Re: Gun control doesn't work--so what?

"Trevor Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Shane Yeager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > *snipped for brevity*
> >
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> > >**I never said that guns cause violence. Not once. Guns merely
facilitate
> > >easy and cheap destruction of human life for those with a violent
> > >disposition. Look at the assault rates in the UK, the US and Australia:
> > >
> > >http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap
> > >
> > >The rates of assault for all three nations is broadly similar.
> > >
> > >Now look at the homicide rates, from bullets in each country:
> > >
> > >http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap
> > >
> > >
> > >American assaults seem to more often lead to homicide. Americans are
far
> > >more adept at killing each other, yet seen to have approximately
similar
> > >violent tendencies to other nations. The only glaring differnce, is the
> easy
> > >availability of cheap firearms in the US.
> > >
> > >
> > --->From the nationmaster site, US firearm murders were 8259, and
> > overall murders were 12689 (about 65% firearm related murders (FRM.))
> >  The UK stats are 62 FRM from a total of 850 (7%.)  Overall murder rates
> > were .05 per 1000 for the US, and .01 per 1000 for the UK.  Assuming
> > that guns availability were the only difference in the rates, what do
> > you suppose the difference in non-gun rates comes from?  Non gun rate
> > for the US= .05*(1-.65), or roughly .0175 per 1000, vs the UK's
> > .01*(1-.07), or .0093 per 1000.  As murder without guns is almost twice
> > as common (per capita) in the US as the UK, there must be more involved
> > than just saying that the guns are responsible for the difference.
> >  Comments?
>
> **Not just guns. The training and handling of those guns, is also at
issue.
> Americans seem to be very proficient at killing their countrymen with
> bullets. Given the rate of assault is similar in the US and the UK, it is
> reasonable to assume that UK residents may well be able to kill (provided
> they are similarly skilled to their US cousins) their countrymen at a
> similar rate to Americans.
>
> Guns, as opposed to fists, knives, et al, do not require the personal
> interaction between victim and assailant. As such, guns may be doubly
> efficient at killing. This, BTW, is a fact known to military trainers all
> over the planet. Much time is spent on recruits, desensitising their
inbuilt
> resistance to killing another human. Guns perform this task admirably.

His question was:

As murder without guns is almost twice as common (per capita) in the US as
the UK, there must be more involved than just saying that the guns are
responsible for the difference.   Comments?

You didn't answer it.