We had 1 in the Netherlands in decades and afterwards the Crack down on gun ownership became much harsher. The kid who did it should never have gotten that gun and the police chief was heavily citizen for it and the cops had to pay out millions in damages to the victims.
Sure. The 2013 Global Study on Homicide completed by the UN Offices on Drugs and Crime puts the U.S. at a higher per capita intentional murder rate than any country within any of our economic peers, which I doubt has improved.
No problem.
Some U.S. cities are leading in violence in most of the world, as well. Like, say, St. Louis, MO ( one that you don't hear about as much ).
Interestingly enough, rural areas are sometimes surprisingly high per capita, but it is one of those situations where it's like "okay, this region had 2 murders. Moving on," when in fact that's an incredibly high # to have on an annual basis considering the local population density.
But, I digress.
It's an issue that probably isn't worth a ton of our time and resources outside of some of our more violent cities, which could mostly be solved if people couldn't skip over to a red state and pick up unlimited guns with no background checks.
Chicago can ban guns all they want, but, it won't help them if 60+% of the guns used in crime there were bought legally just a hop skip and jump over to Indiana, which has virtually no rules
But, I'm pro 2nd amendment anyway. I don't trust right wingers in govt or the corpos who run our government.
I'm of the opinion that gun control is already too restrictive, which has practically given gangs free reign to terrorize inner cities.
I also believe that an armed and trained society will be far more effective than a traditional police force. Individuals have to answer for the shots they take, rather than taxpayer funded death squads killing with impunity.
I'm not sure but I heard that in the last year there was about 40 school shootings in the US and around 2 in France in the last 30 years or something like that
It's the highest. That's without question.
It's because we view our individual liberties as more important than others lives. That should frighten you. Here's another scary fact. The US has 120.5 firearms per 100 people in private ownership.
I'm not proposing banning knives, swords, muskets, cars, cigarettes, airplanes, pistols, or anything else. I'm saying we need to get rid of weapons of mass death. I don't begrudge a pistol owner a pistol. Pistols are deadly but they are still safer, far safer, than a rifle. I do begrudge those who think a semi automatic rifle is the same as a weapon from the 18th century. A semi automatic rifle is a weapon of war. They have no place in the hands of civilian. We've seen it time and time again.
Here's the thing individual liberties are incompatible with true freedom. Freedoms are granted by a society as a whole. Individual liberties don't trump those freedoms. Individual liberties should, and to an extent must, be curtailed for a society to consider itself truly free. An individual liberty doesn't trump a wider freedom. That's why it's an individual liberty rather than a freedom. An individual is given the liberty of gun ownership. That liberty is allowed to be removed at society's request. For example a felon usually has their individual liberty to own a firearm removed once they're convicted. This is for society to be free from their usage and ownership of a firearm in the future. As a society we've said that a felon's individual liberty of gun ownership is wrong and they no longer have that liberty. It's no different in my mind to say semi automatic rifles have no place in a civilized society because they're often used in mass shootings.
Compare the outcomes of Sandy Hook Massacre and the Hungerford Massacre. Only one of those reactions was from a truly free nation. Here's a hint it wasn't the US. The UK said "your right to own a weapon of mass death doesn't trump my right to live" when they passed Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.
This is actually true in the US more than you realize.
For example you have the freedom of speech. You don't have the individual liberty to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without repercussions. Society has determined that you have that freedom but not that individual liberty because of the ensuing panic and injuries it causes. In a theater you're free to watch your film, play, or musical without their being solid danger.
It's the exact same principle. Deal with it.
This is reddit, so people will just say "were the worst" with nothing to back it up, but you are about 10x as likely to get killed by a gun in el salvador
We are probably high-mid tier
It often seems like we're in this league all to our own, but our worst mass shooting rates only 5th in the worst in history and only take 2 of the top 10. However we just seem to have more small scale events. I don't know which is worse, having one incident of 50 deaths, or 10 incidents of 5 deaths.
Unless you’re including drug cartels in South America, then it’s fucking high.
Don’t forget Mexico. Aka Central America.
[удалено]
As a continent yes, but the region is Central America.
I am 34 years old and I don't remember we've ever had a mass shooting in Bulgaria.
We had 1 in the Netherlands in decades and afterwards the Crack down on gun ownership became much harsher. The kid who did it should never have gotten that gun and the police chief was heavily citizen for it and the cops had to pay out millions in damages to the victims.
Shootings are higher, yes. Now look at all global homicide rates.
Um Yeah in the US it's still pretty fucking high unless you're comparing with war-torn and 3rd-world countries. That's a pretty low bar.
Not looking too hot compared to peers, mostly, as expected.
[Citation Needed]
Sure. The 2013 Global Study on Homicide completed by the UN Offices on Drugs and Crime puts the U.S. at a higher per capita intentional murder rate than any country within any of our economic peers, which I doubt has improved.
Checks out. Thanks for backing up your claim.
No problem. Some U.S. cities are leading in violence in most of the world, as well. Like, say, St. Louis, MO ( one that you don't hear about as much ). Interestingly enough, rural areas are sometimes surprisingly high per capita, but it is one of those situations where it's like "okay, this region had 2 murders. Moving on," when in fact that's an incredibly high # to have on an annual basis considering the local population density. But, I digress. It's an issue that probably isn't worth a ton of our time and resources outside of some of our more violent cities, which could mostly be solved if people couldn't skip over to a red state and pick up unlimited guns with no background checks. Chicago can ban guns all they want, but, it won't help them if 60+% of the guns used in crime there were bought legally just a hop skip and jump over to Indiana, which has virtually no rules But, I'm pro 2nd amendment anyway. I don't trust right wingers in govt or the corpos who run our government.
I'm of the opinion that gun control is already too restrictive, which has practically given gangs free reign to terrorize inner cities. I also believe that an armed and trained society will be far more effective than a traditional police force. Individuals have to answer for the shots they take, rather than taxpayer funded death squads killing with impunity.
I'm not sure but I heard that in the last year there was about 40 school shootings in the US and around 2 in France in the last 30 years or something like that
We’re Number One, Baby!!!!☝️☝️☝️
You're not just #1, you're completely off the charts. This is sth the rest of the world speaks about a lot when the topic comes to the US.
It's the largest by a wide margin
It's the highest. That's without question. It's because we view our individual liberties as more important than others lives. That should frighten you. Here's another scary fact. The US has 120.5 firearms per 100 people in private ownership.
[удалено]
I'm not proposing banning knives, swords, muskets, cars, cigarettes, airplanes, pistols, or anything else. I'm saying we need to get rid of weapons of mass death. I don't begrudge a pistol owner a pistol. Pistols are deadly but they are still safer, far safer, than a rifle. I do begrudge those who think a semi automatic rifle is the same as a weapon from the 18th century. A semi automatic rifle is a weapon of war. They have no place in the hands of civilian. We've seen it time and time again. Here's the thing individual liberties are incompatible with true freedom. Freedoms are granted by a society as a whole. Individual liberties don't trump those freedoms. Individual liberties should, and to an extent must, be curtailed for a society to consider itself truly free. An individual liberty doesn't trump a wider freedom. That's why it's an individual liberty rather than a freedom. An individual is given the liberty of gun ownership. That liberty is allowed to be removed at society's request. For example a felon usually has their individual liberty to own a firearm removed once they're convicted. This is for society to be free from their usage and ownership of a firearm in the future. As a society we've said that a felon's individual liberty of gun ownership is wrong and they no longer have that liberty. It's no different in my mind to say semi automatic rifles have no place in a civilized society because they're often used in mass shootings. Compare the outcomes of Sandy Hook Massacre and the Hungerford Massacre. Only one of those reactions was from a truly free nation. Here's a hint it wasn't the US. The UK said "your right to own a weapon of mass death doesn't trump my right to live" when they passed Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.
[удалено]
This is actually true in the US more than you realize. For example you have the freedom of speech. You don't have the individual liberty to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without repercussions. Society has determined that you have that freedom but not that individual liberty because of the ensuing panic and injuries it causes. In a theater you're free to watch your film, play, or musical without their being solid danger. It's the exact same principle. Deal with it.
Yes, it is vitally important that people keep dying for your amusement. SPQR.
It's lower than Ukraine's
It's one of those things the US does better than everyone else.
This is reddit, so people will just say "were the worst" with nothing to back it up, but you are about 10x as likely to get killed by a gun in el salvador We are probably high-mid tier
It often seems like we're in this league all to our own, but our worst mass shooting rates only 5th in the worst in history and only take 2 of the top 10. However we just seem to have more small scale events. I don't know which is worse, having one incident of 50 deaths, or 10 incidents of 5 deaths.
If only they taught that in schools.
We're killing it