"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Sadly they also kill innocent bystanders, robbery victims, cops....

Well, yeah, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that they kill each
other.

Of course it should, preserving the life of an innocent person should always
be ranked higher than one street punk killing another. For that reason I'd
be pleased if law enforcement took greater pains to disarm felons, such
tactics having been shown to be very effective at pushing down violent crime
rates. In other words I'd happily give up punks shooting other punks if it
also meant they weren't shooting innocent people.

I doubt that, the sheer number of firearms in American society is
bound to lead to more shootings per capita than in other developed
nations.

Again, the point is missed. I say take out the righteous shootings first,
THEN do the counting.

And I still doubt the numbers would come out the way you think they would.
Read the papers: Man shoots friend after drinking party--in many other
nations it would be: Fistfight after drinking party.

Of course that isn't a factor that can be considered in
isolation, as high rates of firearms ownership do not necessarily
lead to higher rates of violent crime.

Right. There is no cause-and-effect connection.

That's not actually what I said. The connection can exist depending on
other factors, i.e. a society with low crime rates won't become blood soaked
just because many people own firearms (e.g. Vermont). But in a society with
high crime rates due to poverty and poor schools and low employment
opportunities then the addition of lots of guns certainly will result in
more shootings. That's why I used the word "isolation"--you have to look at
the whole picture, not just one element.