Visualizing gun deaths – Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

The supreme court ruled such is not the case in the matter of District of Columbia v Heller. Kindly stop claiming otherwise, when you are absent of even a basic understanding of how the system of law in the united states works.

If a foreigner needs to correct you, because you are grossly incorrect in your knowledge regarding where you live, then you are doing something wrong.

 

That has NEVER been the case... keep up!

 

Never ceases to amaze me how jealous people from other countries are of our guns. So jealous they want to take ours away. So jealous they needed our guns to save them from Hitler. So, so jealous.

 

The right to own firearms is a right that should be granted to every citizen of every nation. We will never give up our right to own firearms in the United States. We will never tolerate attempts to destroy that right, nor should we as such attempts are nothing but a path to tyranny and oppression. Those who suggest we should give up our firearms are not welcome in this country. Go live somewhere else if it is that much of a problem for you. We do not need you. With respect to the graph that was posted at the start of this thread let me just state that it is a PURE LIE!!!

 

The monarchy has no power, so why should I care that it exists?

- - - Updated - - -

No thanks, keep your guns to yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

You actually think American guns won WW2?

- - - Updated - - -

No, Americans don't have a right to own a house, a car, a laptop, or a pet. If you had a right to these things, you'd all have them for no monetary cost.

- - - Updated - - -

And those facts are?

- - - Updated - - -

I expected better debate from this site. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the US military, and the US military landed in Europe a year after the war was already sealed. The US only sped up the war, nothing more.

 

You're really confused about the meaning of having a right.

Are you saying the government owes me a free gun?

 

If you do not have unlimited access to what you consider a right, how else would you define a right? Where is the arbitrary line drawn, exactly?

 

America has higher firearm related homicides than those other countries, but lower violent crime. Australia is the best example because the data is available for before and after its gun ban was applied in 1996. See the 2 charts below. Australia data is from the Australia Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports, USA data is from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The USA has a slightly higher homicide rate (currently the USA rate is 4.6, AUS is 2.0), but AUS suffers a much larger rate of violent crime - more sexual assaults, robberies, assaults with serious bodily injury. AUS is a much more violent nation than the USA. Disarming the population only makes them defenseless.

 

In this context, no government restriction.

 

Ok, well there are government restrictions on guns, free speech, freedom of assembly, and free press. So are they no longer rights?

 

They are infringed on rights, what we fight for, and not your point. So why don't you stick to trying to defend your idiocy or concede instead of changing the subject.

 

So who is to say that laptops are not rights being infringed on? Or cars? Clearly your definition of right isn't a good starting point, as the rights you claim to have are already restricted by your own definition.

 

You've lost the argument, now you only look more and more foolish. I'm done with you, go away.

 

Man, I expected better behaviour and debate from regulars on this site. I'm disappointed.

 

My friend, a number of years on US fora have taught me that participating in any topic concerning guns and religion is not going to be very productive. Those Americans who have reservations about either exist, but are very much in the minority.

As a Brit studying overseas, I am aware of the differences in societal values amongst ostensibly similar peoples (Australians and Brits in this instance,) and how much more different are those of people from a society once described as 'divided by a common language'. Either Americans or Britons are on a hiding to nothing if they try to convince each other of the superiority (or even validity) of their respective societies' values, and the areas of greatest disparity are fundamentalist religion, and the adulation of firearms (the guns and Bibles of which their own President spoke).

Americans are a delightfully warm, friendly, and generous people as a rule, but they are also one of the most nationalistic societies on earth. They enjoy an utter conviction that theirs is the best of all possible societies, and have little interest in observing how the rest of the world orders its affairs - a number of surveys indicate that fewer than 20% of Americans hold a passport. They are not about to be receptive of anything which may be construed as even mildly critical of their society.

Added to which, the wording of the OP is hardly a diplomatic tour de force. It is unlikely to receive an objective response from anyone, let alone a people whose recorded history appears to consist of a number of self-aggrandising Hollywood myths about freedoms and oppression, and the enduring fiction of 'saving the world'.

 

I've been around plenty of Americans, I know how they generally are. I just hoped this site would be different. Clearly not, given how much partisan bickering goes on.

 

As much as I am against guns banning them is not the answer - at least not in America

The answer lies in personal responsibility in relation to guns

 

I notice Canada on that list, which has a higher gun ownership per capita than my home state of California, yet California has a higher homicide rate than Canada.. so maybe it isn't necessarily gun rights that drive the homicide rate. The US is also the biggest consumer of illegal drugs in the world, which in part leads to more black market crime

 

Self defense is not a "privilege".

- - - Updated - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


Actually yes.. it is over.

 

There is nothing to debate, you opted to give up your rights we didn't. Now all you can do is absolutely nothing to take an Americans gun away. I mean you could probably keep whining for another 100 yrs ago and try to irritate us out of our freedoms but I seriously doubt it.
Also, you still have to afford guns just like a car. They don't give them to you. Your right to own one however if you so choose SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Deal with it.
Also, in WWII you did in fact need our guns that you so despise. Cheered them in fact when your option was to be bombed into rubble. We even collected metal to melt down in order to make more in order to save you from your attackers that you couldn't fend off yourselves.

 

Maybe a thread should be started called 'Europe's stupid anti-gun paranoia nonsense will destroy it. After all history has shown that they are woefully unable to defend themselves when 'push goes to shove'.

 

No it will certainly not destroy it. Statistically it may lead to more homicide but there is nothing wrong with choosing freedom over security.

 

Self-defence does not equate to the right to own a gun.

DC v. Heller isn't the end of the debate. It's the end of provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't particularly care for what you define as a freedom or not. Gun control in the US is, quite frankly, not even a priority in anyone's mind in Europe. It's fun to discuss, but not important enough to actually care about. It's not our problem if you have shootings every other week.

Except it, quite obviously, can be infringed. You don't have blanket permission to own any gun at any time in any place at any age with any mental state.

You realise the Battle of Britain was already over before Pearl Harbour, right?

 

Because that is determined by freedom, leaving the petty bureaucrats out of our lives. Self Defense certainly doesn't equate to the rights granted by other governments. In fact self defense isn't even a right in England where a man got charged with using a dangerous weapon by using the book he was carrying to defend himself with. Luckily here, we protect rights, not grant them.

 

You actually think the US is special and is the only place on Earth you can go to have your rights protected no matter what? Bloody hell, you people need to travel overseas more.