Swing_n_Speed Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/28/guns-ownership-around-the-world-graphic/ USA land of the free should be renamed to..... Land for the free,freed from life! I wish we had data on the number of homicides in a country. Then compare that with number of homicides caused by firearms v/s number caused without. That should paint a clear picture! That said as far the the pro gun lobby go...Latin America is an excellent defense, Looking at Latin America, one thing about this data jumped out at me. Of course, it is not surprising that where there are more guns, there tends to be more gun-related deaths, but northern Latin America (Brazil in particular) breaks from this trend in a major way. The area has a massive homicide by firearm rate, with some of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world and the highest homicides by firearm count. This suggests a lot of guns in the hands of very few, who are not afraid to use them. Talk about data telling a story… That northern block of Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador combine for more homicides by firearm than Mexico, the United States, South Africa, the Philippines, Honduras, Guatemala, India, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Bangladesh, Argentina and Jamaica put together. That is every other country with over 1,000 homicides by firearm. You would imagine that gun control would be very lax in the area, but as the top chart here illustrates, that is not the case. Brazil, for example, has roughly 255 million fewer guns (and about 115 million fewer people) than the United States and a much more strict and effective set of firearm regulations. So, while it is true that where there are guns, there is gun violence, that is clearly not the only determining factor. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/07/24/we-have-a-lot-of-guns/
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 The bloke I am arguing with doesn't seem to want to outlaw guns on the basis of them being too much fun. Given that the vast majority of Canadians and Swiss who own guns do it recreationally and given that these countries have less gun related violence than non-gun related violence in places like UK or India, it seems like a bloody good reason to keep the gun around for these societies. You say the gun can only be used for violence and killing - well the Canucks and the Swiss are proving you wrong as we speak, they;ve been proving you wrong for well over a century if you'd been keeping track.
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 What purpose has a gun but to kill? How does it have any place in a civilized society in the name of safety or otherwise? How is that the US' date= so progressive in all other areas, does not see the simple fact? Gun-culture has been ingrained into each part of their society but so was racism in the past, yet they stood up and fought against it. If you live in a society where you are constantly in fear of your neighbors then something is wrong, no matter how developed or rich you are. To learn how to use one- which you never know, may come in handy in a strictly survival sense, its a good skill to have, and as i said earlier, it is a lot of fun to go shoot a thousand rounds in a range. This is how most Canadians, Finns, Swiss use guns. They own a lot more guns per capita than Indians do, yet their gun related violence is, per capita, far lower than India. They own just as much guns per capita as the States and have less gun related violence than the states. So why should they get rid of something that is a positive contribution to their society (as a recreational tool), simply due to propaganda and prejudice ?
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Because guns are not just weapons' date=' guns are also for entertainment.[/size'] Seems like a perfectly good waste of fun for no good reason at all. Outstanding. :hatsoff:
Swing_n_Speed Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Given that the vast majority of Canadians and Swiss who own guns do it recreationally and given that these countries have less gun related violence than non-gun related violence in places like UK or India, it seems like a bloody good reason to keep the gun around for these societies. You say the gun can only be used for violence and killing - well the Canucks and the Swiss are proving you wrong as we speak, they;ve been proving you wrong for well over a century if you'd been keeping track. You are cent percent right bout the Swiss and the Canadians . The argument is way more complex then some folks realize. It's not just about guns. Guns don't make people violent. As I stated before, it's a societal issue. For those who question the analogy, look at the numbers through the links I posted. The numbers do not lie. Quite simply USA is a violent society....guns or not!
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Outstanding. :hatsoff: Indeed it is. Amazing how some countries have found a way to neuter the deadliest killing machine into a means of outstanding amounts of benign fun. Lessons should be taken from these societies instead of peddling prejudices as a paradigm for all humanity.
FischerTal Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Mate' date=' you are a bloody fruit loop. Get help.[/quote'] he owns this site. dont mess with him :secret:
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 he owns this site. dont mess with him :secret: I have never come across anyone who thinks guns are fun. This coming from a bloke who is a supposedly educated and respected member of society is quite disturbing to say the least.
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 I have never come across anyone who thinks guns are fun. This coming from a bloke who is a supposedly educated and respected member of society is quite disturbing to say the least. Thats coz you've never been to a gun range. To form a strong opinion about something, without having experienced it, is the sign of dogma, not reason. If you truely want to explore this issue with an open mind and deciede to pop into a gun range to find out what kind of people go there, you will be surprised, especially if you are a city dweller. You'll find veterans, doctors, businessmen, housewives as the predominant gun club user group. You will often hear from parents how giving their child a gun made their child have a much more responsible outlook towards life, etc. There are plenty of educated and 'respectable' members of the society who own guns and go to gun ranges. I personally know atleast half a dozen and even when two of them were going through their messy divorce, their spouses didnt get a 'gun seizure' order against them (which you can get in Canada agaist your spouse if he/she owns guns and you are going through seperation btw). You simply sound like a guy who's never handled a gun, never interacted with people who own guns, never been to a range and you think that all people who own guns are either yokel hunters or yokels who wear wifebeaters, shoot people and hate everyone else. The reality is quite different and will shock you. Besides, all you are doing here, is passing off a judgement that apparently using guns for fun is 'sick or twisted', when evidence suggests that there are plenty of people who use guns for recreational purposes while being perfectly normal members of society. Heck, even in states, where gun crimes are so much higher, the vast majority of gun owners are normal people who like to go pretend to be James Bond in the local gun range on Sundays. You have not addressed the point of 'whats wrong with using guns for fun in societies that have high gun ownership rates and extremely low gun-related violence rates' ? There is no justifiable reason to ban guns in those societies and to argue in favour of guns being banned just because its a gun reeks of dogma, not reason.
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Mate' date=' you are a bloody fruit loop. Get help.[/quote'] Whats so fruity about picking up your baretta and pretending to be Bond at your local gun range on Sunday ? Do you seriously believe that every single gun owner is a douchebag waiting to kill someone ?
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Raddish Curry - You can't keep innocent lives at risk until laws turn picture perfect. I agree that the situation in the US is not so straightforward. I just think that the all or nothing approach is too extreme for gun ownership issue. Afterall, there are over 1 billion guns circulating in the states and over 30 million are gun owners IIRC. You dont want them to develop a victim complex and refuse to turn in their guns when the legislation goes down or else it will be very messy. Going from 'guns for everyone, from your local corner store' to 'guns for no one' is too extreme a jump IMO, at the very least, there needs to be an in-between stage, where the US tries to imitate Canada/Switzerland and make gun licences harder to get than drivers licences. Then see where the crime rate hits at. People act as if banning guns is going to be some magic manna for violent crime reductions but those same people are completely silent ( on national tv, on this very thread, etc) about examples such as South America, where virtually no one outside of security forces, police and army are allowed to own guns but yet they have far higher per capita gun related crimes than in the states. People are also ignoring the biggest consequence of banning guns from consumer use: it inherently compromises the police & army into trading guns for the underworld. The underworld gets what it wants because it has tons and tons of money. Now, would you rather open the paper and see a local gun-shop owner go to jail for selling guns to the mafia or see the superintendent of police being accused of being a gun-runner for the mob ? Because it is the latter case that *will* happen once you ban guns from consumer use. Where will the mafia go ? who will they throw money at for their guns ? There are no local businesses to go bribe, no local crook gun dealer to fudge over the papers. They go to the cops and army, because that is the only course left. And then you end up with a Mexico or a Columbia. What then ? In anycase, the situation in the US is complex. Them ingraining guns as some sort of fundamental citizen right murkifies the issue a lot and it sure doesnt help that its easier to find a gun store than beef jerky in rural US. But my point was more or less, taking ETV's carte blanche blanket statement and showing it to be bereft of any reason when applied to countries such as Canada and Switzerland. They own a lot of guns (as a society) but hardly have any discernable gun-related crimes. So why cant they keep their guns ? Give me one valid reason to why guns should be banned in a society that has high gun ownership rates and low gun-violence rates. Just one would suffice. So far all ETV has come up with is simple mullah-giri of 'its bad coz i said so'. Thats not reason enough.
Crookbond Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 I agree that the situation in the US is not so straightforward. I just think that the all or nothing approach is too extreme for gun ownership issue. Afterall, there are over 1 billion guns circulating in the states and over 30 million are gun owners IIRC. You dont want them to develop a victim complex and refuse to turn in their guns when the legislation goes down or else it will be very messy. Going from 'guns for everyone, from your local corner store' to 'guns for no one' is too extreme a jump IMO, at the very least, there needs to be an in-between stage, where the US tries to imitate Canada/Switzerland and make gun licences harder to get than drivers licences. Then see where the crime rate hits at. People act as if banning guns is going to be some magic manna for violent crime reductions but those same people are completely silent ( on national tv, on this very thread, etc) about examples such as South America, where virtually no one outside of security forces, police and army are allowed to own guns but yet they have far higher per capita gun related crimes than in the states. People are also ignoring the biggest consequence of banning guns from consumer use: it inherently compromises the police & army into trading guns for the underworld. The underworld gets what it wants because it has tons and tons of money. Now, would you rather open the paper and see a local gun-shop owner go to jail for selling guns to the mafia or see the superintendent of police being accused of being a gun-runner for the mob ? Because it is the latter case that *will* happen once you ban guns from consumer use. Where will the mafia go ? who will they throw money at for their guns ? There are no local businesses to go bribe, no local crook gun dealer to fudge over the papers. They go to the cops and army, because that is the only course left. And then you end up with a Mexico or a Columbia. What then ? In anycase, the situation in the US is complex. Them ingraining guns as some sort of fundamental citizen right murkifies the issue a lot and it sure doesnt help that its easier to find a gun store than beef jerky in rural US. But my point was more or less, taking ETV's carte blanche blanket statement and showing it to be bereft of any reason when applied to countries such as Canada and Switzerland. They own a lot of guns (as a society) but hardly have any discernable gun-related crimes. So why cant they keep their guns ? Give me one valid reason to why guns should be banned in a society that has high gun ownership rates and low gun-violence rates. Just one would suffice. So far all ETV has come up with is simple mullah-giri of 'its bad coz i said so'. Thats not reason enough. I am aware of the gun laws and crimes in Switzerland. However, I think it is a non-central fallacy; as in I don't think laws from one country can "as is" be implemented in another nation. To each nation, it's own. It's a good indicator but at the same time it is just an indicator. But, I think I get your point. You are right in the sense that there is no panacea to solve gun related crimes in the US. It would have to be a combination of multiple strategies including (but not limited to) looking at laws which define gun ownership. I am not really sold out on banning guns outright. I think there have to be means where people can obtain one but should be so stringent that it prevents a shoot out every fortnight. If I were the government, I would use every shoot out as an example to bring in more stringent regulations on gun ownership. Next, I would draw a map of localities which have highest gun sales (assuming law of large numbers) and marshall my police resources to ensure responsible use of guns. Your argument currently works both ways - just like outright banning of guns wouldn't solve crimes similarly outright easy access of guns wouldn't help the already delicate gun crime scenes either.
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 I am aware of the gun laws and crimes in Switzerland. However, I think it is a non-central fallacy; as in I don't think laws from one country can "as is" be implemented in another nation. To each nation, it's own. It's a good indicator but at the same time it is just an indicator. But, I think I get your point. You are right in the sense that there is no panacea to solve gun related crimes in the US. It would have to be a combination of multiple strategies including (but not limited to) looking at laws which define gun ownership. I am not really sold out on banning guns outright. I think there have to be means where people can obtain one but should be so stringent that it prevents a shoot out every fortnight. If I were the government, I would use every shoot out as an example to bring in more stringent regulations on gun ownership. Next, I would draw a map of localities which have highest gun sales (assuming law of large numbers) and marshall my police resources to ensure responsible use of guns. Your argument currently works both ways - just like outright banning of guns wouldn't solve crimes similarly outright easy access of guns wouldn't help the already delicate gun crime scenes either. That wont work (the highlighted part that is). In Canada, well over 80% of gun-related crimes are comitted by stolen/illegally purchased guns. In the US, if you marshall your forces near gun shops, it may deter or inconvinience the homicidal man who wants to shoot his wife or the teen with issues who wants to shoot his bully, etc. but it wont make a blip to gang members and the underworld and they dont make as many splashy headlines but still end up causing well over 70% of gun-related deaths and injuries. The one thing that works though, is the British approach to gun crimes. Note, Britain didnt ban guns because of 'gun crime problem', they banned guns to the populace to basically prevent Northern Ireland arming itself to the teeth and perpetuating their sectarian BS. What the British do (or did, i dunno if they still do it or not), is that any crime comited while you are holding a gun (doesnt matter if you fired it or not) will carry an automatic +2-5 years penalty. Robbed a grocery store waving around a baseball bat or just by acting like a tough mofo ? that gets you 6 months to a year in prison IIRC. Robbed a grocery store with a gun ? thats 6 months +2 years in jail. This contributed a lot to the lessening of gun crimes in Britain and IMO, it is worth a shot in the US. Canada is actually in the process of considering such a law where it is automatic 1-4 years jailtime for comitting a crime while in posession of a gun, plus the actual penalty for the said crime.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 Thats coz you've never been to a gun range. To form a strong opinion about something, without having experienced it, is the sign of dogma, not reason. If you truely want to explore this issue with an open mind and deciede to pop into a gun range to find out what kind of people go there, you will be surprised, especially if you are a city dweller. You'll find veterans, doctors, businessmen, housewives as the predominant gun club user group. You will often hear from parents how giving their child a gun made their child have a much more responsible outlook towards life, etc. There are plenty of educated and 'respectable' members of the society who own guns and go to gun ranges. I personally know atleast half a dozen and even when two of them were going through their messy divorce, their spouses didnt get a 'gun seizure' order against them (which you can get in Canada agaist your spouse if he/she owns guns and you are going through seperation btw). You simply sound like a guy who's never handled a gun, never interacted with people who own guns, never been to a range and you think that all people who own guns are either yokel hunters or yokels who wear wifebeaters, shoot people and hate everyone else. The reality is quite different and will shock you. Besides, all you are doing here, is passing off a judgement that apparently using guns for fun is 'sick or twisted', when evidence suggests that there are plenty of people who use guns for recreational purposes while being perfectly normal members of society. Heck, even in states, where gun crimes are so much higher, the vast majority of gun owners are normal people who like to go pretend to be James Bond in the local gun range on Sundays. You have not addressed the point of 'whats wrong with using guns for fun in societies that have high gun ownership rates and extremely low gun-related violence rates' ? There is no justifiable reason to ban guns in those societies and to argue in favour of guns being banned just because its a gun reeks of dogma, not reason. Your justification for needing a gun is that, in your own words, there is no feeling quite like going "blammo" in a gun range.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 The other justification you give is pretty absurd as well. Give people access to guns but make sure they don't kill people. How are you going to manage that when the sole purpose of a gun is to kill?
Crookbond Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 That wont work (the highlighted part that is). In Canada, well over 80% of gun-related crimes are comitted by stolen/illegally purchased guns. In the US, if you marshall your forces near gun shops, it may deter or inconvinience the homicidal man who wants to shoot his wife or the teen with issues who wants to shoot his bully, etc. but it wont make a blip to gang members and the underworld and they dont make as many splashy headlines but still end up causing well over 70% of gun-related deaths and injuries. The one thing that works though, is the British approach to gun crimes. Note, Britain didnt ban guns because of 'gun crime problem', they banned guns to the populace to basically prevent Northern Ireland arming itself to the teeth and perpetuating their sectarian BS. What the British do (or did, i dunno if they still do it or not), is that any crime comited while you are holding a gun (doesnt matter if you fired it or not) will carry an automatic +2-5 years penalty. Robbed a grocery store waving around a baseball bat or just by acting like a tough mofo ? that gets you 6 months to a year in prison IIRC. Robbed a grocery store with a gun ? thats 6 months +2 years in jail. This contributed a lot to the lessening of gun crimes in Britain and IMO, it is worth a shot in the US. Canada is actually in the process of considering such a law where it is automatic 1-4 years jailtime for comitting a crime while in posession of a gun, plus the actual penalty for the said crime. I will do both - do like I said plus what you said. Btw, I had already mentioned it is a multi-pronged strategy; so stringent laws (which I mentioned in the earlier posts) also includes penalties (the types which you are talking about). I also want to make a point that while Canada may have Pareto law in favor of illegally procured guns same may not be true of the US. I would be glad to see some official numbers in this regard.
Muloghonto Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 Your justification for needing a gun is that' date=' in your own words, there is no feeling quite like going "blammo" in a gun range.[/quote'] Yep. Bingo. Given that i have cited proof of countries who enjoy my feeling without any significant impact of owning guns towards violence, your idea of why guns should be banned carte blanche, is unsupportable. All you've done so far, is indulge in namecalling. And showing that you actually know nothing of what you speak of regarding gun culture or even the basic facts about gun-ownership. Essentially, what your position has boiled down to (due to your refusal to address the fact that safe gun ownership does exist on a societerial level) is simple mullah-giri. You said so. Then you will say its evil, make fun of the opposition, engage in sophistry even. Be my guest, i suppose.
Muloghonto Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 The other justification you give is pretty absurd as well. Give people access to guns but make sure they don't kill people. Show me where I've said that or even implied that. How are you going to manage that when the sole purpose of a gun is to kill? Just saying its the sole purpose of the gun doesnt make it so. there is demonstrable proof that in civillian population, the biggest purpose of the gun is entertainment. Not to kill. Millions of times more ammunition is spent daily (by civillian gun owners) to shoot at clay or paper than at flesh, nevermind the miniscule portion of that 'flesh shooting' that is directed at human flesh. There is also demonstrable proof that there are nations out there, who have demonstrated a great penchant for using the gun recreationally with no significant impact to crime levels in their society. Basic empiric evidence proves you wrong on both these counts. Therefore, your position that 'the sole purpose of the gun is to kill' is nothing more than simple propagandism, based on an arbitary and narrow vision of the picture.
Swing_n_Speed Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 Therefore, your position that 'the sole purpose of the gun is to kill' is nothing more than simple propagandism, based on an arbitary and narrow vision of the picture. Dayumm you write well!
Recommended Posts