We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Oddly, the U.S. is the only country that finds it, other countries, such as many European countries, are against the possession of arms... Well i guess when their house is being robbed they can conveniently make their way over to the phone and wait a short 30 minutes to an hour for the police to come, most likely their wife will be raped by then....
[1 point]4 years ago by cooljuno411ReplyEdited 4 years ago by cooljuno411
**Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05. ** From a 1998 report by the CDC. Also, more stats on that here, showing that the numbers have in fact fallen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate.
Incidentally, if someone broke into our house and tried to rape anyone they would have a brief but meaningful liaison with the axe we use to split logs. More than one way to skin a cat you know.
[3 points]4 years ago by SpangeNWReplyEdited 4 years ago by SpangeNW
We weren't suggesting attacking anyone just relaxing in their easy chair, specifically the hypothetical burglar cum rapist from Juno's post. Actually in our country knife crime is much more prevalent and I'd pit my big yellow chopper against any carving knife any day.
[1 point]4 years ago by SpangeNWReplyEdited 4 years ago by SpangeNW
here is your quote--I should have said, before you could get out of the easy chair.--Incidentally, if someone broke into our house and tried to rape anyone they would have a brief but meaningful liaison with the axe we use to split logs. More than one way to skin a cat you know.
Ahhh, I see. Yes, if a rapist had a gun, it might well tip the scales in his favour.
What I should have said is that the ONLY person we were going to attack was the burglar/rapist.
Incidentally, here's where our laws have it wrong. We have no right to protect our property, only our life or that of family. If I assaulted an intruder, I'd be in jail, in fact it would be better if he had a weapon, cos then I'd have a clear cut defense.
Has anyone tried to change that! It was just recently that we are able (in this state) to protect ourselves by shooting to kill, someone that has broken into our home, even without a fear for life, without possibility of repercussions from the crooks family or legal council. I hope you get better laws also, the good guys need them on our side.
There have been some high profile cases, most notably that of Tony Martin - jailed for killing an intruder in his home. There has been no real change in that law, although there have been cases where judges have used their discretion to rule in favour of householders in cases where intruders were assaulted.
Does the NRA exist there?? They are a big plus on the side of good vs bad in the US. Good luck to you and the ax till the important people there are hurt by bad guys with guns, then it could be that they will make things even for good guys, good luck to you and all.
Gun control in this country became extremely strict after the Dunblane killings. I don't think they will ever be repealed and I don't think anybody wants them to be. The right to protect ourselves though, I think we would appreciate.
[1 point]4 years ago by SpangeNWReplyEdited 4 years ago by SpangeNW
In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment. Since the start of the 21st century the UK has also become one of the most progressive countries in the world in its attitudes towards homophobic crime. In 2003 the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations was introduced, followed by the 2007 Equality Act which outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods and services based on sexual orientation.
Gosh, and there I thought those were good things, that we protect the rights of minorities of race and sexuality. When speech results in the freedoms of another person being diminished then it is nothing more than a vicious weapon.
So you are OK with taking away some speech, because you don't like it? Then it isn't free speech is it? Here is another example, this one in regards to Religion.
OK, tell me what would happen if a Muslim cleric in the US told his congregation to rise up against the infidels and slay them. Gonna sit idly by? I doubt it. That's what our laws regarding incitement to racial hatred protect against, as well as people preaching against other races.
From that article:** "The issue is not whether you have an argument or discussion or whether you are criticising someone's religion. It's whether you incite hatred on the basis of it," he said.
There is already an offence of inciting racial hatred but this does not offer protection if someone is being targeted because of their religion. ** It's quite specific that you can disagree or debate, it's the incitement that is the crime. There is no wish to curb people's right to speak their mind, as long as that doesn't include persuading others to do wrong.
What were they doing that was wrong? Yet they were told to leave, and threatened with Hate Crime Laws?
As for your US comment, that does happen. If you don't think Muslim Clerics in the US are preaching against the Infidels, you are crazy. However, in the US, they are allowed to talk about how evil the infidels are all they way, they are not allowed to directly tell people, or suggest to them, to commit crimes because of it.
From your description the act of talking about how evil the Infidels are in the UK is a crime. That is the difference between our Free Speech, and yours.
I said : **OK, tell me what would happen if a Muslim cleric in the US told his congregation to rise up against the infidels and slay them.** I specified that said cleric suggested slayings, not that he simply said they were evil. It is this incitement that is the crime.
Nope, they weren't doing anything wrong, an uppity copper overstepped the mark and misinterpreted the laws, the force stated he would be retrained.
If the Muslim specifically incites to Violence in that manner, I imagine that absolutely nothing would happen to him. Though, according to the law he should probably be arrested.
Americans forget that the British were concerned with freedom and liberty before the US ever existed. And wasn't the first legal opinion on the illegality of slavery rendered in Great Britain in the late 1700s?
Yes, by a man who had been a slave trader....and shame on me for forgetting the specifics of that.
We have done some pretty bad sh*t too, against people who surely didn't deserve it, but I think we have worked hard to get away from our less than pleasant colonial past.
No, don't twist what I am saying. The UK laws you refer to basically say it's alright to say "I hate Islam" but it's not OK to preach to others that they should also hate Islam. That's how Hitler got around to killing all those jews. That's how Al Qaeda persuade people to become suicide bombers.
In the US, the KKK can say I hate Black people all that they want. The can have public demonstrations on the purity of the white race all that they want. That is free speech. It is ugly speech, but it is free nonetheless.
Alright, I'll accept that. But how about gay marriage, that's not allowed in 48 states, why not, if you have such freedoms? Why is it OK to spout hatreds, but not acceptable for consenting adults to declare devotion to one another and have that officially accepted?
You may think our government is crushing our freedom in our equality laws, but I think that for the moderate majority, we'd rather that than a hate-filled free for all.
Incidentally, whilst those laws exist, they are not so easily enforced. A recent (-ish) case where two people charged over use of inflammatory words were acquitted: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm - fair warning, the article is a bit biased, because the BBC was directlyinvolved in the case.
I don't think your country is crushing anything. I think you have begone a path down a slippery slope to Dhimmitude, but so have all your European neighbors. I can't answer the Gay marriage issue (I agree with you, that it is ridiculous they can't get married though), it is not a speech issue though.
I know that the UK is not vehemently anti free speech like many other nations. My point was just that your speech is not entirely free. There are things you can say in the US, that you cannot say in the UK. We have freedom of speech, you have freedom of non race/religious hate inciting speech.
OK first, Dhimmitude is a new word to me, cheers for that. I looked it up. I can see where you get that impression, to be honest the point has been mooted here too. It's fair comment but I honestly think we have enough people who will speak up for true equality to allow us to fall into that.
I'll concede then the point, in absolute terms as well as relative, you have a little more freedom of speech than us. To me maybe it never seemed like a limitation, nothing that I have ever wanted to say being considered a crime.
True on the gay marriage thing, it just popped into my head that the disparity made no sense to me.
Thanks for the discussion, you have educated me a little and made me think.
HMMM.... What i find just a lil ironic is Mexico bans guns bet yet they have a similar death rate as the U.S....... hmmm i guess your going to have issues either way..... ohh and maybe if the gun was LEGAL then a person can shoot another person who has a gun instead of just chill'n and waiting to get shot.... See i think it is that American "do it yourself" and "don't rely on others, rely on yourself" ideology that makes the majority of us think guns should be lawful, that is the same ideology that makes are country so great, and the worlds largest economy....
[1 point]4 years ago by cooljuno411ReplyEdited 4 years ago by cooljuno411
Yep you're right, guns being illegal doesn't stop gun deaths. I note however that Canada where I'm led to believe guns are legal records roughly one tenth that of the US. I think the relative levels of criminality and overall violence would also have to be included in any really meaningful statistic.
Lemme tell ya something. One thing that I actually have always really admired about the US is exactly what you say, the pioneer spirit which did indeed see you become one of the world's superpowers and a massive economic force. But that is your culture, how you do things - realistically, I seriously doubt that your right to bear arms will be taken away any time in my lifetime, but I reserve the right to disagree with it, because that is the culture I was raised in.
[1 point]4 years ago by SpangeNWReplyEdited 4 years ago by SpangeNW
You forgot to note that over 2 million crimes are prevented each year by defensive use of guns and that 25 to 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost by a gun.
This is a prime example of how Statistics can be twisted to mean anything you want. Just looking at the statistics you listed it appears that 14.24 of every 100,000 people in the US were murdered with a handgun 1994. These are the numbers used to terrify the rest of the world - and are used as an excuse as to WHY guns should be banned. The majority of murders committed in the US every year are committed the same way they are in every country: hands and feet.
Here's the problem with those statistics, and how governments (and the media) USE them to twist popular opinion whichever way they want.
Here are the murder rates (per 100,000 citizens) of the countries you've listed above, followed by your statistical percentage of how many of the 1994 were committed by guns, followed by the murder rates of those same countries in the year 2000. It took me over an hour to put this statistical chart together (so appreciate it - lol).
United States: 1994: 9.0 - 14.24%; 2000: 5.5
(incidentally - that 9.0 murder rate (meaning 9 of every 100,000 citizens was murdered) is one of the highest in US history. You can see how much our murder rate has dropped in only 6 years, far closer to norm in the USA. I DO walk down the street at night with no fear!)
Brazil: 1994: 17.5 - 12.95%; 2000: 26.7 (shows you're 5x more likely to be murdered in Brazil than the US - it's just less likely with a gun)
Mexico: 1994: 16.0 - 12.69%; 2000: 14.11 (you're 3x more likely to be killed in Mexico)
Estonia: 1995: 16.58 - 12.26%; 2000: 10.45 (you're 2x as more likely to be murdered in Estonia)
I appreciate the effort you made in compiling that list. I'd like to point out that "my" list wasn't in any way twisted by me, it's exactly as it was reported by the CDC.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that you twisted the statistics. Others twist the statistics by slapping out numbers like that without qualifying them. I'll give you a good one: do you know how they always say the divorce rate is 50%? It's not. Not even close. Still less than 30%. They did the math wrong while calculating the percentages. When they looked at the numbers, there were 3.4 million marriages, and 1.52 million divorces. Thus they said: "The divorce rate is 50%." But to calculate the divorce rate, you have to take the TOTAL number of married couples and divide it by the number of divorces that year. The year the divorce rate was announced at 50% - it shot from less than 12% to nearly 20% and has been climbing ever since. An example of how statistics affect people's behavior, even when wrong.
5.5 is still a WHOLE lot less than 14.24 of every 100k people being murdered with a gun, huh?
And, incidentally - our government likes to over-report murder statistics. Republicans like it because that means they'll get more money for the cops. Democrats like it because they want to take away our guns. Most other countries UNDER report their violent crimes.
Sweden likes to point out they have far less rape then we do in the US. But Swedish society doesn't think it's possible for a woman to be raped by a male acquaintance. I've never looked into Canada's method for gathering statistics. Some societies don't count domestic murders as "murder." And those "statistics" just list REPORTED murders.
Arghhh you edited!! I was replying to CDog and looking for a graph I found earlier but it eludes me. You should probabably check out the murder rate in South Africa, it will dwarf all of those you listed.
OK OK, I do see your point, that the horror stories regarding violence in America - oops the US, sorry - are somewhat inflated. But my point was not necessarily that the US was more violent, only that compared to countries where guns are not legal there were more gun related deaths. That is undeniable. OK so I was possibly twonky and rash in stating that it is unequivocally due to the right to bear arms but from where I am sitting it seems like it must have some bearing.
so sorry! When I go off on a rant I tend to switch back and forth, then I always try to do a 'clean up' edit so it flows better. (lol)
Oh - you should SEE some of those statistics! El Salvador has a murder rate close to 1 in 1000 in 2000! And you're right - since we have a lot of guns in this country, a lot of murders are committed with those guns. But since the majority of murders were committed with hands and feet (just like the rest of the world), we will never know how many of those "gun" murders would have still taken place - just using another method to kill.
Heheh, I have done the same myself...it's coolies, I'm just messin. The graph which I still can't find was actually cool because it illustrated your point on numbers of murders in comparison to other countries. I'll be honest I was surprised that it was proportionately as low as it was.
Heheheh, there's an excellent point. Luckily for me I have a smaller and consequently more concealable hatchet that I could use in the Houses of Parliament if needs be!
Only right-wing Muslims ban people's rights to bare arms. The right to "bear arms" ... now THAT'S written boldly in The US Constitution ... (lol)
I think Canadians should have the right to bear arms, too. Lots of Polar bears up in the Great White North. Top of the food chain. Only animal that has no natural fear of man. If you meet one while it's hungry ... here's hoping you're bearing some mighty good arms to fend him off!
Was that off topic??
[1 point]4 years ago by sillynillyReplyEdited 4 years ago by sillynilly
People should be allowed to bare their arms whenever they like. The whole "long sleeves only" policy is outrageous, and only leads to undrground t-shirt parties. Wouldn't it be better to offer the youngsters places where they can show off their arms to each other in a safe way?
Any man or women should be free from hairy arms, and armpits too! The right to bare arms is essential, and I applaud the makers of hair removal products that help enable such a right.
The right to bear arms is one of the most important rights an American has. With this right the American people are theoretically able to keep the government in check. And protect right we hold dear, such as freedom of speech. In other nations they do not have this right, we makes the idea of a revolution against a corrupt government that much more difficult. When only the government can have guns, how can the people hope to oppose them?
OK I understand your argument, but if somebody who disagrees with the Bush administration charged the White House with a Mac 10 he would be taken down swiftly and branded a terrorist. As I see it, theoretically that's a nice idea, but in reality it would mean a lot of dead dissenters. When people raise up with guns in hand against their government, however just their cause might be, it usually results in death and horror and war.
I've got a question for you (and you to, kj, by default).
I know that British and Canadian law are quite similar (in the naming of charges is what I mean, I know there are differences in the laws and prosecutions) - and I remember reading recently of a man in UK who was convicted of "unlawful killing" after throwing three of his children off of a hotel balcony. Was the original charge "unlawful killing" or was it murder? We do have what's called "manslaughter" in the US, but that's actually the name given to a CONVICTION of "3rd Degree Murder" charge in the US. A killing like that would definitely land in our murder rate. Was curious if something like that would be included in UK or Canadian murder rates.
[1 point]4 years ago by sillynillyReplyEdited 4 years ago by sillynilly
The guy who threw his children off the balcony actually did that in Greece and he was charged and tried there. I believe there was an inquest here where the coroner recorded a verdict of unlawful killing - unlawful killing is not a criminal charge, just a verdict handed down by a coroner but it can lead to criminal charges being brought. He was charged in Greece with murder.
I wanted to check what I was going to tell you regarding manslaughter, but it turns out that there is no specific definition of either murder or manslaughter. I think that basically it comes down to intent to cause injury and harm. Both crimes carry maximum sentences of life. We have different crimes that basically amount to murder such as corporate manslaughter, familial homicide, causing death by dangerous driving.
I'm not sure if manslaughter would be in the murder rate, it would probably make it into a crime statistic somewhere.
Killing someone with a baseball bat, hammer or even a car leaves the victim dead. The person committing the crime is still a murderer and the family of the victim will still grieve. Just because a gun might be involved in the crime is irrelevant.
Laws enacted that vilify guns are used to desensitize people to blaming guns for the crimes committed by an individual. The same can be said for all gun control bills that make citizens accept the government’s ability to infringe the right to bear arms.
Canada
Oddly, the U.S. is the only country that finds it, other countries, such as many European countries, are against the possession of arms... Well i guess when their house is being robbed they can conveniently make their way over to the phone and wait a short 30 minutes to an hour for the police to come, most likely their wife will be raped by then....
And the result of this right to bear arms:
**Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05. ** From a 1998 report by the CDC. Also, more stats on that here, showing that the numbers have in fact fallen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate.
Incidentally, if someone broke into our house and tried to rape anyone they would have a brief but meaningful liaison with the axe we use to split logs. More than one way to skin a cat you know.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyLOL, the plastic sheeting is a fabulous idea, I might borrow that style!!
bring on that ax, I wont even have to get out of my easy chair and stop you 20 feet away, no blood spatter, just a small hole, about 9mm.
We weren't suggesting attacking anyone just relaxing in their easy chair, specifically the hypothetical burglar cum rapist from Juno's post. Actually in our country knife crime is much more prevalent and I'd pit my big yellow chopper against any carving knife any day.
here is your quote--I should have said, before you could get out of the easy chair.--Incidentally, if someone broke into our house and tried to rape anyone they would have a brief but meaningful liaison with the axe we use to split logs. More than one way to skin a cat you know.
Ahhh, I see. Yes, if a rapist had a gun, it might well tip the scales in his favour.
What I should have said is that the ONLY person we were going to attack was the burglar/rapist.
Incidentally, here's where our laws have it wrong. We have no right to protect our property, only our life or that of family. If I assaulted an intruder, I'd be in jail, in fact it would be better if he had a weapon, cos then I'd have a clear cut defense.
Has anyone tried to change that! It was just recently that we are able (in this state) to protect ourselves by shooting to kill, someone that has broken into our home, even without a fear for life, without possibility of repercussions from the crooks family or legal council. I hope you get better laws also, the good guys need them on our side.
There have been some high profile cases, most notably that of Tony Martin - jailed for killing an intruder in his home. There has been no real change in that law, although there have been cases where judges have used their discretion to rule in favour of householders in cases where intruders were assaulted.
Does the NRA exist there?? They are a big plus on the side of good vs bad in the US. Good luck to you and the ax till the important people there are hurt by bad guys with guns, then it could be that they will make things even for good guys, good luck to you and all.
Gun control in this country became extremely strict after the Dunblane killings. I don't think they will ever be repealed and I don't think anybody wants them to be. The right to protect ourselves though, I think we would appreciate.
The result of the right to bear arms is that the other rights American's enjoy that other nation do not are protected. Freedom of Speech for example.
We do enjoy freedom of speech, and we don't all have guns.
Is that right?
In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment. Since the start of the 21st century the UK has also become one of the most progressive countries in the world in its attitudes towards homophobic crime. In 2003 the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations was introduced, followed by the 2007 Equality Act which outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods and services based on sexual orientation.
The above law also includes speech against certain religions as well.
Gosh, and there I thought those were good things, that we protect the rights of minorities of race and sexuality. When speech results in the freedoms of another person being diminished then it is nothing more than a vicious weapon.
So you are OK with taking away some speech, because you don't like it? Then it isn't free speech is it? Here is another example, this one in regards to Religion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3871867.stm
OK, tell me what would happen if a Muslim cleric in the US told his congregation to rise up against the infidels and slay them. Gonna sit idly by? I doubt it. That's what our laws regarding incitement to racial hatred protect against, as well as people preaching against other races.
From that article:** "The issue is not whether you have an argument or discussion or whether you are criticising someone's religion. It's whether you incite hatred on the basis of it," he said.
There is already an offence of inciting racial hatred but this does not offer protection if someone is being targeted because of their religion. ** It's quite specific that you can disagree or debate, it's the incitement that is the crime. There is no wish to curb people's right to speak their mind, as long as that doesn't include persuading others to do wrong.
What about the Christian Preachers from a few months ago?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2058935/Police-advise-Christian-preachers-to-leave-Muslin-area-of-Birmingham.html
What were they doing that was wrong? Yet they were told to leave, and threatened with Hate Crime Laws?
As for your US comment, that does happen. If you don't think Muslim Clerics in the US are preaching against the Infidels, you are crazy. However, in the US, they are allowed to talk about how evil the infidels are all they way, they are not allowed to directly tell people, or suggest to them, to commit crimes because of it.
From your description the act of talking about how evil the Infidels are in the UK is a crime. That is the difference between our Free Speech, and yours.
I said : **OK, tell me what would happen if a Muslim cleric in the US told his congregation to rise up against the infidels and slay them.** I specified that said cleric suggested slayings, not that he simply said they were evil. It is this incitement that is the crime.
Nope, they weren't doing anything wrong, an uppity copper overstepped the mark and misinterpreted the laws, the force stated he would be retrained.
If the Muslim specifically incites to Violence in that manner, I imagine that absolutely nothing would happen to him. Though, according to the law he should probably be arrested.
Americans forget that the British were concerned with freedom and liberty before the US ever existed. And wasn't the first legal opinion on the illegality of slavery rendered in Great Britain in the late 1700s?
Yes, by a man who had been a slave trader....and shame on me for forgetting the specifics of that.
We have done some pretty bad sh*t too, against people who surely didn't deserve it, but I think we have worked hard to get away from our less than pleasant colonial past.
It took us a war and another hundred years--and some of us have never agreed, much to our shame.
So, you agree then with the UN Human Right Council (LOL) that you shouldn't be able to speak out against or criticize any religions?
http://www.iheu.org/node/3123
No, don't twist what I am saying. The UK laws you refer to basically say it's alright to say "I hate Islam" but it's not OK to preach to others that they should also hate Islam. That's how Hitler got around to killing all those jews. That's how Al Qaeda persuade people to become suicide bombers.
In the US, the KKK can say I hate Black people all that they want. The can have public demonstrations on the purity of the white race all that they want. That is free speech. It is ugly speech, but it is free nonetheless.
Alright, I'll accept that. But how about gay marriage, that's not allowed in 48 states, why not, if you have such freedoms? Why is it OK to spout hatreds, but not acceptable for consenting adults to declare devotion to one another and have that officially accepted?
You may think our government is crushing our freedom in our equality laws, but I think that for the moderate majority, we'd rather that than a hate-filled free for all.
Incidentally, whilst those laws exist, they are not so easily enforced. A recent (-ish) case where two people charged over use of inflammatory words were acquitted: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm - fair warning, the article is a bit biased, because the BBC was directlyinvolved in the case.
I don't think your country is crushing anything. I think you have begone a path down a slippery slope to Dhimmitude, but so have all your European neighbors. I can't answer the Gay marriage issue (I agree with you, that it is ridiculous they can't get married though), it is not a speech issue though.
I know that the UK is not vehemently anti free speech like many other nations. My point was just that your speech is not entirely free. There are things you can say in the US, that you cannot say in the UK. We have freedom of speech, you have freedom of non race/religious hate inciting speech.
OK first, Dhimmitude is a new word to me, cheers for that. I looked it up. I can see where you get that impression, to be honest the point has been mooted here too. It's fair comment but I honestly think we have enough people who will speak up for true equality to allow us to fall into that.
I'll concede then the point, in absolute terms as well as relative, you have a little more freedom of speech than us. To me maybe it never seemed like a limitation, nothing that I have ever wanted to say being considered a crime.
True on the gay marriage thing, it just popped into my head that the disparity made no sense to me.
Thanks for the discussion, you have educated me a little and made me think.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyHMMM.... What i find just a lil ironic is Mexico bans guns bet yet they have a similar death rate as the U.S....... hmmm i guess your going to have issues either way..... ohh and maybe if the gun was LEGAL then a person can shoot another person who has a gun instead of just chill'n and waiting to get shot.... See i think it is that American "do it yourself" and "don't rely on others, rely on yourself" ideology that makes the majority of us think guns should be lawful, that is the same ideology that makes are country so great, and the worlds largest economy....
Yep you're right, guns being illegal doesn't stop gun deaths. I note however that Canada where I'm led to believe guns are legal records roughly one tenth that of the US. I think the relative levels of criminality and overall violence would also have to be included in any really meaningful statistic.
Lemme tell ya something. One thing that I actually have always really admired about the US is exactly what you say, the pioneer spirit which did indeed see you become one of the world's superpowers and a massive economic force. But that is your culture, how you do things - realistically, I seriously doubt that your right to bear arms will be taken away any time in my lifetime, but I reserve the right to disagree with it, because that is the culture I was raised in.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5762
You forgot to note that over 2 million crimes are prevented each year by defensive use of guns and that 25 to 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost by a gun.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,7217,00.html
OK I'm sorry that I didn't realise that. That's a very interesting article, thanks for pointing it out.
But, let me point this out. In the UK, only 0.5% of all reported crimes involve firearms. ( http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/ ) In the US: **Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.** (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)
This is a prime example of how Statistics can be twisted to mean anything you want. Just looking at the statistics you listed it appears that 14.24 of every 100,000 people in the US were murdered with a handgun 1994. These are the numbers used to terrify the rest of the world - and are used as an excuse as to WHY guns should be banned. The majority of murders committed in the US every year are committed the same way they are in every country: hands and feet.
Here's the problem with those statistics, and how governments (and the media) USE them to twist popular opinion whichever way they want.
Here are the murder rates (per 100,000 citizens) of the countries you've listed above, followed by your statistical percentage of how many of the 1994 were committed by guns, followed by the murder rates of those same countries in the year 2000. It took me over an hour to put this statistical chart together (so appreciate it - lol).
United States: 1994: 9.0 - 14.24%; 2000: 5.5
(incidentally - that 9.0 murder rate (meaning 9 of every 100,000 citizens was murdered) is one of the highest in US history. You can see how much our murder rate has dropped in only 6 years, far closer to norm in the USA. I DO walk down the street at night with no fear!)
Brazil: 1994: 17.5 - 12.95%; 2000: 26.7 (shows you're 5x more likely to be murdered in Brazil than the US - it's just less likely with a gun)
Mexico: 1994: 16.0 - 12.69%; 2000: 14.11 (you're 3x more likely to be killed in Mexico)
Estonia: 1995: 16.58 - 12.26%; 2000: 10.45 (you're 2x as more likely to be murdered in Estonia)
Argentina: 1994: 3.9 - 8.93%; 2000: 7.17
Northern Ireland: 5.22 - 6.63%; 2001: 2.9
Finland: 1994: 2.9 - 6.46%; 2000: 2.86
Switzerland: 1994: 1.16 - 6.46%; 2000: 2.86
France: 1994: 2.4 - 5.15%; 2000: 1.78
Canada: 1994: 2.0 - 4.31%; 2000: 1.59
Norway: 1994: .8 - 3.82%; 2000: 1.09
Austria: 1994: 2.5 - 3.70%; 2001: .87
Portugal: 1994: 1.7 - 3.2%; 2000: 2.47
Israel: 1995: 2.2 - 2.91%; 2003: 3.01
Belgium: 1994: 1.2 - 2.90%; 2001: 1.8
Australia: 1994: 1.8 - 2.65%; 2000: 1.57
Slovenia: 1995: 2.21 - 2.60%; 2000: 1.81
Italy: 1994: 1.8 - 2.44%; 2000: 1.29
New Zealand: 1994: 2.21 - 2.38%; 2000: 1.17
Denmark: 1994: 1.15 - 2.09%; 2000: 1.09
Sweden: 1994: 1.8 - 1.95%; 2001: 1.88
Kuwait: 1996: .94 - 1.84%; 2001: 1.71
Greece: 1994: 1.3 - 1.29%; 2001: .76
Germany: 1994: 1.7 - 1.24%; 2001: 1.17
Hungary: 1994: 3.1 - 1.11%; 2001: 2.05
Rep. of Ireland: 1994: .7 - .97%; 2003: 1.12
Spain: 1994: 2.7 - .78%; 2000: 1.25
Netherlands: 1994: 1.58 - .70%; 2000: 1.42
Scotland: 1994: 2.1 - .54%; 2001: 1.95
England & Wales: 1994: 1.22 - .41%; 2000: 1.61
Taiwan: (not reported for overall murder rate)
Singapore: (n/a) 1995: 1.71 - .21%; 2000: .92
Maurtius: (n/a) 1995: 2.23 - .19%; 2000: 2.19
Hong Kong: (n/a) 1995: 1.19 - .14%; 2000: .56
South Korea: (n/a) 1995: 1.31 - .12%; 2000: 2.02
Japan: 1994: 1.01 - .05%; 2000: 1.1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
I appreciate the effort you made in compiling that list. I'd like to point out that "my" list wasn't in any way twisted by me, it's exactly as it was reported by the CDC.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that you twisted the statistics. Others twist the statistics by slapping out numbers like that without qualifying them. I'll give you a good one: do you know how they always say the divorce rate is 50%? It's not. Not even close. Still less than 30%. They did the math wrong while calculating the percentages. When they looked at the numbers, there were 3.4 million marriages, and 1.52 million divorces. Thus they said: "The divorce rate is 50%." But to calculate the divorce rate, you have to take the TOTAL number of married couples and divide it by the number of divorces that year. The year the divorce rate was announced at 50% - it shot from less than 12% to nearly 20% and has been climbing ever since. An example of how statistics affect people's behavior, even when wrong.
Not all that twisted - 5.5% is still about 3 to 4 times the average rate for Europe, Canada, Australia or NewZealand (approx. 1.5).
5.5 is still a WHOLE lot less than 14.24 of every 100k people being murdered with a gun, huh?
And, incidentally - our government likes to over-report murder statistics. Republicans like it because that means they'll get more money for the cops. Democrats like it because they want to take away our guns. Most other countries UNDER report their violent crimes.
Sweden likes to point out they have far less rape then we do in the US. But Swedish society doesn't think it's possible for a woman to be raped by a male acquaintance. I've never looked into Canada's method for gathering statistics. Some societies don't count domestic murders as "murder." And those "statistics" just list REPORTED murders.
Can't argue with that logic.
Arghhh you edited!! I was replying to CDog and looking for a graph I found earlier but it eludes me. You should probabably check out the murder rate in South Africa, it will dwarf all of those you listed.
OK OK, I do see your point, that the horror stories regarding violence in America - oops the US, sorry - are somewhat inflated. But my point was not necessarily that the US was more violent, only that compared to countries where guns are not legal there were more gun related deaths. That is undeniable. OK so I was possibly twonky and rash in stating that it is unequivocally due to the right to bear arms but from where I am sitting it seems like it must have some bearing.
so sorry! When I go off on a rant I tend to switch back and forth, then I always try to do a 'clean up' edit so it flows better. (lol)
Oh - you should SEE some of those statistics! El Salvador has a murder rate close to 1 in 1000 in 2000! And you're right - since we have a lot of guns in this country, a lot of murders are committed with those guns. But since the majority of murders were committed with hands and feet (just like the rest of the world), we will never know how many of those "gun" murders would have still taken place - just using another method to kill.
Heheh, I have done the same myself...it's coolies, I'm just messin. The graph which I still can't find was actually cool because it illustrated your point on numbers of murders in comparison to other countries. I'll be honest I was surprised that it was proportionately as low as it was.
spot on!!!! 4111
To hell with the burglars, you need to possess weaponry to protect yourself from the group most likely to take away your freedom--your government.
Heheheh, there's an excellent point. Luckily for me I have a smaller and consequently more concealable hatchet that I could use in the Houses of Parliament if needs be!
my kinda guy! ;)
Only right-wing Muslims ban people's rights to bare arms. The right to "bear arms" ... now THAT'S written boldly in The US Constitution ... (lol)
I think Canadians should have the right to bear arms, too. Lots of Polar bears up in the Great White North. Top of the food chain. Only animal that has no natural fear of man. If you meet one while it's hungry ... here's hoping you're bearing some mighty good arms to fend him off!
Was that off topic??
Not to worry, with the ice cap melting from not-global worming, the polar bears are drowning.
Meh, why do you think we all carry hockey sticks?
Hey Yogi! What about armed bears?
Hey there Boo-Boo! You're smarter than the average bear!
People should be allowed to bare their arms whenever they like. The whole "long sleeves only" policy is outrageous, and only leads to undrground t-shirt parties. Wouldn't it be better to offer the youngsters places where they can show off their arms to each other in a safe way?
lmao!
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted by sillynilly .
[1 point] 4 years ago byLong sleeves ONLY!;)
A citizenry should be as well-armed as its government, otherwise there is no parity.
I'd like one of those big tank thingys, please!
Any man or women should be free from hairy arms, and armpits too! The right to bare arms is essential, and I applaud the makers of hair removal products that help enable such a right.
Just remember your sunscreen.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyThe right to bear arms is one of the most important rights an American has. With this right the American people are theoretically able to keep the government in check. And protect right we hold dear, such as freedom of speech. In other nations they do not have this right, we makes the idea of a revolution against a corrupt government that much more difficult. When only the government can have guns, how can the people hope to oppose them?
OK I understand your argument, but if somebody who disagrees with the Bush administration charged the White House with a Mac 10 he would be taken down swiftly and branded a terrorist. As I see it, theoretically that's a nice idea, but in reality it would mean a lot of dead dissenters. When people raise up with guns in hand against their government, however just their cause might be, it usually results in death and horror and war.
Depends on the amount of people I would say. But regardless, if all guns were outlawed for the common people there would be no chance.
I've got a question for you (and you to, kj, by default).
I know that British and Canadian law are quite similar (in the naming of charges is what I mean, I know there are differences in the laws and prosecutions) - and I remember reading recently of a man in UK who was convicted of "unlawful killing" after throwing three of his children off of a hotel balcony. Was the original charge "unlawful killing" or was it murder? We do have what's called "manslaughter" in the US, but that's actually the name given to a CONVICTION of "3rd Degree Murder" charge in the US. A killing like that would definitely land in our murder rate. Was curious if something like that would be included in UK or Canadian murder rates.
The guy who threw his children off the balcony actually did that in Greece and he was charged and tried there. I believe there was an inquest here where the coroner recorded a verdict of unlawful killing - unlawful killing is not a criminal charge, just a verdict handed down by a coroner but it can lead to criminal charges being brought. He was charged in Greece with murder.
I wanted to check what I was going to tell you regarding manslaughter, but it turns out that there is no specific definition of either murder or manslaughter. I think that basically it comes down to intent to cause injury and harm. Both crimes carry maximum sentences of life. We have different crimes that basically amount to murder such as corporate manslaughter, familial homicide, causing death by dangerous driving.
I'm not sure if manslaughter would be in the murder rate, it would probably make it into a crime statistic somewhere.
Killing someone with a baseball bat, hammer or even a car leaves the victim dead. The person committing the crime is still a murderer and the family of the victim will still grieve. Just because a gun might be involved in the crime is irrelevant.
Laws enacted that vilify guns are used to desensitize people to blaming guns for the crimes committed by an individual. The same can be said for all gun control bills that make citizens accept the government’s ability to infringe the right to bear arms.