> Also violent crime in general in gun-controlled countries is way below > the US average. Guns deaths are, of course, vastly lower (on the order > of, for example, 11,000 a year in the US and 65 in Japan - and that's > just homocides, not accidental shootings). >
review the japenese KNIFE deaths ;) you will see about 11k a year as well. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 1:08 PM Subject: RE: Gun Company Must Pay Teacher's Widow > > > Actually there's a huge physchological gap between shooting > > somebody > > > and thrusting a sword (or a knife for that matter) into somebody's > > > flesh. Same thing with nearly any strength-based weapon - > > you either > > > have it in you to take that kind of direct action or you don't. > > > > > > Many of the people that end up using a gun to kill would > > never be able > > > to smash a skull with a baseball bat or drive a knife into > > someone's > > > liver. A gun abstracts the action and distances the user from the > > > effect. > > > > Possibly, possibly not. I mentioned before that I'd noticed > > the gory coverage of killings in UK papers. We all know that > > guns aren't as easy to come by in England, but people still > > seem to die. From those articles I've been reading, they > > often seem to involve bladed weapons or, more commonly, > > bludgeoning weapons like hammers and bats. And from the quite > > sanguine details in the papers, I can tell quite plainly that > > the acts were quite gruesome and intentional. No "hammer > > cleaning" accidents. (And yes, using the word "sanguine" was a pun.) > > > > I've talked about this with a friend of mine who speaks > > Japanese and reads the Japanese papers. Again, no guns but > > plenty of killing. Talking to him, where we would have a > > headline about someone being shot, they just replace the word > > and action "shot" with "strangled". And I don't think I've > > ever heard about accidental strangulation while hand washing. > > > > It appears that when people decide to kill, they are going to > > kill with or without a gun. That and IIRC, the majority of > > homicides are among closely related people and after that > > serious grudge is over, the likelyhood of another killing goes down. > > I agree totally. But the threshold needed is definitely higher. > > With a gin you hold it, finger on trigger, and point it at your enemy > (who ever that may be at the time). The only action required is > squeezing the trigger (unless you have an old-fashioned gun with a > hammer, then you have to pull that bak as well). > > In effect, consider people's lack of aim, your only option is deadly > force. > > With a bat/sword/knife/hammer/etc you must take direct, violent action. > There are definately people that can do that, but not as many that could > take deadly action with a gun. > > Also violent crime in general in gun-controlled countries is way below > the US average. Guns deaths are, of course, vastly lower (on the order > of, for example, 11,000 a year in the US and 65 in Japan - and that's > just homocides, not accidental shootings). > > I agree that other forms of violent crimes are liable to rise in gun > controlled countries - but they still don't approach the levels in the > US. > > Jim Davis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
