Jump to content

NRA: Put an armed guard in every school, yeah guns!


injury

Recommended Posts

so you're saying more WHITES equals less crime?

 

(also must spread injury, good post)

 

Hahaha, i guess you could read it that way. I mean that the city is overwhelmingly more affluent than it used to be, which brings more taxable income, wealthier people (less likely to commit crimes, let alone gun crimes), and a city that just has less visible drug and crime problems as a result. This city is now as antiseptic as a surgical room. Wild boring but it's definitely safer.

 

Race is a part of this that can't be ignored. White flight hit DC as hard as other places in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. The newly affluent and super-expensive city i call home has legitimately priced out the lower and middle class in the past decade. Income disparity means that most of those who have been priced out are black and latino and sometimes asian - and ward 8, the poorest part of the city, has some of the highest unemployment in the country.

 

George w bush and obama have both exponentially grown government ranks, and it shows. As ive witnessed, the majority of new super-wealthy government and national security types who buy downtown condos and apartments (tens of thousands of units since ~2000) are white, and the numbers back me up on this. Right after 9/11 the influx of federal money (the doom boom) started to pour in and DC has seen wild growth year after year since, bucking nearly every national and international economic downswing. it's part of the reason i'm so anti- military/national security industrial complex, but thats a rant for another time.

 

kinda fucked up isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

QUOTE:

 

Originally Posted By Austrian:

I don't think I am remotely exaggerating when I say that just in the last two days I have literally corrected 250 citations on murder rates, gun death rates, suicide rates, and firearms law in Switzerland. And no wonder.

 

For almost two decades, Switzerland has been a common "go to" reference to support the notion that guns are not the primary source of gun violence. If you carefully examine the facts on the ground in Switzerland you find this is quite supportable. The Swiss experience suggests that guns are not the source of gun violence, rather violence is the source of gun violence. Who knew?

 

Be this as it may, a number of weak commentaries have cropped up since the awful events in Connecticut last week. Among them is an almost totally fact-free article in the Business Insider by Adam Taylor entitled Why Switzerland Is A Red-Herring In The Gun Control Debate and a bit of utter nonsense called Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias scratched out in a hurry by Erza Klein (a frequent purveyor of poorly researched Oxen feces) of the Washington Post. Both of these have been making the rounds the last 48 hours as if they were the newest gospel of gun control).

 

The Klein piece cites his interview with "Janet Rosenbaum, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center School":

 

Citation:

Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime. In fact, I wrote that on Friday. But you say your research shows that’s not true.

 

Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.

 

For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.

 

Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

 

The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.

 

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

 

 

At least with respect to Switzerland, Dr. Rosenbaum is so far off it is painful to read. In fact, for us locals, it is downright offensive. It is prose so blatantly wrong that it is hard to decide if it is simply gross negligence in scholarship or actual malfeasance. If we Swiss (or Swiss-Austrians, as the case may be) are going to be pulled by smug academics into your gun control fight over there in the United States you better damn well have your damn facts right. You, Dr. Rosenbaum, and yes, I am talking directly to you now, don't make the cut. In fact, so far as I am able to determine, you nothing more than a cheap hack characterized primarily by seriously weak moral fiber. (Hey Janet, I'm in Manhattan next month. Coffee?)

 

The charitable explanation is that Klein was careless with fact-checking and that the study Dr. Rosenbaum authored, Gun utopias? Firearm access and ownership in Israel and Switzerland, (and which, while it was published in the Journal of Public Health Policy in February of 2012 was actually first released in November of 2011) actually was based on data Dr. Rosenbaum stopped collecting in 2010 or early 2011. More on this in a moment.

 

In my considered opinion, it is very difficult to be this generous. In my considered opinion, the more realistic explanation is that Rosenbaum and Klein have an axe to grind and are more than willing to twist, fabricate and manipulate to do it while they contort themselves into limb-weaving knots to produce their secret, progressive policy love child.

 

Dr. Rosenbaum (whose primary claim to fame appears to be that her dissertation on "virginity pledges and adolescents' inconsistent reporting of their sexual histories" was covered by Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update) conducted her initial research in response to the shooting of Gabrielle Dee "Gabby" Giffords. She admits as much in her abstract:

 

Citation:

The 2011 attempted assassination of a US representative renewed the national gun control debate. Gun advocates claim mass-casualty events are mitigated and deterred with three policies: (a) permissive gun laws, (b) widespread gun ownership, © and encouragement of armed civilians who can intercept shooters. They cite Switzerland and Israel as exemplars. We evaluate these claims with analysis of International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS) data and translation of laws and original source material. Swiss and Israeli laws limit firearm ownership and require permit renewal one to four times annually. ICVS analysis finds the United States has more firearms per capita and per household than either country. Switzerland and Israel curtail off-duty soldiers' firearm access to prevent firearm deaths. Suicide among soldiers decreased by 40 per cent after the Israeli army's 2006 reforms. Compared with the United States, Switzerland and Israel have lower gun ownership and stricter gun laws, and their policies discourage personal gun ownership.

 

 

But what is most interesting about Dr. Rosenbaum's study is how little, despite its provocative title, it actually says. Let's take the assertions Dr. Rosenbaum makes one by one, shall we?

 

Citation:

First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.

 

 

Pretending for a moment that the phase "has decreased" without a time horizon is meaningful ("Now new and improved!"), with respect to Switzerland I literally have no idea where Dr. Rosenbaum gets this concept from. The two phrases "...they don't have high levels of gun ownership" and "...the gun ownership level in Israel and Switzerland has decreased" sound complimentary, but are really meaningless. "...don't have high levels of gun ownership" compared to what exactly? "Decreased" over what time period and by how much? We are left to wonder... unless, that is, we actually check some facts. (Just relax. I know that's shocking. The ushers have air-sickness bags if you need them).

 

The latest statistics from the Bundesamt für Statistik of the Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft (the Swiss Federal Statistical Office) for the year 2011 show the following:

 

Of approximately 2 million privately owned firearms (this is an estimate because not all firearms in Switzerland are registered [the horror... the horror...] another non-government source says 3 million):

 

Around 900,000 are former Sturmgewehr 90 (the military version of the SIG 550 that is issued to all militia) or prior versions that have been turned over to citizens after the end of their militia obligations.

 

Around 260,000 are current issue Sturmgewehr 90 held by current militia members (select fire, etc.)

 

The rest are privately held firearms, probably predominately handguns.

 

This means that only about 12% of firearms are related to active militia service. The rest are in private hands for private purposes. With a population of around 8,000,000 this implies a firearm per capita figure of 0.25. The common measure of firearms ownership per capita is usually "guns per 100 residents." On that basis you end up with between 25.0 and 37.5 per 100 residents. In 2011 that puts Switzerland in the top 20 or the top 4 depending, above Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria on the high end and exceeded only by the United States, Yemen, and Serbia.

 

Somehow this translates to "...don't have high levels of gun ownership." Or something. Compared to where? The United States? Well, that's easy. No one has higher levels than the United States.

 

Citation:

Compared with the United States, Switzerland and Israel have lower gun ownership....

 

 

Oh... sorry... I'll go home now. Well, maybe not just yet....

 

If you look at the percentage of Swiss households that possess a firearm the ratio gets much higher (married or co-habitating couples where the man has a firearm owing to mandatory service and the women did not volunteer for service would have one for two people plus the kids).

 

Plus, the Swiss army pulls in (and issues Sturmgewehr 90's to) 20,000-30,000 new militia members every year. At current numbers that's a STRUCTURAL 1% increase in weapons per year, only from the Army issued rifles and not counting private sales (which are likely higher since new issuances are ONLY for 18 year olds, though I have no specific stats there). I know of no other country in which this is so.

 

It is not clear where Rosenbaum gets her figures, but they defy logic.

 

Then again, it is possible that since Switzerland has increased the number of residents permits they grant and opened the borders to the EU via the Schengen Agreement (may it die screaming in pain), the denominator for that ratio (people) has increased faster than the numerator (firearms). If so then that should have been noted. It wasn't.

 

I might point out that, at least in her study, Dr. Rosenbaum seems comfortable conflating some subjective measure of "access to firearms" with "firearms ownership." By any real measure Switzerland has been among the top 5 countries in terms of firearms ownership per capita for decades, or more. That position has not and is not likely to slip.

 

Dr. Rosenbaum then asserts:

 

Citation:

Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

 

 

With respect to Switzerland this is utter nonsense.

 

There is no effective "justification" requirement for the general permit to purchase firearms. There is a space to enter "purpose" on the form for statistical purposes, but unless you put in "murder and mayhem" this is ignored except for data collection (and it might not even be noticed if you do). Then again, perhaps Dr. Rosenbaum is referring to the "may issue" nature of many kantonal requirements for a CARRY permit.

 

The Federal Government in Switzerland provides the authorization for kantons to issue a "carry permit" which applies to both concealed and open carry of loaded firearms (as opposed to mere "transportation" which you see often as citizens or citizen militia jump on the train with their unloaded rifle strapped to their back). Some kantons treat "may issue" as a rubber stamp. Some have effective "won't issue" policies. Same as the United States.

 

As for the right to own firearms, this, along with the right to self defense, is enshrined rather indelibly in Swiss law- in particular the Federal law on permitting. The various kantons cannot ban private firearms ownership outright. Here Dr. Rosenbaum is just ignorant. I know, you are gripped with paralyzing surprise. It will be ok. We will show the BluRay cut of Heat with director's commentary in the main hall later.

 

The same is true of the claim that one must actively re-justify every year. That may be true in some of the tighter kantons with respect to CARRY permits, but it is absolutely not true for the permit to possess or purchase firearms and ammunition.

 

Then there is this:

 

Citation:

The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t.

 

 

I have no basis to opine on Israel, but I'm not sure how a program dedicated to handing out 20,000-30,000 free select assault rifles per year which citizens can buy at discount rates after their service isn't an effort to "promote gun ownership". Not to mention the annual national shooting festival/competition in Switzerland (the "Feldschiessen") that draws between 150.000 and 250,000 participants annually. (Compare this to, say, Camp Perry). In addition, the Swiss version of the NRA ("ProTell") is highly active in promoting responsible firearms ownership. Practice ranges litter Switzerland (I pass five on the 30km trek to Zürich from my office).

 

Dr. Rosenbaum then says:

 

Citation:

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

 

 

Notice how little this ACTUALLY says. She says Switzerland is moving away from having widespread guns- she provides no authority for this. And what exactly does "moving away" mean? She then erroneously suggests that gun laws are fully kanton by kanton. Literally: "...[t]he laws are done canton by canton" (ignoring the Federal guarantee of right to possess and the right of self-defense). She then says "Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army..." which is false. Women are not subject to mandatory service (though they can volunteer-and I am exceptionally proud to note that some years ago a member of my own family was one of the earliest women to serve in one of the most elite Swiss volunteer units... I bet she racked up more jumps than you!) and men can opt out and serve in the civil corps instead (though the term is longer and it ends up being expensive). Oddly, these individuals can still buy firearms in Switzerland.

 

Then Dr. Rosenbaum drops this whopper:

 

"...the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots."

 

Notice again this "moving to" language, which is both deceptive and meaningless. In this particular case it is also totally false.

 

I have to think that this is, in fact, an almost abusive perversion of the 2011 firearms referendum initiative in Switzerland "Für den Schutz vor Waffengewalt" ("For the protection of gun violence'). Among the provisions in this referendum was the requirement that military weapons be kept in the local depots instead of at home, to be retrieved when and if necessary in times of emergency, along with a full registration program, a requirement to "show necessity" and a host of other regulations that would make Switzerland look like the rest of gelded Europe. It's effect on private sales and ownership, however, wasn't totally clear (but was probably minimal).

 

Dr. Rosenbaum apparently never bothered to check because if she had she would know that this referendum was resoundingly defeated. And I don't mean MSNBC "resoundingly." I mean "resoundingly."

 

Specifically, it lost the popular vote by 12.5 points and 75% of the kantons rejected it. (Referendums must pass both the popular vote AND the majority of kantons). The defeat was so severe that the anti-gun lobby in Switzerland has effectively vanished in its wake. Smack.

 

"Moving away from having widespread guns?" Sure, Dr. Rosenbaum. "Tell us another one, Grandma!"

 

But any number of crazy stats haunt the amazing outline of the Swiss firearm experience. For example:

 

Many people like to cite this Wikipedia article to suggest:

 

1. Deaths by firearms in Switzerland are the highest in Europe.

2. Homicides by firearm in Switzerland are the highest in Europe.

3. Suicides by firearm in Switzerland are the highest in Europe.

 

I've noticed that even in the last 48 hours the article has been changed. It used to list figures from 1994 (while the remainder of countries were more modern). Even now it purports to evidence the following statistics:

 

Homicides by firearm: 0.52 per 100,000 residents

Suicides by firearm: 3.15 per 100,000 residents

Total firearm-related deaths: 3.50 per 100,000 residents.

 

While this is a big improvement it is entirely wrong. I suspect part of the problem is the poor German and French skills of Wikipedia editors.

 

Official statistics from the Bundesamt für Statistik are:

 

Firearm Related Deaths:

 

2006: 285

2007: 291

2008: 259

2009: 277

2010: 241

 

Homicides by Firearm:

 

2006: 26

2007: 27

2008: 20

2009: 24

2010: 19

 

Please note: Because most reporters and researchers are total mouth-breathers, the figure for ACTUAL fatalities in homicides in Switzerland is confused with attempted homicides or homicide "offenses." As an example, when three kids run into a Kwik-E-Mart and wax Apu (yes, highly HIGHLY unlikely in Switzerland) all three are charged with "homicide" (it is similar to the "felony murder" rule in the United States). One gun fatality. Three "gun-related homicide offenses." Of course, it serves many "scholars" to be careless about these statistics (plus they don't read German or French). The actual statistics are here: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/19/03/02/dos/03.html.

 

Interesting to note: Suicide is not a "crime" in Switzerland, as it is technically legal. Many "scholars" will try to include the suicide rate (or omit the suicide rate from other countries when they make comparisons).

 

To be clear, with a population that is over 8,000,000 people (but we will round down to be conservative) the per capita figures for firearms related deaths and homicides by firearm (note these are NOT the same figure) per 100,000 people (the standard measure) are:

 

Firearm Related Deaths Per 100,000 people:

 

2006: 3.5750

2007: 3.6375

2008: 3.2375

2009: 3.4625

2010: 3.0125

 

Homicides by Firearm Per 100,000 people:

 

2006: 0.3250

2007: 0.3375

2008: 0.2500

2009: 0.3000

2010: 0.2375

 

To be clear, these figures are literally the best in the developed world for a country with any sort of firearms freedom for citizens (the UK has great stats at the expense of near total prohibition).

 

So to summarize:

 

- Switzerland is now in (and has for more than two decades been in) in the top 5 countries in the world when it comes to per capita firearms ownership.

 

- Mixing years a bit but with respect to homicides by firearm Switzerland is almost exactly equal to France (0.22 in 2009) and Denmark (0.22 in 2006), The Netherlands (0.20 in 2010), and is better than Finland (0.26 in 2010), Belgium (0.29 in 2006), Ireland (0.36 in 2010), Italy (0.36 in 2009), Portugal (0.48 in 2010), and Luxembourg (!!!) (0.60 in 2009).

 

You have to kick in suicides (which are technically not crimes given their legality) to get up to 3.01 per 100k. The United States, by contrast, was 2.98 with respect to homicides and 9.00 (!!!) for total deaths by firearm with mixed stats from 2008-2010.

 

It is perhaps possible for someone to try to claim that gun deaths are a problem in Switzerland, but only after drinking seventeen Hurricanes on a 4 day "Washington Post/New York Times Progressive" Florida-Bahamas Cruise (sponsored by Princess Cruises and featuring Paul Krugman!)

 

You will hear a number of other claims about Swiss gun laws/rights. For instance:

 

Claim: Firearms must now be stored in depots and cannot be kept in a private residence.

 

FALSE: This seems to be a carry over from what was proposed in the 2011 referendum. It isn't clear where else it could have come from. The Rosenbaum study / paper / article seems to suggest that it is only a matter of time before this policy is passed- all evidence to the contrary. At least, I hope this isn't true, because my SIG 551, 552 and 550 are all sitting about 5 meters from my chair right now, next to several boxes of ammo.

 

Claim: The possession of ammunition is now banned for citizens.

 

FALSE: This is often an inadvertent (or willful) misunderstanding of the recent change in policy by the Swiss Army. In the past an active militia member was issued their Sturmgewehr 90 along with their kit (helmet, body armor, camo, etc.) and a sealed container with ammunition (GP 90 in my day) free of charge. The Army has since stopped issuing the ammo. The original intent was for the ammo to be used by the citizen to fight their way to the rally point. Recently this policy has been rescinded (though more for cost than for anything else). Citizen soldiers are now expected to arrive at rally points in full kit with rifle in times of emergency and will be provided with ammunition there. Private sales of ammunition (including .223 and 5.56 NATO) are totally unaffected. I've got 5.56 ammo in my closet.

 

Claim: The Swiss figures for firearms per capita are so high because there are so many militia weapons.

 

FALSE: Sturmgewehr 90s that are issued to active militia members comprise only about 12% of all privately held weapons. Citizens can buy their weapon after their service term is over and many do (to the tune of nearly a million former militia weapons). A mere 260,000 are current-duty militia related weapons (and this doesn't count pistols issued to officers / support troops). Citizens (or residents, actually) can also buy anything from a SIG 550 to an AK in Switzerland. Private sales are not restricted.

 

Claim: Permits to buy firearms in Switzerland require the applicant to demonstrate need.

 

FALSE: Total nonsense. Unfortunately, many "scholars" look to some of the more restrictive kantons and pull their requirements for a CARRY permit and assume those requirements are universal for all firearms. In fact there is no "need based" requirement to purchase firearms and to the extent there is a "need based" requirement for a CCW/Open Carry permit it varies in application by kanton. (Effectively you have "shall issue unless stupid" "may issue" and "won't issue" in Switzerland, same as in the United States.

 

A complete refutation of the misunderstandings vis-a-vis Swiss firearms law would consume more space than the Ammo Oracle. Perhaps it will suffice to point out the following:

 

It is a routine experience to jump on a train in Switzerland and see teenaged/tween females with shouldered SIG 550s on or SIG 550s in the luggage rack headed to the range to practice for the annual competition. Clearly, they are not headed to militia exercises, clearly they are not Army, clearly they are not police. Certainly, there are progressive forces who will experience unbearable cranial pain before collapsing and expiring owing to a cerebral embolism if confronted with this basic fact. Clearly, there is a need by the "left" to twist and minimize the Swiss firearms experience to suit their own needs (or at least to avoid doing damage to same).

 

Don't give in.

 

Switzerland IS a "gun toting utopia." Come visit. We'll take you shooting.

 

 

Have questions? Need clarifications or (gasp) more statistics? Post your needs in comments. I will happily dig out whatever you need to batter back the forces of darkness and ignorance. (Well, within reason. The forces of darkness and ignorance have had a pretty good recruiting season the last half-decade).

 

:UNQUOTE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also get annoyed knowing that politicians or hollywood slime blabbering on about gun control probably have an easy time doing so, knowing their personal armed guards will take care of them whenever they need it. must make it a little easier for them to sleep at night anyway.

 

I do too, but because I don't have private security I have to rely on the cops...since 2008 half of the cops in my city have been laid off, and I'm not sure how much I trust the ones who are left. But instead of buying guns I rely on goodwill and so far it's done me pretty well. I also don't live in fear of my surroundings even though I live in a somewhat shady neighborhood. On a side note, I would like to see what would happen if all the folks who felt they needed security one day decided to live like everybody else....I'm pretty sure that after a while the novelty would wear off for everyone concerned.

 

Say what you will about the guy but I think Michael Moore nailed it in "Bowling For Columbine." If the media didn't use fear as a sales tool (and arguably a means of indirect social control) we would have a much healthier society. And that's just for starters.

 

By the way I should add that I am for gun ownership as long as it's within reason. I believe that taking away the right to own guns (I know, that's not the point but work with me) in the US would solve about as much as not taking them away but with some potentially unexpected results...so even if it seems dumb to you, I am not about to cosign anyone abrogating or denying me any more rights, thank you very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you're saying that because 130 million more guns are now (statistically) owned by ~20% of the US population ... that violent crime has not gone up? and the NRA/gun owners across america deserve a high five for this? sorry... nah.

 

crime stats are complex and multifaceted enough that trying to boil them down to one factor (guns) is childish and does everyone a disservice. For example, pro-gun types like to point out that when DC relaxed its handgun law slightly (allowing one per household that must stay in the house for the purpose of defense only), the crime rate started to fall.

 

Anyone who's spent any time in dc since then could also tell you that the city has been overwhelmingly swept by gentrification since 2008 and long before. the "murder capital" is no longer and hasn't been for a long time; in fact, just recently it was announced that the city is no longer more than half black, benefitting from federal growth and spending post-9/11 that has bucked every major national recession. DC is safer than ever. And handguns don't have a single thing to do with it.

 

 

 

No, im not saying the NRA deserves a high five for a drop in violent crime, nor am i saying that crime stats should be boiled down to one factor, being guns. go back, and read what i said in my last post. I have said what my point is too many times now but to reiterate it YET AGAIN...the numbers, taken directly from the FBI site, point to a drop in violent crime and a rise in gun ownership. do they necessarily correlate? not really, besides through the fact that more legal guns have not shown to increase violent crime, as was/is argued by anti gun lobbies. the numbers are in front of you, the FBI link is in the same article. That's pretty much the best i can do to spoon feed it to you.

 

 

Whether handguns have anything to do with DC being safer than ever or not doesn't really matter, because the point is handguns are legal to own in DC now. Maybe you can say they have nothing to do with it, but you can't deny that them being legal has made anything worse. so really, what is your point?

 

 

 

 

If you don't want a gun, that's fine. if you dont like them, whatever. doesn't really make a difference to me, but it surprises me how adamant a lot of people on a graffiti message board are to restrict people's rights, and for what gain?

 

 

 

 

and for the hell of it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=hp_opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incognito, your point of firearms not equaling crime is recognised.

 

How do you feel about the stats that I posted from CFR that show in absolute terms by national comparison that there is a correlation (not cause) between firearms per capita and firearm murders per capita - the correlation being that the country with high prevalence of firearms has a high prevalence of murder by firearm?

 

I agree that the sample size is pretty small, however these countries are comparative in levels of development, mode of government and GDP per capita. Secondly there is a spread of countries there that have both relatively homogenous racial and economic demographics and those with racial and economic heterogenous demographics. Also present are countries created under the gun, countries with highly militaristic backgrounds as well as history of war along with countries who's colonisation was less combative with very little history of war if any at all.

 

So it may not be able to claim itself scientific or exhaustive however it may well claim to be indicative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think it was mentioned here before, but the 2nd amendment was to provide for a militia because at the time America didn't have a standing army. You now have one of the largest armies on the fucking planet, there is absolutely no reason for the 2nd amendment to still be in place. Ordinary citizens should not be armed.

 

Anyone that says well criminals can still get guns, yea they might but not in such great numbers, guns are not legal here and not every criminal has a gun, if you look hard enough you might be able to get some restored back to working order gun but nothing like the stupid weaponry you guys have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tyranny is not necessarily linked to royalty and what is fucked up is the uk gun ban

 

because we realise how fucking stupid it is to allow people to own guns. I class the majority of people in the UK and the US to be fucking idiots I wouldnt allow them a sharp pencil let alone a fucking gun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because we realise how fucking stupid it is to allow people to own guns.

 

 

Meanwhile, your violent crime rate in UK hasn't gone down with the over the top gun control, it's done the opposite.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334904/violent-britain-charles-c-w-cooke

 

 

 

 

Didn't the UK also ban pizza slicers at one point? And I'm not really that familiar with their knife laws but I recently heard a proposed ban on long kitchen knives to deter stabbings. I wonder what's next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nah no ban on kitchen knives or pizza slicers, never even heard anything like that.

 

and I'm not saying violent crime doesn't happen but compare gun crime statistics and you will see quite a difference between the UK and US.

 

Not saying those figures are wrong but when I read figures by The Mail then I'm sorry that article holds no sway to me!! The Daily Mail is tabloid garbage that is right wing and will use any chance to blame immigrants and I'm certain those figures are wrong because last statistics I heard through the Office For National Statistics in the UK violent crime had gone down (unless you live in London).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...