Posted by Eeyore on October 20, 2007, 4:08 am
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Of the world's 36 wealthiest nations, the U.S. gun death rate for 1994 was the
highest at 14.24 per 100,000 people. Asian countries had the lowest rates
followed by England and Wales.
*** In 1994, the U.S. accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths in those
Posted by John Stumbles on October 20, 2007, 10:24 pm
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:55:33 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:
What's significant about Vermont? To make some point I could chose an
area of the UK where the rate is relatively huge or another where it's
relatively small: it's just lies, damn' lies & statistics. The point of
comparing the UK as a whole with the USA as a whole is that in all the USA
citizens have the right to own guns whereas in all the they don't have
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Posted by Steve Firth on October 20, 2007, 10:45 pm
Vermont allows citizens to buy and keep guns with little or no control
and to carry concealed guns on their person in public places. That,
according to the slavering brigade here should ensure universal carnage.
Instead the opposite effect happens, people are very polite to each
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may
have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Posted by nicksanspam on October 20, 2007, 10:56 pm
Yes, this is OT for alt.solar.thermal.
Posted by Morris Dovey on October 19, 2007, 7:12 pm
| Morris Dovey wrote:
|| many times more non-firearm murders than that every year. Nearly of
|| the murders are either arise from domestic disputes or are
|| drug-related. I don't have exact statistics, but read the all too
|| frequent reports in the newspapers.
| I'm sure and in a 'domestic' I dare say it's easy to use that
| firearm in a 'moment of madness'. NO firearm, probably no murder.
That's probably not the case. More probably, given the level of rage
required to take a spouse's life, the alternative would be a knife or
|| It might help to remember that Americans aren't simply Brits who've
|| forgotten how to spell. You and I see the world through different
|| eyes, and although we can carry on a conversation and agree about
|| nearly everything that a pair of Brits or a pair of Americans might
|| agree on, our ability to survive and thrive in our personal worlds
|| depends on our abilities to automatically react to events in
|| different contexts.
| Oh yes, I've been increasingly aware of the differences, largely
| through conversations such as this one on usenet in fact.
Thank you for making the effort. Understanding is always worthwhile,
but often difficult to come by - for Americans, too - perhaps even
more difficult for many of us because of our geographical separation
from so many of the other important cultures in our world...
|| However difficult it might be for you to appreciate, the American
|| fixation on lethal defense (and you're mistaken if you believe it's
|| limited to firearms) has a solid basis in the American context. It
|| doesn't matter that anyone might find that irrational or
|| uncivilized - it's real. To reach back and borrow from British
|| naval tradition: We're prepared to repel all boarders. That there
|| may (note the implied uncertainty) no longer be a need such
|| defense is moot - the preparedness has become part of our fiber.
| I've always also kind of imagined it dates back to 'frontier
| spirit' and fending off wild animals, injuns and so on. It just
| seems sad it's not possible to move in.
Don't forget that along with some hostile residents and some wild
animals, there were unfriendly foreign armies.
I'd like to agree and disagree at the same time, so I won't do either.
I'm an American and that's how I am. It's my nature to want everyone
to be my friend, and to be a good friend to all people. I hope for the
best - and I prepare for the worst. <shrug>
| I'm additionally forever perplexed that Americans seem keen to
| encourage wider ownership of guns in other countries in this
| bizarre belief that we'll be somehow 'safer' in spite of what all
| the evidence says.
Hmm. This particular American hasn't done so. I've pretty much figured
that it wasn't any of my business. I wouldn't even have discussed it
with you except that you seemed so intent on establishing some weird
kind of moral superiority based on non-possession of firearms.
| The US gun death rate is FORTY times that in the UK btw.
Have you considered that Americans might already have recognized that
we're paying a very high price for our right to have firearms, and
that a clear majority have chosen to pay that price? I'd like to
suggest that your inability to understand that choice does not
necessarily mean that the majority of Americans are either stupid or
You might ponder why so many Americans would choose to pay such a high
One fortieth the US rate sounds OK.
Zero would be better.
DeSoto, Iowa USA