THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Animals became prey with the invention of team hunting and the atlatl.

Massive gun deaths are a fairly recent phenom,

Intrepid wrote:

ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.

The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000. [/i]

Gun death rates are only significant for those who think it is somehow worse to be killed with a gun than it is to be killed with a knife or a bomb.

Personally, I think people are just as dead if they are killed with a knife or a bomb.

wouldn't a 55/million equate out to 5.5/100,000?

I think my math is right there...

oralloy wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.

The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000. [/i]

Gun death rates are only significant for those who think it is somehow worse to be killed with a gun than it is to be killed with a knife or a bomb.

Personally, I think people are just as dead if they are killed with a knife or a bomb.

Where do you dig up these imaginary facts?

Rather than try to find fault with the numbers, you should be looking at the fact that the knifings were significantly less than by gun.

Intrepid wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.

The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000. [/i]

Gun death rates are only significant for those who think it is somehow worse to be killed with a gun than it is to be killed with a knife or a bomb.

Personally, I think people are just as dead if they are killed with a knife or a bomb.

Where do you dig up these imaginary facts?

Nothing imaginary about it. Gun death rates are only significant to people who for some reason think a gun death is worse than a non-gun death.

Intrepid wrote:

Rather than try to find fault with the numbers, you should be looking at the fact that the knifings were significantly less than by gun.

What is the point of looking at insignificant trivia?

oralloy wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.

The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000. [/i]

Gun death rates are only significant for those who think it is somehow worse to be killed with a gun than it is to be killed with a knife or a bomb.

Personally, I think people are just as dead if they are killed with a knife or a bomb.

Where do you dig up these imaginary facts?

Nothing imaginary about it. Gun death rates are only significant to people who for some reason think a gun death is worse than a non-gun death.

Do I have to write in huge, coloured, bold fonts?

We are talking about the NUMBERS of deaths.

Guns are used for this purposes much, much, much, much more than knifes are used.

I can't believe that you are unable to comprehend. I will, therefore, assume that you do not want to comprehend.

I am waiting for the day that you make a point based on fact rather than emotion and your passion for guns.

oralloy wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Rather than try to find fault with the numbers, you should be looking at the fact that the knifings were significantly less than by gun.

What is the point of looking at insignificant trivia?

What you seem to be saying here is that you cannot provide anything of substance so you will just post your usual non answer.

Intrepid wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Rather than try to find fault with the numbers, you should be looking at the fact that the knifings were significantly less than by gun.

What is the point of looking at insignificant trivia?

What you seem to be saying here is that you cannot provide anything of substance so you will just post your usual non answer.

No, I was just pointing out that your trivia about method of death has little relevance.

Fact: The presence or absence of firearms has very little to do with homicide rates in a country.

Fact: Even if the presence or absence of firearms did make a difference, we'd still have the right to have them.

No, not exactly. Oralloy is part of a small minority that doesn't see the numbers as significant.

oralloy wrote:

Fact: The presence or absence of firearms has very little to do with homicide rates in a country.

Fact: Even if the presence or absence of firearms did make a difference, we'd still have the right to have them.

Are you negating one fact with another fact?

You seem to be saying that you are right no matter what the facts.

Then, you are saying that if you are wrong, it doesn't matter.

This discussion, is obviously, a waste of time.

Maybe we should take a poll.