WHERE IS THE WAR ON GUN CRIME?
As yet another school shooting incident happens in the United States, I find myself wondering why this so often happens in America and why we rarely hear of school shootings anywhere else in the world. It leaves me wondering if Americans are actually a savage people or maybe their near fanatical obsession to their constitutional “right to bear arms” is just blinkered thinking in a culture of violence that yesterday saw yet more students gunned down in a place that should be safe.
The latest school shootings will no doubt stir the gun control debate once more. Those people who enjoy firearms will speak up in defense of all the people who have a gun but haven’t yet use it to kill anyone. Politicians will do their best to be sympathetic while trying very hard to slide around the issue of imposing sensible gun control in a country that kills more people with firearms every year than the rest of the developed world combined.
In the year 2000, of the 275 million people living in the United States, 10,801 of them were murdered by someone using a gun. Yet despite having over 100 million more people than the U.S, the European Union saw only 1,260 firearm homicides take place in the same year, and Japan, a country of 127 million people, had just 22 gun related homicides.
As someone who lives in a country with very strict firearm controls, I find myself completely perplexed by the apparent resistance in the United States to gun control laws that might have prevented yesterdays killings, and the 80 or so gun related killings that occur each and every day, in the United States.
According to statistics from Word Heath Organization (in the the World Report for Violence and Health for international firearm mortality), Americans are 175 times more likely to be murdered by someone using a firearm than somebody living in the UK. You might assume that in the UK a killer would instead use another weapon, but figures do not support that assumption. In fact there are still nearly four times as many non-firearm related homicides in the U.S. than the UK according to the report.
The second amendment of the U.S. Constitutions states that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But there is currently no clear indication of what exactly a “well regulated militia” is.
It seems strange to me that many Americans will cite terrorism as the biggest threat to America today when in truth they are far more likely to be shot and killed in a violent crime than any act of terrorism.
On average, the annual mortality rate from firearms incidents (be that murder, suicide or accidents) in the United States is around 30,000. In 2001, America’s worst ever year of domestic terrorism that saw the twin towers and the Pentagon attacked, 2,996 people were killed by terrorists. Since then, despite the fears of many, the number of victims of domestic terrorism in the U.S. has not even got into double digits, while at the same time another 150,000+ Americans have been killed in gun related incidents.
After 9/11 the U.S. government introduced a raft of sweeping laws that would seem to deeply encroach upon the highly valued “freedoms” of the American people. Oddly enough though, there was little resistance to these so called ‘anti-terror’ laws which were softly sold as ‘making America safer’ to anyone who paid enough attention to ask. Yet after yesterdays school shootings, and the many other such shootings that have occurred, it seems highly unlikely that the American people will demand a similarly sweeping change to make their homeland safer.
In the next few day there will be 33 funerals for the victims of yesterdays school shooting, but despite the obvious dangers and risks of such easy access to firearms it’s unlikely that the President will boldly announce a ‘war on gun crime’ in the same way that war was declared on terror and drugs.
It seems that in the land of the free, the right to own a gun is more important than the lives of the 320 people who will die by the bullet before the end of the week.
—
The World Report for Violence and Health for international firearm mortality
The impact of firearm deaths on life expectancies in the US
Virginia university shooting kills 33
Meanwhile : Murder by numbers
Gun culture
Guns don’t kill people
U.S. Constitutions
The right to bear arms
Wrote the following comment on Apr 17, 2007 at 1:26 pm
*wookit pops some popcorn and pulls up a seat* This is gonna be good.
People will blame the college for failing to act in an appropriate manner. Where was the guidebook for protecting those student from an armed loon? Why weren’t the powers that be able to better warn 30,000 people that they were taking their lives in their hands by going to school? This wasn’t an American he was a foreign student so it doesn’t count. Does it?
It’s our laws that allow any maniac to obtain a gun as easily as you can buy a pack of smokes. Maybe a bad comparison, since we don’t mind blaming the cigarette companies when we stick a cigarette into our own mouths and get cancer. Even though that’s a choice. Maybe when the gun fanatics choose to stick guns to their own heads and let their families sue Smith & Wesson. It’s ok.. as long as it’s someone elses kid getting shot. Right?
Someone will come on here and cite our right to defend ourselves. Where was John Wayne yesterday? Where were the armed citizens with their guns. You don’t hear about these mental cases walking into a fireing range and wiping out 30 people because that’s where the guns are. So they go to the schools and to Amish country and the shopping malls where they know there are no guns. Shoot the children because they can’t shoot back. Yes the protection arguement is getting very weak.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 18, 2007 at 12:56 am
Hey Brewster, thanks for bringing those incidents to our attention, I knew someone would help me out there. We didn’t need the proof that it isn’t Americans that are overly violent, but the assurance was valuable nonetheless.
The problem is that while you and your buddies are responsible people when it comes to firearms, there are a few who aren’t. For this reason the number of firearms killings that occur in America dwarf every other developed country in the world.
Bizarrely though, there is little to no will on either side of the political fence to take any meaningful action to curtail gun crime in an attempt to save the lives of the 80 people who will die tomorrow and every American day due to gun related incidents.
Smokers doubtless enjoy smoking, but because of the inherent risks to the health of the populous, smoking is not allowed in a great deal of public places across the United States. Yet gun owners like yourself, Brewster, seem unwilling to give even the slightest inch to those who would like to see some kind of sensible gun control brought in. Why was it so easy to give up smoking in a public place but carrying a gun in a public place is somehow a step too far? I don’t understand that.
Searching kids for weapons isn’t the answer. But it will make parents feel better and politically speaking, that’s the big deal here. So expect airport style checks in schools maybe, but then some nut-job will shoot people in a library, or a shopping mall, at the movies or at a little league game, then what?
No, searching kids for weapons in not a solution by any means. To do that would simply be avoiding the hard debate that needs to be had in America, and while I have no doubt that Brewster and his buddies are fine and honorable gun owners, perhaps even members of a “well regulated militia”, the inescapable fact is that gun crime is out of control in the United States and therefore some kind of gun control must surely be put in place.
My question remains, when terrorism is clearly not as much of a problem as gun crime, how is it that gun crime isn’t the issue that the United States government are spending billions and billions of dollars combating?
Wrote the following comment on Apr 17, 2007 at 4:29 pm
You are absolutley right Simon. I couldn’t agree more with what you are saying and I cannot understand why a government would NOT want to ban firearms in the USA. It is highly unlikely that Bush will declare a war on guns – he won’t but why?
Given that guns kill so many people in the USA it seems the only sensible suggestion to me – it should be done.
One statistic that suprised me was that only 22 people a year are killed in Japan by a firearm. In a country with so many people living in it this is amazingly low. Whatever they are doing for this number to be so low then maybe the USA should follow suite. They won’t because it seems they believe (apologies to the many Americans who are not so) they have the right way of doing most things and wouldn’t take advice on board.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 17, 2007 at 5:09 pm
On the BBC news someone was asked “What do you suppose can be done to better protect students from this kind of thing.” It an obvious question from a newscaster. The answer given was “I think we need to step up security at schools. Metal detectors, random searches, things like that. We need to look at maybe even armed security personal, something that will act as a deterrent to a would be gunman.”
I shook my head at the apparent lack of connected thinking this woman was displaying. Her solution to the firearms in schools problem (a very small part of a much wider problem) was to put firearms in schools! Amazing!
Metal detectors and the such will do nothing but give an illusion of safety. They’re window dressing solutions that may be accepted by an American public as a trade off to actually dealing with the the supply chain of firearms in the United States. Bullet proof jackets and security companies might be keen to subtly work there way into the debate if government funding were to be made available for any such security enhancements.
In the end though I don’t imagine anything much will happen. The news networks will feed off this story until the funerals have passed, then they’ll move on and we’ll all forget about this horror until the next kid decides to go on a killing spree.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 17, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I was stunned to hear someone from the gun lobby arguing that the solution was to let students carry guns as they are ill prepared to deal with an armed assailant, what an utterly stupid suggestion. Yep, the way to reduce gun crime and make schools safer is to let a bunch college kids bare arms in school. Its a little like ‘the best way to defeat terrorism’ is to invade Islamic countries. Violence begets violence.
Something like 90% of firearms discharged in the home end up killing a family member, making a mockery of the idea of buying a gun to defend yourself with.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 17, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Hate to pop the bubble, but we don’t have a monopoly on it:
March 13, 1996
Dunblane, Scotland 16 children and one teacher killed at Dunblane Primary School by Thomas Hamilton, who then killed himself. 10 others wounded in attack.
March 1997
Sanaa, Yemen Eight people (six students and two others) at two schools killed by Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri.
April 28, 1999
Taber, Alberta, Canada One student killed, one wounded at W. R. Myers High School in first fatal high school shooting in Canada in 20 years. The suspect, a 14-year-old boy, had dropped out of school after he was severely ostracized by his classmates.
Dec. 7, 1999
Veghel, Netherlands One teacher and three students wounded by a 17-year-old student.
March 2000
Branneburg, Germany One teacher killed by a 15-year-old student, who then shot himself. The shooter has been in a coma ever since.
Jan. 18, 2001
Jan, Sweden One student killed by two boys, ages 17 and 19.
Feb. 19, 2002
Freising, Germany Two killed in Eching by a man at the factory from which he had been fired; he then traveled to Freising and killed the headmaster of the technical school from which he had been expelled. He also wounded another teacher before killing himself.
April 29, 2002
Vlasenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina One teacher killed, one wounded by Dragoslav Petkovic, 17, who then killed himself.
Sept. 28, 2004
Carmen de Patagones, Argentina Three students killed and 6 wounded by a 15-year-old Argentininan student in a town 620 miles south of Buenos Aires.
Sept. 13, 2006
Montreal, Canada Kimveer Gill, 25, opened fire with a semiautomatic weapon at Dawson College. Anastasia De Sousa, 18, died and more than a dozen students and faculty were wounded before Gill killed himself.
Sept. 1, 2004:
School Number One, Beslan, Russia 333 dead, including 186 children.
April 28, 1996
Port Arthur, Tasmainia, Australia 35 dead, 37 wounded
Wrote the following comment on Apr 17, 2007 at 6:40 pm
“Something like 90% of firearms discharged in the home end up killing a family member, making a mockery of the idea of buying a gun to defend yourself with. ”
I just love statistics made up out of whole cloth (that’s a nice way of saying “pulled out of your butt”)
Wrote the following comment on Apr 18, 2007 at 6:14 am
Rachel, surely the numbers speak for themselves. America slaughters more human beings in less than a week than all the developed countries of the world do in a year! Are you seriously suggesting that this fact is less scary to you than changing the law so that people can’t just buy guns and ammo like a pack of smokes?
I understand the argument that “well if you change this amendment where does that road end” but if you do nothing as a country (as you almost certainly will) then are you not somehow compromising the constitutional rights of some to enjoy LIFE and liberty? Gun crime is clearly a social cancer, how on earth is protecting that a good thing?
In the U.S. constitution there was mention of slaves and argument over how they should be counted. Eventually the way they were counted was settled upon as three-fifths of a whole person. However, slavery is no longer protected under the constitution, which is surely evidence that the constitution can indeed be updated and amended.
To those people who tell me that their second amendment right to bear arms is so important that to impose upon it I ask one simple question. Why? Why is your right to bear arms so very very important to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
If the thought of any loss of liberty is so abhorrent to second amendment advocates then I am interested in why there was practically no resistance from these people over the Patriot Act which trampled its way through the constitution like an angry bull. Were people not paying attention when this happened or were they just so upset by SEEING less than 3000 people die that they felt such impositions into their rights were okay?
Clearly more white middle class Americans need to be shot and killed before this right will ever be looked at as a wrong.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 17, 2007 at 8:40 pm
this is kinda a catch-22. referring to “another school shooting” says it all. not that we have to worry about our kids getting shot every day….look at all of the attn he got…and so did the others.
is there a solution? you bet. we live in a different world now,kids need to be searched for drugs,cigs and now weapons.
speaking of attn….isnt that what a terrorist wants for “his cause” or what he believes in. do other countries actually think they can take us out….or do they want our attn? i am not going to quote statistics and act like all i do is research this shit….just my opinion of what our society has created…..kids who are products of over-achievement and instant gratification.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 18, 2007 at 8:13 am
DariOn, you know me well enough to know that I love the United States and have posted far more positive posts about America than negative ones. But of the developed countires in the world (and that bit is key) you are indeed sitting at the top of the tree when it comes to the muder rate. That’s a sad fact, but it’s true. If you feel I am wrong then I challenge you find evidence to support your case.
At no point have I suggested that guns ought to be taken off Americans. What I propsed was “sensible gun control” but this conversation can’t even be had because of people who will resist it on principle, yet I have yet to actually see what principle they are sticking to.
You don’t carry a gun do you DariOn? Neither does your Mom or Dad, so are they then somehow putting themselves in danger because they aren’t armed and therefore they are not on an equal footing with a would be attacker? Your thinking doesn’t seem to add up.
While I understand that the guy could have made a bomb or something, that seems to me like the only real way he could have killed the same number of people. Had he gone on the rampage with knives I don’t think America would be reeling from the same number of deaths.
So DariOn, you say that guns aren’t the problem (and I tend to agree with you to some extent on that one), may I ask you what is and how do you propose America fix that problem?
Wrote the following comment on Apr 18, 2007 at 1:48 am
What I love about the media is that they are saying this is the worst mass murder in American history. I wonder how many crazy people that are watching are thinking “I can do better!!”
Wrote the following comment on Apr 18, 2007 at 4:17 am
I honestly feel very helpless in the situation. I mean, from my understanding, mass shootings didnt take place in america until the past century. SO then i have to ask myself why? why the sudden change? That progression of thought leads me down scarier roads then the question of how someone got a gun ever did.
Do you blame the gun for the weakening of the moral integrity of our society? Maybe you could…. I dont think so. BUT regardless of why there’s been a raise in gun shootings at school: particularly in the past 30 years.. I think we are obligated to do something about it. THe question is how…. and that’s where the problems come.
How do you change something like the second ammendment to our constitution!? To change the ammendment, particularly without a majority opinion… is a scarier thought then any school shooting. The legal ramifications for an action like that would send me out of this country in a heartbeat. I can only imagine the changes that would then begin to take place.. its not something I’d want myself or my kids to live in.
So what to do? I dont know…. I’m sure there’s a way to put more regulations on guns without taking away our rights… BUT then i wonder if you’re not simply limiting the “good guys” (so to speak). And then I wonder, if we arent so fargone with our gun liberality that there’s no turning back. I really dont know and i think my comment just went in one big circle…but i’m open to ideas of how change could take place… if its even possible.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 18, 2007 at 6:50 am
honestly i do not like the idea of taking away our right to bear arms. true many people may die from them in america, but all over the world many people die from other things as well. so now america has to deal with another loner/psychopath that went on a killing rampage again. what if he hadnt used a gun? im sure he could have used any other weapons and still been successful at killing some innocent people. taking away our guns has nothing at all to do with what had happened. and it wont sovle anything in the long run. wow so if the usa is soooooo bad and we kill sooooooo many people with guns, then how come we’re not in the top ten countries with the highest murder rates?
and how come the countries that are poor and seem to lack a strong government? the day this country cant protect itself is a sad day. i mean come on look at some places in africa, they have terrrorism going on in their own country by their own people, kidnapping and brainwashing their children, small villages being atacked by people with guns and they have no way to defend themselves all they can do is run and pray they dont get shot.
so honeslty i dont understand why ur blog has to be biased and kinda in a sense putting america down, like you usually do.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 18, 2007 at 7:18 am
If you refute the statistic, post the one you believe to be correct. I will dig out the correct figure later today.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 18, 2007 at 6:34 pm
I believe what I said was, “To change the ammendment, particularly without a majority opinion is a scarier thought then any school shooting.” Understand that I was referring to completely changing the ammendmend.. and in all honesty, to completely change it without a majority behind it is a very very scarey thought. TO simply change it.. the more i think about it, not so scarey- but to change it without a majority- that’s where i take issue. We loose the second ammendment without a majority, we can easily loose the first, or the third, or the fourth, etc… and if we lose those- far more lives will be lost then we are currently losing.
So now please do not presume that anything i said is suggesting that the number of deaths by gun in a week is less scary to me than changing the law so that people can’t just ‘buy guns and ammo like a pack of smokes.’ This statement of yours seems to apply to restrictions and not an overturning of one of our bill of rights…
SO, if we’re talking restrictions… I personally like the idea of restrictions…. and would love to hear how those would practically work out. I’m honestly concerned that restrictions would turn into giving an edge to people who would get ahold of guns anyway. I dont know that this is true, but it is something that initially concerns me. Ideally, I think it would at least be nice to put limits on the weaponry people can get their hands on.. and maybe even add in a waiting period for guns to limit crimes of passion. BUT as i said in the opening line to my last entry, I feel a little helpless in this situation.
You also brought up slavery…. and its a good point, we can make changes to the constitution and slavery is a perfect example of that. It was of course not as easy as simply presenting a bill to the house of representatives and allowing it to go through congress right on up to the president. No, we faught a whole civil war over it… changing the constitution is not easy and so i would like to be in a place where more of the country wanted it before going for it.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 18, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Watching the TV this morning they had a parent from one of the victims of Dunblane and also a pro gun guy (some organisation of some sort) from Seattle in the USA.
When the guy from the USA was put the question isn’t it time that USA introduced some restrictions on guns his response I couldn’t believe (its not an exact quote by the way but went along the lines of):
“The problem is that there are restricted gun zones for example in schools and colleges. This means that these areas cannot carry guns. This means that they cannot defend themselves from any shooter that attacks them”
Basically what he was trying to say was that in order to prevent these type of incidents where guns (and the person behind the trigger) have caused the problem we should solve it by (believe it or not) allowing more guns into the community.
I couldn’t not believe what I was hearing. The guy from Scotland was not very impressed with the opinions of the guy from Seattle.
America was hot by perhaps the worse act of terrorism at 9/11 and so security was tightened up in order to prevent it from happening. Certain items were banned on airplanes. Why can’t the same response happen here. Surely it is clear that more restrictions on firearms would simply prevent these incidents happening as often. Maybe most Americans that have guns are responsible but the reason that we have laws is that they protect the community from the people that are not.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 18, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I totally agree with you, Simon, but I’m glad that tx_eggman has set the record straight for the rest of the world, including the UK, or I would have done.
I worked for a US university’s study abroad programme in London during the time of Dunblane and the American director of the programme said that when this happens in the UK, the British government bans all handguns, but when this happens in the US, the US government says “oh dear”.
My dad was in the British army and we had a gun in the house when I grew up. The gun had cement down the barrel so could never be used and was only used for formal parades. I learnt that guns are used in combat situations only. A free and safe country should never need the use of guns to protect themselves from fellow citizens. The police should do that job. When the second constitution of the USA was written there was no existing nationwide police force in the US and so the right was given to individuals to protect themselves. In the 21st century, when the US clearly has a functioning police force or “well regulated militia”, should civilians be given the choice to have guns? When people argue that guns should be allowed for people to protect themselves, then they get their guns from the same place as the guy who goes on a rampage – one “lunatic” goes against the other in a mass shootout. I don’t see that resolving anything.
The only way this can be resolved is for people to change the way they think about guns, about gun law and who it really is protecting. With so many killings the only person the law is protecting is the shooter, not the victims, their families, friends or the rest of us. Change the way people can see themselves being protected and you can change the law.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 19, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Ironically I checked my calander to see where I was when the shooting in Scotland happened… I was once again in America, a country some try to convince themselves that I “hate.”
Brewster hasn’t come back to answer what I thought were some good questions. That’s as shame, but there ya go.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 19, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Ok, I have found those figures and they are higher than I remember. Only 1 in 4 violent crimes are committed when the victim is at home. Among all instances when a firearm is discharged in the home, in only 2% of cases are the guns used to shoot the intruder. In the other 98% they end up shooting a loved one or themselves, or the intruder takes the gun from them and kills them with it. Each year 500,000 guns are stolen, the majority from, yep you guessed it, people who buy them to protect themselves.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 19, 2007 at 7:45 pm
First of all I’d like to say that I really enjoyed reading the posts and comments on this topic on here.
If I put my opinion in a small nutshell, I’d have to say that I think that the American infatuation with guns is closely linked to the fact that the US never had a real, modern-age war on their soil.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 19, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Interesting comment that Pichel, but I’m not sure I uderstand the correlation between the two? I don’t remember WW2 because I wasn’t around then, but are you somehow claiming that because of WW2 I have some kind of inbuilt aversion to firearms?
Firearms are great fun, like fireworks! But the problem is unlike fireworks people use firarms to deliberately inflict injury and death on others. The fact that guns can be fun isn’t a good enough reason not to discuss how they should be tightly controlled within ANY country.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 19, 2007 at 9:53 pm
https://men.msn.com/articlepollgc.aspx?cp-documentid=4732850>1=9311
interesting poll.. If 59% of us dont think stricter gun control will help eleminate these sorts of tragedies right after the shooting in Virginia… then i imagine those numbers are actually a lot higher when we’re away from tragedy.. anyhow, i guess that’s where we’re at as a country.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 20, 2007 at 12:12 am
Yet I read a news article just today that cited another poll that said 4 out of 5 Americans are in favor of tighter gun control. Either way it matters little given that this is one of those hot button subjects that no one has the courage to meet head on and deal with. Instead it’s far easier to act sympathetic, propose tougher “security” then turn your back on the problem and beat a swift retreat.
If Islamic extremists started buying guns from Walmart and killing masses of innocent people on a near daily basis what do you suppose they would do then?
And in other news. 80 people died today gun related incidents in the United States in. The tragedy, bigger in number than the Virginia Tech killings went largely unreported.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 20, 2007 at 1:43 am
https://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/key2000i/index.htm
https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims
https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur-crime-burglaries
https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims
https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_fra-crime-frauds
Think (and/or research) before you blog…
I ask you this, why did 30+ people die?
Why did passengers of 4 planes let themselves be used as tools for terrorists to kill 3000 people?
Because of a society bred to fear.
Because of a society bred with an European socialist appeasement attitude…
Why didn’t the people getting shot charge the gunman? He had 2 guns and he killed 30 people?
Why did the passengers not charge their captors like they finally did on flight 93?
We have been subdued. We have lost our fighting spirit.
Anyway, I’m not sure how tighter gun control laws could have prevented this. I do not know when he bought his guns (I support a tighter check for the right to buy guns).
I mean, this dude planned it out, he had no real prior law issues, the only way to keep a gun out of his hands would have been to have a no gun law. Something that America is not quite ready for.
You need to remember America was still a frontier type just over a 100 years ago. A rural society up until WW2.
Anyway, I look forward to your responses ;)
Wrote the following comment on Apr 20, 2007 at 2:00 am
Interesting stats indeed Michael. Though they don’t really prove anything relevant to this discussion, but thanks for the good bookmark nonetheless.
Arguing against gun control is fine. You’ll win. But not because you’re right. The stats are heavily stacked against you. America kills more people with guns than any other developed country and what is really sad about that is despite the 80 or so people who die each day from a gun shot wound in the United States, the “home of the brave” is not yet brave enough to address this very serious problem. Yet curiously enough it is willing to go to war with a country over something far less real and immediate.
Good to see you back on here though Michael. I thought you’d given up on me for a while back there. Glad you enjoy the blog enough to keep coming back though. Always good to flex the brain muscles I say.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 20, 2007 at 2:09 am
Beak, “should civilians be given the choice to have guns?”
Spoken like a true socialist/communist…
Thanks for making that decision for me…
Wrote the following comment on Apr 20, 2007 at 2:16 am
https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_per_of_saf_wal_in_dar-crime-perception-safety-walking-dark
https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_per_of_saf_bur-crime-perception-of-safety-burglary
Simon, look at the % who feel safe.
Feeling safe is a part of being free…
New Hampshire state motto: ‘live free or die’.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 20, 2007 at 2:25 am
Again, very interesting stats Michael, thanks for pointing these out. I’m not really sure how this helps your argument, or indeed what your argument is, but thanks again for the links.
Also, New Hampshire is a great State. When I spent time there I used to joke that the State motto could be read another way. As a threat:
Live free… or die! :-)
Regardless though, I do love New Hampshire.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 20, 2007 at 2:52 am
https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting_weapons
Laws should have prevented him from buying weapons…
Wrote the following comment on Apr 20, 2007 at 9:20 am
Agreed
Wrote the following comment on Apr 20, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I just don’t see why the right to have a gun is SO important to Americans. Europeans seem to get on just fine without them. Any benefits to gun ownership seem to be massively outweighed by their drawbacks.
Michael, why does removing the right to have a gun make someone a socialist? As Simon has already stated, you guys have given up a lot more rights with little protest.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 20, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Guess what group or religious nuts will be at the funerals…
From their website the infamous Westboro Baptist Church say: “WBC will preach at the funerals of the Virginia Tech students killed on campus during a shooting rampage April 16, 2007. You describe this as monumental horror, but you know nothing of horror — yet. Your bloody tyrant Bush says he is ‘horrified’ by it all. You know nothing of horror — yet. Your true horror is coming.”
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 3:55 am
The chances of a burglar would be carrying a firearm here in the UK are so remote they almost are not worth worrying about. However I would never assume they were not armed with say a knife, which is why I would be very careful about apprehending them. The chances are though, they would be off like a shot if they heard me coming (as they did in a burglary here a year or so ago). They want to see me about as much as I want to see them.
In asking me to review my own countries laws I am not sure what your point is? Are you assuming that I think England is some kind of land of perfection? Such assumptions are unwise my friend.
However I’m not surprised since you assume that I “don’t mind taking away a person’s right to defend themselves and their family” despite the fact that I have not written that anywhere and gone so far as to show that is most certainly not my opinion. Once again, your assumptions are weakening your argument my friend, such that it is (and I am still unsure as to what on earth it is?).
There is nothing to stop Sarah from marching into her office and blowing away every person there. However I feel that this is unlikely and that the sight of a person carrying a fuck off great big shot gun would probably raise the alarm very quickly. But you’re of course right, she could do that. But oddly enough, despite gun ownership here in the UK we’re not a country known for such gun crimes while America is. Even as we write back and forth to one another, one of your fellow countrymen marched into NASA and took two hostages at gun-point, killing one, and eventually himself. You fancy taking a bet with me that we won’t have a similar crime to that coming week in the UK, despite gun ownership?
The UK does indeed have a higher burglary rate than the US. But since 9/11 we haven’t seen 55,000 people die from gun shot wounds. Perhaps citing a statistic that asks UK people how afraid they are of gun crime compared to the average American would be a more accurate thing for you do do, though I think if that information were available you might wish to gloss over it given the truth behind the numbers.
Michael, I know my opinions get you all bent out of shape mate, and I’m not surprised. But before you accuse me of failing to recognize my own countries faults, or burning effigies of your President, or calling him a murderer, perhaps you’ll take a moment to consider the fact that I have stated on more occasions than I care to remember, that I love America and the American people. Indeed so much so that I spent my own money to travel to Katrina hit Mississippi to help people rebuild (though that felt like trying to make ice in hell!). I will be returning to Mississippi again this year to lend a hand to some of that continuing work if required, though I suspect a lot of my time there will be spent just socializing with great friends I made while we cleared shit out of wrecked homes after the hurricane.
My opinions may make you made, and I’m glad I engage you. I’m glad you value my opinions enough to remain as courteous and gentlemanly as you always do. I too value your input and opinions and enjoy duking it out with you here :-)
If you’re anywhere near Boston, Houston, New Orleans, or Waveland Mississippi toward the end of June and the start of July then lets meet up for a beer and a gun fight ;-)
Wrote the following comment on Apr 20, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Wilvo,
Just do a quick google on gun control. Pay special attention to large massacres that have occured after.
Turkey, Armenian massacre.
Russia, Dissident massacre.
Nazi’s, Jewish/Handicapped/Mentally-Ill/Gypsy massacre.
Let me give you an example of European freedom:
You want to go water skiing?
You have to get a permit. Then, because others were here before you, you can only go on the weekdays.
How about the basic right of self-defense? In the UK, if you shoot someone (even in self-defense) it is murder… There is a story about one elderly UK man that got life for shooting 2 burglars after he had been repeatedly robbed…
Can you give me some examples of how I have given up rights in the Patriot act?
Tell me how any of those measures are not already in place in Europe.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 20, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I do not fear guns, I’m not afraid of being shot, I don’t think owning a gun would make me safer. Increasing the number of guns in the UK would increase the number of gun deaths without reducing violent crime significantly. If more law abiding citizens owned guns, so would more criminals. The result, a more dangerous society. Its not rocket science Mike. Its a little like allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons, by your logic they should be allowed to as surely they have the right to defend themselves? Perhaps every country should be allowed them. Of course, Canada has a similar level of gun ownership as the the US, and yet they don’t have anywhere near the same level of gun related crime. Unfortunately, America seems to have lost its way, in many ways I see it as quite a backward nation. Americans can’t be trusted with guns the stats demonstrate that very clearly.
As for the Patriot Act have a look at this https://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 1:51 am
Michael, at least try to get your facts straight. The farmer you mention shot and killed one burglar at his remote farm in Norfolk. Under UK law he was indeed convicted of murder to great public outcry. On appeal this was quite rightly set aside for the far lesser crime of manslaughter to which he was sentenced to 5 years of which he served 3.
That particular case provoked great public debate and a more recent case of another farmer who also shot (but did not kill) a burglar saw the farmer being released without charge while the burglar received a 7 year sentence.
The Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large. At this time a judge decides what is considered reasonable.
But since you bought up the subject of that case, albeit wrongly, I will point out that neither of the two burglars were armed. I only point this out to show that most criminals here in the UK do not carry guns. The burglars were foolish to break into a farm house given the fact that a lot of people in rural farm communities do indeed keep shotguns and rifles in locked gun cabinets as per the strict laws of the UK. One of my ex-girlfriends sleeps just yards away from her two rifles and a shotgun. If her dog doesn’t hurt any intruder to her cottage I’m quite sure her shotgun would, and in that case it might surprise you to learn I have no problem with that.
As for you not knowing about the Patriot Act, well I think someone who is as opinionated as your good self should be a little embarrassed to be asking Englishmen for information about acts passed in your proud nation.
No doubt Will’s ACLU link will be easy for you to dismiss, but regardless of that I will encourage you to go away and research that act for yourself so as you can form your own well informed opinions.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 1:57 am
“Increasing the number of guns in the UK would increase the number of gun deaths without reducing violent crime significantly.”
I think you need to check the statistics. England has a HIGHER crime rate than the US.
Also, people in the UK don’t feel as safe as they do in the US!
I think you are mis-understanding my point about guns. I don’t have a gun and will probably never have a gun.
I JUST DON’T LIKE BEING TOLD THAT I CAN’T HAVE ONE.
As to your comment on Iran. I actully don’t care if they have them or not. What worries me is that they don’t understand/care about what made the US/Soviet standoff kindof safe was the fact of mutually assured destruction. Something that a radical Islamic state does not pay heed to.
Letting Iran get nukes is tantamount to declaring WW3 right now… except this time it will go nuclear.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 3:26 am
Simon,
Assuming that someone breaking into your house (thereby breaking the law) would not be armed is suicidal! Um, he’s breaking the law by trying to rob you, so is it wise to assume that he would never break the no gun law?
I mean, come on, IT’S AGAINST THE LAW TO OWN A GUN!
As to the Patriot Act… If you think these things weren’t done before? You’ve got to be kidding me.
For years (my brother is a local Deputy Sheriff) they have conducted sneak-and-peaks where they go before a judge and get a 90-day permission to break into a suspected criminals car and plant tracking devices… They’ve even gotten multiple extensions for this!
Once again, I ask you to please review your own countries laws:
https://www.spy.org.uk/cgi-bin/civilcontingencies.pl
I just find it funny that you don’t mind taking away a person’s right to defend themselves and their family (a basic right-to-life freedom), but you get all bent out of shape if someone listens to your telephone calls…
Then as to your ex-girlfriend, what is to stop her from going into the office and blowing people away with her shotgun?
The simple fact is that there are wacko’s everywhere. The question you have to ask is how much freedom you are willing to give up in order to feel safe.
The UK has chosen to give up the right to bear arms and apparently (according to statistics) they don’t feel any safer! In fact they feel less safe than those in the US.
And they should, according to statistics you are more likely to get assaulted, robbed, or your car stolen in the UK than in the US.
So anyway, the biggest problem I have with people who bash the US is that they never accompany their slander with any recognition that THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING IN THEIR COUNTRY. Yet, they don’t rave about that, they burn effigies of my President and shout things like he is a murderer and he is out to kill everyone on the whole planet.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Mike,
I think a fairer comparison would be on a city by city basis, do Londoners feel safer than New Yorkers for example. As I’m sure you are aware, we are way more densely populated than you, as a result I think we are way more aware of crime, and as a result feel less safe. Having said that, if we are a more violent nation, surely adding guns in to that mix would simply reduce the amount of violent assaults and increase the number of shootings. If it comes down to it, I’d rather be assaulted than shot.
With regards to our freedoms in Europe, believe me we have also sleep walked our way in to giving up ours too.
If Americans were forced to give up their guns tomorrow, they would feel less safe but in reality they would be a lot safer, a gun gives you a false sense of security.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I disagree with you Will. I still think even on a city by city basis the data Michael is using to prove his point (though I am not entirely sure what he is trying to prove?) then as I stated before, the only real comparrison would be to ask people here about gun crime.
The thing is, like a lot of people who object to gun control, Michael has already stated he isn’t a gun owner. Instead he is just one of the legions of people who object to even discussing gun control sensibly because he assumes that a control actually means a ban on all firearms, period.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Surely one simple fact has to be restated as this debate seems to be loosing track. IF PEOPLE DO NOT CARRY GUNS THEN NO-ONE CAN BE SHOT! Surely that has to be a good thing in society.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Mark,
Yes, if everyone was a law-abiding citizen who never did anything wrong, of course we wouldn’t need anything to defend ourselves.
However, there is no such place. And I think Europe has gone the way of appeasement.
It’s ok if you rob me, as long as no one gets hurt. It’s ok if you assault me, as long as you don’t have a gun. It’s ok if you take me hostage, as long as you don’t kill me…
I honestly can’t imagine living like that. I think the typical American can’t either.
Europeans have decided freedom is not worth dying for.
https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims
The UK has decided that it’s better to be assaulted than to allow somone to defend themselves with a gun.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Simon: With regards to my comment earlier: I think countries which experienced wars first hand and on their soil usually in the future take a different attitude towards asserting aggression – on any level of society and any way.
Having guns to keep the peace to me is one of these conundrums (at least I think that’s the word for it) that Tracy Chapman expressed well in one of her songs.
Love is hate
War is peace
No is yes
And we’re all free
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Yes Mike, it is better to be assaulted than to be shot. If citizens were allowed to carry guns then so would criminals. All that would happen is more people in the UK would be shot and I can make a pretty good guess that the number of innocent citizens killed by guns would outnumber the criminals who were killed by citizens defending themselves, as is the case in the US. The right to life is more important than the right to carry a gun. Guns may make you FEEL safer but all they do is increase the chance of being shot.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Wilvo,
Take a look at how many defensive gun uses have occurred just within the past few weeks!
https://www.goodguyswin.org/
Funny how the international media never reports this stuff to you…
All you see is the crime caused.
Also, did you know that 2/3 of all murder-victims-by-guns themselves had criminal records?
The numbers are not nearly as high as your governments would have you believe… It’s all about control Wilvo…
Now, go cower in fear as your government takes more and more freedoms away from you…
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Simon:
We have sensible gun control laws (background checks, 7-day wait period, no guns to criminals, etc..) in the US.
Did you know that only 17% of gun crimes are committed by people who legally owned guns?
ALL THE REST ARE DONE BY PEOPLE WHO OWNED GUNS ILLEGALLY!
So, if you are a criminal, chances are you are going to committ crime REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU CAN GET A WEAPON LEGALLY OR NOT!
This is evident by the crime rate in the UK.
What the UK has said is that “crime is ok, assaults are ok, as long as people don’t die in them”…
To most Americans, that is unacceptable.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 21, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I think I’m done discussing this now, but I just wanted to say one last thing, and that is that the Europe I live in is not a fearful place, though I do agree with Michael that our government is taking freedoms off us in the very same alarming fashion as his government is taking them from him. It would seem we all ought to be more concerned about that.
However, what is most interesting to me is that of the people who have spoken up for no change to the gun regulations in the United States here, only one of them actually has a gun. The rest are just “pro choice” I guess, and that’s fair enough.
My thanks to everyone who took time to take part in this most interesting exchange.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 22, 2007 at 1:33 am
Michael. Gun control laws differ from state to state and in leading our English friends to believe we have 7 day wait periods in place is not correct. To my knowledge there are no states that require a 7 day wait period to purchase a gun. Here in Virginia no such law is in place. One can simply walk into a licensed gun shop and buy a gun. A quick $2 criminal history check is done which checks to see if the buyer has been convicted of a federal crime, if not then you can buy one gun a month without a permit. There is also no requirement to register the gun. As a gun owner myself I don’t particularly agree with our English friends here, but I do feel that stronger background checks and a wait period, as you mentioned, would be a good idea.
Nice blog Simon
Wrote the following comment on Apr 22, 2007 at 8:00 am
I guess we just have different mind sets I have never had a gun, therefore I don’t feel the need for one. Perhaps if I had owned one and then that right was taken away perhaps it would be a different story. I think letting citizens have guns is utter stupidity, I really do. I’ve already provided figures that show most firearms that are discharged in the home kill a loved one. The perception of safety that a gun provides is a false one. If someone breaks in to your home with the intention of robbing you, do you think killing them is a reasonable response? The problem is, in the heat of the moment most ordinary people panic, they do not act proportionately or with a clear head. It is the polices job to apprehend criminals and the job of the court to punish them. It is not for you to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 22, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Michael,
“Yes, if everyone was a law-abiding citizen who never did anything wrong, of course we wouldn’t need anything to defend ourselves.
However, there is no such place”
So just because there are some bad people around that are not going to follow society’s rules this means that everyone else has to forget the rules to and carry a gun. Surely that means they have won. That is a “if we can’t beat them then join them” attitude and if everyone thought like that then society would be a mess.
If everyone carries guns to defend themselves, then the criminals will carry guns in order to commit the crimes. If no-one carried guns then there would be less of them – like in the UK.
You talk of defending yourself all the time by having a gun. You have mentioned this many times which says to me that you are not feeling all that safe in the first place and you feel the need to defend yourself whereas I don’t think we do. You probably feel the need because there is a greater risk of you being shot – yes you have guessed it by a gun! Even if I had a gun to ‘defend myself’ with I wouldn’t want to use it at all, so what is the point. Over here the culture is still, that guns and using them is wrong, whereas there seems to be a more relaxed attitude over there.
I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this one Michael :)
Wrote the following comment on Apr 23, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Guns don’t kill people, Americans do :-)
Wrote the following comment on Apr 23, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I think that is a little harsh Wilvo!
Wrote the following comment on Apr 24, 2007 at 7:46 am
Its called a joke Mark ;-)
Wrote the following comment on Oct 4, 2007 at 1:45 pm
i wonder if the police in the US would like to see stricter gun-laws,i know the police in the UK would not want these crazy gun-laws over here.