Slashdot Mirror

And I'm sure the women who've been raped, robbed and murdered in their own homes feel that their treatment by law enforcement has been stellar and that their tormentors are all brought to justice.

Not as much as the women who've been robbed and murdered in their own homes by their own firearms. There are 2.7 times more of them. And certainly not as much as the women who have been murdered by people they knew with their own firearms. Thee are 21 TIMES more of them.

Unless you have LOTS of money to bribe^H^H^H^convince politicians and public officials with, you're a fucking non-entity in the US.

The truly funny AND frightening thing is that you actually think your gun is going to make a difference.

For example, under Giuliani/Bloomberg very few people obtained handgun carry permits in New York City, primarily the rich and famous.

You seem to be conflating gun control with income inequality which doesn't make much sense. Let's instead look at the rate of handgun homicides in New York over the last twenty years. I see a significant reduction. Let's compare the rate of handgun homicides per 100,000 people in New York, Arizona, and the UK. Looks like Arizona is the worst, New York is second best, and the UK is the best.

New York's handgun laws are working. For better results, make them more like the UK's.

For example, under Giuliani/Bloomberg very few people obtained handgun carry permits in New York City, primarily the rich and famous.

You seem to be conflating gun control with income inequality which doesn't make much sense. Let's instead look at the rate of handgun homicides in New York over the last twenty years. I see a significant reduction. Let's compare the rate of handgun homicides per 100,000 people in New York, Arizona, and the UK. Looks like Arizona is the worst, New York is second best, and the UK is the best.

New York's handgun laws are working. For better results, make them more like the UK's.

For example, under Giuliani/Bloomberg very few people obtained handgun carry permits in New York City, primarily the rich and famous.

You seem to be conflating gun control with income inequality which doesn't make much sense. Let's instead look at the rate of handgun homicides in New York over the last twenty years. I see a significant reduction. Let's compare the rate of handgun homicides per 100,000 people in New York, Arizona, and the UK. Looks like Arizona is the worst, New York is second best, and the UK is the best.

New York's handgun laws are working. For better results, make them more like the UK's.

Firstly I'm not actually arguing that Australia's gun laws aren't too strict. As a competitive pistol shooter they are seriously annoying around things like the number of shoots per pistol. Especially since I like to use different 22s for different comps and this means I have to do a stupid number of matches a year to be compliant. I also have a pistol that can be chambered for two different rounds so it counts as two separate pistols for compliance (BLERGH).

That said this whole thing started with a comment about comparing the US to Mexico. Mexico is fucked up in all kind of ways that will skew crime figures an absolute mile. I would be kinda depressed if I was living in a first world country and trying to use a developing country as a way of arguing my system was ok. Australia does not have its system perfect, and whether it made a difference is always arguable because we don't know what Australia would look like without the laws.

In the end the US has a crazy level of gun violence. That gun violence might just be a symptom of a society that has issues, or it might be an issue with firearms. I think, though, that there are limited arguments against making it harder for guns to end up in the black market, or making it harder for people to own guns. Christ they are talking about making them register flying a fucking drone, but making people register their guns and to have a valid reason to own them is too far?

As for Australia

Mass shootings in Australia since the 28-4-96 Port Arthur Massacre.
21-10-2002 - Huan Yun Xiang - 2 people killed at Monash university
29-4-2011 - Donato Anthony Corobo - 3 people killed, 3 injured
9-11-2014 - Geoff Hunt - Murder Suicide - Killed his wife and 3 kids before killing himself.

Please let me know if I've missed any.

There was a downward trend in firearm related homicides prior to 1996 but there is a significant vertical step in the trend line that occurred in 1996. See here - http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

Licensed gun owners in Australia:
2001 - 764,518
2010 - 873,625
2012 - 730,000

Number of registered firearms per 100 of population
2012: 12.499
2010: 12.44
2001: 11.22

How do we do that? The closes before and after I can think of is Australia.

In Australia firearm use in homicide has dropped by nearly half since the their gun laws were brought in. There has been a rise in sharp instrument usage though.

1996 was when the strict gun laws came in and from 1996 back to 1979 only 1990 & 1989 had under 600 gun deaths in a year (595 & 545) respectively. 1997 had 428, 1998 to 2001 were averaging around 320 and from 2002 to 2012 the number floated around the 230 mark.

In the same period homicides, by ANY method, were at the 340 level (range 312 to 360) in the years up to 1996 and then dropped to about the 250 level (ranging from 164 to up to 273) for the period after. Interestingly the total change in homicide rate is close to half the decrease in firearm deaths.

This may totally be the case of correlation and have absolutely no direct link. But that is about the best comparison I can find of a recent before vs after in a developed country.

Information is taken from http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea... I make no statement as to the bias of the website, if any. I also have not done my own rigorous double blind study and acknowledge that statistics can be skewed to paint what ever picture you want it to. I also acknowledge that Australia shares no land borders with other countries meaning illegal importation of firearms is significantly harder, that Australia does not have the level of racial tension as the US, or has a 2nd amendment equivalent, and is just down right a different country.

You are more likely to get struck by lightning than shot by a gun.

NOAA gives an average of 33 lightning deaths and 297 injuries per year in the US for the years 2004-2013.

GunPolicy.org gives a minimum of 11,068 gun homicides and 64,389 non-fatal gun injuries in any one year over the same time span.

Statistically, a random person in the US is much more likely to be killed or injured by gunfire than struck by lightning.

How 'bout Vietnamese?
Russians? They simply HAVE to be commies.
They all came from commie countries at the time and as such they all must still be commies.
Oh... wait...

They left those countries cause they didn't like conditions there and clearly "being commie among other commies" wasn't their topmost priority.

Or it could be that you're talking out of your ass cause your head is overflowing with shit?
Don't you worry, there's a solution for that too.
Note how that link is about as relevant as yours? Actually... Maybe a bit more as you could put that on your head...

BTW... did you know that when you link vague, unrelated and loaded statements typed into google - that proves nothing?
But it still makes you look like a dick?! No? Well... don't thank me yet. There's more.
Like when you do that double quoting thing, it means that you are informed of and support the point of the asshole above doing the same linking to vague, unrelated and loaded statements and the rest of his dickery.
Which results in most of those results "supporting his theory" being from racist blogs?

So, you're not only full of shit - you're a racist dick by association. Good on ya!

As for Netherlands... Well... for one, your underlying premise is bullshit.
BTW, that's synonymous with "bald faced lying", FYI. So is quoting it, when you clearly show that you COULD check the factuality of those claims but... well... you know...

Anyway, that whole "Netherlands gun violence is high by European standards" thing - that's bullshit.
If we compare gun homicides they are actually rather median and mode for western and northern Europe.
Also, quite negligible and non issue. One guy could rack up twice those numbers in an afternoon.
You wouldn't call that symptomatic now, would you?

Anyway... on to stupid things as Reagan might say.
Sweden - annual firearm homicides total - 2010: 18; Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People - 2010: 0.19,
Norway: 2; 0.04,
Finland: 14; 0.26,
Denmark: 11; 0.20,
Netherlands: 33; 0.20,
Belgium: 36; 0.33,
France: 127; 0.20,
Germany: 51; 0.06,
UK: 33; 0.05.

Feel free to compare later data too, where there is any across all the countries for the given year.
And where there are no outliers like that thing in Norway in 2011, where a lone crazed religious crusader might fudge the statistics of the entire country.

So... Now that we have those 33 deaths by "shooting"...
Onus probandi dictates that you prove your bullshit claims that you've taken up to defend, that:

- ALL those deaths are caused by Moroccan immigrants, i.e. "Them Moroccan gangbangers" as you like to call them,
- further, once you prove that ALL those murders are committed by Moroccan immigrants, that ALL those murderers were also Muslims.
BTW, it's spelled with an I... just so you know... Boy you sure are learning shit today.

Meanwhile, back in reality, back in 2009. there were 341528 people of Moroccan origin in Netherlands.
Meaning that, even if you do dig up those facts, at best you get to say you're not... how you put it... bald face liar.

But your racial and religious prejudice will still shine like a beacon of rectalism.
Cause even if you do manage to scrounge up the data supporting your position, and ALL those murders really WERE committed by Moroccan Muslims - that's still 0.0096% of Moroccan population in Netherlands.

Or do you also argue that EVERYONE in USA is a child molester?
After all... 2012 numbers of reported cases of child se

Ok so whats the difference between gun ownership between Denmark and Norway

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

484298 Licensed guns in Norway Denmark just 21,000
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

Your mixing two different societies with different laws and differing social norms.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

As you might imagine, USA has around 101 guns per 100 people.

A more interesting statistic in 2012 34.4% of US households have 1 or more guns which means you could say around 2/3rds of US households are not scared enough to feel the need to have a gun in the house.

Ok so whats the difference between gun ownership between Denmark and Norway

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

484298 Licensed guns in Norway Denmark just 21,000
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

Your mixing two different societies with different laws and differing social norms.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

As you might imagine, USA has around 101 guns per 100 people.

A more interesting statistic in 2012 34.4% of US households have 1 or more guns which means you could say around 2/3rds of US households are not scared enough to feel the need to have a gun in the house.

Ok so whats the difference between gun ownership between Denmark and Norway

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

484298 Licensed guns in Norway Denmark just 21,000
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

Your mixing two different societies with different laws and differing social norms.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

As you might imagine, USA has around 101 guns per 100 people.

A more interesting statistic in 2012 34.4% of US households have 1 or more guns which means you could say around 2/3rds of US households are not scared enough to feel the need to have a gun in the house.

Ok so whats the difference between gun ownership between Denmark and Norway

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

484298 Licensed guns in Norway Denmark just 21,000
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

Your mixing two different societies with different laws and differing social norms.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

As you might imagine, USA has around 101 guns per 100 people.

A more interesting statistic in 2012 34.4% of US households have 1 or more guns which means you could say around 2/3rds of US households are not scared enough to feel the need to have a gun in the house.

...and I am confident for Sweden at least the number is higher than the US.

So you arbitrarily multiply double the number of firearms, because of a feeling - basically saying that 30% of Swedes are lying about possessing unregistered firearms. Then you add the number of government firearms (920,000* + 32,652**) which adds an extra 10 firearms per 100 people, but keep in mind that only a small percentage of these may be in possession of a civil militia, however, and this is a big one - a Swedish colleague of mine said that they don't have government issued rifles in almost every house, like they do in Switzerland. Certainly I can find no mention of one online, so please link to some sources.

He did however say that he's heard of stories of weapons caches, but mainly among Hells Angels type groups who stole them during national service - but again I can find no solid evidence of that. Plus, it doesn't fit in with the idea of repelling an Eastern foe, more like a gang wanting a stash of weapons for turf wars, crime, etc. Moose hunting is a big thing, but do you really think that 30% of the population have an illegally owner firearm for something as public as hunting?

Even with your plucked out of the air numbers you haven't even reached gun ownership levels in the USA. And surely, if you feel it's ok to arbitrarily inflate gun possession level in one country, you should inflate it for the USA too, but you haven't.

* 920,000 in the defence forces
** 32,652 in law enforcement
Source: Guns in Sweden

For the lazy..

Estimated 8.9/100 in guns per 100 ppl privately owned so about 1/11th of the amount in the US
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

"Guns may be acquired for self-defense, hunting or sports activities only. Russian citizens can buy smooth-bore long-barreled firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns unless part of a registered gun collection, guns that shoot in bursts and having more than a ten-cartridge capacity are prohibited."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

http://www.gunlab.com.ru/

Honestly in today's age, there is no excuse for lazy assed ppl to cry 'citation needed', this is not an encyclopedia, its a debate, take the effort to research rather then cry for others to do it for you. I remember the horrid old days of the internet when searching for data was a task, its not, grow up or shutup.

For the lazy..

Estimated 8.9/100 in guns per 100 ppl privately owned so about 1/11th of the amount in the US
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

"Guns may be acquired for self-defense, hunting or sports activities only. Russian citizens can buy smooth-bore long-barreled firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns unless part of a registered gun collection, guns that shoot in bursts and having more than a ten-cartridge capacity are prohibited."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

http://www.gunlab.com.ru/

Honestly in today's age, there is no excuse for lazy assed ppl to cry 'citation needed', this is not an encyclopedia, its a debate, take the effort to research rather then cry for others to do it for you. I remember the horrid old days of the internet when searching for data was a task, its not, grow up or shutup.

Another study just came out showing that increased gun ownership actually lowers the murder rate and lower gun ownership does the opposite. ... Gun bans are not the solution.

Well, then by that logic there would have to be far more murders per capita in countries like the Netherlands (where gun ownership is highly restricted) than in the United States. But, that is simply not the case. In the Netherlands there were 0.46 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people in 2010, while in 2011 in the United States that same number stood at 10.3. No European country, or for that matter any other developed country (certainly those for which complete figures are known), even comes close to the US rate.

Perhaps it's because I've lived in Europe for so long, but what I find striking is that so many Americans can't seem to understand the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. People always quote it as saying:

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

However, that is not the complete sentence. It actually says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Back in those days America did not have a standing army, so it was necessary to organize people into militia. Now the US has the world's largest army by far and it's probably rare for gun owners to be part of a militia. So, what's the point? The 2nd amendment is an anachronism and no longer does the country any good. No other civilized country has a law like it.

It seems to me that all of the propaganda emanating from the gun industry has been far too effective and has done the country no good at all. I remember when the NRA used to be a gun-safety organization; now they're a lobbying group.

Another study just came out showing that increased gun ownership actually lowers the murder rate and lower gun ownership does the opposite. ... Gun bans are not the solution.

Well, then by that logic there would have to be far more murders per capita in countries like the Netherlands (where gun ownership is highly restricted) than in the United States. But, that is simply not the case. In the Netherlands there were 0.46 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people in 2010, while in 2011 in the United States that same number stood at 10.3. No European country, or for that matter any other developed country (certainly those for which complete figures are known), even comes close to the US rate.

Perhaps it's because I've lived in Europe for so long, but what I find striking is that so many Americans can't seem to understand the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. People always quote it as saying:

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

However, that is not the complete sentence. It actually says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Back in those days America did not have a standing army, so it was necessary to organize people into militia. Now the US has the world's largest army by far and it's probably rare for gun owners to be part of a militia. So, what's the point? The 2nd amendment is an anachronism and no longer does the country any good. No other civilized country has a law like it.

It seems to me that all of the propaganda emanating from the gun industry has been far too effective and has done the country no good at all. I remember when the NRA used to be a gun-safety organization; now they're a lobbying group.

Some figures from http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/norway

Civilian guns on Norway: 1,320,000 (1 in three people)
Government guns in Norway: 80,000

The Government is outgunned by 16:1

(Which is as it should be)

Guns cause more deaths than they save. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states There's plenty of other places to find figures like that such as the CDC.

Funny thing is that both of those things tend not to happen in households where nobody owns firearms.

What's more, slingshots are rarely fatal and require dexterity and practice that firearms do not. Bombs are more likely to kill the person making it than anybody else. What's more, they're unstable and can't easily be stored for future use, unless you're buying the highly regulated commercial stuff. Chemicals are tougher to use than you seem to think, unless you don't care about killing yourself and everybody else in the room. And even then, people tend to run away from them.

Bottom line here is that you're not helping your cause, you're just underlining the notion that people who are strict 2nd amendment supports are badly in need of medication.

Why not before colonization? Just imagine THAT increase.

Just before the bans compared to the latest numbers that I could fine seems reasonable and logical to me. Do you have a better idea? I listed the sources for all of my data. Feel free to dig in the same sources and come up with something better. Wait, it is more fun to throw rocks and try to explain away numbers that you don't like. Don't like my numbers? Give me something better.

I did not "cherry pick" anything. Immediately before legislation vs. after legislation (latest figures that I could find). How is that "cherry picking?" Once again, put up or shut up.

and that the guns removed HAD NO EFFECT ON AVAILABILITY OF GUNS TO CIVILIANS for personal protection.

Wow, how little you know. You have to prove a need in Australia. No proven need = no gun. I found this on the intertubes:

Applicants for a gun owner's licence in Australia are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, collection, pest control, and narrow occupational uses. In law, personal protection is not a genuine reason.

If gun laws had to effect on the availability of guns to civilians, then what are the laws for??? That the the purpose of laws -- to put restrictions on things. Fact-check much? Didn't think so.

Fact: Violent crime went UP by 40% since the great gun grab in Australia.

Now... Those are either errors or utter lies.

In that case, the Australian Government is lying. The numbers came RIGHT OFF OF THEIR WEB PAGE. I took the numbers, and even adjusted for population. I am sure that you are thinking "Wow, that goes against my world view, so it CANNOT be right, since I am never wrong, yet I cannot find fault with his numbers, I will just insult this guy and throw bogus arguments at him."

And the life is far to short to waste one's Sundays on arguing with liars.
So please do kindly fuck off.

Since you have no evidence to back up your side, you resort to ad-hominem attacks and foul language. Very classy. What next, "I'm rubber and you're glue?" I do agree about arguing with liars (namely, you), so have a nice day.

No, the problem pretty much is guns. There are more guns than citizens in the US; it's the fucking supply of guns and the easy access to them that is the problem, not the culture that glorifies them. I can buy a gun legally 24/7 in my state without ever disclosing my identity to the seller, and pretty soon I'll be able to print a durable, functional version of my beloved Mac 10. Until the gun-show and private-sale loopholes in gun laws are closed, and 3D-printing gets the draconian regulation it needs, easy access to guns is what you need to be worrying about. The existing supply of guns in the US is enough to meet any foreseeable demand for them in our violence-saturated culture, even if Glock, Beretta, Sig, and S&W go out of business tomorrow.

Your argument falls apart. More guns does not equate to more homicides. It may be a factor, but it is hard to say to what extent. Using the wiki list for intentional homicides per country we can see that Egypt is at 1.2 as is the UK.

We can see here Egypt has 3.52 firearms per 100 people, while the United Kingdom has 6.72 firearms per 100 people.

More interestingly, Canada is 23.82 firearms per 100 people with an intentional homicide rate of 1.6, while Luxembourg is 15.32 firearms per 100 people with an intentional homicide rate of 2.5.

If you hadn't realized your methodology was flawed, you do now. Please stop spreading nonsense.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/egypt
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/luxembourg
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

Your argument falls apart. More guns does not equate to more homicides. It may be a factor, but it is hard to say to what extent. Using the wiki list for intentional homicides per country we can see that Egypt is at 1.2 as is the UK.

We can see here Egypt has 3.52 firearms per 100 people, while the United Kingdom has 6.72 firearms per 100 people.

More interestingly, Canada is 23.82 firearms per 100 people with an intentional homicide rate of 1.6, while Luxembourg is 15.32 firearms per 100 people with an intentional homicide rate of 2.5.

If you hadn't realized your methodology was flawed, you do now. Please stop spreading nonsense.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/egypt
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/luxembourg
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

Your argument falls apart. More guns does not equate to more homicides. It may be a factor, but it is hard to say to what extent. Using the wiki list for intentional homicides per country we can see that Egypt is at 1.2 as is the UK.

We can see here Egypt has 3.52 firearms per 100 people, while the United Kingdom has 6.72 firearms per 100 people.

More interestingly, Canada is 23.82 firearms per 100 people with an intentional homicide rate of 1.6, while Luxembourg is 15.32 firearms per 100 people with an intentional homicide rate of 2.5.

If you hadn't realized your methodology was flawed, you do now. Please stop spreading nonsense.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/egypt
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/luxembourg
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

Your argument falls apart. More guns does not equate to more homicides. It may be a factor, but it is hard to say to what extent. Using the wiki list for intentional homicides per country we can see that Egypt is at 1.2 as is the UK.

We can see here Egypt has 3.52 firearms per 100 people, while the United Kingdom has 6.72 firearms per 100 people.

More interestingly, Canada is 23.82 firearms per 100 people with an intentional homicide rate of 1.6, while Luxembourg is 15.32 firearms per 100 people with an intentional homicide rate of 2.5.

If you hadn't realized your methodology was flawed, you do now. Please stop spreading nonsense.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/egypt
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/luxembourg
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

Apparently not researching facts continues to be the method of choice around here.

Germany (pop. 81.7M) estimates for civilian guns held is around 25,000,000 guns. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany

Netherlands (pop. 16.9M) estimates for civilian guns is around 510,000 guns. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/netherlands

While not at U.S. ratios, data certainly doesn't reflect the bullshit you're passing.

Apparently not researching facts continues to be the method of choice around here.

Germany (pop. 81.7M) estimates for civilian guns held is around 25,000,000 guns. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany

Netherlands (pop. 16.9M) estimates for civilian guns is around 510,000 guns. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/netherlands

While not at U.S. ratios, data certainly doesn't reflect the bullshit you're passing.

There's a whole lot of mentally ill people in the US.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US.

Yet:
1) These mass murders are pretty rare.
2) The bulk of the weapons used in these crimes are handguns (not "assault weapons").
3) The bulk of the weapons used in these mass murders are acquired legally.

Discuss.

Also, compare and contrast - Switzerland's ~50 guns per 100 households, and the US' ~88 guns per 100 household ownership rates, which are much, much higher than most of the rest of Europe's averages, with the great disparity in gun violence rates in the two countries. Perhaps the difference is due to some practical regulations and policies that we could enact here, as well?

You know, rather than shouting about "ban all teh guns all teh timez," why not have a constructive conversation about how to:
1) Sensibly regulate gun ownership;
2) Deliver mental health care to the people who need it;
3) Address the root issue of poverty inherent to many of the gun crimes in the US which contribute heavily to the shockingly high firearm murder rates here?

Only the ignorant think that gun controls don't reduce the possiblity of a sick minded disturbed person from killing.

The Australian example:
1996, introduction of strict gun controls: 0.57 per 100,000
2012, current gun homicide rate: 0.17 per 100,000
(source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia)

If you were to pull your head out of the sand, you might also note that the related drop in the overall homicide numbers over the same period (299 down to 219 = 70) is entirely accounted for by the corresponding drop in guns homicides over the same period (104 down to 30 = 74)

What the hell are you talking about? Canadians shoot each other plenty!
From - http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada
In Canada, annual firearm homicides total :
2009: 173
2008: 200
2007: 188
2006: 190
2005: 223
2004: 173
2003: 161
2002: 152
2001: 171
2000: 184
1999: 165
1998: 151
1997: 186
1996: 207
1995: 168

Switzerland and Finland have a private gun ownership rate of more than half that of the US. Shouldn't the massacre rate in those countries be about half that of the US?

A Finn here, hi. Wikipedia has a chart on that. Switzerland is above the "half" mark, Finland is below. This is of course just a statistic and they are just one way of putting it, and here in Finland the vast majority of guns are hunting weapons, and laws on owning handguns have been made more strict in the last few years (we have had our school shootings, sadly).

Compare the UK to the US.

Ok. The violent crime rate in England is higher than it is in South Africa. Switzerland has a private gun ownership rate over half that of the US (note not counting the government issue rifles) and yet "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept."

So yeah, it's all about gun control laws.

What is different is USA has easily accessible guns, causing deaths.

Switzerland and Finland have a private gun ownership rate of over half that of the US. Should the "caused deaths" there be around half that of the US?

Yeah, there are definitely cultural influences as well, hence my writing "it's not just as simple as 'nobody can get a gun.'" At the same time there are many societies around the world where assault weapons are not available, and -- surprise! -- massacres perpetrated using assault weapons don't occur.

Switzerland and Finland have a private gun ownership rate of more than half that of the US. Shouldn't the massacre rate in those countries be about half that of the US?

Guns amplify the problem like no other tool in existence does.

So yeah easy access and possession of guns IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

Gun homicides in the US ~ 9000/year (2010).
AIDS deaths a year, 17,000/year
2009 vehicle accident deaths 33,808/year.
Smoking releated deaths 440,000/year.
Cardiovascular diseases kill 2,140 a day or ~800,000/year.

Sure looks like guns make the lions share of the killing.

How about data on the fact that in a country where guns have proliferated (legally or not), there are more gun crimes contrasted with a country in which guns have not proliferated?

According to this, for every 100 people in the states there are 90 guns, but the US murder rate is comparable to China's (within ~500 murders annually the last 3 years, 60+% committed by guns in the US, stats not available for China), even though the US population is ONE BILLION PEOPLE SMALLER. With a murder rate 4x higher than anywhere else in the civilized world, it doesn't seem like having a well armed populace is doing much to curb gun violence.

Maryland and Detroit's gun violence is largely confined to gang activity, so arming the lawful citizenry isn't going to help much. If everyone outside of the gangs is armed, but gangs aren't shooting at non-gang members, why do the rest need to be armed? Yeah yeah, almost all of those guns are illegally owned, but rather than arming the rest of the population, why not work at disarming the criminal population?

The reason that capitol punishment is not much of a deterrent, is that people don't expect to be caught, the same reason that longer sentences generally do not decrease severe crimes, ie: murder. If a person is going to commit murder, it doesn't matter what the punishment is, they're not killing someone while thinking about what will happen when they're caught; they're thinking they're going to get away with it. Wisconsin's death penalty was revoked 150 years ago, which bears little resemblance to today's climate, and according to this article from the Wisconsin law society, it was never repealed.

I don't think a country can call itself civilized when it decides that the best way to reduce violent crime is to walk softly and carry a big stick. Why not look at eliminating the root causes of the crime, rather than enabling civilians to shoot criminals?

How about data on the fact that in a country where guns have proliferated (legally or not), there are more gun crimes contrasted with a country in which guns have not proliferated?

According to this, for every 100 people in the states there are 90 guns, but the US murder rate is comparable to China's (within ~500 murders annually the last 3 years, 60+% committed by guns in the US, stats not available for China), even though the US population is ONE BILLION PEOPLE SMALLER. With a murder rate 4x higher than anywhere else in the civilized world, it doesn't seem like having a well armed populace is doing much to curb gun violence.

Maryland and Detroit's gun violence is largely confined to gang activity, so arming the lawful citizenry isn't going to help much. If everyone outside of the gangs is armed, but gangs aren't shooting at non-gang members, why do the rest need to be armed? Yeah yeah, almost all of those guns are illegally owned, but rather than arming the rest of the population, why not work at disarming the criminal population?

The reason that capitol punishment is not much of a deterrent, is that people don't expect to be caught, the same reason that longer sentences generally do not decrease severe crimes, ie: murder. If a person is going to commit murder, it doesn't matter what the punishment is, they're not killing someone while thinking about what will happen when they're caught; they're thinking they're going to get away with it. Wisconsin's death penalty was revoked 150 years ago, which bears little resemblance to today's climate, and according to this article from the Wisconsin law society, it was never repealed.

I don't think a country can call itself civilized when it decides that the best way to reduce violent crime is to walk softly and carry a big stick. Why not look at eliminating the root causes of the crime, rather than enabling civilians to shoot criminals?

guns may not be the problem, arguable, but they are definitely not the solution. US has something like 2 orders of magnitude more gun related homicides than either the UK or Japan. We're also a fair bit more homicidal in general, something like 3-4 times more homicidal than the british and ~9-10 times more homicidal than the japanese, but that really doesn't account for the 100x more gun homicides per capita.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/japan

if the website is to be believed, in 2008 japan had 11 gun related homicides. 11. Give everyone a gun, and more likely than not, at least one person is going home in a bodybag. If it were my ideal world, the US would be gunless, and public policy would make it very hard to obtain firearms at all. But this is not an ideal world, and even if we were to make firearm sales illegal tommorow, there is little we can do about all the firearms already in the wild. So attempting it would just be pointless career suicide for any politician. But don't tell me that giving every red-blooded american and his grandmother a gun is the solution. I think what you're proposing is called MAD, and we're still trying to figure out what to do with the damn nukes.

What makes you think they don't have guns?