As I said before, it is probably because guns may still be more accessible. Having said that, given the relative ease of making a bomb and the readily-accessible recipes, taking away guns would not necessarily disuade a student who wishes to kill other students in his school. Why is that a difficult notion for you to entertain?
Pure speculation.
Brief recap:
I suggested that removing guns would only increase the number of bombs being used in school murders.
You asked why haven't we seen that in countries with fewer guns.
I said that I had tried to find statistics on the numbers of murders by students in schools relative to guns per capita but couldn't.
You said that the data was there and that, "We simply don't see these types of school killings - regardless of weapon - in comparable countries. But where do we hear about school shootings? The US."
When I asked for that data, you directed me to a study that you provided that looked at deaths from firearms in any setting as a function of gun ownership.
I was referring to what countries are comparable. Check the study.
Again, not surprising that where there are more guns, there are more gun-related deaths. The study that you provided offers nothing about comparing school shootings among us countries as a function of per capita gun ownership or murders in the school setting by other weapons as a function of gun ownership per capita. Frankly, there was nothing about school shootings at all in the article. This information would be more germane to our discussion and the very information that I said earlier that I was unable to find. Do you have this data?
I told you: We don't see these school shootings elsewhere. You may find a couple, spread over a large number of countries, but we do not see the same number in the same country.
It's your claim. You find the data.
In reference to Columbine:
Quote From Previous Post
That merely supports my contention. Not that hard to make, is it? Would even have killed more? Yet, we don't see school bombings. Perhaps it is easier to get guns, even for kids, than it is for them to build a simple bomb?
1. I am not joking about the car, nor the wrist rockets. They are good for hunting varmints. A wrist rocket is a rather powerful form of sling shot that I have hunted varmints with. (Squirrels, rabbits, etc. ) It takes some practice to hit what you aim at.
But it takes time to "load", and you don't have the killing power a gun gives you.
2. I wasn't talking about an OKC sized bomb either. The rules on fertilizer purchase changed within a year of OKC. The papers were littered with articles on the topic.
According to my combat engineer friends, who use fertilizer and diesel to crater roads, it only takes about 50 lbs to make a nice sized boom, when mixed with diesel and detonated. (Blasting aps can be tricky to get ahold of)
Precisely: You don't need a truckload full of fertilizer to make such a bomb. Yet, we don't see school bombings.
It seems obvious to me that Claus does not care if people die, he only cares that they die from something other than a gunshot wound.
Wrong. I care about reducing the number of people killed as much as possible.
There'd be a lot fewer lives lost if teachers were armed and trained in the use of those arms, too.
I really don't think you have thought much about that one. You want stressed-out teachers, who have a hard time maintaining discipline while desperately trying to teach, to also have the responsibility of guns? Of keeping that gun away from kids?
Bad idea. You don't stop school shootings by bringing more guns to school.
Since the US generally has more guns than most other countries, having more gun crimes is going to happen anyway. That's the way it works. Math is funny that way.
The question is whether or not more VIOLENT crime occurs, and the answer to that one is, "Hell no!"
The data proves you wrong.
Agreed. I wish like hell we would get rid of this stupid drug war and legalize drugs. Prohibition only exacerbates problems.
You don't want to legalize heroin, cocaine, crack or crystal meth.
No, you don't.
? Danes want guns as much as Americans? Danes believe that it is their right to have guns? I'm sorry but I don't understand your argument. Americans want guns. BTW, Canadians want guns also. Lots of them.
No, Danes don't want guns as much as Americans. That makes your argument that prohibition does not stop people from getting it invalid.
In the movie Bowling For Columbine Michael Moore makes the point that there are as many guns per capita in Canada as the United States. Yet there is far less gun homicides.
So, the availability of guns is not the problem. My argument IS valid.
Been there, debunked that (Post 204, 236). There are far less handguns in Canada, and far less homicides. There are a lot more rifles in Canada, but we know that it isn't the rifles that are used to kill. Not in the US either.
So what? It's a prohibition. Their culture is different than our culture.
Prohibition of alcohol in America = Bad.
Prohibition of alcohol in Saudi Arabia = Not Bad.
It's not bad? You said that any prohibition would not stop people from getting it. It is clearly false.
No Prohibition of guns and lots availability of guns in Canada = low gun homicide.
No Prohibition of guns and lots availability of guns in America = higher gun homicide.
Debunked above.
Is it ok to compare Americans to Canadians? I think American culture is a lot more like theirs than yours but there still is a difference.
Something is wrong here. Perhaps we shouldn't draw hasty conclusions. Hey, that sounds like a good name for a fallacy. Maybe I'll suggest it to the Intl Fallacy board, what do you think?
Maybe I'll suggest that you took a good, long, hard look at the data.
No, we are talking RESPONSIBILITY. Different argument.
The data shows you are wrong.
Let me just take you back to 1770 by way of comparison. At that time, MOST households in the USA had at least one gun, and there were no real restrictions on ownership or usage. In many places they were essential tools about the house; frontiersmen needed them to stock the larder, etc. Question: Was life more dangerous then as a direct result of the existence of all these weapons? Conversely, would the people have been more safe without them? I suspect not, although I also suspect there were still problems of gun accidents and wilful misuse just as now.
Do you have any data on gun deaths from 1770?
I rather suspect you are diametrically wrong on that. I would expect that the few indeed account for many, and that the average man in the US street does not own a gun.
39%-43% of all households own a gun.
Source,
Source
That's not "few".
RESPONSIBILITY. Different argument.
No, AVAILABILITY. If it was a question of RESPONSIBILITY, military guns would not need to be locked up. If you can't trust a soldier with a gun, who can you trust?[/QUOTE]
RESPONSIBILITY. Different argument.
No, AVAILABILITY. If there were no guns around, the shooting wouldn't have occurred.
Have to disagree. You are jumping to a conclusion not directly supported by your own evidence...how odd for you!
I agree you CAN argue that increased availability implies the requirement for increased (or improved) responsibility, and that lack of this may be a causal factor in perceived increases in gun/child/accident related incidents. You could also argue that "responsibility" MAY include imposition of tougher "access" controls as one measure - licensing and law-enforcement. Another measure could be improved safety education in guns, something that responsible gun owners and I heartily agree on.
I'm sorry, but it is not a question of
responsibility. We see a clear link between gun
accessability and gun deaths.
)
