• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Pro vs. anti. A different view maybe.

Status
Not open for further replies.

BADUNAME27

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
175
Location
Sturgis, SD
In other venues when this subject is brought up a dividing line typically forms rather quickly. You have "All guns are evil" on one side and "from my cold dead hands" on the other. The "Charlton Heston" types rant away with things like "Hippies, drug addicts, Liberal Scum, HOMOS, Man-hating-bull dykes, bad guys, rapists, murderers, and constitutional rights” while the angry little liberals claim we are all nuisances who blow it all out of proportion so that we can cling to our assault rifles as we hide in the damp, dark corners of our gun vaults and masturbate to pictures from the latest Guns/Ammo issue.

(A little melodramatic but you get the idea.)

I offer a little different view for consideration based on personal experiences over the last 2 years and 9 months of my life. Here is a first person account of what lawlessness and a government’s restriction/ban of firearms ownership/use brings.

I work in Iraq as a security contractor. I'll have been here almost three years before I go home for good. We have a subcontractor that provides the EDDT (Explosive Dog Detection Team) assets we require. These K-9 handlers are largely (almost exclusively) pooled from active duty S. African police officers. (so much in fact that the S. African government has tried to pass legislation to prevent policeman from working in Iraq as contractors cause they were losing their active duty force back home due to the financial opportunity here)

In the time that I've been here SIX of these men have had to go home on emergency leave because their homes were broken into and their wives were raped; sometimes by groups of men. Six times in 2.5 years.

It can take 24-96 hours to get out of Iraq depending on weather, threat conditions, and/or whether the airport is even open. It’s about another 15-20 hours to get back to S. Africa once you go wheels up from BIAP (Baghdad International Airport).

Imagine all the things that can run through a man's mind during that idle time.

The S. African laws make it a challenge for citizens to own/possess/use a firearm. As a reminder, these men/women are former S. African police and most of them don't own a firearm. Some of the ones that do are in violation of the law and would be subject to harsh punishment if discovered. Yet you can count on the bad guys there to have them.

Some of our medics here use S. Africa’s gun violence as a petri dish. They acquire film footage, photographs, and documentation all taken from S. African trauma centers and hospitals to further train/educate themselves on the treatment of gunshot wounds. A few have even gone to S. Africa to work internships with the hospitals to gain hands on experience.

Were not talking 4 or 5 shootings per week, sometimes it’s as high as over a hundred per evening.

I've gotten a little off track here and I apologize. My point is if anyone really believes that taking all our guns away or regulating it down to where it isn’t feasible to own one is the answer you’re suffering from a serious case of spectator's arrogance and you need to open your eyes. Going down this path only seals our fate and our doom.

America is in the beginning stages of the same yeast infection that other nations are suffering from; great Brittan, Australia, and S. Africa are all dealing with this. It's a crystal ball into our destruction. At some point it will reach a state of critical mass and a chain reaction will start that will go out of control. It’s inevitable.

In 1775 it took a 3% tax increase for the British crown to learn how a society responds when they are stripped of their dignity and their noses are rubbed in it. In early 20th century Europe this cause and effect was again demonstrated when Austria annexed a little Serbian province called Bosnia. By the time that little lesson was over, an estimated 16 million people were dead.

Where we are now on this time line of history repeating itself is debatable, but make no mistake the seeds are being planted and we stand upon fertile soil that is ripe for it to happen again.
 
Last edited:
You're very optimistic. We might be past the point of no return and circling the proverbial drain. But it would be nice to think that you are right.
 
In one respect i think you are right, there are two firm sides divided by a large gapping hole and everyone is either in one group or the other, but then there really are a whole bunch of people in the middle.

I would say that most people here would consider me a anti-gun person, even though i am not for the banning of guns in the USA.

I would also say that you are right that a total ban on guns is not the right thing for the USA, but the way you get to this point is wrong.

South Africa is not a developed country and has lots of problems with crime and poverty that the US, britain and australia do not have.

However in other countries gun bans are normal, they work to a certain extent. In the US 3/4 of all murders take place with guns, the british murder rate is similar to that of the US non-gun murder rate. Yes there are reports of gun murders and shooting, but you have to remember that every single gun murder gets reported in the UK, and in the US this would be impossible. More people die per year than US soldiers have in Iraq since 2003.

The problem in the US for a total gun ban is that there are an estimated 300 million guns, these are probably the legal or semi-legal ones. A gun ban would simply not work.
In the UK it is estimated that 4% of households have a gun of some sort, this is with a ban in place, because you can legally have firearms. But the situation the UK has suits the UK, and the situation in Australia suits Australia.
Trying to prove whether gun control works or not is almost impossible and will just end up with lots of stats flying around and in the end everyone sticks to their position. The best thing to be is informed, and to try and figure out how it would affect your neck of the woods.

I mean, i can easily say that in Iraq there are tons of guns, and that has not exactly led to a peaceful situation. But this is without any of the context that goes with the situation. It's like saying that Switzerland is proof that guns in the hands of every citizen works. Well their largest city is 300,000 people (I think NY city is larger than Switzerland in terms of population), their employment rate and GDP are both high, it is surrounded by economically and politically stable countries etc etc. Though it's gun murder rate is still higher than that of the UK.
 
South Africa is not a developed country?

By UN classification South Africa is a middle-income country with an abundant supply of resources, well-developed financial, legal, communications, energy, and transport sectors, a stock exchange (the JSE Limited), that ranks among the top twenty in the world, and a modern infrastructure supporting an efficient distribution of goods to major urban centers throughout the entire region. South Africa is ranked 25th in the world in terms of GDP (PPP) as of 2007.

Ahead of Sweden, Greece, Switzerland. Damn never new that they were undeveloped too.

However to a degree yes SA has some development to do, it does have a serious crime problem, but to say it's not a developed country is quite a stretch. It's also had a successful Nuclear Weapon development program, and a signatory of the non-nuclear proliferation treaty.

UK vs. US murder rates are not really able to be correlated meaningfully. The US traditionally has a higher murder rate both before and after gun control measures in the UK, so you can't pin it on that. Total US murder fell from 1997 to 2001 by 12% total UK murders rose over the same period by 19%. UK Violent crime for the same period rose 26%, Robbery rose 92% in victimization risks across the board the UK has higher risk than the US and a slightly higher ratio of police officers too Taken from the European sourcebook on crime. The UK ranks 6th of classical developed nations for crime (Europe, Japan, Australasia, and the North American Continent).

Switzerland's Population is 7.6M, NYC is 8M, Tokyo is 12M London is 7.5M, Beijing is 17M so what?

And Switzerland vs. UK Murder rates are statistically similar 2.0/100,000 + Scottish rate of 2.5/100,000 with similar gun control laws averaging 2.25/100,000 to 2.9/100,000. BTW at the same time the US was 5.6/100,000 and SA was 47.4/100,000.

So as a comparison I'd say that between UK, US, Swiss, and SA murder rates, regardless of gun ownership it completely proves "correlation does not prove causation" we know why people murder people, there are many reasons, accidents, passion, revenge, envy etc. this is the cause; gun ownership has no correlation to this, since the high and low have gun control, and the center two have minimal gun control. Murder will be committed with weapons that are available to the murderer, very little has to do with the availability of a specific tool. As an aside UK gun crime has increase 400% since 1997 with an almost complete ban.

Fact checking before throwing things around might be a good idea. However I do apologize for using damn statistics to discuss differences in crime across those places you mentioned, but without them, then I'm making unsubstantiated claims.

As a person originally from the UK, part of the reason I'm in the US is that I did NOT find gun control to suit the UK at all. Nor did I find that crime prevention, police activities, simpering politicians, platitudes and the blind faith that things were getting better because we were told they were.
 
Some of our medics here use S. Africa’s gun violence as a petri dish. They acquire film footage, photographs, and documentation all taken from S. African trauma centers and hospitals to further train/educate themselves on the treatment of gunshot wounds. A few have even gone to S. Africa to work internships with the hospitals to gain hands on experience.

I can confirm that.
When I was in Joburg we had German, British, American, Canadian and Dutch doctors at our hospital, all getting a taste of trauma on an extraordinary scale.

As for the firearms: they are much easier to get in SA than in the UK, if you consider illegally-held firearms. They come over the border from Mozambique, the last black market price for an AK-47 I heard was R50 (which is not a lot, even if you consider the price is a few years old).

I have two licensed pistols in SA. It took a long time to get the first one and even longer to get the second one because they rejected my application. They didn't allow me to specify that both pistols were for defense. No such thing as a back up gun (one is a .25 and the other is a 9mm). So I got the 9mm under a target shooting 'reason' and had to prove that I had a safe and was a member of a range.

Of course the criminals don't have those hoops to jump through.

Crime, SA vs UK: well there is no comparison. The worst that can happen to me here is that I get beaten up or stabbed. The chances of me being shot are extremely low AT THIS TIME. There was a shooting as I came out of the hospital here in London in 2004, but that was a very rare event. In Joburg you face the very real possibility of being gunned down as you arrive back home after work, or as you leave in the morning. The chances are high that there will be no negotiation. The gunman will be in your nice neighbourhood, a place where there is no dealing, no obvious 'bad area' and you can still get popped. It can happen at a red traffic light or stop sign.

There are quite a few differences between SA and UK. In SA I can carry, sure. And I do carry 24/7 when I am there (even in banks, hospitals, on private aircraft). Here in the UK I can't carry, but I am nonetheless safer.

When comparing countries you have to analyse a great many variables. Cultures, traditions, the history of the place and the economy have an enormous influence on whether you are likely to be safe there or not.

It is never only about the availability of guns. You've got to look at the whole picture.
 
Gungnir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Just to do the simple thing and go to wikipedia.

The world bank has south africa at 28th behind Sweden Greece and Switzerland, the CIA factbook has them at 32nd, and the IMF at 30th.

But this takes no account of the population size, merely the money in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Looking at other statistics South Africa is 68th, 61st and 73rd when dealing with per capita issues. This country has one of the best GDP per capita in Africa, only three nations manage to get 6,000+

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty

Poverty levels are probably a more accurate indication, the CIA factbook estimates that 50% of the population live below the poverty line, compared with 12% in the US, 14% in the UK. This is a problem and surely puts it in the position of not being a fully developed country.

UK vs. US murder rates are not really able to be correlated meaningfully. The US traditionally has a higher murder rate both before and after gun control measures in the UK, so you can't pin it on that. Total US murder fell from 1997 to 2001 by 12% total UK murders rose over the same period by 19%. UK Violent crime for the same period rose 26%, Robbery rose 92% in victimization risks across the board the UK has higher risk than the US and a slightly higher ratio of police officers too Taken from the European sourcebook on crime. The UK ranks 6th of classical developed nations for crime (Europe, Japan, Australasia, and the North American Continent).

I would say that murder is the easiest statistic to correlate between nations, as a dead person is a dead person. What i would point out is this. The gun control measures in the UK were not designed to deal with a situation that the anti-gun people want to deal with in the US. We did not have a gun problem before and the gun ban did not affect most people. WHy not? Because the UK has seen various gun bans over the years, so in 1997 the hand gun ban merely added to other bans, making it harder to get a gun, it did not affect society too much, because there were not too many guns there already.
Guns began to come into the country from gangs, especially the Yardies as far as i can make out (not needing visas to enter the country from jamaica was a problem)
Murder rose and has now gone down again.

Also looking at british statistics can be a little bit of a problem as they changed the way statistics are presented. Before 1997 not all crimes were recorded as one crime, sometimes 5 crimes would be one crime, go figure? But then after 1997 all crimes were recorded as one.
Also the british crime survey was used officially by the govt, which has higher crime figures than reported crime figures which were used before. Crime has risen, but maybe not by as much as it seemed, and crime has also gone down in the last few years.
Crime in the US seems to follow the economic statistics, when unemployment rises, 2 years later crime levels rise. (we will see if this happens in 2 years in the US with big crime increases)

One thing i find interesting is that burglary statistics are hard to judge, as in the US burglary is only on places where people live, in the UK it is all buildings, and out residency burglary is lower than US burglary stats.

Switzerland's Population is 7.6M, NYC is 8M, Tokyo is 12M London is 7.5M, Beijing is 17M so what?

So, crime in larger cities is often disproportionate to the number of people living there.

http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Chicago-Illinois.aspx#

"Chicago, IL, violent crime, on a scale from 1 (low crime) to 10, is 7. Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The US average is 3."

"New York, NY, violent crime, on a scale from 1 (low crime) to 10, is 6. Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The US average is 3."

"Houston, TX, violent crime, on a scale from 1 (low crime) to 10, is 6. Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The US average is 3."

"Los Angeles, CA, violent crime, on a scale from 1 (low crime) to 10, is 7. Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The US average is 3."

"San Francisco, CA, violent crime, on a scale from 1 (low crime) to 10, is 7. Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The US average is 3."

"Denver, CO, violent crime, on a scale from 1 (low crime) to 10, is 7. Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The US average is 3."

"Philadelphia, PA, violent crime, on a scale from 1 (low crime) to 10, is 8. Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The US average is 3."

Average rate of crime in the USA is 3, the average for large cities appears to be 7, not one of these is below 6. Why? Poorer people living in cities, the richer people live outside. There are many reasons, but larger cities are places with more crime. It makes a difference to the statistics.

Compare every town in the UK of 300,000 or less and it's crime to switzerland and see what you get. Much lower crime, because most of the crime is in London, birmingham, liverpool, manchester, glasgow etc etc.

Fact checking before throwing things around might be a good idea. However I do apologize for using damn statistics to discuss differences in crime across those places you mentioned, but without them, then I'm making unsubstantiated claims.

I have done my fact checking. I can also prove that republican states have a higher crime rate than democratic states if you like. The whole "tough on crime" in the US needs crime to be tough on, rather than making these places safer. So if you are from a republican state, chances are crime is higher.
Presenting all the evidence at once is not always a good idea, you could have hundreds of pages of statistics and so on.

As a person originally from the UK, part of the reason I'm in the US is that I did NOT find gun control to suit the UK at all. Nor did I find that crime prevention, police activities, simpering politicians, platitudes and the blind faith that things were getting better because we were told they were.

Everyone to their own. I am not a big fan of the UK either, i have a tendency to try and live in other countries the whole time, but still, the stats are what they are and they show that the US has a high crime rate, high murder rate, the UK has a higher than average crime rate and a lower than average murder rate. It depends on what you want. If you live outside of the big cities in the UK, USA or anywhere in the developed world, chances are life is much safer!
 
The english language is the only thing we have in common with the UK. Comparing our crime rates and thinking that there is any connection is rediculous. Our crime rates are different because our culture is different. Our culture has always been different. Gun control might work there, while it doesn't work here and vice versa. You could pass the same laws, and the US would still have severely different crime rates, because we have a severely different culture.

I don't know why people insist on comparing the US with the UK. The only thing we have in common is language.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top