Another Shooting...Another Death: At CNN Headquarters

Calinerti

If guns help keep people safe, wouldn't that make countries with a high percentage of gun ownership the safest places in the world to live?

Maddogg6

No - the safest places are those with the best economies.
Guns help keep this fact from coming into play during bad economic times.

Is Russia, with their gun controls, the safest place? - No. Theres more murders per capita there.

Calinerti

This comes from nationmaster.com

http://www.nationmaster.com/article/...ound-the-World


"Though the United States still ranks among the highest in violent crimes among industrialized nations, and also in overall crime, the country is enjoying a decline in crime numbers, nevertheless."

So are you telling me that the US has one of the worst economies in the world? But its getting better?

I admit Im sort of equating crime with safety here.....

Maddogg6

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita
1) that chart (from same site, I linked to previously) is of murders - not crimes. We were talking 'deaths from violence' as the topic - right?
2) it shows the US (#24) is less per capita than Russia (#5) who has gun controls. (quite a large margin of 'per capita' difference too.) There are probably others as well too.
Which (as I have stated before) is proof that gun controls don't work.

Vikingod

As I mentioned in my earlier post (and is stated on the site you posted),

"Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence."

And also, equating crime with economics makes no sense, the two are exclusive.

A point I want to make...

Violent crime is violent crime. I happens everywhere in the world, for 10 million different reasons. Whether its done with a gun, a knife, a hammer, your fists and feet, or with an automobile; its still violent crime. This argument that one nation is "less bad" than another is silly. People kill people, its a fact of life. I find it hard to quantify whether doing it with a gun, or a board with a nail in it is "better". Is a murder in the name passion less sadistic than one for money, fame, religion? Could someone explain that to me?

Maddogg6

Not economics - economy - as in the health of - and yes - they are related.
When economy is bad - law enforcement is cut - less people to react to crimes. - with lowered economy - more people justify criminal activity to 'survive' but would otherwise be earning an honest living.

Things like that.

A murder is a murder is a murder.

What gets me is that sooo many people die in other less fair ways - and the media wont cover it - the old lady whos health care is soo expensive it becomes a choice between seeing a doctor or eating.
Or - did anyone hear about that priest here that killed a pedestrian because he was drunk - it was a 15 sec soundbite - and dropped.

edit: to me slow deaths like lack of medical attention - to me is much more sadistic....

But on the (some what more..) rare occasion some wack job shoots some one 'innocent' with a gun - its plastered on the news on multiple occasions - 'live breaking news'...
That sickens me.....

Vikingod

I see your point, my only contention is that when you are addressing developed or industrialized nations, you don't see this behavior or spike in the number of crimes. Probably the last time in the US that you really would have seen "honest" people becoming criminals just to survive was during the great depression in the 1920's. Other than that, there are other ways such as public programs that prevent people from turning to crime. I don't have the data, but i'd imagine a few years ago, when the unemployment rate was nothing short of terrible, crime rates were either pretty stable or declining, as has been the trend lately.

As far as law enforcement goes, they really act more as a punitive measure in my opinion. While their presence does keep the "lesser" crimes to a minimum, I can't imagine some maniac who would normally want to kill his girlfriend, not do so because the police are down the street. Likewise,I don't think a lot of normal/sane/moral people would kill someone just because it is legal to do so. It really goes to the person, and not the legal/governmental system. If someone thinks something is wrong, they are less likely to do that. Whether that comes from personal conviction, upbringing, or as a matter of law.

The media has their focus, and really the media of the last 20 years is a whole other issue I dare not get into. In short, they are much more focued on sale than actually reporting the relevant materials. I agree with your other points, there is much tragedy in life, such in nature I suppose. But, that is a fact of life, and the reason I try to suceed personally in my career/family, to ensure I make a less tragic fate.

Maddogg6

Thankfully we havent had such a bad economy since then either to be absolutely certain - but enough evidence suggests that in bad economies, crime increases in almost direct proportions.

Now.... Consider:
Joe is an honest hard working Family man.
He gets laid off and in desperation steals food from the grocery store.
But the shop keeper pulls a baseball bat and runs after joe - Joes natural reaction and desperation to put food in his families mouth - he gets the bat and cracks the store owner in the head and kills him.
This type of 'violent' outcome from a simple robbery scenario happens often by 'non-violent' criminals right now, frequently.
It will increase with in a fallen economy.

OR

Joe decides to sell drugs - and chooses bubas corner - bubba doesnt like loosing business from this new guy and trys to kill him - Joe defends himself and kills bubba - is it self defense? - depends on what evidence is left behind - but it wont look good for Joe either way being a drug dealer and will be left up to a jury - if he can't afford a good lawyer - hes likley to be another 'murderer' statistic.

Vikingod

Exactly, which furthers the point that numbers don't necessarily tell the whole truth. Safety and morality can't be quantified.

Maddogg6

well - if your saying that - this whole subject isn't as cut and dry as we may be indicating - I'll agree - but otherwise you have lost me on this....

Calinerti

I was waiting for this to be pointed out. Yes, there wil always be the haves and the have nots. Always. In EVERY society, in every country. Im not burning your flag. Im not attacking your politics. I understand, as each contibutor to this thread seems to, that violence is a part of the world we live in. Everyone agrees on that. there will ALWAYS be agressors. ALWAYS. There is no country without crime. No country without criminals. No country where there isnt a seperation of classes. Providing weapons capable of instant death probably isnt a good idea. Probably? Wait... How many dead bodies??

Maddogg6

Its NOT just how fast a weapon kills.....
A rock to the skull can actually kill quicker compared to a gun shot elsewhere beside...

Its also how easily I can protect myself AND - it wont stop crooks from getting a gun. Ie: Drugs are still available - yet - they are illegal.- Right?

Calinerti

No. I suppose not............. A regrettable instant?

BlueMak

This is interesting, Greece is even lower than Switzerland.

Calinerti

Right. Your point?

Maddogg6

um.. that laws don't stop drugs from being made/distributed and used....

Calinerti

Gimmie a break man. Are you trying to tell me that countries with stricter gun regulations dont have less deaths per year as a result of firearms? Hey Sandok... how many deaths last year in Switzerland as a result of firearms?

The fact that laws are broken only harkens back to my previous post. There will always be crime. If I punch you in the head, a law is broken. If i put a bullet in your head, a law is broken. Choose. Or maybe I would choose. I would neither punch nor shoot. Maybe I would censor my behaviour for the good of all. Put it to a vote! Would you rather be punched in the head or shot in the head? Everyone has a fist. Not everyone has a gun. Pretend you are in charge and responsible for the safety of all, and that every life lost is accountable to you.

Maddogg6

Yes... Countries with gun controls have more deaths - US vs Russia on the MURDER chart I linked to is the evidence.
edit: so instead of a break - I gave you evidence - or is this meaningless to you that controls dont work.

But only crooks will have guns. Just like drugs are still available with existing drug laws. Is this that difficult to understand?

So - the reality is - if a crook has a gun - I would rather have one too.

If everyone had a gun - a crook is less likely to be one that confrontational /violent.
And I am thinking this way... your avoiding points I make with unfounded and known to be inncorrect scenarios.

Maddogg6

dbl post... ???

Sandok

Much less than the US….

Gun Homicide (per 100,000) in Switzerland per 100,000: 0.46
Gun Homicide (per 100,000) in USA per 100,000: 6.24

Switzerland: Opponents of gun control often use Switzerland as evidence that access to guns is not linked to crime or violence. They argue that since virtually all adult males are members of the army and have military weapons, there is nearly universal access to deadly weapons yet few gun-related problems in Switzerland. However, Swiss criminologist Martin Killias, of the Université de Lausanne, argues that the rate of households with firearms is actually comparable to that of Canada (27.2%). There is strict screening of army officers and ammunition is stored in sealed boxes and inspected regularly.