Another fun chart

[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 ?

[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.

[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 ?

[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...

[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

[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.