On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:47:03 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:08:02 +0000, David Monaghan
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:14:41 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

And a little known fact..if one removes the gang killings where gang
members kill gang members..the US falls to 1.5 per hundred thousand.

If you eliminated most of the UK murders on the basis they happened to
people who don't count, the UK rate would be lower, too.

So in the UK...the dead dont count? Fascinating world view you
hold.Cold, nasty and brutish..but typically English.

So run it past me again - why would we not count gang members in the US
death rate?

Which is not bad at all for a country that has universal firearms..some
400,000.000, million of them..

You know, that's the first time I've heard a gun proponent suggesting guns
would be expected to increase the domestic murder rate: Normally the
argument is that guns make life safer.

Indeed they do.

So English isn't your first language? You meant if you didn't have guns that
doctored murder rate would be even higher? How much? Double the UK?


Anyway, I take your point: If you pretend two thirds of the murders don't
happen, the US murder rate is only 30% higher than England & Wales. I can
see why you're proud.

So I say..about those gun deaths when firearms were readily available to
all Brits....1 in London for the entire year

That's the second time you've made that claim. It might be possible that the
_City of London_ only had single murder in a Victorian year, but it's known
as "the square mile" for a reason. Even allowing for the much smaller
population then, I don't believe that statistic. Source, please.


DaveM