US firearms deaths compared to other countries?

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)

Do you call the treatment of North American Indians as a good example of tolerance.
Quote. Unlike post-war Germany, North Americans refuse to acknowledge this genocide. Almost one and a quarter million Kanien'ke:haka (Mohawk) were killed off leaving us only a few thousand survivors.
There was a systematic plan to destroy most of the native people by outright murder by bounty hunters and land grabbers, disease through distributing small pox infested blankets, relocation, theft of children who were placed in concentration camps called "residential schools" and assimilation.


PS Some times people should look closer to home before slagging of other countries.

Mods can delete this if they want. I think its relevant as posters seem happy to have a go at other countries. And talk about how civilized America is.
 
Last edited:
My question still stands, manta......

Murder through the world from the UNODC - Homicide rate per 100,000 population.


United States of America

15,241 Number.

5 Rate.


2009.

United Kingdom

724 Number.

1.2 Rate.

2009.

This was brought up in a conversation, we were talking about how America compares to others like those in Europe and how America appears to have the highest fatality rate when it comes to firearms.

Original post above. I was talking about murders using firearms because that's what the original post was about.
 
Last edited:
North Americans do not want to reveal that there was and still is a systematic plan to destroy most of the native people by outright murder...
STILL IS? I did not get that memo but was fully aware of the earlier action and sentiments of the day.

Back on topic. What I do find interesting in regard to firearm deaths in the US is the limited number of actual homicides when compared to the number of firearms owned. I do factor out suicides as I believe those individuals would use any means available to them. Call it 15,000 homicides (+/-) annually in a nation of 330 million with who really knows how many firearms? Call it 200 million+/-.

Given the state of medical technology today, I'm sure more shooting victims or gunplay participants have been kept alive, reducing the number of actual deaths.

I do wonder what the number of GSWs annually is in the US? 4X the deaths? 5X? Dunno.
 
Do you call the treatment of North American Indians as a good example of tolerance.

I'd say it is on par with the British treatment of the Irish during the Potato Famine. Ironically the famine triggered mass immigration to the US causing overcrowding in the eastern cities pushing more immigration Westward thereby increasing the pressures on the natives. I take about as much responsibility for what happened to the Native American as you should.

North Americans do not want to reveal that there was and still is a systematic plan to destroy most of the native people by outright murder by bounty hunters and land grabbers, disease through distributing small pox infested blankets, relocation, theft of children who were placed in concentration camps called "residential schools" and assimilation.

Dog the Bounty Hunter actually claims he is Native American. I did not see him stealing any children or handing out blankets but who knows what happens off camera?

Mods can delete this if they want. I think its relevant as posters seem happy to have a go at other countries. And talk about how civilized America is.

;)

To tie this back into the topic, firearms sales were heavy restricted and mostly illegal to tribal Indians. When it came time for them to try to protect their rights under the law they were woefully unprepared to assert them and lost every war resulting in even more cruel treatment. This is an excellent argument against gun control and I am glad you brought it.

Who is to say what would have happened if the Indians had been well armed? I am betting history would have been quite different.
 
Who is to say what would have happened if the Indians had been well armed? I am betting history would have been quite different.

No one can say except maybe those in a parallel universe.

But I think there's broader implications. Certainly an armed native population would have put up a better resistance, and this is clear justification for RKBA.

But I suspect that in this case what would have occurred is the same result with much higher attrition and a protracted timeline. To raise public awareness would have required active press reporting, and at that time the organized press would have been (was) on the side of the government. No one was reporting the plight of the native population, so there was no social pressure on the government to change policy.

The whole of our rights must work together synergistically or they don't work at all. If we loose RKBA then eventually we loose the rest. History is a wheel, unfortunately.
 
QUOTE]Dog the Bounty Hunter actually claims he is Native American. I did not see him stealing any children or handing out blankets but who knows what happens off camera?
[/QUOTE]Earlier post edited. That doesn't change the fact that the treatment of American Indians was similar to the treatment of the Jews in germany on a smaller scale.

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
My response was to the above post on how bad those Europeans were and civilised the Americans were.

I'd say it is on par with the British treatment of the Irish during the Potato Famine. Ironically the famine triggered mass immigration to the US causing overcrowding in the eastern cities pushing more immigration Westward thereby increasing the pressures on the natives. I take about as much responsibility for what happened to the Native American as you should.
I don't take any responsibility for the Irish potato famine as i was not around at the time to have any influence on what happened. No One expects Americans today to take responsibility for the treatment of the American Indians. Just to look at your own history before having a go at other countries . I don't buy the argument that more firearms mean less murders. What i do agree with is that more gun control in America will not make any difference in stopping mass shootings.
 
What i do agree with is that more gun control in America will not make any difference in stopping mass shootings.

So why are you counseling us that registration and home inspections and other violations of our Rights are no big deal? These things will not solve the problems they are being proposed in reaction to, so why should we accept them? Where's the upside?
 
Discuss this with a woman who was raped and the perp had no handgun. Debate loss for the liberals. Those are the kinds of statistics these conversations leave out. Also, those death rates include imminent self defense fatalities, which in my opinion is not a gun death at all. It's a Darwin one.
Lastly, if two drug dealers/violent crime offenders kill each other, do we really need to include those?
 
So why are you counseling us that registration and home inspections and other violations of our Rights are no big deal? These things will not solve the problems they are being proposed in reaction to, so why should we accept them? Where's the upside

I am not i am saying it happens here and i have no problem with it. Its up to others if they have a problem with it or not.
 
What i do agree with is that more gun control in America will not make any difference in stopping mass shootings.

So why are you counseling us that registration and home inspections and other violations of our Rights are no big deal?

Everyone keeps pointing out that these mass-shootings are a small percentage gun deaths. So perhaps taking steps, or considering practices that reduces gun deaths as a whole is no bad thing.

I don't think anyone said that this was no big deal.

These are things that need to be discussed and challenging conventions is no bad thing if it gets people thinking about things and considering all options with a clearer perspective.
 
Murder through the world from the UNODC - Homicide rate per 100,000 population.


United States of America

15,241 Number.

5 Rate.


2009.

United Kingdom

724 Number.

1.2 Rate.

2009

I did some of my own research and the US homicide rate was about 1.7/100,000 using weapons other than guns in 2011 so even if we un-invented guns, our homicide rate would be higher than that of the UK.

However, if you look at the overall homicide rates of Idaho, Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota or Utah, you see rates comparable or even lower than that of the UK.
Outside the crime hot spots of Detroit, Baltimore, Washington DC, Chicago, et al, the US is actually a low crime country.

How deaths are reported can skew the statistics. For example the automobile accident deaths in 2009 numbered 35,900 if you count the people who died within one year of their injuries.
Counting only the people who died within 30 days of their injuries reduces that number to 33,800.
 
Last edited:
Everyone keeps pointing out that these mass-shootings are a small percentage gun deaths. So perhaps taking steps, or considering practices that reduces gun deaths as a whole is no bad thing.

If any of these steps require or leads to further erosion of my rights, then NO.

You want to do these things, go ahead. I will not. Enough.
 
If any of these steps require or leads to further erosion of my rights, then NO.

You want to do these things, go ahead. I will not. Enough.

Well, I'm coming at this from an outside perspective.
I obey the local laws and use my guns responsibly. Beyond that I'm not really going to do anything differently.

But I'm not afraid to explore and consider all options. That doesn't commit anyone to anything, except thought.

Any laws that come into effect in the US are unlikely to affect me but, as a human being, I would like to see fewer lives being ended prematurely so if a solution were found that was acceptable to all, it would be nice.
 
Do you call the treatment of North American Indians as a good example of tolerance.
Quote. Unlike post-war Germany, North Americans refuse to acknowledge this genocide. Almost one and a quarter million Kanien'ke:haka (Mohawk) were killed off leaving us only a few thousand survivors.
There was a systematic plan to destroy most of the native people by outright murder by bounty hunters and land grabbers, disease through distributing small pox infested blankets, relocation, theft of children who were placed in concentration camps called "residential schools" and assimilation.


PS Some times people should look closer to home before slagging of other countries.

Mods can delete this if they want. I think its relevant as posters seem happy to have a go at other countries. And talk about how civilized America is.

Well, we can go back that far if you like. I was thinking in the last 100 years, but, sure we can go back further. Lets look at Belgium and the Congo. Lets look at Turkey and the Armenians. Lets look at Great Britain and the Opium Wars in China. I can give more examples if you want?

As for Americans slagging off other countries, give me a break. How many out there are bitching about the U.S? Loads, especially in Europe.

Have the British apologized to the Native Americans for implementing biological warfare against them. Small Pox. Nope I do not think so.

I will stand by what I say regarding the U.S and tolerance. It is no perfect but does not compare with the atrocities carried out by the European nations. Now do not get me wrong, I am proud of my Anglo heritage, but I stand by what I say.
 
OK the Americans are more tolerant than those bad Europeans. They even let people of different ethnic origins travel on the same bus now. :rolleyes: PS. My point look at your own history before having a go at other countries.
 
Manta, I think you are being a bit overly sensitive here.

The point has been made repeatedly in the media that firearm homicides are lower in the UK and many other European countries, than they are in the US.

Several people pointed out that if one looks at all homicide, the differences shrink. Others pointed out the there are differences in how homicide is reported, nation to nation, and this can significantly affect the reported homicide rate or murder rate.

Then someone else pointed out that perhaps we should include the crime of genocide, since genocide is a crime committed by governments or quasi-governments. If we include genocide, North America in this century looks pretty good in comparison to Europe, Asia, and Africa. I would also add that South America compares quite favorably as well.

No one is saying that the US is without fault. No one is saying that "Americans are more tolerant than those bad Europeans". People were just pointing out that it is a lot more complicated than simply comparing the firearm homicide rate between the UK and the USA. A lot more complicated.

Prior to 1905, there was no recognition of genocide. Wholesale slaughter or enemy civilian populations was considered a normal part of warefare, and civil wars usually involved elements of genocide and slaughter based on ethnicity, religeous affiliation, or geographic origin.
 
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.
__________________

I was replying to the above post. Talking about Europe as a example as if its one country isn't accurate. There are a lot of countries in Europe all with different laws cultures and traditions.

The point has been made repeatedly in the media that firearm homicides are lower in the UK and many other European countries, than they are in the US.

The media make it up as they go along to suit their view on things.
 
I'd say it is on par with the British treatment of the Irish during the Potato Famine

But sir; the Brits fed those Irish who renounced Catholicism and joined the Anglican church. Surely that counts for something.:D

Just for fun compare US and Brazil murder rates.
 
Manta, I think you are being a bit overly sensitive here.

The point has been made repeatedly in the media that firearm homicides are lower in the UK and many other European countries, than they are in the US.

I'll chime in here.
Is Manta being sensitive? Yes, probably.
Is it understandable? Also, yes, but I'll come to that in a second.

Re the media.
If the media says it, do you (collectively) have to respond? Why?
Numerous times, several members, myself included, have pointed out what a red herring comparisons with other countries are.
Whatever the crime rates are in the US, it is largely due to the situation in the US. The same with the situatiion in the UK. There is no causal link between the two.

Most people realise that if they stop and think about it, rather than taking the bait from the media.
Why the pro-gun community even gives these comparisons credence is beyond me. It seems to be fighting in a reactive, not proactive manner, so the media can lead the agenda

If we stop and think about it we also realise that guns won't reduce the incidence of crime, just the outcomes: Will a person be a victim or someone that can retaliate or not.
So again, why do people bother looking to other continents to justify choices for US society. It makes no sense.
It's like if the UK based traffic policy on US accident rates.... Pointless.

This leads on the first part of the quote above and this:

No one is saying that "Americans are more tolerant than those bad Europeans".

No, they aren't. Actually at times, they say things that are far worse.
And that, rather than this particular thread is what elicits frustration at times, certainly for me. This may also be the reason Manta appears sensitive.

Often, and more so recently, there have been a steady stream of UK/Rest of World vs US threads.
Some members, no doubt frustrated with the situation on their home turf, turn their ire toward the UK and other "foreign" places, probably because the same media keep saying what a good example such places are for gun policy.

I've seen posts where members have called the UK a cesspool of crime, posts where people have intimated that British soldiers don't know their bayonet from their mess-tin, that Brits are all cowards, that the French are worthless, that Europe is one homogenous communist hole... you get the point.

That gets a bit old, and many members, possibly because the majority of their peers are American, forget that this is still an international forum, and that there are representatives of quite a few nations.
And we are all bound by a love of shooting.

I may not agree with how everything is done in the US but, when I've chosen to express that view, I've certainly tried to express those views respectfully.
If I didn't, there'd be a furore.

And yet when I've seen the posts I paraphrased above, amongst others, the sad thing is that seldom have I seen other members, US members, challenging such posts saying that they are out of order and uncalled for.
I have no doubt that if I'd said something of the same ilk about the US marines, I'd be waiting a matter of minutes before a poster refuted it.
So, to my mind, such posts about foreign climes are therefore being tacitly supported by the wider audience.

So without wishing to speak on Manta's behalf, if some non-US members seem sensitive it is because the unsolicited animosity and disrespect by a small minority of TFL members, but largely unchallenged by the majority, eventually starts to wear a bit thin.

It may make some of us think "why am I bothering to lend my moral support, if all I get is a screen-full for my troubles?".
After all, what we'd really like (and I feel confident that this view is shared) is for fellow firearms enthusiasts in the US to enjoy their pursuit unhindered and more importantly for they and their families as well as those of the rest of the nation to be safe and happy, be they pro or anti.

Sorry for the verbose response and it was not personally directed at "btmj", it just seemed to invite my point of view and I felt that was something I needed to say.
 
Back
Top