US: "Far more gun-related killings than ANY other developed country"

www.washingtonpost.com...

The United States has by far the highest per capita rate of all developed countries. According to data compiled by the United Nations, the United States has four times as many gun-related homicides per capita as do Turkey and Switzerland, which are tied for third. The U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times the average for all other countries on this chart. That means that Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country.

What is it engrained in American society that presently illicits and continues to illicit the most gun-related killings/rate by far, in the whole world?

Is this a consistent parallel - between civilian individual & military government alike - of routine destructiveness toward humanity, and if so, to what end?

Americans clearly love killing each other. Much more than in other countries. They will use what they can get their hands on to do so.

It's more than stupid to focus on "gun" murder.

From the Harvard Journal of Public Policy: Would Banning Guns Reduce Murder and Suicide?

Please read through all 46 pages.

In case you wont the short answer is no.

I wonder if these folks who drag out "gun" deaths would be happier if the same numbers applied to non-gun deaths?

Is one better than the other?

Though the method may change the numbers wont. What's more important to you? Changing the method or reducing the numbers? Dont say changing the method will reduce the numbers because the evidence simply does not support that.

Gee... how interesting. I downloaded UN collected data from this source and it clearly shows that the U.S. ranks 28th in gun-related homicides per 100,000 population. Why let facts get in the way of an agenda I guess, huh?

reply to post by minnow


Yes but what about undeveloped countries? This is BS to put it plainly, because I am sure there are third world countries that have higher instances of gun related deaths especially right in Iraq Iran and Syria.
And they're unarmed citizens being killed by rebels and by their own government. This is such a stupid article, we also have the highest population.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by minnow

 

Yes but what about undeveloped countries? This is BS to put it plainly, because I am sure there are third world countries that have higher instances of gun related deaths especially right in Iraq Iran and Syria.
And they're unarmed citizens being killed by rebels and by their own government. This is such a stupid article, we also have the highest population.

edit on 2-1-2013 by ldyserenity because: add

The US isn't an undeveloped country, so it doesn't matter. You want to be compared to undeveloped countries?

It's not a stupid article, and your attitude is part of the problem, you refuse to accept the facts. Population is irrelevant because it's per capita (You don't have the highest population anyway).

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


It's funny how you people can't even explain how someone would be able to perform a mass shooting without a gun. Would you rather see a psychopath in a public place armed with a gun or with knives/sticks/clubs/pool cues..

Originally posted by jtma508
Gee... how interesting. I downloaded UN collected data from this source and it clearly shows that the U.S. ranks 28th in gun-related homicides per 100,000 population. Why let facts get in the way of an agenda I guess, huh?

Look at the countries above the US, is that something to be proud of? It shows how big the problem is. That ranking isn't even accurate, some of the countries above the US have no population listed and very few homicides.

reply to post by jtma508


"developed country"
Not the same list... but if you're proud to be on par with sierra leone and the gaza strip, then good for you.

Originally posted by Cocasinpry

It's funny how you people can't even explain how someone would be able to perform a mass shooting without a gun. Would you rather see a psychopath in a public place armed with a gun or with knives/sticks/clubs/pool cues..

So what's the concern here? Is it overall murder numbers or anomalous events such as mass killings?

They are two very different things and neither has anything to do with the other.

Looks to me like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too by taking a relatively regular occurrence (though still extremely rare) such as murder and tying it to a freakishly rare occurrence, in this case mass killings, in an attempt to portray the mass killings are far more common than they are.

The real shame of it is that even if successful the murder rate will still not change.

So though thousands will continue to die every year you might not see a dozen or more dying at once. And to you that would be a good thing? A rousing win?

In case you missed it the Bath school disaster was done with explosives. OKC federal building was taken out with fertilizer. The Twin Towers fell to fire.

All over the country there are construction yards with unwatched storage and hardware stores stocking tones of explosive components.

A favorite for a long time has been simply fire.

You think a nut with a knife cant take a schoolroom hostage long enough to toss in a pipe bomb or spray out a five gallon gas tank and light a match?

Something tells me 20 kids burned to death would be preferable to 20 kids shot to death to some of these anti-gun zealots.

Originally posted by Cocasinpry
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

It's funny how you people can't even explain how someone would be able to perform a mass shooting without a gun. Would you rather see a psychopath in a public place armed with a gun or with knives/sticks/clubs/pool cues..

Mass killings can be done without guns. It's not rocket science. It's already been done before.

Lovely company you keep there...
Sierra Leone 2.28
West Bank & Gaza 2.95
United States 2.97
Barbados 2.99


I much prefer...
Australia 0.14

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Cocasinpry

It's funny how you people can't even explain how someone would be able to perform a mass shooting without a gun. Would you rather see a psychopath in a public place armed with a gun or with knives/sticks/clubs/pool cues..

So what's the concern here? Is it overall murder numbers or anomalous events such as mass killings?

They are two very different things and neither has anything to do with the other.

Looks to me like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too by taking a relatively regular occurrence (though still extremely rare) such as murder and tying it to a freakishly rare occurrence, in this case mass killings, in an attempt to portray the mass killings are far more common than they are.

The real shame of it is that even if successful the murder rate will still not change.

So though thousands will continue to die every year you might not see a dozen or more dying at once. And to you that would be a good thing? A rousing win?

Of course the murder rate would change, much like taking all screwdrivers away would greatly reduce the amount of screws being screwed. It's a convenient tool that also plays a part in the motivation and persuasion to commit the crime. The problem is the US has been blind to this for so long and went over the top with guns to the point where it's almost the same as the population, so the solution is near impossible to implement.

Originally posted by Junkheap

Originally posted by Cocasinpry
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

It's funny how you people can't even explain how someone would be able to perform a mass shooting without a gun. Would you rather see a psychopath in a public place armed with a gun or with knives/sticks/clubs/pool cues..

Mass killings can be done without guns. It's not rocket science. It's already been done before.

Yep one just needs to refer to 9-11 to see this, not one of those deaths were by gun unless you count Osama's death. Oh and how about the one there in OK? A cross bow can be re-loaded and kill just as fast as a gun....what next take them too?


How do you think disarming the public would make these things stop OP?

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Originally posted by Junkheap

Originally posted by Cocasinpry
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

It's funny how you people can't even explain how someone would be able to perform a mass shooting without a gun. Would you rather see a psychopath in a public place armed with a gun or with knives/sticks/clubs/pool cues..

Mass killings can be done without guns. It's not rocket science. It's already been done before.

Yep one just needs to refer to 9-11 to see this, not one of those deaths were by gun unless you count Osama's death. Oh and how about the one there in OK? A cross bow can be re-loaded and kill just as fast as a gun....what next take them too?


How do you think disarming the public would make these things stop OP?

Really? You're counting foreign terrorist attacks in to a national gun control debate?

Originally posted by SpearMint
Of course the murder rate would change, much like taking all screwdrivers away would greatly reduce the amount of screws being screwed. It's a convenient tool that also plays a part in the motivation and persuasion to commit the crime. The problem is the US has been blind to this for so long and went over the top with guns to the point where it's almost the same as the population, so the solution is near impossible to implement.

No, it wouldnt. Please read the Harvard study. Murder rates have nothing at all to do with tool availability.

Please stop basing positions on what you "think" and how you "feel". Empirical evidence trumps feelings every time.

When you check these statistics you soon realise that the gun crime is being carried out by criminals (go figure that, :lol we know for a fact that these criminals will never hand thier guns in!

Anyone who believes forcing "law abiding citizens" to hand in thier guns to reduce "criminal behaviour" must be a little backwards ....

reply to post by ldyserenity


You can shoot 1000 bolts per minute with a crossbow? lol.. sure.
And bombs? Sure.. but those already exist. I'm pretty sure the reason more of these psychopaths don't use them is because they aren't sold at every corner store like all your guns are.

reply to post by TheMindWar


Because criminals are born criminals, right?

reply to post by Cocasinpry


In many areas unfortunatley yes they are born into a gang cultured family. This is an educational failing of the government and a lack of investment in society. There are no prospects for gang members in the slums, TPTB would rather kill them off than spend thier ill gotten gains on helping these people.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by SpearMint
Of course the murder rate would change, much like taking all screwdrivers away would greatly reduce the amount of screws being screwed. It's a convenient tool that also plays a part in the motivation and persuasion to commit the crime. The problem is the US has been blind to this for so long and went over the top with guns to the point where it's almost the same as the population, so the solution is near impossible to implement.

No, it wouldnt. Please read the Harvard study. Murder rates have nothing at all to do with tool availability.

Please stop basing positions on what you "think" and how you "feel". Empirical evidence trumps feelings every time.

edit on 2-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: typo

Of course it does, other weapons are much more easily stopped for starters, I don't care what Harvard says because without actually observing it happening their study is flawed. What you're saying is Americans are naturally murderous animals, because the gun homicide vs other homicide rate is WAY out of proportion compared to countries that don't have a lot of guns, other homicides are quite similar per capita whilst gun homicides are through the roof. It quite obviously plays a huge part, and that's not counting the rampages that simply wouldn't have happened without a legally owned gun.