Americans and their love of firearms

[Type Username Here]

Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime.

According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England (including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was almost 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study Crime and Justice concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the United States. Only the murder and rape rates in the United States were higher than in England.

The UN Study omits Switzerland from its comparative analysis. The Swiss example contradicts the Study's hypothesis that a high incidence of firearm ownership correlates with high violent crime.

The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.

In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

Guns, Crime, and the Swiss - by Stephen P. Halbrook


Let's bring facts children. Let's some statistics and analytical evidence and stop shytting your opinion out as the truth.

 

[mbewane]

It has nothing to do with being outpowered, it has to do with the numbers. Citizens outnumber the potential government. Citizens make up the military and police. Look at Egypt, the people were massively outgunned, but had enough willpower to overcome, and a significant portion of it was their military denying to follow orders and siding with the populace.

No one is "busting" guns except criminals who acquire weapons illegally. Check the countries that ban weapons and you'll see that it does not stop their criminals from still having weapons and "busting their guns".



Citizens control those tanks, jets, and weapons. Check what happened in Egypt. If you ever been in the military, you'll realize what you can do with just firearms if you know the proper tactics.

[/url]

OK, I get this point. Yet let's point out that what happened in Egypt didn't happen because the Gov decided to attack its own population, but rather the population being fed up of years of dictatorship and some elements of the army siding with them. So the situation is slightly different. But the army has not really been siding with the population since Moubarak fell. So the jury is still out on how this whole revolution will actually serve the population, I have Egyptian friends telling me it's far from being better now.

But I agree, POTENTIALLY some elements of the army could turn against the gov, in a mutiny.

Guns, Crime, and the Swiss - by Stephen P. Halbrook


Let's bring facts children. Let's some statistics and analytical evidence and stop shytting your opinion out as the truth.

The article about Switzerland and the one about gun crimes in Australia and in England are interesting, as IMO they underline that indeed, just banning guns won't do much. Of course, I'd be tempted to say, as with many things it's slightly more complicated: crime IN GENERAL is higher in England than in other European countries, and many point to the lack of social policies to support the youth, plus education being expensive as hell, as well as the social divide being very high. So, yeah, in general they resort to more violence than in other European countries. Switzerland proves that with adequate education, laws and social policies (I guess conveniently left out by those who use it a support for more guns), guns do not necessarily equate to more crimes. But I doubt that the US can compete with Switzerland when it comes to overall education, social cohesiveness and social policies, hence more violence, hence more gun crimes.

Matter of fact, one may use that article the other way around: how come Switzerland, with so many guns, has such a low gun crime rate, while the US has such a high one? What are they doing differently? What can be learned? (If indeed anyone wants to reduce gun crime in the US).

 

[Mowgli]

Guns, Crime, and the Swiss - by Stephen P. Halbrook


Let's bring facts children. Let's some statistics and analytical evidence and stop shytting your opinion out as the truth.

During ww2 they asked one of the leaders in Switzerland. *what would you have done if germany tried to invade you* THey said

we would have put the entire population at the border, fired one shot and went home.

The swiss are known for their marksmenship.



These are the signs of weak leaders who dont have ideas. If you have to tell your people that you are going to take away their weapons for being bad, like children, its obvious your leadership lacks something. I find it insulting when someone says they need to take away a weapon. It really lets me know what they think about me. Makes me think they thnk im beneath them and im not to be trusted.

 

[Mowgli]

OK, I get this point. Yet let's point out that what happened in Egypt didn't happen because the Gov decided to attack its own population, but rather the population being fed up of years of dictatorship and some elements of the army siding with them. So the situation is slightly different. But the army has not really been siding with the population since Moubarak fell. So the jury is still out on how this whole revolution will actually serve the population, I have Egyptian friends telling me it's far from being better now.

But I agree, POTENTIALLY some elements of the army could turn against the gov, in a mutiny.



The article about Switzerland and the one about gun crimes in Australia and in England are interesting, as IMO they underline that indeed, just banning guns won't do much. Of course, I'd be tempted to say, as with many things it's slightly more complicated: crime IN GENERAL is higher in England than in other European countries, and many point to the lack of social policies to support the youth, plus education being expensive as hell, as well as the social divide being very high. So, yeah, in general they resort to more violence than in other European countries. Switzerland proves that with adequate education, laws and social policies (I guess conveniently left out by those who use it a support for more guns), guns do not necessarily equate to more crimes. But I doubt that the US can compete with Switzerland when it comes to overall education, social cohesiveness and social policies, hence more violence, hence more gun crimes.

Matter of fact, one may use that article the other way around: how come Switzerland, with so many guns, has such a low gun crime rate, while the US has such a high one? What are they doing differently? What can be learned? (If indeed anyone wants to reduce gun crime in the US).

What are they doing hmmm lets see. Not treating their small minority population like trash and not capitalizing off of them with every form of poison they can imagine. For starters.

 

[Poppa_Dock]

its more u americans monkey ass brains than anything else

american's act like chimps who discovered firecrackers when they use guns shyts embarrassing

also americans are violent and like to see things die

gun violence has nothing to do with "treating minority populations like trash" lots of minority populations around the world get treated way worse to the point where its in another realm, and they don't resort to killing each other like they are a bunch of shellfish in a bucket :ohh: they act like human beings

american's heads are all fukked up and u ppl love violence and killing, and you like that cowboy shyt of "you crossed me, now i get to blow your head off" american's dikk's get hard off that shyt

 

[Economics]

It's difficult to accurately compare a country that has a homogeneous pop to a heterogeneous one like the U.S. w.r.t. social issues in general. Some places in the U.S like Chi, DC, Philly, Detroit - (in the past) had and still do have very strict gun laws and all it did was make sure law abiding citizens were unarmed while only criminals and the police were. The law abiding folks took the brunt of that and still do in the streets when they're defenseless. Also, its a failed way of going at it because one state maybe anti-gun like IL but its neighbor like IN will be pro-gun and you have issues like straw purchases and gun running/trafficking. So, the people that want a gun on the black market can still obtain one as is evident in the high gun related crimes in anti-gun locales. It would have to be a national policy of gun regulation which wouldn't fly over with a lot of states and the populace.

Also, if you been and/or live in some of these cities that are all fukked up you'd know damn well that it'd be prudent to have a gun in your home or person via cpl because it is very dangerous out here and police most times come after the crime is done. As for the tyranny thing, it cuts both ways yea if the military/govt went rouge on its own people they could slaughter the populace very easy (which makes a case on do they need that much power to begin with?) or the govt is reminded that the populace is armed and has and will take out public officials such as presidents before which is still horrible. Govt got checked recently by that psycho who killed all those people and messed up Kathy Giffords. They are mindful of that which (not withstanding our constitutional right) they wouldn't attempt to go all out and change the gun laws, if they valued their health. So I see it as a moot point because nothing with happen either way in the foreseeable future without huge drama going down one way or the other.

One last thing back to crime it needs to be focused on human behavior more than the object. Humans have a good way of shattering the mirror when they need to look into it. How do you get humans to not behave so violently? Lastly, the police have no duty to respond -Warren v. District of Columbia (this is a legal fact) and can't be held liable for negligence personally if they fail to respond or fukk up only the city will pay. So with that reality if you are anti-gun or not how can you tell somebody in fukked up cities you can't carry when the police themselves would never be caught w/o one in some of the hoods they are supposed to police. Sorry for the essay.

 

[mbewane]

What are they doing hmmm lets see. Not treating their small minority population like trash and not capitalizing off of them with every form of poison they can imagine. For starters.

This is honestly the first time I've EVER heard that the 2nd is in one way or another linked to how minorities are/have been treated. Might just be me, but whenever I hear/read of supporters of the "Right to bear arms", I seldom see minorities.

It's difficult to accurately compare a country that has a homogeneous pop to a heterogeneous one like the U.S. w.r.t. social issues in general. Some places in the U.S like Chi, DC, Philly, Detroit - (in the past) had and still do have very strict gun laws and all it did was make sure law abiding citizens were unarmed while only criminals and the police were. The law abiding folks took the brunt of that and still do in the streets when they're defenseless. Also, its a failed way of going at it because one state maybe anti-gun like IL but its neighbor like IN will be pro-gun and you have issues like straw purchases and gun running/trafficking. So, the people that want a gun on the black market can still obtain one as is evident in the high gun related crimes in anti-gun locales. It would have to be a national policy of gun regulation which wouldn't fly over with a lot of states and the populace.

Also, if you been and/or live in some of these cities that are all fukked up you'd know damn well that it'd be prudent to have a gun in your home or person via cpl because it is very dangerous out here and police most times come after the crime is done. As for the tyranny thing, it cuts both ways yea if the military/govt went rouge on its own people they could slaughter the populace very easy (which makes a case on do they need that much power to begin with?) or the govt is reminded that the populace is armed and has and will take out public officials such as presidents before which is still horrible. Govt got checked recently by that psycho who killed all those people and messed up Kathy Giffords. They are mindful of that which (not withstanding our constitutional right) they wouldn't attempt to go all out and change the gun laws, if they valued their health. So I see it as a moot point because nothing with happen either way in the foreseeable future without huge drama going down one way or the other.

One last thing back to crime it needs to be focused on human behavior more than the object. Humans have a good way of shattering the mirror when they need to look into it. How do you get humans to not behave so violently? Lastly, the police have no duty to respond -Warren v. District of Columbia (this is a legal fact) and can't be held liable for negligence personally if they fail to respond or fukk up only the city will pay. So with that reality if you are anti-gun or not how can you tell somebody in fukked up cities you can't carry when the police themselves would never be caught w/o one in some of the hoods they are supposed to police. Sorry for the essay.

No thanks for the essay actually, those are interesting points.

I think it can be boiled down to a micro/macro thing. On a micro level it makes sense for everyone to have arms, because criminals already have some and that you never know when Obama might send the troops at your door (sorry, couldn't resist). For states it's the same, it makes sense to NOT ban arms because if your neighboring state doesn't, then the black market will thrive. That's why it's so easy to find marijuana in Belgium: it's legal in the Netherlands. Belgium had to change it's legislation (it is now "tolerated"). The main difference being that marijuana doesn't kill.

On a macro level, it makes sense (IMO) for no one except the police/army to have arms, as they can more easily be held accountable for their acts than the average Joe, and as it reduces the risk for random gunshots, people shooting other people instead of "just" fist fighting (for example). For states it's the same, if all states (meaning the US) ban arms, there will be a lesser black market, less gun-related criminality, and less societal costs.

Problem is, from what I understand of the US, is that a national ban would be seen as giving more powers to the Federal govt, and if one thing is clear from this thread is that y'all extremely distrustful of your own gvt (right or wrong, that's not my point right here). So there's basically no chance that a national ban will ever come into place, leaving the door open to "gun-friendly" states to be more lax about it, leading to more guns on the street, needing to more "I need a gun to protect myself" arguments. The byproduct, of course, are innocent bystanders/Columbine students/the kid that just wanted to play with Daddy's rifle...etc.

What I'm saying is that when you get to the point where you need metal detectors in SCHOOLS, you might want to consider that the system is not working all that well. At the end of the process yes it makes sense to have them because kids do have guns, but one could want to consider why/how the kids got guns in the first place. Instead of focusing on the fever, maybe focus on the illness?

 

[Rice N Beans]

its more u americans monkey ass brains than anything else

american's act like chimps who discovered firecrackers when they use guns shyts embarrassing

also americans are violent and like to see things die

gun violence has nothing to do with "treating minority populations like trash" lots of minority populations around the world get treated way worse to the point where its in another realm, and they don't resort to killing each other like they are a bunch of shellfish in a bucket :ohh: they act like human beings

american's heads are all fukked up and u ppl love violence and killing, and you like that cowboy shyt of "you crossed me, now i get to blow your head off" american's dikk's get hard off that shyt

 

[Economics]

No thanks for the essay actually, those are interesting points.

I think it can be boiled down to a micro/macro thing. On a micro level it makes sense for everyone to have arms, because criminals already have some and that you never know when Obama might send the troops at your door (sorry, couldn't resist). For states it's the same, it makes sense to NOT ban arms because if your neighboring state doesn't, then the black market will thrive. That's why it's so easy to find marijuana in Belgium: it's legal in the Netherlands. Belgium had to change it's legislation (it is now "tolerated"). The main difference being that marijuana doesn't kill.

On a macro level, it makes sense (IMO) for no one except the police/army to have arms, as they can more easily be held accountable for their acts than the average Joe, and as it reduces the risk for random gunshots, people shooting other people instead of "just" fist fighting (for example). For states it's the same, if all states (meaning the US) ban arms, there will be a lesser black market, less gun-related criminality, and less societal costs.

Problem is, from what I understand of the US, is that a national ban would be seen as giving more powers to the Federal govt, and if one thing is clear from this thread is that y'all extremely distrustful of your own gvt (right or wrong, that's not my point right here). So there's basically no chance that a national ban will ever come into place, leaving the door open to "gun-friendly" states to be more lax about it, leading to more guns on the street, needing to more "I need a gun to protect myself" arguments. The byproduct, of course, are innocent bystanders/Columbine students/the kid that just wanted to play with Daddy's rifle...etc.

What I'm saying is that when you get to the point where you need metal detectors in SCHOOLS, you might want to consider that the system is not working all that well. At the end of the process yes it makes sense to have them because kids do have guns, but one could want to consider why/how the kids got guns in the first place. Instead of focusing on the fever, maybe focus on the illness?

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. That was why I was referring to reincar in the beginning of this thread how it's a national problem and the only way to address it is via national policy but since its embedded in the constitution you can only address that with an amendment or open up the constitution (the supreme court would be the only other way but they can't declare the 2nd and 10th amendments invalid leaving the other two options). And the 2nd and 10th amendments stop the federal government from ever attempting this.

The system been broken the gun issue is a symptom. A More Perfect Constitution by Larry J. Sabato needs to be read and understood by a majority of Americans because that's what I'm saying. Our current structure of government can't address these huge issues w/o upgrading/reforming of the Constitution where it would limit and empower the federal, states and peoples rights in different areas to reflect new issues that is faced today.

I don't think Americans would ever go for a full national gun ban for some of the reasons you stated and responses you see in this thread. Which is why I said best alternative is some form of regulation on the national level (last time that was attempted in 93-94' it hurt Clinton big for that regarding the Brady bill). Its sad because this along with the other political and economic issues need to be thought out without someone falling back on talking/ideological points that we see so much today because they end up missing the real issues at hand when that's done. But too many people like to hear what they want to hear and the same amount are willing to tell them what they want to hear because it benefits them.

Lastly, the U.S, it's states, and most cities do not take mental health policy seriously enough. It's a disgrace how we don't take mental health serious in this country but that's another issue all together.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

Guns aren't the problem.

Guns are officially banned in numerous countries yet they still suffer from a large number of firearm cases. Nigeria is a perfect example.

Furthermore, the culture has alot to do with it as well. Gun violence is glorified to a rediculous extent in America whilst in Europe there is a more strict stance towards violence in media and movies. So in short its more American culture is to blame rather than the guns themselves.

 

[MikelArteta]

 

[Type Username Here]

BBC NEWS | Americas | Passenger beheaded on Canada bus

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Say guns were outlawed, that incident probably would have still happened. It's soooo easy to get a gun off the street. I know a whole illegal gun emporium, and I ain't even on no gangster shyt. It's fukked up cause you gotta address the issue, but you can't ban firearms, cause then only the criminals will have access

All street guns where legal guns at some point

 

[The Message]

America's obsession with violence is nothing new. The relationship is almost symbiotic. The country was founded on violence. It permeates through every facet of our culture....whether it's thru childhood folk tales or classic movies.

 

[Schmoove]

2nd Amendment is the 2nd amendment for a reason. The founders understood that power corrupts and gave citizens the means to remove them from power through force if necessary (if the levers of checks and balance fail). And I don't wan to hear all that "it's outdated" nonsense.

You conspiracy theorist specially should support the 2nd amendment at all costs. How are you going to defend yourself against the "imperialist big brother" when the war comes to your door step?