Oh good, as with all gun related threads, we’ve become Generic Gun Control Argument #48123
Look at the list again, and see how the US compares to other first-world nations. The US is at 5.0 homicides per 100,000 people per year. Canada is at 1.81. The highest of any Western European countries is Finland, at 2.17.
This isn’t saying much. The worldwide average is strongly skewed by countries with extremely high homicide rates. South Africa at 34, Brazil at 25.2 and Mexico at 15, for example.
I could support this law if we require all members of congress to be equipped with lights and sirens audible and visible within 1,000 feet so people don’t inadvertently violate the law. People should also be allowed to declare an exclusion zone of 1,000 feet around their home that no member of congress is allowed to enter for the same reason.
If guns mean more violence and murder, why did a US just as awash in guns sixty years ago have less crime?
It didn’t have less crime, if you go by homicide rate.
From your cite:
You may also notice that homicide rates in the fifties ranged from 4.1 to 4.9 per 100,000, but began to skyrocket in the mid-sixties, eventually reaching rates of from 8 to 10 per 100,000 until the mid-nineties, when it began to come back down again, ranging around 5 per 100,000 since the year 2,000 or so. This means that even today, with much greater life-saving equipment in ambulances and much more highly advanced hospital care, homicide rates are holding steady with where they were in the fifties. This suggests to me that there are very likely many more shootings going on now, but with greatly increased survival rates among the wounded. There is simply no question that with today’s exponentially increased drug and gang violence, and the glamorization of thug life and violence in the movie, music and gaming media, that there is less crime per capita now than there was sixty years ago.
Also, homicide is not related solely to gun-related deaths. Even accidental deaths such as Michael Jackson’s can be classified as homicides. So you can’t look at homicide rates only and use them to measure gun violence. A more telling cite would compare how many people were shot per capita sixty years ago vs. now, but I don’t know if those statistics have ever been compiled.
Missed the edit window, but I was getting to wordy anyway. I just wanted to point out that our homicide rates began to skyrocket at just about exactly the time that the counter-culture revolution was getting underway, and that they continued to skyrocket in the decades following to more than twice what they were in the fifties.
I’m sure it’s not a stretch for you guys to guess what conclusions I draw from that.
Damn those armed mop-topped Liverpudlians!
Hippies are big on murder?
Wait, no, blacks, I think.
No, but they were short-sighted and immune to the concept of consequences. As their progeny are now.
When you create a society in which there are virtually no standards and people are free to indulge their baser desires, among other negative consequences, crime and violence flourish.
<Homer Simpson>
Mmmmmm, baser desires…
</HS>
I love these old-timey stories! Tell us again how masturbation causes the pox!
So a murder rate up to twice what it was before is justified in your mind because during previous times silly warnings were made about masturbation?
Can’t say I’m surprised.
That’s it!
Or maybe because of that damn hippie music. I forget.
Who are you again?
The adult in these conversations.
[quote=“Really_Not_All_That_Bright, post:134, topic:567035”]
Uh, no they aren’t. TFD specifically mentioned the US relative to other first world countries in the post you responded to
[quote]
And he specifically mentioned our placing in a list of all countries. “For homicides related deaths per 100,000, The US ranks 8th in the world, just behind Mexico”. Yet once ranking of all countries doesn’t make quite the same point when used for homicides in general, regardless of method, it gets tossed overboard and the goal posts be a movin.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare the US to any other nation. To many differences in cultures for it to mean anything. Then again, I’m not the one who brought in comparisons to other nations either.
Personally, rather than yet another go around with the usual pro-gun/anti-gun arguments, I think if someone was really interested in reducing violence in the US they’d start looking at why the US is and has always been more violent that some other nations, regardless of weapons used. And, perhaps, look at those nations more violent than the US and see if there’s some common factor there as well.
Pardon.
They have, and the answer is “they, like us, own lots and lots of guns”.
Yes, that Switzerland. What a hellhole. Can’t step out of the door without getting a cap in your ass.
Switzerland has compulsory military service - which means compulsory gun safety training. In any event, although practically everyone owns a gun, hardly anyone gets a permit to carry one.
If true, which I doubt but it doesn’t matter, it means in Switzerland people follow their gun laws, while Americans shoot up shopping malls despite it being illegal. How exactly does that disprove the idea that the presence of guns doesn’t automatically turn a country into the OK Corral?