Hey, don't do yourself down. The argument 'we need guns cos of feral dogs' nearly led me to the conclusion that all the evidence was wrong.
More unsupported nonsense based on supposition by those who have no actual idea upon which they are attempting to speak.
If the so-called "study" was not hidden behind paywalls that extort money from those that wish to review and critique their work, it would have much greater legitimacy.
I found a link to the article: https://dshah.journalism.wisc.edu/files/2017/01/JMCQ2004b.pdf Regardless, even if gun ownership is associated with fear, I don't see how that is relevant. I've always believed us to be functions of the time in which we're born; if I lived during the dark ages, I would believe in witches. Our beliefs and our personalities are, to an extent, influenced by those around us and our experiences growing up. To me, it is no wonder, that media would influence are perceptions. The fact of the matter is that the US has the highest murder rate, by far, as shown in the graphs above. I think it would be more constructive if we focused on why the US is different from other countries and why certain states within the US have lower murder rates than others. From there, we can derive effective actions and regulations.
Are there statistics that show the influence of illegals on the murder rate? I'd be interested to see that.
Do murderers who kill without moral boundaries have a place in society? Should they be rehabilitated? Should they be killed? Should they be exiled? Personally, I don't think we should exile our felons. I think that would be irresponsible of us as a country; like a neighbor abandoning their feral pitbull on the street to feed on children playing on the sidewalk. (Forgive the image) Ideally, if possible, I favor rehabilitation. With that said, if a person declares upon trial -without bating an eye- that they kill for fun, pleasure, or as a tribute to their god (or satan), then I believe they're worthy of a death sentence. As a wise man once said, "The only ones who should kill, are those who are prepared to be killed."
Will teachers be supplied with guns or will they have to purchase it themselves? Will they get a discount for purchasing firearms? If schools must supply teachers with firearms, wouldn't this artificially inflate the already towering costs of education? Is it fair to expect teachers to buy firearms when, some argue, they aren't paid enough as it is? Personally, I don't think arming teachers is the answer. I think "school shooting drills" might help teachers and students alike detect signs of gun bearing individuals and prepare them for the types of scenarios they may face so that they can act accordingly. If arming teachers is indeed the correct action, then the core belief behind this is that being armed keeps everyone safe, right? If so, do you agree with 6Gunner's view of enlisting high school students to serve 2 years, receive military training, and earn their right to vote and bear arms after graduating from this system?
No one is trying to convince you to own a gun, a fire extinguisher a spare tire or even lock your doors before you go to bed at night. You are welcome to do or go without any of those things. In the event of a small kitchen or electrical fire, you are welcome to stand by & watch your house burn out of control while waiting for the Fire Department. It is also your choice to allow home invaders to do what they will to you and your family if you manage to call 911 & while you wait for someone else to protect you. You may even think that it's foolish to own a firearm at all but I think you'll have trouble convincing the innumerable individuals like Donna Jackson of that who is the subject of this YouTube - 911 Audio: "Woman shoots and kills intruder - 911 Audio"
None of the cherry picked countries listed are anything like the US and almost all of them have much colder climates. As someone who has worked on an Emergency Psychiatric Unit for a large inner-city, I readily concur with the sentiments expressed in the following article: "Violent crime rates found to be higher during warmer months" https://www.news-medical.net/news/2...-found-to-be-higher-during-warmer-months.aspx EXCERPTS "Among police officers, there's a maxim: Being a cop gets a whole lot busier when it's hot out. Now, a study by a pair of Drexel University researchers appears to back them up. Overall, crime rates were highest in the warmest months of the year -- May through September -- and highest on the hottest days."CONTINUED In addition to climate, there are innumerable other factors that make comparing the US to "Developed Countries" flawed: "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries" https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan."CONTINUED Finally, America is the only country in the world with a 2nd Amendment but there are over 80 countries in the world with either absolute gun bans or draconian gun laws that have far higher homicide rates. If draconian gun laws were effective America would have the highest homicide rate in the world. Why doesn't it?
You think so? Well, let's just look at the "bunkum" you just regurgitated all over your keyboard, shall we? UK has a far higher violent crime rate, per capita, then Europe OR the United States. And there are parts of Europe where strict gun control has not produced lower homicide rates. Your rhetoric doesn't match the facts. The United States does NOT "got a higher murder rate than elsewhere in the world." That's a lie propagated by gun banners who aren't interested in fact. Further, one point I like to bring up that gun banners hate is that "America" is not one contiguous nation with uniform laws throughout. We are a union of individual states, each with their own laws and their own identity, United, but still different from each other. The homicide rates are generally highest in areas with stronger gun laws, but the gun banners never want to acknowledge that fact.
In Texas, I think the teacher provides their own gun. The “school marshal “ already has an LTC before applying for the program and is OK’d by the school board. Only administrators and the police know who is armed. They don’t have to teach the marshals gun familiarization. They do 2 weeks of legal and tactical training with the local PD, usually in the Summer. It’s voluntary, but I would like to see the school system pay for training and ammo for monthly range time with the responding police. I don’t have a problem with compulsory military service, but I can’t support making it a prerequisite for eligibility to own a gun. If we had compulsory service, they could guard our borders and do disaster relief for the state national guard or just enlist for a longer time in the national military and get the better jobs with better training.
It was a response to someone bogusly saying that gun ownership is not associated with fear. The interesting aspect of course is that much of that fear is irrational.
UK has lot’s feral dogs...some participate in the government. I just reurned from a week home and noted lot’s of territory marking going on.
Pray tell, if one kills without moral boundaries, and demonstrates that they possess no regard for the value of human life, how is it possible to rehabilitate such an individual? What is the process that can be utilized to instill that which will enable them to value human lives outside of their own?
The phrase "arming teachers" generally relates to removing legal restrictions that prevent the legal carrying of concealed firearms at facilities of learning by licensed educators and staff members; those who are already in possession of a valid permit, and have undergone the mandatory training for such. Individuals who are already carrying firearms, but are legally prohibited from doing such where they are employed.
If the fear is irrational, then there is no need for any further firearm-related restrictions to be implemented in the united states.
"May" meaning that such is theoretically possible, but cannot actually be demonstrated in a scientific manner. Even if it could be demonstrated once, there is nothing to prove that this could be demonstrated in a repeatable fashion. It is nothing more than hypothesis and speculation based on political ideology. Even if the matter could be proven, it is irrelevant how many individuals use firearms for the purpose of legal self defense, as it makes no difference to the legal standing of such. Constitutional rights, and their scope, are not based on a significant percentage of the population engaging in their use. If only one percent of the population wishes to actually do such, that is more than sufficient for such to be regarded as not only a legal use, but also a legitimate use.
We can't. At least, not with our current technology. That's why I said "ideally", because despite the terrible things a person might do, I understand that they were most likely set on that path at a young age without any outlet. I've read stories of salvadorans from the Mara Salvatrucha whom are taken in at the age of 8 and forced to kill and worship satan. Some of them flee to the US in search of new lives, only to find themselves back in the cycle. Some of them might even grow to believe and identify with the poison they have been fed. In today's world, I think such a person who is so far gone ought to be executed, but I wonder whether, one day, we'll achieve the kind of understanding of the human brain that we require to truly rehabilitate someone. With that said, I digress, I'm aware that discussing rehabilitation is more fantasy at this point and far removed from an objective standpoint.
Explaining the empirical findings will improve on evidence based policy. We know that the evidence supports the more guns equals more crime hypothesis. We know that self defence doesn't hinder that outcome. Ownership, due to irrational fear provides one rationale. It also could lead to rejection of standard deterrence arguments. We wouldn't have behaviour according to objective risks, as assumed in an orthodox rational choice model.
