...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
That video smells like religion, and it's been around for years. Odds of you actually defending yourself with a gun are insignificant. Obviously, it has not been a deterrent either. You may "feel" safer with a gun under your pillow, but you are far more likely to use it on yourself. Sorry, that is just the way it is. Criminals are breaking into houses just to steal your guns. They are not scared of Joe homeowner, since they maybe cranked-up on meth anyways.
Homicide Rate (per 100,000) and count, per year.
United States 4.2 12,996
Australia 1.0 229
Justifiable homicide rates are low: Very few killings are ruled as justifiable homicides each year. When taking into population, even the highest rates in a given year are only about five per million people. Usually, they are far lower.
I do not advocate an all out ban. I enjoy shooting. I also enjoy living and working without fear of being massacred. I think the NRA better get it's head out of it's ass and concede a few common sense ways of controlling this wild access to such dangerous weapons.
You may "feel" safer with a gun under your pillow, but you are far more likely to use it on yourself.
Feeling safer is not an insignificant reason for owning something. Even illusory peace of mind can be comforting and mentally healthy. Is it some 3rd party's right to decide if I should or shouldn't have a gun, knife, brass knuckles, etc., under my pillow?
Chuck Norris has a pillow under his gun. Of course, society in general and governments (elected or not) decide what rights you have or do not have. You can't put an RPG under your pillow. That is the thin line this whole thread is about. The balance between laws and rights. If rights are deemed to cause too much harm, they can be taken away. Smoking in public places comes to mind.
I heard of this RPG that felt so insecure that he started sleeping with Chuck Norris under his pillow. :D
OK..now that is the only thing I agree with
"...If rights are deemed to cause too much harm, they can be taken away..."
Incorrect, inalienable rights can only be suspended under certain circumstances not "taken away".
Lincoln suspended the right to "habeas corpus" during the civil war, it was not "taken away".
OK..so for thousands of year people had rights !!!
I wish they knew...
Huh??? America 1776.
We only been around for a couple of hundred years.
It most certainly is a motivation. But if we are applying reason here, how many of those security blanket guns get stolen and end up in the wrong hands with the end result being innocent dead people?
I hardly find the illusion of safety felt by one person after their head has been filled with fear driving their decisions, which has to account for a large number of casual gun owners, as sufficient enough justification for the resulting deaths that hundreds if not thousands of those misplaced, lost, or stolen guns have caused.
And while you're at it, make it illegal to keep any other valuables, because who knows how much of that booty, stolen by burglars, muggers. guys who break into cars, etc., ends up paying for illegal guns.
Why did you feel the need to skew your numbers?
You first number compares deaths per 1,000,000 and then you compare total deaths per nation state (ie. America to Australia) without accounting for the different population size (ie. 311 million to 22 million)
If Australia had the same population as America
the total deaths for Australia would be: 3237.
America total death: 12,996
Australia total death: 3,237
There you go.
I'm here to help. :)
So I'm just an engineer, Thanks for your help, but I can do a bit of math....So Just for grins...let us look at this:
Population of Australia =22,620,600. Gun deaths = 229
so..22,620,600/100,000=226.206 rate per 100K
229/226 = 1.01 = 1.0 as stated vs 4.2 per 100K US...
ahhhh.. what seems to be the problem here?
Looks like 4.2 times as many Americans are killed by guns as Australians.....geez what a surprise !!!
Dude..it's not rocket science !