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    Never be another.....   9/7/2007 10:57:58 AM
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....
 
Emotional reaction. You would focus on one crazy who should not have had a gun anyway from what FK said earlier and ignore the fact your society is crumbling around you? 29% increase in violent crimes in UK from 2001 to 2003? You should be livid about that instead of calling to disarm your populace and telling them they can not defend themselves! They have to stand and watch their wives and daughters be raped to satisfy your sense of morality? What balderdash! Listen to what you are saying!
 
and yes.. few overall people are affected but banning gun ownership is an easy fix.
What has been demonstrated is that it fixed absolutely nothing! Your country has a problem that is not easy to fix.
 
what is not logical about banning gun ownership if your goal is to prevent more guin deaths?????
The statistics do not bear this out paul! MURDER IS UP IN THE UK BY MORE THAN 18%!!!!!!!!!!!
 
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.
The use of anything to defend a life is fully justified. Whether it is a crickett bat, a kitchen knife, or a Glock. The denial of a citizen's right of self defense is an un natural act of oppression upon the people of your country. It places them at the mercy of the criminals.
 
It is clearly a failed policy.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    counting   9/7/2007 11:12:29 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



I did read them, I just don't belive things I read with the blind faith you seem to do....
 
I looked myself and found what the government say is recorded and posted it for you to look at...............................
 
 
so does this mean that you didn't bother to read the two pdf links I posted that basically counter your assertion? these links being current official documents rather than what you posted????????
so you either posted without viewing these official home office pdfs that actually do tell you what is counted or have viewed them and have ignored what they say in favour of your "research paper".....  which is not clear what department or what end statistics it is counting....  without seeing the whole paper you do not know the relevance to your discussion.
 
basically you have posted something incomplete just because it backs up you already formed opinion. you have not attempted to critique it before citing it.
you have then either not bothered to check the counter I put..... and posted.... poor.....
or you have checked and still gone with your original point.....  even poorer.
 
 
please read the pdfs and aknowledge that your assumption was actually wrong and that we do not count in the way you have described.
 
 
 
 
Paul.
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    counting   9/7/2007 11:30:50 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



just looked at the whole of what you cut a pasted....
you seem to have somehow managed to ignore the following in the document.....
 
 
 

Figures published today by the Scottish Executive reveal that Scottish police recorded 107 victims of homicide in 2001, 2 more than in 2000.

Summary information on homicides recorded in 2001, as known to the Scottish Executive on 10 November, 2002, is given below, (the full statistical bulletin Homicide in Scotland is published every two years and will next be published at end 2003).

Number of Cases and Victims of Homicide ( Table 1)

In 2001, there were 104 cases currently recorded as homicide by the police, the same number as in 2000. These cases resulted in the death of 107 victims, 2 more than in 2000. The number of homicide victims per million population was 21 in both 2000 and 2001.

Homicide Cases by Police Force Area ( Table 2)

The number of homicides in each police force area remained similar to the numbers recorded in 2000, with the exception of Grampian, where 7 homicides were recorded, compared to 12 in 2000.

Sex and Age of Victims ( Table 3 and Chart 1)

There were 82 male victims of homicide in 2001, 77 per cent of the total. Male victims in the 16 to 29 and 30 to 39 age groups represented the highest rates of homicides per million population; 50 and 48 respectively.

 


so they actually do count the victim total. they are not hiding anthing. they just count multiple death in one instance as part of the same ivestitagive case....    I imagine the US does as well????? I presume Columbine is one case with lots of victims or do you have a seperate investigation case for each victim?????? (not rhetorical, I don't know the answer hence why I ask)
 
you will also note that the number of cases is different form the number of accused and convicted.... this again counter what you actually tried to use this document to backup...  
somehow you seem to have managed to pervert the document to suit your view..... did you actually post it originally or did someone else deliberately altered t
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Dueling Statistics   9/7/2007 11:37:12 AM
I looked myself and found what the government say is recorded and posted it for you to look at...............................
  
so does this mean that you didn't bother to read the two pdf links I posted that basically counter your assertion? these links being current official documents rather than what you posted????????
so you either posted without viewing these official home office pdfs that actually do tell you what is counted or have viewed them and have ignored what they say in favour of your "research paper".....  which is not clear what department or what end statistics it is counting....  without seeing the whole paper you do not know the relevance to your discussion.
 
basically you have posted something incomplete just because it backs up you already formed opinion. you have not attempted to critique it before citing it.
you have then either not bothered to check the counter I put..... and posted.... poor.....
or you have checked and still gone with your original point.....  even poorer.
  
please read the pdfs and aknowledge that your assumption was actually wrong and that we do not count in the way you have described.
 
  
Paul.
 
Of course I looked at your PDF's of the "British Crime Survey". They looked more like slick marketing brochures than the dry government reports Dr. Malcom referenced in her work. I invite Strategy Pagers to review both data sets and come to their own conclusions about which research is valid. I and others have presented the clear proof you asked for with original sources. Also above you will find BBC reports heralding the BS being shoved by the UK Gov't about how safe things are! Here is a letter from a parent of a murdered child:

Extract from letter by David Davis, shadow home secretary, to Jacqui Smith, home secretary, August 24, 2007

Dear Jacqui, We are all concerned at the rising tide of violent crime that has manifested itself this week in a spate of shocking killings, including the tragic death of young Rhys Jones. You told GMTV this morning that “statistics aren’t a help but gun crime is down”. That is an extraordinary claim.

According to Home Office figures, gun crime (excluding air weapons) has almost doubled since Labour took office. The annual crime figures, released by the Home Office in July, suggest a 13% decrease on the previous year, which neglects the 18% increase in firearm homicides.

However, perhaps most telling is the massive increase in gun violence, disclosed on 25 January of this year (Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005-06, Home Office). Buried at page 36 . . . we find [that] . . . gun-related killings and injuries (excluding airguns) have increased by over fourfold since 1998.

In light of this information, your claim that gun crime is down is both inaccurate and misleading. One clear fact on gun-related violence is that if you don’t count it, you won’t be able to tackle it. Your predecessors opted for spin over substance. I hope that is a path you will avoid and would be grateful for an explanation of what action you plan.

Yours sincerely, David Davis

Your own Government produced the report showing that during one 18 month period your murder rate rose 18% and violent crimes went up 29% . The sources are there to prove your silly body count scheme too. If you are too lazy to go back and look through Dr. Malcom's work that is your business. Your scheme to sieze private property instead of fight the source of crime has been failing for a hundred years.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    counting   9/7/2007 12:02:17 PM

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


if your statistics for everyone are as good as your recent stuff about what the UK counts then they mean nothing...
 
where did you post them? (you have not put link above) and what is their full source...
 
 
your conclusion that violent crime has risen in the UK because we banned guns is false. violent crime is on the rise anyway for many factors....   the fact that a few thousand legally held guns have been turned in has not sparked a rise in violent crime.....    
 
in fact some of the copy and pastes on this thread say that housebreaking is down (which it is on government stats) this is where the guns would have been.......... so that would say the exact opposite... ie less guns in homes less burglery....  (obviously not related at all but a conclusion I could draw if I was stupid or malicious in wanting to make the point.)
 
 
yes guns do not kill people....  but people without guns will find it very hard to shoot someone.
 
 
I see no conclusive proof that arming people will make them safer. the opposite in fact.....  (this backed up by professionals in the crime fields as I have already pointed out and you ignore)
 
 
your idea of arming everyone will just mean more people shooting guns at each other.... and would only be of use if you could carry in public... I don't want my town to look like downtown Mogadishu....
 
 
 
 
look at that table I posted... see how high your firearm death rates are and look at the countries you share the top half with.... I don't want that death rate or to share that company.... 
 
quick maths would say 15000ish US deaths a year from firearms on that old %....   and less than 100 for the UK... now you have nearly 6 times the population....   6 times 100....   hmmm... nope, those guns everywhere seem to mean more gun deaths....   I am sure that there is far more to the reason why the US has such a larger firearm death rate but the number of guns out there is certainly a pointer.....    so why do you think you have it so bad?
 
a silly statistic that came out recently 9and probably every time the army goes anywhere) was that there is more chance of being shot in Washington DC then there is in Bagdad.... (and the joke was that the US is going to pull out of Washington DC.....     )
 
 
got 200 miles to drive now so that will be me finished for the day.
Paul
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    ht***tp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/11/15850/14165   9/7/2007 12:09:56 PM
NOTES
2. A single case of homicide is counted for each act of murder or culpable homicide irrespective of the number of perpetrators or victims.
 
Paul, you need to read not recite....
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber        9/7/2007 12:28:08 PM




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




if your statistics for everyone are as good as your recent stuff about what the UK counts then they mean nothing...

 You have brought no data to the argument to refute anything that has been presented.

where did you post them? (you have not put link above) and what is their full source...
 
All of my sources are posted above. You do need to link to them, sorry chum I can't help you do your homework.
 

 

your conclusion that violent crime has risen in the UK because we banned guns is false. violent crime is on the rise anyway for many factors....   the fact that a few thousand legally held guns have been turned in has not sparked a rise in violent crime.....    

 Then at the very least your seizure of private property did not have any effect upon crime and violence in your country. That means your nation once again oppressed people's rights for no reason. I am against that on principal. I would hope you would be against that too.

in fact some of the copy and pastes on this thread say that housebreaking is down (which it is on government stats) this is where the guns would have been.......... so that would say the exact opposite... ie less guns in homes less burglery....  (obviously not related at all but a conclusion I could draw if I was stupid or malicious in wanting to make the point.)

 Your Government has been widely criticized for playing fast and loose with the crime numbers. See posts above to demonstrate that. You need to keep up on these things paul.

 

yes guns do not kill people....  but people without guns will find it very hard to shoot someone.
I think this rather makes my point that guns and crime are not related. If the crime is going to be committed anyway then why trample people's rights by seizing their property without reason?

 

 

I see no conclusive proof that arming people will make them safer. the opposite in fact.....  (this backed up by professionals in the crime fields as I have already pointed out and you ignore)
 
Your Gov't statistics disagree with you.
 
your idea of arming everyone will just mean more people shooting guns at each other.... and would only be of use if you could carry in public... I don't want my town to look like downtown Mogadishu....

 This has not been the US experience. In fact states with liberal CCW laws have seen reductions in crimes that other jurisdictions have not.

 

 

 

look at that table I pos
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       9/7/2007 1:29:50 PM


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.
 
Yes, perhaps... and perhaps salamanders spontaneously generate out of mud.  After all, it would be logical since they were observed emerging from it.  Banning gun ownership *IS* logical if your goal is to prevent more gun deaths.  The problem is that it is *flawed* logic.  Part of why it is flawed is because it is based on many wrong and/or poor assumptions, at least some of which I have ennumerated below. I will speak from the point-of-view of the situation in America. I understand your mileage may vary in other countries that are much further down the gun-banning road than us, and so I acknowledge there is some room for debate on at least that aspect. 
 
1) Not all gun deaths are created equal. Killing isn't wrong, as long as the right people are being killed. Homocide in self-defense is a *good* thing for society and is to be fostered, not prevented. Of the approximately 15,000 firearms-related homocides annually, about 1000 are by law enforcement and 2000 are by victims in self-defense. 
 
2) Banning gun ownership does not equal eliminating gun ownership. Criminals are not going to give up possession of their firearms. Especially note that it is *already* illegal for convicted felons to have guns to begin with, and yet the large majority of violent crime (and I assert, firearm-related crime) is committed by repeat offenders (previously convicted felons). They will still have their guns after the ban, and still use them to commit violent crime at levels close to or even exceeding that which is already being committed (something like about a million armed robberies and rapes). 
 
3) Firearms are used to successfully defend victims from other violent criminal acts far, far more often than are used by criminals to commit murder. Banning firearms (which previously observed would vastly disproportionately disarm the innocent victims rather than the violent criminals) would greatly reduce this important and laudable number. 
 
4) Not all firearms-related murders would *not* have happened in the absence of firearms. Of course, there's no way to say any specific crime would not have happened (you can't prove a negative), but murder did not begin with the invention of firearms. At best it would only reduce murder rates. At worst it would increase murder rates, since after a ban the law-abiding would be deprived of their most effective means of defense. Victims use firearms on the order of more than a million times each year to defend themselves from armed robberies, rapes, and attempted murders, while murderers "only" murder about 12,000 victims a year using firearms. Given the criminals will still be armed and committing on the order of a million or more violent crimes using firearms, the murder rate could easily be unaffected or even rise. 
 
5) And then there's that whole aspect of trying to attain a goal (whether worthy or not) at the cost of conflicting with the whole liberty aspect of firearms ownership, the Constitution, etc. Of course I understand this isn't a trump card of an issue for non-Americans like it is for us. Therefore I concede it would basically be poi
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F    One Woman's Perspective   9/7/2007 1:33:18 PM
From
 
"About a year ago, a mugger just waltzed right up to me on a bridge here in Washington, D.C. It was early evening, and I was a stone's throw from my apartment in what is considered a nice neighborhood, as neighborhoods go in the Murder Capital -- the richly deserved nickname for the nation's capital. ... I wanted a gun, but more than that I wanted him to think I might possibly have a gun. I wanted him to at least accord me the respect I get from criminals in other cities, where they have to exercise a little creativity, lying in wait, sneaking up from behind, hiding in bushes and dark alleyways -- that sort of thing. No, in D.C. muggers just walk right up to you on a brightly lit street. As an apparently law-abiding citizen, I am ostentatiously defenseless. ... Guns are our friends, because in a world without guns I'm what is known as prey. Almost all females are. Any male -- even the sickliest 98-pound weakling -- could overpower me in a contest of brute force against brute force. For some reason, I'm always asked whether I wouldn't prefer a world without guns. No, I'd prefer a world in which everyone is armed, even the criminals who mean to cause me harm. Then I'd at least have a fighting chance. ... Prey like me use guns against predators about a million times a year. Fifteen different studies (including those sponsored by gun control advocates) have arrived at the following estimates: at the low end, several hundred thousand times per year; at the high end, several million. " http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/>
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F    Brutal reality   9/7/2007 1:38:52 PM
Britain's gun control might save a few lives per every hundred thousand people, but it condems dozens of defenseless citizens to be mugged, assaulted, and raped by armed criminals, or simply those who are more brutal, ruthless and aggressive. Or just stronger.
 
To put that in reverse, legalizing guns might mean a few more people dying each year, but a lot of people would be safe that would otherwise be victimized.
 
How many women are you willing to see raped to save a life?
 
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