No firearms in Australia

[Brain357]

Why school shootings don't happen in Israel - The Jewish Thinker

Yeah…getting the state, through doctors to allow you to carry a gun is not how they stop school shooters….armed guards in the buildings is how they actually do it…

Armed teachers, guards bolster school security in Israel

Americans intent on ensuring a school massacre like the one in Newtown, Conn., never happens again could learn a lot from Israel, where the long menu of precautions includes armed teachers.

The Jewish state, which has long faced threats of terrorist strikes in crowded locations including schools, takes an all-of-the-above approach to safety in the classroom. Fences, metal detectors and armed private guards are part of a strategy overseen by the country’s national police. And the idea of armed teachers in the classroom, which stirred much controversy in the wake of the U.S. attack, has long been in practice in Israel, though a minority of them carry weapons today.

It also seems like bad guys have a lot of trouble getting guns. Hence why they are stabbing and not shooting people. This is interesting:

And the idea of armed teachers in the classroom, which stirred much controversy in the wake of the U.S. attack, has long been in practice in Israel, though a minority of them carry weapons today.

Nope…..if the terrorists wanted to use guns they would use guns. There is nothing the Israelis could do to stop them.


Israel rejects NRA's guns-in-schools claim

If they could get guns they wouldn't be using knives.

Interesting from your link:
JERUSALEMIsrael's policy on issuing guns is restrictive, and armed guards at its schools are meant to stop terrorists, not crazed or disgruntled gunmen, experts said Monday, rejecting claims by America's top gun lobby that Israel serves as proof for its philosophy that the U.S. needs more weapons, not fewer.

Yeah……..so you are implying that armed guards meant for stopping terrorists don't deter mass shooters as well? Is that what you are trying to say?

That quote is just silly…….

The Sandy Hook shooter attended the middle school as well as the high school…..they both had armed resource officers…the Sandy Hook elementary school did not….

Armed guards and gun restrictions seem to be the keys to their success.

 

[Brain357]

Why school shootings don't happen in Israel - The Jewish Thinker

Yeah…getting the state, through doctors to allow you to carry a gun is not how they stop school shooters….armed guards in the buildings is how they actually do it…

Armed teachers, guards bolster school security in Israel

Americans intent on ensuring a school massacre like the one in Newtown, Conn., never happens again could learn a lot from Israel, where the long menu of precautions includes armed teachers.

The Jewish state, which has long faced threats of terrorist strikes in crowded locations including schools, takes an all-of-the-above approach to safety in the classroom. Fences, metal detectors and armed private guards are part of a strategy overseen by the country’s national police. And the idea of armed teachers in the classroom, which stirred much controversy in the wake of the U.S. attack, has long been in practice in Israel, though a minority of them carry weapons today.

It also seems like bad guys have a lot of trouble getting guns. Hence why they are stabbing and not shooting people. This is interesting:

And the idea of armed teachers in the classroom, which stirred much controversy in the wake of the U.S. attack, has long been in practice in Israel, though a minority of them carry weapons today.

Nope…..if the terrorists wanted to use guns they would use guns. There is nothing the Israelis could do to stop them.


How does Israel stop mass shooters and terrorists…..a lot of good guys with guns…all over the place...


Israel rejects NRA's guns-in-schools claim

Israel didn't mandate armed guards at the entrances to all schools until 1995, the Education Ministry said — more than two decades after the Maalot attack and two years after a Palestinian militant wounded five pupils and their principal in a knifing at a Jerusalem school.



Israel's lightly armed school guards are not the first or the last line of defense. They are backed up by special police forces on motorcycles that can be on the scene within minutes — again bringing out the main, but not the only, difference between the two systems.



Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor spelled it out.



"We're fighting terrorism, which comes under very specific geopolitical and military circumstances. This is not something that compares with the situation in the U.S," Palmor said.



Because it is aimed at preventing terror attacks, Israel's school security system is part of a multi-layered defense strategy that focuses on prevention and doesn't depend on a guy at a gate with a gun.



Intelligence gathering inside Palestinian territories, a large military force inside the West Bank and a barrier of towering concrete slabs and electronic fencing along and inside the West Bank provide the first line of defense.



Guards are stationed not just at schools, but at many other public facilities, including bus and train stations, parking lots, malls and restaurants.



If you read that….seems like they actually have armed guards in the school, and everywhere else…..

Far from the image of a heavily armed population where ordinary people have their own arsenals to repel attackers, Israel allows its people to acquire firearms only if they can prove their professions or places of residence put them in danger. The country relies on its security services, not armed citizens, to prevent terror attacks.

No one said armed citizens prevent terrorist attacks…but they will be there if they happen……again, the muslims in San Bernadino did not attack a police station…they found a gun free zone to attack.

But in other countries terrorists attack police stations and military bases quite often.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Australia has a far lower homicide rate than the U.S.

But they allow no firearms to most of their population, so how did this KNOWN criminal get one?

Probably through a long, dangerous process of procuring one in the black market.

BUT BUT, according to Noomi and the rest of you bed wetters if laws are so strict that law abiding citizens can not get firearms the same will be true of criminals right?

No one in their damn right mind would even claim that criminals would obey any laws. Anyone that write that or believe that are retarded.

Gun laws are suppose to prevent certain people in society from obtaining a firearm but nothing in the law claims a criminal will obey it!

 

[Skylar]

I noticed you didn't touch the gun ownership rates with a 10 foot pole. Why is that, do you think?

I still don't see an answer to my question.
Maybe you missed it, I'll ask again:

Violent crime fell 51% from 1993 to 2014.
There are at least 100,000,000 more guns than in 1993
What does that tell you?

You shall now avoid the question, for the third time.

Like you're avoiding my question about gun ownership rates?

Red herring,. You haven't answered my question, so, there no reason form to address yours.
The US saw a 51% decrease in violent crime 1993-2014, with a 100,000,000+ increase in the number of guns.
What does that tell you?

Nope. Its immediately relevant. As selling more guns to the same people doesn't seem to have much to do with crime. While fewer people having guns does seem to have and effect on reducing crime.

As crime went down in both the US and Australia as the gun ownership rates dropped. With the same pattern in both places. Yet you refuse to even discuss it.

Why is that?

gun ownership went up and crime went down

Gun ownership rates did not go up. They went down. The number of guns increased.......while the gun ownership rates fell. Meaning that the same people bought more guns.

The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates. The proportion of people with guns seems to be connected to gun violence and crime rates. As gun ownership rates fall and crime falls. Here and in Australia.

With suicide rates *also* dropping in Australia as gun ownership rates fell. As higher suicide rates and gun ownership are strongly linked as you've already admitted. So lower gun ownership rates have benefits on multiple angles.

The U.S. And the gun crime rate in Australia is going back up.....gun ownership levels in Australia are now back up to where they were before the confiscation....

Violent crime rates are significantly lower. With the number of murders down about 1/3rd since 1996 despite the population increasing by about 1/3rd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gun ownership rates did not go up. They went down. The number of guns increased.......while the gun ownership rates fell. Meaning that the same people bought more guns. The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates.

If the "same people" buying more guns has little to do with crime rates, what argument is there for for further restricting the rights of these 'same people"?

 

[Skylar]

Gun ownership rates did not go up. They went down. The number of guns increased.......while the gun ownership rates fell. Meaning that the same people bought more guns. The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates.

If the "same people" buying more guns has little to do with crime rates, what argument is there for for further restricting the rights of these 'same people"?

Apparently because lower gun ownership rates are connected with lower suicide and crime rates.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gun ownership rates did not go up. They went down. The number of guns increased.......while the gun ownership rates fell. Meaning that the same people bought more guns. The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates.

If the "same people" buying more guns has little to do with crime rates, what argument is there for for further restricting the rights of these 'same people"?

Apparently because lower gun ownership rates are connected with lower suicide and crime rates.

You just said:

"The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates."

If the "same people" buying more guns has little to do with crime rates, what argument is there for for further restricting the rights of these 'same people"?

 

[Skylar]

Gun ownership rates did not go up. They went down. The number of guns increased.......while the gun ownership rates fell. Meaning that the same people bought more guns. The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates.

If the "same people" buying more guns has little to do with crime rates, what argument is there for for further restricting the rights of these 'same people"?

Apparently because lower gun ownership rates are connected with lower suicide and crime rates.

You just said:

"The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates."

Ah, but that's not all I said. Here's my post again, including the answer you seek...which coincidentally is the very portion you omitted from my reply:

The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates. The proportion of people with guns seems to be connected to gun violence and crime rates. As gun ownership rates fall and crime falls. Here and in Australia.

With suicide rates *also* dropping in Australia as gun ownership rates fell. As higher suicide rates and gun ownership are strongly linked as you've already admitted. So lower gun ownership rates have benefits on multiple angles.

There's your answer. Next time don't intentionally omit any mention of it and save us both time.

If the "same people" buying more guns has little to do with crime rates, what argument is there for for further restricting the rights of these 'same people"?

Apparently because lower gun ownership rates are connected with lower suicide and crime rates, exactly as I explained to you. And exactly as you ignored.

Let me try it again. If Bubba has 2 guns or 10 guns, it doesn't seem to matter much regarding crime rates. If Bubba has NO guns and the gun ownership rate drops, there seems to be a connection with lower crime and suicide rates.

See the difference between none and 2 seems to be significant in terms of crime and suicide. The difference between 2 and 10 doesn't.

You may now proceed to ignore the very answers you asked for.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Let me try it again. If Bubba has 2 guns or 10 guns, it doesn't seem to matter much regarding crime rates. If Bubba has NO guns and the gun ownership rate drops, there seems to be a connection with lower crime and suicide rates.

See the difference between none and 2 seems to be significant in terms of crime and suicide. The difference between 2 and 10 doesn't.

Yes.... and so...
If it doesn't seem to matter much if Bubba owns 2 guns or 10 guns, why restrict his rights in an effort to make it harder for him to buy guns 3 through 10?

 

[2aguy]

Yeah…getting the state, through doctors to allow you to carry a gun is not how they stop school shooters….armed guards in the buildings is how they actually do it…

Armed teachers, guards bolster school security in Israel

Americans intent on ensuring a school massacre like the one in Newtown, Conn., never happens again could learn a lot from Israel, where the long menu of precautions includes armed teachers.

The Jewish state, which has long faced threats of terrorist strikes in crowded locations including schools, takes an all-of-the-above approach to safety in the classroom. Fences, metal detectors and armed private guards are part of a strategy overseen by the country’s national police. And the idea of armed teachers in the classroom, which stirred much controversy in the wake of the U.S. attack, has long been in practice in Israel, though a minority of them carry weapons today.

It also seems like bad guys have a lot of trouble getting guns. Hence why they are stabbing and not shooting people. This is interesting:

And the idea of armed teachers in the classroom, which stirred much controversy in the wake of the U.S. attack, has long been in practice in Israel, though a minority of them carry weapons today.

Nope…..if the terrorists wanted to use guns they would use guns. There is nothing the Israelis could do to stop them.


Israel rejects NRA's guns-in-schools claim

If they could get guns they wouldn't be using knives.

Interesting from your link:
JERUSALEMIsrael's policy on issuing guns is restrictive, and armed guards at its schools are meant to stop terrorists, not crazed or disgruntled gunmen, experts said Monday, rejecting claims by America's top gun lobby that Israel serves as proof for its philosophy that the U.S. needs more weapons, not fewer.

Yeah……..so you are implying that armed guards meant for stopping terrorists don't deter mass shooters as well? Is that what you are trying to say?

That quote is just silly…….

The Sandy Hook shooter attended the middle school as well as the high school…..they both had armed resource officers…the Sandy Hook elementary school did not….

Armed guards and gun restrictions seem to be the keys to their success.

You had the first part right…..allowing law abiding Israelis carry guns would not increase the gun crime rate….

 

[2aguy]

Gun ownership rates did not go up. They went down. The number of guns increased.......while the gun ownership rates fell. Meaning that the same people bought more guns. The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates.

If the "same people" buying more guns has little to do with crime rates, what argument is there for for further restricting the rights of these 'same people"?

Apparently because lower gun ownership rates are connected with lower suicide and crime rates.

You just said:

"The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates."

Ah, but that's not all I said. Here's my post again, including the answer you seek...which coincidentally is the very portion you omitted from my reply:

The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates. The proportion of people with guns seems to be connected to gun violence and crime rates. As gun ownership rates fall and crime falls. Here and in Australia.

With suicide rates *also* dropping in Australia as gun ownership rates fell. As higher suicide rates and gun ownership are strongly linked as you've already admitted. So lower gun ownership rates have benefits on multiple angles.

There's your answer. Next time don't intentionally omit any mention of it and save us both time.

If the "same people" buying more guns has little to do with crime rates, what argument is there for for further restricting the rights of these 'same people"?

Apparently because lower gun ownership rates are connected with lower suicide and crime rates, exactly as I explained to you. And exactly as you ignored.

Let me try it again. If Bubba has 2 guns or 10 guns, it doesn't seem to matter much regarding crime rates. If Bubba has NO guns and the gun ownership rate drops, there seems to be a connection with lower crime and suicide rates.

See the difference between none and 2 seems to be significant in terms of crime and suicide. The difference between 2 and 10 doesn't.

You may now proceed to ignore the very answers you asked for.

As gun ownership rates fall and crime falls. Here and in Australia.

Both are wrong, our gun ownership has gone up not down and our gun crime rate has gone down, not up.

Australia gun levels are back up to where they were before the confiscation…and their gun crime is going up.

Apparently because lower gun ownership rates are connected with lower suicide and crime rates

Guns have nothing to do with the suicide rate…how do we know…Japan, South Korea and China have 0 access to guns and 2x the suicide rate we do…….and in this country…we have 21,000 suicides by gun…..but 19,000 suicides without guns……so if you got rid of all guns…the 21,000would simply use the method the other 19,000 used…and studies also show….Australian suicide rates were not affected by the gun ban…their rates had been falling before the confiscation….

 

[Brain357]

It also seems like bad guys have a lot of trouble getting guns. Hence why they are stabbing and not shooting people. This is interesting:

And the idea of armed teachers in the classroom, which stirred much controversy in the wake of the U.S. attack, has long been in practice in Israel, though a minority of them carry weapons today.

Nope…..if the terrorists wanted to use guns they would use guns. There is nothing the Israelis could do to stop them.


Israel rejects NRA's guns-in-schools claim

If they could get guns they wouldn't be using knives.

Interesting from your link:
JERUSALEMIsrael's policy on issuing guns is restrictive, and armed guards at its schools are meant to stop terrorists, not crazed or disgruntled gunmen, experts said Monday, rejecting claims by America's top gun lobby that Israel serves as proof for its philosophy that the U.S. needs more weapons, not fewer.

Yeah……..so you are implying that armed guards meant for stopping terrorists don't deter mass shooters as well? Is that what you are trying to say?

That quote is just silly…….

The Sandy Hook shooter attended the middle school as well as the high school…..they both had armed resource officers…the Sandy Hook elementary school did not….

Armed guards and gun restrictions seem to be the keys to their success.

You had the first part right…..allowing law abiding Israelis carry guns would not increase the gun crime rate….

The problem is many are law abiding when they get the gun, but that changes. Look at our terrorist shooters.

 

[2aguy]

Gun ownership rates did not go up. They went down. The number of guns increased.......while the gun ownership rates fell. Meaning that the same people bought more guns. The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates.

If the "same people" buying more guns has little to do with crime rates, what argument is there for for further restricting the rights of these 'same people"?

Apparently because lower gun ownership rates are connected with lower suicide and crime rates.

You just said:

"The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates."

Ah, but that's not all I said. Here's my post again, including the answer you seek...which coincidentally is the very portion you omitted from my reply:

The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates. The proportion of people with guns seems to be connected to gun violence and crime rates. As gun ownership rates fall and crime falls. Here and in Australia.

With suicide rates *also* dropping in Australia as gun ownership rates fell. As higher suicide rates and gun ownership are strongly linked as you've already admitted. So lower gun ownership rates have benefits on multiple angles.

There's your answer. Next time don't intentionally omit any mention of it and save us both time.

If the "same people" buying more guns has little to do with crime rates, what argument is there for for further restricting the rights of these 'same people"?

Apparently because lower gun ownership rates are connected with lower suicide and crime rates, exactly as I explained to you. And exactly as you ignored.

Let me try it again. If Bubba has 2 guns or 10 guns, it doesn't seem to matter much regarding crime rates. If Bubba has NO guns and the gun ownership rate drops, there seems to be a connection with lower crime and suicide rates.

See the difference between none and 2 seems to be significant in terms of crime and suicide. The difference between 2 and 10 doesn't.

You may now proceed to ignore the very answers you asked for.

And sorry…countries that have extreme gun control often have higher levels of gun murder than countries like ours..for example…Puerto Rico..an Island nation with strict gun control and they can't even use the excuse that people just drive across the border to another state…they have the highest gun murder rate in the world according to VICE t.v. a documentary show…a left wing documentary show….

And the cities with the most extreme gun control…have higher rates of gun murder….

 

[2aguy]

Gun ownership rates did not go up. They went down. The number of guns increased.......while the gun ownership rates fell. Meaning that the same people bought more guns. The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates.

If the "same people" buying more guns has little to do with crime rates, what argument is there for for further restricting the rights of these 'same people"?

Apparently because lower gun ownership rates are connected with lower suicide and crime rates.

Apparently because lower gun ownership rates are connected with lower suicide and crime rates

Neither of those is true.

 

[jon_berzerk]

even what the hell are you talking about Israel allows military grade firearms to certain citizens you ninny

as for the extremists hamas controls which extremists are allowed firearms

much like isis only sworn hamas members can own firearms

the nazis had similar laws btw


and then there is this interesting article

Israel eases gun laws in bid to cope with Palestinian 'lone wolf' attacks

Israel eases gun laws in bid to cope with Palestinian 'lone wolf' attacks

I'm talking about how their extremists seem to only be able to get knives. It seems their gun control works. Very few are allowed guns. From your link:
In Israel firearms licenses are typically only given if one can prove they have reason to carry a gun – for instance if they work in security or law enforcement or live in a dangerous area like the West Bank. They must also be over 21 years old, a resident of Israel for over three years, and pass a mental and physical exam, a shooting test and background checks by the Public Security Ministry. They are then allowed to order a gun through a gun store with approval of the ministry and given a one-time supply of 50 bullets to take home.

your position simply isnt true

What part? They are having stabbings in Israel, not mass shootings. Their strong gun control seems to work well.

what the fuck are you talking about

tthe frequently get into wars with the extremists you ninny

Those take place in the Palestinian areas. And even then many Palestinians are throwing rocks. Mass shootings almost never happen inside Israel. Watch the news, their extremists have to resort to knives because of the strong gun control.

what the fuck are you rambling about now

hamas has several times attacked Israel with more then knives butthead

 

[2aguy]

I still don't see an answer to my question.
Maybe you missed it, I'll ask again:

Violent crime fell 51% from 1993 to 2014.
There are at least 100,000,000 more guns than in 1993
What does that tell you?

You shall now avoid the question, for the third time.

Like you're avoiding my question about gun ownership rates?

Red herring,. You haven't answered my question, so, there no reason form to address yours.
The US saw a 51% decrease in violent crime 1993-2014, with a 100,000,000+ increase in the number of guns.
What does that tell you?

Nope. Its immediately relevant. As selling more guns to the same people doesn't seem to have much to do with crime. While fewer people having guns does seem to have and effect on reducing crime.

As crime went down in both the US and Australia as the gun ownership rates dropped. With the same pattern in both places. Yet you refuse to even discuss it.

Why is that?

gun ownership went up and crime went down

Gun ownership rates did not go up. They went down. The number of guns increased.......while the gun ownership rates fell. Meaning that the same people bought more guns.

The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates. The proportion of people with guns seems to be connected to gun violence and crime rates. As gun ownership rates fall and crime falls. Here and in Australia.

With suicide rates *also* dropping in Australia as gun ownership rates fell. As higher suicide rates and gun ownership are strongly linked as you've already admitted. So lower gun ownership rates have benefits on multiple angles.

The U.S. And the gun crime rate in Australia is going back up.....gun ownership levels in Australia are now back up to where they were before the confiscation....

Violent crime rates are significantly lower. With the number of murders down about 1/3rd since 1996 despite the population increasing by about 1/3rd.

Gun ownership rates did not go up. They went down. The number of guns increased.......while the gun ownership rates fell. Meaning that the same people bought more guns.

Not true…..the General Social Survey…where the anti gunners are getting that little factoid is led by an anti gunner….he hopes that his info. will encourage politicians to enact more gun control…

His survey asks strangers if they own guns….and then expects them to tell him the truth….

Gun ownership is at all time highs….

And concealed carry permits are now over 13 million people and the crime rate is going down, not up…another myth of the gun grabbers…they said after each state passed concealed carry that the crime rate would go up…as the states passed concealed carry the crime rates went down.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Both are wrong, our gun ownership has gone up not down and our gun crime rate has gone down, not up.

According to Gallup...
Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

A clear societal change took place regarding gun ownership in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Americans saying there was a gun in their home or on their property dropped from the low to mid-50s into the low to mid-40s and remained at that level for the next 15 years. Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in Americans' willingness to say they had guns is unclear. However, the new data suggest that attitudes may again be changing. At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades -- a finding that may be related to Americans' dampened support for gun-control laws

54% to 42-435% and back up to 47%

Hard to imagine that such a small and irregular drop in the number of people who own guns would bring a 55% drop in the number of gun-related murders - but them I'm not trying to explain away how a huge drop in those murders came at the same time as a huge increase in the number of guns.

 

[2aguy]

Gun ownership rates did not go up. They went down. The number of guns increased.......while the gun ownership rates fell. Meaning that the same people bought more guns. The number of guns the same people have appears to have little to do with crime rates.

If the "same people" buying more guns has little to do with crime rates, what argument is there for for further restricting the rights of these 'same people"?

Apparently because lower gun ownership rates are connected with lower suicide and crime rates.

Here you go…one look at the General Social Survey vs. other polling groups…

Are Americans Really Giving Up Their Guns?

THE MODE OF GUN OWNERSHIP DATA COLLECTION

Another element worth considering when measuring firearms or any other controversial indicator is the mode, or the method through which data are collected. While making no definitive statements surrounding which firm has the most accurate data collection method, Newport highlighted that mode effect could also potentially play a role in the differences observed in guns ownership statistics.

“There’s also what we call a mode effect and I believe…most of the GSS survey is done in person and, of course, our survey and everyone else’s are done on the phone,” he told TheBlaze. “If someone’s there in your living room asking [you questions] with a clip board…there could be a difference.”

Newport was clear that he wasn’t claiming a definite impact on results if and when someone collects data inside the home versus via telephone, however he did raise the mode as a possible explanatory factor. He said that testing this dynamic this would be necessary in order to make more informed and definitive decisions on the matter.

As for Smith, he confirmed that the GSS’s methodology and general mode of communication with respondents is in person. While the vast majority of studies are conducted in peoples’ homes, some individuals are reached outside of their houses (traveling salesmen and others who are regularly on the road). And another small portion of the sample is reached via phone. Overall, these outliers account for five to 10 percent of the sample, Smith told TheBlaze.

“Mode of communication is a factor although it’s a complex thing. It’s something that can vary,” he said. “It tends to be much more variable specific. [In] the vast majority [of scenarios]…you do get comparable results.”

Smith did note, though, that some complex questioning actually lends itself to in-person over telephone response-gathering. If one is collecting data about income, for instance, having show-cards and placards that show income intervals visually can be of assistance in getting the proper information.

Considering the impact of social and political discussion and the aura that accompanies in-person interviews (a more personal face-to-face engagement), one could reasonably assert that, depending on the issue, respondents could be intimidated or shy away from affirmatively answering something that they fear might make them look insensitive.

For example: Self-reporting ownership of an AR-15, especially in light of pressures following Sandy Hook, could, theoretically, be impacted by this dynamic.

 

[Brain357]

I'm talking about how their extremists seem to only be able to get knives. It seems their gun control works. Very few are allowed guns. From your link:
In Israel firearms licenses are typically only given if one can prove they have reason to carry a gun – for instance if they work in security or law enforcement or live in a dangerous area like the West Bank. They must also be over 21 years old, a resident of Israel for over three years, and pass a mental and physical exam, a shooting test and background checks by the Public Security Ministry. They are then allowed to order a gun through a gun store with approval of the ministry and given a one-time supply of 50 bullets to take home.

your position simply isnt true

What part? They are having stabbings in Israel, not mass shootings. Their strong gun control seems to work well.

what the fuck are you talking about

tthe frequently get into wars with the extremists you ninny

Those take place in the Palestinian areas. And even then many Palestinians are throwing rocks. Mass shootings almost never happen inside Israel. Watch the news, their extremists have to resort to knives because of the strong gun control.

what the fuck are you rambling about now

hamas has several times attacked Israel with more then knives butthead

And where do they attack from?

 

[2aguy]

Then you have the myth that lower gun ownership rates mean lower crime rates…

Obama Claims Other Countries With No Guns Safer; Here’s the Truth

The National Journal disproportionately excluded low-crime, pro-gun states such as Vermont, South Dakota, and Maine from its chart of homicide rates precisely because their homicide rate was low. These states have few gun laws (Vermont has the least of any state) and very low homicide rates. If you disproportionately exclude unregulated states that are safest from the calculation of which states have the lowest homicide rates, that will create the false impression that states with the most gun laws have the fewest gun deaths.



These “pro-gun” states have low homicide rates (for example, Vermont had the third lowest homicide rate in 2013, the lowest gun murder rate in 2010, and the second-lowest gun murder rate in 2007-2010. South Dakota had the fourth-lowest gun-homicide rate in 2007-2010).

But in its discussions of “Concealed Carry” and “Background Checks,” the National Journal deletes these states from its charts comparing pro-gun and anti-gun states by “Gun-related homicides per 100,000 people, by state (2013).”

It deletes Vermont, South Dakota, Maine, and 8 other states (6 of which have few gun regulations) from each chart, claiming that these states had “too few homicides to calculate a reliable rate.” 9 of the 11 states excluded broadly allow concealed carry and do not impose additional background-check requirements beyond those contained in federal law. But the National Journal deliberately excluded those states, writing, “In 2013, Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides to calculate a reliable rate.”



************
It is truly bizarre to exclude the states with the fewest gun deaths from an article about what states have “the fewest gun deaths.” This is an egregious act of cherry-picking.

But that was apparently how the National Journal managed to claim that “the states that impose the most restrictions on gun users also have the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, while states with fewer regulations typically have a much higher death rate from guns.” (In 2013, the state with the nation’s lowest murder rate and lowest rate of gun-related homicides was Iowa, which is middling in terms of the number of gun laws.


In 2007-2010, it ranked fifth-lowest in number of gun-related homicides. It does not have the “most gun laws.” It broadly permits concealed carry but also requires certain background checks. For some reason, the National Journal left Iowa in, while excluding other low-homicide, low-crime states like Vermont that have even fewer gun laws.).