Gun prohibition and control works. Just ask these countries

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sgt.Murtaugh said:
then they point out that USA has over 9000 gun murders each of the last several years and how that number far surpasses any other "rich" country in that category.
Click to expand...
Rich country? How do you define rich. You are the only person I have ever heard describe it like that. Actually the correct term is developed, Estonia is more restrictive, is a developed country and has a higher homicide rate than the US with 5.2 homicides per 100,000 people.
 
Last edited:
JustinJ said:
To be fair single events are not proof that some of the above country's gun laws are ineffective if rates of incidence have gone down. One would not look at automobile accidents and say seat belts don't work because some people died.
Click to expand...

Well, then, there's always Australia.

They didn't just "control" guns there; they confiscated hundreds of thousands of them and destroyed them in a medieval public spectacle.

Any idea what the violent crime rate -- including violence with guns -- is like down there today?

Hint: it sucks.

Yeah. That worked well.

 
Rich country? How do you define rich. You are the only person I have ever heard describe it like that. Actually the correct term is developed, Estonia is more restrictive, is a developed country and has a higher homicide rate than the US with 5.2 homicides per 100,000 people.
Click to expand...

So because you haven't heard of it, it isn't proper terminology, yet it is terminology used by financial magazines. Yeah, there is a richest designation even if you haven't heard of it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethgreenfield/2012/02/22/the-worlds-richest-countries/

Forbes lists the US as the 7th richest country in 2010 and still 7th in 2012

http://urbanpeek.com/2012/03/09/the-worlds-top-10-richest-countries-in-2012/Wiki has listings.

Forbes is based on per capita GDP. Here is more comparison...US is 6, 7, and 9. Estonia comes in at 43, 43, and 49 with about 1/2 the average of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Here, the US is 1st by GDP of which Estonia is 109th in terms of Richest countries...
http://www.aneki.com/countries2.php?t=Richest_Countries_in_the_World&table=fb126&places=2=*&order=desc&orderby=fb126.value&decimals=--&dependency=independent&number=all&cntdn=asc&r=-78-80-81-82-83-84-85-86-87-88-89-90-91-92-93-94-95-96&c=&measures=Country--GDP&units=--$&file=richest

These people list richest and poorest...
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-d...hest-and-poorest-countries.html#axzz22vvnSVKz

Being developed is different from being rich, though they often go hand in hand. The US is Rich and is Developed well and Estonia is way down on both lists. Development is now under HDI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

---------------------------------

Serbia has little gun control and has a very low murder rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Vietnam is very restrictive with ownership limited to shotguns and also has a low murder rate, very low.

Depending on how you look at it, disarming the people is bad and arming the people is bad.

Based on the numbers if I can dredge up, on the grand levels, gun control doesn't work either way. There are countries where it works and countries where it doesn't work. The big difference is that in countries where gun control is high, people do not have that option for defense. People who can't own guns don't like that aspect.

It has been discussed here several times, but more guns on the stress has not reduced crime in states with CHLs. There is no causation. People like to point to Florida as a great example of how crime dropped when they got their CHLs, but fail to note the following surge is crime immediately thereafter.
--------------------------------------------
Well, then, there's always Australia.

They didn't just "control" guns there; they confiscated hundreds of thousands of them and destroyed them in a medieval public spectacle.

Any idea what the violent crime rate -- including violence with guns -- is like down there today?

Hint: it sucks.

Yeah. That worked well.
Click to expand...

Well, their gun violence is WAY down compared to the US.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

Serious assaults are way down...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ser_ass-crime-serious-assaults

Lower firearm murder rate...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop
 
To Double Naught Spy. The homicide rate is what the person I posted was refering to. It is what is qouted by the Brady Campaign and other gun prohibitionists. I didn't understand the Richest Country referance and have never seen it used that way when comparing homicide rates. I have heard Developed, Developing and Third World used when describing homicide rates. Also the Brady Campaign has been trumpeting for weeks that the US has the highest murder rate of any developed country. This is not true.
 
To Double Naught Spy. The homicide rate is what the person I posted was refering to. It is what is qouted by the Brady Campaign and other gun prohibitionists. I didn't understand the Richest Country referance and have never seen it used that way when comparing homicide rates. I have heard Developed, Developing and Third World used when describing homicide rates. Also the Brady Campaign has been trumpeting for weeks that the US has the highest murder rate of any developed country. This is not true.
Click to expand...
And there are some quirks in the data:

1. We report homicides -- the killing of a human being by another human being.

2. The UK reports murders -- a homicide isn't a murder until someone is convicted.

3. The Japanese report murder-homicide (a family member wiping out the family then killing himself) as straight suicide.
 
JustinJ said:
There is. Of course the facts are not what the gun community claim:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
Click to expand...

I don't have the article source handy that expressed the "sucks" metric.

I'll post it if I can dig it up. Which may not be today, given that today is a hectic mix of work and doctor visits.

"Relative to the US" was not a standard of measurement used. It was time-relative for the country itself.

 
To Double Naught Spy. The homicide rate is what the person I posted was refering to. It is what is qouted by the Brady Campaign and other gun prohibitionists.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed the link to the data to which you refer. Link?

I didn't understand the Richest Country referance and have never seen it used that way when comparing homicide rates.
Click to expand...

What's to understand? You compare per capita income versus the homicides, GNP versus homicides, etc. It wasn't a matter of not understanding, but one of you saying that he was using incorrect terminology, but he wasn't based on varous financial rags.

I have heard Developed, Developing and Third World used when describing homicide rates. Also the Brady Campaign has been trumpeting for weeks that the US has the highest murder rate of any developed country. This is not true.
Click to expand...

Okay, what is true? I am not saying you are wrong, I am asking for the basis of the statement. What are the data that suport that? Link?

Don't set your standard to the Brady Campaign. You are better than that.
 
This discussion is precisely why the 2nd Amendment is so valuable. We don't have to prove gun control doesn't or does work. We just have to make sure the 2nd Amendment is defended. Lots of countries restrict Free Speech too. That may or may not work for them. Doesn't matter if it would here because it's a right granted by our Creator and protected by our Constitution. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th . . . are no different.
 
I have to disagree with that FactCheck site, JustinJ, mainly because of:

We have no doubt that Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot tried to keep guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens. But that doesn’t mean that gun control necessarily leads to totalitarian dictatorships. This reasoning is a classic example of the fallacy known as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" – "after this, therefore because of this." The fact that one thing happens after another does not mean that there’s any causation involved.
Click to expand...

I don't think that every state that declares gun control is going to become a totalitarian state. However, it does pave the way. The second ammendment was created to give the government a legitimate fear of the people. Take it away, and that fear is gone.
 
Mizar:
It is good to read that guns are not difficult (for most people) to acquire in Bulgaria.
As for eastern Europe, a guy in the Czech Republic says the same thing, if I understood his comments.

Is most of eastern Europe more "gun-friendly" than most, or all of western Europe?
 
I don't think that every state that declares gun control is going to become a totalitarian state. However, it does pave the way. The second ammendment was created to give the government a legitimate fear of the people. Take it away, and that fear is gone.
Click to expand...

But the armed populaces of Russia failed to prevent the totalitarian take over. The guns were actually largely confiscated after the totalitarian take over occurred. I don't know about China but i would suspect the same. And countless other countries around the world have instituted strict gun control with no mass murder or totalitarianism to follow. They are just not related and much less so today than yesterday. Technology has created a massive disparity between the weapons of private citizens and those owned by the government. Sorry, but our guns are not what is preventing a totalitarian take over. If the military followed a dictator our AR's are not going to stop tanks, bombers, choppers, etc.
 
Cherish and Protect Our Freedom and Liberty!

I always fail to see the logic in banning something or having more laws to protect ourselves from evil people!? As someone mentioned earlier in this post, these knee-jerk reactions only serve to weaken a citizens ability to protect themselves and others. People are the same the world over - evil people will always do as their wicked minds and hearts compel them. Laws will not dissuade someone from performing an evil or unlawful act. Laws are useful only if they can be reasonably enforced, and if they promote order and protect individual liberty. Only a sane person will respect the law. Criminals must know that they will be punished.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Noticing a lot of wavering Gun rights thoughts and beliefs on THR lately. I suspect a few are anti's trolling or what ever I hope that is the case and not a lot of people second guessing the second amendment and or freedom.

No matter what the #'s say I will always like to have the opportunity to defend myself and or family if needs be. Numbers don't lie but they can be manipulated.

Just my own thought and not fact but I'm doubting Vietnam, Australia, Portugal, USA, and Slovenia for example all have the same standard to which statistics are counted, recorded, and kept. Just an observation, as all 50 of our states have different practices and procedures to many things such as laws and regulations I am sure different countries do also.
 
I'm just picking up on this thread and I noticed JagerRanger said back in post 19,

Apparently you've never been to Norway. I've lived there a few years, shot hundreds of matches, etc. Their gun laws are not "VERY strict." Prior to 80s they didn't even bother to 'register' guns.
Click to expand...

I was wondering what justified the 1980 "registration" laws.

Terry, 230RN
 
Did anyone bother to check out total crime victim rate Australia was #1 Australia may have lower death by guns but Australia has more assaults and rapes only other 2 I checked besides total crime victim rate.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with what is being discussed. The topic is what effect gun control legislation had on Australian crime levels. You linked a chart ranking crime rates by country from a 2002 UN report.
 
Using Mexico as an example in the OP is a bad example since the drug cartels were armed directly by the U.S. Federal government with Operation Fast and Furious and other gun running operations, and armed indirectly by the State Department's Direct Commercial Sales program

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cartels/

I'm surprised that criminal organizations don't just start making their own weapons. The technology has been around for over 100 years, and it's not that much harder to create a Thompson machine gun than it is to create a 1911.

The Germans make these metal lathes that can do almost everything now. For $350,000 you can have a machine shop that can create almost any steel or aluminum part you can think off.
 
JustinJ said:
But the armed populaces of Russia failed to prevent the totalitarian take over. The guns were actually largely confiscated after the totalitarian take over occurred. I don't know about China but I would suspect the same.
Click to expand...

"They failed, so we shouldn't bother trying." So the Russians failed. I suspect that the Russians lacked a number of things, among them being adequate actual armaments and adequate historical perspective.

However,
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn said:
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? ... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If ... if ... We didn't love freedom enough. And even more -- we had no awareness of the real situation. ... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
Click to expand...
. . . Their failure has, in fact, provided a vivid historical perspective for those of us who still have a chance to avoid their fate.

China has never had what you could call an "armed populace."


And countless other countries around the world have instituted strict gun control with no mass murder or totalitarianism to follow.
Click to expand...

While there may be actual data that supports this, I have not seen it, and I'm not inclined to accept this assertion at face value.


They are just not related and much less so today than yesterday. Technology has created a massive disparity between the weapons of private citizens and those owned by the government. Sorry, but our guns are not what is preventing a totalitarian take over. If the military followed a dictator our AR's are not going to stop tanks, bombers, choppers, etc.
Click to expand...

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

Can't accept this argument either.


The idea that it will be hard is not an argument not to try. Make it expensive to attempt the conversion to a dictatorship.

Make it so expensive -- and make it evident that it will be so expensive -- that they will pursue that line with the greatest reluctance.

Make the very concept too toxic to contemplate.


I do not accept your premise that an armed population resisting tyranny is an outmoded and obsolete notion.

 
JustinJ
That has nothing to do with what is being discussed. The topic is what effect gun control legislation had on Australian crime levels. You linked a chart ranking crime rates by country from a 2002 UN report.
Click to expand...
1. Its from the same website that was referenced
2. Its replying to information that was posted
So I'm not hi-jacking just responding to the conclusions that are being made about arming and not arming people.
 
To comment on ArfinGreebly's post - just arming citizens will not stop a dictatorship to happen. It will not even make it hard for him - you need to organize those people and that's the hardest part. Communists, bolsheviks and nazis knew one old principle really well - "Divide and conquer" - first they killed all the potential leaders - high rank military personnel, the intelligentsia and the political leaders and the rest was simple and easy. Prior to 1944 in my home country almost every household had firearms. Cheap guns and ammo were sold freely in almost every hardware shop and public fairs. It was common to see couple of young men to target practice in the city park. Or a gentlemen teaching his fiance to shoot. Joining the military was considered a great honor for the young men. And we had a Military with a capital "M" - those were men that knew how to fight and win battles... And despite all of this communists did came and succeeded to take the power - they just made sure to kill every possible leader first. People do not just self-organize - they need a leader to do it. Up to the middle 60's we still had some sort of resistance - the Gorians movement (it translates to something like Foresters, people from the forest) but then again - they were small groups of people without a centralized governance and they were eliminated one by one...

Boris
 
I just watched the Auschwitz videos from the BBC. I cannot believe that Jews are pro-gun control after such events. The entire European mindset toward guns, after the insanity of the first half of the 20th century, blows my mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
13 Killed in Rampage Shooting in Serbia, Under Strict Gun Control
Replies
1
Views
417
Walkalong
Walkalong
X
  • Locked
More Proof That Gun Control Doesn't Work
Replies
24
Views
2K
ozwyn
O
A
  • Locked
California rampage puts spotlight on homemade 'ghost guns'
2 3
Replies
58
Views
4K
jmorris
jmorris
M
  • Locked
European gun laws
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
4K
lanternlad1
L
C
  • Locked
Gun Control Works, Just ask the Serbians...
Replies
1
Views
354
Robert
Robert
Back
Top