US firearms deaths compared to other countries?

This statement is completely false. The countries where guns are banned and seriously restricted have the highest death rates from guns of any in the world. Why do we keep giving ground on this?
Click to expand...

Is this an emotional response? Or are you just repeating some statistic you found on a gun blog or gun board? Your statement is wrong. Please show me some statistics to prove your case. A disarmed society means fewer accidental and suicidal gun deaths. Gun murders should be theoretically higher, but we don't always see that. The UK has a far lower gun murder rate than the US. Mexico is higher than the US, so there's no hard fast rule. The US is #10 on gun deaths in the world per 100,000. Most of the countries above us have either heavy gun control, but a drug/cartel/warlord problem.

What is unequivocally proven, however, is that violent crime rates (with murder included) go up dramatically when you take guns away. We need to stay away from talking about death rates with grabbers (because there is evidence of both sides using that) and instead look at violent crime. That's the argument we CAN win.

So what? There are 193 other countries in the world besides the UK and the US. Many of them have much higher rates of "gun deaths".

This whole concept of comparing everything we do to the UK, Australia or Canada really needs to stop.
Click to expand...

Actually...there is only 9 countries above the US in this. We compare to the UK, Canada and Australia because we have somewhat similar societies, where the amount of gun control is the only real variable. More gun control means more violent crime, not always more murders. Stop using deaths as a measure because its so easy to counter. Use violent crime. They cannot argue against that.
 
You know, Russia has about 5 times the US murder rate, but is much more heavily restricted. More restricted than the UK.

And even if you factored out all firearms related murders in the US, we still have a much higher homicide rate than the UK. Think about that- in a nation with 270 million guns, where guns are easily accessible, there are about 2500 cases a year in which someone just didn't have one lying around handy, or was in too much of a hurry to go buy one, and decided to kill someone with whatever else was lying around.
 
This statement is completely false. The countries where guns are banned and seriously restricted have the highest death rates from guns of any in the world.
Click to expand...

Why the continued fixation on "gun deaths"? That's playing into the hands of the gun banners.

Here's a serious question for those who want to use the "gun death" statistic:

Is a person in England any less dead because they were beaten to death with a pool cue than they were if they were shot? Are people who are beheaded by the Taliban in A-stan any less dead than if they were shot? Are the people tortured to death by the drug cartels in Mexico any less dead than if they were shot? Seriously?

On the other hand, those who have a gun and a willingness to use it, while they may be shot, they can't be tortured to death or have their head chopped off until they are first disarmed.

I'll keep my gun, thankee.....
 
Actually...there is only 9 countries above the US in this.
Click to expand...

You did not read the preceding posts. Do you really believe that gun deaths are fewer in Sudan or Syria than in the US? In these countries the citizenry has almost no gun rights.

Nearly all of the countries with ultra low rates of gun ownership and high rates of gun deaths were removed from the list. I can see why the anti's are so successful with spreading this.

We compare to the UK, Canada and Australia because we have somewhat similar societies, where the amount of gun control is the only real variable.
Click to expand...

How do you define similar? The UK and Australia are located on islands with a vast majority homogenous population. Australia is 94% European and Asian. The UK is 93% the same ethnicity. These are pasteurized cultures.

The US has eleven million+ of illegal aliens living in it at best guess. That is actually half the population of Australia. You think the only variable is gun control? Have you been to any of these places?
 
I also agree it's pretty stupid people are seperating murders into catagories. Like 1,000 people murdered with a bat, axe, for fist is any different than murdered with a firearm. It's still 1,000 murdered.
 
The UK is 93% the same ethnicity. These are pasteurized cultures.
Click to expand...

Don't tell a Scot he is of the same ethnicity as an Englishman- he'll probably try to cut the scars on his knuckles off on your teeth......

..... and Londinistan is a "whole other country" ......
 
IME, telling a Scot he is an Englishman is akin to calling an Alabama native a Yankee ......
Click to expand...

Wasn't Alabama settled largly be Scotsmen? That southern accent didn't come from the Injuns.

It can be hard to compare murder and suicide rates of different countries. I think that Great Britain lists only solved murders as "murders", until solved, it's a "suspicious death". I may be wrong though.
If two people get in a fight and one dies, is it a murder, manslaughter, or an accidental death?
Is dying as a result of doing something "suicidal" a suicide or an accidental death? In some cultures, suicide brings so much shame to the family that authorities will list it as an accidental death to spare the family of the stigma.

All I'm saying is take these statistics with a grain of salt.

They also try to tell us that the US has one of the highest infant mortality rates of any developed country. The truth is that hospitals in the US save more premature infants than any country in the world and if we fail to save one, it goes on record as an infant death, not a miscarriage.
 
To me, statistics are for Statists. What difference does it make what happened to "the average guy" someplace else sometime in the past? I'm concerned with me and mine, in the here and now, and our futures.

It is irrelavent to me, personally, what the murder rate, or violent crime rate, or infant mortality rate is for Brittain, Australia, Mexico, Botswana, or whatever: I have been endowed by my Creator with the right to defend myself, and using the likelyhood of having to do so, either arguing for or against is stupid: it is my inalienable right, and not up for debate.

To put it in terms that the folks that do not understand that they have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness might understand:

I'll bet the victims of the narco-terrorists wished they had the right to have a gun on them when the gangs showed up to kidnap, torture and kill them. 'I ain't going out like that.'
 
Is this an emotional response? Or are you just repeating some statistic you found on a gun blog or gun board? Your statement is wrong. Please show me some statistics to prove your case
Click to expand...



The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher).
 
What is unequivocally proven, however, is that violent crime rates (with murder included) go up dramatically when you take guns away.
Click to expand...

Unequivocally? To prove something unequivocally you would need to find two environments where everything is the same. Everything. Except guns. That is clearly not possible so at best you could suggest violent crime may go up when guns are taken away.
And that is a hypothesis I would disagree with.

We compare to the UK, Canada and Australia because we have somewhat similar societies, where the amount of gun control is the only real variable.
Click to expand...

What?! You serious?
Guns the only real variable?!

Alabama Shooter had it right with:
This whole concept of comparing everything we do to the UK, Australia or Canada really needs to stop.
Click to expand...

As did Jimbob with:
Why the continued fixation on "gun deaths"?
Click to expand...

The interested parties of the US (for or against guns) need to really stop a) looking for simplistic single reasons for the incidence of gun violence and b) looking beyond its borders for those reasons, justifications and validations....

If the problem exists in the US, then you can be sure the reasons for and solutions to this will have originated in US society and will be the result of a myriad of factors that have been developing and evolving over decades.
 
Last edited:
Whenever some grabber brings up Europe as a great example of peace and civility, I simply start rattling off their genocides, the last of which only ended in 1999 due to NATO intervention. Europe is hardly a great example of peace and morality. Niether is Asia or Africa or the Middle East. When you start including genocides then North America is actually a very good example of tolerance and peace.
 
Oh you mean this?

Box 6.1 The history of weapons collection in Kosovo
Organized weapons collection programmes have a long and difficult history in Kosovo.
Seizures date back at least to the Ottomans. In 1844, as part of a modernizing reform package,
the authorities in Istanbul started to strengthen their control over previously quite remotely
governed regions like Kosovo. These new measures also included attempts to disarm the local
population. As the modernizing reform was strongly resisted in conservative Kosovo throughout
the following decades, more guns were confiscated in successive campaigns to keep the population
under control. One of the reasons that the revolutionary so-called Young Turks received the
support of conservative Albanians in Kosovo, in their attempts to wrestle the power from the old
guard in power in Istanbul, was that they promised to respect the Albanians’ traditional rights,
including the right to carry arms.
In the first decade of the twentieth century, people in Kosovo again rebelled against the
Ottomans, this time because of new taxes. To quell the resistance, Ottoman troops were sent to
Pejë/Pe ́
c and Gjakovë/
–
Dakovica, where taxes were forcefully collected, the population regis
tered,
and arms confiscated. For example, in 1910, as many as 147,525 guns were allegedly confiscated
through harsh means. In the same move, all knives other than bread-knives were banned.
During the first half of the twentieth century, when Albanians were under Serb/Yugoslav rule,
the Serbian gendarmerie conducted what it called disarmament expeditions, but which in fact
amounted to ethnically-based systematic violence against the Albanians. In the early post-Second
World War period the federal Yugoslav police, under Minister of Interior Aleksander Rankovi ́
c,
attempted to collect arms forcibly from the population. In the winter of 1956, these house-to-
house seizure programmes led to beatings, torture, and even killings. According to Noel Malcolm,
‘so severe was the treatment of those who failed to hand over a gun that many Albanians would
prudently buy a weapon in order to have something to surrender’ (1998, pp. 320–21).
As the Yugoslav federation was dismembered in the 1990s, Milosevic continued the tradition
of violent
weapons collection. Kosovo Albanians were beaten, tortured, or wrongfully fined in
weapons seizure operations.
Click to expand...

*Sarcasm*
Yeah, just ignore that because those European people are just too stupid and primitive.

ETA: Oh yeah, Kosovo, not on the list.
 
AS, may I ask where you pulled that from?
Click to expand...

The United Nations.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/C-Special-reports/SAS-SR03-Kosovo.pdf

They were looking at practical ways to disarm the natives and were trying to determine if it was worth it.

Know what else you should take a look at?

This:

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/B-Occasional-papers/SAS-OP02-Weapons-Collection.pdf

A 2001 report heralding the success of disarmament programs in El Salvador, Mali and especially South Africa. If there is a smoking gun to idiocy there it is.

Now that the rapists (literally) are in charge of South Africa... lets just say that the US is in no danger of overtaking them in per capita.

murders-rape.png
 
The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher).
Click to expand...

OK, but what is the MURDER rate, manta?

;)

I guess it's now considered a worse thing, in some places, to kill your attacker with a gun (that would be recorded as an "intentional homicide committed with a firearm", would it not?) than to be beaten to death by that attacker (that would be a "murder").

:rolleyes:

I'll keep my gun, thankee. You keep your moral superiority, such as it is.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top