How US gun culture compares with the world

serf
səːf/
noun

1. an agricultural labourer bound by the feudal system who was tied to working on his lord's estate.

Being a serf has nothing to do with guns and it was a derogatory terms based on nationality and you know it.

It just displays an arrogance to call other people based on there nationality a derogatory term and lack of education that you can't argue without having to fall into such general insults.

And to be honest the fact that you support that sort of **** speaks very poorly on you.



Since you apparently have a distinct lack of empathy, think if someone commented to you "americans are stupid, fat, uncultured slaves, that are that ****ing thick they think the internet is american", how would that make you feel? What would that achieve?

 

Seriously you don't even know who is carrying a gun in America, most people forget about it .

.

 

The problem there is there is no equivalent to the US.

Geographically, constitutionally, racially, or any other metric.

I suppose the closest would be the EU.

However, if you averaged the murder rates across the EU, I wonder what it would be.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania rates are higher than the US I believe.

Hm. Seems the EU aggregate murder rate 11 years ago was 3 per 100k.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/groups/European-Union/Crime

 

It is always going to be apples and oranges, but you do the best you can with what you have.

I think you would want to compare more with western europe then eastern europe. For your own national pride.

 

My issue with that post wasn't with americans carrying guns, It was with the derogatory comment made by hoosier8 followed up turtledude, I thought that was quite clear from the comments made.

 

It's not the same impact. People have a burst of anger who come down after. For instance, hitting someone, then regret it. Shooting someone last one fraction of seconds, keep stabbing or bashing a head last much more. I heard many case of people who got stabbed once, but the attackant stoped then.

I must admit, I never heard such a case in France recently. They were two cases I heard of scum capturing someone and torturing them. But it created a national scandal and as far as I know are extremly rare.
Honnestly, I never heard a case of people in France breaking in a house to kill people, maybe I just didn't heard about but I'm not afraid to checking far right medias even if I'm not far right, and they would have no remorse to speak about this, they don't speak about such cases.
About neighbours who get robbed, they always waited that people were out, and sometimes just for one hour or two. The two times I heard people who got robbed when they were in their house, the burglars fled. I don't think they would mind that much to agress people, but they know that their is a lot of unsolved burglaries. If they agress people, the police won't let that unsolved.

They were many shooting in some ghettos, especially in Marseille, but nobody cared deeply, it's drug dealers killing drug dealers. Gun controle worked better before EU. EU and the shengen zone break apart a lot of efforts and a lot of weapons were imported easily from former USSR armories.
They were too the Paris and Charlie Hebdo attacks, but we should not forget that the police of my country work hard, and they often arrest people who gather/buy guns. Even if they have no criminal past, it's a reason good enough to arrest them. Some of those of idiots resisted and were shot, which is even better.
Furthermore, the police is already harassed by islamic scum in some ghettos, who throw rocks or sometimes even firework on their cars, they don't need to be shot too.

It's not that hard to get a gun legally in France if you're hunting or doing sport shooting.

For the moment, we still have twice less murder than the US. We would have more murders, I wouldn't mind to change my mind, but the final homicide rate seems to me more relevant.

We're much smaller than the US, on that point our two countries can't be compared. About racial diversity, I think our both countries have the same problems. I would even think that the islamic scum is even more dangerous than your gang culture.

 

As an australian, I think of France and America as pretty comparable countries.

Both are full of very good people.

 

We have few wolves and bears in France however. From the population point of view, yes, from the geographic no. From the political traditions point of view, it's almost day and night. France have a long tradition of strong state when the USA at the opposite of France have a long tradition of distrust of state.
You can do France north to south in a big day too, our country is smaller than texas...

 

I think we ought to distinguish between migration and immigration. "Immigration" is you going on vacation to Paris. "Migration" is the movement of a people. Refugees tend to migrate, because it's not a few families spread across months, but quite a large number of people fleeing for their life. And you cannot stop millions of people crossing a border if they have the choice of giving it a shot by crossing the border or dying. Hence, I mentioned Syrians (or Floridians) running from a disaster in masses.

More than 90% of the illegal immigrants fly into the US and don't leave when their visa expires after 90 days or so. Most immigration I'd imagine happens on the Mexican and Canadian border as people just enter the US and get a stamp into their passport. So neither of those things really change with a wall. Migration was what we had now over a year ago, when over a million people basically walked from Turkey to Germany. Migration was what Europe saw after WW2 (during was primarily relocation). Over 20 million people were looking for a place to live.

So just to recap: Every country I can think off has immigration laws of some sort, and I don't know of any exception. I don't think you mean legal immigration, so I presume you're referring to the illegal kind. And there you'd have to differ between the 90% (who extend the legal time of their visas) or refugees. America doesn't take (these days) any refugees or no where close to the rest of the western world, so I assume you're talking about those 90% flying in. And I don't see how a wall would help there.

Countries tend to fail economically in order to fall apart. Wealth tends to be the reason a country is doing well independent of the laws and the societal structure.

China's wealth came when they started working with other peoples and letting them in. You may recall that in the 80s and 90s China, protecting her borders wasn't really generating wealth. North Korea has the same problem today. On the other hand, America being an open society welcoming other peoples made them wealthy only a few decades after a devastating Civil War. Same is true in Europe. We had two World Wars on our land yet a few decades later the countries with the highest percentages of new immigrants do well.

I will go into your Somalia-question, as I think it's important. And let me try to give you a hypothetical example which I hope explains my position: 330 million people live in the USA while about 510 million live in the EU (still including the UK). That means that the average American has to outproduce the average European (if that's the right term to use) by 54% in order to be competitive. If work-rate and productivity were the same, an 8 hour day in the EU would equivalent to a 12 hour day in US.
Because there's more people in the EU, we ought to be ahead in every statistic. If we're not, it means we're not utilizing the human capital we have. Both have about 50% of their population in the work force. In oder words we in the EU have to figure out how to increase our productivity, work rate, education, etc. in order for one EU inhabitant to be on par with the US inhabitant. Whether the inhabitant is Christian, Muslim, white, black, or something else is completely irrelevant to economy of a country. The question is, how well you can utilize those people. China, having 1.37 billion inhabitants, needs only a 24% production rate compared to an American to surpass America. It's no wonder that China overtook (or will overtake the US as the world largest economy, and the EU and India have to do so too.
If your society and infrastructure is well structured you gain from every immigrant into your country. 11 million (from Somalia) is a great boost, as one worker among them finances 3 others through our tax code. So with 3 million out of the 11 million finding any job you'd make a profit. And you never know if one among them is the next Steve Jobs or Einstein...

I wasn't claiming that there are "rivers of blood", I also wasn't claiming that people with guns are the problem. I was suggesting that many people are irresponsible (independent of what they own), and even though there are a ton of rules and regulations for the product as well as for the owner of the car, you still find enough people being owners and drivers. I was suggesting that even with strikter regulations you wouldn't loose you're right of owning firearms, however, a few irresponsible people may loose access to theirs. And I suggested that this may be in your interest too, because as a responsible driver, you still may want irresponsible drivers off the road, and I do imagine, that you'd approve of measures which take them off the road too. You never can get all of them off the road, but my argument is more based on a similar concept as laws on smoking. If they put a label on it that say "smoking kills" and a hand full people out of a million smokers choose to stop because of it, than it did its job.

In other words, I don't approve of weapons being taken away, and you ever can have zero crime or zero homicides or something like that, but there can be measures which move the dial in that direction little by little, just like regulations on cars and their owners move the dial little by little to reduce the amount of fatal accidents, without taking your ability away to own and drive a car.

Terrorism in France or the UK is not a normal occurrence and it's not the cause for gun regulation. Neither will we prevent terrorism in any country unless we have a full on police state, which is even more worrying than terrorism. Most murders are committed between people who know each other well. They're not committed with fully automated assault weapons but with simple pistols. Getting killed while someone is robbing you is also highly unlikely, because most robbers tend to wait for you to leave the house before braking in. Because we have the same issues in the EU as you do in the US and most of the people have a European background in the US, it is only natural to compare the two, as they are quite alike. However, there is the problem of mass shootings and homicide rates, which are not on par with their European counter parts. As you pointed out, a cause for the homicide rates can be found in the drug corridor, which I can see. I still cannot see the reason for the difference in mass shootings though, which is far worse. We have those here too. The worst one that comes to mind is Anders Breivik in 2011 in Norway. However the number of these is lower and further apart in Europe. In 2015 we had one guy going nuts in Graz (my hometown), but because he had no access to guns, he used his car and drove into a crowd of people killing 3 and injuring 36 others. I think if he had access to a couple of guns with 200 rounds it could have ended more like the one at the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007. I just think it's much harder to kill loads of people if you don't have a gun.

And I have been exposed to plenty of weapons especially in my childhood having spend a few years in an active war zone. And believe me the guns surrounding me (and me even playing with them having no other toys) didn't make me feel more safe than these days not owning one.

 

Yes I couldn't find much information regarding "home invasion" situations in France, but didn't spend a lot of time researching the topic.

The location of violence and perpetrators of the violence is much the same in the US. We have very specific locations in the US where crime is off the chart, but in most areas of the US crime is very very low.

Most of the perpetrators AND the victims of violence in the US have long criminal records. Basically we have criminals killing other criminals for the large part.

As far as the violence rates between our two countries, is it really that much worse? You say "twice less murder", which is true, but how much is that exactly? Two people per hundred thousand? Twenty people per million? That's not really much of a tangible difference, although it looks better on paper.

I suspect within 5 to 10 years the crime rates in most European countries will exceed the US, if they don't already.

Is there any doubt that the European governments are not really reporting the actual violent crime rates? Europe is in a state of denial at this point regarding their increase in violent crime.

 

The immigration thing boils down to government control over immigration/migration. Specifically when it comes to those mass migrations of people it certainly can be controlled, if the will and the desire is there.

In the US simply having a President that is dedicated to stopping illegal immigration across our borders, we have already seen a drastic reduction, and not much has changed. The change has been the desire to make it happen, and allowing immigration officials and border agents to do their jobs.

When it comes to the mass migration in Europe, it wasn't only a case of allowing it to happen, it was wanting it to happen by telling them to come. Not all countries in Europe wanted this, and were able by varying degrees to prevent it.

Japan has always been good at it, not completely because it's an island, but because anyone entering illegally will not be able to get a job or support from the government, and will almost certainly be caught quickly and expelled. Essentially, it's not worth the effort for anyone to want to enter Japan illegally.

Now I don't know why anyone in their right mind would want to enter North Korea, but again, doing so probably means you'd be killed or immediately jailed.

In short I guess what I'm saying is that as long as the government and the people of a country do not tolerate it, it is absolutely preventable.

Are you sure the US isn't taking in more than Europe? Since 2000, we have been taking in over a MILLION legal immigrants, per year. That doesn't even include illegal immigrants.

As for the Somalian immigration issue, the problem as I see it is that you're assuming they'll integrate, learn the language, get jobs, and contribute to society. They won't. The only thing they are going to bring is gangs and crime. Most of them are illiterate, and grew up in a society with no form of government and high rates of violence. They are not going to just move to Germany, get a job, and become a productive member of society. These people will effectively work to destroy your society, not contribute to it.

If Somalians were just like Europeans, Somalia as it is would not be what it is.....it would be like Europe. Clearly, it is not. The people of Somalia ARE the country, and the condition of a country reflects the people in it. Certainly there are exceptions, but I doubt you're going to get your next Einstein from Somalia.

In 2013, Somalia was voted the most failed state in the WORLD.

You'll get nothing from these migrants except making European countries more like Somalia.

As far as the gun control issue, we have regulations on who can and cannot own firearms. Yet, strangely enough, the criminals don't obey the law. I guess that's what makes them criminals.

Anders Breivik is a perfect example of something that would not be possible in the US. He was as successful as he was because it took the police a long time to get there, and he was the only person with a firearm. If some of his victims had firearms, more than likely he would not have been able to kill as many people. Virginia Tech is no different. If some of those students had been allowed to carry firearms, they could have saved their own lives.

While our violence rate IS higher than most of Europe (for now), it is not a huge difference. As I indicated earlier we have about 20 more people per million killed than France, and the vast majority of shooting victims here in the US are themselves criminals.

The difference for us here in the US, is that individually we have the means to resist criminals. In Europe, you are completely at the mercy of the state, and how it decides to protect you.

I'll take our system over slightly lower murder statistics any day.

 

I've been to the USVI. The policemen I saw carried guns.

 

Yeah I dunno, never been myself.

Maybe that's only in touristy areas?

This is a CNN story though. We all know how thorough they are.

I mean Niue is a country? I doubt even Alex Trebek would get that one right.

 

AR15:
Because the next revolution won't be fought with muskets

 

LOL.

Country of Niue:

Population: 1,612

 

Murder rate no. Violences and crimes in a general way, yes and no, it's rather well watched.

Hard to say. Furthermore, the kind of immigrants drastically change the problems they can create. I mean, it's not Wang Wei the chinese or Phillipe the french who create the troubles in US.

Islam don't mean "submission" for no reasons.

It was possible too because the secret service, anti terrorist service and police failed.

It's often the case too in France...

Yes but your criminals have more often guns too.

No. Every politician seek to be re elected. I would even think that on some points, many european democracies are more efficient than the american one. People vote much more for instance than in U.S.
Our politician are corrupted, especially in latin countries, but they know that if they fail on matters like security, people will fire their ass.

As I understand the problem, it's the choice to do : sligthy more murder or ability to have a gun. Guns issues is more for me a "morality" choice about what's more important : a freedom or some life saved

 

If you want to look at one of the most democratic country of the world, I would to pick Swiss. I know they have a lot of guns, but it's more because they can decide by themselves with the popular initiative.

 

[QUOTE="6Gunner, post: 1067772780, member
Pick up a rifle and you change from a subject to a citizen.

Colonel J. Cooper

[/QUOTE]

class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.
George Orwell

 

CNN doing a hit piece. Nothing new.

If you look at the data on worldwide murder and see the map, you might notice how only part of Africa and the Mid-East is shaded. That is because such places are usually so backward, corrupt and violent, that true statistics are going to be an impossibility. In so many African nations, there are only police and 911 call services in some major cities. What happens in the Bush, stays in the Bush. It is easy to surmise that at least the same level of crime we have can record in South Africa, Detroit, St. Louis and Birmingham is going to be going on in Liberia, Somalia and Sierra Leone.

Demographics tell the tale on crime. Not guns.

 

The EU has more mass shootings than we do.

 

I don't have a fire extinguisher in my house.

I do not know of anyone who does have a fire extinguisher in their house?

Fire alarm yes, extinguisher no.

 

What? Seriously?

I don't know anyone who DOESN'T have a fire extinguisher in their house, plus one in the car! Why wouldn't you keep one around?? There are tons of incidents where a sudden fire erupts in the home and the rapid deployment of a fire extinguisher ends the danger before it gets out of hand; fires where if the people in the home had chosen instead to evacuate the house and wait for the fire department to send help they would have lost everything. It happened to me as a child when an electrical short started a fire in the kitchen (my father paused to turn off the gas while I got the extinguisher out and we put the flames out immediately) and as an adult when I was helping a friend of his work on his car and a problem with his carburetor started a fire the extinguisher in my truck promptly snuffed. In each case a fire was put out before it could do any real damage; while if we hadn't had those extinguishers things could have gotten ugly fast.

Why would anyone NOT want to have that capability???

 

Serious.

didn't even know it was a thing.

Different cultures.

All our offices and shops have one.

 

Are homes and apartments/flats sprinklered?