It makes me wonder if the statistic is including military/law enforcement equipment and not just civilian ownership. 88 guns per 100 people in the U.S. sounds high to me if you don’t.
“Here”?
Where?
In the U.K.?
In Vietnam?
Are you from the U.K. or from Vietnam?
From the UK. I used to live in Vietnam, forgot to update my profile.
No it’s not exactly what I said. However, it wouldn’t have been a ridiculous thing to say. Almost all of the shooters were mentally ill or significantly troubled. So, it would have been much more difficult for them to access the guns, much less automatic weapons. So, those children all could have feasibly been saved by tighter restrictions.
You don’t have any evidence to support your skepticism. So, you kind of need to shut up about evidentiary requirements. I’m making a logical prediction that can’t be supported by laws that don’t already exist. However, it is common sense that the more difficult it is for mentally ill people to access guns, particularly automatic ones, the more difficult it will be for them to shoot up schools. It is also common sense that people who have taken gun safety courses will be less likely to leave their guns unsecured for children to pick up and shoot themselves and other children. If you have a problem with that, try to back up your hollow skepticism with actual reasoning.
So, you say you care, then you turn around and dismiss the issue by first saying the laws would only save a “handful” (as if that’s bad), then saying we shouldn’t spend resources on only a small percentage of the people and should, in essence, just let the school shootings happen as is. As far as caring goes, that’s not caring at all… First of all, you have no idea how many people could have been saved by those laws. Again, you talk about evidence, then you give none for your dubious claims. Secondly, the problem is not just the school shootings that have happened; it’s the ones that can still happen: the ones you think we shouldn’t be working to stop. Finally, it doesn’t take great resources to make laws to reduce gun violence and gun deaths. We’re a country spending billions on defense; we can afford it.
Firstly, so what? As I mentioned above, this is just one study. A peer-reviewed study alone isn’t enough evidence for a claim about gun violence. Secondly, SageOpen is a non-disciplined, open-acess journal that is not specifically peer-reviewed by members of the same field. It’s a light-weight journal with no academic standing and isn’t even close to indexed. But, as I said, it doesn’t matter, since one journal article alone is insufficient evidence. Finally, its findings do not, indeed, show that gun violence is mainly a lower-class problem or even that the “vast majority” of gun homicides happen in poor countries. It merely show that they occur in lower class families in a higher rate.
So, the article is only one article, it isn’t from an indexed discipline-peer-reviewed article, and it doesn’t even make the claim you say it does. Try again.
Yes, that’s actually the whole point. Because the UK is not awash with guns, it’s much harder to kill people here. Americans are 40 times, i.e. 4000%, more likely to be shot and killed than British people. If Americans are proud of that fact, then so be it.
Europeans averagely see guns all 70 or 80 years - when the rulers bring their war to Europe. 
I was told - many years ago - that two cities in the US with almost the same number of inhabitants had very different criminal statistics because they had different gun laws: one city had a very high crime rate and a very strict / tight gun law, while the other city had a low crime rate and a lax / slack gun law. I have never been to the U.S., so I please the US ILP members to tell me something about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country.
Firstly, you shouldn’t pretend to be an un-biased neutral, and then provide a biased hypothetical favoring one side of the argument. There are plenty of cities and states where stricter gun laws correspond to lower crime rates. Secondly, it’s not primarily about crime rates per se. It’s about minimizing all gun deaths, including domestic and accidental ones. There’s no reason anybody should be against gun laws making it more difficult for the mentally ill, proven violent, or criminal to legally access guns. There is also no reason why people should be against gun restrictions on automatic weapons, particularly automatic rifles that can take down a playground in minutes. Those restrictions are not a threat to legal gun owners, and nobody needs such automatic killing machines for protection or hunting.
At this point of your text a respond to my request would have been good.
According to my request it is primarily about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country:
Perhaps you did not read this last sentence of my last post in this thread. First of all I want to know some facts about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country. Afterwards it is easier to say what can be done and what should not be done. Please take into account that the most people in Europe have no experiences with guns, except in the time of war, as I already said.
I didn’t care about your request and still don’t. The topic of discussion was gun laws and deaths caused by guns, not crime rates. You are, however, free to start another thread.
Again, I don’t care what your request was primarily about. We were discussing gun deaths and gun laws, not crime rates. So, again, feel free to start another thread.
Perhaps you didn’t read my response well. If you want to know some facts about crime rates, which weren’t the topic of discussion, google them. You non-Americans can do that can’t you? Please take into account, some of us Americans don’t automatically shift the conversation at the demand of petulant non-Americans. So, go google those facts you want. And after you can do, you can politely and relevantly enter the conversation that was already happening. And, no, you do not have to know crime rates to know what has to be done about gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and violent. We also don’t need to know crime rates to know we need mandatory safety classes for first time buyers. Crime rates have no bearing on that.
The topic of this thread is “10 US States with the MOST Gun Violence”.
I am referring to the topic of this thread and especially talking about gun laws and crimnal rates in the US and in several states and cities of the US; in addition: crimal rates include gun violence and also your “deaths caused by guns”. So what is your problem?
I read your “response” very well.
I pleased the US ILP members, not Google, the false god of many ILP members. So again:
Is there any US ILP member who can sreiously tell me something about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country?
Why are you so petulant then? Are you a “non-American”?
That is more disinformation than information. … Thank you!
“Desinformation,” huh? You’re not only a petulant non-American, you’re an illiterate one as well.
I’m sorry googling is so difficult for you. You’ll just have to keep wailing in your ignorance…
Okay, you are again merely interested in trolling and ad hominems. So try to read this and this.
It is funny that you are so much interested in driving all other ILP members against yourself. Is this already typical for English professors in your country? It is unbelievable that you claim to be an English professor. Or did you not mean “English professor” but “Englsih pupil”.
How many ILP members are on your ignore list? 90% or even 99%? However. 100% must be your goal, pupil.
Oh, pipe down, kid. The only one who has been trolling on this thread has been you with your lame smugness and non-sequiturs.
Now, unruffle those feathers, go back to your computer and try to figure Google out…
OFF TOPIC.
I am not interested in your ad hominems and your trolling.
Good bye.
Adios, troll…
I’ve been watching you in other parts of the forums, your behavior isn’t going to fly in mine. If stuff like this continues to be your primary contribution in SG&E, you’re going to rack up warnings and bans pretty quick.
No. Because the UK is not awash with guns, it's much harder to kill people WITH GUNS there. Treating the gun-death rate as if it's the murder rate is disingenuous.
The murder rate between the US and the UK is 4 to 1, not 40 to 1. I'm sure the murder rate with knives in the UK is higher than it is in the US, because in the UK knives are the next best thing they have in the absence of guns. And what of it?
That’s kind of the issue with state by state laws presented in the beginning of this thread. Crime rates will be much higher in urban areas, and the gun laws are often different in different municipalities.
Are you happy with 4 to 1, then? It’s actually much harder to kill people with knives than guns, which is pretty much the whole point of the discussion.
They have more poverty, a more dangerous gang culture, bigger problems with what we would call ‘Class As’, and - crucially higher overall levels of inequality and much lower levels of social mobility. All of these contribute to a higher murder rate.
Gun ownership might contribute to the problem, but there is certainly no indication that raising gun control would quarter the murder rate.