I already linked to the OECD "violence against women" data from OECD. It doesn't matter what item kills them, what matters is that clearly violence against women is higher there, despite far fewer firearms.
Agreed, but extremists never see anything clearly. They are looking at life through a toilet paper tube.
Was the title of the video you cited: "The Adventures of Pricilla: ' Now You're F****d"? At any rate, I too don't routinely carry a firearm except in high crime areas. I can think of at least 3 instances in which I was glad to have had a firearm. I used to work on an Emergency Psychiatric Hospital Unit in a large inner-city & there were no firearms allowed on the unit. The police would bring us the people who were too violent & too psychotic for private hospitals to accept. I was usually able to talk a violent patient away from violent acts against the staff or other patients. Additionally, am not the sort of person who gets enraged when someone else something rude or provocative. As you're aware, there are instances in which one individual will resort to violence over a parking place.....that's not me. I look at violence as an absolute last resort but like to have the right tools for instances in which one has absolutely no other choice than violence
Don't you belong to a country that pushes boats back into the sea and keeps an island detention center on Christmas Island? Yeah, that's you.
Uh, you accused us of racism. Your country pushes people back out into the ocean, and locks them up on island prisons. I'd say that serves as a valid point that the US is far more open than Australia.
So why are women some six times less likely to be murdered and half as likely to be raped there then than in the US ?
I lived in your country for over 2 years so don't lecture me about my supposed ignorance of your culture Have you ever lived in mine ?
Oh two years, wow. Expert knowledge right there. No but I spent 5 years in Germany and over a decade in Japan. I'd like to go there though, I really want to meet Karl Pilkington.
Oh you didn't get the point, I'll give it to you. Simply traveling to a country for a year or two does not give you a valid knowledge of that country. Any chance you know Karl and could arrange a meeting?
There is no monolithic US culture. I'm originally from Alabama. I wouldn't base my understanding of the US on just those folks.
The trends I refer to are from the government’s own figures. You can access them yourself. You figure they are not relevant? Really?
I find it interesting in this thread that there is a person from Australia and a person from Scotland making suggestions how Americans might better deal with gun control. I hope they remember the fact that my father's generation of Americans saved their nations with American guns.
Does what? By the way you're talking to a guy who has lived outside the US more than inside it. I know exactly what a lot of the world is like.
It might be a good idea except in the most dangerous areas of the United States. Way too many private citizens are gunned down by US cops.
How many unarmed citizens were killed by police last year? “This year, fatal shootings of unarmed people have declined, continuing a trend over the past two years. In the first six months of this year, 27 unarmed people were fatally shot, compared with 34 for the same period in 2016 and 50 in the first six months of 2015.” On the other hand 135 officers were killed in 2016.
Kleck was not the only researcher involved in the 2013 CDC study commissioned by President Obama. Also, not everyone believes Kleck's (Kleck - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck ) research is flawed: -- Marvin Wolfgang https://scholarlycommons.law.northw...a.org/&httpsredir=1&article=6854&context=jclc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Wolfgang Professor Wolfgang, a Philadelphia resident, was acknowledged in 1994 by the British Journal of Criminology as ''the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world.'' http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/18/us/marvin-e-wolfgang-73-dies-leading-figure-in-criminology.html https://academic.oup.com/bjc When you say "in more than 100% of burglaries" you are indicating that there are fewer than 2.5 million burglaries. 2.5 million would be a majority but far from the total burglaries and only about 16% of property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson). So as you can see from those numbers if defensive use of a gun occurred in only 16% of the total property crimes in the U.S. it would be 2.5 million. Another interesting aspect of the defensive use of a gun is the fact that we will never be able to establish a truly accurate number of the times it happens. Often times the attempted crime is stopped when the victim produces a gun and nothing is ever reported. I was talking with a guy a while back who runs a small repair shop on his country property. He mentioned have been awakened by some kind of noise one night last summer. Grabbing his rifle he quietly stepped onto his porch and watched as two people emerged from his shop carrying some of the tools with which he makes his living. He said he fired three rounds into the dirt and they dropped the tools and took off running. When I asked what he did then, he said he put the tools back in the shop and went back to bed. He added with a smile: "they won't be back". No crime reported, no defensive use of gun reported. In a recent news report I saw where a woman had just dropped her young kid at school and failed to lock her car door. At a stop light a man opened the door and demanded she get out of the car. She refused and he started punching her. When that didn't work he grabbed her hair and tried to pull her from the car. She grabbed her gun and when the guy saw it he ran. She called the police so it likely would have been reported as an assault but did anyone bother to also report it as a defensive use of a gun? Everything I have read on defense use of a gun indicates pretty much the same thing: statistics are vague at best. So let's do this, let's knock the numbers way back. Instead of 2.5 million how about 250,000 or maybe only 25,000. If there were only 25,000 instances of the defensive use of a gun that may be 25,000 lives saved. It is possible that every person who uses a gun for defense is one less number added to that almost 12,000 murders a year. Would you take away people's ability to defend themselves? I don't know a large number of people (That would be apparent as I am on a forum on Friday night) but I don't know anyone in my home state who doesn't own a gun. Most of the people I know will probably never use a gun for self-defense but the reason they don't have to is because criminals know most people in this area own guns. The fact that people around here own guns and are not afraid to use them for protection is why we have a low crime rate.
Waving your hands in the air and saying " it is out there somewhere" is beyond poor debate Technique and edging into " I could not be arsed because I might find contrary information"