fact that was his main point in that documentary. He wanted to know why people in Canada had a lower crime rate, specifically violent crime rate compared to USA even though they had access to guns. No it is not unique but then again do you another media in a developed nation that does it as well as the US?

The bad news is that thousands will again die this year because of gun violence. 3/4 of America's murders will again be down to someone pulling a trigger. Gun ownership laws are not helping in this area, even if the crime rate has dropped. You can't say increased gun ownership is why the crime rates has fallen. It's actually ridiculous imply that when the vast majority of killings STILL come from guns even in a society which is supposedly safer than 20 years ago. The fall in crime rate is down to various factors, certainly not because there are more trigger happy gun owners. Offenders and criminals for example, are given much more severe sentences today than 20 years ago

Considering gun crime rates has been dropping for the past 18 years current gun ownership laws are helping in this area of reducing gun crime. Yes 3/4 of murders are committed by guns but considering the context which is less than 10k in a nation of 300 million.

I never made the claim in that post that guns are the reason why crime rates are dropping, I just made the point that as long as crime, specifically gun crime, is falling we don't need any new or more strict gun laws they won't do anything.

The fall in crime rate is down to various factors, certainly not because there are more trigger happy gun owners. Offenders and criminals for example, are given much more severe sentences today than 20 years ago

Agreed. But seeing as there are millions more guns on the streets each year in the US along with the population getting larger each year and yet crime rates, including murder rates, continue to go down that would imply that guns don't cause crime either. Meaning that gun laws that want to further restrict guns will have no effect on reducing crime. In fact I made the claim on this site that the reason why crime is/was higher compared to europe or east asia is because of America's culture, specifically its acceptance of force as a way of getting what it wants or as a form of justice. Meaning that as a America culture changes from saying it is acceptable to use force as a way of getting what it wants or as a form of justice violent crime will go down. You could ban all the guns but as long as that culture remains they will still go assaulting people with different weapons or just there bare hands. Look at America's drug use, drugs are for the most illegal in the US and in fact they have drug war going on for the past 30-40 years yet they havn't really made a dent on drug consumption in the US. Why? Because even though it is banned the culture remains that it is acceptable to use such drugs.

'Exercise your rights'? I'm sorry, but those of us who live in countries where gun ownership is illegal do not feel like devoid of a human right when we leave our house and don't have a gun in our back pockets. Oh wait, it's because we know no else we meet, whether stranger or friend, is armed either. If I lived in a society where I had to carry a gun around all hours to protect myself against those who also have guns, I would definitely not feel safe. In fact, I would feel my right to live life in safety is being taken from me.

Oh for the love of, I'm talking about exercising legal rights not human rights. If you don't use your legal rights then people will take them away. No you don't know whether that stranger or friend is armed or not, for example in Germany it is estimated that there are over 14 million guns that are owned illegally, most of them smuggled in from eastern Europe and the Balkans. Fortunately in the US you don't have to carry a gun on you at all hours to protect yourself against those that have guns. Over 99.999% of gun owners don't commit a crime with their guns. Your more likely to die by a drunk driver in the US then you are to be murdered or even wounded by someone using a gun.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

That's a really desperate move to make. Black Americans are still Americans, and this attempt to wash your hands off them, as if to brush them off and imply they don't represent white (read: 'real) Americans is completely laughable. Racial profiling - the last refuge of the 'carrying guns is a human right' debaters? Oh dear .

I didn't say they were not Americans, I'm just pointing out that there is a specific demographic and victim demographic that is responsible for the majority of perps and victims. As long as you are not in that demographic your chances of being a victim of violent crime in the US are cut by at least half. For example Blacks males are responsible for more than half of all murders in the US, 90+% of their victims are black. In fact if I'm not mistaken less than 5% of all murders in the US are interracial.

No they don't represent white americans at all, black murder rate is 24.5 per 100k, white murder rate is less than 3.4 per 100k.

Official Department of Justice statistics show that black people committed 52.2% of murders for the year 2005 despite being only 12.1% of the population. Whites (which under US law, includes Latinos), who represent 74.7% of Americans, committed 45.8% of murders.

If we assume a population of 300 million in America for 2005, that means that there were approximately 36.6 million blacks and 224.1 million whites that year.

The total murders by all races in 2005 was 17,029. 52.2% of those were committed by blacks, or 8,889 murders. 45.8% were committed by whites and Latinos, or 7,799 murders.

What this means is that the rate of murder (talking about offenders here, not victims) among all blacks in America is 8,889 in 36.6 million, or 24.7 murderers per 100,000 black people. The rate of murder among whites (including Latinos) is 7,799 per 224.1 million, which equates with 3.38 per 100,000.

In California, with an estimated 2005 population of 37 million, Latinos represented 35.9% of the population, or 13.3 million people. They were arrested for committing 48.4% of 2005's 1956 murders, which means that there were 946 arrests of Latinos for murder.

946 murders per 13.3 million people breaks down to a rate of 7.11 murder arrest per 100,000 Latinos.

Now for the white arrests. Whites in 2005 were 43.0% of the population of California, or 15,910,000 people. They represented 19.7% of the arrests for murder, or 386 arrests. That represents a rate of 2.42 per 100,000.

What this tells us is that any given Latino was 2.94 times more likely to be arrested for murder in California than was any given white.

Let's assume for a moment that the ratio between whites and Latinos is the same in terms of arrests for murder in California and convictions for murder nationwide, and apply that ratio to the above statistic for the murder rate of whites and Latinos combined. It may not be exactly correct, but for want of better statistics, it's the best estimate for the time being.

There were about 41.5 million Latinos in the US in 2005, and about 182,600,000 "Anglo" whites, and both groups combined committed 7799 murders. If the rate of Latinos murdering is 2.94 that of "Anglo" whites, that puts the white rate at 2.63 per 100,000, and the Latino rate at 7.73 per 100,000.

So there we have it. Latinos commit murder at a rate of nearly three times that of "Anglo" whites, and blacks commit murder at a whopping 9.4 times that of "Anglo" whites.

Now to the meat of the argument. Gun availability is the same for all of these racial groups. If gun availability has anything to do with propensity to commit murder, why is there a three times greater propensity for Latinos to kill than whites, and a nine times greater propensity for blacks to kill than whites?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Your more likely to die by a drunk driver in the US then you are to be murdered or even wounded by someone using a gun.

Let me rephrase this you are more likely to die by a drunk driver in the US then you are to be murdered by someone using a gun and you are more likely to be injured by a drunk driver then you are to be wounded by someone using a gun.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Why Michael Moore does, in fact that was his main point in that documentary. He wanted to know why people in Canada had a lower crime rate, specifically violent crime rate compared to USA even though they had access to guns. No it is not unique but then again do you another media in a developed nation that does it as well as the US?

Gun laws in Canada are much stricter than in America so no, they don't have the same access to guns that Yanks do. And I already clarified that America's media culture was irresponsible. Media can exploit a situation but the media didn't create America's gun laws.

Considering gun crime rates has been dropping for the past 18 years current gun ownership laws are helping in this area of reducing gun crime. Yes 3/4 of murders are committed by guns but considering the context which is less than 10k in a nation of 300 million.

I never made the claim in that post that guns are the reason why crime rates are dropping, I just made the point that as long as crime, specifically gun crime, is falling we don't need any new or more strict gun laws they won't do anything.

No, gun laws are not helping in any way, they're still responsible for 70% of all homicides, even in a country where crime rates have fallen. Nearly 10k in a nation of 300 million is ALOT, both in gross and per head terms, which is why America has by far the highest homicide rate in the developed world and even higher than many what you would term 'uncivilised countries' with their different values which terrify you so. You've just dismissed nearly 10,000 people, oh dear. 10,000 in a nation of 300 million is an obscenely high murder rate. Yes, you do need stricter gun laws, because the widely available guns are responsible for the vast majority of these murders.

Agreed. But seeing as there are millions more guns on the streets each year in the US along with the population getting larger each year and yet crime rates, including murder rates, continue to go down that would imply that guns don't cause crime either. Meaning that gun laws that want to further restrict guns will have no effect on reducing crime. In fact I made the claim on this site that the reason why crime is/was higher compared to europe or east asia is because of America's culture, specifically its acceptance of force as a way of getting what it wants or as a form of justice. Meaning that as a America culture changes from saying it is acceptable to use force as a way of getting what it wants or as a form of justice violent crime will go down. You could ban all the guns but as long as that culture remains they will still go assaulting people with different weapons or just there bare hands. Look at America's drug use, drugs are for the most illegal in the US and in fact they have drug war going on for the past 30-40 years yet they havn't really made a dent on drug consumption in the US. Why? Because even though it is banned the culture remains that it is acceptable to use such drugs.

Um, guns DO cause crime. Even if the crime rates are falling, the share of gun murders on the overall murder rate remain maintain consistent. The crime rate has fallen due to other factors. Guns are definitely not responsible. And your claims of American exceptionalism are WEAK, if America's culture is so forceful and vengeful, then for God's sake, these guns need to be outlawed. If people still remain determined like you say to get their hands on other weapons to carry out their blood vengeance, then at least these other weapons' destructive potential remain far less than that of guns. And the drug argument is different from guns, please, other countries also have drug problems despite drugs being illegal. And yet these other drug ridden countries have STILL managed to outlaw guns and make them illegal and keep them that way and as a result aren't left with a yearly murder rate which is 70% reliant on firearms.

Oh for the love of, I'm talking about exercising legal rights not human rights. If you don't use your legal rights then people will take them away. No you don't know whether that stranger or friend is armed or not, for example in Germany it is estimated that there are over 14 million guns that are owned illegally, most of them smuggled in from eastern Europe and the Balkans. Fortunately in the US you don't have to carry a gun on you at all hours to protect yourself against those that have guns. Over 99.999% of gun owners don't commit a crime with their guns. Your more likely to die by a drunk driver in the US then you are to be murdered or even wounded by someone using a gun.

Human rights are still rights. So you carry your gun, because you're scared if you don't, your legal rights will be taken from you? Yep, America's culture of fear and paranoia. Gun ownership in Germany is a different matter, these guns shipped in from the East are ILLEGAL like you've correctly stated. And oh, look, the murder rate in Germany still extremely low. 194 people died in 2006 from gun homicide. Why? Much stricter gun laws and lower ownership than the 'land of the free; even with the illegal shipments. Yes, America is the only developed country where you need to prepare yourself against being shot every day.

Now to the meat of the argument. Gun availability is the same for all of these racial groups. If gun availability has anything to do with propensity to commit murder, why is there a three times greater propensity for Latinos to kill than whites, and a nine times greater propensity for blacks to kill than whites?

Your tour through the land of statistics was meaningless. Like you said yourself, gun ownership is available freely to all these ethnic groups. When taking ALL THREE GROUPS into account, not just removing whites, we are still left with one of the highest homicide rates in the world, 70% which is due to the guns available to all these groups. Gun availability = 9,000 murders a year due to these guns, regardless of which ethnic group is responsible for the highest proportion of these firearm deaths and which isn't.

Let me rephrase this you are more likely to die by a drunk driver in the US then you are to be murdered by someone using a gun and you are more likely to be injured by a drunk driver then you are to be wounded by someone using a gun.

Utterly meaningless. Why bring in a completely unrelated comparison? We're talking about GUNS here and the impact they have on the murder rate. Even if more people get hit by drunk drivers, USA still has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, 70% of which is due to guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: "Let me rephrase this you are more likely to die by a drunk driver in the US then you are to be murdered by someone using a gun and you are more likely to be injured by a drunk driver then you are to be wounded by someone using a gun."

Ah, so there's some wiggle room! Nice attempt to rationalize the irrational.

Oh, new shooting in Arizona! Only 14 injured. Guess that could have resulted had the perps been up close and personal with bad breath as a weapon, right?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Gun laws in Canada are much stricter than in America so no, they don't have the same access to guns that Yanks do. And I already clarified that America's media culture was irresponsible. Media can exploit a situation but the media didn't create America's gun laws.

They may not have the same access but they do have a very high gun ownership rate which is what Michael Moore was getting at.

No, gun laws are not helping in any way, they're still responsible for 70% of all homicides, even in a country where crime rates have fallen. Nearly 10k in a nation of 300 million is ALOT, both in gross and per head terms, which is why America has by far the highest homicide rate in the developed world and even higher than many what you would term 'uncivilised countries' with their different values which terrify you so. You've just dismissed nearly 10,000 people, oh dear. 10,000 in a nation of 300 million is an obscenely high murder rate. Yes, you do need stricter gun laws, because the widely available guns are responsible for the vast majority of these murders.

No its not a lot. You can argue all you want that it is a lot but it is not. More people die from Alcohol then from guns should we further tighten the rules on Alcohol in the US? Over 600,000 people die each year in the US from heart disease. 19,700 adults die from falling each year in the US. So no it is not a lot. Then you factor in that the US murder rate and the numbers committed by guns has fallen by half in the past 18 years and they are still falling even though guns continue to increase by around 4.5 million each year. So if gun crime is falling and is still falling that would indicate that the guns laws are doing their job in reducing gun crime. You just have to be patient this is a marathon not a race. What is responsible for the vast majority of the deaths is a culture that says if someone disrespects you you should use force.

Um, guns DO cause crime. Even if the crime rates are falling, the share of gun murders on the overall murder rate remain maintain consistent. The crime rate has fallen due to other factors. Guns are definitely not responsible. And your claims of American exceptionalism are WEAK, if America's culture is so forceful and vengeful, then for God's sake, these guns need to be outlawed. If people still remain determined like you say to get their hands on other weapons to carry out their blood vengeance, then at least these other weapons' destructive potential remain far less than that of guns. And the drug argument is different from guns, please, other countries also have drug problems despite drugs being illegal. And yet these other drug ridden countries have STILL managed to outlaw guns and make them illegal and keep them that way and as a result aren't left with a yearly murder rate which is 70% reliant on firearms.

No they don't, they are nothing more than the method that is used to commit a crime. What causes a crime is desire, what creates that desire is culture. If the crime rate is fallen due to other factors then you have just proven my point that guns don't cause crime and considering gun crime has been falling for the past 18 years even though 4.5 million guns hit the streets each year further proves my point that guns don't cause crime if they did gun crime would be going up not down with the rest of the crime statistics. No they don't need to be outlawed because it is a certain demographic that has that type of culture. When it comes to countries with drug problems and outlawing guns yeah they have but they haven't gotten rid of them. Again in Germany there are an estimated 14 million guns that are in circulation that are illegal. There are around 7 million guns that are in legal circulation in that country for a grand total of 21 million guns, meaning that 66% of guns in that country are illegally owned and yet gun crime is surprisingly low. Why do you think that is? Culture by any chance?

Do you know what is really behind gun crime in the US? It is the drug war going on. In Detroit more than half of the cities gun crime, specifically murders that were committed by guns are related to drugs. As a result more than half of the homicides have yet to be solved. In fact the majority of gun crime in the US is due to turf wars between drug gangs I guarantee you that legalizing drugs for recreational use will have more of an impact on reducing gun crime then any gun law ever would. 85% of the US counties report an annual homicide rate of 0. That means that pretty much all of America's murders are highly centralized to the major cities

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Human rights are still rights. So you carry your gun, because you're scared if you don't, your legal rights will be taken from you? Yep, America's culture of fear and paranoia. Gun ownership in Germany is a different matter, these guns shipped in from the East are ILLEGAL like you've correctly stated. And oh, look, the murder rate in Germany still extremely low. 194 people died in 2006 from gun homicide. Why? Much stricter gun laws and lower ownership than the 'land of the free; even with the illegal shipments. Yes, America is the only developed country where you need to prepare yourself against being shot every day.

You don't say! I did not know that human rights were still rights. Of course they are but we are not talking about human rights we are talking about legal rights. So let me get this straight you are saying that a person that is afraid their legal right to carry a concealed firearm in public that they have a permit is them being paranoid even though you have stated or implied that legal right should be taken away. That suggests to me that person's paranoia is justified. Or are you saying that those that want or in fact do carry a gun are just paranoid of being physically attacked. If its the latter then why do people when they get into the car put on their seat belts? Are they paranoid that they are going to get into a car accident every time they get into the car or are they just recognizing that it is a possibility and just want to be prepared in case it does happen? Why are you so paranoid about people carrying guns in public? Over 99.9999% of gun owners don't shoot their guns at anyone. There are 65+ million gun owners that own more than 300+ million guns. If you take the number of homicides and divide it by 65 million you get 1.5e-4 or 0.000015% of all gun owners will kill someone with their guns or in other words you get a homicide rate among gun owners of 1 murder per 6,500 gun owners. That is extremely low

How would Germany's gun law made a difference if they are illegally owned? The question is why are the illegally owned firearms not being used in Germany for homicide, it is not because of Germany's gun laws. In fact Germany's gun laws are worthless or at least their customs are if they have allowed 14 million guns and counting to be imported illegally to Germany. Germany basically has a ratio of around 1 gun per 4 people. I'm willing to bet you were surprised to learn at how many illegally owned firearms there are in Germany.

Seeing as 85% of US counties have an average homicide rate of 0 and basically the same is true for other types of gun crime I would argue that you are just using hyperbole about America being the only country in the developed world where you need to prepare against being shot at every day. considering you are twice as likely to fall to your death then you are being shot to death. If anyone is paranoid it is you.

Your tour through the land of statistics was meaningless. Like you said yourself, gun ownership is available freely to all these ethnic groups. When taking ALL THREE GROUPS into account, not just removing whites, we are still left with one of the highest homicide rates in the world, 70% which is due to the guns available to all these groups. Gun availability = 9,000 murders a year due to these guns, regardless of which ethnic group is responsible for the highest proportion of these firearm deaths and which isn't.

Nice try. If you take away black homicides the US murder rate falls to 3.38. If you take away black and latino homicide the US murder rate falls to the 2.42 per 100k range. Seeing as murder in this country is highly intraracial and not interracial you can in fact not take all three groups into account. I think you are in denial about just how violent America. As long as you are not black and if you are black don't hang out with other blacks in this country you will be safe. If you take all groups into account the US has a murder rate of around 4.8-5.2, compared to other developed nations that would be a high number but when you consider that it is out of per 100,000 people it is basically negligible and the difference even more negligible. That is a very low murder rate. Lets say for example you have two companies and both companies produce 100k of their product and the difference in failure rate is that one is 1 per 100k and the other is 4.8 per 100k. The difference is 3.8 per 100k in terms of failure rate, that difference is essentially negligible because a a failure rate of 4.8 is 0.000048% chance of each product failing, in other words the chances of you getting one that is defective is basically near impossible. In terms of murder it means that you have a 0.000048% of being murdered each year during your lifetime in the US. I'm sorry but I don't believe that 0.000048% of being murdered each year during my life is something to lose any sleep over.

Wow nice equation 9000 gun murders a year and dropping out of 300,000,000 guns. Again 9,000 out of 300,000,000 . Do you not realize how low that number is in terms of per capita? That is one gun death per 33,333.33 guns.

Utterly meaningless. Why bring in a completely unrelated comparison? We're talking about GUNS here and the impact they have on the murder rate. Even if more people get hit by drunk drivers, USA still has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, 70% of which is due to guns.

Comparison is meant to show that if you ban guns for the purpose to reduce deaths or crime then you also need to be for banning alcohol considering Alcohol kills more people then guns, it is involved/factor in 50% or more of all crimes in the US. If you are only after banning guns but not banning alcohol that have similar numbers if not higher in the same categories then you are not someone to take seriously when it comes to the argument about reducing crime and saving people's lives.

OMG I'm so scared 4.8-5.2 out of 100k, big woop it is not that high of a homicide rate, compared to Western European and East Asia ya it is higher but it is not that much higher, an additional three or four more people being murdered out of 100k is not that big of a difference.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ah, so there's some wiggle room! Nice attempt to rationalize the irrational.

Oh, new shooting in Arizona! Only 14 injured. Guess that could have resulted had the perps been up close and personal with bad breath as a weapon, right?

So smith based off of the fact that Alcohol kills and wounds more people are you for banning alcohol?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They may not have the same access but they do have a very high gun ownership rate which is what Michael Moore was getting at.

And they have a lower gun crime rate which is related to that lack of access, not simply 'the media'.

No its not a lot. You can argue all you want that it is a lot but it is not. More people die from Alcohol then from guns should we further tighten the rules on Alcohol in the US? Over 600,000 people die each year in the US from heart disease. 19,700 adults die from falling each year in the US. So no it is not a lot. Then you factor in that the US murder rate and the numbers committed by guns has fallen by half in the past 18 years and they are still falling even though guns continue to increase by around 4.5 million each year. So if gun crime is falling and is still falling that would indicate that the guns laws are doing their job in reducing gun crime. You just have to be patient this is a marathon not a race. What is responsible for the vast majority of the deaths is a culture that says if someone disrespects you you should use force.

Yes, it is alot. Comparing it to people who die from heart disease and alcohol doesn't mean anything. This 10,000, in PROPORTION to the rest of the population, gives America the highest murder rate in the developed world by far, due to what? GUNS. There are other factors which have led to the overall decrease in crime, but the share of gun murders on the overall murder rate remains 70%, no matter if the crime rate is up or down that year.

No they don't, they are nothing more than the method that is used to commit a crime. What causes a crime is desire, what creates that desire is culture. If the crime rate is fallen due to other factors then you have just proven my point that guns don't cause crime and considering gun crime has been falling for the past 18 years even though 4.5 million guns hit the streets each year further proves my point that guns don't cause crime if they did gun crime would be going up not down with the rest of the crime statistics. No they don't need to be outlawed because it is a certain demographic that has that type of culture. When it comes to countries with drug problems and outlawing guns yeah they have but they haven't gotten rid of them. Again in Germany there are an estimated 14 million guns that are in circulation that are illegal. There are around 7 million guns that are in legal circulation in that country for a grand total of 21 million guns, meaning that 66% of guns in that country are illegally owned and yet gun crime is surprisingly low. Why do you think that is? Culture by any chance?

Whatever they 'desire' due to 'culture', guns have by far the most destructive potential out of all these weapons which are available to them to carry out said 'desires'. If gun ownership was illegal, then the 'desire' might remain, but the fact is that society would become safer, because these guns wouldn't be so easily available anymore. Other weapons would be sought which are less dangerous than guns. And a 'certain demographic' are still American citizens. In Germany, the 7 million legal guns doesn't mean 7 million carriers, these 7 million legal guns are held by 1.7 million people. Germany has been tightening its gun ownership laws since 2002 when it had a school shooting and look! Lower crime rate today and lower proportion and number of murders due to guns. Yes, gun ownership is related to higher level of murders, America becoming safer is due to other factors.

Do you know what is really behind gun crime in the US? It is the drug war going on. In Detroit more than half of the cities gun crime, specifically murders that were committed by guns are related to drugs. As a result more than half of the homicides have yet to be solved. In fact the majority of gun crime in the US is due to turf wars between drug gangs I guarantee you that legalizing drugs for recreational use will have more of an impact on reducing gun crime then any gun law ever would. 85% of the US counties report an annual homicide rate of 0. That means that pretty much all of America's murders are highly centralized to the major cities

Again, other countries have drug problems, not just America. And in other developed countries, crime is not divided equally between all people and all regions, but is mainly found in centralised districts and cities and amongst certain groups also. These countries still have much stricter gun laws than America and don't think about bringing in gun laws because they're scared of what ethnic minorities might do and the higher criminality of certain groups. Legalising drugs is another debate. The fact is that guns ARE NOT HELPING.

You don't say! I did not know that human rights were still rights. Of course they are but we are not talking about human rights we are talking about legal rights. So let me get this straight you are saying that a person that is afraid their legal right to carry a concealed firearm in public that they have a permit is them being paranoid even though you have stated or implied that legal right should be taken away. That suggests to me that person's paranoia is justified. Or are you saying that those that want or in fact do carry a gun are just paranoid of being physically attacked. If its the latter then why do people when they get into the car put on their seat belts? Are they paranoid that they are going to get into a car accident every time they get into the car or are they just recognizing that it is a possibility and just want to be prepared in case it does happen? Why are you so paranoid about people carrying guns in public? Over 99.9999% of gun owners don't shoot their guns at anyone. There are 65+ million gun owners that own more than 300+ million guns. If you take the number of homicides and divide it by 65 million you get 1.5e-4 or 0.000015% of all gun owners will kill someone with their guns or in other words you get a homicide rate among gun owners of 1 murder per 6,500 gun owners. That is extremely low

Oh dear, using seat belt comparisons. People in America carry guns because they're afraid of other citizens who also carry guns. You say their paranoia is then justified, because I don't believe that the gun ownership law contributes to public safety? People wear seat belts to keep safe. Last time I was aware, seat belts didn't have a trigger that you could pull and murder and injure whole groups of people. Other countries who don't have the same gun laws have citizens that leave their house UNARMED (gasp!) because the possibility of them running into another dangerous citizen who is armed is much, much lower.

How would Germany's gun law made a difference if they are illegally owned? The question is why are the illegally owned firearms not being used in Germany for homicide, it is not because of Germany's gun laws. In fact Germany's gun laws are worthless or at least their customs are if they have allowed 14 million guns and counting to be imported illegally to Germany. Germany basically has a ratio of around 1 gun per 4 people. I'm willing to bet you were surprised to learn at how many illegally owned firearms there are in Germany.

Germany would only have a ratio rate of 1 gun per 4 people if it were the case that all these guns, both legal and illegal were individually given to each German person, which they're not. These 14 million guns aren't held by 14 million people, just like 7 million don't own the 7 million legal guns. Germany's gun laws are much, much stricter than America's, the vast majority of the population does not carry guns, regardless of the number of legal and illegal guns, and that is why the gun crime rate is so incredibly low.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seeing as 85% of US counties have an average homicide rate of 0 and basically the same is true for other types of gun crime I would argue that you are just using hyperbole about America being the only country in the developed world where you need to prepare against being shot at every day. considering you are twice as likely to fall to your death then you are being shot to death. If anyone is paranoid it is you.

Absolutely no paranoia. America has by far the largest murder rate of all developed countries (and even some 'uncivilised ones' - gasp!) This huge murder rate is down mainly to guns. America has some of the freest gun laws in the world and it's because of the easy availability of said weapons why the murder rate remains so high.

Nice try. If you take away black homicides the US murder rate falls to 3.38. If you take away black and latino homicide the US murder rate falls to the 2.42 per 100k range. Seeing as murder in this country is highly intraracial and not interracial you can in fact not take all three groups into account. I think you are in denial about just how violent America. As long as you are not black and if you are black don't hang out with other blacks in this country you will be safe. If you take all groups into account the US has a murder rate of around 4.8-5.2, compared to other developed nations that would be a high number but when you consider that it is out of per 100,000 people it is basically negligible and the difference even more negligible. That is a very low murder rate. Lets say for example you have two companies and both companies produce 100k of their product and the difference in failure rate is that one is 1 per 100k and the other is 4.8 per 100k. The difference is 3.8 per 100k in terms of failure rate, that difference is essentially negligible because a a failure rate of 4.8 is 0.000048% chance of each product failing, in other words the chances of you getting one that is defective is basically near impossible. In terms of murder it means that you have a 0.000048% of being murdered each year during your lifetime in the US. I'm sorry but I don't believe that 0.000048% of being murdered each year during my life is something to lose any sleep over.

Why are you segregating the different racial groups again? All these people are still Americans, regardless of which group has the biggest propensity to carry out gun crime. 'If you take away the black and latio rate', but we DON'T take away the black and latino rate, these groups still make up the overall population! If African Americans are really so dangerous, then why not ban gun ownership? Then these nefarious minority groups you like to scapegoat wouldn't have the (same) access to these weapons with their massive destructive potential and your beloved non-crime perpetuating whites wouldn't have to carry guns to protect themselves. I'm sorry, but you still don't understand what murder rates are, you seem to think that millions getting killed every year only constitutes a high murder rate. America has BY FAR the highest murder RATE in the developed world, mainly due to guns. These are the facts you keep running away form. Every other country uses the 'per 100,000' to calculate rates too.

Wow nice equation 9000 gun murders a year and dropping out of 300,000,000 guns. Again 9,000 out of 300,000,000 . Do you not realize how low that number is in terms of per capita? That is one gun death per 33,333.33 guns.

9000 gun murders out of 300 million is still 9000, dismissing these number because the overall population is larger is tasteless. Just like the user on this site who dismissed the 42,000 who died in 2009 because they didn't have health insurance. The 9000 compared to 300 million equals a murder RATE higher than the rest of the developed world. So yes, your life is in more danger in America than Europe. Since you like to minimise the murder rate, then why carry guns for your protection in the first place? You only have a 0.000048% of being shot, remember?

Comparison is meant to show that if you ban guns for the purpose to reduce deaths or crime then you also need to be for banning alcohol considering Alcohol kills more people then guns, it is involved/factor in 50% or more of all crimes in the US. If you are only after banning guns but not banning alcohol that have similar numbers if not higher in the same categories then you are not someone to take seriously when it comes to the argument about reducing crime and saving people's lives.

You're still detouring and twisting, we're talking about guns here, not seatbelts (lol) or alcohol. Alcohol is another debate and actually you have no idea what my views on it are. You're definitely not someone to take seriously when it comes to discussing reducing crimes, considering you're in favour of upholding a law which keeps the murder rate so obscenely high.

OMG I'm so scared 4.8-5.2 out of 100k, big woop it is not that high of a homicide rate, compared to Western European and East Asia ya it is higher but it is not that much higher,an additional three or four more people being murdered out of 100k is not that big of a difference.

Wow, just wow. It's these three of four extra people who are proof of America's much higher crime rates. And what most likely killed them? Oh yes, guns.

3/4 of all American murders each year is due to guns. This remains consistent even in a country with falling crime rates.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And they have a lower gun crime rate which is related to that lack of access, not simply 'the media'.

It is not lack of access because everyone in Canada that doesn't have a criminal history or mental health issue can get firearm in Canada same as the US. I agree that it is not simply the media but is the primary reason.

Yes, it is alot. Comparing it to people who die from heart disease and alcohol doesn't mean anything. This 10,000, in PROPORTION to the rest of the population, gives America the highest murder rate in the developed world by far, due to what? GUNS. There are other factors which have led to the overall decrease in crime, but the share of gun murders on the overall murder rate remains 70%, no matter if the crime rate is up or down that year.

No it is not a lot when compared to 300 million people, 9000 out of 300 million is not a lot. If I said 9000 cheeseburgers were consumed out of a population of 300 million over a course of a year would you say that is a lot? If you compare it to other developed nations ya you can say it is lot but is it really a lot more? For example if you have one rock in your hand I have five rocks I have five times as many rocks as you or I have 400% more rocks then you, but is five rocks that much more than one? Yes we know that other factors are what have led to crime being cut in half and we know for a fact although guns may not be responsible for it whatsoever but we do know they are not causing an increase in crimes whatsoever. Yes guns make up around 70% of weapons used to commit a homicide, what matters is whether or not the total number of gun murders is going down not the proportion. You could have a lower proportion next year but have an actual increase in the total number of gun crimes.

Comparing it to Alcohol and Heart disease does mean something, it indicates how much a threat it really is in a society. If I told you 10,000 people were murdered by guns last year and 600,000 people died from heart disease last year and I asked you what was the greatest threat to your society the correct answer would be heart disease. Now theoretically guns could be the greatest threat to your society but what matters isn't theory but actual.

Whatever they 'desire' due to 'culture', guns have by far the most destructive potential out of all these weapons which are available to them to carry out said 'desires'. If gun ownership was illegal, then the 'desire' might remain, but the fact is that society would become safer, because these guns wouldn't be so easily available anymore. Other weapons would be sought which are less dangerous than guns. And a 'certain demographic' are still American citizens. In Germany, the 7 million legal guns doesn't mean 7 million carriers, these 7 million legal guns are held by 1.7 million people. Germany has been tightening its gun ownership laws since 2002 when it had a school shooting and look! Lower crime rate today and lower proportion and number of murders due to guns. Yes, gun ownership is related to higher level of murders, America becoming safer is due to other factors.

Guns do have more destructive potential overall but it also depends highly on the situation. In a range situation a firearm is your best friend but in a melee situation your firearm outside of a handgun is going to become a liability. Desire is what matters not how it is carried out, when you don't treat the desire and only treat how the desire is being carried out all your doing is treating the symptoms your not treating the cause. You will still have the same number of crimes of assault. Where did I ever say that certain demographic was less american then any other demographic? What is your point with stating 7 million legally owned guns does not mean 7 million owners? Seriously what is your point with that statement? Seeing as I have been stating there are 65 + million gun owners that own over 300 million guns would seem to indicate that I know there isn't a one to one ratio when it comes to how many gun owners and guns in general there are. Look at what? Germany's legal gun owning population has increased since 2002 as well as its Illegal gun owning population and the total number of guns in Germany has also increased since 2002 and yet gun deaths are going down. Wow that sounds an awfully lot like America, more gun owners and more guns in total and yet the total gun crime has been going down. I'm willing to bet that just like America Germany's crime figures are going down due to other factors unrelated to its tightening of its gun laws. In fact your could argue Media is one of those factors.

Again, other countries have drug problems, not just America. And in other developed countries, crime is not divided equally between all people and all regions, but is mainly found in centralised districts and cities and amongst certain groups also. These countries still have much stricter gun laws than America and don't think about bringing in gun laws because they're scared of what ethnic minorities might do and the higher criminality of certain groups. Legalising drugs is another debate. The fact is that guns ARE NOT HELPING.

And how many of those nations have the same culture about using force as much as the US to get what it wants or as a way to get respect? How many of those countries in the developed world cling to the idea that might makes right as much as the US does? No legalizing drugs is not another debate, it is directly tied to gun crime in the US, just like how legalizing drugs is directly tied to gun crime in Mexico. Guns may not be helping but they are not hurting either. Again the total number of guns in the US has been increasing on average by 4.5 million per year for the past decade or so and during that time Gun crime totals have dropped in half. They may not be helping but they are not hurting either.

Oh dear, using seat belt comparisons. People in America carry guns because they're afraid of other citizens who also carry guns. You say their paranoia is then justified, because I don't believe that the gun ownership law contributes to public safety? People wear seat belts to keep safe. Last time I was aware, seat belts didn't have a trigger that you could pull and murder and injure whole groups of people. Other countries who don't have the same gun laws have citizens that leave their house UNARMED (gasp!) because the possibility of them running into another dangerous citizen who is armed is much, much lower.

Oh god. Ok lets get something straight people carry guns on them for the same reason why people put seat belts on when they get in the car and that is they recognize it is a possibility that someone might attack, not necessarily with a gun but any weapon, not because they are overly paranoid or that they are that deathly afraid of other people attacking them or other drivers even for that matter. Again it is the same reason why you put on a seat belt every time you get into a car, you recognize it is possibility not because your are paranoid or death afraid of other drivers. Why does Japan have law enforcement when its crime rates are so low? Are they so afraid of their neighbor not following the law that they need to hire someone to actually enforce the laws the people they voted for created? Or do they have law enforcement because they recognize that it is a possibility that someone might commit a crime not because of a paranoia. Last time I checked stepping on a gas pedal can murder and injure whole groups of people whether they be pedestrians or in another car.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is not lack of access because everyone in Canada that doesn't have a criminal history or mental health issue can get firearm in Canada same as the US. I agree that it is not simply the media but is the primary reason.

No, Canada's gun laws are MUCH tougher than America's. Canada's law doesn't recognise self defense as a valid reason for aquriring a gun. Most Canadian gun owners own guns for hunting.

No it is not a lot when compared to 300 million people, 9000 out of 300 million is not a lot. If I said 9000 cheeseburgers were consumed out of a population of 300 million over a course of a year would you say that is a lot? If you compare it to other developed nations ya you can say it is lot but is it really a lot more? For example if you have one rock in your hand I have five rocks I have five times as many rocks as you or I have 400% more rocks then you, but is five rocks that much more than one? Yes we know that other factors are what have led to crime being cut in half and we know for a fact although guns may not be responsible for it whatsoever but we do know they are not causing an increase in crimes whatsoever. Yes guns make up around 70% of weapons used to commit a homicide, what matters is whether or not the total number of gun murders is going down not the proportion. You could have a lower proportion next year but have an actual increase in the total number of gun crimes.

9000 out of 300 million is the highest murder rate in the developed world. It's disingenous and dishonest to dismiss these crime statistics by focusing on the those who DON'T get murdered each year. We're talking about those who do. The same criteria is used to judge for all nations, 'per 100,000'. America's murders are made up 70% of gun homicides. The murder rate would be lower if there were stricter gun ownership laws in place, because the most dangerous weapons the homicidal, sociopathic and mentally ill have to committ their crimes would be outlawed and much more difficult to obtain. Yes five rocks are more than one, except we're not talking about rocks, but PEOPLE. Four extra people being killed because of these insane gun laws in place is a disaster. You're dismissing them again.

Comparing it to Alcohol and Heart disease does mean something, it indicates how much a threat it really is in a society. If I told you 10,000 people were murdered by guns last year and 600,000 people died from heart disease last year and I asked you what was the greatest threat to your society the correct answer would be heart disease. Now theoretically guns could be the greatest threat to your society but what matters isn't theory but actual.

Why do you keep deflecting? We're not talking about alcohol or heart disease here. The issues are completely different. We're talking about gun ownership laws and how the easy availability of guns leads to over 10,000 murders each year, which has left you with a murder RATE higher than every developed nation (and many undeveloped countries). Alcohol and heart disease is another debate. Dying from a heart attack of your liver being destroyed by drink has nothing to do with the 10,000 who die every year because someone pulls a trigger. Such a meaningless, deflecting comparison.

Guns do have more destructive potential overall but it also depends highly on the situation. In a range situation a firearm is your best friend but in a melee situation your firearm outside of a handgun is going to become a liability. Desire is what matters not how it is carried out, when you don't treat the desire and only treat how the desire is being carried out all your doing is treating the symptoms your not treating the cause. You will still have the same number of crimes of assault. Where did I ever say that certain demographic was less american then any other demographic? What is your point with stating 7 million legally owned guns does not mean 7 million owners? Seriously what is your point with that statement? Seeing as I have been stating there are 65 + million gun owners that own over 300 million guns would seem to indicate that I know there isn't a one to one ratio when it comes to how many gun owners and guns in general there are. Look at what? Germany's legal gun owning population has increased since 2002 as well as its Illegal gun owning population and the total number of guns in Germany has also increased since 2002 and yet gun deaths are going down. Wow that sounds an awfully lot like America, more gun owners and more guns in total and yet the total gun crime has been going down. I'm willing to bet that just like America Germany's crime figures are going down due to other factors unrelated to its tightening of its gun laws. In fact your could argue Media is one of those factors.

We treat the symptoms first of all by removing the most dangerous weapons that these people have such easy access to to fulfill their 'desires'. You keep focusing on the higher proportion of crime committed by black people in America, to justify white people carrying guns 'for their protection'. If African Americans are so disposed to criminality like you say, then the most sensible thing to do would be outlaw guns so they or other groups wouldn't be able to obtain them so easily. Yes, guns have much more destructive potential compared to other weapons as we can see every day from the stories which come from America (even on Japan Today) about shootouts and killings, stories you don't hear of in other countries, or if you do, it is an exception. You said the ratio of guns is 1 to 4 in Germany except that is untrue when the majority of people don't own guns. Increased legal and illegal shipments does not now or has ever get translated into more and more of the average German population becoming firearm owners over the years. Half the adult population in America live in households with guns. This is most definitely NOT the case in Germany. Gun ownership laws have been tightened since 2002 and the school shooting in Erfurt. The Germans do not see gun ownership as an inalienable right as Americans do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Germany would only have a ratio rate of 1 gun per 4 people if it were the case that all these guns, both legal and illegal were individually given to each German person, which they're not. These 14 million guns aren't held by 14 million people, just like 7 million don't own the 7 million legal guns. Germany's gun laws are much, much stricter than America's, the vast majority of the population does not carry guns, regardless of the number of legal and illegal guns, and that is why the gun crime rate is so incredibly low.

That is not what ratio means, nice try. Theoretically that is why gun crime is lower but that is not why actual crime itself is lower in Germany. Again culture: attitudes and beliefs are why.

Absolutely no paranoia. America has by far the largest murder rate of all developed countries (and even some 'uncivilised ones' - gasp!) This huge murder rate is down mainly to guns. America has some of the freest gun laws in the world and it's because of the easy availability of said weapons why the murder rate remains so high.

Yes it is a paranoia. Yes compared to developed countries the US has the largest murder rate but that murder rate is 4.8 out of 100,000 people, which by itself is a very low number. The primary reason for why the murder rate remains so high is because using violence is seen as an acceptable means to resolve disputes, not because of guns.

Why are you segregating the different racial groups again? All these people are still Americans, regardless of which group has the biggest propensity to carry out gun crime. 'If you take away the black and latio rate', but we DON'T take away the black and latino rate, these groups still make up the overall population! If African Americans are really so dangerous, then why not ban gun ownership? Then these nefarious minority groups you like to scapegoat wouldn't have the (same) access to these weapons with their massive destructive potential and your beloved non-crime perpetuating whites wouldn't have to carry guns to protect themselves. I'm sorry, but you still don't understand what murder rates are, you seem to think that millions getting killed every year only constitutes a high murder rate. America has BY FAR the highest murder RATE in the developed world, mainly due to guns. These are the facts you keep running away form. Every other country uses the 'per 100,000' to calculate rates too.

Of course they are all Americans, where did I say they were not? The reason why we are segregating is because it is a recognition that there are different cultures and different beliefs that exist in the US despite the fact they are all Americans. It is also a recognition that the violence in America is highly intraracial and not interracial, meaning it is a recognition that violent crime in this country is segregated along race and sex and economic Again less than 5% of homicides in the US are interracial. The reason why you don't ban ownership of guns is because your not addressing the desire to commit violence in that culture or section of America. The other reason why is because your punishing the rest of the population for something that a small part of the population is responsible for. Your efforts would be better spent trying to change the culture and beliefs then trying to ban an inanimate object. When around 6% of the population is responsible for 52% of murders and that same 6% is 45-50% of all murder victims that tells you that there is something going on in terms of culture in that group of people. I have absolutely no intention of restricting gun ownership across races, that is wrong. Gun bans are easy ways out of a situation that don't actually solve the problem and so the problems remains and grows.

I'm not running away from anything, you and me have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a high murder rate. Yes the US has the highest murder rate in the developed world however though it is 4.8 out of 100,000 people, 4.8 out of 100,000 is an incredibly small occurrence rate. If you were to tell me that 4.8 people out of 100 people were being murdered you would definitely get me agreeing that is a high murder rate. Really all other nations use a per 100k rate too? I did not know this, please tell me more!

9000 gun murders out of 300 million is still 9000, dismissing these number because the overall population is larger is tasteless. Just like the user on this site who dismissed the 42,000 who died in 2009 because they didn't have health insurance. The 9000 compared to 300 million equals a murder RATE higher than the rest of the developed world. So yes, your life is in more danger in America than Europe. Since you like to minimise the murder rate, then why carry guns for your protection in the first place? You only have a 0.000048% of being shot, remember?

Agreed it is still 9000. It maybe tasteless but it is acknowledging that the actual threat posed by guns is being completely blown out of proportion especially when you compare it to the threat of Alcohol or Heart disease. If your going to ban guns because they kill 9000 then you have to ban everything else that kills more than 9000 in the US because if you don't then you are saying those 9000 that died by a gun means more than all the other things that kill 9000 or more each year. I want you to understand something there are 182,000 fatalities in the US due to injures. Gun homicides make up only 9000 of them in the US. 31,000 people died in 2008 in the US due to poisoning, 12,000 died of suffocation, 12000 due to drunk drivers. Again the reason why I'm comparing gun deaths to alcohol, heart disease, poisoning, suffocation is because it gives you a much better understanding of the actual threat level that guns pose to the population. So my argument with those comparisons is that you are blowing the threat level by guns way out of proportion.

The number of people Yes your life is in more danger in America than in Europe but you can cut that in half by not being black and not mingling with other blacks, if you are black mingle with a different race. The reason to carry a gun on you in public is the same reason why you put your seat belt on when you get into a car, it is the same reason why they go over safety every time you fly even though flying is safer then driving it is because in case it does happen you will be prepared to deal with the situation. Not because they are paranoid or so afraid of it happening but because they recognize that it is a possibility and so choose to prepare for it if in fact it does happen.

You're definitely not someone to take seriously when it comes to discussing reducing crimes, considering you're in favour of upholding a law which keeps the murder rate so obscenely high.

Nice try. Seeing as gun crime has been falling under the current gun laws that would indicate that the current gun laws are working, especially when you factor in that the number of gun owners and total number of guns is increasing every year. As long as the total number of homicides by guns continues to drop over a period of time then you need to let the current gun laws do their work because they are working. What is keeping the murder rate "high" is a desire to use violence because of a might makes right culture not because of guns.

Moderator: Sorry, nothing new here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Readers, you are going around in circles, rehashing the same old arguments. Also, such long posts are not necessary. From here on, posts that do not cover new ground will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mods can my previous two posts at 7:41 and 7:42 be at least put back up.

Moderator: Sorry, nothing new in those posts. Please take a break and give other readers a chance to post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: "So smith based off of the fact that Alcohol kills and wounds more people are you for banning alcohol?"

Do people buy alcohol for the sake of killing others? While you're busy making a list of statistics of things that kill people OTHER than the weapon used to kill and shoot these people in Ohio, Arizona, and every other state in order to deflect from the facts, can you write them all down for us? I mean so far you've only listed smoking, driving, and alcohol.... what other things kill people so that you can excuse murder caused by guns?

"It is not lack of access because everyone in Canada that doesn't have a criminal history or mental health issue can get firearm in Canada same as the US. I agree that it is not simply the media but is the primary reason."

Quick question: What is it you see with your head so far up your behind? You clearly need to buff up on your laws and those of other nations if you want to draw comparisons (again, to deflect).

Moderator: Quick question: What gives you the right to insult another reader by asking "What is it you see with your head so far up your behind?" You can have 48 hours off to learn some manners.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Terrible, unnecessary incident--my feelings go out towards the victims and their family & friends. Will this ever stop?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Terrible, unnecessary incident--my feelings go out towards the victims and their family & friends. Will this ever stop?

Not as long as those gun laws stay in place.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

ReformedBasherFEB. 28, 2012 - 02:17PM JST

@Alphaape

Bottom line, people with mental issues will use whatever is near to strike out.

The people with mental issues are the bullies, not the bullied. Standing up for yourself is normal. Shooting is excessive but I feel more sorry for the guy getting sent to jail than any bullies he knocked off. Hope he gets out quick and gets over it once released.

Moral of the story - don't mess with people if you're not prepare to deal with the consequences.

Finally someone said it like it is. YES! I despise bullies and I'm glad I was tough MF back in Highschool. I never bullied anyone but never took crap from anyone. Bullies will be bullies, yeah.. Until the bully the WRONG kid.

I feel sorry for this kid, NOT his bullies..

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

OldHawkFEB. 29, 2012 - 02:43AM JST

@cleo

I would not like to ever have to live in the kind of world that Gurukun and OldHawk inhabit, where people feel the need to be armed just going about their everyday business. Sounds like hell.

Personally, I wouldn't mind living in Japan (without my gun), which is one of the few countries where one can have a reasonable expectation to live a violence-free life. Well, other than violence against women, who are at a physical disadvantage. But I am committed to caring for my parents as they age, so I can only visit for now.

What makes you think that all women are tiny and fragile and incapable to defend themselves? LOL!! You need to open your eyes, leave sexism behind and look around more. Plenty of women out there that would put a man like yourself under their foot, easily. Typical American chauvinist @ its finest.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites