I want this guy for my neighbor.

[NBVegita]

I would personally like to know the evidence behind him getting away with shooting them in the back, because even in NY, you can shoot someone in self defense, but it's a !@#$%^&* hard case to prove that shooting them in the back is self defense.

 

We clearly can't use a personal standard for these sorts of things, so the only standard we have is what society agrees upon. If Texans agree this action is allowed then it should be allowed. However, if he were to come to my state and do this he would go to jail as it is against my society's standard. He seemed to even know about the property law while talking to the operator.

 

To go along with this, if this happened in your state I would hold the same personal opinion in believing that he did a good thing, but I would also respect that it was breaking the law and agree that he should go to jail. The same way that if someone killed a child molester in cold blood, I'd consider them a good person, but I would also respect the fact that they broke the law and should be punished for it.

 

The way it worked out, according to Texas law, he is innocent.

[Aceflyer]

I would personally like to know the evidence behind him getting away with shooting them in the back, because even in NY, you can shoot someone in self defense, but it's a !@#$%^&* hard case to prove that shooting them in the back is self defense.

 

Agreed. The fact that he shot both of those burglars in their backs seems to indicate Mr. Horn went above and beyond mere self-defense in his use of lethal force.

 

Of course, as none of us were there, we really can't say. But I agree with the gist of NBVegita's argument, that is to say, people should have the right to self-defense - including the use of potentially lethal force - when it becomes necessary.

[darkhosis]

I think in cases like these, the law should only allow for shotgun blasts to the knees

[AstroProdigy]

Astro has a way of taking a few simple statements, and taking to their far extreme and accusing the poster of something way beyond

their original intentions :/

 

For the record, I fall against NB's side on this, so dont accuse me of just bashing astro cuz im on the opposite side of the debate.

 

ThunderJam all your posts here are to bash me.

[Aceflyer]

I think in cases like these, the law should only allow for shotgun blasts to the knees

 

It's rather hard to be sure of hitting someone only in the knees, which comprise, after all, a relatively small area.

[»Ceiu]

If you're missing anything with a shotgun at 5 yards... wow (especially with bird shot).

 

Anyway, I agree 100% with Veg on this one. I'm not going to bother will silly analogies because any of them worth making have already been made. However, I will say this:

 

A lot of crimes happen simply because it is illegal for the victim to take any action that would save them from being completely victimized. Sure, you can just let the criminal do whatever and hope they're non-violent, but even in the best-case scenario at that point you're out your possessions, money or you've been violated. And for what? So some degenerate can leech a few bucks off your hard work? !@#$%^&* that.

All too often I've heard of cases where some criminal is rewarded for being a criminal. Break into someone's house and injure yourself? Sue the owner! Someone or something attacks you while you're robbing them? Sue the owner! If they try to kill you, they'll go to jail -- and most people don't want that. A lot of criminals will do what they do because the people they are targeting are conditioned to submit. If it started turning around and people started defending themselves (with or without deadly force), you'd expect a lot of the more "casual" criminals would back off a bit.

 

I agree that there are all kinds of complications with allowing citizens to take the law into their own hands (especially when deadly force is involved), but cops can't be everywhere at once and we can't be relying on them to be our saviors for everything. What do you do in the event of a home invasion? By the time the situation is going down, it's already too late to call for help. Now what do you do? In most cases your !@#$%^&* is about to be stolen, your wife/daughter is about to be raped/murdered and then you get the joy of being beaten or killed yourself. Hey wonderful. If we were conditioned and allowed to protect ourselves in such cases, these would be unheard of. Instead, they're becoming more and more widespread (Ask any player from NY, they'll agree with me).

 

Personally, I think this guy did the right thing. He may be a redneck with a horrible case of vigilante-ism, but how he handled the situation is exactly how it should be handled. !@#$%^&* criminals.

 

As a final example:

If you're in a big city, especially one you're not from, most people will tell you not to wonder around alone at night. The !@#$%^&* is that? Why should I have to be corralled like a !@#$%^&*in cow whenever the sun goes down? I don't like being treated like an animal because some jack!@#$%^&* feels these low-lives deserve rights.

 

Again, !@#$%^&* criminals.

[NBVegita]

Rock on.

[AstroProdigy]

I'm not going to bother will silly analogies because any of them worth making have already been made.

...says the guy who goes on later in the post to make analogies.

 

A lot of crimes happen simply because it is illegal for the victim to take any action that would save them from being completely victimized. Sure' date=' you can just let the criminal do whatever and [i']hope[/i] they're non-violent' date=' but even in the best-case scenario at that point you're out your possessions, money or you've been violated. And for what? So some degenerate can leech a few bucks off your hard work? !@#$%^&* that.

 

All too often I've heard of cases where some criminal is rewarded for being a criminal. Break into someone's house and injure yourself? Sue the owner! Someone or something attacks you while you're robbing them? Sue the owner! If they try to kill you, they'll go to jail -- and most people don't want that. A lot of criminals will do what they do because the people they are targeting are conditioned to submit. If it started turning around and people started defending themselves (with or without deadly force), you'd expect a lot of the more "casual" criminals would back off a bit.[/quote']

Excessive lawsuits and legal murder as a punishment for robbery are two different things. Wtf is a casual criminal? You act like crime is something people do on a whim. Most people do it habitually and/or feel they need to.

 

I agree that there are all kinds of complications with allowing citizens to take the law into their own hands (especially when deadly force is involved)' date=' but cops can't be everywhere at once and we can't be relying on them to be our saviors for everything. What do you do in the event of a home invasion? By the time the situation is going down, it's already too late to call for help. Now what do you do? In most cases your !@#$%^&* is about to be stolen, your wife/daughter is about to be raped/murdered and then you get the joy of being beaten or killed yourself. Hey wonderful. If we were conditioned and allowed to protect ourselves in such cases, these would be unheard of. Instead, they're becoming more and more widespread (Ask any player from NY, they'll agree with me).[/quote']

This guy wasn't getting robbed himself, he actually did call the police and had a nice little conversation with them about how he was planning on committing murder beforehand, and there was no one about to get raped as you mentioned even though that has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. What you mentioned here is actual self defense, but what actually happened with the guy was completely different and in a more rational court of law (outside Texas of course) it would be called what it is which is murder. I do understand, however, that the mindset can be different in Texas since just about everyone has a gun there so widespread deaths !@#$%^&*ociated with crime and reactions to crime would be expected as a result of the lack of gun regulation. Thus simply arresting all those people who take the law into their own hands is like punishing people for using the weapons given to them. It's the law that would be at fault here to an extent for promoting this kind of vigilantism.

 

Crime in NYC has gone down significantly over the years due to a more strategic placing of police as well as a general improvement in living standards for poorer neighborhoods.

 

Personally' date=' I think this guy did the right thing. He may be a redneck with a horrible case of vigilante-ism, but how he handled the situation is exactly how it should be handled. !@#$%^&* criminals.[/quote']

That's all fine and good, but we live in a lawful society, not the wild wild west. Your system allows turns into 1 of 2 possibilities; a wild west where you take the law into your own hands, but criminals are also much more free to do what they want or a police state where criminals are dealt with quite well, but so is everyone else.

 

As a final example:

If you're in a big city' date=' especially one you're not from, most people will tell you not to wonder around alone at night. The !@#$%^&* is that? Why should I have to be corralled like a !@#$%^&*in cow whenever the sun goes down? I don't like being treated like an animal because some jack!@#$%^&* feels these low-lives deserve rights.

 

Again, !@#$%^&* criminals.[/quote']

You can't just replace logically created laws with your own anger. Criminals have rights because it prevents abuse. Also if criminals didn't have rights what line would we draw?

Edited July 5, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Bak]

in a more rational court of law (outside Texas of course)

 

How is it a question of rationality? They've agreed as a society on the laws they want to follow and they're following those laws. What you meant to say is that in a society that considers this murder, he would have been convicted of murder, which is obviously true but irrelevant. There is no absolute scale you can point to and say, "aha, this is the proper punishment for neighborhood burglary." The best we can do is the laws we've enacted through democracy.

 

It would be much worse if we forced your opinion on the majority of Texans. Similarly, it's terrible that we can't democratically outlaw handguns in OUR society because of the values of people who live somewhere else. Seriously cons!@#$%^&*ution wtf? Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, and Personal Possession of Handguns.

[rootbear75]

The following post was made without reading every single post in this topic.

 

here's a thought, what if he had just injured them such as shooting them in the leg or w/e

 

would that have been better?

 

not neccessarily a shotgun, but any gun, what if he injured them to the point where they couldnt move, (and maybe possilby critically)

Edited July 5, 2008 by rootbear75

[»Ceiu]

@Root:

Because getting shot in the leg doesn't prevent you from shooting your own gun -- it just hurts a lot and makes you stationary. If you're in a situation where you're firing a gun at someone, they'll likely be returning fire if they also have a gun. Why take a chance at getting shot at for the sake of being nice?

 

 

@Astro:

I'm too lazy to quote all your text and reply... so whatever.

 

1. They're not analogies because I'm not comparing my examples to this situation. I'm simply stating situations that have happened that make me agree with the judgment of the case everyone is getting all pissy about.

 

2. Did you notice how I put casual in quotes? It was a case where I couldn't think of a better word. Basically, I'm referring to the non-thugged out criminals who aren't gun toting gangsters -- the ones who would certainly think twice about breaking into someones house of the owner (or their neighbor) was a redneck psychopath with a shotgun and were within their legal rights to shoot them down for being the !@#$%^&*holes of society that they are.

 

3. You typed some other text which was largely meaningless and I don't care to address it directly.

 

4. Logically created laws? My anger? My rights as a human are being denied because it is unlawful for me to properly defend myself against a criminal who is already breaking the law. I effectively have a curfew in various neighborhoods because these degenerates have the same rights as I do, even though their goal is to break the very "logically created" laws that are supposed to be protecting me. How is it fair that my LEGAL behavior has to be modified for my own personal safety because the LAW prevents me from exerting the force necessary to properly protect myself from all types of criminals?

 

Now, I agree that a wild-wild-west type society probably wouldn't be the best thing ever, but we can certainly improve what we have today. I'm not suggesting that we ignore murders just because the killer says "oh he was robbing me" or something -- they should still have to be proven to be defending themselves. But whatever... this is getting off-topic. The point is, the guy was following the law as defined by the state he lives in and I happen to agree entirely with the outcome of this case.

 

 

@Bak:

The problem with guns and gun legislation and all that jazz is that it only limits the rights of lawful citizens; the people who are causing problems with them aren't going to be following the rules anyway. We could ban all guns, but then what? Now it's not a question for some criminal as to whether or not you have a gun -- they straight up KNOW you don't have one. Also, crazy hunters won't be able to kill bambi, but that just means we'll have more wildlife to take more out with our cars (aka: no big deal).

 

 

Edit:

@Astro:

Couple questions for ya: There are a lot of fairly well known uber-violent gangs around. How often do you think they are burglarized by people who aren't already in rival gangs (or who aren't suicidal)? I'm sure the answer is somewhere close to "never." I know that even if I was a theif I wouldn't dare rob them, their families, their friends or anyone they are even remotely friendly with. How about you?

[Bak]

We could ban all guns, but then what? Now it's not a question for some criminal as to whether or not you have a gun -- they straight up KNOW you don't have one.

Two point on this:

 

First, if guns are banned it also makes it more difficult for the criminals to get them. Are you better off if both you and the criminal have a gun, or neither of you do?

 

Secondly, there's other reasons a society may want to ban guns such as suicide prevention and all that jazz.

 

Certainly you can debate these two points, but why shouldn't a society be allowed to outlaw guns? Even if there was a mountain of evidence that a handgun in the home meant 90% chance of death from it, we still couldn't outlaw them. The Cons!@#$%^&*ution is supposed to protect the minority from the majority, but I think we need an update. It makes sense in the 1700's to allow personal gun possession, as if there's a crime you couldn't do anything about it. There's no phones, so you have to walk to the sherrif's office and tell him in person, which isn't workable. Now days, we can make instant phone calls and police cars can travel mph so the need is much less (although for home invasions, it might still make sense). I guess the point is, I'm willing to let your society do what I think is stupid (murder as a punishment for neighborhood burglary), if you let mine do what you think is stupid (ban handguns).

[PaRa$iTe]

Armed criminals aren't really much of a problem - yet I believe our gun control is stricter (haven't checked, though), and I know that we're not allowed to use anywhere near as much violence in defence of property as Americans are. It might be different in the US, but here in Finland, the MAIN problem is when ordinary people get drunk, go home for their gun, and return to the bar to shoot everyone who pissed them off. Giving everyone guns would not solve that problem - banning them would.

[rootbear75]

@Root:

Because getting shot in the leg doesn't prevent you from shooting your own gun -- it just hurts a lot and makes you stationary. If you're in a situation where you're firing a gun at someone, they'll likely be returning fire if they also have a gun. Why take a chance at getting shot at for the sake of being nice?

that is a good point, but let me expand on my question

How about shooting them to the point where they are disabled (unable to move and/or shoot). or would that be too hard?

Edited July 5, 2008 by rootbear75

[»Ducky]

No Rootbear. I think it's been basically covered that death was the only possible way to avoid this particular situation while the man was in the house admitting to the fact he was about to murder two men.

 

Yea, it doesn't make any sense to me either. I'm not going on with it though. I literally think people saying this is ok is complete insanity.

 

Bak, I do disagree with you about it being perfectly fine for a society to decide a law against a minority unjustifiably though.

A majority deciding all persons named Jim should be thrown from a moving car doesn't mean we should respect insanity.

Edited July 6, 2008 by Ducky

[»Ceiu]

@Bak:

I would much rather see neither side having guns. The problem is, I believe that we're at a point where guns are so easy to get at the moment that even if we banned guns, they would be so easy for criminals to get that it wouldn't phase them in the least... for now anyway. I'm sure if we could keep the policy up for a while they'd diminish, but we'd be fairly !@#$%^&*ed for a while.

 

I agree with most of your points -- especially regarding gun control and such, but I feel that our society has reached a point that we have to fall back to almost archaic means of self protection, simply due to how vile our criminals are becoming and how much protection they are receiving from the very laws they are breaking.

 

 

@root:

You'd basically need to take out knees and shoulders/elbows; and to do that you'd need to be a pretty !@#$%^&* good shot. Plus, the more you "disable" someone, the more likely they are to (a) bleed out and ( sue the !@#$%^&* out of you for not being able to perform "real world" tasks.

[FMBI]

@Bak:

I would much rather see neither side having guns. The problem is, I believe that we're at a point where guns are so easy to get at the moment that even if we banned guns, they would be so easy for criminals to get that it wouldn't phase them in the least... for now anyway. I'm sure if we could keep the policy up for a while they'd diminish, but we'd be fairly !@#$%^&*ed for a while.

 

I agree with most of your points -- especially regarding gun control and such, but I feel that our society has reached a point that we have to fall back to almost archaic means of self protection, simply due to how vile our criminals are becoming and how much protection they are receiving from the very laws they are breaking.

 

The problem with this is that these same arguments were spread around in very advanced form as early as the 60s, and nobody did anything "because it was too difficult to enforce."

 

And besides, the US has never made an actual effort to control guns. In the past, the laws were entirely at local or state levels, and it was easy to get around them by simply shipping in guns from outside. If a federal-level gun control program were implemented, it would be possible to actually obtain success, even though there are more guns out there now than there used to be. Additionally, most people just think of the "can't defend yourself from armed criminals" argument - the other side of the coin is that anyone carrying an illegal weapon is up for prosecution, and, aside from people who insisted on keeping guns "just because," that would make prosecuting criminals a heck of a lot easier. Conservatives always complain about how criminals "get a free ride" - if guns are used in so many violent crimes, then being able to cut through the red tape would be a big boost to law enforcement efforts.

Edited July 5, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[»Ceiu]

I'm not really arguing against gun control -- quite the opposite. I just feel that it would fail unless something like what you outlined was implemented; and even then, it would be fairly rocky for a while until !@#$%^&* gets worked out and a lot of guns are taken off the streets.

 

Regarding the armed criminals thing: In a situation where guns are banned but are still easy for criminals to get, I don't really care if they are risking prosecution for carrying -- I care about what happens to me or people I care about when said criminal is holding that gun to their head.

[Bak]

A majority deciding all persons named Jim should be thrown from a moving car doesn't mean we should respect insanity.

I think such a law would be uncons!@#$%^&*utional. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, only the part about gun possession .

[darkhosis]

What you mentioned here is actual self defense, but what actually happened with the guy was completely different and in a more rational court of law (outside Texas of course) it would be called what it is which is murder. I do understand, however, that the mindset can be different in Texas since just about everyone has a gun there so widespread deaths !@#$%^&*ociated with crime and reactions to crime would be expected as a result of the lack of gun regulation. Thus simply arresting all those people who take the law into their own hands is like punishing people for using the weapons given to them. It's the law that would be at fault here to an extent for promoting this kind of vigilantism.

first off, let me mention that in gun ownership per capita, texas ranks 30th amongst the 50 states+DC. DC ranks 51st. which has the highest murder rate?

 

texas was 18th in murders per capita in 2006 amongst the 50 stats + DC. (5.9/100,000). national avg is 5.7. mexico is 6th in the world and 3x that number. oddly enough, texas also has a large population of illegal immigrants. so do arizona, new mexico, california, and nevada. they are ranked 7th, 10th, 10th, and 3rd (calif & new mexico tied at 6.8, arizona at 7.5, nevada at 9.0).

 

here's a nice, non-politically correct post for you:

 

http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/06/what-caus...un-control.html

 

ahhh, strength of diversity

 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm <-- ps, this considers hispanics white.

 

fyi, the states with the highest gun ownership rate per capita - wyoming, alaska, montana, south dakota, and west virginia all rank below the national average in murders per capita. three are so low that they're comparable to many european countries and below canada - wyoming, montana and south dakota (1.7, 1.8, 1.2). west virginia, which is 95% white and happens to rank like 49th or 50th in # of people living in poverty by state has a 4.1/100,000 murder rate which is also significantly lower than the country's national avg. but i guess it does lend credence to the statement that poverty leads to crime, that amount of violence amongst whites is basically unheard of. alaska is at 5.4 (also below national average).

 

The correlation between a the violent crime rate by state and the percentage of its population that is either black or Hispanic is ., higher than any other single variable identified (a county level database--with some major urban counties not included for lack of data--showed the percentage of single-mother households to be a stronger correlate than the black+Hisp population, which was the second strongest variable).

 

If the US' Hispanic and black populations are !@#$%^&*umed to commit crimes and other pathologies at a rate equivalent to that of whites, the US falls in the middle of the pack among developed nations on a host of social variables, from teen pregnancy to violent crime.

 

gun ownership:

 

DC 3.8% (51 out of 51). murder rate. #1 out of 51.

hawaii 8.7% (50 out of 51). murder rate #48 out of 51.

new jersey 12.3% (49 out of 51). murder rate #25 out of 51.

massachusetts 12.6% (48 out of 51). murder rate #36 out of 51.

rhode island 12.8% (47 out of 51). murder rate #38 out of 51.

connecticut 16.7% (46 out of 51). murder rate #33 out of 51.

new york 18.0% (45 out ouf 51). murder rate #27 out of 51.

illinois 20.2% (44 out of 51). murder rate #17 out of 51.

maryland 21.3% (t43 out of 51). murder rate #3 out of 51.

california 21.3% (t43 out of 51). murder rate #11 out of 51.

 

umm, where exactly is the correlation?

 

lowest murder rates in country: new hampshire 1.0, south dakota 1.2, north dakota 1.3, hawaii 1.6, wyoming 1.7, maine 1.7, utah 1.8, montana 1.8, iowa 1.8, vermont 1.9. respective gun ownership rank 38th, 4th, 10th, 50th, 1st, 24th, 14th, 3rd, 17th, 20th. only two of those states have gun ownership rates below average.

 

more liberal hogwash

Edited July 6, 2008 by darkhosis

[Bak]

all those states lack major cities. The gun ownership there is mostly for hunting. You're basically saying, "look the farmers can handle hunting rifles, so we should give handguns to the poor urban population too."

 

also, way to link violent crime to race, without accounting for poverty. If guns are such a deterrent for crime, why aren't we arming the Iraqis to increase security?

[»Ceiu]

Because to be as efficient as possible they need planes, not guns.

[PaRa$iTe]

@darkhosis

Hawaii statistics, anyone?

Gun ownership isn't the only factor, of course. Poverty, population density, and such. The "race correlation" is probably caused by tension between "races" rather than by one skin color being worse than another in any way. Statistics can be widely abused. However, I'd like to cite you: "three are so low that they're comparable to many european countries". Funny such a sentence should appear in an obviously pro-gun post According to wikipedia, a homicide ratio of 1.2 (the lowest of the high gun ownership ratio states you mentioned) would place 26th in the world. Which I assume should be a GOOD placement? I mean, it's the United States of America, Champion of Democracy, and not only that, but also a specifically selected low-homicide area.

 

(Not that I can talk, Finland has 2.75 ;P)

[darkhosis]

all those states lack major cities. The gun ownership there is mostly for hunting. You're basically saying, "look the farmers can handle hunting rifles, so we should give handguns to the poor urban population too."

 

also, way to link violent crime to race, without accounting for poverty. If guns are such a deterrent for crime, why aren't we arming the Iraqis to increase security?

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3/table2.htm

 

^^ is what I'm using for poverty stats. using the average for the years 1998-2000, since the only census figures on racial makeup of states is from 2000.

 

these are the states with equal to or greater than 90% of the population identifying themselves as being white (non-hispanic). poverty rate is ranked on a 1-50 basis, with 1st being the state with the least amount of poverty as a percentage of the population. murders are rated from 1-50, with 1st being the state with the least amount of murders per capita. leaving off DC.

 

1. Maine (97% white) - ranks 17th in least amount of poverty, 3rd in least amount of murders

2. Vermont (96%) - ranks 19th in poverty, 5th in murders

3. New Hampshire (95%) - ranks 2nd in poverty, 7th in murders

4. West Virginia (95%) - ranks 46th in poverty, 13th in murders

5. Iowa (93%) - ranks 5th in poverty, 6th in murders

6. North Dakota (92%) - ranks 33rd in poverty, 1st in murders

7. Montana (90%) - ranks 47th in poverty, 7th in murders

 

OK, so out of the 7 states with >90% white pop according to 2000 US census, the avg poverty rank is 24.1 out of 50. so these states on a whole are just about around the national average poverty wise. their avg crime ranking in murders per capita is 6 out of 50. or, we can just say that it's really !@#$%^&* low.

 

yes, all those states are small, with the largest being 3m. feel free to look up mississippi, delaware, arkansas, new mexico, and nevada on your own (states under 3m with large populations of blacks and/or hispanics). the numbers are quite different. if you went up to 4.5m, you'd have the gem that is known as Louisiana.

 

i'll check delaware for ya. 700k people. largest city, wilmington, pop 120k (and it was probably less in 2000). 73% non-hispanic white, 19% black (10th highest as of 2000). 16th in poverty, 18th in murders. neat, except when you compare it to similar size states.

 

fyi, the state with the lowest poverty rate from 1998-2000 was maryland, at 7.3%, alas it ranks 48th in murders per capita. only louisiana and mississippi were worse. georgia was 4th. i think there might be something.... common amongst these 4 states...

 

http://www.censusscope.org/us/rank_race_bl...anamerican.html

 

use that and compare south carolina (66% white) and kentucky (89% white) for some fun. both with near exact same pop as of the year 2000. in 2004-2006, kentucky had 16.5% individuals living below poverty line, compared to south carolina's 13.7%. 2006 murder rate? kentucky at 4.0 individuals per 100,000, south carolina at 8.3. this is obviously linked to poverty rate, err, wait, nm. or maybe guns, except supposedly more people have guns in kentucky than south carolina, scratch that. or maybe it's lack of education, but kentucky ranks #1 in people not completing 9th grade, 2nd in lack of ppl graduating HS, and 49th in # of people with college degrees, lagging behind south carolina in all 3 areas. obviously race isnt a factor. thats just politically incorrect.

 

gun ownership? you can check at:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/healt.../ownership.html

 

all seven states i listed originally are >40% except for new hampshire. montana, north dakota, and WV are in the top 10 in the nation. maryland is at 25% and is 3rd most murderous state. but the top 2, louisiana and mississippi are at 44% and 55%. how does that go again? guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

edit to respond to new post:

 

hawaii has 1.73% black population, or 41st out of 51. asians and pacific islanders tend not to murder each other.

 

According to wikipedia, a homicide ratio of 1.2 (the lowest of the high gun ownership ratio states you mentioned) would place 26th in the world. Which I assume should be a GOOD placement? I mean, it's the United States of America, Champion of Democracy, and not only that, but also a specifically selected low-homicide area.

yah, the same wiki article that says burma has the 2nd lowest homicide rate in the world?

 

.12 is similar to Germany. France is .175, Canada is .15, UK is .14, Hungary is .20, Portugal is .23, Italy is .13, Australia is .15, Iceland is .17, etc, etc.

 

Yeah, I don't believe that !@#$%^&* about Pakistan, Burma, and Morocco having the lowest homocide rates in the world.. sorry. I'm inclined to believe the Japan .05 which would place it as the lowest. It's a very homogenous society.

 

ed again: was going over some of those "wiki" source articles.. haha.. yeah, the united nations is really on its toes. obviously a lot of that !@#$%^&* is underreported. shockingly enough, in the USA homicides tend not to be shoved under the carpet... or executions.

Edited July 7, 2008 by darkhosis

[Bak]

the cost of living varies from state to state but your poverty statistics don't take this into account.