The only ones to blame are the Liberals.

well, media is part of our culture, but it cant simply be media because those other countries have similar media available,,,

its how we REACT to the media,,,,

in essence, the difference is in the ATTITUDE of the person/people

Another correlation exists between the number of people who defended a violent attach with a defensive firearm and the reduction in crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Lots of information here, much of it very disturbing.



It is all connected, but what we do with the information is what is important.

You are so funny.

Death to China then.

Because there are more people who need to be shot.

Why only look at a tiny sliver of the statistics? We know guns are more common in the USA than in those countries, but what about total crime?

Guns are more common in the USA. Do those "gun violence" statistics include when someone protected themselves with a gun or just when a gun was used to commit a crime?

How common are "knife violence" incidents in the USA vs other countries?

Also, if the concern is crime, shouldn't we look at all crime, rather than just a small sliver of crime that can be labeled as "gun violence"?

I don't believe those stats mean much Spider.

How about the stats on just violence? People in China probably carry knives and swords and clubs. They probably can't afford guns.

Canada... he he he... less people = less violence.

There are also legal guns, and illegal guns. When you run the stats, control for gang violence, and remove illegal guns the firearms homicide rate drops below the world average.

Which means that LAC (law abiding citizens) who purchase legal guns are much less likely to use them, and when they do it is more often deemed justified.

In DC where guns are effectively banned through gun control laws the firearm homicide rate is 7 times higher than the national average.

This shows you that gun law does not correlate to a reduction in firearm homicide. It does however correlate in a reduction in the LAC using a firearm in a defensive manner.

I dont think its relevant in a gun discussion to talk about ALL Crime

crime can be anything from pick pocketing to jay walking TO violent crime


I think in the discussion about guns, violence is the concern

Guns in a society serve to reduce the likelihood of all crimes, any discussion about crime should include the effects of gun ownership.

not just that, but in western culture

less guns equals less GUN death

When those statistics separate out victim vs criminal deaths, it will mean something; until then, it's absolutely useless. There is a world of difference between a young woman being shot while jogging and a young woman killing her would-be rapist.

such a discussion would be futile, because Im sure I can post information stating gun ownership correlates with HIGHER victimization,, and others could find things to post stating gun ownership correlates with lower victimization


one logical deduction, however, is that if you are possession of a gun, you are more likely to be shot by it than someone who doesnt have one,,,,

Honestly looking at facts is never futile unless your bias is so severe as to disregard any facts that do not support your conclusions.

Get your study that shows that legal gun ownership has a direct correlation to murder rate and we can talk about it.

Till then your just making stuff up.

The vast majority of gun owners are never involved in a violent crime of any kind, so your work is cut out for you.

Actually it is, becuase defensive use of a firearm involves all crime.

When you try to compare the murder rate against the totality of crime against the ability of a person to defend themselves you then get a picture of the positive and negative aspects of gun ownership. A complete view is the only objective view.

maybe not to the rapists family

Ive been the victim, and I wouldnt want that person dead for it,,,

I am glad I dont know you personally or Id feel compelled to shake you when you say things like this.

There is no guarantee your rapist wont just slit your throat. Stopping someone from attacking you is stopping them from the violent possibility of your death.

msharmony it sounds like you are very lucky women to be alive. It is also clear you are a fatalist.

I dont think thats quite so true

defensive use of a firearm is probably rarely reported and is most likely not involved in MANY Crimes

such as pickpocketing, or jaywalking, or burglaries,,,etc,,,

crimes involving MATERIAL Possessions in the absence of a physical victim would not be relevant to a discussion of 'defensive use' of a firearm


as to the information regarding violence and guns, I gave a common sense example of such information

can someone find flaw with the deduction that if you have a gun you are more likely to be shot by it than someone who doesnt have a gun?


as to information elsewhere,,,

"The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.
"


this is but one example, Im sure I could find several others

and others could rebuttal with dozens of examples of other 'studies' which seem to suggest the opposite,,,,,