Why isn't Europe as crazy about guns as US?

[Venix]

Strict gun laws in other countries have worked.

Nope. Strict gun laws have never had an impact on violent crime anywhere. There are no cases of even a loose correlation between the passage of a gun control law and a reduction in crime. There are many cases of crime dramatically increasing after the passage of gun control, like in DC and Chicago.

Mexico has us to thank for their gun problem. Guns flow north to south easier than water.

No, Mexico does not get most of its guns from the US.

Again being called stupid by someone I would disagree with about probably most political issues is an honor.

I didn't attempt to insult you, why do you resort to that? This is what makes the Interwebs so un-fun. We were having a nice discussion...

It's an honest question. When presented with data that flatly contradicts your argument, you just insist that the data actually supports the very conclusion it disproves. That's not normal.

I strongly doubt that you disagree with me on most political issues, since that would make you an anti-abortion, anti-gay, conservative authoritarian. But please keep stereotyping.

 

[rommelrommel]

This militia is not well regulated though. This is at best restricted to the National Guard. I would expect this well regulated militia to have service weapons, and not rely on personal arms in times of conflict.

Well regulated didn't mean regulations in the 1700's. It meant able to function. And, in the 1770's it clearly meant personal arms. And regardless, none of this has any bearing on the right to bear arms as per the supreme court...

 

[BladeVenom]

Serbia, Switzerland, and Finland all love their guns. Those countries have roughly 1 gun for every 2 people in their country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership I think they get to use silencers in Finland. The Swiss get to keep machine guns, and the government pays for their ammo.

 

[cyclohexane]

Serbia, Switzerland, and Finland all love their guns. Those countries have roughly 1 gun for every 2 people in their country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership I think they get to use silencers in Finland. The Swiss get to keep machine guns, and the government pays for their ammo.

Serbia is a terrorist hell hole. The other 2 countries are highly educated, developed societies.

 

[raildogg]

Because Europe is Europe and US is US? Why does there need to be a competition? Let them have less guns and let the US have more guns. That's all.

 

[Boris Morozov]

American's live their lives in fear every day. That's why.

 

[raildogg]

American's live their lives in fear every day. That's why.

That might be the ultimate reason for a person to own a gun, despite his love of killing animals and other reasons he gives.

This is not to say Europeans or others don't live their lives in fear either. It just takes a different form.

 

[bradly1101]

Nope. Strict gun laws have never had an impact on violent crime anywhere. There are no cases of even a loose correlation between the passage of a gun control law and a reduction in crime. There are many cases of crime dramatically increasing after the passage of gun control, like in DC and Chicago.

I was thinking of places like Germany, England, Austria, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, Japan, etc. They don't allow just anyone to own a gun, and it works.

In the U.S. we're saturated with guns (one per person?), so obviously the laws will have little if any or even a negative effect.

No, Mexico does not get most of its guns from the US.

The criminals apparently do.

They didn't say who manufactures most of them, but that of the ones confiscated that the serial numbers are often removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico

Mexicans have a constitutional right to own firearms,[1] but legal purchase from the single Mexican gun shop in Mexico City, controlled by the Army, is extremely difficult.[2] "According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, 94,000 weapons were recovered from Mexican drug cartels in the five years between 2006 and 2011, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States."[3]

It's an honest question. When presented with data that flatly contradicts your argument, you just insist that the data actually supports the very conclusion it disproves. That's not normal.

The above data contradicts you. Does that make you abnormal, immature, or stupid?

 

[BladeVenom]

Serbia is a terrorist hell hole. The other 2 countries are highly educated, developed societies.

Serbia has a low homicide rate. It's safer than the US and the majority of Eastern European countries.

 

[Venix]

I was thinking of places like Germany, England, Austria, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, Japan, etc. They don't allow just anyone to own a gun, and it works.

In the U.S. we're saturated with guns (one per person?), so obviously the laws will have little if any or even a negative effect.




The criminals apparently do.

They didn't say who manufactures most of them, but that of the ones confiscated that the serial numbers are often removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico


The above data contradicts you. Does that make you abnormal, immature, or stupid?

Of course it contradicts me. It's the very data source that I said was inaccurate, and that I posted an article to debunk. This article is shorter if the previous one was too overwhelming.

If you had bothered to read your own link, you would have discovered:

In 2009, Mexico reported that they held 305,424 confiscated firearms,[30] but submitted data of only 69,808 recovered firearms to the ATF for tracing between 2007 and 2009.[9] This is a 23% sample of total gun population. ... The US Congress has been informed that ATF agents working in Mexico routinely instruct Mexican authorities "to only submit weapons for tracing that have a likelihood of tracing back to the U.S .... instead of simply wasting resources on tracing firearms that will not trigger a U.S. source." This policy skews the pool of weapons submitted for tracing to weapons already suspected of being US origin.

Do you understand now?

 

[bradly1101]

We all interpret data from different sources differently.

I wonder if this piece of data is true and how differently we might view it. If it is true, it looks like your data source about the Mexican guns might have a conservative agenda.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/divide-and-conquer-unpacking-stratfors-rise-to-power/165933/

We will never see eye to eye on this, so why bother? To be right or more right? In an argument, the guy with the gun is always the most right.http://www.occupy.com/article/expos...telligence-firm-stratfor#sthash.VvgdzSyc.dpuf

 

[Venix]

We all interpret data from different sources differently.

I wonder if this piece of data is true and how differently we might view it. If it is true, it looks like your data source about the Mexican guns might have a conservative agenda.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/divide-and-conquer-unpacking-stratfors-rise-to-power/165933/

We will never see eye to eye on this, so why bother? To be right or more right? In an argument, the guy with the gun is always the most right.http://www.occupy.com/article/expos...telligence-firm-stratfor#sthash.VvgdzSyc.dpuf

There's nothing to interpret.

From your own source: Mexican authorities confiscated 300k guns. They believed that 70k of them (~23%) came from the United States and submitted those to the ATF for tracing. They were correct in the majority of cases, as should be expected.

The Obama Administration misused this data to claim that 90% of all Mexican crime guns come from the United States. That is a blatant lie, not an "interpretation."

 

[PrinceofWands]

Strict gun laws in other countries have worked.

Actually there's absolutely no support to a causal relationship. See the studies by the NAS, CDC, Harvard, etc. They didn't have much crime anyway, and the laws can't be shown to have direct relation to any changes outside of other factors.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally Posted by Pray To Jesus
Mexico bans all guns, yet murders and violent crime is Mexico is sky high.

Mexico has us to thank for their gun problem. Guns flow north to south easier than water.

Actually Mexico doesn't ban guns. In fact, their constitution guarantees the right to guns. They just have some regulations on top of that right.

 

[PrinceofWands]

This militia is not well regulated though. This is at best restricted to the National Guard. I would expect this well regulated militia to have service weapons, and not rely on personal arms in times of conflict.

Militias have always relied on personal arms, and have never been considered 'national guards'. Two entirely different things. Also, well regulated only means practiced with arms. If you can accurately shoot a military grade weapon (ie midrange battle rifle), you're a 'well regulated militia'.

 

[shortylickens]

There's nothing to interpret.

From your own source: Mexican authorities confiscated 300k guns. They believed that 70k of them (~23%) came from the United States and submitted those to the ATF for tracing. They were correct in the majority of cases, as should be expected.

The Obama Administration misused this data to claim that 90% of all Mexican crime guns come from the United States. That is a blatant lie, not an "interpretation."

Can we use that logic against them? With the drugs I mean. If 23 percent of all drugs in America come from Mexico doesnt that mean we should sanction them?

 

[_Rick_]

Militias have always relied on personal arms, and have never been considered 'national guards'. Two entirely different things. Also, well regulated only means practiced with arms. If you can accurately shoot a military grade weapon (ie midrange battle rifle), you're a 'well regulated militia'.

The post to which I replied quoted a text which denoted the national guard a militia. This militia is well regulated, as they regularly exercise and demonstrate their ability to fire a weapon, without being in active military service.

"Every able bodied man above the age of 17" is not a well regulated militia. This group of people is neither equipped, nor generally capable of using a weapon. Nor are they organized in any way. A militia is always organized, even if only loosely. But to function, a chain of command is required even in militias, as is a supply and support structure. The latter may be more ad hoc, but that is what makes the difference between a militia and an armed mob.

The French Resistance's armed forces were a classical militia. But, these were a select group of people that were at least loosely organized, and had some amount of training.

All I wanted to say, was that the word militia used in the quoted text, is not identical to the idea of a well regulated militia, as used in the Second Amendment, in opposition to the link made by whoever posted that quote.

 

[smakme7757]

I wouldn't even know where to buy a gun without being a licensed hunter or someone that needs one for work or a specialist hobby. I must admit i have never actually seen a gun shop before. Like a place where the only goods for sale are guns and ammunition.

I've been all over Europe, Australia, Scandinavia but am yet to visit the US. The reason European civilians have less guns is purely because the laws are stricter and availability is low.

 

[GTaudiophile]

As someone who spends about 2 months a year in Germany, all I can say is that I feel great when I'm there and that I can walk at midnight through any German city and always feel safe. Conversely, a lot of Germans are afraid to visit the US because of the right/wrong perception about the ubiquity of weapons: in cars, homes, schools, etc.

The Germans have a higher standard of living than Americans and the lack of guns and overall feeling of safety certainly plays a part in this.

Germans also know they started two World Wars. There is an innate desire to simply avoid such violence. This also applies to TV and movie media; European films glorify love and sex whereas American films glorify violence and war.

 

[bradly1101]

I wouldn't even know where to buy a gun without being a licensed hunter or someone that needs one for work or a specialist hobby.

A gun 'show'?

 

[Noo]

Dropped on your head as a child?

Don't even bother to argue with idiots. LoL just save your breath

 

[mikeford]

American's live their lives in fear every day. That's why.

Not the armed ones.

 

[Noo]

You can't "disagree" with a fact. Much like you can't claim that a decline is an increase or that no correlation is an increasing trend.

I'm honestly perplexed by your inability to interpret facts and data. You don't even dispute the data's validity--you just insist that it supports the very conclusion it unequivocally disproves. Do you have comprehension difficulties or a learning disability, or are you just very young, or what?

It's because you and your facts/statistics are racist and you wanted to kill children.

 

[Ruptga]

It's because you and your facts/statistics are racist and you wanted to kill children.

 

[bradly1101]

The post to which I replied quoted a text which denoted the national guard a militia. This militia is well regulated, as they regularly exercise and demonstrate their ability to fire a weapon, without being in active military service.

"Every able bodied man above the age of 17" is not a well regulated militia. This group of people is neither equipped, nor generally capable of using a weapon. Nor are they organized in any way. A militia is always organized, even if only loosely. But to function, a chain of command is required even in militias, as is a supply and support structure. The latter may be more ad hoc, but that is what makes the difference between a militia and an armed mob.

The French Resistance's armed forces were a classical militia. But, these were a select group of people that were at least loosely organized, and had some amount of training.

All I wanted to say, was that the word militia used in the quoted text, is not identical to the idea of a well regulated militia, as used in the Second Amendment, in opposition to the link made by whoever posted that quote.

this. This. THIS!

It's so sad though; the Supreme Court has ruled that there is such a thing as "a militia of one."