High time citizens from rest of the world actively boycott travelling & working in the USA. It is just not worth getting shot by a random idiot while walking on the street.
Don't get me wrong, visiting the US has always been a dream for me and almost everyone I know, since it was this place where someone could go to make something of themselves, you know a place where they accepted and rewarded you for the hard work you did. May be we grew up and now realize that dream was just really good marketing. Who knows, I am just sad I have to read stuff like this too frequently these days.
It should be noted that one of the injured was some random white dude who tried to pursue the gunman.
Again, I understand why you feel the way you do and I'm not dismissing those concerns, but there are a lot of wonderful people in the US as well.
Ian Grillot the hero in this story. There is a go-fund me page that was set up for him by his sisters.
Couple that with the fact that you are being fingerprinted and photographed, like you are some kind criminal, just because you want to visit the country and spend money there. That alone is enough for me to never visit the U.S..
absolutely. im saddened that it feels so risky to visit/work in a country founded on(and to a large part lived up to) such lofty principles.
Your odds of being murdered in a hate crime in this country are quite low. You're far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or by falling down the stairs. As a general rule, any event that shows up in the national news is something not common enough to be afraid of, because anything that common is no longer newsworthy pretty much by definition.
There were 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
And there were 32,719 fatal car crashes http://www.statisticbrain.com/car-crash-fatality-statistics-... (ok, not serious source but I guess the real numbers are not too far away)
But I'm specifically talking about hate crimes. The vast majority of those firearm deaths were suicides, and the vast majority of the homicides weren't hate crimes. According to the FBI, there were 18 murders that qualified as hate crimes in 2015 (the most recent year available): https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic-pages/incidentsand...
>21,175 suicides
Also, how many of those gun deaths were accidents, suicides, etc.?
Also, being murdered is the worst thing that could happen, and maybe that event is still rare, but a set of stairs isn't going to harass you or discriminate against you. There's a whole spectrum of bad things that could happen to people because of the climate in the US.
If you want to talk about other negative aspects, then fine, but that's a gigantic move of the goalposts.
For me, getting shot while walking on the street and getting shot when having a normal conversation in a bar looks almost same.
I genuinely want to know, what is the difference between the above comment and this particular incident. Because, this reasoning might also be the reason, why in U.S people prefer to have guns in their daily life (where living is the goal, and not how to prevent dying).
Having someone call you names or refuse you service, while bad, isn't what the original comment was talking about.
Overwhelm the borders. Double or triple the numbers. Show peacefully that we are positive and not backing down to the pettiness and ignorance of the current (and temporary) leaders and their cronies.
But, on the other hand, I'm also amazed that with so many people in US carrying guns in their daily lives, it is a miracle that most people are walking and living and doing some great things. Whatever it is, this whole gun culture is beyond my comprehension and I think it is good thing.
Why bother risking personal harm to visit a country that expressly doesn't seem to want you?
Edit: Would down-voters like to comment on why this isn't a valid stance?
For example: would you, as a US citizen, choose to visit Iran vs going somewhere else?
Which means.. all of them.
Why would a developed country need 112 guns per 100 residents is beyond me. The US:
* is less dangerous than Yemen (where there's a war going on right now)
* most likely has smaller hunting areas than Russia
* has a standing army, unlike Switzerland
yet it still has more guns per capita than any of them!
Of course not everyone hunts, but then owning 2 or 3 firearms for different types of hunting isn't really outlandish.
The US literally has more than 1 gun per person. The US population includes:
* children
* senior citizens
* disabled citizens
* urban residents who most likely see hunting grounds once per decade
* the largest prison population in the world
* etc.
I don't buy your argument.
Guns unlike cars which also approach 1 per capita never really disappear. Not saying this is a good thing. Over the history of our gun owning country a lot have been made. Surely there are nuts out there that buy an arsenal but many guns are handed down over the years and kept. People also collect historical weapons.
It is hard to understand as suburban/city dwellers like myself, but in most other places in the country it is perfectly fine to be given granddad's guns and to keep them around adding to the statistics.
Giving your citizens the RIGHT to keep and use arms is a vital part of ensuring freedom and that tyranny by government or invading armies is terminated at the will of the people.
Would the British have invaded India had everyone been armed like the US citizenry is? I seriously doubt it. The army would have been liquidated by the people in short order. It would be suicide to invade a country of that many armed people.
This is why we have a right to own them. Because armies invade and governments become tyrannies.
The whole idea of current united India came from opposing the British Rule. Before that, India was just numerous bunch of small kingdoms ruling their own tiny part of current India.
British entered India as East India Company, a trading arm of Britain, which I think is wholly independent of Britain in its ability to rule (politically and military wise) the parts of the world where it had trade operations.
You should also note that Britain had America under its control before US gained independence. If we just extend your logic, then you mean, US got independence just because all of its population were carrying a gun, and not because of strong will shown by personalities like Washington to have an independent nation.
Your narrative of British invasion of India is plain wrong. Also if the USG decided to become a tyranny there is nothing that the citizenry can do about it in this far and age. Guns or no guns.
Britain could have never conquered a fully united India, the same way it couldn't conquer China (though it chipped away at it for the better part of a century).
Regarding invasions, who's going to invade you? Canada? Mexico? Even if someone wanted to/could, they wouldn't be afraid of your personal weapons but instead they'd be afraid of your nuclear arsenal, of the largest navy, airforce and military budget in the world. A military budget equal to that of the next 10 countries.
All your guns do is promote unreasonable policing practices where people are shot on sight cause you never know if a suspect is carrying a gun. Oh, they also have a great side effect: if you ever have major internal problems or say, a civil war, millions of people will die cause everyone has a gun. Not that a lot of people wouldn't die either way, after all we've been using knives and machetes for millenia, but there's a reason all of today's armies use guns as the main infantry weapons.
The British never "invaded" India. This is a common misconception about Colonial Rule in India. Read about the "Company Rule in India" to understand better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India
TLDR: The British established the "English East India Company" in 1600 to trade with India and did well for almost 150 years. The British had made friends with local princes and nawabs promising them protection if they allowed them to establish their Company. During the same time, the Portuguese, French, Dutch and Danish began to establish their businesses in other princely states of India. This caused friction between the British and the rest causing civil wars to break out. These wars continued for almost 200 years more and involved princely states fighting each other for the benefit of the foreign companies established in their states.
This in turn caused weakening of the princely rulers and strengthening of the foreign companies which commanded garrisons (supplied by the princely rulers) and funded by their business. This shift in power was instrumental in the British devising the Annexation policy called "Doctrine of Lapse" which was signed by these unsuspecting satraps. The doctrine basically stated: "Any princely state or territory under the direct influence of the British East India Company, as a vassal state under the British subsidiary system, would automatically be annexed if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir"." This along with the "Divide and Rule policy" enabled the British to establish a Colonial rule in India. All battles the British fought were through proxies (loyal princely satraps) and very rarely did the British actually involve in the fight. Once the Colonial rule was established (powers of the Company were transferred back to the Crown), the British started abusing their powers which in turn caused a surge in Nationalism (read about the First War of Indian Independence of 1857) which eventually ended in the Independence of India (in 1947).
The British technically never waged a single War (there were small skirmishes/battles) with India because that would have triggered all princely states to come together and fight them.
There are other ways of protecting people and their rights other than having animals roam around who will shoot whenever there is conflict of interests(I understand that not everyone is like that).
I thought I was saying that hunting can make a large contribution to gun ownership and not trying real hard to quantify it.
They are from Madras, Tamil Nadu, India.
Actually, it was the existence of Madras, Oregon that I was unaware of. That's why I assumed the page was about Madras, India.