Another school shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Difference in the fact that there was an attack. IIRC, the last knife attack at a Chinese school house prior to this one, many of the victims died.
 
The point? I'm simply arguing that if you take away the gun the attacks will still happen. I"m not sure how any of that is relevant.

Look at Sweden where every adult male between 20 and 30 is required to have a firearm as part of their required military service. They have some of the lowest crime rates in the developed world yet they have a lot more guns than most. This is just more proof that just because there are guns, that does not mean there is more crime.
 
How does that relate to the topic of school attacks?

But since you don't seem to be keeping on topic:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union

And my link cites it's sources.
 
setishock:
spoken by a true american...
to your self it sounds like an angel whispering that you are special, but to me it sounds like you have a problems.

this is a modern world where countries have agreements and are more combined then ever before.
it's also combined like that if a country lets say Norway gets invaded. Then Denmark, Germany, France, the UK and others will join the fight. same thing if it was Denmark that gets invaded. We have military forces. it's a stupid idea to let civilians have guns.

the fact that School shooting is a thing should be prove enough. there have never been a school shooting anywhere in the hole Scandinavia.

Just that civilians are able to get a gun easy and quick when they snap are very dangerous. he can act so quickly, and the victim have no chance of defending him self if you come at him with a gun. if it was a knife however he can run. it's hard to run from a gun.
 
this is a modern world where countries have agreements and are more combined then ever before.
it's also combined like that if a country lets say Norway gets invaded. Then Denmark, Germany, France, the UK and others will join the fight. same thing if it was Denmark that gets invaded. We have military forces. it's a stupid idea to let civilians have guns.

We had agreements with Great Britain and France in WWI and WWII and look how long the US took to decide to join the fight. In the days where public opinion and not alliances determine who helps who, I wouldn't count on anyone saving another country unless something was in it for them.
 
things have changed now. it was after the world war 2 the agreements i was talking about where made.
there have happen allot these past 100 years. mankind are evolving like never before. (i know ww2 was less then 100 years ago, but if it was 200 years ago i will doubt that america will have helped at all.)

you talked about Sweden i little while ago.
Sweden is a Scandinavia country and they have almost the same gun laws as Denmark. it's VERY illegal to own a gun, if it's not recognized as a hunting weapon. your argument in my opinion are not valid if you compere Sweden to the US about guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom