Another school shooting in Florida

[Tom.]

Everyone outside the US is saying US gun laws are insane, but if they moved over there, i bet 90% of them would buy some sort of gun.

 

[cacatman]

Everyone outside the US is saying US gun laws are insane, but if they moved over there, i bet 90% of them would buy some sort of gun.

....because we ALL know that WE would be RESPONSIBLE gun owners!!!!!.....just like everyone else....until your buttons get pushed at the traffic lights by the punk next to you!!!!!!!

 

["TRUMP"]

Here's what we, Australians (and I’m guessing, most of the world), think about the issue served up in true self-deprecating Aussie style. Whether you’re pro or anti gun control, it’s still worth a look....and a laugh...(not suitable for children. There's a lot of f*-bombs). It's an oldie, but a goodie....

Australian comedian perfectly sums up why other countries think US gun laws are crazy

...and although I'm not American and wouldn't be described politically as left of centre, I think this is a reasonable perspective from an allegedly "reputable" American newspaper.

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

(And just a comment about their "accuracy" (as opposed to "spin") New York Times - Media Bias/Fact Check )

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut.

“Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

P.S. If "self-defence" is really the crux of the matter, I find it strange that America actively campaigns for global Nuclear disarmament, when really, a nuclear weapon is just like a really really big gun.

So the 2nd link you sent only discusses rates of gun related homicides. Of course a country with a gun-ban will have lower numbers than a country without. That's elementary. But of you look at rate of actual homocides instead of just gun related the picture would be different.

 

[pjd1234]

Here's what we, Australians (and I’m guessing, most of the world), think about the issue served up in true self-deprecating Aussie style. Whether you’re pro or anti gun control, it’s still worth a look....and a laugh...(not suitable for children. There's a lot of f*-bombs). It's an oldie, but a goodie....

Australian comedian perfectly sums up why other countries think US gun laws are crazy

...and although I'm not American and wouldn't be described politically as left of centre, I think this is a reasonable perspective from an allegedly "reputable" American newspaper.

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

(And just a comment about their "accuracy" (as opposed to "spin") New York Times - Media Bias/Fact Check )

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut.

“Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

P.S. If "self-defence" is really the crux of the matter, I find it strange that America actively campaigns for global Nuclear disarmament, when really, a nuclear weapon is just like a really really big gun.

That’s funny.
The reason we have nukes and why we don’t want you to have one is so that we can f...uck with you and you can’t f..uck with us

Here is another one we want to disarm fat so kim with his toys (nukes,guns, etc.) but at thesame time we in the u.s. are on a killing spree I find this hypocritical. I say give fat so his toys. You guys don’t want give up your toys either why would he??.

 

[cacatman]

So the 2nd link you sent only discusses rates of gun related homicides. Of course a country with a gun-ban will have lower numbers than a country without. That's elementary. But of you look at rate of actual homocides instead of just gun related the picture would be different.

View attachment 437300

Your murder rate is 57 times more per head of population. Let's just round it down to an even 50 times more than us.

In another site, List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia
Australia has a death rate from gun per 100,000 as 0.16 (2013). America's rate is 3.6 (2014)

Australia's death rate PER GUN owned 0.00004286. America 0.00010430.

From these statistics, it means you kill more people per 100,000 AND each of your guns kills MORE people by a factor of 2.43 ie. each gun you own is 2.43 times more likely to kill someone.

 

[pjd1234]

So the 2nd link you sent only discusses rates of gun related homicides. Of course a country with a gun-ban will have lower numbers than a country without. That's elementary. But of you look at rate of actual homocides instead of just gun related the picture would be different.

View attachment 437300

Google FAKE ***** NEWS

 

["TRUMP"]

Your murder rate is 57 times more per head of population. Let's just round it down to an even 50 times more than us.

View attachment 437301

In another site, List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia
Australia has a death rate from gun per 100,000 as 0.16 (2013). America's rate is 3.6 (2014)

Australia's death rate PER GUN owned 0.00004286. America 0.00010430.

From these statistics, it means you kill more people per 100,000 AND each of your guns kills MORE people by a factor of 2.43 ie. each gun you own is 2.43 times more likely to kill someone.

I'm not comparing USA to Australia. 25 million people in aus and 335 million in USA. Much easier to control such a small # of people (who are mostly willing to be controlled by government) than a large population of people who started off as rebels that overthrew their king in order to protect their liberties. I've never been there but I have been to Philly Chicago and Miami and seen some of the worst areas you can imagine and would never enter those environments without protection. I highly doubt Australia has areas comparable to our worst areas (though I've never been to aus).

 

[cacatman]

I'm not comparing USA to Australia. 25 million people in aus and 335 million in USA. Much easier to control such a small # of people (who are mostly willing to be controlled by government) than a large population of people who started off as rebels that overthrew their king in order to protect their liberties. I've never been there but I have been to Philly Chicago and Miami and seen some of the worst areas you can imagine and would never enter those environments without protection. I highly doubt Australia has areas comparable to our worst areas (though I've never been to aus).

India and China have nowhere near the level of homicide gun crimes per capita, that the USA have. And both these countries have 3-4 times the population of the USA. The also have way less law enforcement officers per capita than the USA.

And Indonesia with slightly less population at 261 million is the same as China and India...except that in Indonesia, it's even harder to patrol because of the thousands of islands in the archipelago. I've visited these countries myself over a number of years and not felt that they were overly dangerous. Certainly guns are not freely available in such nations.

It's true that Australia doesn't have places comparable to Philly Chicago and Miami in terms of perceived danger.

But I've travelled and lived in way more "dangerous" places than the USA, the worst being southern Lebanon (Hezbollah controlled territory), Palestinian refugee camps, Beirut, Yemen, and Syria (in descending order of perceived danger) and Papua New Guinea (we had to travel in packs of at least 5 to ensure we weren't jumped on). Jordan doesn't really rate a mention unless you go to Irbid.

All these places are way safer (ONLY in terms of dying from gun related crime)....even Syria and Yemen (at least when I was there). But I probably wouldn't bet on it now that there is civil war in both those countries.

Syria vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
United States vs Yemen: Crime Facts and Stats

 

[pjd1234]

I'm not comparing USA to Australia. 25 million people in aus and 335 million in USA. Much easier to control such a small # of people (who are mostly willing to be controlled by government) than a large population of people who started off as rebels that overthrew their king in order to protect their liberties. I've never been there but I have been to Philly Chicago and Miami and seen some of the worst areas you can imagine and would never enter those environments without protection. I highly doubt Australia has areas comparable to our worst areas (though I've never been to aus).

Maaaaan and 100 million of those are illegals. No wonder it’s a mess

 

[Medusa50]

Now how do you prevent crazy people from rampaging???? It’s okay if they only kill themselves, but that’s not the case. Plus a normal person can become a nutcase all of a sudden ex. Depression, loosing a bid on ebay lol, getting axed from a deal on this forum etc. etc. that is why i don’t understand mental disorder??? Hence everybody’s saying trump has a mental disorder and he can just nuke anyone with just a touch of a button lol.

Normal people don’t become nutcases all of the sudden. Psychosis isn’t some disease that comes on like the flu. Don’t get it twisted. You can arm a normal person they don’t manifest into serial murderers just because they have a holster.

That’s funny.
The reason we have nukes and why we don’t want you to have one is so that we can f...uck with you and you can’t f..uck with us

Here is another one we want to disarm fat so kim with his toys (nukes,guns, etc.) but at thesame time we in the u.s. are on a killing spree I find this hypocritical. I say give fat so his toys. You guys don’t want give up your toys either why would he??.

You can’t be serious? Give fatso his toys? A man who rules an oppressive country and who continues to test nuclear weapons in an effort to surprise others all while invoking his will? A man who appears willing to launch a missile at a short or long range target regardless of the consequences? Talk about irresponsible. The US has nuclear weapons. We aren’t eager to use them. Our nuclear arsenal is there to protect and is a reactionary measure. The US is not looking to cause a first strike but rather as a defense mechanism and only if acted upon by another aggressive nation. I think you need to reconsider where you stand on this issue as you’re comparing two different nations with weaponry as if to suggest we are equally unstable. Your remarks are completely off Center.