Re: Brit MP shot
Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 19:13
OK since you people apparently have problems identifying reality.
Mass shootings in the US, since 1966, have had a total of 869 victims.
That's 0.0002% of the US's population
Now in the UK, since 1984, there have been 284 deaths due to mass bomb or gun deaths, aka 0.0004% of the UK's population.
That's double the number of deaths for its according population. And in 18 years less too.
Now these events are from insiders only, i do not count terrorism, or so-called terrorism attacks.
If i did, the US's rate would be ~4-5 times higher.
Also i only counted mass shootings, because, quite obviously, in events of 1 person killing another, a gun or a bomb isnt necessary. And since most of those are due to gang wars, even if guns were banned, all of these people would probably be stabbed to death or beaten to death instead.
You can keep believing the lie of guns being a problem, but the only reason you hear of so many events of violence in the US is that
A)It has 10 times the amount of population of the UK
and
B)It has a much greater percentage of lower level educated individuals, you know exactly what im referring to.
EDIT: as far as history is concerned.
Just because you hear about it a LOT, doesn't mean that it's the most deadly
You hear "US shooting here", "US shooting there", but most of the times it is not nearly as deadly as other events happening daily.
for example I counted only events with 10 or more dead as mass shootings/bombings.
A 1 or 2 or even 8 people dying event, while it might be horrible, it is not a mass shooting.
Also, the interesting part is, that even though guns exist in the US, there have been more dead from 911 than from all the shooting events since 1960's combined.
And even more.
And even funnier than that, although world war 2 was LITERALLY fought with guns, about half the people that died in it were actually gassed to death, rather than shot to death.
It doesn't matter if you ban guns, people will still die, and MAYBE, just maybe, according to a video i posted some time ago, that's for the better in the long run.
Is saving say 1000 people over the course of 40 years good?
Let's even say 100.000 people.
If we could save 100.000 people from dying by guns in 40 years, although that number is extremely exxagerated, then the US would actually lose more money than it would lose by saving say millions of people, by producing vaccines with the money they get from both legit gun trades, as well as illegal gun trades
Mass shootings in the US, since 1966, have had a total of 869 victims.
That's 0.0002% of the US's population
Now in the UK, since 1984, there have been 284 deaths due to mass bomb or gun deaths, aka 0.0004% of the UK's population.
That's double the number of deaths for its according population. And in 18 years less too.
Now these events are from insiders only, i do not count terrorism, or so-called terrorism attacks.
If i did, the US's rate would be ~4-5 times higher.
Also i only counted mass shootings, because, quite obviously, in events of 1 person killing another, a gun or a bomb isnt necessary. And since most of those are due to gang wars, even if guns were banned, all of these people would probably be stabbed to death or beaten to death instead.
You can keep believing the lie of guns being a problem, but the only reason you hear of so many events of violence in the US is that
A)It has 10 times the amount of population of the UK
and
B)It has a much greater percentage of lower level educated individuals, you know exactly what im referring to.
EDIT: as far as history is concerned.
Just because you hear about it a LOT, doesn't mean that it's the most deadly
You hear "US shooting here", "US shooting there", but most of the times it is not nearly as deadly as other events happening daily.
for example I counted only events with 10 or more dead as mass shootings/bombings.
A 1 or 2 or even 8 people dying event, while it might be horrible, it is not a mass shooting.
Also, the interesting part is, that even though guns exist in the US, there have been more dead from 911 than from all the shooting events since 1960's combined.
And even more.
And even funnier than that, although world war 2 was LITERALLY fought with guns, about half the people that died in it were actually gassed to death, rather than shot to death.
It doesn't matter if you ban guns, people will still die, and MAYBE, just maybe, according to a video i posted some time ago, that's for the better in the long run.
Is saving say 1000 people over the course of 40 years good?
Let's even say 100.000 people.
If we could save 100.000 people from dying by guns in 40 years, although that number is extremely exxagerated, then the US would actually lose more money than it would lose by saving say millions of people, by producing vaccines with the money they get from both legit gun trades, as well as illegal gun trades