Could you list those numerous times, please, then compare the (unproveable) number of lives saved against the (irrefutable) number of lives taken?

The figures are from the Australian institute of criminology showing the trends over the years and as far back as 1968 upto 2011.

Yes there was a drop in firearm assisted suicides and homicides after the ban ... but there had already been a significant downward trend. Depends which part people want to pick up on for their own agenda.

And of course a total lack of firearms means no firearm crime just like no cars means no car related deaths.

what i dont understand

a history of violence against women
its not his parents that rescued his poor first wife it was her parents
the second wife looks like she moved out
co workers complaining about violent words

but the parents say they are shocked ..

what is it about people who breed, is it a requirement to be stupid?

You know very well those figures don't exist.

People have died from being kicked in the head - ban legs!!

As much as I really, really hate to agree with LiB, bad people will do bad things whatever the rules with whatever is banned (or not). There are 2 groups of people who believe the US' PR that they are the greatest - those that really really love the US, and those who really really hate it.

One way to start would be to have a damned good look at the electoral process.

Because while none of this is good, the conclusion from that behavior wouldn't necessarily be "goes on to shoot 50 people in a gay club". I very much assume choosing a gay club was intentional. There's not necessarily a connection between "violence against women" or "violent words" and "shooting dozens of random homosexual men", which is clearly a homophobic act. Quite the opposite even.

I cannot for the life of me imagine how awful it must be as a parent to know your child did something like this. At the same time, remember the shooter in Santa Barbara? Didn't his own father warn the police about him and no one believed it?


Also: watch/read "We need to talk about Kevin"...

One thing to understand is, that a set of issues in one country cannot be directly compared to another country. Wackos are everywhere, but in a place like the U.S., where there is an infinite number of wackos, you cannot simply say that the issue is resolved by banning guns. This ain't happening here (in the U.S.) anyways, because gun culture is very much ingrained in the very foundation of society. You have the right to protect your life and property, think "castle law" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle...ne)..something which is unheard of in Switzerland; a place where police officers are suspended for using their weapons. A place where you injury a home intruder, you'll end up going to jail. That is the beauty and also the lunacy of the U.S. You have a right to defend yourself and frankly, I don't have a problem with it. The NRA was briefly mentioned earlier in the thread and gun crimes conducted by NRA members are a miniscule number. The issue lays with illegal weapons, just like the attacks in Paris...France doesn't have a gun culture and hence, one begs the question, where did the terrorists acquire high-powered rifles? This incident has nothing to do with gun-laws in the U.S. and everything to do with terrorism..we ought to differentiate in this case.

Because they're unproveable. However, it would certainly be possible to build a list of lives "thought to be" saved, in the opinion of police attending incidents where a person used a firearm to defend themselves. My bet is that that list would be rather short.

Another important point is that on the occasions on which armed people successfully defended themselves from an attack, the attacker would often have been armed with a firearm. If they had no access to firearms in the first place, ...

2009-2013 -> 1114 justifiable homicides. 55.8% strangers, 32.3% known persons.

You've obviously got issues. Deal with them. But not on this forum, please.

You can't, because any incident where a person is killed or injured, the police will most likely be involved. Any incident where a weapon was used to fend-off attackers will most likely not be reported or fed into a statistic.

I just googled "gun saved my life" on youtube (google on youtube )
and there are ample testimonials of such cases. However, the true figure will hardly be represented in stats.
These 3 are my favorites:

Why are they mutually exclusive? The guy was clearly a bit of a violent radicalised nutter, who had already been investigated by the FBI, yet could legally purchase assault weapons. It'd be obtuse not to accept that there is a real problem here.
Owning of personal weapons was severely restricted in the UK after Dunblane and there has been a single incident of a gun rampage since; the Cumbria shootings in 2010.

I don't know, I'm in Kentucky, we don't have internet here . Maybe he bought it prior...maybe it was a family gun, I'm not too familiar with the shooting incident and whether he actually acquired it legally.

The best strategy to perpetuate the status quo is to turn the issue into a binary one.


As a certified wacko, I wouldn't own a gun. Nonetheless, I think they are fascinating machines, and have spent many enjoyable hours at skeet and shooting ranges (I used to go with a neighbor when he did the Obli).


Regulating gun ownership (registration, background checks, cool off periods, safety training requirements, and periodic reassessments), and taking assault weapons off the market would make (I believe) a difference, but then again, why believe me, I am a wacko (aren't we all?)


I don't think we can eliminate gun violence by eliminating guns. I have a lathe and enough skill to fabricate a firearm (and the required munitions), but that would be an enormous effort. Chances are that I would either tire of the undertaking, or someone around me would notice I was behaving oddly (oddlier?) long before I got to the point of taking a life.


Even if it can't be eliminated, doesn't it make sense to try something to at the very least curtail gun violence?

__________________
If everyone you know agrees with you consistently, they are either not listening, or not capable of critical thought.

Absolutely! But the real issue here is terrorism and not gun violence. A gun was solely means to the atrocity. The media reported, that the shooter has been under FBI surveillance (or something along the lines of that...). His ass, along with his family should have been apprehended and deported, as easy as that. I'm tired of 3rd world wackos running into the West, causing havoc and trying to impose their backwards mentality on our progress and living standards. It is simply unacceptable.

Hmm not quite. 61% of firearm violence was reported to the police from 2007-2011. In that period there were 235.7K victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender. That is 1% of all nonfatal violent victimizations for the period.

..and how many went unreported, by simply flashing a piece?
And where did you get your sources from, facebook?

I cant edit so i should add those uses where on non fatal victimizations. But i guess the context is clear

I dont think the bureau of justice statistics has a facebook page. Clearly stated in those stats that 39% went unreported.

Swiss get to keep their guns after finishing their military-service. We just inherited 2 (two!)