Another fun chart

[SwordsMaster]

After my opium chart last week, I give you something more controversial. Now, keep it civil. This is NOT against gun control, but it seems fairly obvious that, while in Europe people swear a lot, and threaten people drunk, our co-specimens from across the pond actually kill people. Note that I didn't say guns kill people.

The murder rate for England and Wales is higher than anywhere in western Europe (except Finland, Belgium and France) but Britain still lags Canada and America. However, when it comes to non-deadly violence, Britain soars ahead. In a 28-country International Crime Victims Survey, Britons were the second likeliest (after Icelanders) to say they had been threatened or assaulted in the past five years, ahead of countries with much higher murder rates.

So please focus on the sociological issue, and not the logistical one. After all you can kill people with a sharpened stone.

And feel free to rehost the chart

Chart re-hosted below. ~Kukri

[HoreTore]

It's pretty darn obvious, the more lethal weapon you have access to when you're mad, the easier it is to kill. Here in europe we don't have access to weapons, and as such people are usually only punched...

[CountArach]

*Awaits CR's post and the 6-7 pages of deate that it creates*

[Tribesman]

Damn I thought it was going to be that funny one .
Where despite the British media making a big song and dance about knife crime being on the increase yet the numbers showing that it is just the same as it has been for a long while .
Which was accompanied by an "expert" saying that the numbers are wrong and the government manipulated them and how easy it was to manipulate them to make a point , and then providing his own numbers which he honestly hadn't manipulated which showed that he was right and the others were wrong .

[Husar]

It's pretty darn obvious, the more lethal weapon you have access to when you're mad, the easier it is to kill. Here in europe we don't have access to weapons, and as such people are usually only punched...

Note how the countries which are culturally more lax about deadly weapons have higher homicide rates as well. you can kill someone with a sharp stone but you usually don't have one lying around in case you need it...
Concerning violence it mainly makes England, wales and the Netherlands look bad, considering that countries with the same or more population like France, Germany and Italy are far lower on the scale. One could deduct from that that the population of a country doesn't have much to do with it's crime rate, so what are the social and political differences between those countries?
I've always seen the Netherlands as similar to Germany in many things, I never knew they were that violent...

[Don Corleone]

Doesn't the 5.5/100K number of fatalities for the USA include the number of self-inflicted gunshot casualties, not just homicides?

I'm not certain I understand how you can say this isn't supposed to be a pro/con gun control thread, then ask folks to pay attention to the Sociology, not the logistics. Gun control is all about what sort of society you wish to be, and whether you're willing to sacrifice justice for safety.

[SwordsMaster]

Doesn't the 5.5/100K number of fatalities for the USA include the number of self-inflicted gunshot casualties, not just homicides?

I'm not certain I understand how you can say this isn't supposed to be a pro/con gun control thread, then ask folks to pay attention to the Sociology, not the logistics. Gun control is all about what sort of society you wish to be, and whether you're willing to sacrifice justice for safety.

It isn't about guns. It's about the people who use them, as simple as that. Why is it that you must own a gun to be "free"? Specially since the government listens to your phone conversations anyway, and can restrict your travel and use of your own money anyway. What are guns guaranteeing? From the economic perspective they have a high cost in acquisition - licenses, their actual cost, precautions to keep them safely, etc - and a negligible chance to actually use them, kind of like your chance of winning on the roulette, so if it isn't about your freedom, and it isn't because you expect to use them, then what is the point of having them? Specially since the countries with lax gun ownership laws (like US and Switzerland) are the ones that rank highest on fatal crimes.

Or am I not understanding something?

[Don Corleone]

It isn't about guns. It's about the people who use them, as simple as that. Why is it that you must own a gun to be "free"? Specially since the government listens to your phone conversations anyway, and can restrict your travel and use of your own money anyway. What are guns guaranteeing? From the economic perspective they have a high cost in acquisition - licenses, their actual cost, precautions to keep them safely, etc - and a negligible chance to actually use them, kind of like your chance of winning on the roulette, so if it isn't about your freedom, and it isn't because you expect to use them, then what is the point of having them? Specially since the countries with lax gun ownership laws (like US and Switzerland) are the ones that rank highest on fatal crimes.

Or am I not understanding something?

I think we've been around and around about this, but at the end of the day, it really boils down to how you view the Social Contract. Do you view yourself as the fundamental atomic unit within the body politic, or are you a subset of a larger whole, and the fundamental element is the society itself.

I personally view myself as the autonomous unit. I am responsible for my own safety, happiness and welfare. The guarantees for these things listed in the Consitution are more of a promise not to infinge on these then they are to provide for them. I have something of an antagonistic view of government. In my mind, it is a necessary but thoroughly corrupt evil. The individuals within it may not be, in fact they may be decent and upstanding individuals (I dream of a day when they all are!) But the role of a proper functioning government is to control its citizens behavior and force them to do things that are against their own personal best interests (taxes, military service, eminent domain, etcetera). Governments may use different methods for accomplishing this, such as coercion and manipulation, but at the end of the day, governments don't actually make or do anything, they manipulate the goods and services of the autonomous individuals they control.

But even the difference between a representative democracy and a dictatorship is that in a reprsentative democracy, you get to pick who holds ultimate power over you. That's it. So, when we as free individuals enter into concourse in a venture such as government, and we agree to surrender some of our individual rights so that the group as a whole can prosper, certain guarantees need to be provided for.

That's all the Constitution is at the end of the day. I know a lot of Europeans deride American Constitutionalists for having an ideallic view of an arcane document, but it's a contract. In fact, it is THE contract.

And as I'm signing my autonomy away, I expect certain provisional protections. One of these is the right to defend myself, against intruders and against a tyranical government. Now, you can tell me "you don't really need that right" all you want, but I can make the very same argument about all other rights American citizens enjoy. Assuming I'm innocent, I don't really NEED a right not to incriminate myself, correct?

As for why more Americans die in dysfunctional conflict situations than Europeans, as I've already told you, your numbers are somewhat skewed. But even assuming the numbers of Americans murdered per 100K is dramatically higher than it is for most European countries, I would say it's a complex question that has a complex answer. One facet of it is access to firearms, sure, but that's not the only aspect.

If access to firearms was the primary reason Americans die at a higher rate than Western Europeans, you would expect Myanmar, or a host of Latin American countries that like Western Europe, have also outlawed personal firearm ownership to have zero murder rates, or at least very low ones. But your slide doesn't show countries like them (or China, or other Asian countries, or African countries for that matter).

[PanzerJaeger]

Doesn't the 5.5/100K number of fatalities for the USA include the number of self-inflicted gunshot casualties, not just homicides?

Any info on this? I know suicides have always skewwed the numbers in the past.

[Tribesman]

Sorry Don , but what are these Latin American and European countries that have outlawed personal firearm ownership ?

[Husar]

It isn't about guns. It's about the people who use them, as simple as that.

Well, Europeans aren't people who use guns so basically this thread has nothing to do with Europeans then? Makes me wonder why you mentioned the British then.

[HoreTore]

I would say that you're not free at all in a society where you have to worry about your personal safety. I see freedom as not having to worry about such things.

If access to firearms was the primary reason Americans die at a higher rate than Western Europeans, you would expect Myanmar, or a host of Latin American countries that like Western Europe, have also outlawed personal firearm ownership to have zero murder rates, or at least very low ones. But your slide doesn't show countries like them (or China, or other Asian countries, or African countries for that matter).

Come on, Don. To make your point, you're comparing yourself, a functioning and wealthy western democracy, with dirt poor and dysfunctional third world countries...?

Keep the comparisons between the western countries on topics like this.

[Don Corleone]

I'm sorry, Tribesman, you're right. I got ahead of myself. Latin American countries, for the most part, actually have pretty lax gun laws.

Hore Tore, I'm not comparing the US to 3rd world countries directly. My point was simply that were access to firearms the sole reason the United States had higher murder rates than France or Germany, you would expect nations with strict firearms laws to have low murder rates. In Jamaica, for example, you can get life in prison for having a gun in your house, but they have a higher murder rate than we do. If your point is that only Western European nations and the USA are worthy of considering, hey, be as snobby as you'd like, but personally, I like to look at all of humanity, not just the part of it that fits my arguments better. But hey, if you have to hear about Europeans, Canadians or Americans to trust the 'civilization' level, explain the situation of your neighbor Finland to me. They have laxer gun laws, a higher per capita ownership rate, and less violence.

Mmmm, maybe legalized gun ownership != murderers in the streets?

Edit: Apology retracted. To answer Tribesman's question: Mexico.

[Tribesman]

In Jamaica, for example, you can get life in prison for having a gun in your house

Don't you mean that in Jamaica if you do not have a fireams licence and have an unlicenced gun in your house its against the law ?
(Sorry Don , Rabbit tried that one straight from gun-nut weekly already , apparently they think Ireland and Jamaica are two countries where guns are completely banned)

[Don Corleone]

Don't you mean that in Jamaica if you do not have a fireams licence and have an unlicenced gun in your house its against the law ?
(Sorry Don , Rabbit tried that one straight from gun-nut weekly already , apparently they think Ireland and Jamaica are two countries where guns are completely banned)

Well, I can't speak for the integrity of the Irish licensing system, but in Jamaica, if you're not the government, the military or rich enough to bribe the local officials, you can't get a permit. So the point is the same, the non-governmental middle class have no access.

You know, rather than play your little game of hint at suggestions of rumors of innuendo, can you actually make an argument for yourself once? I mean, you seem like a bright guy. Explain to me exactly how banning personal firearm ownership will decrease crime in the United States, when most places within the US that already ban ownership have higher crime rates than those that don't?

Or maybe you'd care to explain why you, an Irish citizen, feels the need to dictate policies to the USA? I mean, Ireland has a tight leash on gun ownership, bully for you. We don't. Last I checked, I hadn't told you how to run domestic Irish policies, have I? Wait, that's not true. Back in 2004, I whined and moaned about your smoking ban in bars when I visited on vacation, true. Shame on me.

[Tribesman]

Are the little ones causing you to miss out on some sleep Don ?

[Don Corleone]

It's not that. I'm open to opinions from other places on what the USA should do or shoudln't do. I just take issue with the shock and outrage when we choose not to listen to you. It's like we don't know what we're doing over here. I'm not going to argue that we don't have our problems, but last I checked, we have our plus side too.

Gun control is one of those funny arguments that you can twist numbers any way you like. At the end of the day, it comes down to whether you believe a person has a right to protect themselves or not. It really is that simple.

[HoreTore]

If your point is that only Western European nations and the USA are worthy of considering, hey, be as snobby as you'd like, but personally, I like to look at all of humanity, not just the part of it that fits my arguments better.

The thing with the third world countries is just that; they're third world countries. They have no functioning police force, not functioning government system, extreme poverty, extreme unemployment and officials are utterly corrupt. If that's not a recipe for crime, I don't know what is.

As to the finnish thingy, well, they're a bunch of drunken emo's, they're probably unable to aim due to vodka

[HoreTore]

Sorry Don , but what are these Latin American and European countries that have outlawed personal firearm ownership ?

It should be pretty obvious that we're talking about gun ownership for safety reasons, not gun ownership for hunting or sports or whatever.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Don't you mean that in Jamaica if you do not have a fireams licence and have an unlicenced gun in your house its against the law ?
(Sorry Don , Rabbit tried that one straight from gun-nut weekly already , apparently they think Ireland and Jamaica are two countries where guns are completely banned)

You mean like how DC allowed people to keep guns in their homes, they just had to register them? But of course they didn't let anyone register them.

How many permits in Jamaica have been given out to ordinary people, tribesy?

And I believe Don is right; having an unlicensed gun in Jamaica = big jail time.

Ok, question time; do you really think requiring permits for guns in a country and not giving out any means that guns aren't banned or are you just being obtuse?

To the topic of homicides;

Most of them in the US involve people who are already criminals and involved in drugs, and often happen in cities with bans on guns (NYC, Washington DC [still, the laws haven't changed yet], Chicago).

Here, violence is removed from ordinary people's lives. One girl I know expressed shock at seeing someone getting stabbed in a big city (DC, FWIW), because violence is not part of most Americans lives.

Also, every homicide in America is counted, while numbers in some countries like England are not counted if the murderer was charged with manslaughter or something less.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

Also, every homicide in America is counted, while numbers in some countries like England are not counted if the murderer was charged with manslaughter or something less.

Are you sure that doesn't seem quite right, they would still go towards statistics of killed people just not a count of those charged with murder

If your point is that only Western European nations and the USA are worthy of considering, hey, be as snobby as you'd like, but personally, I like to look at all of humanity, not just the part of it that fits my arguments better.

As Horetore said theres other differences which really effect the murder rate, its common sense really a 3rd world country is going to have a higher murder rate regardless of firearm legislation

Most of them in the US involve people who are already criminals and involved in drugs, and often happen in cities with bans on guns (NYC, Washington DC [still, the laws haven't changed yet], Chicago).

I don't think state comparisions are as valid as international ones due to the much easier transporting of weapons mainly...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I agree with Don. It's what they call the "veil of ignorance". Say you were in some interdimensional area and you knew that in a few moments you were going to enter the real world and be put in a situation where a certain number of people were going to threaten your life. You can choose between two worlds to enter, both with this same situation. Do you enter the one where you are allowed to own and carry guns (and for all you know are an expert) or one where you aren't (and might be a 5'2" woman about to be attacked by two large men)? Frankly, if you chose to enter a world where you wouldn't have a gun in that situation you're either a fool or a martyr.

Of course there are other scenarios. I'm sure a few people bystanders have been shot in ways they could never have foreseen. But it boils down to the social contract like Don said.

Fireworks are similar to my mind. Every 4th of july hundreds of people injure or maim themselves setting of fireworks. So the government tries to outlaw everything but sparklers (and have unfortunately succeeded). But really it should be left up to the people to decide. Same thing with alcohol. Kills a lot of people. But it's the individuals choice.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Canada is a good example on this chart. Firearms are common in Canada, very common. And yet the homicide rate is similar to that of Poland, France, England, and Wales, and considerably less than Finland and the USA. Why?

The answer is social. It's got nothing to do with the what, and everything to do with the who (not the awesome band, but who is using the weapon).

[woad&fangs]

You sure about that EMFM? Canada has 1/3 the number of guns per person compared to the US and Canada also has roughly 1/3 the homicide rate.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You sure about that EMFM? Canada has 1/3 the number of guns per person compared to the US and Canada also has roughly 1/3 the homicide rate.

Positive. Unregistered guns are everywhere in Canada.

[LittleGrizzly]

Say you were in some interdimensional area and you knew that in a few moments you were going to enter the real world and be put in a situation where a certain number of people were going to threaten your life. You can choose between two worlds to enter, both with this same situation. Do you enter the one where you are allowed to own and carry guns (and for all you know are an expert) or one where you aren't (and might be a 5'2" woman about to be attacked by two large men)? Frankly, if you chose to enter a world where you wouldn't have a gun in that situation you're either a fool or a martyr.

Quite frankly its a few vs one and they determined to kill you your dead either way, unless your an expert with or without weapons but then thats cheating the example, i would probably go for the gunless place as at least i would have a chance to run away (you try throwing knives and tell me its easier than shooting someone running away

At the end of the day, it comes down to whether you believe a person has a right to protect themselves or not. It really is that simple.

Im happy to protect myself, if i really needed too im sure i would smash any number of hard objects into someones head, the reason im against guns is because i don't want the bad guys to walk around with them, if i had a gun and needed to shot someone to save myself or just about anyone really i would

Fireworks are similar to my mind.

I would say they are very different, people bring up quite a few examples as similar to gun ownership like fireworks and seatbelt laws, but the majority of the times these laws are to protect you from yourself whereas laws on gun ownership are to protect us from everyone else.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Most of them in the US involve people who are already criminals and involved in drugs, and often happen in cities with bans on guns (NYC, Washington DC [still, the laws haven't changed yet], Chicago).

I don't think state comparisions are as valid as international ones due to the much easier transporting of weapons mainly...

Bah. Completely useless argument - why do the states with low gun control not have the same high crime rates?

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

Bah. Completely useless argument - why do the states with low gun control not have the same high crime rates?

Well its not just the weapons that can be transported, criminals from states with lax gun control could go over to states with high gun control to commit thier crimes, which is another reason i think state comparisions are less valid, in one state there will be little to stop someone getting a gun, they can then just switch states and be in a state where there are very strict laws. The legal homeowner is now outgunned because of differences in state laws, i can't say im an expert but im fairly sure NYC is a pretty violent place anyway....

[Tribesman]

Edit: Apology retracted. To answer Tribesman's question: Mexico.

Mexico hasn't banned guns , you are allowed shotguns , you are allowed rifles , you are allowed handguns .
Damn them things do kinda appear like guns to me .
Now of course there are restrictions , rifles must not be above .22 and hanguns not above .38 (though there is an extra clause there that does not allow .357 handguns)
Hey Don if you as an American want to go shooting down Mexcio way with your guns you can ,you have to get a permit though , you have to get a permit even if you are only carrying ammo and not a gun , there are big penalties for bringing a gun across the border without a permit , though those penalties have been reduced for first offences as they were having too many problems with gringos just forgetting they were packing when they went down south and 5 years for an unlicenced firearm was seen as a bit tough for genuine mistakes .
If in doubt contact your State Dept. and they will tell you about taking your toys out foriegn .

[Xiahou]

Now of course there are restrictions , rifles must not be above .22

In other words, they're banned. -.22?? I guess BB guns and pellet rifles are safe though.