Democrats demanding USA has Mexico's murder rate

This is an interesting argument, especially now that we are seeing increased violent crime in Europe as a result of the influx of Islamists, refugees in general and there has been an increase in poverty - very hard for these people to get jobs and so on.

 

I suspect Europe will never be going back.

The United States has still been dealing with the effects from the legacy of slavery, what, over a 130 years after it was abolished?

 

Actually income levels are lower I believe in W Europe than the US. Poverty is defined so differently by different OECD nations that direct comparisons are difficult.

I have never seen any analysis that suggests that ethnicity, as compared to say immigration, diversity or the like drove murder. Culture might, I believe the US is so violent because our culture is so violent and so intensely individualistic

 

Yes, in some countries average income levels are lower, but there is still a lower percentage of people with very low incomes. One might describe most of these people as lower middle class, but not very poor. At least that's how it was in the 80s.

It's also hard to directly compare because in Europe one could have fewer consumer goods and still have better quality of life in other ways, with the easy & cheap availability of fresh food and easy bicycling to local stores, and government providing many services. And yet in other ways many consumer goods and labor costs were more expensive.

I'm guessing though the overall quality of life between someone in France and a middle class family in the U.S. was on a similar level, though different. People in Europe could have a bit less money but enjoy what was available to them more.

 

The Democrats are very active trying to make America Mexico again bigly.



Anti Trump protesters

 

And yet bars and clubs are a major location of mass shootings.

 

Its true comparisons are difficult.One example critics of W Europe in the US point out they have less space in housing. That ignores that Europe is more urbanized so they logivaly will have less space. People who live in mansions in NYC might not have a lot of space either compared to a country house.

 

Except in reality that's not what happens.

When law abiding people pull their firearms in a defensive scenario they almost always win.

Link us some stories where someone tried to defend their lives with a firearm and instead died. There aren't many that I could find.

Criminals have no courage and no loyalty to their comrades. As soon as the fighting starts it's every criminal for themselves, and in most cases, that means running away to leave their dead/wounded "friend".

 

You're just factually wrong. My best is you've watched too many Westerns with the gun fight scenes in which the first one to draw and fire had instantly killed to other cowboy.

But prove your point. Give examples of anyone armed being killed or raped when surprised by a criminal with a gun. Try hard.

 

most dont

 

The Vegas shooting is really unlike any others we've dealt with. Tons of long term planning with no agenda or motive. But that's not the case with the Parkland school shooter. He's typical of the type, and had enough signs to put him on the radar of local PD, social services, and the FBI. There seem to be a lot of terrorist and mass shooter types who are actually on the radar of law enforcement...and nothing happens. That's the problem we need to fix.

 

And some indication it might have been a setup, one possibility some have suggested is a black market gun sale that somehow went bad. One can't always go by appearances. There were a lot of things that were weird about it.

 

We're not even number one.

 

Interesting to see it so low in Italy. You'd think with all the unemployment and mafia crime, but apparently the mob has a code of conduct and only kills when it's to get money.

 

So lets have more guns in bars ! that will solve the problem.

 

Um, it's already illegal.

I think murder is still illegal too, but that doesn't seem to have the desired effect either.

A few more armed staff in Pulse would have saved lives.

 

It is laughable nonsense to suggest that no one with a gun in the house has been raped... especially when surprised.

 

No doubt ... I am not against a security person having access to guns in bars

 

His foster parents knew that he had guns. They stated "They are safely locked up".
The kid also was sending out pics of animal torture which is pretty messed up.

 

And then she's going to get an abortion. Are those lives counted in the death toll?

About 8000 gun homicides.
700,000 abortions, roughly 0.5% of them from rape, that's 3500

Of course that's not directly relevant since we don't really have a good idea exactly how many more women would be the victims of rape if guns were illegal, and we don't know for certain how many of those same homicides would have still ended up happening, but this gives some idea of the comparable magnitude of the two issues.

 

Your scenario is threading the needle; could've, possibly, might. Reality tends to be different. Every mass shooting has been in a GUN FREE ZONE except the Giffords' shooting. Now, try to use some common sense and figure out why that is.

Do you remember the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado? Colorado is a carry state; there are a LOT of citizens packing there. That theater was one of seven within 20 minutes of the shooter's apartment showing the same movie at the same time. So, why did he pick that one theater? Well, of the seven, it was the only one that had big, NO FIREARMS ALLOWED, signs on the front doors. Colorado, like here in Illinois, allows businesses to request legal carriers of a firearm not bring their firearm onto their premises for whatever reason of safety or distaste floats their boat. That shooter could, therefore, be reasonably assured that there would be no ability to stop him. He was right. So, the very POSSIBILITY that just one of his intended victims would be armed saved the lives of people at those other six theaters. Mass shootings happen in GUN FREE ZONES because they are GUN FREE ZONES, but only for law-abiding citizens. Those shooters fear the POSSIBILITY of an armed citizen.

You should look at the research that the NRA has collected. There is a column in their 1st Freedom magazine titled The Armed Citizen. It is a collection of news reports from all over the country about confrontations between armed citizens and criminals. A common theme is the criminals taking off at a dead run as soon as the citizen's gun comes into play. Criminals courageously standing up in defense of their fellow thugs is not a common virtue.

 

Reality is what is stated in my post. You then go on to make the argument that mass shootings have been in a gun free zone which has nothing to do the claim being address which is that someone having a gun provides great protection - in reality - against criminal thugs and in particular in the hypothetical example that was being addressed by my post.

That aside. I do not think we should be making law on the basis of the actions of a few crazy people. In a population of over 300 million you are going to have a few go off the deep end and they are going to get a gun regardless of whether or not guns are legal.

Every day ( far more often than we see some crazy person going on a rampage with a gun) we have people killed with vehicles. Do we go out and ban all vehicles on this basis ?

Could we make it a little more difficult for people to get Assault rifles... I do not think most have a problem with this. Especially folks with an unstable or violent past.

The large issue in general is the use of "utilitarianism" as justification for law. Utilitarianism looks only at what will increase happiness for the collective. This justification for law has no regard for individual liberty (and on this basis alone it should be dismissed as a stand alone justification). The second problem is "who gets to decide"? one mans poison is another mans pleasure.

Then we have "Fallacious Utilitarianism" this is when it is not even a good utilitarian argument meaning that it will not increase happiness.

Use of this justification has hit plague proportions in the USA.

For example: "If it saves one life" or "Harm Reduction" as justification for law.

This is a very insidious justification because on the surface it sounds good... "Who does not want to save one life" ? The raging masses are largely ignorant (due to our pathetic education system which manages, through 12 years of school, not to teach the basic principle on which this nation was founded - "respect for individual liberty") and rely only on surface justification.

For this reason this justification is very effective but, it is very evil.

If "If it saves one life" is valid justification for law ... should we not then ban skiing tomorrow ? Would this not save one life ? What about boating ... good gosh... water is very dangerous ... someone could drown .. look how many people die from drowning every year.

Driving a car ? forget it .. that is one of the most dangerous things one can do. In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

This kind of justification for law is not limited to the Left. The right uses it too and we are being turned into a quazi totalitarian police state on the basis of such arguments.

 

Confusing. You present a hypothetical and I present real, documented examples that shows that your hypothetical does not stand up to reality, and you blow it off. Research in real life shows that the possible presence or the mere display of a firearm prevents crime. Then you go on with reasonable statements about other devices. I think you have a hard-on about guns.

 

I think I did not explain myself that well. The issue is that we were talking about different things. The comments in my initial post were directed at the hypothetical example of a 3 thugs leering at some fellows GF. My point was simply that - in reality - the fellow with the GF having a gun will often do more harm than good... meaning .. it is not a slam dunk that having a gun will afford protection from the thugs... presuming they also have guns.

My point in the previous post are that mass shootings in gun free zones does not really speak to the hypothetical in question.

 

And I gave you information on where to find real life examples of situations where people were attacked by multiple armed thugs who ran when confronted by an armed citizen. You persist in believing that thugs have some sort of esprit de corps equivalent to military valor. The realty is that they have no desire to get shot and whatever loot there might be isn't worth the risk of a hole in something they might need later. That is reality, not your hypothetical.