world

Police kill gunman shooting at cars in Hollywood

45 Comments

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

© 2011 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments
Login to comment

Ah, the daily US shootings report, just as said yesterday by many posters, and denied by those in... well... denial.

I hope no one else was hurt in this incident.

“We don’t know why” the gunman opened fire,

Well, one reason is that he had a gun. It's not a motivation, of course, but it's a reason he could do it.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Ah, the daily US shootings report, just as said yesterday by many posters, and denied by those in... well... denial.

People are murdered every single day in every single country by a variety of means, what makes dying by a gun so special?

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

People are murdered every single day in every single country by a variety of means, what makes dying by a gun so special?

for this particular incident, maybe it almost feels like it was a movie-shoot? walking around shooting during broad daylight and near high traffic tourist areas - Grauman’s Chinese Theatre and the Walk of Fame.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The shooter's methodology was creative and I predict this will almost certainly spawn lots of copycats, perhaps even some armed with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"what makes dying by a gun so special?" Because it's easier to kill multiple people with a gun. You could with a knife too but it's a lot harder.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Noliving: "People are murdered every single day in every single country by a variety of means, what makes dying by a gun so special?"

You think this guy could have achieved the same thing with a cart full of bananas? Heck, even with a few knives he couldn't have done what he did. The point is that this is yet ANOTHER story of a nut with a gun coming out of the US, with the last story being yesterday where a man killed a police officer at the site of the single worst gun massacre in US history (non-war, anyway). It's not 'special' to die by a gun at all -- the point is that a heck of a lot more people die that wouldn't otherwise if there were actual gun control in the US. But, nope. At least in this case no one but the shooter appears to have been killed (one injured).

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"The gunman screamed "kill me, I'm gonna die. As the police officer shot him dead"!

hahahaha, that's right buddy!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wow, the mrs & I visited LA a month ago & of course we spent some time in Hollywood, pretty nutso that this kind of thing happens. On that black friday sale day they have in the US I read somewhere a record number of handguns were sold in a single day, something like 100,000+ guns sold in a single day! And that it was likely much higher because some likely purchased multiple firearms, I think the number was based on background check applications, thats some seriously scary S&^T!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Numbers. California, with 37 million people, has around 1200 gun murders per year. Britain, with 62 million people, has around 700 murders (by any method) per year. In 2007, there were 51 gun related deaths in the entire country, a figure that includes accidents and suicides. In 2009, there were 42.

Completely irrelevant to most in the States. California is home to millions of people who are not even American citizens. We all know it but you can't talk about it. It has gone from being the Golden State to being a basket case.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

smithinjapan

The point is that this is yet ANOTHER story of a nut with a gun coming out of the US, with the last story being yesterday where a man killed a police officer at the site of the single worst gun massacre in US history (non-war, anyway).

So don't visit Virginia or California, amigo. Or vote for Hope and Change (and the federal gubmint taking away your guns and leaving your personal protection to the cops), if you think you can.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

if every passer-by would have carrier a machine gun, it would have been so easy to gun down this guy. more weapons to the brave American citizens!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Half of gun deaths in U.S. are suicides.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You think this guy could have achieved the same thing with a cart full of bananas? Heck, even with a few knives he couldn't have done what he did. The point is that this is yet ANOTHER story of a nut with a gun coming out of the US, with the last story being yesterday where a man killed a police officer at the site of the single worst gun massacre in US history (non-war, anyway). It's not 'special' to die by a gun at all -- the point is that a heck of a lot more people die that wouldn't otherwise if there were actual gun control in the US. But, nope. At least in this case no one but the shooter appears to have been killed (one injured).

Yes actually he could have, be on the freeway traveling at around 70 mph with suv's tailgating you along the way, suddenly the bed of your truck opens with hundreds if not thousands of bananas falling out causing the cars behind you to swerve which then causes a multi-car pileup. Yes it is in fact very possible. Your point is essentially worthless because you could say it is another nut coming out of whatever country with any type of object like a knife. There is meaningful gun control in the US, you can't buy a gun if you have a criminal or mental history, it is illegal to be a straw-buyer, it is illegal to point and or shoot a gun in public unless it is self defense and hundreds more laws on that. The current gun laws in the US are so successful that for the past 15+ years gun violence whether it be assault, homicide or suicide have been falling not just by per-capita levels but grand totals even though the US adds 4.5 million guns per year. That would suggest that the current gun laws are working. Why is it smith that you are incapable to acknowledge the fact in the US gun violence is on the way down in the US and has been for the past 15+ years.

You know why no one killed, besides the shooter, in this case? Because the shooter didn't actually want to kill anyone but himself, this was clearly a suicide by cop by the fact that he went to the police screaming at them to kill him. This is why people say guns don't kill but that it is people that kill. Because if a person doesn't have a killing desire it doesn't matter what tool they use because chances are they are not going to kill anyone.

Wipeout: That is the point, Ideology or culture, its not guns, knives, clubs, flamethrowers, homemade bombs, etc. its culture that determines the level of violence in a society. For example during the early 20th century before world war 1, London had a higher population density then Chicago and both countries at the time had very similar restrictions on firearms, meaning they practically had none, London across the board had less violence and less homicides then Chicago. Why is that? Culture. Americans have a culture that pretty much says if you have been wronged it is ok to respond with force, that means that even if you take away the guns they are still more likely to assault you then say a European or a Japanese person would. Europe has historically always had less violent crime then the US even when Europe had similar restrictions to firearms.

Here is something to think about. Overall Japan has higher population densities then say UK, why does Japan then not only have less violence but also less non violent crime as well compared to the UK? The answer is culture is it not? Its not because of gun laws or laws on knives but because of culture. Here is another example for you, Japan's suicide rate is higher than the US combined homicide and suicide rate in the US, meaning that a person is more likely to die in Japan then they are in the US. Why does Japan have a such a high suicide rate? Is it because the culture of Japan is more likely to view suicide as an honorable way to die then the US does?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Better, timeon, to mount weapons on the cars themselves. Unreconstructed and his ilk point at the Mad Max future that is the logical conclusion of their "right" to bear arms argument.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

That's quite the damning condemnation of your own culture there, Noliving.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Unreconstructed and his ilk point at the Mad Max future that is the logical conclusion of their "right" to bear arms argument.

Oh yes. Failure to implement at once the Left's ideas on gun control can only lead us to a kind of Mad Max dystopia, in the same way that progressives' so-called solutions on climate change, health care, taxes and 'economic justice' are the only thing between us and Armageddon, Granny-being-tossed-from-a-cliff-by-Paul Ryan-himself, virtual slavery for children because of repeal of child labor laws and a return to actual slavery for all African Americans, Whoopi Goldberg included. Seriously, does the melodrama never stop with you people?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Thanks for the smorgasbord, unreconstructed. Climate change: costs due to extreme weather record-breaking and promise to continue as such. Health care: costs soaring, the number covered plummeting. Taxes and "economic justice": the richest 1% have seen their income rise 250% over the last decade while that of the rest has been stagnant. Gun violence: the statistics themselves don't come close to describing how fear of guns has warped American society.

Melodrama? Nah - look for examples in any daily paper.

For melodrama, you'd have to look at the American right-wing and their belief that the foreign-born Obama will usher in a socialist, atheist, Islamic future for the US. Proof? - Melodrama doesn't need no stinkin' proof!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna you basically just repeat yourself. Fear of guns has warped us! Extreme weather is getting more extreme! Da evil rich more than doubled their money! - imagine that, in an era when 20-somethings were flipping houses and to pay off five and six figure debt on loans for worthless degrees in poli sci or lit.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Because it's easier to kill multiple people with a gun. You could with a knife too but it's a lot harder.

Or you could get a truck, run people down, get out and then start stabbing... Um... where have I heard that before...??

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That's quite the damning condemnation of your own culture there, Noliving.

What did you expect? Did you honestly think I was going to be in denial like Smithinjapan and blame cultural problems on inanimate objects? People who blame firearms for violence in society are taking the easy way out, they don't want to admit that the real problem is societies attitudes towards force/violence and when it is acceptable to use force/violence. Gun violence is nothing but a symptom of societies attitudes on when to use force, it is not the cause. Putting a gun in someone's hand does not cause or give them the desire to go out and hurt people. Here is another example of how gun violence is a symptom and not a cause, in Detroit 60-70% of the homicides there are related to the illegal drug trade, in fact most gun violence that is homicide is related to the drug trade in the US. That means that criminal gun violence is a symptom of our societies attitudes towards recreational drug use, meaning that if we change our attitudes towards the recreational use of pot, for example, and made it legal we would dramatically reduce gun violence in this country more so then any gun law ever would. To further build off of that point, look at the gun violence and just violence in generally in Mexico right now, the majority of that violence is based off of USA's attitudes towards recreational drug use, meaning that gun violence is a symptom of cultural attitudes in the US and Mexico.

Smithinjapan and all the others that blame societies ills regarding violence on guns and the "easy" availability of them are making the same argument that Muslim men make about the hijab and veil and that is if a woman doesn't dress "modestly" she will be harassed, or in other words because your not wearing an inanimate object automatically means that men can't control themselves and therefore will harass you. Total BS, the reason why Muslim women that don't wear a hijab or a veil is harassed is because the culture or society has said that if they don't they need to be harassed, they don't question and say hey wait a minute maybe we need to change our views and attitudes and say just because a woman shows some skin doesn't mean we can't treat her with respect but no they take the easy way out and say its because she is not wearing an inanimate object.

So what is the good news in all of this? That Americans are learning that force isn't always necessary to resolve a dispute. Violence and petty crime is down across the board in the US even with a poor economy and with 4.5+ million guns being added each year, why? Because societies attitudes towards force/violence and resolving disputes is changing. US attitudes towards the recreational use of pot are changing and hopefully within a decade or so we will see it legalized.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sorry Noliving, you had to mention MEXICO and here I am to refute you and all of the other NRA lovers here and all over the internet. The USA is in a very bad situation, too many DRUGS and then on top of that TOO MANY GUNS, people who are pissed off and want to vent anger in regular countries, say in the UK etc..get drunk and get into a fist fight, right?? But not in the good old USA, you are having a crappy time at work, your wife does not put out to you but she does to your best amigo, etc..so what is a good old red blooded American to do?? Go to BIG 5, by yourself an M 16 and shoot up everybody at your wife's or girlfriend's place of work, I think since we had so many idiotic incidents of this sort of violence in the US Post Office, it is called going POSTAL but now it is happening almost anywhere and any time so maybe we should called it something new?? Going NRA??

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It would be nice if the USA was like them movies, Dirty Harry, where just the good guy gets to shoot the bad guys, but thanks to the NRA, America is awash in guns, and ANY BOZO can get a gun and wow, SURPRISE, the USA has violence levels not far from South Africa or Colombia, sure not yet Mexico, but give it a few more months.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

By the way, all of these guns are ILLEGAL down in Mexico, but thanks to all of the drugs that are sold in the USA, well the Mexican mafias need to do their job, with lots and lots of MADE IN THE USA guns, bullets, etc..right??

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Shooting incidents will never end in the US, because everyone easily gets guns even crazy people have ones.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Leave them to it. One day... they'll be millions of guns but no Americans.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Sorry Noliving, you had to mention MEXICO and here I am to refute you and all of the other NRA lovers here and all over the internet. The USA is in a very bad situation, too many DRUGS and then on top of that TOO MANY GUNS, people who are pissed off and want to vent anger in regular countries, say in the UK etc..get drunk and get into a fist fight, right?? But not in the good old USA, you are having a crappy time at work, your wife does not put out to you but she does to your best amigo, etc..so what is a good old red blooded American to do?? Go to BIG 5, by yourself an M 16 and shoot up everybody at your wife's or girlfriend's place of work, I think since we had so many idiotic incidents of this sort of violence in the US Post Office, it is called going POSTAL but now it is happening almost anywhere and any time so maybe we should called it something new?? Going NRA?

Um you didn't refute anything I said at all. All you did was just rant that there is to many drugs and guns and then went off on a tangent talking about drunken fights and how british people use fists yet you ignore the fact that America doesn't have anywhere near the same drinking culture and at the sametime since public drunkeness is looked down upon a lot more so in the US then it is in the UK drunken fights don't really happen as you seem to imply. Over 99.999% of gun owners that are mad at their significant other don't shoot them nor do they shoot up their workplace. As for going postal, well the US postal service has a homicide rate of 0.26 per 100,000 people, so no it doesn't happen as often as you think it does. You need to stop watching US media television. I'm sorry but the statistics don't support your view that red blooded Americans grab guns and start shooting people, in fact the statistics show that more than 99% of red blooded Americans don't murder anyone.

Again like I said before, if the US would legalize recreational use of drugs and end the drug war, what would happen to the gun crime in Mexico? If this would have been done several years ago gun crime would have gone way down. Do you honestly believe that if pot is legalized in the US for recreational use that it wouldn't make a significant dent in the cartels drug smuggling operations, that it wouldn't make a dent in the amount of violence going on over drug trading/smuggling routes in Mexico? Again Mexico's gun violence is a symptom of US drug policies, its not caused by guns because if you got rid of the guns but leave US drug policy in take guess what happens? The violence remains because they are still fighting for control of the smuggling routes.

I understand your very emotional on this subject but the figures show that America's crime violent crime rate has been dropping for at least a decade, I'm sorry to say for the point your trying to make but no the US crime rates are not going to reach the level of Mexico's.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@tmarie "you could get a truck, run people down," That's true but we need trucks in everyday lives, even in cities, we don't need guns.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@tmarie "you could get a truck, run people down," That's true but we need trucks in everyday lives, even in cities, we don't need guns.

That is false, private ownership of vehicles is not necessary you only need public transportation. If you ban private ownership and then take the money people pay for gas, maintenance, insurance, after market parts and the cost of the car itself and put that into a tax that is used to further expand and maintain the current public transportation you wouldn't need private ownership. You could argue that you would need guns in the event that someone attacks you would want something that is effective in melee and at range to defend yourself with so it may not be something you use in your everyday lives but that doesn't mean you don't need it. For example fire extinguishers, that is not something you use in your everyday life but it is something you need to have at your house.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Nolving, whatever dude, it makes absolutely no sense. If you support gun rights that much, you should go live in Texas if not already. I'm sure you will find millions of like minded people over there. Yes, you could argue that we need guns in some cases, that's why cops carry guns. I have no idea wth you are trying to say with your first 2 sentences. If you want to keep arguing for the sake of argument, go ahead. Obviously this is a topic that you have a strong interest in and I simply don't care that much, since it's not a big problem in Japan like it is in America, and I have a life outside of JT.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Noliving,

"London across the board had less violence and less homicides then Chicago. Why is that? Culture. Americans have a culture that pretty much says if you have been wronged it is ok to respond with force . . . "

So, even acknowledging that Americans have a propensity for violence, you would argue in favor of making sure everyone had unfettered access to one of the most efficent ways of meting out that violence?

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You are correct in that murder rates in the U.S. have been dropping steadily from all-time-highs in the 1970s to levels not seen since the 1960s, the fact still remains to support your position with crime stats that do indeed show a drop in murder rates, suggesting perhaps a kinder and gentler America, that same FBI stats that track murder rates also show that violent crime rates have not fallen nearly as fast. In 160, the violent crime rate was 160.9, and maxed out at 758.2 in 1991 in what must have been a terrifying year to be an American, despite the ready availability of guns, and had dropped down to a rate of 429.4 in 2009, a rate still more than double that in the 1960s.

I wouldn't count on Americans soon shedding their propensity to hurt their neighbors just yet.

Meanwhile, on average, some 9,400 Americans have been murdered every year for the past decade, and that number actually spiked past the 10,000 mark for three years continuously from 2005 to 2007. And we're just talking about illegal killings, and not accidental or justifiable homicide.

These murders represent more than half of all types of murders committed in the U.S., -- that includes stabbing, choking, poisoning, blugeoning, pushing out a window, striking with a car, et cetera.

While many gun proponents tend to lean heavily on the, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" argument, the data shows very clearly that guns are by far the preferred method for murdering someone, overtaking *all other methods of killing by a factor of more than 2 to 1. The 10,225 gun murders in 2006 represented more than 60% of all murders committed. That' s nearly two-thirds.

Gun may not kill people, but people who want to see a life snuffed out know perfectly well that guns are by far the best way to do so, as amply demonstrated by this nutter in Hollywood who committed suicide by cop.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If you ban guns and take the $4.7 billion saved in estimated direct costs (medical care, mental health, emergency transport, police, criminal justice and lost taxes) associated with gun-related murders, along with the additional $20 to $100 billion saved in insurance payouts and use that to expand education and employment opportunities, two factors that study after study after study have linked directly to the very violent crime rates that provoke some Americans to believe they need guns to protect themselves, then you wouldn't need private ownership.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Readers, please stay on topic and refrain from posting analogies about trucks, fire extinguishers, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know it is not fair to compare say Tokyo and Los Angeles, 2 different worlds, 2 different realities. Here in Tokyo we do not have Bloods,Crips etc..scaring us into buying Uzis etc..to protect our families but say that if in the USA, or at least California, they did try to get tough on guns, tough on drugs, tough on these crazy criminals and really dish out the death penalty to those animals already behind bars, like they do over in CHINA, then maybe just maybe, the state could turn its pattern of violence around. Now, most of these homeboys/gangsters get a slap on the wrist, get thrown in juvenile hall, get WORSE, because they are getting mixed with older, more hard core prisoners and instead of turning this cycle of violence around, what do we get?? We get worse and worse criminals that only make the USA a scarier place to live in and WOW, the NRA comes to the rescue?? You are scared, ok, come to my gun shop, we will show them bad guys that if you have your UZI, your M 16, your RPG, boy those criminals will really respect you just like they respected and feared DIRTY HARRY! Yup! Make my day!! Punk! But at the same time, these gun shop owners are giving dirt cheap deals to CRIMINALS that use disposable guns to go and steal etc..and who keeps making all of this blood $$$$$?? The NRA and all of the gun/bullet makers in the USA and beyond

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@LFRAgain, very good comments! About guns do not kill people only people kill people, this ludicrous argument made by the supporters of the NRA will shout this out at the top of their lungs night and day, guns don't kill no one, heck if you get creative you can kill somebody with anything like on that movie in the God Father where one guy goes up and has a secret and stabs another mafiosi in his ear with a pen and kills him, we should just ban PENS! LOL! Just for the sake of argument against the NRA lovers and their so called love of GUNS, if a gun, a machine gun etc..could not help you in a WAR, say like now in Iraq, Afghanistan etc..would the US government send our men and women in uniform with PENS?? Instead of arming them to the teeth with M 16, M 60s etc...??Heck not even Al Qaeda is stupid to believe that guns do not kill, they know guns kill this is why they train their terrorists over in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia etc..to kill and to kill MANY MANY people with machine guns, kind of like in them movies RAMBO?? Rambo gets angryf at the Russians, pulls out his arrows etc..but in the end finishes off the Soviet empire with a nice old M 16?? But alas, those are just movies, like Dirty Harry etc..real world, your enemies are also armed to the teeth, and none to shy to blow you up to pieces, just look at the mess south of the border in Mexico, the Mexican police, Mexican Army our OUT GUNNED by all of these real nice shiny, brand news weapons being smuggled from the USA into the hot little hands of every other crack pot evil drug cartel from Mexico down to Colombia.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@tmarie "you could get a truck, run people down," That's true but we need trucks in everyday lives, even in cities, we don't need guns. have never owned a vehicle in my life and right now, Japan is considering relaxing the gun laws because some are claiming they need them - to deal with the wild animals who are ripping up gardens and the like. I hope you'll be writing your to local government to protest any discussion on this. Japan is bad enough with knife crimes, I can't image how many losers would go out and shoot people if they got their paws on one.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why does the article omit that the crazed gunman was shrieking 'Allahu Akbar' ?

4 min YouTube vid with witness (2:43).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This guy obviously wanted suicide by police retalition. As for the people complaining about gun rights and making them harder to get... well hate to break the news to you but the yaks have guns, the triad have guns, the mafia have guns, even the drug cartels have guns and not all of them are from the US. They get them... pause for effect... ILLEGALLY! Every criminal organization dabbles with smuggling of anything that is not legal in their country and getting those items to people that want them by any means neccessary. I was shocked to find out even the yaks that should only have their organization running smuggling in Japan were actually working with other criminal groups and even having cells in the US. How does Japan get meth, guns, and gasp uncensored porn when its illegal? Criminals want things they can't get legally, and there are not enough breaks in the world to stop them until people can start reading minds. Even if the US were to utterly ban guns, people would STILL be getting them due to smugglers and criminals doing what they do best, breaking laws.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The new video with the guy on a 4th-floor office trying to distract the gunman till the police showed up was............ interesting...............

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why does the article omit that the crazed gunman was shrieking 'Allahu Akbar' ?

Because that would make use anti-muslim, of course!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have no idea wth you are trying to say with your first 2 sentences.

Ok the argument that you made Hide was that private ownership of vehicles is necessary, as a result that justifies the 40K+ deaths on US highways. My point that I was making was that in fact private ownership of vehicles is in fact not necessary, if you have lived in the urban areas of Japan or France or UK or Germany or South Korea you would know that the public transportation is effective enough that you don't need a car to get around the country.

So, even acknowledging that Americans have a propensity for violence, you would argue in favor of making sure everyone had unfettered access to one of the most efficent ways of meting out that violence?

It isn't unfettered, you have to pass background checks. What I'm arguing is that the current restrictions in place are effective enough, violent crime rates have been falling for the past 15 years+, not just in per capitas but grand totals as well and that is even more impressive when you factor in that the US population has expanded 56 million people since 1991, there is no real need to apply new restrictions. Since Americans have a propensity to using force when they feel wronged, compared to other nations, then you want an effective tool or weapon to defend yourself with.

As for stating it makes no sense whatsoever, no it does make sense if you look at it from the perspective that you need to change cultural attitudes on how and when to use force. As long as you are making an active effort to change the cultural attitude about when to use force and as long as that policy is working you can keep firearms legal. In Japan guns are so heavily restricted they are pretty much illegal, yet with such heavy restrictions more people die by suicide in Japan then Americans that are murdered and by suicide. In other words more Japanese die by Suicide then the combined homicide and suicides of Americans.

suggesting perhaps a kinder and gentler America, that same FBI stats that track murder rates also show that violent crime rates have not fallen nearly as fast.

Perhaps? It is a fact at least compared to 91. Its not nearly as fast but its not far behind either, in 91 murder rate was around 9.8 per 100k, today its around 4.8 or rounding down here 51% reduction in murder rate. For violent crime in general it was 758.2 in 91 now it is 403.6 per 100k, rounding down that is a 46% reduction in violent crime in general. To help put that in perspective 56 million people were added to the US population and the number of firearms added since 91 is around 50-100 million. So is it as low as 1960's? No but all indications is that it will eventually and the total number of guns will only increase. So what is the primary driving force? The answer is culture.

I wouldn't count on Americans soon shedding their propensity to hurt their neighbors just yet.

I disagree, your arguing with a 15 to 20 year trend in which population has increased by 18-19% and the total number of firearms has increased by around 25% with a reduction of crime in general close 46%. Which shows that Americans are in fact shedding their propensity to harm people when they feel wronged. They have they completely shed it? No but they are getting there.

While many gun proponents tend to lean heavily on the, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" argument, the data shows very clearly that guns are by far the preferred method for murdering someone, overtaking *all other methods of killing by a factor of more than 2 to 1. The 10,225 gun murders in 2006 represented more than 60% of all murders committed. That' s nearly two-thirds.Gun may not kill people, but people who want to see a life snuffed out know perfectly well that guns are by far the best way to do so, as amply demonstrated by this nutter in Hollywood who committed suicide by cop.

Agreed, the problem though is that banning firearms or making it more difficult to get a firearm is not going to take away their desire to kill, as a result any gun law will be entirely useless if you don't take away their desire to harm someone. Again look at Japan's suicide rates, perfect example that you can restrict weapons and drugs but as long as there desire and cultural attitudes regarding suicide remains the laws are entirely worthless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The most violent aggressive country in the world....is the USA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The most violent aggressive country in the world....is the USA.

Still Somalia, but the US is catching up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you ban guns and take the $4.7 billion saved in estimated direct costs (medical care, mental health, emergency transport, police, criminal justice and lost taxes) associated with gun-related murders, along with the additional $20 to $100 billion saved in insurance payouts and use that to expand education and employment opportunities, two factors that study after study after study have linked directly to the very violent crime rates that provoke some Americans to believe they need guns to protect themselves, then you wouldn't need private ownership.

You do realize that I wasn't advocating the banning of private ownership of cars. I was just pointing that the argument that says cars are necessary and guns are not, as a result justifies the deaths and injuries caused by cars, which are greater than the deaths and injuries by guns, isn't true you don't actually need private ownership of cars. In fact you don't need private ownership of anything, commie alert just went off hehe. If the argument is about saving peoples lives and financial costs associated with it then banning guns doesn't make sense when private ownership of cars which is not necessary kills, wounds, and cost more money then guns. Heck the unhealthy lifestyle regarding diet and exercise is the biggest public threat in the US in terms of death and financial costs. Half a million people alone each year die from heart attacks in the US.

Theoretically that is true about economy and crime, however though for some reason crime increased during the roaring 20's but then decreased during the great recession of the 30's. The same was true during the 50's and 60's expanding economy and violent crime increased and yet the recession that stuck in 2008 and the economic stagnation for the past 3 years has shown that crime rates are falling. You could also instead just change cultural attitudes regarding crime when you are poor, Japan is a perfect example that you don't commit crime when you are poor and don't have a college degree. You could also change cultural attitudes that people should take more of an active interest in supporting people that are down on their luck like volunteering and donating supplies.

A case could be made that you would need private ownership of firearms in case the population ever needs to revolt against the state, as is the case in Libya, Syria. Of course the counter-argument is made that no armed population could ever defeat a state military to which I say what about Iraq and Afghanistan? You will always need something to defend yourself no matter how low the crime rate is. The other problem though is this, if you ban firearms you now have made 65+ million people criminals, and I can tell you that you are not going to get a very high rate of people voluntarily handing their firearms in, meaning that instead it will cost more to ban and confiscate firearms then it will to keep firearms legal because your not going to get 65+ million people in jail over the simple crime of possession and if you did can you imagine the court costs involved to just try them? Then you factor in how much money it would require just to maintain the prison system and then finally your taking out around 20% of the US workforce and putting them in jails that would devastate the US economy.

Keep this in mind, the majority of homicides in the US are related to the drug war, for example 60-70% of homicides in the city of Detroit are related to gangs fighting over the drug trade. The majority of homicides in Mexico are related to drug smuggling, meaning they are related to the drug war. What this means is that the primary motive for violent crime in the US is drugs, meaning if the US would legalize the recreational use of Pot, and go back to the policy the US had in 1919-1922 for harder drugs such as cocaine and heroine, and that is government sponsored clinics that handed out free drugs to the addicted. In fact the UN has even stated that the primary cause for corruption and crime in the Americas is the US drug war. So the point that I'm getting at is this, ending the drug war will have more impact on violent crime in the US then any gun law ever will and part of the reason for that is that there are 10k murders for the 65+ million gun owners. That means that 99.999985% of gun owners don't commit a murder, excluding suicide here, with there guns and if you include suicides and injuries then its 285k, which is less than a tenth of one percent of the US population is harmed by a gun each year, for 65+ million gun owners which means that 99.995% of gun owners don't harm a single person each year. So even if they don't need one there still being very responsible with there guns, the same is true with cars and alcohol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain, Here is an article you might want to read on economy and crime rates:

www.freakonomics.com/2011/06/08/freakonomics-quorum-why-during-a-bad-economy-does-crime-continue-to-fall/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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