What's that got to do with anything?


Yeah, and?


Looks to me like sloppy reporting. Your own link shows that Utah's law has actually gone into operational effect.


?


Pertinent to what, exactly? I should remind you that the people I'm debating with are raising fears that these policies will increase the danger level in schools. Your "pertinent" passages have done nothing to bolster that view.

Apparently you don't do well with metaphors.

To put it less poetically, how do you know guns in Utah schools will prove safe?



It may be sloppy reporting, but you were the one who posted the link.

It may be operational in a few places, but that doesn't mean the federal courts won't declare the practice illegal. Then what?

Well, not the kind that don't make any sense, anyway.


I consider it highly likely, simply because there's no reason to believe otherwise. What realistically do people expect would happen? That some kid might grab the gun from the teacher? Does this happen generally in states where conceal-carry is allowed? If not (and no one has provided so much as a single anecdote), then why would it happen in a school setting? Is the concern that a teacher might "overreact" to a threatening student? Again, there would be some indication that this sort of thing has been happening in public settings in states with shall-issue conceal-carry laws.

The fact that teachers in Utah have to be trained by a state-certified instructor in order to carry adds a further layer of safety.

You are essentially guessing. Absence of reason to think things will not go well is no guarantee that they actually will. Your own link expresses doubt on the part of many people in Utah.

I would think that after all these years you'd have known by now that there are precious few absolute guarantees of anything in life. It's a matter of probabilities, and as I've shown, the probability of anything going wrong with a law like Utah's is infinitesimal.


Who make no attempt to give any real reason other than a vague dislike of guns.

However, you have yet to provide any evidence that this has worked anywhere in the past- and as usual, you have nothing to back up anything you say except your "feelings".

Why such an aversion to factual commentary and findings Blackstone- I have yet to find one post where you have provided a decent source, for, well, anything.

How about some source that actually has some favorable findings towards your world view.

the "guessing" here is only done by YOUR side- we have lots of evidence that simply having a gun makes you more likely to be victim of a gun, in some manner, than having no gun at all.

Where is your rebutting evidence Blackstone.

Don't worry- similar to all right wingers, I am pretty sure you won't be posting any facts anytime soon.

I, for one, would welcome a postive study for gun ownership- but no one has been able to do it so far. I collect guns, I hunt, and generally see them as tools. But there are quite a few gun owners I wouldn't trust with a hammer as a tool, much less a gun.

I would love for a study to come out that says "you are far safer, and your kids are safer, because you own guns"- guess what- ain't no such thang.

But wishing there was- doesn't make it a reality.

Bottom line is- owing guns makes you much less safe than not owning guns.

And it is only logical, considering the really, really low numbers of school shootings in the grand scheme of things- haivng MORE guns in school is anti-logic working here. how would having more guns in schools make it safer? Where is some emprical evidence that this would be true?

And even if there is never a single incident in Utah after all the penis envy types get thier big bad guns, you still can't relate the guns with having safer schools- simply because the sample numbers will NEVER be high enough to come to a decent correlation/causation summary of results.

It would be no different than the Alaska State legislature outlawing wild gator attacks. Sure, we had no wild gator attacks, but ya know, gators don't live in Alaska anyway- but hey- the law must be working, because no one was attacked by a gator!

Since no one has tried this in the past, that would only make sense that there wouldn't be any evidence, wouldn't it?



Yup, no conservative in history has ever posted any facts, only left wingers!



It also makes sense that owning a car only increases the likelyhood of getting injured and/or killed in a car accident, doesn't it?



I don't know, having no guns in schools doesn't seem to stop school shootings. How many have we had this year? How many mass shootings at airports? More people go through airports than schools, higher stress for people in airports, yet no mass shootings that I can find. Wonder why? http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/03/18/bt.travel.stress/



Way to be able to discredit results before they even happen, just in case they do happen!


This is the most outrageous comparison I think anyone could come up with. There are guns, people and the opportuity for people to lose control in Utah, but there aren't any wild gators in AK. The comparison is rediculous.

That's what I keep having to try to explain to him. He seems to think that merely posting a study, no matter how irrelevant its findings are to the question under discussion, somehow settles the question. It's a common fallacy in most debates to think that all you need to do is post a bunch of links and therefore you're more credible. What's needed are relevant facts and the ability to interpret them, two things that are sorely missing on the anti-gun side.

Blackstone that is not exactly what you have been trying to explain. In the paragraph below, you seem to be divining success for something that hasn’t been tried.



Regardless of how anyone comes back at you, you are going to squirm, squirm, squirm (think of the Beach Boy song "Fun, Fun Fun") out of it. So, who on the right is right, scubatim or Blackstone?

You're confusing evidence with argumentation. Get back to me when you've figured out the difference.

Right, Blackstone. When all else fails, play the lawyer card.

You are barking like a drill instructor again. Drop the authoritarin crap. I will get back to you when I choose, not when you choose. You can take yourself out of the thread, but you can't order me off. When moderator appears under your name you may be able to hand down such edicts.

Yes, in some debate in the future, probably after the sun dies, perhaps you will care to offer up some evidence, instead of just repeating a discredited argument?

Lets be clear here- is the cure worse than the cold- lets examine the odds here if you will:

http://www.sj-r.com/columnists/alice_armst...l_policies_not/


"The odds of dying a violent death in a school in America last year (1999) was one in two million," reports the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. In contrast, a Web site called Funny2.com lists the "Odds of being killed sometime in the next year in any sort of transportation accident: 77 to 1 ... Chance that Earth will experience a catastrophic collision with an asteroid in the next 100 years: 1 in 5,000 (and the) Chance of dying in such a collision: 1 in 20,000."

WE really should be fearing asteroid strikes ALOT more Blackstone- don't ya think?

http://www.courttv.com/chat/transcripts/20...gs-cornell.html


Lets take it further:

If you want to prepare your child for a one in a million event, why start with schools? In my book on school violence, fears versus facts, I calculated how often the typical school will have a student killer. If you take the ten worst years, there were about 9.3 student killings per year. If you divide that by 119,000 schools, the odds of it happening are remote. The average school can expect a student to kill someone at school every 12,000 years. Prepare your child for lightening to strike, or a hurricane or an earthquake. We do have a problem, however, with students making threats and students who are frightened.. We do need to talk with students about violence, but not necessarily the extreme kinds we hear about in the news. After Columbine, students began to make huge numbers of threats.

And:

Question from NH-JULIE: Professor Cornell, How many School shootings were there in the 80's vs. 90's?

Dewey Cornell: We don't have good stats, but school shootings were highest in 1993-94 and declined thereafter. In 1979 a girl in San Diego opened fire on an elementary school. She killed the principal, and the custodian, and wounded 8 students and a police officer. She is still in prison to this day. We didn't start tracking school shootings until the 90s.
Question from eowyn: Do you think it's appropriate to warn young children about school violence, ages 5-9?

Dewey Cornell: School violence can mean anything from rampage shootings to bullying on the playground. I do not want to frighten kids, but they should have some basic ground rules. They should be leery of anyone with a gun or knife, and report it immediately. They should not tolerate bullying. Children should participate in programs to reduce bullying, which is the form of violence that is often the seedbed for more serious violence.

Question from NicNYC: What school-based prevention methods are effective?

Dewey Cornell: There are lots. There have been over 200 controlled studies of school based violence prevention. The average effective program reduces violence such as fighting by about 50%. The most effective programs include counseling, cognitive behavior therapy, conflict resolution, training, social skills training. No single program has been found to be the best. There are some programs that don't work, too. Unfortunately, the programs found to be ineffective are often popular and widely used. Scared Straight does not work. Research over many years repeatedly finds that DARE does not reduce drug use or violence. School uniforms do not work. I review the evidence for what works and what does not work in my book.

I know I will not convince Blackstone- because one thing blackstone DOESN'T like, and is very averse to dealing with- is evidence-

But there ARE effective, proven methods of reducing school violence overall, and getting to the REAL reason kids go crazy in school every once in a while:

Dewey Cornell: School violence can mean anything from rampage shootings to bullying on the playground. I do not want to frighten kids, but they should have some basic ground rules. They should be leery of anyone with a gun or knife, and report it immediately. They should not tolerate bullying. Children should participate in programs to reduce bullying, which is the form of violence that is often the seedbed for more serious violence.

Question from NicNYC: What school-based prevention methods are effective?

Dewey Cornell: There are lots. There have been over 200 controlled studies of school based violence prevention. The average effective program reduces violence such as fighting by about 50%. The most effective programs include counseling, cognitive behavior therapy, conflict resolution, training, social skills training. No single program has been found to be the best. There are some programs that don't work, too. Unfortunately, the programs found to be ineffective are often popular and widely used. Scared Straight does not work. Research over many years repeatedly finds that DARE does not reduce drug use or violence. School uniforms do not work. I review the evidence for what works and what does not work in my book.


So, you see blackstone- I am all for WHAT WORKS, WHAT HAS SOME EVIDENCE TO BE PROVEN TO WORK- and what HAS NEVER been proven to work- is adding more guns to the school- it is quite literally- stupid. Beyond stupid- it goes into criminally insane.

If I am not mistaken- I believe this was the deadliest school attack in US history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Killed 48, 58 wounded.

Funny, no one at the time suggested arming the teachers with dynamite? why don't we protect our children by giving our teachers dynamite Blackstone- just in case another dynamiter decides to fall from the sky and attack our schools?

BTW- I am quite sure there was probably guns in that school when that attack happened back in 1927- I am not sure about that school, but even in the late 70s we took our guns to school to get ready to go hunting right after school. I will be willing to bet, it being 1927, there were a few kids with guns (probably a .22) to hunt for some game on the way back to the farm.

Still didn't help those kids now, did it?

It's been a while since I've seen such an obvious case of cognative dissonance. It's almost comic to see how scubatim and Blackstone can not and will not validate ANY information that runs counter to their pre-determined belief in guns. The sorry spectacle of purportedly intelligent people stubbornly rebutting any evidence contrary to their stated opinion is unfortunate.

Here is a fact: Less than 1% of all homicides and suicides among school-aged children (5-19 years of age) occur in or around school grounds or on the way to or from school.

When faced with the fact that school shootings are extremely uncommon and isolated events, how does Blackstone respond?



OK, so maybe I'm the one confused here. What IS your question? It can't be that shootings happen so frequently that it requires the arming of personnel outside of trained security in America's schools.

Any incident where children are attacked and killed is tragic beyond words, but it is more likely that a kid will be shot walking home from school or in that home, than in the school itself. Pro-gun forces are advocating for answers to a problem with so few occurrences as to make their "cure" far more pervasive than the "disease."

If safety isn't the issue here, what is? To create a new generation of "gun nuts" by showing how cool it is to walk around a school strapped and ready to rumble?




Relevant facts? What relevant facts have you offered, Blackstone besides a year-old newspaper article about a free gun-training program for teachers being offered by a gun lobbyist in one of the most conservative states in the country? There have not been a wave of similar initiatives launched in even the reddest of Red State America.

The ability to interpret facts? Is that what you call a backhanded dismissal of the CDC statistics with a off-hand remark like, "That of course has nothing to do with my question." Sure it does. It clearly indicates how seldom school shootings occur. When they do happen, they supersede virtually any other news, but it's not as they happen every few weeks. The only logical reason the occurrence rate "has nothing to do" with your question is because it may render your question moot.

I agree with you that posting a series of links does not automatically grant instant credibility. The links must be relevant and the facts not easily refuted. On certain topics like the war in Iraq, abortion or taxes, there is no short of good, conclusive evidence on either side of the argument to support one's chosen position.

However, I would submit to you Blackstone and scubatim that this is not the case with the suggestion that more guns will prevent or lessen the severity of school shootings. Despite what scubatim asserts, because there is no supporting evidence in America that more guns in school will prevent future incidents, does not mean we should create the environment so the theory can then be tested in the field.

Incidentally, scubatim, there IS evidence as to what effect armed teachers have in preventing and responding to armed attacks. A 2004 National Review article specifically references Israel where teachers with weapons are common:

After vigorous debate, the government began allowing army reservists to keep their weapons with them. Handgun carry permits were given to any Israeli with a clean record who lived in the most dangerous areas: Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

All over Israel, guns became pervasive in the schools:

Teachers and kindergarten nurses now started to carry guns, schools were protected by parents (and often grandpas) guarding them in voluntary shifts. No school group went on a hike or trip without armed guards. The Police involved the citizens in a voluntary civil guard project “Mishmar Esrachi,” which even had its own sniper teams. The Army’s Youth Group program, “Gadna”, trained 15 to 16-year-old kids in gun safety and guard procedures and the older high-school boys got involved with the Mishmar Esrachi. During one noted incident, the “Herzliyah Bus massacre” (March ’78, hijacking of a bus, 37 dead, 76 wounded), these youngsters were involved in the overall security measures in which the whole area between North Tel Aviv and the resort town of Herzlyiah was blocked off, manning roadblocks with the police, guarding schools kindergartens, etc.

After a while, “When the message got around to the PLO groups and a couple infiltration attempts failed, the attacks against schools ceased.”

This is not to say that Palestinian terrorists never target schools. In late May 2002, an Israeli teacher shot a suicide terrorist before he could harm anyone. link

Of course, the situation in Israel is a unique one as was the tragic Beslan school hostage crisis in Russia where Chechen separatists held 1,200 schoolchildren and adults hostage and 334 were killed, including 186 children. If something similar ever happened here, there would be considerably less resistance to arming teachers.

The U.S. is not Israel or Russia where schools are targeted by rebels or terrorists. The common goal should be to ensure schools are safe places for children to learn. What method best assures that safety is subject to debate, but so far, not only have the pro-gun forces only provided precious little in the way of verifiable fact to support their point, now they are saying just because they don't HAVE any corroborating evidence doesn't mean their approach shouldn't be given a try.

Rubbish. Bring something more substantial than anecdotes and hotly-expressed opinions and maybe we'll have something to discuss. Right now, you are just aiming blindly and whatever you hit by chance you claim was the target all along.

Hi!

This is my first post in the debate forum, and i hope i will contribute to the debate and learn something.





This question confuses me somewhat. The easy access to guns are the factor for the violence we see, and this question seems to ask the complete opposite
of such logic.

Simple answer, No?




Its . ehm... Gun Free?
These weapons is the easiest way of killing someone, As well as the huge amount of "accidental gunfire" which would be included in the equation.

Less weapons, means less deaths and the total absence of gun related violence (obviously).



I would say everywhere. If the United States would remove the weapons they would not have the highest rate of gun related violence. Simple.
To extend on it, as weapons are so easy to access in the U.S, i would say all public areas and specifically schools or other areas of learning.

For some reason, the anti-gun side isn't able to explain how we are going to get the guns that are obtained illegally off the streets. By passing laws that limit the ability to obtain weapons only limit law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons. What measures are the anti-gun supporters willing to offer to stop those that obtain weapons illegally from getting their hands on guns? Crack is illegal, but people still buy and sell it. Meth is illegal, but people still buy and sell it. What evidence is there that making guns illegal is going to stop some punk on the street from getting their hands on a gun?

I find this report to be interesting. Notice assults are continuing to rise, as is armed robbery. Homicides aren't down, only firearm homicides, and not by a great margin. I don't see anything in this report that illustrates our friends down under are any safer today than they were before the buyback program.

scubatim, not to offend you in any way, but i consider your claim to be rather ludicrous.


Clearly, it seems you have no other experience then your own societies, to say such a thing. How come the European Union, with 150 million people more, have less gun related violence then United States of America?

To say, to oneself, that the easy access is not the cause of the violence we see in the United States is on pair with claiming the moon to be made out of cheese. This is not a "pro" or "con" issue scubatim, this is about common sense.


Any issue you have, such as "how we are going to get the guns that are obtained illegally off the streets", must be measured in other areas o the world, such as the European Union. How come they do not have this problem? Are you saying Europeans are less violent in nature? More loving? More honest? I assume you claim such a thing, else you would not say "Crack is illegal, but people still buy and sell it. Meth is....".


I am not an american, but i been in the United States and lived in its society, and if i compare it to the European Nations, to which i also been to, i must say its quite inferior, especially when it comes to gun related issues.



This is my subjective take on why we have these problems in the U.S:

1. Historically the U.S have treated weapons as something "good", and violence (such as in movies and media) have been glorified if it is not inflicted on themselves (Example: Thousands of innocent iraqi children killed, who cares?, compared to "Oh my Lord 3000 americans died in the 9/11 attack, its horror, its horror, nothing like this has never happened in the history of the world"....

Sorry for my lack of discretion on this point, but "pro-gun" arguments ae rather insulting.

2. As weapons have been so freely available in the U.S, the gun-related violence sky rocketed but the common man did not "understand why", even when they hold it in their hand, as their culture, family, and media continue to tell them that weapons are important and "needed" for your safety instead of looking at other more stable nations such as the European ones.


The fact of the matter is, if you have a look at Canada, whom have a good registation system (which they themselves still complain about, because everything has faults) works very well. The Gun related violence is practically zero, why? Everyone has ACCESS TO WEAPONS if they WANTED TO, what about the "criminal on the street" in Canada? Are Canadians less violent? Less angry?




I have walked the streets at night in Tokyo, in Mexico City, in London, i have never feelt worried. I have been walking the streets in Indonesia, i do not feel worry of any kind. But everytime i am in the United States, either it be Los Angeles, New York or other, i truly feel very uncomfortable doing so, why is this? There must be a reason? Or are you going to ignore the rest of the world in this debate?


This is not an insult to your country, i love some things about the U.S, as i do with all countries, as well as things i dont like, as, once again, i do with all countries. This is merely a simple refletion that other societies clearly do not have this problem, and i wish to point out to you, why could this be?


-JE

Validate any information that runs counter to our pre-determined belief in guns. This one made me think a while. Why do I have to validate anything that is counter to my belief? Isn't the fact that you provide information that counters my belief your responsibility to validate? Isn't that what debating is? I provide validation to my views, you provide validation to yours?

I don’t necessarily want to “arm” teachers and certainly kindergarten teachers are not the issue as you well know. The fact that even middle school teachers and certainly high school teachers are attacked regularly (along with innocent students) is the issue. And if schools would just HIRE armed security where needed this would not be up for discussion. The fact that this is not happening and that teachers are often victims along with students just trying to get an education is the point. You want to dispute my crime numbers NTT?? NOT “rare events” sir. EVERY day is more like it in the inner city. Your solution?



What usually happens is a person points a gun at said dirt bag and he “gets religion” real quick. In fact the data says that guns prevent about 2,00,0000 incidents a year in just this way with no shots fired.

I don't take offense to anyone's opinion, as long as you don't take offense to me thinkging the same about yours!




I don't believe you read my reference in my last post. It is only about Austrailia, not the U.S. Further more, this report shows that " Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States ". It goes on to point out "The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate." I would be more concerned while walking the streets in Mexico City!

FYI, I have travled to Jamaica, Mexico, Caymen Islands, and yes, Russia. Don't assume you know someones experience in other societies.





First off, your reference to the moon in relation to this argument is off topic and doesn't relate, in my opinion. I would agree with you about common sense, though. It is only common sense that would illustrate that with stricter gun laws, fewer law abiding citizens would have guns, but the number of criminals with guns illegally wouldn't decline. The drug comparison is relative and illustrates this point perfectly.



Personal opinions are not supportive of debate.



So by your own words, it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the violence being sensationalized by movies and media. By the way, who is offended by pro-gun arguments?



Again, you point out media and movies as the problem, not guns. Besides, these are unsupported statements.



Thats funny, according to this article points out that violence with guns is rising. How is that explained?



Well, this thread is about violence in schools, but I will entertain your question about the rest of the world. I don't think I am going to believe that walking the streets in Mexico City is less dangerous than walking the streets of New York. Furthermore, you picked two of the largest, and among the most dangerous cities in the United States to compare to "the rest of the world". Why would someone that is anti-gun do such a thing? Would you feel uncomfortable walking the streets of Omaha Nebraska? How about Minneapolis Minnesota? Witchita Kansas? Why do you feel uncomfortable walking the streets in the U.S.? Is it because of what the media has shown you about America, or from personal experiences? Be honest! I will repost my resource that discusses violence comparison around the globe. Feel free to post your references any time. [url]http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Ya sure “we” killed them – not the insurgents. Give me a break sir.






You confuse “weapons” with “crime” – historically weapons have been available to citizens going back to the founding of this country. The "Wild West" was actually quite crime free and everyone had and often carried weapons. There is literally NO correlation between guns in the hands of civilians and “gun crime”. So it is you anti gun nonsense that is “insulting”.





Yes you are safer in Tokyo then LA because in Japan they enforce their laws and in LA they pour the criminals back on the street – often ignoring the “gun” the criminal was caught with. This is the reason for high “gun crime” – we, as a society, allow it to happen – a mistake imo.

You fail to mention Switzerland where guns are everywhere and the “gun crime” is the same as Japan where guns are outlawed. Want to explain that to me?

The question under debate that I'm primarily discussing is the first one: Is our lack of armed resistance a contributing factor to school shootings?

How frequent or seldom those shootings are doesn't really have any bearing on that question. What additional methods might also help reduce school violence doesn't really have much bearing on that question either. What has bearing on it is whether or not guns in the right hands - i.e., properly trained adults with good reputations - will help reduce the incidence of school shootings or the death toll from them should they occur. I've gone into detail on several posts on why there's nothing to indicate that the answer is no, and plenty of reason to believe that the answer is yes.

I'd have to know you better to tell you exactly why you 'never felt worried' in those places. But I can tell you that it likely didn't have much of a basis in reality (unless you were cruising the city's worst areas and then comparing them to the nicer parts of the other places). You are actually twice as likely to find yourself a victim of assault in the UK, or your home New Zealand as here. I'd hazard a guess that you 'felt safer' in those places for the same reason I felt safer (at first) when I lived in South Korea (and Italy for that matter) and walked its streets...until I finally heard the news (in English) that Americans were being assaulted and abducted. Then I didn't feel as safe. Ignorance is bliss. "Safe feelings" are hardly a true gauge of how safe an area is.

I am not quite sure of what you are trying to say here Mrs P- are you saying European cities of similar size to an American big city is less safe than an American big city? Unless you are just picking gated communities in the US- it boggles the mind that anyone can make that claim. Last time I made a wrong turn in Frankfurt I didn't worry about getting blown away like you would in, oh, any big city in America.

I also find it silly when someone quotes the Australia gun violence "it went up X% because of no guns"- ya, it went from 100 to 120 deaths- and then we compare it to 8 kids a day getting blown away in the US- Mrs P- how many first world countries have the US equivilent of 8 kids a day getting taken out by guns, no matter what the reason (I don't care if it was on purpose, suicide or murder- it is still 8 kids a day getting popped and killed)


Also- Mrs P- from your link:

DEFINITION: People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevelence.

SOURCE: UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin

There were 2900 felony assaults in Anchorage last year, 39 of them prosecuted and convicted. Usually, crimes against law enforcement personel, unless a conviction, are not considered part of any statistic, and, in fact, not even compiled at all- the police union started keeping track,because bad guys are walking because the DA does not have the resources to go after felony assaults like they should be.

Yes and no. Some European cities of similar size are not as safe as some American comparable cities and vice-versa. Yes, that is true.



Frankfurt isn't all of Europe. As I said, "fuzzy, safe feelings" are not statistically accurate. When was the last time you were 'blown away' in an American city? Just curious.



Well, that wouldn't be me. I fully admit that a person is more likely to get shot (or killed) here than in Europe. However, the odds of being shot or killed here are still very low (we do have 300 million people here), and one is also less likely to be subject (here) to certain other forms of crime, including violent crime.




The portion you are bolding refers to the difference between first world and third world countries in general, not typically first world countries. Obviously you are probably more likely to encounter an assault in Somalia or Sudan than Canada, though Somalia and Sudan aren't represented that way on the chart. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you believe that your above compilations for criminal statistics would only apply to the US and no one else....Whatever.

My point stands and I don't see much reason to argue about this further. There's a reason everyone seems to feel safer when they travel and it doesn't have much to do with their true safety. One is much more likely to get mugged in Europe than here. I'm not sure I've ever met a person who was mugged in America, now that I think about it.....Forgone conclusion in many places I've been in Europe. Wear a rolex the next time you are in Rome and then get back to me. Of course, if I went into Liberty City Miami I'd have some problems. That's the point. Generalities of "I felt safer here or there" don't mean much of anything. I could go on all day about this-or-that area (in Europe/Asia) where someone I knew was robbed/mugged/punched (in fact, the only truly violent fight I've ever personally seen took place in Europe) what's the point really?

Hi CruisingRam.

This is my point, and i feel that i will have a problem to make it clear as i am not an american, and might be "accused" of being "anti-american" or somesuch nonsense.


I do not feel safe when i walk around in United States. Either it be Atlanta or New York, San Diego to Miami. And i lived in nations that should be classified as far "more dangerous", but I never experienced any problems there, and i never feelt the eery feeling i feel when i walk the streets of any american town. Maybe its just me, sure, but thats how i feel.




Mrs Pigpen, the European Union have 450 million people in a smaller area then the United States. Thats 150 million people more then the U.S. You continue to say that the chances are lower to be "killed here" does not make any sense. If i walk to downtown Christchurch (New Zealand), are you saying its higher chance for me to get killed or robbed then an american town, where weapons are easily obtained? It does not make any sense looking at the statistics that go against all your saying.

I did not feel the same when i was in european nations either. There are more people in europe, and yet, i did not get the same eery feeling, and like CruisingRam pointed out, whatever it be Frankfurt or Stockholm, its not the same, the U.S is very very different. And you been traveling the world, you should know this, you should have seen and felt the difference, have you not?


-JE

YES that is exactly what she is saying and all you need top do is look at the date. The idea that because we have “more guns” means that you are not safer here in most places is just nonsense.

Assault victims (most recent) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals
Definition Source Printable version


Bar Graph Map
Correlations



Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries
Amount (top to bottom)

#1 Saint Kitts and Nevis:
3%
#2 United Kingdom:
2.8%
#3 Australia:
2.4%
#4 New Zealand:
2.4%
#5 Canada:
2.3%
#6 Finland:
2.1%
#7 Denmark:
1.4%
#8 France:
1.4%
#9 Sweden:
1.2%
#10 Belgium:
1.2%
#11 United States:
1.2%
#12 Poland:
1.1%
#13 Malta:
1.1%
#14 Slovenia:
1.1%
#15 Switzerland:
1%
#16 Netherlands:
1%
#17 Austria:
0.8%
#18 Portugal:
0.4%
#19 Italy:
0.2%
#20 Japan:
0.1%


LOOK at the data at the LINK here:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_...assault-victims

Statistics alone is just math. How its applied to physical reality is the other part. For instance look at these stats.

"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.


Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005."

Link

So what does that mean? Does it mean a small percent overall of criminals commit armed crime? Were all those people career criminals, or drug dealers?

I mean how do you orientate the data to fit an opinion or even hypothesis. I see a lot of stats getting used but nobody really talking about what it means to any depth past here is a stat and now here is how I feel.

For instance, why does the U.S have such a consistently high homicide rate with weapons compared to the rest of the world? I mean where is the stats for that. Stats are very useful, I like them, but using them is such a fashion is probably akin to why the public is at such odds with itself over the science of global warming. You have professionals releasing very technical data to a less then ideal situation for such succession of information.

For instance, Iraq. Who in there right minds knows enough about people to totally change a culture. I mean if we used stats compared to a peaceful nation in proper context I think stats could only support Iraq being a quagmire, but what supports that stats or what do the represent and how?

Lastly the issue is about schools. I don’t see armed guards as any means to a positive end really. Not in context of the issue at hand. The schools are not in a combat zone, its a deeper issue in which the answer is not a band aid with armed para-military forces engaging the locals for control of behavior. Do you possibly see how crude and damning a fix that is? Or because its guns such an idea cant be opposed unless you are a communist?

Guns at schools wont solve anything. It could make some person as a guard an unneeded hero in a situation that demands far more attention and understanding, and that’s about it. Gun nuts would do better obviously if such a term did not exist and people would not jump the gun to come extremist mode all the time. Gun lovers cant let any negative realities of guns exist because it does not support any related paradigms on the issue giving contemporary American political thought. So obviously either the fix is to make guns solve gun problems or just try anything to support guns being the positive thing everyone needs like a T.V.

I didn't say that your chances of being killed here are lower. I said your chances of being assaulted in Europe are much higher than here. Then, I used data to back that up. Your chances of being killed in America are very very low, however, compared to your chances of being assaulted in Europe (odds of which are also rather low, incidentally...2 out of every 100 isn't high, but your odds of being murdered in the US are .004 in 100 compared to Europe's average of .002 for perspective's sake)....so when you say you 'feel safer' for whatever reason I feel a strong cumpulsion to point out the facts.



Again, "safe feelings" don't mean a thing. Most people feel safe when they know little about an area. That's abslutely human nature**. Often, it's the language barrier...if you can't read the local news (and even if you can, you usually don't when you're on vacation), there's no way you could know what the crime rate is. Furthermore, such things are often word of mouth, information to which you are not privy if you don't know an area well. Sometimes the ambiance gives one this safe feeling..."Look at those cobblestones! How quiant! This place is so safe!" Has absolutely no baring on reality. I've never known so many people to be robbed and/or mugged as when I lived overseas.

Some of the South Koreans have been complaining because there is a special taxi service for military members who step into Korea for the first time (so that they won't rob you blind). One unsuspecting 18 year old female stepped into one of the 'regular' cabs unsuspectingly quite recently, and found herself driven off and raped in a dark alley. Oh, but it's safe! The people wear small shoes.

This is the last time I'll comment on the crime rates overseas, as it is off-topic. Please, have the last word on me.


**Thought I should add it's also human nature to feel unsafe in an area if you've been predisposed to think it's awful based on, say, a Michael Moore movie. That's exactly the sort of histrionic exaggeration that fuels this debate....OMG! We need guns in schools! Everyone is dying! Ridiculous.

Some reasons imo:

We have the biggest illegal drug market in the world and the people in it are heavily armed.

We refuse to really crack down on gun crime – most crimes are laid off or plea bargained out.

Gun crime is focused for the most part in cities – esp. large cities.

Gun crime “in the country” per capita (for guns and people) is nearly non existent.

You can figure out the rest I think.