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
paul1970    when is a murer a murder????   9/7/2007 7:44:26 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

Jeff_F_F       9/7/2007 9:03:52 AM

as in having too many guns in the hands of criminals and a large death by firearm rate.... so it maybe too late to try alternative methods of reducing the deaths....
 
usual comparisons are per 100000 and the USA tends to be very high (if not top???) but cannot find figures for last couple of years.... comparative years for US and UK are nearly 10 years old (and not available to me on this machine, will post tommorow) and UK has probably got worse since then.
 
Paul
 


The problem is that you pick a single data point, death by firearms. In that area, even total murder rate, the US leads the UK significantly. I will freely admit that. And obviously murder is the worst possible crime that an individual can be faced with.
 
However, in all nations, even the most violent, murder is also the rarest crime. Murder's impact on the lives of ordinary people is very very very small. Even back in the bad old days when crime rates in the US were much higher, people didn't routinely live in fear of being murdered because it was far more likely that they would be mugged, or raped or assaulted. These lesser crimes have a far greater impact on the lives of people than murder does because they are far more likely to occur.
 
And in these areas the UK leads all of Europe, it leads the US, and it leads most of the world. There might be other reasons for this than gun control, but there are interesting patterns. NON-violent crime in the US is about as common as non-violent crime in the UK. There isn't that much difference, so it doesn't seem likely that the US is just simply more law-abiding or that the UK is just simply more lawless. For example, Burglary rates (theft of property without confronting the owner of said property) is about the same in the two countries.
 
but VIOLENT crime is much higher in the UK, enough so that it distorts the overall crime rate enough to push the UK to the top of most lists. Why the difference? Why would violence be so much more prevalent in the UK, when non violent crime is so much less? It makes it very tempting to say that the US is less violent because the potential consequences of engaging in violent crime are higher, because there is the chance that the victim will be armed.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       9/7/2007 9:43:01 AM
Paul, it was ten years between Hungerford and Dunblane, and it's ten years since Dunblane. Even when possible with privately owned guns, these events were hardly common. While not wishing to detract from the monstrous nature of these events, I would point out that many hundreds of times more people are killed every year or injured by alcohol, cigarettes and other non-profitable pursuits than by all the "gun rampages" put together.

From numbers per population, you are substantially more likely to be hit and killed by lightning.
h*tp://www.torro.org.uk/TORRO/research/lightning.php

Banning guns is not logical or reasoned. It is a kneejerk reaction made on an emotional level.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F    Experimental data   9/7/2007 9:54:58 AM
We need to have this discussion again in about a year. Right now the US is doing a bit of an experiment. One of our most violent cities is our capital, Washington D.C. which is also notable for having one of the most comprehensive gun bans in our country. Recently a Federal court struck down that ban, and the decision is being appealed to the Supreme Court. The basis of this decision is not necessarily related to self defense or crime, but upon the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. If the lower court's decision is upheld, the citizens of Washington D.C. will be able to own handguns again. The question is, what will happen next? Will crime rates rise or fall?
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       9/7/2007 10:02:57 AM


as in having too many guns in the hands of criminals and a large death by firearm rate.... so it maybe too late to try alternative methods of reducing the deaths....

 

usual comparisons are per 100000 and the USA tends to be very high (if not top???) but cannot find figures for last couple of years.... comparative years for US and UK are nearly 10 years old (and not available to me on this machine, will post tommorow) and UK has probably got worse since then.

 

Paul

 




The problem is that you pick a single data point, death by firearms. In that area, even total murder rate, the US leads the UK significantly. I will freely admit that. And obviously murder is the worst possible crime that an individual can be faced with.

 

However, in all nations, even the most violent, murder is also the rarest crime. Murder's impact on the lives of ordinary people is very very very small. Even back in the bad old days when crime rates in the US were much higher, people didn't routinely live in fear of being murdered because it was far more likely that they would be mugged, or raped or assaulted. These lesser crimes have a far greater impact on the lives of people than murder does because they are far more likely to occur.

 

And in these areas the UK leads all of Europe, it leads the US, and it leads most of the world. There might be other reasons for this than gun control, but there are interesting patterns. NON-violent crime in the US is about as common as non-violent crime in the UK. There isn't that much difference, so it doesn't seem likely that the US is just simply more law-abiding or that the UK is just simply more lawless. For example, Burglary rates (theft of property without confronting the owner of said property) is about the same in the two countries.

 

but VIOLENT crime is much higher in the UK, enough so that it distorts the overall crime rate enough to push the UK to the top of most lists. Why the difference? Why would violence be so much more prevalent in the UK, when non violent crime is so much less? It makes it very tempting to say that the US is less violent because the potential consequences of engaging in violent crime are higher, because there is the chance that the victim will be armed.


I pick guns used in crime and not crime in general because the whole point of this thread is about Rocky saying everyone should have a gun because this reduces crime... it doesn't... is just makes the consequences of crime more.
Britain has its crime troubles for sure. but there is no way that allowing guns to be held by the public will solve anything... considering the amount of drugged/drunk numpties we have then the last thing I want is for them to have guns...
 
 
 there is a great amount of violent crime in the UK.... if your average violent crimer had a gun then there would be an awful lot more dead victims rather than just injured victims.
 
 
Britain is full of thugs. something about the British character that is not shared by most of our European neighbors.... just see when our football teams go abroad......
 
 
Paul
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       9/7/2007 10:18:44 AM


as in having too many guns in the hands of criminals and a large death by firearm rate.... so it maybe too late to try alternative methods of reducing the deaths....

 

usual comparisons are per 100000 and the USA tends to be very high (if not top???) but cannot find figures for last couple of years.... comparative years for US and UK are nearly 10 years old (and not available to me on this machine, will post tommorow) and UK has probably got worse since then.

 

Paul

 




The problem is that you pick a single data point, death by firearms. In that area, even total murder rate, the US leads the UK significantly. I will freely admit that. And obviously murder is the worst possible crime that an individual can be faced with.

 

However, in all nations, even the most violent, murder is also the rarest crime. Murder's impact on the lives of ordinary people is very very very small. Even back in the bad old days when crime rates in the US were much higher, people didn't routinely live in fear of being murdered because it was far more likely that they would be mugged, or raped or assaulted. These lesser crimes have a far greater impact on the lives of people than murder does because they are far more likely to occur.

 

And in these areas the UK leads all of Europe, it leads the US, and it leads most of the world. There might be other reasons for this than gun control, but there are interesting patterns. NON-violent crime in the US is about as common as non-violent crime in the UK. There isn't that much difference, so it doesn't seem likely that the US is just simply more law-abiding or that the UK is just simply more lawless. For example, Burglary rates (theft of property without confronting the owner of said property) is about the same in the two countries.

 

but VIOLENT crime is much higher in the UK, enough so that it distorts the overall crime rate enough to push the UK to the top of most lists. Why the difference? Why would violence be so much more prevalent in the UK, when non violent crime is so much less? It makes it very tempting to say that the US is less violent because the potential consequences of engaging in violent crime are higher, because there is the chance that the victim will be armed.


of course we could have high violent crime because they don't actually have the guns... if they did then it wouldn't be just violent crime it would be a firearm crime....   
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       9/7/2007 10:30:29 AM
 
Wow, Warren Buffet just got attempted robbery in his house. Fortunately, he can afford to hire security guards 24/7. Can you?
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Since you are too lazy to read the posts....   9/7/2007 10:31:14 AM
40. above is interesting enough to post here. Comparing the way statistics are compiled in UK v. USA, this is relevent to the discussion:

The one major criminal justice statistic in which Great Britain appears to be doing better than the U.S. is the homicide rate, with the U.S. rate at 4.3, and the England and Wales rate at 1.4. However, the U.S. rate is based on initial reports of homicides, and includes lawful self-defense killings (about 10-15% of the total); the England and Wales rate is based only on final dispositions, so that an unsolved murder, or a murder which is pleaded down to a lesser offense, is not counted a homicide. In addition, multiple murders are counted as only a single homicide for Scottish statistics. See Malcolm, at 228-31; Patsy Richards, Homicide Statistics, Research Paper 99/56, House of Commons Library Social and General Statistics Section, May 27, 1999, at 9. See also Statistics Release, Homicides in Scotland in 2001 – Statistics Published: A Scottish Executive National Statistics Publication, Nov. 28, 2002,
link size=2>  (visited May 16, 2006), at Note 2 (“A single case of homicide is counted for each act of murder or culpable homicide irrespective of the number of perpetrators or victims.”)
 
These links were posted above two days ago and are fully sourced. Try reading the thread paul so you might learn something new! As has been demonstrated, your crime rates are 29%up in just a few years! You don't even count murders until they are solved. Your country is not as safe as USA. Still you want to restrict individual rights of self defense!
 
What Barbarins!
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       9/7/2007 10:31:45 AM

Paul, it was ten years between Hungerford and Dunblane, and it's ten years since Dunblane. Even when possible with privately owned guns, these events were hardly common. While not wishing to detract from the monstrous nature of these events, I would point out that many hundreds of times more people are killed every year or injured by alcohol, cigarettes and other non-profitable pursuits than by all the "gun rampages" put together.

From numbers per population, you are substantially more likely to be hit and killed by lightning.
h*tp://www.torro.org.uk/TORRO/research/lightning.php

Banning guns is not logical or reasoned. It is a kneejerk reaction made on an emotional level.

perhaps the gap was 10 years because we had so few legal gun owners to start with..... perhaps it will be another 20 years or longer before the next killing spree....     or there may never be another killing spree with a legally held gun.
if you have more legal guns then I bet you that the gap between killing sprees will be far less....   I don't want them every year....
 
and yes.. few overall people are affected but banning gun ownership is an easy fix.
 
what is not logical about banning gun ownership if your goal is to prevent more guin deaths?????
 
I have no problem with people going shooting in gun clubs (I used to be in gun club and military) and organised events... just don't keep the guns at home where they can all of a sudden be used outside of their purpose.
 
paul
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Guns & Crime   9/7/2007 10:43:39 AM
I pick guns used in crime and not crime in general because the whole point of this thread is about Rocky saying everyone should have a gun because this reduces crime... it doesn't... is just makes the consequences of crime more.<paul
 What difference is it to the victim if they are clubbed to death with a cricket bat or shot with a pistol? None.
 
The statistics from every western country show that abolishing guns from private hands is followed by rises in violent crime. In UK's case up 29% in just couple of years! Your cause and effect is demonstrated to show crime goes up with the removal of the individual's tools of self defense. I know that is not the conclusion you want to hear but it is born out by the facts. At the very least it becomes the siezure of private property for no reason.
 
Taking guns away from private citizens does not prevent crime. In the case of the UK it makes crimes of all types worse.
 
Guns don't kill,rape,assualt,rob,mug people, bad guys do. Take away the bad guys not the guns.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
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