better solution would be not having guns at all, you don't see these suicides in Europe or very rarely due to limited access
I do find it odd that some people who hold the first view concerning alcohol find the second view as being immoral.
but I don't see problem with ban on alcohol even if it would save only few people killed by drunk drivers, because it would decrease cases of domestic violence and violence in general and most importantly for me we would get completely rid off those hordes of drunk Britons roaming our cities, also no drunks (homeless) in streets and cleaner public transport and streets would be nice, so it sounds like great trade off, not because of drunk drivers deaths which are really rare to ban alcohol from majority of adult population, but because of other factors,
so great idea and I say this as someone who was basically alcoholic for a year in my first job in China where we drink spirit (baiju) during lunch break and then after work, then after switching jobs basically stopped drinking completely and now back in Europe me and wife consume maybe 1-2 bottles of wine per month so it's not like we are abstainers that it would not affect me, although i think charging like 500-1000% tax on alcohol and raising agree limit to 30-40 years and strictly enforcing it would seem more realistic regarding voters than complete ban, after all those people with alcohol issues started usually very young
And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around.
Does that really happen enough to worry about? Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun? Or maybe on more comprehensive healthcare for my family instead? Perhaps on living closer to schools and other amenities so we don't have to drive as much?
I can't imagine that there are that many scenarios where a gun saves the day from violence... but maybe that's because I don't live in america
In the US, that would be against the individuals who collectively commit millions of violent crimes per year (surveys indicate this number easily exceeds 5 million per year).
You mentioned London. St. Louis has about twice as many homicides per year as London. There are 300 thousand people in St. Louis. London has, what, 8 million? And half as many murders.
I’m sure you do feel safe there. I’m less confident when I’m back home.
The actual rates within the city are almost unbelievable: 1,913.2 violent crimes per 100k people.
Of course, this highlights the truth of a chorus oft-repeated there, which is that the region as a whole isn’t nearly as unsafe as the City numbers imply, a problem exacerbated (and concealed) by the City’s relatively small footprint within the area.
But that’s small consolation to those of us who make our homes and spend our time in that undeniably violent core.
>And it doesn't seem logical to me that a criminal who wants to (i.e. rob you) is really going to actually shoot and kill you to do it.
What you're missing is that I don't want someone to rob me. I don't want my family to ever be at the mercy of a violent thug. They ultimately depend upon me for their safety, and I am going to do what I can to guarantee it.
Of course.
> I don't want my family to ever be at the mercy of a violent thug.
No one does.
> They ultimately depend upon me for their safety, and I am going to do what I can to guarantee it.
Buy a pepper spray? What do you need a weapon of killing for?
Are you denying that there are situations in which a gun will incapacitate a deadly threat but pepper spray will not?
I'm not sure what world you are living in. There are millions of people who are victims of violent crime each year in the US. It happens. A lot.
Can you see how the guns aren't working?
I can see that they're not an automatic cure-all for violence. There are parts of the US with extremely high gun ownership rates, and virtually no crime. And there are parts of the US with high gun ownership rates and high levels of crime. The fact is that there are many people in this world with violent tendencies. There always have been. Their violent tendencies are not a consequence of guns being around.
However, guns are a very effective tool for defending one's self and one's family against such people.
Unless these guys are liars too? Who knows, maybe 'ebbv knows better than them? https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6166
Dwarfs the number of gun deaths
Where did you even get that ridiculous number from? Insanity.
Yes, of course it does. There are literally millions of violent crimes in the US in any given year.
>Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun?
I leave that to you to decide. I don't know you. Bringing a gun into your home might make you less safe if you are an irresponsible person or if you have psychological issues. If you are a responsible person with no psychological issues, but you live in an area that has virtually no violent crime, then it might just be a waste of money.
>I can't imagine that there are that many scenarios where a gun saves the day from violence
There are estimated to be over 100,000 defensive uses of guns in the US each year. The widespread ownership of guns has had a clear influence on the behavior of violent criminals. Particularly, in the US, criminals avoid breaking into homes when they are occupied, because they know many occupants will be armed.
You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you.
Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal.
> And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around.
As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved.
What a hilariously arrogant statement.
>Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal.
Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Whether someone else decides to attempt to make a victim out of you is much less so. Wealthier people may be able to take precautions like avoiding areas frequented by certain groups of people and strategically choosing where to live but that is out of reach for many.
>As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved.
You're also vastly less able to prevent yourself and your loved ones from becoming victims in such an encounter if you aren't armed. That's why criminals in the US have a much greater tendency to avoid occupied homes than do criminals in other parts of the world. I would much rather take my family's safety into my own hands than leave it to the benevolence of violent thugs.
Ad hominem attack required because factual statements do not support any of your arguments.
> Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control.
Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent.
Your statements are not helping your case.
No other statement is required to address yours because it's a naked assertion.
>Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent.
What does that have to do with the safety of my family?
Perhaps you are. I don't know where you live.
>violent crimes are very rare here in Europe where i live, especially during burglary
I hope it stays that way. That's not how it is in many parts of the USA. And no, it's not that way because we have guns. It's because we have more people who are inclined toward violence. I'll leave you to guess why that might be.
Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Latvia, Hungary, Slovenia, Ukraine, Estonia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria.
Countries with nearly as high of a suicide rate:
Germany, Czech, Portugal, Iceland
Countries in Europe with high suicide rates, but solidly below the US:
Slovakia, Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland, Romania, Norway
All of these nations have higher suicide rates today than the US did in the late 1990s.
So is the premise that the US would have a far lower rate of suicide than European nations if guns were more tightly controlled, or would people in the US commit suicide in other ways as they do in European nations?
For example, the UK statistics would tend to over count deaths. Here's the definition we use:
---begin
The National Statistics definition of suicide includes all deaths from intentional self-harm for persons aged 10 and over, and deaths where the intent was undetermined for those aged 15 and over. This definition was revised in January 2016 and further information on the impact can be found in the 2014 suicide registrations bulletin.
Deaths from an event of undetermined intent in 10 to 14 year-olds are not included because although for older teenagers and adults we assume that in these deaths the harm was self-inflicted, for younger children it is not clear whether this assumption is appropriate. Deaths from an event of undetermined intent cannot be applied to children due to the possibility that these deaths were caused by unverifiable accidents, neglect or abuse.
---end
I'm unable to find the definition used by the CDC, but I think it's likely to include language like "with the intent to end life".
but you are right banning access to guns doesn't mean that 100% of those people won't commit suicide, but I guess it could shave at least few percentage points from suicides by gun and most importantly gun accidents would be drastically reduced, you don't see children accidentally killing/hurting someone daily in Europe
if you want serious comparison i am aware of only one country with similar cultural background - Australia, proving limiting gun access can reduce crime, accidents etc
The most important public health action to reduce suicide is to reduce access to means and methods, especially the most lethal methods.
Guns are particularly lethal.
> but I guess it could shave at least few percentage points from suicides by gun
It's closer to 50%.
There are 20,000 suicide deaths by gun in the US each year, out of a total of 45,000 suicide deaths.
The US has decided that those 20,000 deaths are a price worth paying for the fun of playing with their guns.