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.
When statistics from the heavily-armed US are compared with other countries, our murder and crime rates are higher - FAR higher.
No they are not, unless you have some proof of this? Those statistics only include "developed" countries. Countries like Brazil, Honduras, Philippines, Thailand and South Africa have many more firearm related deaths and crimes than the US. You also have to take into account the rise of police shootings. I believe about 15-20% of gun related deaths in this country are officer involved shootings. Far more than any other country.
No they are not, unless you have some proof of this? Those statistics only include "developed" countries. Countries like Brazil, Honduras, Philippines, Thailand and South Africa have many more firearm related deaths and crimes than the US. You also have to take into account the rise of police shootings. I believe about 15-20% of gun related deaths in this country are officer involved shootings. Far more than any other country.
There have been a number of studies; the most recent was published by the American Journal of Medicine last month. This study pulled private gun ownership rates from 27 developed nations, the US (10.2 per 100,000) and South Africa (9.4 per 100,000) among them, and compared these to each country's rate of firearm-related deaths. The study showed that higher rates of private gun ownership do not make the people of those nations safer from firearm-related deaths - in fact just the opposite.
It's sad to think that since just 1968, 1,384,171 Americans have lost their lives in firearm-related deaths. Compare that to 1,171,177, the number of Americans who have lost their lives in warfare since the birth of our country in 1775. We kill each other more often than foreigners do, even during war.
Since 9/11 there have been less than 20 terror-related deaths on US soil. But in the 12 years since then there have been 364,000 deaths caused by privately owned firearms. Arming ourselves to the teeth isn't ensuring "the security of a free state," it's prompting an internal arms race in which we are annihilating each other. It's no longer a cold war between the US and the USSR, it's a cold war between neighbors. And increasingly often, someone is pressing the button.
When Americans look at other countries and see that 364,000 people have died in 12 years we label it "civil war" or "sectarian violence" or maybe even blame it on an individual and call it "genocide." Then we call the United Nations and ask them to send in peacekeeping troops. Or maybe we create a coalition and send in troops to protect all those civilians. Except that this time, it's us. We are the conflict zone.
The cold war was de-escalated with steps such as the SALT talks. Disarming. Reducing the capacity to kill. That is the way to safety in our neighborhoods. That is the way out of the American conflict zone.
There have been a number of studies; the most recent was published by the American Journal of Medicine last month. This study pulled private gun ownership rates from 27 developed nations, the US (10.2 per 100,000) and South Africa (9.4 per 100,000) among them, and compared these to each country's rate of firearm-related deaths. The study showed that higher rates of private gun ownership do not make the people of those nations safer from firearm-related deaths - in fact just the opposite.
It's sad to think that since just 1968, 1,384,171 Americans have lost their lives in firearm-related deaths. Compare that to 1,171,177, the number of Americans who have lost their lives in warfare since the birth of our country in 1775. We kill each other more often than foreigners do, even during war.
Since 9/11 there have been less than 20 terror-related deaths on US soil. But in the 12 years since then there have been 364,000 deaths caused by privately owned firearms. Arming ourselves to the teeth isn't ensuring "the security of a free state," it's prompting an internal arms race in which we are annihilating each other. It's no longer a cold war between the US and the USSR, it's a cold war between neighbors. And increasingly often, someone is pressing the button.
When Americans look at other countries and see that 364,000 people have died in 12 years we label it "civil war" or "sectarian violence" or maybe even blame it on an individual and call it "genocide." Then we call the United Nations and ask them to send in peacekeeping troops. Or maybe we create a coalition and send in troops to protect all those civilians. Except that this time, it's us. We are the conflict zone.
The cold war was de-escalated with steps such as the SALT talks. Disarming. Reducing the capacity to kill. That is the way to safety in our neighborhoods. That is the way out of the American conflict zone.
Ok, well how about you do this then. Research the cities with the highest number of gun deaths and look at the cause. The vast majority of them are black on black gang killings in violent cities like Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Memphis etc...take those out of the equation and actual gun deaths in normal circumstances are actually pretty rare. Then you consider that the vast majority of the guns used in these gang killings are illegally purchased and owned and it becomes even more evident that gun ownership among law abiding citizens are not even a significant percentage of the problem. Guns are not the problem, its the criminals who steal them or obtain them illegally that are the problem. Go after them, not law abiding gun owners.
Ok, well how about you do this then. Research the cities with the highest number of gun deaths and look at the cause. The vast majority of them are black on black gang killings in violent cities like Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Memphis etc...take those out of the equation and actual gun deaths in normal circumstances are actually pretty rare. Then you consider that the vast majority of the guns used in these gang killings are illegally purchased and owned and it becomes even more evident that gun ownership among law abiding citizens are not even a significant percentage of the problem. Guns are not the problem, its the criminals who steal them or obtain them illegally that are the problem. Go after them, not law abiding gun owners.
Hmmm mbell75, the point isn't to remove certain populations from the equation, it's to promote safety and security for ALL lives, regardless of race or location.
Let me ask you, how would you solve the problem? Would you suggest tighter gun control for certain populations and let others carry freely?
Hmmm mbell75, the point isn't to remove certain populations from the equation, it's to promote safety and security for ALL lives, regardless of race or location.
Let me ask you, how would you solve the problem? Would you suggest tighter gun control for certain populations and let others carry freely?
"Safety" is NOT the paramount issue here. You have been suckered into believing that restriction and law will make you "safe." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Stop dwelling on a "problem" that is not there. There are 400,000,000 people in this country. You cannot make them all behave as you would like. I know this is heresy to people who want to believe the government is a "solution."
Hmmm mbell75, the point isn't to remove certain populations from the equation, it's to promote safety and security for ALL lives, regardless of race or location.
Let me ask you, how would you solve the problem? Would you suggest tighter gun control for certain populations and let others carry freely?
We already have a ton of gun laws in place. I consider myself a very sensible gun owner. I have no problems with background checks or even a 24 hour wait just to be sure the buyer isnt a threat to themselves or others. I also have no problems with further restrictions on SBRs and fully automatic weapons. I believe that any legal gun owner who has passed background checks should be allowed the right to carry a weapon concealed after they have passed a training course, safe handling demonstration and written test. If I were in a public place and a situation arose that threatened my life or the lives of loved ones I were with, I believe I should have the right to defend my life and theirs rather than being a helpless victim.
"Safety" is NOT the paramount issue here. You have been suckered into believing that restriction and law will make you "safe." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Stop dwelling on a "problem" that is not there. There are 400,000,000 people in this country. You cannot make them all behave as you would like. I know this is heresy to people who want to believe the government is a "solution."
Hi ccjarider. The safety of our society becomes the issue when many gun owners use it to explain their purchases (defense of self, defense of family, defense of property, etc). The safety of our society also becomes paramount when more people are killed in Oregon by guns than by cars. That's close to home.
Nationally, safety is definitely a problem. Go to the mall in Clackamas and tell everyone there that safety isn't a problem.
Lots of things can become weapons in the wrong hands, and yet those things are still legal. So why should we treat guns any differently? Because guns are designed to kill. That's their purpose. For those who have fun shooting at cans, bottles, or paper targets (myself included), it's time to pick up a slingshot instead.
We already have a ton of gun laws in place. I consider myself a very sensible gun owner. I have no problems with background checks or even a 24 hour wait just to be sure the buyer isnt a threat to themselves or others. I also have no problems with further restrictions on SBRs and fully automatic weapons. I believe that any legal gun owner who has passed background checks should be allowed the right to carry a weapon concealed after they have passed a training course, safe handling demonstration and written test. If I were in a public place and a situation arose that threatened my life or the lives of loved ones I were with, I believe I should have the right to defend my life and theirs rather than being a helpless victim.
I agree with you - we should all be able to defend both ourselves and our loved ones. The question then is how.
The background checks are a good idea, but life happens and people change. Nobody is the same person they were even a year ago; that's why we hear about some of those people who once passed background checks and later do crazy stuff. The background checks should be far more thorough and far more often. Inconvenient? Maybe. But we're talking deadly weapons.
Nationally, safety is definitely a problem. Go to the mall in Clackamas and tell everyone there that safety isn't a problem.
That was the case of someone who should have been caught by the mental health system. If you really want to reduce gun deaths, revamping and funding the entire mental health system is a good first step. It's cheaper and more realistic then getting rid of guns nationwide.
Ok, well how about you do this then. Research the cities with the highest number of gun deaths and look at the cause. The vast majority of them are black on black gang killings in violent cities like Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Memphis etc...take those out of the equation and actual gun deaths in normal circumstances are actually pretty rare. Then you consider that the vast majority of the guns used in these gang killings are illegally purchased and owned and it becomes even more evident that gun ownership among law abiding citizens are not even a significant percentage of the problem. Guns are not the problem, its the criminals who steal them or obtain them illegally that are the problem. Go after them, not law abiding gun owners.
Actually, when you take black on black gang murders out of the equation you have an equal number of deaths on the white side from accidents and suicides. Equal. That is a LOT of needles pain and suffering in order to allow a minority of the population the rush that comes with being able to carry lethal amounts of potential for violence around in public.
The NRA would have us believe that every 3 minutes, someone, somewhere in the U.S., is using a gun, defensively, to save themselves and/or their loved ones from harm. In actuality, less than 2% of gun owners are able to use their weapons defensively. Guns factor in around 50% of the fatal accidents that take young, healthy, people away from us needlessly, however. What kind of return on investment is that?
A three year old cannot even lift an assault rifle, let alone get it into firing position in order to harm themselves or their playmates. How many three year olds have fired handguns at siblings or playmates and wounded or killed them? Quite a number. So... why would an assault weapon ban upset law abiding gun enthusiasts? You were being given a huge 'out' in all the legislature crafted after New Town. A way to save face, but still have everything go along pretty much status quo. If I were running things there wouldn't be an Assault Weapons Ban there would be a complete and total Firearms Ban. That means Handguns as well!!! This very thread is direct evidence of the huge disconnect gun enthusiasts have with the gravity of the situation facing all of us because of the fascination a minority of us have with firearms.
If I were in the mall in Clackamas when that shooter went off the rails and all you armed, Constitution Devotees could do is cower behind store furnishings with the rest of us unarmed pacifists, I'd be pretty steamed. I mean, what good are all those CCW's if you aren't going to use the concealed carry to protect life and limb when things go sideways!? And if thats all they were, useless, I wouldn't have as big a beef. But, as we know, handguns, although useless for any kind of defensive implementation, are quite adept at wrecking families and friendships and they cause pain and suffering needlessly on a daily basis. And not only in the black community. Lets be clear on that. There are plenty of white, middle class, Americans who know only too well the pain of losing a loved one because a handgun was around.
H
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.
