Why are guns so important to Americans?

[LOki]

Subjugaded?

What?

I get the same feeling...

Then get back to me when you're coherent.

Subjugaded?

What?

 

[AllieBaba]

I wonder if Dr Grump can explain WHY gun crime has actually risen in the UK and Australia since most guns are banned ?? Then we can look at the statistics of other crimes committed with weapons, such as knives, swords, etc. The fact is that crime will continue to happen. First it was rocks and branches, then spears, then arrows, and then guns. It will just revert back to whatever weapon is available.

No, it will continue to be guns, only law abiding people won't have them. Now that we've been exposed to them and understand them, the criminal class will ALWAYS have them, and always have some of the best. They won't give them up just because they're illegal. They use them illegally, and generally obtain them illegally, already.

Gun crime sky rockets out of control in any area where restrictive gun use laws are put into place. DC, for example. They buckled down on guns and gun crime increased by 400 percent. It still hasn't come back down, despite all the millions upon millions of dollars spent beefing up their law enforcement and other measures they've taken.

 

[LOki]

Au contraire, that is not my paradigm at all. You stated an armed society is a polite society, not I. I'm saying that most western countries are unarmed compared to the US and are a lot less violent.

Which? Certainly Sweden doesn't count since it's full of assault weapons owners, therefore not unarmed as well as less violent; and certainly not England, which has been disarmed, but is clearly more violent; same story with your New Zealand.

And dumbfucks like you still believe the US is less violent than the UK or NZ. I've had this argument at least three times on other boards over the past seven years, so I'm not going waste my time hunting down stats yet again to prove my point. However, in the next part I'll explain why you're stats are fucked...

There are no stats for you to hunt down. Dumbfucks like yourself watch far too many movies that present Los Angeles as being typical of the U.S.

Yet here's some statistics I'm sure you have managed to "overlook" while "proving" your point:

• The UK (who you insist is less violent than the U.S.) is ranked number 8 for robberies (which has been argued is innately violent where rape is not), and the U.S. is ranked number 11.
• The UK ranks number one (after South Africa) for kidnappings, NEW ZEALAND is number 10 (at least you beat out Kuwait); the U.S. doesn't even make the list.
• The U.S. is ranked number 10 for the precentage of it's citizens who are victims of assault; the UK, Australia, and NEW ZEALAND are ranked #2, #3, and #4 respectively. You managed to do better than Saint Kitts and Nevis. BRAVO!
• The U.S. doesn't make the list of top countries for manslaughter, where "less violent" western nations like: Italy, Australia, Russia, Norway, Finland, Poland, Denmark, NEW ZEALAND, and Canada are ranked; 7, 11, 12, 16, 24, 25, 28, 32, and 40. At least you beat out Zambia.
• NEW ZEALAND is ranked number ONE for rape victims, followed by Austria, Finland, Sweden, Australia, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Canada, Slovenia, and France. The U.S. is ranked number 14.

There are so many things wrong with these types of stats it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, do NZers report crime more? Does the US report less? What definitions of crime are used? Is something that is considered a crime in NZ, not so in the US?

I'm sure you find a great deal of discomfort in the notion that these folks might use such statisical skewing techniques as considering rape to be a violent crime.

I would take you up on that bet. The number of stats I have produced showing gun-related deaths, and assaults in general of the US vs other countries (western countries BTW) boggles the mind.

And you might win--despite the U.S. leading New Zealand in frauds by a huge margin (helping my statisic), NEW ZEALAND still leads the U.S. in property crime by a pretty significant margin--I just don't know if that can be interpreted as meaning New Zealand is a safer place, or that New Zealanders are more civilized than the U.S and Americans.

Then gun nuts go "oh, look the UK's gun crime has increased 25% over the past 10 years while the US has gone down 5 %. But they (unlike you) forget to the put the rates in. ie the UK goes (and I'm paraphrasing here) from 100murders a year to 125, (per 1,000,000), while the US goes from 300 to 285. Sure there is a drop, but whose society is still more violent.

Look at your bullshit mixing of the statisitics, as if "gun crime" means "murder", and murder is the only measure of violence.

Nice try.

Aside from the stats, there's the anecdotal evidence too.

Right, the anectdotes you get from LA gang warfare, as if the U.S. is the same as L.A.

At the end of the day, keep your freaking guns, just don't tell me your society is more polite, when clearly it is not.

It clearly appears to be. Sorry about your luck.

The graph you showed me also stated in a boxed section above the graph that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world....polite indeed...NOT..

Considering more obnoxious behaviors than you do to be criminal, and being better than you at catching our criminals, does not make Americans less civilzed or less polite.

 

[AllieBaba]

The idea of Grump as a polite-o-meter is mind boggling.

 

[Diuretic]

Conflating private firearms ownership with rates of crime is a bit like trying to compare private ownership of motor vehicles with wheat prices.

Crime is a complex phenomenon, it has many causes and there are plenty of theories about causation. I think criminologists are still looking for their own grand unified theory.

Private firearms ownership is straightforward. A jurisdiction's legislature enacts whatever form of gun control it likes and which reflects the wishes of the electorate.

In communities where violence is common then I can understand the anxiety of citizens who wish to be personally armed and also have firearms in their homes to counter attacks against them and theirs. In those communities it makes sense to have minimal gun control because crime is obviously out of control and the citizen can't rely on the police and the criminal justice system for protection.

 

[editec]

RGS, Dive Con and del,

Oh I'm sorry boys

I didn't mean to disturb your gun-queer cicle jerk with that unpleasant reality.

Carry on playing at being defenders of liberty.

 

[Chris]

No, it will continue to be guns, only law abiding people won't have them. Now that we've been exposed to them and understand them, the criminal class will ALWAYS have them, and always have some of the best. They won't give them up just because they're illegal. They use them illegally, and generally obtain them illegally, already.

Gun crime sky rockets out of control in any area where restrictive gun use laws are put into place. DC, for example. They buckled down on guns and gun crime increased by 400 percent. It still hasn't come back down, despite all the millions upon millions of dollars spent beefing up their law enforcement and other measures they've taken.

Lies, lies, lies.......

The Japanese have no guns, and they have almost no gun violence. The states with the most restrictive gun laws have the fewest gun deaths.

D.C. is an urban area right next to Virginia which has some of the loosest gun laws in the country. By the way, D.C. gun death rate is half what it was in the 1990's because of the gentrification of the city.

 

[Dr Grump]

Which? Certainly Sweden doesn't count since it's full of assault weapons owners, therefore not unarmed as well as less violent; and certainly not England, which has been disarmed, but is clearly more violent; same story with your New Zealand.

There are no stats for you to hunt down. Dumbfucks like yourself watch far too many movies that present Los Angeles as being typical of the U.S.

Yet here's some statistics I'm sure you have managed to "overlook" while "proving" your point:

• The UK (who you insist is less violent than the U.S.) is ranked number 8 for robberies (which has been argued is innately violent where rape is not), and the U.S. is ranked number 11.
• The UK ranks number one (after South Africa) for kidnappings, NEW ZEALAND is number 10 (at least you beat out Kuwait); the U.S. doesn't even make the list.
• The U.S. is ranked number 10 for the precentage of it's citizens who are victims of assault; the UK, Australia, and NEW ZEALAND are ranked #2, #3, and #4 respectively. You managed to do better than Saint Kitts and Nevis. BRAVO!
• The U.S. doesn't make the list of top countries for manslaughter, where "less violent" western nations like: Italy, Australia, Russia, Norway, Finland, Poland, Denmark, NEW ZEALAND, and Canada are ranked; 7, 11, 12, 16, 24, 25, 28, 32, and 40. At least you beat out Zambia.
• NEW ZEALAND is ranked number ONE for rape victims, followed by Austria, Finland, Sweden, Australia, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Canada, Slovenia, and France. The U.S. is ranked number 14.

I'm sure you find a great deal of discomfort in the notion that these folks might use such statisical skewing techniques as considering rape to be a violent crime.

And you might win--despite the U.S. leading New Zealand in frauds by a huge margin (helping my statisic), NEW ZEALAND still leads the U.S. in property crime by a pretty significant margin--I just don't know if that can be interpreted as meaning New Zealand is a safer place, or that New Zealanders are more civilized than the U.S and Americans.

Look at your bullshit mixing of the statisitics, as if "gun crime" means "murder", and murder is the only measure of violence.

Nice try.

Right, the anectdotes you get from LA gang warfare, as if the U.S. is the same as L.A.

It clearly appears to be. Sorry about your luck.

Considering more obnoxious behaviors than you do to be criminal, and being better than you at catching our criminals, does not make Americans less civilzed or less polite.

I'd check the source re your stats if I were you. They are all up the wazoo, it's hard not to know where to start without spending days interpreting them for you.

LOL re LA gang warfare....well, you were quicker than most gunners to start using that defence. Most get about 10 or so posts into that weak argument.

Just as an example of how dumb you are re stats, you say this little beauty: UK ranks number one (after South Africa). Er, no dumbass, the UK "ranks" number two. South Africa is "number one" (I'm using inverted commas just to let you know that I don't take your stats seriously). If you can't figure something that simple out, how the hell are you expected to interpret the stats you have provided, no matter how skewed they are.

I never said gun violence equates to murder ijit.

 

[ErikViking]

Then get back to me when you're coherent.

That isn't the problem now, is it?


I think I can actually answer the question in the thread title:

Because guns have taken a important role in the history of forming the nation. The affection for the gun is closley linked to the ideals of personal freedom and something so unique as a young governments wish to ensure the future freedom of its citizens.

Today however, the initial foundation of the this freedom has become more hollow, since guns no longer fits in the high-end in scale of suitable technology to ensure personal freedom.

The right to have a gun is no more than a bone thrown to a dog.

 

[ErikViking]

Certainly Sweden doesn't count since it's full of assault weapons owners

This isn't entirely true. The guns are distributed and owned by the army, and are not intended for personal use.

EDIT:
The differance being that no one has a right to have those gun, they have a duty to have them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This isn't entirely true. The guns are distributed and owned by the army, and are not intended for personal use.

EDIT:
The differance being that no one has a right to have those gun, they have a duty to have them.

LOL, yet they ALL have them. Every able bodied male has one with ammo in his home. Talk about a weak retort.

 

[ErikViking]

LOL, yet they ALL have them. Every able bodied male has one with ammo in his home. Talk about a weak retort.

Oh, it wasn't a retort, I haven't argued the subject at all. I just wanted to share some info on the matter.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh, it wasn't a retort, I haven't argued the subject at all. I just wanted to share some info on the matter.

Ya cause if the US Government issued those guns to the gang bangers things would be different right?

 

[ErikViking]

Ya cause if the US Government issued those guns to the gang bangers things would be different right?

That would be a social experiment I would not advice to try...

ofcourse...

One could hope that people grew with the responsability?

Jokes aside, as I said: I am not arguing the point, but having the facts right can't be a bad thing.

 

[Dr Grump]

This isn't entirely true. The guns are distributed and owned by the army, and are not intended for personal use.

EDIT:
The differance being that no one has a right to have those gun, they have a duty to have them.

Bingo.

More smoke and mirrors by Loki to prove an unsustainable point...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Bingo.

More smoke and mirrors by Loki to prove an unsustainable point...

Ya cause every male adult in good health in that country does not have an "assault" rifle in their home with ammunition. Right?

 

[Dr Grump]

Ya cause every male adult in good health in that country does not have an "assault" rifle in their home with ammunition. Right?

Actually, they have all served in the military. Of the 100 million plus US males over the age of 18, how many have served in the military? See the difference yet, or do I need to type more slowly...

 

[ErikViking]

Ya cause every male adult in good health in that country does not have an "assault" rifle in their home with ammunition. Right?

Well, not that I want to cause any trouble in your original debate, but I can at least supply you with some more facts:

Swedish Armed Forces

To be accepted into the Home Guard you must be a Swedish citizen, aged at least 18 and with at least 85 days of basic military training.

The Home Guard consists of around 40,000 men and women. 9,000 of these come from voluntary organisations.

So, far from every male adult has a weapon.

 

[LOki]

I'd check the source re your stats if I were you. They are all up the wazoo, it's hard not to know where to start without spending days interpreting them for you.

You have some problem with:

SOURCE: The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

LOL re LA gang warfare....well, you were quicker than most gunners to start using that defence. Most get about 10 or so posts into that weak argument.

I'm not the fucktard bringing in "anecdotal evidece."

Just as an example of how dumb you are re stats, you say this little beauty: UK ranks number one (after South Africa). Er, no dumbass, the UK "ranks" number two. South Africa is "number one" (I'm using inverted commas just to let you know that I don't take your stats seriously).

Uh, no:

#1 United Kingdom: 3,261 kidnappings
#2 South Africa: 3,071 kidnappings
#3 Canada: 2,933 kidnappings

If you can't figure something that simple out, how the hell are you expected to interpret the stats you have provided, no matter how skewed they are.

#1 means "number one". I am pointing, and laughing at you, fucktard.

I never said gun violence equates to murder ijit.

A little reminder:

Then gun nuts go "oh, look the UK's gun crime has increased 25% over the past 10 years while the US has gone down 5 %. But they (unlike you) forget to the put the rates in. ie the UK goes (and I'm paraphrasing here) from 100murders a year to 125, (per 1,000,000), while the US goes from 300 to 285. Sure there is a drop, but whose society is still more violent.

 

[akiak]

A person protecting his/her self or family or friend should exercise gun control. He should be accurate when he points and clicks his gun at the assailant to take him down before the coroner comes to drag him off. That's real gun control.

The liberals would rather protect the criminals versus letting innocent citizens protect themselves..