We have debated long and hard and lots of evidence (proper evidence) has been presented as to why the USA has such a high rate of homicides compared to other countries.
GUNS KILL MORE READILY THAN ANY OTHER WEAPON
I think the answer is a simple one. Gun shot wounds are harder to recover from and have a higher mortality rate than bladed instruments. So put a gun into a confrontation and it becomes more likely someone will die than any other available weapon. A meta study of A&E and surgery studies shows that to be the case all over the world.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997.../knives-00006/
In the USA it is easier to get a gun and the suitability of those who have guns is not regulated as it is in any other western country. So when people confront each other, whether that be gang members, arguing partners, criminals robbing stores or youths on a rampage, there is more likely to be a gun in the mix than anywhere else. So more people die.
THE RATE OF VIOLENCE
The actual rate of violence is not connected to guns. Guns do not make people more or less violent. A gun simply makes a violent situation more deadly.
The evidence for the above is the lack of correlation between the violence rate in a country and the number of deaths. Hence the UK is more violent than the USA, but there are fewer deaths. In the UK people are more likely to hit and stab each other, so fewer die.
In the UK people such as Raoul Moat, Dale Cregan and the Woolwich killers of Lee Rigby, all potential mass killers killed 5 people between them as they had limited access to guns and soon ran out of ammo or the gun did not fire because it was so old. Meanwhile in the USA, people such as Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza and James E Holmes found it easy to get guns and ammo. They killed 62 people between them.
THE RATE OF GUN OWNERSHIP
The actual rate of gun ownership is not connected to violence. Who has the gun is and where violent people find it easier to get a gun, deaths go up simply because the gun is more likely to kill.
Hence Mexico with stricter civilian gun controls has a higher homicide rate again than the USA because the criminals are at war with the state and both are heavily armed, with guns. Plus there are lots of criminals.
Hence in the USA itself Vermont has very lax gun controls for civilians, but a low homicide rate. The people of Vermont are peaceful and do not have a war going on in their state. They do not have so many criminals.
WHO HAS THE GUNS
The above points out a clear connection between the rate of deaths and guns; who has them. Countries that are more successful at keeping guns away from criminals, nuts, angry people and youths, in other words inappropriate people have a lower death rate. It does not matter what gun laws you have, or even if you have any at all, so long as few inappropriate people have a gun there will be few problems.
So any law that goes after those who have not caused problems with a gun is a complete waste of time. If people are not causing problems with guns why spend any resources on dealing with them?
KNIVES - or any bladed/pointed instrument
Meanwhile there are millions more knives, scissors, screwdrivers and other tools than guns and you know what, the death rate is not as high compared to guns, no matter what country you go to and what gun controls or rate of violence it has. So knives, scissors, screwdrivers etc do not pose the same danger to public safety that guns do.
Conclusion - keeping guns away from unsuitable people means keeping guns out of the mix in conflict and violence and fewer people die. Nothing else really matters.
GUNS KILL MORE READILY THAN ANY OTHER WEAPON
I think the answer is a simple one. Gun shot wounds are harder to recover from and have a higher mortality rate than bladed instruments. So put a gun into a confrontation and it becomes more likely someone will die than any other available weapon. A meta study of A&E and surgery studies shows that to be the case all over the world.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997.../knives-00006/
In the USA it is easier to get a gun and the suitability of those who have guns is not regulated as it is in any other western country. So when people confront each other, whether that be gang members, arguing partners, criminals robbing stores or youths on a rampage, there is more likely to be a gun in the mix than anywhere else. So more people die.
THE RATE OF VIOLENCE
The actual rate of violence is not connected to guns. Guns do not make people more or less violent. A gun simply makes a violent situation more deadly.
The evidence for the above is the lack of correlation between the violence rate in a country and the number of deaths. Hence the UK is more violent than the USA, but there are fewer deaths. In the UK people are more likely to hit and stab each other, so fewer die.
In the UK people such as Raoul Moat, Dale Cregan and the Woolwich killers of Lee Rigby, all potential mass killers killed 5 people between them as they had limited access to guns and soon ran out of ammo or the gun did not fire because it was so old. Meanwhile in the USA, people such as Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza and James E Holmes found it easy to get guns and ammo. They killed 62 people between them.
THE RATE OF GUN OWNERSHIP
The actual rate of gun ownership is not connected to violence. Who has the gun is and where violent people find it easier to get a gun, deaths go up simply because the gun is more likely to kill.
Hence Mexico with stricter civilian gun controls has a higher homicide rate again than the USA because the criminals are at war with the state and both are heavily armed, with guns. Plus there are lots of criminals.
Hence in the USA itself Vermont has very lax gun controls for civilians, but a low homicide rate. The people of Vermont are peaceful and do not have a war going on in their state. They do not have so many criminals.
WHO HAS THE GUNS
The above points out a clear connection between the rate of deaths and guns; who has them. Countries that are more successful at keeping guns away from criminals, nuts, angry people and youths, in other words inappropriate people have a lower death rate. It does not matter what gun laws you have, or even if you have any at all, so long as few inappropriate people have a gun there will be few problems.
So any law that goes after those who have not caused problems with a gun is a complete waste of time. If people are not causing problems with guns why spend any resources on dealing with them?
KNIVES - or any bladed/pointed instrument
Meanwhile there are millions more knives, scissors, screwdrivers and other tools than guns and you know what, the death rate is not as high compared to guns, no matter what country you go to and what gun controls or rate of violence it has. So knives, scissors, screwdrivers etc do not pose the same danger to public safety that guns do.
Conclusion - keeping guns away from unsuitable people means keeping guns out of the mix in conflict and violence and fewer people die. Nothing else really matters.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=270451&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire