Does this put the gun debate into perspective....?

Question

Graph of gun related deaths per 100,000 people in the worlds richest countries. Please note which country is at the top.

http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/COW/archive/2002/jan1502gun.htm

Will this make the picture any clearer for the gun nuts?

Great answers folks;

Liberals look at the big picture and say - Why?

Conservatives look and say - Why change?

Answer 1

Neoconservatives do not see facts.

Answer 2

a bit off topic, but I have to ask one thing. This was pointed out recently on a radio show I was listening to.

As alot of you have been saying, the principle reason for making gun ownership a constitutional rights (originally) was to provide the opportunity to defend ourselves against a tyranical government.

But, lets look at this for what it is: a historical fact. As in, it occured in very specific historical conditions.
Now, the motivations are certainly still the same. But do you really think a gun still going to put up much of a fight against a government who now controls one of the largest/ most 'up-to-date' armies in the world?

the police bring weapons to protest marches, "just in case", where the majority of people are calling for non-violence and peace. These are weapons the US is using in Iraq, as in these are weapons used by the US military. If the government is using these as potential preventative measures against peace activists, what do you think they could unleash if they thought they had to deal with a fully armed and violent crowd?

Seriously, I think its a valid point:
if guns laws should be kept lax as a defense against the government, well, they just arent going to cut it if the **** really hits the fan.
(And no, I'm not suggesting that everyone should have the right to own military weapons..........)

Answer 3

I am a liberal and I agree with you on most things. And, I also don't like guns, and at the moment I don't have one. But, I also have to think about, and seriously consider another side to this issue as well. I have to consider the real reason why the right to bear arms was included in the bill of rights to begin with. The reason is so that we the people are able to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. The first thing that has always been done, when martial law has ever been declared, is the confiscation of the guns from the public. That is to keep the people under the control of the fascist regime.
There is every bit as much of a danger of that happening as there ever has been. *sm*

Answer 4

You've got the pre-concieved notion that guns are bad. Anything that suggests you are right you consider "proof." There are many ways to gather facts. There are many ways to present facts and just as many ways to interpret facts. Both sides of the argument manipulate stats and facts in such a way that they seem right. What happens in other countries is irrelevant. There are other factors to be taken into consideration. Not just the gun laws. If you get past the nonsense and examine the question objectively and rationally, not emotionally, you may still not like guns but you would likely change your point of view. Tell me what is wrong with a sane, rational, competent person who knows how to handle firearms owning a weapon? Gun laws only prevent the law abiding from buying guns. What happened today was horrible. But it still would have happened if Virginia had tougher gun laws. You can't prevent every tragedy.

Answer 5

Hmmmmm. 14.62 gun deaths per 100,000 with Brazil and Mexico running a close 2nd and 3rd. Where is Iraq? According to the libs 100,000 Iraqis are dying every day through the use of firearms and I guarantee, per capita, those folks are a lot richer than the average American.

So, remember the old saying; "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"; well do you? Hang a sign on your front door saying "THERE ARE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE". Leave it up for 1 week and see what happens. Making it illegal for law abiding citizens to own firearms will be putting that type of a sign up on every ones front door forever.

I can't believe there are still fools around that think not being able to defend yourself is the way to maintain your safety.

According to your chart about 43,860 people died by firearms last year yet the murder rate from all causes was 5.5 per 100,000 which totals about 16,500 murders (and these are not just from firearms). We know that at least 28,000 of the gun related deaths were not "murders". How many did the police shoot, how many were accidents, how many where justifiable, etc, etc. In actuality a murder was committed using a firearm only (not to make light of this) 68.7% of the time. People being beat to death with no weapon was the second highest rate at 21.4%!

In 2005 there were 43,200 traffic deaths, 7.1% of those where pedestrians! I won't take your right away to not have to defend yourself but rather let someone else do it for you (you hope they will anyway) if you let me defend myself and my family. Deal?

Answer 6

This, too, is a very complicated problem.

On the one hand, if an otherwise SANE person gets a warm, fuzzy feeling by polishing their Smith & Wesson, fine. So be it. Second Amendment. Hoo-ra.

But there's such a "glorification" of guns (NRA?). You stir in a healthy dose of fear (domestic, political, etc.) and it's a classic mobius strip of one thing "feeding" the other. People succumb to more fear, and buy more guns. On and on and on.

I think it's hilarious how some folks here rant about some localized pockets of cold weather invalidating global warming, in the same way that some localized pockets of lower crime rates are supposed to invalidate the nation's statistics on the whole. Re-read that if it wasn't clear.

The presence of more guns do not automatically reduce crime rates.

All together now...."happiness.....is a warm gun..."

Answer 7

Perhaps we should broaden our research to include no. of strokes, heart attacks, divorces, suicides, substance abuse, per 100,000 people and see if there might be a correlation between all these factors! You might be surprised! Then perhaps we might take a cold hard look at the differences between these nations in social structures such as morality, ethics, per capita income, standard of living, education, religious affiliations, family structure, etc. To narrow the search to only deaths per 100,000 people, only tells us the symptom, not the cause!

Answer 8

Ha! 14 deaths per 100,000 people? .00014 percent? Jesus, I'll take that as a trade for personal safety and a government that fears its citizens. Plus, look at deaths due to drowning in backyard pools for children. Its something like 14 times as much as guns. Will that be enough for the pool nuts to understand how dangerous pools are? Or cars? Or knives? Or Smoking? Or alcohol? Or crossing the street? Or checking the mail? Or skydiving? Wow, what a dangerous world!

Answer 9

Here's one for you:

87 dead, Happy Land Social Club in New York City, March 25, 1990. Arson. It's funny what you can do with $1.50 worth of gas.

So what are you going to do now? Ban gasoline?

People kill people. Get over it. Until you can find some way to change that littel fact, all the statistics in the world mean two things. Jack. Schit.

Answer 10

Are you aware that more people per 100,000 are killed by car crashes involving DUI/DWI? Where's the passion about that?

I'm not a gun nut, I simply believe in my right to defend myself against people who wish me harm. The police can't do anything until a crime has been committed, and I could be dead by that time.

You also need to look at deaths caused by other weapons in those other countries.

Answer 11

I was suprised. I would have thought that this question was going to ask in terms of what happened today in Virginia.

However, yes, this does frame an interesting question. Why, if we are so incredibly free, happy, and a leader for the world (supposedly) do the richest countries such as the USA, have the greatest amount of weapon related murder?

I think that gun laws need to be different for different areas. I can see a couple like my parents (who ironically, wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole) who live far out in the country having a weapon, since they are far away from police intervention in case of an intrusion/robbery etc into their home.

However, in urban areas where police are much closer, I think that weapons should be more limited. Weapons for hunting, etc. are fine, but I don't think that weapons for self-defense are as necessary (and furthermore) statistics have indicated that homeowners with weapons are far more likely to end up victims of their own weapons than users of their own weapons and protectors of their homes.