Countries with high crime, low crime, no guns, lots of guns.


PDA






wacki
October 11, 2006, 07:31 PM
Looking at this list I see that #56 Switzerland has 0.00921351 murders per 1,000 people. That is one country where everyone has a gun.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita#rest

What is the country with the lowest murder rate that has the most guns? And what is the country that has the highest murder rate but has very strict gun control laws?

If you enjoyed reading about "Countries with high crime, low crime, no guns, lots of guns." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Thefabulousfink
October 11, 2006, 07:43 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again......
Gun ownership has no effect on crime rates.
:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

If you look at enough statistics you will find data that shows high crime rates in cities with strict gun control and cities with little gun control. Now if you really wan't some interesting statistics on crime take a look at the following:

Unemployment rates
average income
single parent homes
education quality and level
police pressence in neighborhoods
police/civilian relationship
level of urban decay

The list goes on, but all these factors have been shown to effect crime rates in cities.

Odd Job
October 11, 2006, 08:38 PM
@ wacki

And what is the country that has the highest murder rate but has very strict gun control laws?

South Africa, if not the top candidate will be in the top 3 definitely.

SDC
October 11, 2006, 08:52 PM
My first thought was "Jamaica", and sure enough, it's #2 in that page's rankings. Owning a gun or ammo in Jamaica is absolutely prohibited, with severe prison sentences for either, but it doesn't seem to do any good, even on a small island where you'd think that these sort of laws would be easy to enforce.

ETXhiker
October 11, 2006, 08:56 PM
Gun ownership has no effect on crime rates.

On what do you base this very certain pronouncement? The UK and Australia recently passed draconian gun laws restricting private ownership and the the immediate result was a spike in violent crime in both countries. I would assume that most other sociological factors didn't change in such a short period of time.

wacki
October 11, 2006, 11:03 PM
The UK and Australia recently passed draconian gun laws restricting private ownership and the the immediate result was a spike in violent crime in both countries.

link?

wacki
October 11, 2006, 11:06 PM
Thefabulousfink, what do you think has more credibility:

BIG LETTERS AND :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

or links to actual data?

Now what do you think I'm trying to do with this thread?

wacki
October 11, 2006, 11:12 PM
Odd Job. STC. et al thanks for your responses. Now which state has the most guns or the most lax gun laws yet the lowest crime?

Switzerland def comes to mind

Art Eatman
October 12, 2006, 12:36 AM
How about folks stay closer to the original question and show a bit less emotion?

Art

SDC
October 12, 2006, 01:05 AM
Finland and Norway both also come to mind as examples of fairly well-armed populations that have lower murder rates than the US, as does Canada; although our previous government would rather have had their collective toenails and teeth pulled out before admitting it, the per capita ownership rate in Canada is probably as high as it is in the US (and they deliberately fudged the numbers to hide this fact.) In 1975, they said there were a minimum of 6 million guns in Canada, a maximum of 20 million, and a "most likely true" number of around 14 million (translating to 1 gun for every 1.6 people at that time). Of course, when they were desperate to sell their registration scheme, they said "No, no, no, there are only 6 million of those evil old guns in Canada. You can trust us, we wouldn't lie to you, would we?"

What people aren't willing to address in this issue is the role that social problems play; if "more guns equals more murders", I would expect those parts of the population that own the most guns to also be committing the most murders, no? Well, almost no matter how you slice it (by age, by state, by race, etc.) that isn't true. (The only variable I can think of where it DOES work is by sex; males are both the most common to own a gun and commit a murder.) In fact, several groups stand out as going strongly AGAINST the "more guns=more murders" hypothesis; young black males between the ages of 14 and 24 consistently commit around half of all US murders, yet only form ~3% of the population as a whole. Even if we were to give THREE guns to everyone in that cohort, they still wouldn't come anywhere close to owning half of all the guns in the US, so why are they committing half of all the murders? That's right, social conditions. And, since race is a radioactive topic, those problems aren't likely to be solved anytime soon. Democrats won't dare single out a voter bloc they depend on, and Republicans know they'd be skinned alive if they brought it up. This map (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredblue.png) shows the way the 2004 US election broke down by county (red=Republican, blue=Democrat), and since you can cross-match those results to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports statistics, an interesting pattern emerges. In those counties that voted Republican, the average murder rate was less than 2.5 per 100,000 (where CANADA'S is, BTW); in those counties that voted Democrat, the average murder rate was 13 per 100,000.

wacki
October 12, 2006, 02:00 AM
SDC, very interesting. Thankyou very much for posting. The crossmatched data from the FBI is unreal. You were stating pretty exact numbers. Is the cross-matched analysis online anywhere? I really don't want to re-analyze every county in the US if it's already been done.

BullfrogKen
October 12, 2006, 04:50 AM
The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy by David Kopel addresses this subject thoroughly.

sterling180
October 12, 2006, 08:31 AM
On what do you base this very certain pronouncement? The UK and Australia recently passed draconian gun laws restricting private ownership and the the immediate result was a spike in violent crime in both countries. I would assume that most other sociological factors didn't change in such a short period of time.


Violent crime was on the rise anyway,both in the UK and probably in Australia,as well.The last firearm ban was 8 years ago,when match pistols were prohibited,after Blair entered office,before that centrefire pistols were banned in October 1997,by the previous PM John Major and Secretary of State,Mr Micheal Howard-in December 1996.

As for SLRs,well Micheal Ryan went crazy in Hungerford,on August 19th 1987 and killed many people,in that small town-resulting in the 1988 Firearm Ammendment act,in 1989.

The point is that many polititions and citizens in the UK,see that giving up ones rights to firearms,will stop psychos from killing people at random and that criminals will get guns anyway.So forget anything about violent crime in general,in the UK:the bans were made to stop psychos from obtaining them,on a license and not a criminal.After all a criminal would find it tough getting a license and would be rejected from applying in the UK-whereas a quiet,Simon Parish type-psycho like Thomas Hamilton,wouldn't of had any problems-anyway.

By the way,I am fed up of these ridiculous bans and that seeing as these haven't solved crime,calls for them to be scrapped and for things to go back to normal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SDC
October 12, 2006, 08:34 AM
The raw data can be found at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm , but I saw the original comparison on a page that I can't find anymore (the numbers "stuck" with me just because it's such a drastic difference between the two).

Oops, I just "snoped" myself; the ACTUAL difference according to Snopes is 4.1 to 6.5 ( http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp). Nonetheless, this shows that the idea of "more guns equals more murders" isn't valid, any more than the idea of "more arms and legs equals more murders by beating and kicking" is.

Iain
October 12, 2006, 09:00 AM
The UK gun ban = more crime is a discussion that we've had many times. It probably bears repeating that the pre-'97 or '89 UK bore no relation to the US in terms of the amount of gun owners. There is something like at least one firearm per adult in the US, don't think that was the case in the UK.

Don't know whether firearms have no impact on crime, but I do think that example of the UK doesn't really prove much of anything either way. Violent crime has risen in the UK, although crime is down overall, but you'll be looking for factors such as thefabulousfink raised rather than any simplistic 'more guns, less crime' explanation which doesn't really fit what has happened here.

I'd go so far as to say that using that explanation for the UK is no more accurate than the oft-cited 'more guns, more crime' thesis thrown around by some when discussing US school shootings.

#shooter
October 12, 2006, 12:55 PM
SDC- I wonder if the higher rate of crime in dem/urban areas is truly a result of poverty or is it proximity. Perhaps there are a finite number of humans that can fit per square mile and overcrowding leads to violence. We do this with animals’ maybe it applies to people as well. Just a thought.

SDC
October 12, 2006, 01:29 PM
I have my doubts that it's simply density; the Northwest Territories in Canada have a murder rate higher than any US state, despite being one of the least densely-populated regions on the planet, PLUS they're still subject to all of the other much-ballyhooed Canadian gun control scheme. The problem comes when you try to factor this issue out, since the vast majority of the NWT's population is aboriginal/Native Indian, a group that forms only 3% of the Canadian population, but commits ~20% of all Canadian murders each year.

jlbraun
October 12, 2006, 01:47 PM
I have heard that the private citizens of the USA own 65% of the WORLD's firearms, including all of the guns in all of the world's armies. The numbers I heard were 400 million guns in the world, of which 165 million are in the hands of US citizens.

Thefabulousfink
October 12, 2006, 01:56 PM
Wacki, sorry that was kind of an emotional response and then I logged off to go do house work. I just get tired of our side using the "More Guns=Less Crime" argument because it is leaving ourselves open to "if less guns= less crime then gun control would be OK." Every time we put up data on places like Florida where the crime rate droped after CCW was allowed, the Anti's and the MSM publish tons of conflicting data (often manipulated) that confuses the sheeple.

Having the ability to carry a gun is a good thing and allows you to defend yourself against BGs. However, simply handing a gun to everyone in Compton or WA D.C. will not lower the crime rate. Safe gun ownership requires responsibilty and simply holding a gun does not grant it (if it did Gang members would be respected civic leaders). Look at some of the middle-eastern and central African nations where most adult males own guns; rape, murder, and inter-tribe violence is commonplace. In contrast you have nations like Switzerland and the Nordic countries which have realatively low crime rates. Their obviously have to be other factors than gun ownership.

From the list provided in the link:
#6 Mexico 0.130213 per 1,000 people Lots of GC, Lots of Crime
#24 United States 0.042802 per 1,000 people Moderate GC, Moderate-high crime
#43 Australia 0.0150324 per 1,000 people Lots of GC, Moderate Crime
#46 United Kingdom 0.0140633 per 1,000 people Lots of GC, Moderate Crime
#60 Japan 0.00499933 per 1,000 people Lots of GC, Low Crime

See, it all depends on which data you select. You could make a case for either more GC or less GC and, unless the public had access to the data they wouldn't know who to trust. So when Anti's claim that we need more GC to reduce crime, instead of firing back with statistics that might confuse the public and force them to vote on emotion, why offer other solutions that have been proven to reduce crime.

I am not going to look up data on all the social issuse that I listed, but here is the unemployment rates of the nations listed above.
http://www.bartleby.com/151/fields/72.html

Mexico urban - 3% plus considerable underemployment (2002)
United States 5.8% (2002)
United Kingdom 5.2% (2002 est.)
Australia 6.3% (2002)
Japan 5.4% (2002)

The fact is that their is no one "magic pill" to reduce crime and rates rise and fall due to a large amount of stimuli. What we as gun owners need to do is shift the discusion to social issues and away from infringing on people's rights. If we don't then some day a "Slick Willie" is going to pour out a lot of edited data and emotional arguments to pass AWB II before we can get their with counter data.

AKAMac
October 12, 2006, 03:13 PM
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Looks like Oddjob wins on this one.

hvengel
October 12, 2006, 03:55 PM
I have heard that the private citizens of the USA own 65% of the WORLD's firearms, including all of the guns in all of the world's armies. The numbers I heard were 400 million guns in the world, of which 165 million are in the hands of US citizens.

There are various estimates of the number of privately held guns in the US. Some of which are owned by non-citizens by the way since citizenship is not required to own a gun in the US. The lowest one I have seen is 200 million and some estimates go as high as 280 million. The actual number is likely about in the middle some where at around 240 million. Your numbers would have put the % of guns held by US residents at about 41% of the world total (assuming that the 400 million number is correct). 240 million would be 60% and 280 would be 70% of 400 million. So the 65% number could be in the right ball park again assuming that the world total is 400 million. Do you have a source for the 400 million figure?

hvengel
October 12, 2006, 04:08 PM
Also interesting is that the US is #8 in for murders with a firearm and #24 for all homicides http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita#rest . Mexico's murder rate is 4 times higher than the US and they have strict gun control. Colombia's muder rate is almost 14.5 times as high as the US. Even industrialized Russia has a murder rate that is 4.6 times that of the US. So much for the US having exeptionally high murder rates as claimed by the gun controlers.

Ieyasu
October 13, 2006, 01:18 PM
I have my doubts that it's simply density
You're right - see this chart: http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html#table1

Zen21Tao
October 13, 2006, 02:36 PM
What is the country with the lowest murder rate that has the most guns? And what is the country that has the highest murder rate but has very strict gun control laws?


(1) Low murder rate/many guns
(2) High murder rate/few guns

To be honest, this isn’t enough information to attempt to use statistical inference to infer causality. To do so you would need to compare four conditions. In addition to the two above you would need:

(3) Low murder rate/few guns and
(4) High murder rate/many guns.

Even then, the best you can hope for is a correlation. The problem with correlation is that you have no way of knowing whether one condition the other or whether some unknown variable caused both conditions. Also, bear in mind that such a broad correctional study is going to be made without taking many cultural, geographical, social, educational, other differences between nations into consideration.


Personally, I think the best quantifiable argument for gun ownership is a direct comparison between the (much greater) numbers of gun uses for self defense and the (much less) number of gun uses to commit crimes.

wacki
October 13, 2006, 05:47 PM
To be honest, this isnít enough information to attempt to use statistical inference to infer causality.

That wasn't my goal. My goal was to poke holes in other peoples arguments.

BullfrogKen
October 14, 2006, 12:58 AM
wacki said: That wasn't my goal. My goal was to poke holes in other peoples arguments.


Then go check out that book and look into the issues for yourself. Its got more information, with documentation, than you'll get on an internet forum. And, once you go through the process of reading, you internalize the matter and make it yours. That doesn't happen when we do it for you.

LightningJoe
October 15, 2006, 12:26 AM
The handgun is an interesting phenomenon. It's macro effects are small or undetectable (i.e. they don't affect the outcome of military engagements or greatly affect crime rates), but their micro effects are significant (i.e. night-day difference for an individual soldier defending himself or a civilian crime victim).


The value of handguns can't easily be detected by looking at macro effects.

44AMP
October 15, 2006, 09:37 PM
it isn't the presence or absence of general gun ownership, it is the way the guns are USED. But perhaps this is a little too obvious to be understood, or believed.

The Middle East was mentioned, and while there are large numbers of guns, the primary use is commiting violence, for a politically or religously inspired purpose.

Swirzerland has lots of guns in the hands of its citizens, but their primary use is sporting and for militia purposes.

It isn't the tool (and it never was), it is the use to which the tool is put.

There is nothing on earth (including ideas) that cannot be mis-used by someone with the intention of doing just that.

And the only answer some people can come up with is to treat us all as children. And particularly incompetent children at that. "You can't have that, because you might get hurt, or hurt someone else." That is what a parent says to an irresponsible child.

While there are a lot of children (who inhabit adult bodies) in the world, I do not grant anyone the authority to arbitrarily decide I am one of them. If my actions indicate that I am, then I am. But until and unless that happens, I am not, and should not be considered as such.

That to me is the most irritating thing about the whole gun control issue. That some people, because they won a popularity contest and got elected, or because they went to the "right" schools, or because they made a lot of money, or believe in the "correct" political philosophy, that they believe that they have a God given right and authority to decide whether or not I am a competent, responsible individual, and requiring me to prove it to their sastisfaction in order to allow me to exercise my right to make my own decisions!

The concept is prior restraint, and I find it abhorrant! Bad enough in an oligarchy, but in a society that claims to uphold freedom and liberty it is the very death of those concepts.

If you have enough money, you can go to someplaces in the world, and own and use any tools you want. You just have to pay for the privledge.
Misuse the tools, and money may get you out of the consequences. On the other hand, it may not.

vmfrantz
October 15, 2006, 10:14 PM
You will have high crime in any place when, the fear of incarceration is not there, movies that show the only way out of the hood is with a weapon and takeing people out. The laws we have today should be enforced to stop and deter people from using guns to get ahead in life. I have emailed the supreme court several times saying that public executions should be carried out,and the student body of schools should see what happens to murders, rapist, and other crimes of that nature. You would cut crime dramaticly in the first year.

SoCalShooter
October 15, 2006, 10:18 PM
vmfrantz: cannot agree with you more, a lot of people in my history class thought I was extreme when I explained to them I believe that a public execution is a good thing. Bring back the guillotine, society as a whole has forgotten the cost of violent crimes because they lock these people away and send us the bill for their internment.

vmfrantz
October 15, 2006, 11:09 PM
I am so glad to hear there are some people that agree with me on this. I feel that most people in this country cant draw a line in the sand and say this will happen to you if you cross it. I feel dismay everytime the majority gets punished for what a minority of people do. Not just towards the 2d amendmet. Such as the soccer league here in Lancaster PA. The parents are not allowed to cheer:eek: or there kid will not play. A rule brought on because of a few parents that get out of control. When I read or hear of things like this I just cant belive how the majority is made to suffer with no real punishment to the trouble makers. :cuss:

SoCalShooter
October 15, 2006, 11:11 PM
To much leeway if you ask me,courts are doing the same thing nowadays, give'em life in prison,no death penalty and no hard labor, come on we have penetentaries full of FREE LABOR!!! Lets use it, people are becoming totally desensitized due to television and video games. I have no problem with violence on TV and in games btw, my solution is to have a couple of public executions a year thin out the prison herd and put the rest to work. Might staighten us out a little.

vmfrantz
October 15, 2006, 11:32 PM
Nother good point socalshooter.. Prison life is to easy. I've known a person who violated probation. Get this, because he was haveing it to hard and couldnt keep up with his bills. He said atleast ther he had 3 hots and a cot. I get :cuss: every time I think of it. I'm on my job eating a crappy cold sandwich while its freezing out and I'm buying these clowns a hot lunch and cable tv to enjoy until supper. Where is the bleeding heart librals for me. Oh they are at the jail house with the aclu because some gaurd made to much noise while the inmates were trying to sleep. Another true story.

SoCalShooter
October 15, 2006, 11:38 PM
Locked up sucks true and confinement can be very hard but a lot of these people have television and decent meals, free gym membership so on and so forth, what happened to a time when prisons were just that, hell holes and you did not want to end up in one, from some of the programs I have seen on tv they dont have it that horrible.

Prison can be dangerous and definetly a horrible place to be but lets atleast put these people to work.

vmfrantz
October 15, 2006, 11:43 PM
Hey if nothing else make so bad people are terrified to go

SoCalShooter
October 15, 2006, 11:44 PM
Yeah the whole humane treatment thing is a little softy in my opinion. If you commit a capital punishment...then why are we not treating you like you did? I am not advocating torture, but definetly advocating hard labor, california has a lot of brush area that needs to be cleared away.

highlander 5
October 15, 2006, 11:50 PM
where's joe arpio when you need him. One of our previuos govenor promised to "Bring the joy of busting rocks" to our prison pop hasn't nor will it happen till the public has a craw full.

vmfrantz
October 15, 2006, 11:51 PM
when I was in the USMC, the prisoners on base were alway doing things like that. Cutting grass picking up trash. Imgine walking along route 24 or 17 in your orange suit for all the tourist and passing people to see. :evil:

SoCalShooter
October 15, 2006, 11:51 PM
I just dont understand the whole "no hard labor" thing, its a hell of a lot better than sitting in a cell all day atleast your gonna be outside, your working hard yeah but atleast that is truley paying your debt back rather than sitting on your arse all day.

vmfrantz
October 15, 2006, 11:54 PM
Just to screw with the young kids. They should take the worst criminals and work them until a few die a few times a year. Put that on the news. Maybe I will watch then.

SoCalShooter
October 16, 2006, 12:00 AM
vmfrantz you are a cold cold man. Ha.

If you enjoyed reading about "Countries with high crime, low crime, no guns, lots of guns." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!