Yes, the stats are appalling...

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide/Suicide/Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999)/6.08 (1999)/0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999)/2.65 (1997)/0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999)/5.78 (1998)/-
Scotland 0.12 (1999)/0.27 (1999)/-
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00)/0.22 (1999)/0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998)/0.04 (1995)/<0.01 (1997)
* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun
Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network

Arguments for loosening gun control so everyone has the capacity to return fire?! :shakehead: The Wild West was over with nearly 120 years ago.

Wow, what is Japan doin?

Karaoke.

Japan has a culture that puts large amounts of emphasis on honor. I'm guessing that might be part of it.

American culture puts large amounts of emphasis on Loony Toons. It makes sense.

You meant to say "guns," right?

mindless violence + enjoyment = Loony Toons

I love looney toons....

not so much in favor of guns, but i also have to question...just when did these country enact their gun control laws/etc and how many were publicly available at the time.

I'm no gun lover by any means, but i can easily see how difficult it would be for the gov't to take alllllll of the guns that are currently privately owned out of circulation. they can reasonably control the supply of new guns, but the sheer number of gun-owners right now would make it almost feasibly impossible to revoke.

as it stands right now, i can hope and hope to enact some changes that may help our grandkids, but for my lifetime, i don't see much of a change coming in this area..for better or worse

A couple of points about the data that no one has mentioned yet:

1) In the U.S. half again as many people commit or attempt suicide by gun as commit or attempt homicide. Put another way, you are more likely to kill yourself with a gun than you are to get killed by someone else. Of course, in Canada you are 5 times as likely, and in Switzerland 10 times as likely. Yes, I realize that this is only the most primitive sort of reading, but the numbers really jumped out at me as something I didn't expect.

2) Switzerland's numbers are very interesting (and Canada's as well, but less extreme) in that their rate of suicide by gun is nearly as high as ours while their rate of homicide is 1/8 of ours. That says something about culture vs. access to firearms.

3) I hate to be that guy, and I'm not saying this changes anything, but the most recent statistic shown is 7-8 years old. Just saying so no one else has to...

I'm sure that (in the U.S. at least) a more detailed breakout would be even more illuminating. I'd be willing to bet that rural vs. urban, geographic region, age, and economic strata would produce some very unbalanced numbers. I'd be curious to see how those things work out, just as a point of interest.

You're welcome. I've done too many, with another looming.

You are correct regarding violence being commited with handguns, very rarely are long guns used.

Maybe we should all be armed if anybody is.

In addition to the 3 items that Ubertuber pointed out, I'd like to add that the "unintentional" number is nearly triple the next largest one. Not only do we kill people (ourselves or others) intentionally at a much higher rate than all others on this list, but we do it unintentionally at the roughly the same rate.

Which is why a good first step would be to mandate gun safety courses in school.

So you want to bring guns...to schools...

And you don't see any potential problems with that?

His statement was not meaning I think to bring guns TO school, but to teach gun SAFETY in school, which can be done WITHOUT bringing guns to school. Personally I think it is a good idea to teach gun safety to everyone.

Deltona, that's what I thought, but I don't see how you can teach safety on a mechanical device (which is a gun in this case) without having the device there to demonstrate upon. There's also the issue that gun safety is very specific to the make, model and customizations of each gun.

Nice idea, but I don't think it's actually workable if it were even politically possible.

You can demonstrate on a gun without bullets.

I dunno, there s a difference between explaining kickback and experiencing it.

A bullet goes in a pocket a lot easier than a gun.

Sorry, this is just a bad idea.

Guns only do what the person holding them tells them to do. I am fond of saying guns dont kill people, husbands that come home early do. What happened to the students in Virginia was wrong. No gun control law in the world will stop it. People can kill with darn near anything. Special kool-aid served at lunch can kill too.

Could the officials have prevented the second happening? I sincerely doubt it. They knew that the first happening had occured but how were they to know where the gunman was? Could they have cancelled classes? Yes. What would have stopped the guy from waiting around for them to vacate the buildings and picking them off as they fled?

It is easy to point fingers and say what should have been done. What would we have done had we been the ones trying to figure this all out at the time that it happened? The hardest thing to do is accept that it has happened. Unfortunately that is what we have to do at this point. There is no bringing them back.

If they outlaw guns, perhaps the next person will kill the masses with a sword or a box cutter. Perhaps light a shipment of fertilizer with a bomb in it. Strap themselves up with a home made bomb and detonate it in a building full of children. Where there is a will there is a way. I am not saying that it is right, I am saying that is the way of things.

Feel free to toss me under the bus now.

Don't sing "My Way" by Frank Sinata at a Karaoke bar in the Philippines.

Look people, they make training guns that cannot fire bullets. But this is a moot point. I am refering to general firearms safety, not a class on how to fire guns.

If you are interested in firearms you can pursue the above knowlege, but EVERYBODY in the United States should know the proper way to act around firearms, because EVERYBODY in the United States is around them every day, whether they know it or not.

Just teach and reinforce the four basic rules of firearms safety as part of health class. You could use red guns, cardboard cut outs, or even just imagination.

It is pathetic that in a country full of firearms, people are so ignorant about them...

Like how to use a gun?
Someone is around a gun every day in the US. The idea that everyone in the US is around a gun every day is ludicrous. I myself have not been around a gun for years. I'm not around police officers often, and there are laws here about having a concealed weapon, especially a gun. You don't need to exaggerate to make your point. Yes, sometimes some people are around guns.
Assume every gun is loaded, point the gun in a safe direction, keep your finger off the trigger unless you plan to use it, be sure of your target. Guess what? Those are common sense rules. I don't see a reason to teach those things in a mandatory, state sponsored class. They don't have mandatory bomb defusing classes or swordplay, so I think gun safety should be optional. Like sowing or cooking.
It's pathetic that we live in a country full of firearms.

No, perhaps some reading comprehension classes would help you as well.
Hate to burst your bubble, but you are within 10 feet of a gun almost every time you go out in public. Be it a cop (or off duty cop), citizen with or without a carry permit, or a criminal, you are around them. But that sand is so comfortable about the ears, isn't it?
If it was such common sense we wouldn't have the number of accidental shootings we have nowadays, would we? And though there is no way to prove it, I would bet 10 to 1 that you had to Google those rules.

How many bombs or swords are you around daily? *cough*strawman*cough*

And how many people accidently sew themselves to death each year? I googled it, but I couldn't find any hard statistics.

In fact lets just go with your idea. We can shitcan sex-education, most high-school sciences, drivers-ed and whole slew of other "common sense" topics. Then we can spend the money we saved on education on important things like rainbows, sandals, and pot.
And we will continue to until you wave your magic wand and make them all go away.

*Note: Willravel is responding to this while doing homework for a Masters program*
I can always learn more, but you're language was clear.
Tell you what, come on over here tomorrow and I'll walk with you downtown with a metal detector. I happen to know that, because of conceal carry laws, and low gun crime rates in the area, I'm not likely to be around a gun unless it's on the hip of a police officer. So we can take our walk. Then we can stop off for some delicious humble pie. I know a great place, as I've been wrong before about many things.

Maybe the real question should be, why, in my 23 years on this Earth, have I never had to use a gun? I don't even think I've ever been offered the opportunity. I'll tell you I've never actively seeked to learn about or aquire a gun, but really...you're suggesting mandatory gun training for everyone. For me it would be as useless as spelling.
Do you have access to the statistics about those accidental shootings, like for example how many of those people had gun training?
How many people wear clothes? More than have guns? Booyah.
Sex education has been forced towards abstinence, so I'd agree there. Sciences are important to every day life of everyone, because we all in science. Drivers ed...do you know what percentage of Americans have drivers licenses? Compare that to how many people have guns.
There's no such thing as magic. There is such thing as common sense. It's not as common as I'd like, but it's there.

Yes, crystal clear:
Sure, I'll bite (though not the pie). Since you are being silly, and you have a metal detector handy, I'll be right over. :rolleyes:
I thought you had been shot? That seems to me to be the quintessential opportunity to use a gun.

Be careful you don't reap what you sew (sic[see below]).
No, but given the number of guns versus the number of safety courses offered it seems a matter of "common sense" that not everybody who has the potential to come into contact with a gun is properly trained to act in a safe manner around one.
They accidentaly die from wearing clothes? You have lost me here, your logic is truely daunting.
Yeah, but driving is "common sense" to me, so I say we can it.
What about all the people who aren't so prescient about gun safety, like the one who might accidently shoot you through the dorm wall wilst try to clean his pistol? Wouldn't it make sense to spend a day, just one day, in class to at least mitigate some of those incidents?

I didn't have one handy.
And what about the criminals you're teaching? What about those who use their knowledge to hurt others?
No, you're case is that because guns are so prevalent, that it should be taught. Clothes are more prevalent than guns.
Using a turn signal obviously isn't common sense to most people, as most people don't use it. Most people speed. Many people don't stop at a right light when turning right. Some people cross a double yellow line. You get the point.
It makes sense to require GUN OWNERS to go through gun safety. Not everyone. I don't like wasting my time.

Pity.
Please explain to me how a criminal can use the four basic rules of firearms safety to hurt other people.
But the number of people killed cleaning thier clothes each year is presumably quite a bit smaller than the number killed cleaning thier firearms. But I could be wrong, not having seen the statistics.
I do get the point, but who is to dictate what is common sense?

Look, you yourself have argued that allowing the public to own firearms is dangerous. I have proposed a way to make it less dangerous.

I will attempt to research the hard numbers, but would you concede that if people who have had a gun safety course are substantially less likely to be shot, then it is in the public interest to provide all people with that course?
And one day, if you choose to have children, one of them might come upon a gun in a neighbors closet. Of course not being a gun owner, it would be a waste of time if he or she actually knew what to do in such a situation.

Irony.

Please tell me you realized that was intentional, like all the times I spell grammar 'grammer'. I may not always be funny, but I try.

Not from my perspective. I could have killed him had I opened fire. I'm not ready to kill someone, be it intentionally or accidentally. And please don't tell me that gun classes could have helped to prevent that, because you yourself said that they wouldn't be firing guns.
Gun classes teach people about gun safety. Criminals are less likely to accidentally blow off their own heads because of it.
I dictate what's common sense to me.
LThey still have guns.
If they are less likely to not only hurt themselves but also others, then sure.
I have a daughter, and she knows not to touch guns and to tell an adult. That's the most important lesson of all.

So you encourage the deaths of criminals in this fashion even though it could lead to innocent deaths by accident as well. How wonderfully callous of you will!
But we are talking about public education, not willravel education. Do you consider yourself to be representative of a majority of high-schoolers?
Do you dislike guns or the problems associated with them?
I agree, but it also assumes the adult knows what to do.

I'm against creating more efficient criminals. I don't hope that they hurt themselves. I hope they don't pick up a gun.
No more than you do.
Yes.
I know not to pull the trigger. I think we can agree that's common sense.

Originally Posted by debaser
I thought you had been shot? That seems to me to be the quintessential opportunity to use a gun.
Will, since you only got hit once, consider yourself lucky. Did you ever bother to think what COULD have happened if that shooter hadn't been pressed for time and decided that a witness might be a bad thing? coming back to finish you off? What would you have done then?

This is assuming that everyone is going to be a criminal. Shall we assume the same of you?

exactly what the founding fathers didn't want.

I have never been shot- I have had family members brutally murdered, and my wife's life threatened- I will take my guns over hopefull thoughts about the goodness of mankind any day. my wife is 5'2" - she has no chance in hell against a 6'2" assailant with a bat in his hand- with her gun however, she can defend herself quite handily... I do not fear being shot in daily life, I do fear having the means to defend myself against someone bigger and stronger taken away.........

I could have died. Or William Shatner could have saved me. I prefer the second hypothetical.
This is not assuming everyone will be a criminal. This is why many people ignore you. It's blatantly clear that I meant that some of those trained would be criminals. I stole a candybar once when I was in middleschool. I returned it, though.
Again you speak on behalf of the dead? I'll tell you what, if you can locate written doctuments by any of the founding fathers about gun training in school, I'll eat my hat. Until then, this is meaningless rhetoric.

Can your wife work a taser or pepper spray?

Of course you would, because you have the same problem as most other pacifists.....'it can't happen here/to me. The problem is IF it does, what do you do? totally unprepared=dead.

And some could be marines or soldiers, cops or security officers, and god forbid, some just might be decent citizens.

your statement did NOT include schools. It simply stated that you didn't think gun safety should be mandatory. I've also shown you enough historical documentation for you to KNOW that the founding fathers felt that every man should know how to use firearms to defend liberty. I don't think you want me to repost all of that, right?

You know, I can understand calling for a few extra hoops for gun owners to jump through before they can bring their concealed weapons to school/college/ect., but otherwise, I'm really not clear on how it's so insane. Even with the numerous explanations from roachboy - "that's a batshit idea" and the equally illuminating "not worth taking seriously" - it really doesn't sound all that crazy to me to let sufficiently competent students, teachers, and staff carry handguns to school. What would-be criminal intent on murder is going to wait for the existence of those hoops anyway?

'Sufficiently competent' are key words here, to be sure, and they leave a lot of room for debate. But I think it's a hugely unwarranted cynicism that would apply those words only to a law enforcement officer and not to any civilian.

I'm not dead. That's really the point, isn't it. You're suggesting that if the person were a different person that fit into your assertion of criminality, then I would have died. Most criminals don't decide 'that a witness might be a bad thing'. Most do their thing and leave. The statistics probably agree with me, if you want to look them up.
You don't think soldiers and police officers are trained to use guns?
I'm afraid you came in late in the conversation we were having about making gun training mandatory in schools.

Also, the founding fathers bit is just further rhetoric. I'll ask you again: present me with evidence that the founding fathers wanted mandatory gun classes in schools.

See?

I remember back in late 1982/early 1983 - at my school (Western Kentucky University) we had a guest lecturer. He was G. Gordon Liddy, of Watergate fame, and now currently a right wing radio personality. I went to his lecture, and was forever changed in how I viewed the world.

Mr. Liddy opened his lecture by speaking of a scenario in which an elderly woman in a city would go and pick up her social security check at the post office and would then make her way back to her apartment. As she made her way home, she was followed by thugs who were intent on taking her check from her. As she rounded the corner to get to her apartment, the thugs came forward and made their presence known, and demanded of her that check.

Two scenarios followed, Mr. Liddy described. In one scenario, the little old lady gave over her check, thereby giving up her only means of survival for the next month. The other scenario, was more appealing.

Granny pulled out a 44 magnum and told the asswhole thugs to get the hell away, and if they didn't Granny would shoot their ass. And Granny would keep her check and would be able to pay her bills and buy groceries for another month.

Which scenario did we want to envision for the US, Mr. Liddy asked us. It was then that I began to be on Granny's side, and on the side of the second amendment of the constitution.

It is absolutely terrible that this young man killed so many at VT, and with legal handguns.

My concern is not with the second amendment, it is with the judgement of authorities who allowed him to continue to be at school when he was so obviously mentally ill. He had been considered "dangerous", by psycological counselors, and why he was allowed to continue to be enrolled at this school is a huge question to me.

Handguns are used to save lives everyday. MY sister's life was saved by a gun that her husband pulled in order to save her life. Our city has little crime, and I'll be willing to bet it's because there are a proliferation of handguns in the possession of law abiding citizens, like Granny.

I do not believe in assault weapons - they should be banned. There is no value for them other than killing humans. However, assault weapons were not used at VT - normal handguns were. And those will always remain legal.

Yes to both- She chose and bought a gun before she met me - with regard to pepper spray and tasers, I sell them in my store- Both weapons have severe limitations- especially the taser- Keep in mind that they work somewhat, and that I closely associate with several law enforcement professionals that have used both on violent subjects- Pepper spray is for when you have the ability to run away from an assailant, and It WILL NOT work like most people think it will- It is better than nothing, and a usefull tool, but I will not stake my life on it, and it is not good for a break in or home invasion situation- it works best to blind and diminish the fighting ability of a subject while several officers are helping to bear him to the ground and cuff him.... The taser works fairly well, and can incapacitate a subject, but you have ONE SHOT- and that one shot has a 15 foot range... that can be made to work indoors, but it is too iffy for my tastes. also, a heavy, stadium style coat can and will stop the probes on a taser from getting a good contact- causing the weapon to do nothing..... the taser has a contact on the gun, but this only works when applied directly to someone ( I know, we tested one in the store on ME ) and that means closing to hand to hand range and holding the weapon to a struggling assailant.... Tasers have transformed police work and give officers another less lethal option, but bear in mind that police believe in overwhelming force tactics, and there will almost always be SEVERAL of them there when someone is tased, to help control the subject afterwards..... Finally, note that tasers have a limited battery, and WILL NOT imobilize a subject for even as long as it would take for the most optimistic police response to arrive.... In closing it should be remembered that cops use pepper spray and tasers as part of a force continium- they always have a gun handy and are taught to ALWAYS use it if their life is threatened... understand, I carry pepper spray regularly, and if someone with a knife tried to mug me in an alley I would gladly spray them and run away- but if someone kicks in my door, I want the ability to defend myself, with something that will work with permanent certainty......and while I love my sword collection, firearms are simply the best option out there to keep my family safe........