Damn, gun grabbers!!!

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Hi all,
I don't want to seem like a redneck and all, however, a while back I was reading numerous postings on www.slashdot.org about gun control. Basically, the assumption they came to was that more guns = less crime.
What do you people think about this (conservative - "never touch a firearm in my whole entire life" types)? Also, before warned, I have done a lot of research within the past few days since it is a big issue. Atually before my researching :-), I was leaning towards gun control; now I am leaving towards the other side...err... extereme???
The reason I bring this up is that I live in chicago - one of the most violent cities in USA. Also one of the most strict regarding guns - i.e., their banned. However, I see crime everywhere - gang members killing each other, people taking advantage of "civilized" civilians, etc.
It's just not "the poor" people doing it to their "own kind", I feel it also affects me. Case in point, a few days ago when I was leaving a party, I saw a girl who was being battered by her "boyfriend" on the street late at sat night - @UIC. I saw it in my rearview mirror, a ford "something-or-rather" headed in the opposite direction saw it too; it was right in front of his eyes. He didn't even stop - guess too scared to get involved or whatever; people in Chicago are being too complacent about crime.
Another example is when I was heading home from target and stuck at a red light, a group of black people started to bash a car which was 3 cars ahead of me - in broad daylight!!! Nobody stoped it... As a matter of fact, as the light turned green people where gently passing arround the car and avoiding the assailants eyes (they had bats and a crowbar). When it was my turn to pass, I was driving a late model bmw, I felt really nervous. ULtimately, I tired not to make eye contact and pass on. One of the assailants did take note of my car, he gave me a look of "this doesn't concern you, I'm not going to mess with your car." Damn it.. I still felt bad. The police did arrive 5 minutes later (I was stopped at another light a few blocks away). However, by that time, they were already gone.
I use to live in austin tx. I never had a bad experience with crime. They have very liberal gun laws. Everyone in Chicago seems so cowardly.....
If you do agree with my premise, how or what can we do about it? WIll it be like marijuana? Everyone felt that it was bad - should be illegal until quite recently. WIth new research about guns, will the preception of it change like marijuana, or is it doomed to be tooooo lethal?? Will people in Chicago ever elect an official that will ever consider letting citizens arm themselves - or is this just another pipe dream... basically, am I going to have to move to florida within the next few years; Damn it, I just brought a condo a few months ago!!! :-) :-(
-Eleison

[Jason Menard]

Violent crime statistics from the UK would seem to indicate that gun control is not the answer. Additionally, violent crime in states such as Maryland and New York, which have particularly tough gun laws, is higher than most state.

[Garann Means]

Have there ever been any real statistics published anywhere that correlate people's access to guns in a locale with the crime rate in the locale? Seems to me I've never heard more than speculation that either more guns mean less crime, or more guns mean more crime. As a matter of fact, the only seemingly reliable statistic I have heard is that there's a higher rate of fatality among uneducated handgun owners than among those who've been trained in the use of firearms.
Were there criminials before there were guns? Yes. Violent ones? Yep. Did the gun, as an invention either curb or increase crime or violent crime? Not demonstrably.
What are you going to do with a gun, Eleison? Which of the thugs bashing your car with baseball bats are you going to point it at? How are you going to know the thug you've just turned your back on isn't packing, too? Guns are really good for scaring off coyotes, but, personally, I wouldn't trust my life to one. If you're in a situation where you need a gun, I'd say you're already in pretty big trouble.
g.

[Randall Twede]

people are less likely to beat your car with a crowbar when you have a gun pointed at them

[gautham kasinath]

Originally posted by Randall Twede:
people are less likely to beat your car with a crowbar when you have a gun pointed at them

............ but ppl are more likely to shoot you when they have a gun and so do you..
well, what do you value, the ol' car or yer life maate??
Lupo

[Don Kiddick]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Violent crime statistics from the UK would seem to indicate that gun control is not the answer. Additionally, violent crime in states such as Maryland and New York, which have particularly tough gun laws, is higher than most state.

I don't see how you compare statistics from UK with the states - very different places. Also difficult to compare with Maryland and New York as presumbly it easy for any Joe Shmoe to drive to a different state and buy a gun from Wall-Mart or something.
Also amount of violent crime is not the only statistic, I'd also be interested to know the percentage of fatalities from violent crime.
T.

[Steve Smith]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Violent crime statistics from the UK would seem to indicate that gun control is not the answer. Additionally, violent crime in states such as Maryland and New York, which have particularly tough gun laws, is higher than most state.

Care to quote the statistics? I don't care if the US has gun control or not, but saying that we'd benefit here from having widely available guns is questionable. In my experience the UK is a pretty safe place - the only time that I've seen the threat of violence is related to drink, and throwing guns into the equation would not help.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Steve Smith:

Care to quote the statistics? I don't care if the US has gun control or not, but saying that we'd benefit here from having widely available guns is questionable. In my experience the UK is a pretty safe place - the only time that I've seen the threat of violence is related to drink, and throwing guns into the equation would not help.

Every time this topic comes up I end doing the same google searches to find the same articles. If you really wanted to find out you could have typed "great britian violent crime" into google and got the results yourself. But here you go:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/10/203335
And a bunch of others. I tried to go to the UK Government statistics site: http://www.statistics.gov.uk but they don't make it easy to find violent crime statistics on the site. The site does reveal that there is a general trend upwards in crime in general and also a general trend upward in the use of guns in crimes in the UK.

[Steve Smith]

And every time someone posts statistics they turn out to be heavily editorial news items such as yours, or wrong.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Steve Smith:
And every time someone posts statistics they turn out to be heavily editorial news items such as yours, or wrong.

As I said, you can do the research yourself. The US Dept of Justice has the numbers as does the UK site I listed.

[Steve Smith]

This is not to deny that crime IS increasing in the UK, but to suggest this is because we don't have guns is dodgy logic. If you correlate it with drug use in general, and cocaine and crack use in particular you will find better correlations with violent crime.
As for stats on violent crime in the UK supposedly showing higher levels than the US per 100000 or whatever, these have been posted on /. before and then pointed out to be erroneously interpreted.

[Steve Smith]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

As I said, you can do the research yourself. The US Dept of Justice has the numbers as does the UK site I listed.

So its ok to make sweeping statements and expect someone else to prove it wrong?

[Thomas Paul]

Here's an Australian goverment site. As you can see, in spite of the fact that they have cracked down on guns in the last 10 years, all violent crime statistics have increased at a time when violent crimes have decreased in the US. "Between 1995 and 2001, the number of assaults increased by 49%."
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/tab01a.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/fig02.html
Property crimes have also dramatically increased:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/tab01b.html
Is the BBC a biased site?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1184515.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2195932.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2122794.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2123650.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1954859.stm

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Steve Smith:
This is not to deny that crime IS increasing in the UK, but to suggest this is because we don't have guns is dodgy logic. If you correlate it with drug use in general, and cocaine and crack use in particular you will find better correlations with violent crime.

I see, so the US doesn't have a crack cocaine problem that's why our violent crime rates are lower. I am fairly certain you are wrong.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Steve Smith:
Care to quote the statistics?

Wait, Jason will be back

[Eric Fletcher]

Originally posted by Garann Rose Means:

Guns are really good for scaring off coyotes, but, personally, I wouldn't trust my life to one. If you're in a situation where you need a gun, I'd say you're already in pretty big trouble.

No doubt there....
Just my $0.02, I'm against gun control, mostly because I don't believe it will do much, if anything, to curb gun crimes. I'm not going to quote statistics because I don't have any concrete numbers to show it, but I would be willing to bet the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegal, unregistered or stolen guns anyway. So taking away the right of a citizen who follows the rules, registers their weapon, and learns how to handle it properly will not help the situation. I do feel it should be required that anyone who purchases a firearm should be required to pass a safety course to be permitted to register the gun, I believe in some locales that is a requirement of ownership.
I'm of the opinion that gun control(or lack of it) and curbing gun crime are unrelated. I won't advocate vigilante justice, but I do believe individuals have the right to defend themselves and their families. IMO, if you want to deter gun crimes, enforce stiffer penalties for such crimes. If convicted of a gun crime, it should be a mandatory 10 year jail term without parole.

[Don Kiddick]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Here's an Australian goverment site. As you can see, in spite of the fact that they have cracked down on guns in the last 10 years, all violent crime statistics have increased at a time when violent crimes have decreased in the US. "Between 1995 and 2001, the number of assaults increased by 49%."
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/tab01a.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/fig02.html
Property crimes have also dramatically increased:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/tab01b.html
Is the BBC a biased site?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1184515.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2195932.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2122794.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2123650.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1954859.stm

None of these sites talk about the number of people dying as a result of these crimes.
I wonder why in the US there is a large movement of people who want to bring tougher gun laws yet I know of no movement in other countries to make the laws more lax...

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Don Kiddick:
None of these sites talk about the number of people dying as a result of these crimes.

What does that even remotely matter? "You may be maimed for life, but at least you're not dead"?! "You may have been raped and had your insides torn up, preventing you from having children, but at least you're not dead." Oh please.
The issue is violent crime, period. Hey here's a statistic that will fulfill your agenda: death by firearms is higher in the US than the UK. Of course death by Mini is higher in the UK than it is here. Both statistics equally obvious and equally useless. What is of interest is what are my chances of being involved personally in a violent crime. Well, it would seem that if you live in the UK, it is greater than if you live in the US.

[Jason Menard]

I only mentioned that the violent crime rate in the UK was higher without bothering to provide statistics because I thought it was common knowledge. Thomas already found the statistics that anyone could have found by searching on Google, so I won't bother.
Here are a couple of nice articles though:
Gun Control�s Twisted Outcome - Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
If the state fails us, we must defend ourselves.
The first article is a more scholarly fact based piece, the second is simply an editorial piece that I found interesting mostly because it was in a UK newspaper.

[Don Kiddick]

Post was deleted. All insulting posts will be deleted in order to keep this conversation at least a little bit courteous.
[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Don Kiddick:
None of these sites talk about the number of people dying as a result of these crimes.
I wonder why in the US there is a large movement of people who want to bring tougher gun laws yet I know of no movement in other countries to make the laws more lax...

First, here is the original quote from jason, "Violent crime statistics from the UK would seem to indicate that gun control is not the answer." He says nothing about homicides. Perhaps you are willing to live in a society where violent crime is prevalent as long as not too many are killed.
Second, gun laws are easy which is why politicians like them. Too much crime? Must be because of too many guns. They can't figure out how to stop crime but it's easy to take away guns from law abiding citizens.
[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Cindy Glass]

All of which is beside the point.
One of the founding issues in the United States was the "right to bear arms". This had NOTHING to do with controlling crime, or bear hunting for that matter. The issue was that England did not allow the settlers to have arms and therefore the military (which had arms) was "in control".
We wanted to never again be put in a position where the general population should be afraid of it's own military. If the general population has arms, then there would be a chance of controlling the military if it/someone decided to try something stupid.

[Randall Twede]

just think about it for a minute. if you were a violent criminal type would you prefer to live in a state where almost everyone might have a gun? or a state where only you and the cops have guns?

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Garann Rose Means:
Have there ever been any real statistics published anywhere that correlate people's access to guns in a locale with the crime rate in the locale? Seems to me I've never heard more than speculation that either more guns mean less crime, or more guns mean more crime. As a matter of fact, the only seemingly reliable statistic I have heard is that there's a higher rate of fatality among uneducated handgun owners than among those who've been trained in the use of firearms.
Were there criminials before there were guns? Yes. Violent ones? Yep. Did the gun, as an invention either curb or increase crime or violent crime? Not demonstrably.
What are you going to do with a gun, Eleison? Which of the thugs bashing your car with baseball bats are you going to point it at? How are you going to know the thug you've just turned your back on isn't packing, too? Guns are really good for scaring off coyotes, but, personally, I wouldn't trust my life to one. If you're in a situation where you need a gun, I'd say you're already in pretty big trouble.
g.

I feel that if the people of chicago were armed, there would be less violence - more people would respect each other. Gang members would be respectfull (fearful??) of others esp. the hardworking people of chicago.
With firearms, the situation of car bashing that I mentioned would not have happened in the first place. The situation that you envisioned me in is extremely artificial IMHO. If for the sake of argument I was put in the situation, there would be many people who would come to my aid - (maybe more courageous because they have guns??? not sure). The situation wouldn not be me verse them. It would be the people who were there verses the thugs. An armed group of people, society, that doesn't back down because their hands are not tied behind their back "waiting for the police." As a matter of fact, the outcome would probably be nonviolent - the thugs would back down.

After seeing research done by _many_ academics (one example is John Lott of Yale), I cannot agree with your statement that firearems just scare off coyotes. Just do some of your own research.
Would it be sooo hard to imagine a society were everyone is armed?
Eleison

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Randall Twede:
just think about it for a minute. if you were a violent criminal type would you prefer to live in a state where almost everyone might have a gun? or a state where only you and the cops have guns?

That's a relatively easy question :-) It's so sad that I live in city that has so much crime. I wish I could move somewhere and have my friends/family, etc. tranplanted with me. Everyday, I see people cowering in the streets, not wanting to get involved, etc... its sad, but ultimately, it's their only choice. I understand. I try not to be too cowardly and help sometimes... however, I know that just by doing that I maybe harmed, killed, etc., it's a catch22: you want to help your fellow man, but you don't want to risk your life... so sad...
Eleison
p.s. yesterday someone in chicago stopped his car to give a homeless man a couple of bucks. He was shot by gang members who that he was part of a rival gang.

[Don Kiddick]

Originally posted by Randall Twede:
just think about it for a minute. if you were a violent criminal type would you prefer to live in a state where almost everyone might have a gun? or a state where only you and the cops have guns?

In England only a very small minority of policemen and criminals have guns.

[David O'Meara]

Originally posted by Randall Twede:
just think about it for a minute. if you were a violent criminal type would you prefer to live in a state where almost everyone might have a gun? or a state where only you and the cops have guns?

I'd almost think that was funny if I didn't believe your were serious.
Kind of a domestic level arms race.
Don't shoot me, cos I'll shoot you back.
I only see this as breeding people who are more likely to pull the trigger. Guns as a deterent don't work, because if the other other person has a gun too, and they are more determined, they win.
Then they go on to the next round. You... um, don't.
Survival of the fittest weeds out hose who aren't prepared to pull the trigger.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by David O'Meara:
Guns as a deterent don't work, because if the other other person has a gun too, and they are more determined, they win.

This isn't true. Home burglaries are so rare in the US precisely because of guns and the fact that it is okay to shoot somebody who is breaking into your home. A would be burglar has no way of knowing whether or not the home owner is armed.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by David O'Meara:
I only see this as breeding people who are more likely to pull the trigger. Guns as a deterent don't work, because if the other other person has a gun too, and they are more determined, they win.

A nice theory but we see no evidence of this in states that allow people to carry concealed weapons.
"An armed society is a polite society" - Robert Heinlein.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Don Kiddick:
In England only a very small minority of policemen and criminals have guns.

From today's BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2589339.stm

[Jamie Robertson]

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:


I feel that if the people of chicago were armed, there would be less violence - more people would respect each other. Gang members would be respectfull (fearful??) of others esp. the hardworking people of chicago.
With firearms, the situation of car bashing that I mentioned would not have happened in the first place. The situation that you envisioned me in is extremely artificial IMHO. If for the sake of argument I was put in the situation, there would be many people who would come to my aid - (maybe more courageous because they have guns??? not sure). The situation wouldn not be me verse them. It would be the people who were there verses the thugs. An armed group of people, society, that doesn't back down because their hands are not tied behind their back "waiting for the police." As a matter of fact, the outcome would probably be nonviolent - the thugs would back down.

After seeing research done by _many_ academics (one example is John Lott of Yale), I cannot agree with your statement that firearems just scare off coyotes. Just do some of your own research.
Would it be sooo hard to imagine a society were everyone is armed?
Eleison

you can't be serious!! First of all, gang members respect nobody. They don't fear guns, violence, etc because they are exposed to it on a daily basis. And you think they will respect you and be fearful when pull a gun on them?? I think the other four guys that you are not pointing the gun at will reach into their pants and pull out their gun and pop a bullet up your "I am God cause I have a gun" ass! But maybe you'll be able to shoot one of them as you fall to the ground bleeding like a bucket full of holes! But really, that was probably the second gun fight that week for the gang members, which have members killed on a regular basis. Do you think you showed them a lesson?? Do you think the guy you shot was the first to die from a gun fight in the gang? Probably not. So you're dead because you thought you and your gun were invincible. Then as your laying on the ground, the gang writes down the license plate of your car, finds your family and murders them. Alright, the story is getting out of hand, but be aware that just because you are afraid of guns and respect people with them, doesn't mean other people will. When you pull out a firearm you run the risk of elevating an otherwise non-fatal situation to one of life and death. I won't even get to the part where you accidentally shoot someone reaching for gum in their pocket or when your kid accidentally plays with it.
I'm not really for gun control, but more for responsibility for your own firearm. The most dangerous person is the idiot that doesn't respect his own firearm.
Jamie

[Don Kiddick]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

From today's BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2589339.stm

I'm not sure what point that link is suppossed to be making.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Don Kiddick:
I'm not sure what point that link is suppossed to be making.

The point, of course, is that in spite of draconian anti-gun laws, criminals are using more guns in England than ever before. Don't you think that is ironic?

[Garann Means]

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:


I feel that if the people of chicago were armed, there would be less violence - more people would respect each other. Gang members would be respectfull (fearful??) of others esp. the hardworking people of chicago.
With firearms, the situation of car bashing that I mentioned would not have happened in the first place. The situation that you envisioned me in is extremely artificial IMHO. If for the sake of argument I was put in the situation, there would be many people who would come to my aid - (maybe more courageous because they have guns??? not sure). The situation wouldn not be me verse them. It would be the people who were there verses the thugs. An armed group of people, society, that doesn't back down because their hands are not tied behind their back "waiting for the police." As a matter of fact, the outcome would probably be nonviolent - the thugs would back down.

After seeing research done by _many_ academics (one example is John Lott of Yale), I cannot agree with your statement that firearems just scare off coyotes. Just do some of your own research.

Sir, I recommend that you do some research. There's one way to win a gunfight: be the first to draw. If an armed thug sees you reaching for a gun, he's not going to back down - he's going to use his advantage while he still has it and shoot you.
Maybe if everyone was armed, more people would stick up for each other, but I kind of doubt it. People tend to put their own self preservation first, and that means not willingly getting yourself involved in potentially lethal situations. Can you say honestly that, had you been carrying a gun, you would have stopped at pulled it on the car-bashers you saw? If so, you're very brave, but I'm sure your life insurance company regrets taking your business.
It's a terrible thing to live in a society where people are victimized and the innocent have to live in fear. But guns didn't create it, and guns won't solve it. You can't eliminate immoral or sadistic people by carrying a gun - you can only provoke them.
g.

[Melvin Menezes]

One reason for allowing arms in the US is that many people own large farms and ranches and properties. In many residential areas away from cities and downtowns, the houses are far away from each other. It may take atleast 5-10 minutes for the neighbours to arrive for help, the cops may take longer. In such cases they need guns to protect themselves in case of emergencies- from thugs who break into their house or from wild animals if they are living near such areas.
In heavily crowded cities and towns, where people live in apartments or houses very close to each other, where there are so many people around everywhere for the most part of the day, chances are less that you need guns to deter criminals. Because these criminals won't harm you in broad daylight if their sole intension is to mug you. And if you see them hitting someone during day, then that is most probably because of some previous enimity and there are gangs involved. And since you as a stranger dont know who's who on either side (as in the case of that car incident), you dont want to pull your gun at either side.
Moreover, if such cases are happening in crowded cities, then it is the duty of police to solve them. Further, in big cities, you dont want every one to own guns and take law in his/her own hands. People will soon loose all respect for cops and the law and order in the city. And you will always in constant fear because the guy sitting next to you in the train, in the bus, in the restaurant, may have a gun, may be drunk, may be short tempered, may be a psyco, etc. What if someone pulls the trigger at the railway station or in the restaurant? Pleople all over the place will start shooting at each other. It will be like jungle law: Whoever has a better and faster gun wins.
So I guess it all depends on the area and population density whether or not one should own arms for self-defence. You may keep a thug from breaking into your house, but as for the organized criminals, they will always be one step ahead of the general populace to acheive there goals.

[Marcus Green]

Here is a quote from
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=111
In 1996 alone, handguns murdered:
2 People in New Zealand
13 in Australia
15 in Japan
30 in Great Britain
106 in Canada
213 in Germany

and 9,390 in the United States.

To put that into some perspective the population of the UK is around 56 million, the population of the USA is around 290 million.
If those statistics are correct, or even approximatly correct then it should be possible to come up with a theory to explain the difference.
Such theories may involve gun control law, and the number of guns in circulation, and thus it may be interesting to note that Canada, on the US border has a population of around 30 million people and quite high gun ownership, possibly comparable to that in the USA.
To give a very wild guesstimate, if you take the population of the US to be 300 million (slightly high I know), if Canadians had the same inclination to kill each other with guns they would have about 1,000 deaths a year instead of around 100.
I admit that all these figures are approximations but there is a pattern. People in the US do kill each other disproportionatly with guns.

I recently saw the Michael More movie Bowling for Columbine which is a documentry about this issue. The cinema was full and the audience clapped at the end. This was a movie, note Mr Moore was not in the country to my knowledge, but the audience clapped.
Marcus

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Marcus Green:
In 1996 alone, handguns murdered:

Handguns didn't murder anyone.

[Thomas Paul]

The following states have very liberal "carry laws":
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
None of these states are experiencing massive shootouts between gun owners. Some of these states have very large cities in them.

[Marcus Green]

Handguns didn't murder anyone.
No of course not, people with guns murdered other people. Also it has been scientifically proven that if you replaced every handgun with a banana there would be no reduction in the incidence of homicide.
Got anything useful to contribute?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Marcus Green:
Here is a quote from
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=111

Not an unbiased source, but that's okay.

In 1996 alone, handguns murdered:

A handgun has never murdered anybody. Noe pwople have used handguns to murder people. They've also used knives, cars, rope, candlesticks, axes, and a million other things.

If those statistics are correct, or even approximatly correct then it should be possible to come up with a theory to explain the difference.

I would say that availability is the main reason. However if we are comparing the rate of violent crime amongst different nations, the tool of violence really isn't that important. Of much more relevance is the overall rate.
I don't personally care more one way or the other whether I'm shot, stabbed, or bludgeoned. My concern is that violence was perpetrated on me in the first place, not how it was done.

People in the US do kill each other disproportionatly with guns.

Is it really disproportionate? I honestly don't know. But in order to know, we would have to compare handgun availability to make such a determination.

I recently saw the Michael More movie Bowling for Columbine which is a documentry about this issue. The cinema was full and the audience clapped at the end. This was a movie, note Mr Moore was not in the country to my knowledge, but the audience clapped.

While I'm not surprised by the theater's reaction over there, I have to point out that Michael Moore is an absolute idiot. Check out this article.