Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USA #1 in arms ownership! Makes you feel Proud!
RockyMTNClimber    8/28/2007 6:02:37 PM
The right of self defense is universal. UN should mandate all nations allow their citizens access to gun ownership! Check Six Rocky ht**tp://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-08-28T174254Z_01_L28348938_RTRUKOC_0_US-WORLD-FIREARMS.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2 By Laura MacInnis GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said. U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said. "There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said. India had the world's second-largest civilian gun arsenal, with an estimated 46 million firearms outside law enforcement and the military, though this represented just four guns per 100 people there. China, ranked third with 40 million privately held guns, had 3 firearms per 100 people. Germany, France, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil and Russia were next in the ranking of country's overall civilian gun arsenals. On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38. Continued... France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people. "Firearms are very unevenly distributed around the world. The image we have of certain regions such as Africa or Latin America being awash with weapons -- these images are certainly misleading," Small Arms Survey director Keith Krause said. "Weapons ownership may be correlated with rising levels of wealth, and that means we need to think about future demand in parts of the world where economic growth is giving people larger disposable income," he told a Geneva news conference. The report, which relied on government data, surveys and media reports to estimate the size of world arsenals, estimated there were 650 million civilian firearms worldwide, and 225 million held by law enforcement and military forces. Five years ago, the Small Arms Survey had estimated there were a total of just 640 million firearms globally. "Civilian holdings of weapons worldwide are much larger than we previously believed," Krause said, attributing the increase largely to better research and more data on weapon distribution networks. Only about 12 percent of civilian weapons are thought to be registered with authorities.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16   NEXT
RockyMTNClimber    Gun Control + Criminals = Violence and Crime Increases!   9/6/2007 5:34:12 PM
UK does not count murders until they are solved, it counts multiple homicides as one, it plays fast and loose with the numbers so the unwashed don't know whasss-up. It is referenced that above with sources and I will not show you that again. If you are going to participate you have to keep up.
 
ht***tp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf
 
Page 53 statistics you should know...... (after all it is your country bub!) Increase in crimes from just 2001-2003:
 
threat or conspiracy to murder ..........................................up 32%
death by aggrevated vehicle taking (car jacking)............... up 57%
child abduction ................................................................up 45%
HOMICIDE ....................................................................UP +18%
TOTAL VIOLENCE AGAINST PERSONS .................UP +32%
 
Your country is as safe as South Africa though, way to go with that!
 
Law abiding Citizen + More Guns = Less Crime and more shooting fun!
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    My bad. Total violence against persons was only up 29% (glasses...)   9/6/2007 5:35:45 PM
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Corruption    9/6/2007 5:39:44 PM
If it wasn't for the corrupt police, his guns would have been taken and the sorry mess would not have happened.
 
The chief should share his cell for eternity.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       9/6/2007 5:50:35 PM
Paul, 
I inhabit a stange place between absolutes, if one side might be called 'black' and the other 'white' I would be in a mixture I like to call 'grey'.

I don't suggest that firearms should be given out like sweets to all and sundry. I rather like the current system (or what's left of it) where firearms are for target shooting and sport, owners must be part of a club (therefore have peer review and training). Firearms for self-defence in an urban scenario is a little paranoid for my liking.

What I am trying to point out is that the handgun ban was an ill-informed knee-jerk reaction and had little or no effect on crime rates (or possibly a detrimental effect)
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       9/6/2007 6:37:07 PM

Paul, 
I inhabit a stange place between absolutes, if one side might be called 'black' and the other 'white' I would be in a mixture I like to call 'grey'.

I don't suggest that firearms should be given out like sweets to all and sundry. I rather like the current system (or what's left of it) where firearms are for target shooting and sport, owners must be part of a club (therefore have peer review and training). Firearms for self-defence in an urban scenario is a little paranoid for my liking.

What I am trying to point out is that the handgun ban was an ill-informed knee-jerk reaction and had little or no effect on crime rates (or possibly a detrimental effect)

it reduced nut jobs as I have previously stated..... not had a massacre with legally held guns for a while and hopefully not for a damn sight longer....     if the US is happy to have resturaunt/campass/shopping mall killing sprees from legal gun ownership happen every couple of years then that is up to them. but the UK is better off without guns in everyones houses....
 
there is jack that a ban on firearms can do for those who hold them illegally to start with... and strangely enough.... most criminals using guns are not using them legally......   :-)   ban them. those who are caught with them, lock away for 10years plus......
 
guns aid killing... more guns mean more deaths...
 
than answer is to reduce the number of guns out there not increase them... stop the nutters getting them in the first place not give them to everyone just in case there is a nutter in the same town.
 
Paul

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    The numbers do not lie.   9/6/2007 7:17:07 PM
than answer is to reduce the number of guns out there not increase them... <paul

Your conclusion is without any basis in fact.  There is more crime now paul not less. Your reducing guns only made it easier for criminals to kill and assault law abiding citizens.  In the US we turned around the gun bans and crime went down.
 
Case closed. The proper private ownership of guns does not result in crime it arguably prevents it. A century of gun restrictions have contributed to the UK's highest crime rates ever.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       9/6/2007 11:12:13 PM

My posts had 3 veiled meanings besides the implications of poverty on crime, which no one has really addressed.

1) What is the most powerful weapon you can currently obtain legally under US law and is this suitable for self defence?

2) What should be the maximum destructive power of a weapon obtained legally?  Fists, knives, handguns, shotguns, submachine guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, large calibre weapons, RPGs, etc, etc, etc, etc, nerve gas, fission bombs, thermonuclear, no limit.

3) Should this really be portrayed as a universal right applicable in all situations? Even in gang wars? The IRA has given up there weapons, (mostly) should they have? Should the Coalition Forces of banned civilians from carrying there firearms in Iraq if they were so good at protecting people?

 
 
1)  Well, in most of America a non-felon, non-mentally ill citizen can buy rifles and handguns of up to .50cal without needing any sort of license.  If purchased from a firearms dealer the citizen must pass an instant-check background check.  Quite a few cities and a county or two regulate firearms ownership to the point of banning handguns within city limits.  However, if you submit a set of fingerprints and $200 transfer tax per weapon to the BATF you can receive a Title II license that covers destructive devices and automatic weapons, and then buy just about any firearm out there (machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, etc.), as well as other kewl stuff that I think includes toys like rocket launchers and artillery.  I don't know what the legal upper limit is.  To give you a feel for our reality, it's my understanding there are over 100,000 legally-owned automatic weapons in civilian hands in America.  Funny how there's never been a crime committed with any of them--EVER.  Are they suitable for self-defense?  My preferred answer that I consider conpletely sufficient is "who cares," but for the sake of discussion I'll amend it to "sure, why not?"  Admittedly, rocket launchers and artillery probably wouldn't be my first choice for typical self-defense scenarios, though.  ;-)
 
2)  Acknowledging that I admittedly don't know the current legal upper limit, I would say that whatever the limit is now appears to be a reasonable compromise and I'd be satisfied to leave it as it is.  Considering that crime committed using weapons at this upper end of the "power" spectrum are not only statistically insignificant, they just plain don't happen at all, I think there's no public safety threat that could reasonably justify any further restriction in this area.  Certainly, for example, any restriction on large, long-range rifles chambered for cartridges like the 12.7x99 (.50Browning) is utterly unnecessary and nothing other than an infringement on firearms ownership without any demonstratable beneficial effect at all.
 
3)  For America and Americans, yes, this should be protrayed as a universal right applicable in all situations, because we've recognized individual ownership of weapons is an inherent right.  Potential objections from Mechanic regarding inherent rights noted, but if the Iraqi people want their universal right applicable in all situations, they need to provide for it's support in their own constitution.
 
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       9/7/2007 6:08:53 AM


than answer is to reduce the number of guns out there not increase them... <paul

Your conclusion is without any basis in fact.  There is more crime now paul not less. Your reducing guns only made it easier for criminals to kill and assault law abiding citizens.  In the US we turned around the gun bans and crime went down.


 

Case closed. The proper private ownership of guns does not result in crime it arguably prevents it. A century of gun restrictions have contributed to the UK's highest crime rates ever.


 


Check Six

 

Rocky

 

 


hardly scientific.....   America has more guns now than 100 years ago and has more crime now... case not closed...  :-)
also... you talk crime... not all crime involves firearms.... it would have nmore relevance if you just post about guncrime and not druken jobs brawling in the street after the pubs turn out...
 
there is no proof in the UK that private ownership of guns would reduce gun crime... people in the professional field. ie criminologists/police ect seem to think that more guns will lead to more gun crime not less.
 
only comparrison numbers I can find are for close together years are below. figures for each 100k of population.
 
there is no real corelation between legal onwnership and firearm deaths from the below so a catch all suggestion of giving guns to all is not suitable for all countries.
 
paul
 
Country Year Population Total Homicide Firearm Homicide Non-Gun Homicide % Households With Guns
South Africa 1995 41,465,000 75.30 26.60 48.70 n/a 
Colombia1 2005 43,000,000 36.53 29.59 6.94 n/a 
Estonia 1994 1,499,257 28.21 8.07 20.14 n/a 
Brazil 1993 160,737,000 19.04 10.58 8.46 n/a 
Mexico 1994 90,011,259 17.58 9.88 7.70 n/a 
Philippines 1996 72,000,000 16.20 3.50 12.70 n/a 
Taiwan2 1996 21,979,444 8.12 0.97 7.15 n/a 
N. Ireland
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    UK gun crime   9/7/2007 6:42:03 AM
 
h*tp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm
 
Another shooting, and more fears of guns on the streets of Britain - but what do we really know about the extent of gun crime in England and Wales?

Since the start of 2007, eight young people have lost their lives in shootings - six in London, one in Manchester and now the killing of 11-year-old Rhys Jones in Liverpool.

According to provisional Home Office figures, there were 58 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year. That is an increase of 18% in just one year. If we include airguns, the number of homicides in 2006-07 rises to 61. There were 413 firearms incidents that resulted in serious injury - more than one a day.

But at the same time, the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.

Overall firearms offences fell 13% in 2006-07 to 9,608 incidents - the lowest number in seven years. Firearms robberies, handgun offences and serious injuries from firearms are also down.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif" width=5 border=0>
YOUTH SHOOTINGS IN 2007
London: Six deaths
James Andre Smarrt-Ford, 16
Michael Dosunmu, 15
Billy Cox, 15,
Annaka Keniesha Pinto, 17
Abukar Mahamed, 16
Nathan Foster, 18
Manchester: One death
Kamilah Peniston, 12
Liverpool: One death
Rhys Jones, 11

Just over half of all firearms offences occurred in just three major forces - the Metropolitan Police in London, Greater Manchester and West Midlands.

Drilling down into the national figures up to the end of April 2006 shows that West Midlands, Merseyside and Greater Manchester Police have all experienced drops in firearms offences whereas London has seen an increase.

The Metropolitan Police says that in the 12 months to July 2007 it saw a 3.5% rise in firearms offences - up from 3,485 to 3,607 incidents.

Nottingham is another city that has struggled with a guns label after a number of killings in 2004, including schoolgirl Danielle Beccan - but its police chiefs say public perception is at odds with reality because the city witnesses far fewer incidents per resident than other so-called gun hotspots. Figures show Nottinghamshire Police recorded one firearms-related death in 2006 and none as of August 2007.

While there has been substantial concern in recent years over the use of imitation weapons in gang incidents - not least because some can be converted into real guns - the figures show there has also been a decrease here.

Further detailed research on firearms crimes on a regional basis will be published in 2008.

What all of this means is that we cannot draw any simple nationwide conclusions about gun crime. What we can say with certainty is that gun crime is a problem that remains closely focused in some cities that have witnessed some terrible deaths.

The figures do not show that gun crime is prolific or widespread in England and Wales.

Knife crime

In fact, the most common weapon used in a violent crime in England and Wales is not a gun - but a knife.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif" width=5 border=0>
CRIME FIGURES IN FULL

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    when is a murer a murder????   9/7/2007 7:20:41 AM

UK does not count murders until they are solved, it counts multiple homicides as one, it plays fast and loose with the numbers so the unwashed don't know whasss-up. It is referenced that above with sources and I will not show you that again. If you are going to participate you have to keep up.

 

ht***tp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf

 

Page 53 statistics you should know...... (after all it is your country bub!) Increase in crimes from just 2001-2003:

 

threat or conspiracy to murder ..........................................up 32%

death by aggrevated vehicle taking (car jacking)............... up 57%

child abduction ................................................................up 45%

HOMICIDE ....................................................................UP +18%

TOTAL VIOLENCE AGAINST PERSONS .................UP +32%
 

Your country is as safe as South Africa though, way to go with that!

 

Law abiding Citizen + More Guns = Less Crime and more shooting fun!

 

Check Six

 

Rocky



those stats don't have much relevence to guns......
 
looked around the PDF and cannot find anything to say "UK does not count murders until they are solved"????
please tell me where you found this??????
 
it seems bizzare and counter to ht*p://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/crime0607summ.pdf
 
and defintely counter to ht*p://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/crime0607summ.pdf
which lists what is recorded and how classed and numbered....
 
also....... if you look at page 4 you will see that a murder that has 4 dead bodies is recorded as four class 1 crimes....which seems to counter what you said above. "it counts multiple homicides as one"
 
seems that your above is wrong then and was mostly not relevent to gun crime anyway.
 
 
Paul
 


 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics