|
eulero83 -> RE: Violent crimes world wide. (4/1/2017 4:04:55 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Point one:
I mention gun related terrorism in Europe for a specific reason:
Most European countries have gun laws that make it difficult if not damn near impossible to own a gun, yet those laws did nothing to prevent guns from being used to commit the most heinous non-bomb related terrorist attacks in Europe since the Munich Olympics!
because that's not the reason why those laws were put in place, it is to make daily life safer, it would be like saying you don't need fundations under a house because they do not protect against earthquakes, well I use them so my house won't slowly dig itself in the gruond or slowly crumble.
quote:
I will go further to say that while gun related crimes are much much lower in Europe compared to the US, the strict gun laws has not prevented them from happening.
all violent crime is lower in europe even with the recent terrorist attacks the murder rate it's still nowhere near the usa, and I'm not talking about just murder that it's crazy high I'm talking also about robbery, aggravated assoult and rape. The real question is you have all those guns and yet they are not able to protect you.
quote:
I will also point out that in gun related homicides, the US is NOT at the top of the list. In the Western Hemisphere the US ranks 18th, behind Mexico, and Central American countries and even the south American nations.
In many of those countries, gun related murders are so common they dont even rate a freaking headline in the papers.
So, why single out the US?
for two reasons:
-one is cultural because you are the only one that seems be ok with this situation, unlikely people in other countries that try to fight that violence.
-the other is economical as you'd have the resources to solve the problem, unlikely impoverished countries.
quote:
Further:
A problem with your statistics, which I have pointed out god knows how many times.
Gun crime is separate from self inflicted or accidents.
Why do you insist on putting the two together?
It makes just as much sense as putting auto accidents involving drunk drivers in the same category as legitimate accidents and accidents due to pure stupidity.
it's a general safety data, it points out the human cost of supporting this system of relaying on personal gun ownership for protection. It's actually as putting drunk driving accidents togheter with the other alchool related deaths to calculate the human cost of drinking, it's not an health care cost but it's relevant.
quote:
What I have said all along is that if states require people to pass a written and road test to get a license to drive a fucking car, why not require at least a written safety test to buy a gun?
yes it seems a good policy and it should be implementated, but it would reduce just the accidental deaths not the intentional ones or robberies or aggravated assoults, and also you should add to the problem police brutality, the fact so many people are a potential threath to their safety makes them more jumpy.
|
|
|
|
