Global Perspective on Guns - CNN

Did you happen to watch this? I only caught this post this morning, so I might try to find it later. As long as it's not biased, that is. Not interested in hearing more "Guns Kill People" hyperbole. On a somewhat similar topic...just watched Assaulted (which our very own Pax was interviewed for) the other day and was quite pleased with the presentation. Very fact based (if not a bit biased) and I'd think difficult for anti-gunners to argue with.
 
heard a blurb saying why do other nations have significant private ownership but not the level of violence we do.
Most don't even come close to the ethnic/racial/cultural diversity we have here and through all of time, more wars and violence can be traced to either those reasons or religion...............JMO
 
I don't agree BigD. I think those are all excuses used to cover the most simple and basic reasons for any conflict, greed. Someone wants what someone else has and is willing to try and take it. It could be land, access to resources, whatever.

It's just greed with a mask.
 
And there goes Glenn, wanting the facts before we form our opinions! Typical....

Good thing you're on our side, Glenn, that attitude, you just wouldn't fit in on the other side....:D

The question posed in the ad blurb is interesting, but not new. It does, however, make me wonder if they will (at some time) take the same kind of look at countries with low (overall) levels of legal gun ownership and high levels of violence.

And then there are those places in the world where gun ownership is restricted to troops, police, militias, members of warbands (often calling themselves police, militia or army), various "Liberation" groups, or criminal cartels, etc. Violence (including gun violence) is very high in those places.

Are they going to look at those the same way?
They ought to, but I rather doubt they will...
 
I finally got the chance to watch it.

Basically, it is a ban them all except for tightly controlled sports.

1. Japan - almost total control and despite video game violence , they have few gun murders. No mention that we have a varied population as compared to Japan and a different social context.

2. Swiss - lots of guns but they have background checks. Selected Swiss say we are nuts. One Swiss progun person presented as a nut like NRA clone.
Similar to Japan - no mention that the vast number of gun crimes are due to our different populations and economic structure.

3. Australia - the model society - banned tons of stuff and haven't had a rampage since. Australians view us as nuts

4. Columbia- intensive stop and frisk by cops and army drop gun violence from illegal guns in Bogota. Columbians opine that we are nuts.

5. General from the US Army dealing with suicide - let commanders be able to order soldiers to inform them of private guns and let shrinks remove gun rights. Forgot to mention that we screwed over these guy and gals in a set of moronic war efforts designed by politicians.

6. 2nd Amend. is for the militia - so says Warren Berger - SCOTUS. PS - thanks to old wily bird Scalia for waffling.


Conclusion of the host - to cut to the chase - BAN them all. We are nuts as compared to the rest of the world.

So that's that. I would ask if you didn't watch it - let this thread pass. We don't need to repeat why we disagree. Commentary on the specific show is useful.
 
Australia - the model society - banned tons of stuff and haven't had a rampage since. Australians view us as nuts

Not from the folks from there that I know. They have seen, like England, a HUGE increase in street crime and home crime, while those who live in the remote areas just scoff and shake their heads - but then, that is the opinions of folks I know who live there, not my own personal experience.
 
For those interested in more detail, beginning with Issue #3 in 2012 the M1911.ORG on-line magazine (http://ezine.m1911.org/forums.php) has been running a series of articles discussing the gun laws and gun cultures of various countries. Since Switzerland has been mentioned, you might find it interesting to read the article on Switzerland. It isn't as wide open as we Americans tend to think.

I know the owner of M1911.ORG would be interested in finding people to write about more countries. If anyone has contacts in countries that haven't been covered yet, please invite them to contact john@m1911.org.
 
I just watched the repeat. Or as much as I could tolerate. The part about preventing military suicides was especially egregious.
 
I agree with that very strongly. They wanted a cheap fix to their abuse of the service people. The host's down play of mental health efforts across the board just indicated that for him the only way was a total ban. Maybe some duck guns or single shot bullseye. Bah.
 
Since Switzerland has been mentioned, you might find it interesting to read the article on Switzerland. It isn't as wide open as we Americans tend to think.
Thank you for pointing that out. Folks might be surprised to find out that Israel isn't as open as they're led to believe, and neither is Finland.
 
Heard about an Israeli who didn't understand our "fascination" with owning guns..."Why do you need to own a gun? If you're going into a bad part of town, just go down to the armory and check out an UZI..."

I think it was explained to him, but he just didn't get it...

Haven't watched the show, so I won't comment on it, but from what you guys have said, sounds like I expected it to be, so I will find a better way to waste my time....:rolleyes:
 
You get better gun advice from Anthonies Bourdain and Zimmern's food shows.

The show was a joke and basically a PR piece. Newton's anniversary has produced waves of such.
 
Glenn Meyer said:
I agree with that very strongly. They wanted a cheap fix to their abuse of the service people. The host's down play of mental health efforts across the board just indicated that for him the only way was a total ban. Maybe some duck guns or single shot bullseye. Bah.

I find it ironic, morbidly so, that the Army entrusts me with a Bradley fighting vehicle, an M-4 with a -203 under it, an M-9 Beretta, the supervision of nine guys similary armed, and a radio in which I can call in all sorts of death from above, yet gets skiddish as hell when it comes to private firearms.

Further more, the fact that the fellow who committed sucicide from our Troop used his duty weapon to do it doesn't even enter the equation when they start talking about military suicidies and private weapons.

The force structure is small, the optempo high, problems are going to arise.

To me it isn't the fault of the civillian leadership for sending us off, that is our job and duty, it is the fault of the top brass for not anticipating this issue or doing more to correct it when it became apparent. The private weapons thing is nothing but a feel good band aid.
 
it should be acknowledged that there is a big difference between a US and a Swiss militia to

the US militia is from what I can fathom meant to fight the goverment if it gets out of hand, correct? atleast that is the gist of it whenever I see those kind of people on TV

the swiss militia is a part of the swiss defense against foreign invaders, more like your reserves, gather a few times a year for practise, atleast that was what the reserver used to be in the US correct? i think all nordic countries have homeguards (but not to the extent of the Swiss), and keep arms at home, only nowadays there are storage requirments and atleast here in Sweden the rifles are locked.

this is speaking to a difference in views for euros vs americans, we generally have more faith in our goverment (even if we bitch and moan about it) we view the state as being the people and government) you americans seem to view the government as a separate thing from the people to a much greater extent, correct me if I am wrong.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Most definitions of the state regard it as the sole legal user of force. Self-defense is an exception and is approved by the mechanisms of the state.

In the USA, many see the 2nd Amend. as instantiating a second legitimate reservoir of force - the citizenry. It is to be used if the government strays from the principles of liberty fundamental to the nation.

Examples of the use of this view are sometimes hard to find to be convincing. Some little brouhaha with vets and voting is brought up.

I might suggest - https://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=10963
We Will Shoot Back

It documents how African-Americans used arms to aid in gaining the freedoms they should have been guaranteed by the Constitution but were denied. It is one of the better examples of such and would be hard for antigunners to argue against.
 
Back
Top