goathunter wrote:The murder rate in Britain is 15 per million people.
The US murder rate is 55 per million
US population:301,139,947 and that works to 1 murder per 5,475,271.764
UK population:60,776,238 works out to 1 murder per 405,1749.2
Knives are more popular when guns are banned? You don't say?
What exactly did you do to work out a LOWER murder rate for the US?
Don't you mean:
UK: 1 per 66666.6
US: 1 per 18181.8
Thus sinking your own post, gun control in the UK has vastly reduced killings.
Back to beebs:
Whats the good of having strict gun law when you can walk in there with a gun bought elsewhere in the country where theres less strict laws. New York has a hell of a lot of issues that contribute to why there are so many gun related killings but trying to restrict gun use in one highly populated area of a country is worthless.
I'd love to buy a heroine at my local pharmacy but legalising heroin does no good at all, it's addictive and harmful as are all recreational drugs to their own degree. I know a 14 year old kid that acts as a weed dealer in my town. Thats wrong, but it's no reason to say "right lets legalise this sh*t" because there are side effects to it and it then brings into question the status of "harder" drugs and whether they really are as dangerous as all that compared to legalised cannabis.
No. He wouldn't have killed that many people if he had to do it manually. A sword can't be hidden very easily and a sword you can run from and fight back against. What can you find in a classroom that will stop a hail of 9mm? Can you outrun that? A traditional bladed or stabbing weapon only puts out the energy you physically put in, guns release thousands of times the input energy each time, focused behind metal slugs - far easier to keep going with a gun than a blade.
As I said:
A responsible person may buy a lethal gun but they'll still have it if they become irresponsible. He was sold those legally.
You'd be amazed how many less people die of bombs than guns. People who die from guns are generally not dying in the kind of circumstances where a bomb would have been the ideal weapon of choice.
Run through a locked door from a .45. I don't think so. When these whackjobs do these suicide massacres they want maximum casualities and often specific victims. They don't do it totally randomly.
I'm no expert on american law, in fact I just had a scan through the 2nd just now for the first time.
I think it's no longer the requirement it once was. An armed militia is what it refers to, for the defence of the country, hence the insistance on the public being able to legally bear arms.
To keep the state free, a militia is needed, hence the need to have an armed population.
Two hundred years ago.
Used to be a requirement to do archery practice on a sunday because every now and again we'd have a bloody big row with the french and needed archers...
Some might say the requirement of an armed population to be the basis of a militia if needed is as outdated as that.
You like to joke that once all the guns are gone people will go back to killing each other with knifes, then bricks.
Sure they will, if you want someone dead you'll kill them with whatevers available, it just needs to be rather more personal now, needs more determination than putting a few pounds of force on a trigger and firing chunks of lead off to do it for you.
There'll be less killings overall.
Less people can face repeatedly hitting/cutting/stabbing another person to death than standing back and squeezing a trigger a couple of times.
On the other hand lets give EVERYONE a gun, we're stepping up a notch, now you know everyone around you has a gun on them, do you feel safer?