School Shooting

[WiseOne]

IMO these kinds of things have more to do with mental health care than they do gun control.

I believe you are correct.  We have an abysmal mental health system in the USA..  Putting more guns in the environment would increase the number of accidental discharges, and enlarge the pool of guns a prospective shooter would have access to.  It would also increase dueling behavior over minor insults.  Rather than being a relatively rare occurrence mass shootings would become common.

Amen.  As tempting as it is to make this a gun control issue, it's not clear that stricter gun purchase laws (e.g. background checks) would have made any difference in this case.  Also, these mass shootings weren't happening nearly so often say 30 years ago, when there was even less gun control than there is now.

What has changed is the availability of psychiatric or mental health care to anyone who can't pay cash.  People who are severely affected, of course, are disabled and thus almost guaranteed to be shut out of the system, unless they end up in an emergency room and someone decides they're a danger to themselves or others - which is a very high bar.  If they're on meds it's likely because a non-psychiatrist is prescribing them, because that person knows that something has to be done but simply has no other options.  I don't think these shootings will stop until this is fixed.

i wonder about the "dueling behavior" claim, the culture of standing toe to toe with somebody and settling a dispute seems antiquated, nowadays there seems to be far more of a "cowardice culture", drive by's and shooting sprees in gun free zones where the risk of personal harm is limited, perhaps the "bushwhacking behavior" over minor incidents is a more accurate description..

i do agree that this type of mass shooting is in many ways a mental heath issue, the number of mass shootings that involve prescription drugs and a history of mental problems is almost equal to the number that involve guns...

[MediumTex]

We can "want" anything but the government is not the entity to do it. As HB says, the government has never gotten anything right. What makes you think they can do this one thing right?

That government has "never gotten anything right" may be widely accepted on this libertarian-oriented forum, but I suspect that it is a rather extreme view in the spectrum of public opinion. It is my opinion that there is indeed a role for government, and government actually does some things remarkably well, considering what it is up against. The day that people are able to freely bring bombs and weapons on airplanes, into schools, and into shopping malls is the day I become an emigrant.

I think that the government has a role in many areas of life when it comes to establishing ground rules and guidelines regarding contract enforcement, health and safety of certain products and services, etc.

Within that framework, I think that it's reasonable to require people to get a drivers license to drive a car on a public road in order to make sure that people who are driving have some minimal level of capability. 

As I said in the OP, I wouldn't be opposed to requiring people who want to own guns to attend a course that will (possibly) prepare them for more responsible gun ownership.  I used to have a concealed handgun permit and the course I was required to take was offered by a private contractor, was taught by a long-time police officer and was a very good course.  I wouldn't be opposed to all gun purchasers attending such a course.

However, rather than common-sense based restrictions in response to these tragedies, the more common response is to do something that is reactionary and unlikely to actually prevent the thing you are upset about from happening again.  That's what worries me.

I rarely react with a lot of emotion to news stories, mainly because I think that most of what is presented to us as "news" is just gossip and entertainment.  With the story yesterday, however, I actually shed a few tears, not because I knew the people, but just because I have a couple of kids who go to a school just like the one in Connecticut, and I could just catch a small glimpse of the enormous pain that an act like this causes and it is just very upsetting.  You like to think that you don't live in a society where things like that happen.  You like to think that even crazy people wouldn't be that cruel to such defenseless people.

The last time I remember this sense of tragedy and senselessness about a mass killing of children was after the Oklahoma City bombing when it became clear that the nursery in the federal building was very close to the blast.  Even the high profile school shootings in the last 15 years didn't involve little kids.

There is something about killing children that upsets people in a way that killing adults doesn't.  I don't know what it is; it's probably some evolutionary survival instinct to protect those who are less able to protect themselves.

It's just a very sad and tragic event, right before Christmas, when there aren't a lot of other things happening in the news to divert attention. 

I would love to know what kind of medications that the shooter was taking.  If he was autistic, I assume he was taking one or more meds to manage that.

[TripleB]

Government doesn't work, can't work, will never work.

You are certainly entitled to this view, but it is pretty extreme. I for one trust most private sector industries (who's #1 goal is profit) even less than government. Just take a look at our food industry, the big pharm industry that MachineGhost is always berating, and the private health insurance morass. Where would we be if it were not for law enforcement, public transportation (including our roads and highways), some degree of environmental protections (I remember well the air and water of the 1970's), and our national park systems? You might say better. I'd say more like Sudan.

In a truly free market, profit only occurs when a private business creates value for its consumers.

The food industry is the way it is today because people choose to buy those types of food products. Look at the organic food market in recent years. It's becoming huge. Trader Joes and Whole Foods is growing revenues exponentially because people want to eat better and the market is responding.

Big pharma is heavily regulated by the FDA. All of the problems you see with Big Pharma is a direct consequence of failed government policies. I don't know specifically what issues you have with them, however if you post them, I'll correlate them to government policies.

Private health insurance is also heavily regulated by the government and negatively impacted by cost shifting due to the huge monstrosity that is the Center of Medicare and Medicaid serves that pays for over 50% of all healthcare consumed in the US at below market rates, thus shifting the burden to private insurers. Additionally, government tax breaks for employer-based insurance and new medical loss ratio rules make things much worse. Again, post your specific problems with health insurance and I can directly correlate them to the government.

Law enforcement is great! They no longer have to comply with the constitution thanks to the Patriot Act and other similar laws and can seize your property for victimless crimes against the state and force you to launch a defense to reclaim your property. Working super well and definitely preventing terrorist attacks and school shootings. Keep up the great work.

Public transportation, also working amazing. It works so well that no one needs to drive anymore in big cities such as Los Angeles, New York City, etc. Not a single private car on the road.

As far as environmental problems, all of them occur as a direct consequence of government ownership of land. Bureaucrats will lease land to polluters without care because it's not their land, and no one ever loses their job. If land were owned privately, then private land owners wouldn't allow polluters on their land. They'd take care of it.

Instead, we have laws like the Federal Clean Water Act that recently prosecuted a 50 year old man with no criminal record for unknowingly redirecting a sewerline that miles later ran a small amount of waste into a public river.

Additionally, who are we preserving the land for? Presumably, if we're not allowed to use natural resources now, then people in the future shouldn't be allowed to use them either. Is it just to look pretty in the background?

[Tortoise]

The root cause here is psychopathy, not necessarily general "mental illness." Most mentally ill people would never do what the gunman in Connecticut did. Only psychopathy--a complete lack of empathy for other human beings--enables that kind of random mass-murder.

The problem is that psychopathy is often extremely hard to detect. Many psychopaths are quite good at hiding the fact that they lack empathy for others. If they are smart, they quickly learn how to act like they have empathy when in fact they have none. The mall shooter in Oregon a few days ago was described by his girlfriend as relatively normal--certainly not "mentally ill"--until only about a week before his shooting, at which point he suddenly started acting different (but not full-on crazy). So in his case at least, there was virtually no way to know that he was going to flip out and randomly kill people.

We desperately need to figure out how to develop a "psychopathy litmus test." Psychopathy appears to be a trait that most mass-murderers are born with. Most psychopaths just hide it and learn how to function semi-normally to get what they want in life, but occasionally you'll get a psychopath who just never really learns how to cope... so eventually the psychopathy rises to the surface and can no longer be held in check. That's when the mass-murder happens.

We need a way of detecting latent psychopathy in seemingly "normal" people. All these other discussions about gun control, armed security at schools, and treatment for mental illness are only tangential issues.

[MediumTex]

TripleB, would you also eliminate the military?  That's the largest government program, and the one resulting in the most corporate welfare.

Throughout history, standing armies in times of peace have created a lot of problems.

As George Washington pointed out, if you have a standing army when you are not at war, you will be at war with someone soon enough.

In today's world, I think that it is brilliant the way the EU and much of the middle east and pacific rim countries have basically outsourced their military defense to the U.S.

In many ways, the U.S. military is sort of like a mercenary force for the rest of the industrialized world.  As with so many of these things, I don't ever remember having a national debate about whether this is the role that we want for our country.  The politicians and generals just sort of did it.

[TripleB]

We desperately need to figure out how to develop a "psychopathy litmus test." Psychopathy appears to be a trait that most mass-murderers are born with. Most psychopaths just hide it and learn how to function semi-normally to get what they want in life, but occasionally you'll get a psychopath who just never really learns how to cope... so eventually the psychopathy rises to the surface and can no longer be held in check. That's when the mass-murder happens.

We need a way of detecting latent psychopathy in seemingly "normal" people. All these other discussions about gun control, armed security at schools, and treatment for mental illness are only tangential issues.

This sounds great until:

1) The government starts using the test against it's enemies: "Don't vote for Candidate X, he scored a 60% on the psychopathy test!" or worse --

"You're under infinite detainment for psychopathy positive. You can't be rehabilitated. No, this has nothing to do with the anti-government tweets you sent... and only a psychopath would think like that."

2) As you admit yourself, some/most psychopaths probably live normal lives without killing a bunch of people. Punish all of them too?

3) Psychopaths will be able to beat the test... because they are psychopaths.

It's also prudent to point out that most CEOs and Politicians are sociopaths when analyzed. We'd essentially have no leadership in a psychopath-free world, because a "normal" person doesn't have the "guts" to do necessary things like terminate employment for 20,000 employees or cut benefits to 1 Million Unemployed People.

[Pointedstick]

I've been silent on this despite my usual fondness for engaging in the government and gun control debates, but I'm simply so shocked that there doesn't seem to be anything tasteful to say on those subjects.

As humans, we seem to be wired to react very rapidly and emotionally to infrequent though terrifying dangers such as terrorism and school shootings. We want to cast blame, find someone or something who was responsible. Maybe it was the media, maybe it was his access to guns, maybe it was undiagnosed mental illness or the drugs he was on, maybe it was video games, and so on and so forth.

What's truly horrifying me is that maybe there is no good answer. Maybe it's just a freak confluence of factors of the worst type. Maybe it couldn't have been stopped. Maybe the reason why we're all floundering around here is because deep down, we know that there's not a thing that could have been done to prevent this tragedy, but admitting it would be too saddening and feel too much like surrendering to the sometimes cruel randomness of the universe.

[TripleB]

Pointedstick:

Reminds of this earlier in the week:

Authorities Not Even Going To Bother Looking For Motive Behind Oregon Shooting

CLACKAMAS, OR—Following the shooting at a crowded Oregon mall that killed two people Tuesday, local authorities confirmed they were not even going to waste their time trying to find the killer's motive, having determined that the individual was "really awful and a piece of shit human being and that's that, sound good?" "Look, we could do a whole thing where we delve into his personal history and find out what, psychologically, made this particular murderer tick, but screw that, here's our conclusion: He was a complete asshole and a crazy prick, and he shot random, innocent strangers for no reason at all, because he was terrible," Clackamas County Sheriff Cody Arnold told reporters, shrugging his shoulders. "Fuck 'em, you know? Guy was a really shitty person. There's your motive right there." Authorities also confirmed that insane assholes who are allowed to have guns tend to do insane things with them, "How about that?"



http://www.theonion.com/articles/author ... ne:default

[Pointedstick]

Isn't it interesting that satirical news seems to tap into the deeper psychological truths about us and our society far, far better than the "real" news does?

I don't know what that says about us.

[Tortoise]

This sounds great until:

1) The government starts using the test against it's enemies: "Don't vote for Candidate X, he scored a 60% on the psychopathy test!" or worse --

"You're under infinite detainment for psychopathy positive. You can't be rehabilitated. No, this has nothing to do with the anti-government tweets you sent... and only a psychopath would think like that."

Yes, that is a valid concern. Many new technologies and areas of knowledge can potentially be abused by the government, but that hasn't seemed to halt technological and scientific progress over the years.

Tools of liberation and progress often have a flip-side of also being potential tools of oppression; that just seems to be the nature of things. I'm not sure what the answer is.

2) As you admit yourself, some/most psychopaths probably live normal lives without killing a bunch of people. Punish all of them too?

No, I think that if a psychopathy litmus test were to be developed, it should be used first as a tool of research to determine the causes of psychopathy and potential ways to reduce its incidence in the population. What to do with existing psychopaths is a difficult political question, probably at least as difficult to agree on as issues like abortion.

3) Psychopaths will be able to beat the test... because they are psychopaths.

Any reasonable psychopathy litmus test would have to be designed in such a way that it's extremely difficult to beat. Maybe it would be based on largely unconscious, uncontrollable physiological reflexes, electrical activity in the brain, etc. I have no idea. One can't necessarily guarantee that a test is unbeatable, but one can probably make it exceedingly difficult to beat.

It's also prudent to point out that most CEOs and Politicians are sociopaths when analyzed. We'd essentially have no leadership in a psychopath-free world, because a "normal" person doesn't have the "guts" to do necessary things like terminate employment for 20,000 employees or cut benefits to 1 Million Unemployed People.

Good!

What's truly horrifying me is that maybe there is no good answer. Maybe it's just a freak confluence of factors of the worst type. Maybe it couldn't have been stopped. Maybe the reason why we're all floundering around here is because deep down, we know that there's not a thing that could have been done to prevent this tragedy, but admitting it would be too saddening and feel too much like surrendering to the sometimes cruel randomness of the universe.

I agree that the universe is often cruel, and it often seems random, but philosophically I don't subscribe to the idea of randomness in the sense of acausality--lacking a cause. But that's just another way of saying that I believe the universe has an ultimate purpose. So it ultimately comes down to one's metaphysical position: Believe in an ultimate purpose and design to the universe, or believe that purpose is a mere illusion and everything is fundamentally random.

The human mind is at least as unfathomably vast and strange as the visible universe. There are dark, undiscovered regions of the mind of which we know very little. I suspect some of that mental darkness is involved in most mass-murders that leave us so utterly confused and searching for meaning. The meaning exists... it's just far, far beyond our current reach.

[RuralEngineer]

A few things.

1.  If the U.S. military is a mercenary force for our allies (and apparently people we don't even like that much) then we had best be getting paid!  Where the hell is our money!

2.  The only gun control solution that would limit the number of shootings (but not the number of attacks, because that's a people issue) is a draconian ban plus confiscation.  A draconian ban alone does nothing because we have hundreds of millions of guns in the system.  Confiscation means civil war (just under 50% gun ownership).  I'll fight a gun ban by the established rules of democracy.  I'll fight confiscation by any means necessary.  Regardless of what tragedies our broken society drums up, using it as an excuse to strip away our rights is not ok.  We haven't learned anything from the Patriot act?  We've allowed our government to use tragedies to justify indefinite detention, spying, and now outright assassination of citizens without trial.

3.  TripleB...I'm a Libertarian, not an anarchist and I find your argument that government is incapable of anything positive whatsoever extremely flawed.  For one, you mentioned that pollution is caused by leasing land rather than land ownership and that no one would allow their own land to be polluted.  Watch the documentary "Gasland" and tell me that.  People lease their land for dirty development all the time.  There have been countless cases of private business using unsafe practices or products that were investigated and shut down by government agencies.  At one point they used x-rays for superfluous hair removal.  Turns out if made your jaw fall off...not good.  Government is a necessity in a society as large as ours.  It needs to be tightly chained, because it is a dangerous beast indeed, but there is simply no way you can have a functioning society of 300 million people without a government of some kind.  I despise government for its many evils, but I don't delude myself that there isn't some shred of benefit to be had.

Finally, I fully expect some kind of placebo legislation to come out of this.  It will do nothing but annoy a segment of the population and make us less safe or have no impact.  Either way it won't change the fact that so many innocents are lost.  I'm just glad the POS killed himself and saved us the hassle of a trial and watching him outlive some of the parents while on death row (I think CT still has a death penalty).

There's something very wrong with our society.  We're doing something to our children, or allowing something to be done that is turning some of them into monsters.  I don't know what exactly it is and I'm not sure we could answer that question without painting our own personal views and prejudices onto the picture.  I wish I had an answer though.

[smurff]

The worst mass shooting by a ' lone nut' gunman in recent memory was in Norway last year . He shot and killed 69 people and injured more than 100.  (He also killed 8 and wounded over 200 in bombings that preceded the shooting.)  Practically every industrialized nation has them, from New Zealand to Norway to Canada.  So it's not just the USA, and all of the countries involved have differing gun ownership laws.

Whether the American experience is worse than other countries is hard to say, particularly when looking at this on a per capita basis.  The USA is the third most populous nation in the world, about the size of 60 Norways.  And with respect to developing nations, it's harder still, since its often hard to distinguish between crimes committed by individuals versus official government policies.

[Coffee]

There's something wrong with our culture: My wife grew up in the Republic of Colombia where there is no shortage of access to firearms. Yet, she can't recall even one incident (not counting organized crime-- a separate issue) where a crazy nut job opened fire on innocents like today. The problem isn't guns: The problem is our culture... a culture that's raising these wackos-- most likely as a result of club drugs, over-dependence on meds, crap food, GMO's, and unrealistic expectations when Mommy's "special little snoflake" (who got a trophy despite losing) reaches adulthood and does not have the psychological tools to deal with failure. /rant off.

The problem with requiring background checks for "mental competency" is that sooner or later, the government will decide that YOU are not competent because your political beliefs fall outside what is considered, "normal."  Cue: Brave New World/George Orwell/Etc...

[smurff]

The root cause here is psychopathy, not necessarily general "mental illness." Most mentally ill people would never do what the gunman in Connecticut did. Only psychopathy--a complete lack of empathy for other human beings--enables that kind of random mass-murder.

The problem is that psychopathy is often extremely hard to detect. Many psychopaths are quite good at hiding the fact that they lack empathy for others. If they are smart, they quickly learn how to act like they have empathy when in fact they have none. The mall shooter in Oregon a few days ago was described by his girlfriend as relatively normal--certainly not "mentally ill"--until only about a week before his shooting, at which point he suddenly started acting different (but not full-on crazy). So in his case at least, there was virtually no way to know that he was going to flip out and randomly kill people.

We desperately need to figure out how to develop a "psychopathy litmus test." Psychopathy appears to be a trait that most mass-murderers are born with. Most psychopaths just hide it and learn how to function semi-normally to get what they want in life, but occasionally you'll get a psychopath who just never really learns how to cope... so eventually the psychopathy rises to the surface and can no longer be held in check. That's when the mass-murder happens.

We need a way of detecting latent psychopathy in seemingly "normal" people. All these other discussions about gun control, armed security at schools, and treatment for mental illness are only tangential issues.

There are already several psychopathy tests out there, with reasonably good reliability.  Robert Hare developed the first good one, based on his studies of prison inmates, buy there are others.

Researchers can now describe, based on anatomical brain variations and physiological responses, psychopathy.  I found this article fascinating:

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/kids-psychopath-test/

[MachineGhost]

To that debate, all I can offer is the perspective of someone who has lived and worked in different corners of the world, with different gun laws.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexingto ... un-control

[Pointedstick]

I found this article to be very relevant:

http://pierrelemieux.com/2012/12/15/the ... ss-killer/

[Pointedstick]

Here's anothe rvery relevant article. The entire thing makes me feel in a general sort of way that something is very, very wrong with our society, parenting models, medicine-first approaches to child behavioral issues, and approach to mental health.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 11009.html

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan -- they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.

We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.

...

With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill -- Rikers Island, the LA County Jail and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011.

No one wants to send a 13-year old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, “Something must be done.”?

I agree that something must be done. It’s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That’s the only way our nation can ever truly heal.

God help me. God help Michael. God help us all.

[RuralEngineer]

To that debate, all I can offer is the perspective of someone who has lived and worked in different corners of the world, with different gun laws.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexingto ... un-control

I'd say the Britsh perspective on the second amendment is particularly irrelevant considering private gun ownership was key in the American revolution.

This also comes from the Nation the saw significant sections of its Capitol engulfed in riots and flames. The U.S. hardly has the market cornered on violence. Britain is notorious for stabbings, a form of violence that favors the strong, the thug.

[smurff]

Britain is notorious for stabbings, a form of violence that favors the strong, the thug.

When I lived in the UK murders often were carried out in (for lack of a better descriptor) grotesque fashion.  At one time there was an epidemic of garrotting, often by what we would call middle school and high school students.  I think that psychopathic and similarly disturbed individuals figure out a way to kill if that's what they want to do.  There they evaluate individuals for psychopathic traits when they are arrested and jailed, and if they score highly on such tests they have them committed until they determine they won't be harmful in the near future.

I  first heard the term "bullying" in the UK.  The USA likes to think of itself as exceptional, but we have no lock on violence.

[chrish]

I'd say the Britsh perspective on the second amendment is particularly irrelevant considering private gun ownership was key in the American revolution.

This also comes from the Nation the saw significant sections of its Capitol engulfed in riots and flames. The U.S. hardly has the market cornered on violence. Britain is notorious for stabbings, a form of violence that favors the strong, the thug.

The reason thugs and criminals in the UK use knives is because they can't get hold of guns! It's much harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun.

When I lived in the UK murders often were carried out in (for lack of a better descriptor) grotesque fashion.  At one time there was an epidemic of garrotting, often by what we would call middle school and high school students.  I think that psychopathic and similarly disturbed individuals figure out a way to kill if that's what they want to do.  There they evaluate individuals for psychopathic traits when they are arrested and jailed, and if they score highly on such tests they have them committed until they determine they won't be harmful in the near future.

I  first heard the term "bullying" in the UK.  The USA likes to think of itself as exceptional, but we have no lock on violence.

You are quite right - the UK is probably just as violent a society as the USA. But in 2009, there were 15241 murders in the USA, and only 724 in the UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... rate-unodc). Can that big a difference really be explained by better mental health care?

[RuralEngineer]

Thugs and criminals may have to work harder to kill someone with a knife, but the victim has less chance of resisting. In an armed society the 7 foot tall thug simply presents a larger target, his size yields no advantage over the trained female shooter. With bladed weapons strength and reach become a factor. Additionally, if you consider that any murder attempt with a knife will result in multiple stab wounds, the difference in mortality is likely negligible.

[TripleB]

Additionally, if you consider that any murder attempt with a knife will result in multiple stab wounds, the difference in mortality is likely negligible.

FBI stats show knife attacks are significantly more fatal than gun shot wounds. Offhand I believe the numbers are around 80% for knives and 40% to 60% for guns.

[doodle]

I'd say the Britsh perspective on the second amendment is particularly irrelevant considering private gun ownership was key in the American revolution.

This also comes from the Nation the saw significant sections of its Capitol engulfed in riots and flames. The U.S. hardly has the market cornered on violence. Britain is notorious for stabbings, a form of violence that favors the strong, the thug.

The reason thugs and criminals in the UK use knives is because they can't get hold of guns! It's much harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun.

When I lived in the UK murders often were carried out in (for lack of a better descriptor) grotesque fashion.  At one time there was an epidemic of garrotting, often by what we would call middle school and high school students.  I think that psychopathic and similarly disturbed individuals figure out a way to kill if that's what they want to do.  There they evaluate individuals for psychopathic traits when they are arrested and jailed, and if they score highly on such tests they have them committed until they determine they won't be harmful in the near future.

I  first heard the term "bullying" in the UK.  The USA likes to think of itself as exceptional, but we have no lock on violence.

You are quite right - the UK is probably just as violent a society as the USA. But in 2009, there were 15241 murders in the USA, and only 724 in the UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... rate-unodc). Can that big a difference really be explained by better mental health care?

So the United States has about 5 times the population of the UK. Adjusting the per capita murder statistics to reflect this still leaves the United with about a 400% higher homicide rate than the UK. Why the huge discrepancy?

[doodle]

Thugs and criminals may have to work harder to kill someone with a knife, but the victim has less chance of resisting. In an armed society the 7 foot tall thug simply presents a larger target, his size yields no advantage over the trained female shooter. With bladed weapons strength and reach become a factor. Additionally, if you consider that any murder attempt with a knife will result in multiple stab wounds, the difference in mortality is likely negligible.

I can outrun a knife....not so sure if I'm faster than a bullet though.

Also long implements like a baseball bat are pretty effective against knives. I know which one I would rather have in a street fight.

By the way, add another homicide to our total.  A man was shot dead last night in a pizzeria in my town over a disagreement with another customer.

[Pointedstick]

Also long implements like a baseball bat are pretty effective against knives. I know which one I would rather have in a street fight.

Out of curiosity, do you have any experience with this? Or are you just speculating? Because knives are a LOT more dangerous than many people realize. Saying, "I can outrun a knife" or "I'd be fine with a baseball bat" betrays an extremely unrealistic attitude regarding the deadliness of bladed weapons, and specifically their advantages in stealth and deployment that can render running or fighting back nearly impossible.

Please don't get yourself killed by trying to run away from someone who is threatening you with a knife, or believe that you could defend yourself against him with an improvised blunt weapon absent years of training to do so. I recommend reading everything on http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/