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

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> 
> "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.

That is the purpose of the Gun. If Soldiers have a resistance to
Killing, they need to be desensitized to that problem.






-- 
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"

"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido, 
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam 
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.