Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking


https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/ind...RC.P5/rankings


this is an interesting list. I dont see any asian countries at the top or anywhere actually. And the countries at the top use americans guns etc etc.

First of all, I have no mantra that more guns = better.

With regard to WWII, what measures were taken to get Japan to surrender?

We can get rid of idiocy as realistically as we can get rid of 400K guns in America.

I'd guess yes, but not the same thing as licensed concealed carriers.
I have to explain this to you because you don't understand much about the issue and what distinguishes one from the other.
There totally ARE anecdotal examples of people with carry permits who misuse them, but they're statistically trivial.

If someone physically attacks me or mine, out of the blue, there's a very real (almost guaranteed) chance they get shot.
In the head.
Yes.

I'm not waiting around to see what their ultimate 'attack intentions' are.
FAAFO, 100%.

That being said, if it was a verbal confrontation, I'm pretty good at deescalating those. Much better than what we see from cops but yes.
If they choose to escelate to physical violence, I attack back and due to a pretty severe injury, I'm not going to engage in a parking lot wrestling match at my age.

I'm dismissing the idea that magazine capacity influences mass shooters, yes.
Summarily.
It totally could be studied, but I think its probably more a matter of Criminal Psychologists than statisticians, since you're trying to derive motive.

Great, your goal is to reduce gun violence! Hooray! We agree!
You claim your objective is to reduce firearm population! OK!

What firearms are allowed, which ones not?
Why won't you answer this coherently? You always answer with tangents and questions, but its totally simple. I can help you, if needed.

"I think we should ban Semi Automatic AR47 machineglocks because the children, but hunting shotguns are fine".

Something like that, phrase it however you will. Totally not hard, usually always looks the same but giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe your proposed solution will be different.
How about just taking your abstract concept of 'reducing guns' and put it into a concrete, proposed policy, not a bunch of word salad.

Just posts links to mass shootings to show they do happen.

No you are missing the point as you don't understand much about this issue.

Simply increasing the number of guns in a community regardless of it is the average good guy with a gun, or the person who wants to move up a level to conceal carry will NOT make anyone safer overall, including the person with the gun or the conceal carry as the biggest threat to them is not a 'bad person with a gun' but rather themselves (suicide), or their own gun being used on them or on that of their friends or family members.

So while we get your fear driven to others you should recognize it is irrational for the vast majority of people who face an absolute miniscule and incalculable risk of danger from the 'bad guy with the gun' and multiples more risk from their own gun, in the ways I have outlined.

So you are a psycho and if we had info about who you were in real life, should be reported to the police in the hopes of getting your guns taken from you.

You admit that even if a person pushes you in a verbal exchange and then is walking away (whether they see your gun or not) you will shoot them in the head, because you do not want to risk they may have a gun they might later reach for or being going to get one.

I am not so sure why you would count on your verbal de-escalation skills in an argument as the person could still have a gun or walk away and go get one. It is the EXACT same risk as the person walking away after pushing you poses.

You seem quite inconsistent on that point.

You stuck your foot in your mouth.
The topic was licensed concealed carriers.
You then said ME NO UNDERSTAND!?! and equated them to "all gun owners".
I pointed out that was wrong, then you said ^ that ^ gibberish above.

Stay on topic.

How do you feel about the woman who killed the guy shooting an AR15 into 40 people at a graduation party? It supports your position, but it also supports his position.

No, the conversation evolved from a post that suggested we want more 'good guys with guns' in a Walmart because they could counter the 'bad guy with a gun' entering and harming people.

That is an argument of 'more gun wielding people' equals a good and makes society safer, which gun nuts often tout.

I am pointing out that in the extremely rare event of the Walmart shooter saving lives, the increase of gun carry 'good guys' actually has endangered society more, endangered the gun carrier more, endangered their friends and family more.


The gun nut argument is an emotional one that fails all logic tests as the net result is far more danger to everyone, when you introduce more 'good guys with guns', conceal carry or not.

Yes

Once again (yes I've mentioned it before), it is literally instilled in me to always be ready. It's not fear. It's a mindset. 20 years active duty will do that to you.

No. Literally no. That is just how your mind wants you to interpret it. I really can't help fix that problem you have. It must be terrible thinking that everyone that is fully prepared is because they are in fear. Man, we military guys must have been in fear every second of our active duty lives. That sucks bruh.

It does not support his point.

Yes you can say if Canada and every European country just armored up like the US and got the gun numbers up similarly for people carrying guns that you would have some instances of 'good guys with guns' stopping 'bad guys with guns'.

But does that mean those countries are now all better off and you would say 'good thing they all changed their laws and positions and got people to armor up'?

You guys are illogical. A logical argument has to look at the over all picture.

And the chances that he, or any of the gun nuts are going to be that woman who kills the AR, are only real in their cosplay minds, 99.999% of the time. Meanwhile they, their family and friends are now multiples more likely to die from that same gun owned by them as the 'good guy'.

Better off? Who is saying anything about better off?

You asserted that the event of a legally armed citizen preventing a mass shooting or a violent crime of any type is so rare that no one should carry.

It also sounds like you're arguing that mass shootings are so rare that no one should carry.

It also sounds like if you were one of the 40 people whose lives were saved by that person lawfully carrying, you'd go over and lecture her on how dangerous having that firearm is for her own safety.

It is fear. I get that you do not want to accept that and you have internalized it is not. But yes, if while on active duty, if you are in a place that requires no gun but you arm up regardless because you feel the need to be armed at all times, then that is fear. Other active duty soldiers will get up and walk to the mess hall or bathroom in peace time and on a safe base in America without carrying their weapon.

You are so terrified, even of your fellow soldiers that you would not. Not one step away from your gun at any time. That sucks bruh and i bet your fellow active duty folk thought you were always scared.

love me an old soldier.

That's impressive.

I honestly never met anyone who was fully armed on every duty station, let alone for 20 years.

I knew a few guys who worked behind enemy lines and were minimally armed.

They're what we call bad asses.

Minimally armed. Fully armed. Lol. Here we go again...

NO. You are strawmanning because you know you are wrong.


When it comes to a violent crime of any type, it is just wrong and silly to think allowing for more 'good people with guns' will be of benefit.

Here are the facts you will try to ignore or spin.

- you are not going to know where or when that bad person with a gun is going to act
- ergo even if you up exponentially the number of good guys with guns in a society the chances of them being present are slim
- even if they are are present the chances of them winning the gun fight against a superior armed (AR) are slim
- also there is the chance they and the gun man both kill innocent people
- so you have one scenario where it ends 'better' and that is if on that day, by random chance the good guy with the gun is present and wins with a quick kill of the bad gun with the gun

Meanwhile

- in all other instances of the now larger body of good guys with guns, more of those good guys are dying
- more of their family members are dying
- more of their work colleagues and friends and randoms they interact with daily are dying


If you look at this as a ledger, the less good guy with the gun side is manifestly a better situation for all, in almost every way you can look at it.

The difference between "my mindset is to always be prepared to meet a potential threat" and "my mindset is to always be concerned about a potential threat" doesn't seem especially important to me.

Also, you keep talking about this mindset as if it is some sort of inevitable consequence of career military service, which isn't the case.

Do you really think America or any state would pass a shotgun ban ?

That's pretty much hysterical thinking imo. It's just not going to happen. No matter how many lefties would like it too...and I think that number is approaching zero.

So what about the handgun licensing laws ? The study found an association there too. Just going to hand wave that one away also because we can't know someones motive ?

So i just texted my best friend. Also a 20 year vet, retired, went in to policing and got on Tactical Team (SWAT), and is still active on that unit at age 53 but is also a Sergeant and Trainer.

Here is the text exchange.

Me - you working today or off
Him - Off

Me - question. When you were active duty or even now as someone who is authorized to carry a gun everywhere, did you then or do you now carry your gun at all times, no matter what
Him - Why the **** would I do that? What is with this question?

Me - oh just chatting with a guy who says he never and would never go anywhere without his gun today (conceal carry) and during active duty would not either.
Him : ya lots of guys like that flock into that work. They wrap their identity up in their guns. Feel weak or vulnerable when they do not have it with them and just love their guns. Many bases restrict certain areas to prevent those guys bringing their guns with them all the time, as it makes others often feel unsafe.


Can't make this stuff up. Probably should not be surprised though that even their peers saw guys like Nick as extreme and not safe.
Nick, did some of the bases you were on restrict you from carrying your gun everywhere? And if so, did you sneak it in anyway? Feel very afraid for the moments you were forced to leave it behind?

u clowns sound like Trump, qualifying stuff like 'I prefer those who didn't get captured.'

lol bad asses. one freaky mother.

LOL

Yeah, I'm friends with an old nam USMC long range recon guy who would literally spend weeks or more behind enemy lines with a knife. He wasn't allowed to carry a gun. He also spent much time as an MP rounding up drunk marines from bars in Spain. Again, no gun. He likes to tell the story and then say...none of them came easily. (they were marines after all)

Actual trained military personnel understand how dangerous weapons are and how specific weapons are needed for specific jobs.

But my actual point is that the military employs extremely strict gun control on it's members. Much stricter than those imposed on civilians.

And yet...we still manage to win wars. It's almost as if guns are overrated.

This idea that America will somehow fall without these citizen gun owners is laughable at best. Horrifically dangerous at worst. And it's tilting worse these days.

Of course America would pass a shotgun ban, if they went down the road that "a mass shooting with a gun results in our banning said gun"
Australia did precisely that. The UK did precisely that.

Also, I don't think you know enough about guns to have an opinion on this stuff, but bad news: if a lunatic walks into a school with one of these...



... its not going to go well.

Is that the point where you draw the line?
Or is that the point where you say "OK, well maybe we don't need those either?"

Do note your TOTAL aversion to clearly answering this question.
You instantly change the topic, shift the premise, etc.

They're interesting, but we've experimented with them before and they've shown to be abysmally ineffective.
Chicago had one for decades- they had an outright ban- which, of course. Eliminated gun crime there, FFS....
Washington DC, basically the same thing and man, its like Switzerland there...

In all honesty, handguns are the 'problem child' from a statistical perspective but its poltically untenable to really do much with them and people don't trust you and yours to register them, with the idea you won't ultimately ban them, because, ya know.

That's what you want.