water cannon

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by von Pilsner

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop.

England & Wales 1.45
United States 8.55

After researching one statistic on one page of wikipedia for about 35 seconds it would seem we either have a higher percentage of homicidal folks in the USA, gun availability does matter, random internet statistics don't tell the whole story, some other variables (standard of living, industrialization, political climate) change things dramatically, or our societies are a lot different than I thought.

Maybe if it were 5.9 times more likely you would be murdered you'd want to own a gun too.... (I own 2 ) conversely if I lived in a society where guns and homicide were less common I probably would not care if I owned guns or not (ok, shooting targets is pretty fun).

sorry, is it homicide or homicide committed by means of a gun? You'd be surprised to see how many people kill others with other means than a gun.

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

sorry, is it homicide or homicide committed by means of a gun? You'd be surprised to see how many people kill others with other means than a gun.

Mortality [US]

All homicides
•Number of deaths: 18,361
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.1

Firearm homicides
•Number of deaths: 12,632
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 4.2

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2007, tables B, 18
From CDC website

[drewpee]

Still don't get the idea that a civilized world is safer with guns. Are we also to believe nuclear weapons makes our planet safer? They are also said to be for self defence.
As far as the argument that cars are more dangerous that's ludacris. What about ambulances, fire engines, supply trucks and farm vehicles. They're a necessary risk. Saving far more than killing.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by drewpee

Still don't get the idea that a civilized world is safer with guns. Are we also to believe nuclear weapons makes our planet safer? They are also said to be for self defence.
As far as the argument that cars are more dangerous that's ludacris. What about ambulances, fire engines, supply trucks and farm vehicles. They're a necessary risk. Saving far more than killing.

erm, how do you think we haven't killed each other after WW2 so far? The "peaceful" United Kingdom has some 226 nuclear warheads, enough to obliterate this planet a couple of times..

Since the end of WW2 peace among the "important countries" has been maintained by a balance of firepowers, not by smiles and civilised manners.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by drewpee

Still don't get the idea that a civilized world is safer with guns. Are we also to believe nuclear weapons makes our planet safer? They are also said to be for self defence.
As far as the argument that cars are more dangerous that's ludacris. What about ambulances, fire engines, supply trucks and farm vehicles. They're a necessary risk. Saving far more than killing.

guns are just a weapon, not the weapon. They can be used in an offensive manner as much as they can be used in a defensive one, and they're the ultimate balance: no matter how strong you are, if I have a gun and you're bigger than me, I win.

The example you make is an exception just like firearms given to armed response squads: they have a specific purpose. Still, cars and reckless driving kill more than firearms.

[baronWastelan]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

touche, but that just means we can't bomb people from the sea. plenty enough cruise missiles and the like left.

Don't forget the RAF which can be billeted comfortably in Italian hotels and from there bomb Africa, as they have been doing these past few months. Personally I would much rather live in a hotel in Italy than on a ship, so this represents a major step forward for the British Empire.