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
flamingknives       9/10/2007 4:00:27 PM
"Answer: There is no correlation between private gun ownership and crime."
 
Rocky, is that your position? Because I would have sworn that you have spent a decent proportion of the thread claiming otherwise, albeit in a opposite direction to paul1970.

I would agree, although I would prefer to add "proven" before "correlation"
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    FK reply   9/10/2007 4:16:39 PM
Very well. to clarify......
 
The private ownership of firearms in general and ownership of firearms for personal protection has not been demonstrated to contribute to crime or otherwise cause more crimes to occur. To the extent the ownership of firearms effects societal crime it saves victims lives and property. This conclusion is supported by statistical evidence in the UK, USA, and other western nations.
 
Further: The United Nation's policy of disarming people causes and makes worse mass crimes of ethnic cleansing, genocide, slavery, and despotic tyranny.
 
This specific policy (the disarming of victims) is barbaric in the extreme and should be ended forthwith.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    UK violent crime   9/11/2007 1:10:29 PM
a lot is being said about the UKs violent crime on the rise...
 
I am not disputing that it is on the rise. some of it is down to different recording and reclassification of crimes as shown in home office PDFs I linked a couple of days ago but this does not explain it all and it should be dragged back down. the way to drag it down is tougher sentences and not the current crappy ASBO happy mentality that our government has.
 
 
but the idea that gun ownership would reduce violent crime is misjudged. there are far too many factors involved in different countries for a "one size fits all" solution.
 
 
you need to look at the breakdown in violent crime. where it occurs, when it occurs and who is doing it to whom.
if you do this then you will see that violent crime is mainly a niche area. introducing guns into the scenario will not reduce violent crime, it will increase death rates.
 
 
Paul
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Conclusions   9/11/2007 7:17:04 PM
but the idea that gun ownership would reduce violent crime is misjudged. there are far too many factors involved in different countries for a "one size fits all" solution.
 
you need to look at the breakdown in violent crime. where it occurs, when it occurs and who is doing it to whom.
if you do this then you will see that violent crime is mainly a niche area. introducing guns into the scenario will not reduce violent crime, it will increase death rates.<Paul
 
 What has been established through our dialogue is that your assumption that crime will go down with fewer guns in private hands is proven false. We have broken down the crimes by line already Paul and no place did your theory hold up in the real world. I stand by my analysis that you (UK) and the UN have it wrong about private gun ownership.
 
I also assert that the individual has a right of self defense that is oppressed by outlawing the tools of self defense. That act of oppression effectively gives a criminal more actual control over your life and property than you can lawfully have (since it is illegal to use deadly force to defend yourself, your family, or your property).
 
Spend some time thinking about what your government has done here Paul. The rapist or robber is able to force his way into your home and attack you, steal your belongings,  rape your wife and daughter, and the only action you may take in response is to fill out a police report assuming you survive the assualt. That is patently insane.
 
The facts are on my side but I am happy to agree to disagree with you.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    US Data   9/11/2007 8:27:20 PM
Here is a review of the famous University of Chicago/John Lott PHD study on the effects of liberal gun laws. There are additional research links below as well. The US state with the lowest crime rate is Vermont. Vermont has no requirement for special permiting to carry a concealed weapon. New York, New Jersey, and The District of Columbia have the highest crime rates and they have the greatest restrictions on gun ownership. Are we seeing a pattern?
 
Review the links and tell me you still want to argue that gun control works. In fact it is demonstrably a abonimation that should be tossed out with the trash.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
  
 
 Additional Research links (important!):   h***ttp://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html
 
Audit referenced above:
 
ht****tp://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf
Page 57 Conclusions:
 
Apr. 2003] CONFIRMING .MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME. 1365

CONCLUSION

Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.Their claims about significant .positive main effects. from right-to-carry laws are not supported by their own results. There is also no evidence that the state-level year-to-year estimates imply that crime rates were significantly higher than what would have been predicted prior to the passage of the laws. Our own evidence from the 1977 to 2000 period rejects these claims even more strongly. Perhaps the most surprising conclusion is that applying their very own method of evaluating the costs and benefits implies large benefits from right-tocarry laws. This holds true not only when one studies the many different specifications in their paper, but also when one applies this method to their other contemporaneous work.

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    The American Experiment   9/12/2007 1:52:29 PM
 
When we look at the long term effects of gun control we find long term (sometimes dramatic) raises in crime rates. The societies that experience the crime increases then respond by ever tightening the requirements for private gun ownership. This experience was mimmicked in the United States of America. US crime rates peaked about 1979 with ever greater limits upon US citizen's ability to prevent crimes through gun ownership.
 
In the US though something changed. Florida broke the spiralling policy of restricting guns and increasing crime by changed its gun carry policy from a restrictive no carry to a open shall issue Concealed Carry policy.
 
Every pundit that commented on the new policy predicted gun fights and raised crime. The net effect was dramatic though, crime dropped and not by a little. Other states joined the policy and started to see the positive effects upon crime rates. Today 35 states have "shall issue" laws and the states that don't have the highest crime rates in the country.
 
Below is an abstract from research performed through the University of Chicago School of Economics. The report uses statistical models to ascertain what affect upon crime rates and the monetary cost-benefit of Shall Issue Concealed Carry Laws. This report has been reviewed and critiqued and has stood the test of time.
 
Anyone who really wants to understand the horrendous social cost of gun control should start by reading this report! The evidence is in and the jury has decided. Gun control costs lives, money, and social disorder.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
ht****tp://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Lott/lott.pdf

CRIME, DETERRENCE, AND RIGHT-TO-CARRY

CONCEALED HANDGUNS

JOHN R. LOTT, JR., and DAVID B. MUSTARD*

Abstract

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county- and state-level data indicate that approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000. We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these laws was at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed handgun permit is as high as $5,000.

 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       9/13/2007 12:53:47 PM
That's pretty dramatic. I've been relying on the "heard effect" being a non-gun owner but protected by the deterrence of the millions of others out there who own and carry firearms. Maybe I should re-consider.
 
Quote    Reply

RaptorZ       9/17/2007 3:22:35 PM

No, it's not. It is still smarter than call for global gun ban.

Whilst you are certainly welcome to your opinion, I bet several billion others would not agree with you.

 

You obviously live in a country where gun violence is the norm and where almost everybody owns a gun. Fine, but don't think that other folk who live in countries without your level of violence should be more like yours just because you like it that way.

 


 


Dropbear, what exactly is our level of violence?  I mean, I really don't know, what is the murder/theft/violent crime rate in the US/Citizen compared to the rest of the world?   I think b4 I say any more I'd like to see those statistics...
Oops here it is, the US 24th...wow....and we report every crime basically...
#1   Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people  
#2   South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people  
#3   Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people  
#4   Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people  
#5   Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people  
#6   Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people  
 
Quote    Reply

RaptorZ       9/17/2007 9:36:54 PM
PS, I was misreading the Firearms deaths, it's a percentage of a percentage, as you can clearly see with the South African number...
 
Quote    Reply

mustavaris       3/8/2008 12:06:32 PM
Thread necromancy... but I felt obliged to answer as Finland was mentioned.

It is very true that grand majority of the guns owned by the Finns are hunting weapons, shotguns and large caliber rifles are the most common weapons and those are not weapons which are used to kill people, nor weapons which cause a lot of accidents

BUT

Anyone
who does not have criminal record can get a handgun. Of course you need the permit to buy the weapon, but if you can show that you need one, and there are no reasons to not to believe you, you will get one. If a person who does not have any weapons wanted to get let´s say 9 mm handgun it usually would go like this: he attends safety courses of the local shooting club and gets a membership and gets his hands on those guns. He applies for permit, and is probably given one to buy .22LR/other low power pistol and after he can show that he is active member and has experience, one can get a heavier handgun. If you are Mr.Unknown, getting a 9mm would take a year or more, but you would get it. But if the local police (who gives the permit) knows you, and knows that you are good and well behaving person with needed training, you can get one very fast. One friend of mine got 9mm Glock as his first gun ever: he had clean record, MP training from the military and was active in local reserve troops association. It took few weeks.

So I would not call our laws strict, it takes time, but anyone can get a gun, if (s)he is a decent citizen. Only the military grade full automatics are hard to get and require collector´s license.

And I believe that privately owned guns are the last line of defence in the society.



 
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