Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or Switzerland. But, I am an NRA Lifetime member and I am not buying anyone a gun but me! Maybe it should work like Obamacare. The government MANDATES gun ownership regardless of what the citizen wants, but will provide subsidies for defraying the cost for people below the poverty line.
What EVERYONE can always agree upon without too much trouble as some of your comment also makes clear, the gun-violence statistics for America are exceptional compared to other countries in the world, and I am hard pressed when all is said and done to believe that isn't simply because we have such an exceptional proliferation of guns in America like nowhere else on the planet.
This is actually a contradictory statistic. Yes the United States has the best armed citizenry in the world by far. No this does not translate into a shockingly high overall murder rate. The most recent reported numbers for the USA are 3.9 murders per year per 100,000 people which makes us the 108th (out of 218 countries listed) highest murder rate in the world.
The narrative that "the USA is the murder capital of the world" simply isn't true. Not even close. Based on the reported numbers, that honor belongs to Honduras with a staggering 84.6 murders annually per 100,000 people.
Many of the nations that are supposed to have a lower murder rate than the USA aren't being entirely honest. Egypt, Jordan, Libya and Syria haven't reported numbers since the "Arab Spring" and the rise of ISIS.
The trouble is that the narrative "the country with the most guns per person by far has a low to average murder rate" doesn't play well for gun control propagandists. To compensate, they tend to cook the numbers and cherry pick nations with really low murder rates so they can create graphs and charts that are more shocking and alarming. The fact that 107 nations with fewer guns per citizen out-murder the USA just doesn't fit their narrative. I could play the same game by pointing out that the USA has the third lowest murder rate in the entire Western Hemisphere -- so North America, South America and the Caribbean. I could also say that there are 71 nations in the world with murder rates at least twice as high as the USA. There are 38 nations with more than triple our murder rate and 27 with more than 4 times greater murder rates ... etc, etc, etc. If I created a bar graph showing the worst 27 countries and put the USA's paltry 3.9 rate next the them, we'd look pretty awesome, right? That wouldn't be very intellectually honest of me, right? So why does the left quite blatantly engage in that same sort of nonsense, but in the opposite direction??
One thing is quite clear. Having the most guns per citizen does not result in the highest murder rate. Not by a long shot.
Quote:
I've seen many studies that suggest guns helps to facilitate death, whether suicide or murder, better than any other weapon. I suspect that's another fact we need not deny and/or why every combat troop is armed with "assault rifles," not bats or other weapons that folks in these threads like to suggest can just as easily be deemed "assault weapons."
Fact is, no matter how you look at this serious problem, there is just no putting the "genie back in the bottle." I think we all know this too, from Obama on down...
When it comes to suicide, you're completely wrong. Many countries that are rockstars on the per 100,000 annual murders list are among the most suicidal countries in the world: France, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Finland, Latvia, Poland, Japan, Hungary, Lithuania and South Korea are all countries that are pretty disarmed with low murder rates. All of them out-suicide the USA. And once again, there are many nations whose numbers are probably pretty inaccurate.
What we can all agree on is this: We all want there to be less murders and less violent crime across the board.
This is actually a contradictory statistic. Yes the United States has the best armed citizenry in the world by far. No this does not translate into a shockingly high overall murder rate. The most recent reported numbers for the USA are 3.9 murders per year per 100,000 people which makes us the 108th (out of 218 countries listed) highest murder rate in the world.
The narrative that "the USA is the murder capital of the world" simply isn't true. Not even close. Based on the reported numbers, that honor belongs to Honduras with a staggering 84.6 murders annually per 100,000 people.
Many of the nations that are supposed to have a lower murder rate than the USA aren't being entirely honest. Egypt, Jordan, Libya and Syria haven't reported numbers since the "Arab Spring" and the rise of ISIS.
The trouble is that the narrative "the country with the most guns per person by far has a low to average murder rate" doesn't play well for gun control propagandists. To compensate, they tend to cook the numbers and cherry pick nations with really low murder rates so they can create graphs and charts that are more shocking and alarming. The fact that 107 nations with fewer guns per citizen out-murder the USA just doesn't fit their narrative. I could play the same game by pointing out that the USA has the third lowest murder rate in the entire Western Hemisphere -- so North America, South America and the Caribbean. I could also say that there are 71 nations in the world with murder rates at least twice as high as the USA. There are 38 nations with more than triple our murder rate and 27 with more than 4 times greater murder rates ... etc, etc, etc. If I created a bar graph showing the worst 27 countries and put the USA's paltry 3.9 rate next the them, we'd look pretty awesome, right? That wouldn't be very intellectually honest of me, right? So why does the left quite blatantly engage in that same sort of nonsense, but in the opposite direction??
One thing is quite clear. Having the most guns per citizen does not result in the highest murder rate. Not by a long shot.
When it comes to suicide, you're completely wrong. Many countries that are rockstars on the per 100,000 annual murders list are among the most suicidal countries in the world: France, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Finland, Latvia, Poland, Japan, Hungary, Lithuania and South Korea are all countries that are pretty disarmed with low murder rates. All of them out-suicide the USA. And once again, there are many nations whose numbers are probably pretty inaccurate.
What we can all agree on is this: We all want there to be less murders and less violent crime across the board.
Cherry picking...
All well put. I've seen more various presentation of these statistics from all various sources over the years to the point of wondering whether half the effort is to render them all highly suspect, but one of the more recent reports I've seen about these numbers continues to highlight how exceptional the numbers are for America.
"Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation's gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries, researchers said."
When it comes to "cherry picking," sure seems your picking a good many of your own when you introduce countries impacted by the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS. I mean, these numbers are generally considered in light of simple civilians living in countries that are not at war or struggling with wide-spread civil unrest.
With all due respect to Wikipedia (sincerely), often described as left-leaning as well (BTW), I'm not sure whether the American Journal of Medicine will also be considered left-leaning, but it seems their rather recent data contradicts your "narrative" in more than a few ways.
"Even though it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the United States accounted for 82 percent of all gun deaths. The United States also accounted for 90 percent of all women killed by guns, the study found. Ninety-one percent of children under 14 who died by gun violence were in the United States. And 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed by guns were in the United States, the study found."
All well put. I've seen more various presentation of these statistics from all various sources over the years to the point of wondering whether half the effort is to render them all highly suspect, but one of the more recent reports I've seen about these numbers continues to highlight how exceptional the numbers are for America.
"Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation's gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries, researchers said."
When it comes to "cherry picking," sure seems your picking a good many of your own when you introduce countries impacted by the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS. I mean, these numbers are generally considered in light of simple civilians living in countries that are not at war or struggling with wide-spread civil unrest.
With all due respect to Wikipedia (sincerely), often described as left-leaning as well (BTW), I'm not sure whether the American Journal of Medicine will also be considered left-leaning, but it seems their rather recent data contradicts your "narrative" in more than a few ways.
"Even though it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the United States accounted for 82 percent of all gun deaths. The United States also accounted for 90 percent of all women killed by guns, the study found. Ninety-one percent of children under 14 who died by gun violence were in the United States. And 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed by guns were in the United States, the study found."
RE: your last statement I bolded above. Yes, all agreed, but how?
Comparing crime statistics between two countries is a fools errand since each country tracks crime differently, with many countries lowering actual crime numbers. The link bellow has a lot of good information on comparing various countries, I hope you take the time to actually read it.
For example, homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers typically “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise” (Report to Parliament). A more detailed discussion of the difference between “offenses initially recorded as homicide” and “offenses currently recorded as homicide” in England and Wales based on the outcomes of trials is available starting on page 9 here. While this adjustment reduces overall homicides by about 15 percent, it has a larger impact on firearm homicides because those tend to be the ones most likely to involve gang fights that are much more difficult to solve. The problem isn’t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but there would be a sizable reduction in the reported US homicide rate if this approach were used here. For example, from 2000 to 2008 only about 62 percent of US homicides are even cleared by arrest. The numbers in the UK appear to be only adjusted based on cases where charges are brought. In that case, it is useful to note that in the US only about half of those arrested are eventually convicted (also here).
Comparing crime statistics between two countries is a fools errand since each country tracks crime differently, with many countries lowering actual crime numbers. The link bellow has a lot of good information on comparing various countries, I hope you take the time to actually read it.
For example, homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers typically “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise” (Report to Parliament). A more detailed discussion of the difference between “offenses initially recorded as homicide” and “offenses currently recorded as homicide” in England and Wales based on the outcomes of trials is available starting on page 9 here. While this adjustment reduces overall homicides by about 15 percent, it has a larger impact on firearm homicides because those tend to be the ones most likely to involve gang fights that are much more difficult to solve. The problem isn’t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but there would be a sizable reduction in the reported US homicide rate if this approach were used here. For example, from 2000 to 2008 only about 62 percent of US homicides are even cleared by arrest. The numbers in the UK appear to be only adjusted based on cases where charges are brought. In that case, it is useful to note that in the US only about half of those arrested are eventually convicted (also here).
Thanks, as well for caring whether I "take the time to actually read it." Of course my opinion is not really what matters when it comes to what our politicians might agree to do in terms of legislation, but I do make an effort to form my own opinion with facts worthy of consideration. I don't usually vote for representatives based on their gun-control positions, because that's all a political "cluster f**k" in general, but I will review this information with closer scrutiny later. Right now I need to get on with a Father's Day weekend that I look forward to enjoying by other means, not to include shooting weapons. Forgive me...
All I might ask before signing off is whether ANYONE feels the number of incidents of violence, death and crime with guns in America is acceptable and/or not a matter worthy of public attention and political address. Regardless from where you pull your numbers..., anyone?
All I might ask before signing off is whether ANYONE feels the number of incidents of violence, death and crime with guns in America is acceptable and/or not a matter worthy of public attention and political address. Regardless from where you pull your numbers..., anyone?
That is a dishonest question. Of course the mayhem is unacceptable. BUT...that doesn't mean we should pass worse than useless laws that
not only don't solve the problem, but make honest citizens vulnerable.
I suppose the reference to Liberals is to be expected much like the notion that all terrorists are Muslims, but if only we might be just a tad more measured when it comes to who wants what and why...
Public-opinion surveys show widespread support for tighter controls on gun-ownership in America. Indeed, nearly half of Republicans, the party most sympathetic to gun ownership, favour a ban on “assault-style” weapons. Their will is frustrated, however, by a political system that enables passionate minorities to stymie legislation.
The aftermath of a mass shooting in Australia provides one example. In 1996 a gunman killed 32 people with a semi-automatic weapon much like the one used in the Orlando shooting on June 12th. Australia’s lawmakers quickly passed strict and sweeping gun-control rules. Semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns were banned, and the government offered to buy weapons already in circulation from their owners (a programme of comparable scale in America would reclaim an estimated 90m guns).
Australia has suffered only two shooting sprees since then, claiming a total of seven lives. A decline in the rate of killings with guns, which was already under way before these rules came in, accelerated rapidly. Total gun deaths including suicides also fell. Before the change in the law the rate of deaths from firearms in Australia was about a quarter of that in America; afterwards, it fell to about a tenth of the American rate. In 2014 America suffered about 10.5 fatal shootings per 100,000 people; Australia recorded just 1.
The safety catch
It is not just the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence that is becoming clearer. Evidence is also building that even relatively modest gun-control measures reduce gun deaths. An analysis published in 2015 in the Annual Review of Public Health noted that state laws banning possession of a gun by individuals under a restraining order for domestic violence reduce the incidence of “intimate partner homicide” by 10%. The same analysis reports that firearm homicide rates rose by 25% in the five years after Missouri repealed its law requiring permits to purchase a gun, even as the national rate nationwide fell.
Public-opinion surveys show widespread support for tighter controls on gun-ownership in America. Indeed, nearly half of Republicans, the party most sympathetic to gun ownership, favour a ban on “assault-style” weapons. Their will is frustrated, however, by a political system that enables passionate minorities to stymie legislation.
In 2013, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, in which 20 schoolchildren were shot dead, two senators, one Democrat and one Republican, introduced a measure that would have required background checks on most gun sales. It failed to move forward despite a majority vote in its favour, because supporters were unable to assemble the supermajority needed to overcome a procedural hurdle. Seemingly intractable disputes in American politics do sometimes give way to overdue reform. More probably, America will make scant progress in dealing with its gun problem until it begins to resolve its broader political problem.
When you ask most Republicans, or at least a Republican gun owner if they think assault weapons should be banned, he will say yes because he knows they already are.
That doesn't necessarily mean Republican gun owners are largely in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15.
Most Democrats don't have a clue what constitutes an "Assault Rifle" so of course they're all going to say yes, assault weapons should be banned. And the media, along with gun grabbing politicians purposely conflate automatics and semiautomatics to further their agenda.
It just goes to show that you can skew a pole any way you want if you ask the question the right way.
Oh, and by the way, the Australian government did not "offer" to buy back the banned weapons. The buy backs were mandatory .......which is pretty much confiscation with a happy face.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
