It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
*sigh* Look at the crime rate in Switzerland:
Originally posted by m1991You're right, they are. The thing is guns are more lethal than knives or most other weapons, so it's logical that the more of them that are around, the more murder there will be.
Emphasis mine.Wiki Now, the Swiss do have some gun laws, but they carry more guns per person (including semiautomatics) than almost any given city in the US. (Most registered gun owners are rural in the US.) Their death by guns is lower than ours in cities so no, it is not logical for there to be more gun deaths when there is more openly known guns. There is more death by guns when criminals have more illegal guns than the rest of the civil population has registered guns. Now, compare that to England's deaths by guns each year, where under 7 people per 100 legally have guns:
Police statistics for the year 2006[13] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.[14]
WikiNote that with gun laws in place death by guns is under 7% of all homicides. Less than 7% owns guns, less than 7% are killed by guns. Pretty simple. And England's crime rate is higher than ours by about 5%.
The number of homicides per year committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. There were 2 fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period and 107 non-fatal shootings - an average of 9.7 per year over the same period.[37]
By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[38] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.[1] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.[39]
While the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[40] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g., by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[40]
Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.[41]
Originally posted by pikestaff
In the first full year after Australia banned guns, the gun crime rate went up 44% does not seem like a drop to me,
but then again, perhaps where I got my figures from was biased, I don't know for sure.
Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
*sigh* Look at the crime rate in Switzerland:
Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80. Note that with gun laws in place death by guns is under 7% of all homicides. Less than 7% owns guns, less than 7% are killed by guns. Pretty simple. And England's crime rate is higher than ours by about 5%.
To have guns or not have guns? People still die because you don't need a gun to kill.
Originally posted by m1991
Originally posted by MRSeuphoric1
reply to post by m1991
It's not just Americans, Its preprogrammed in us to be greedy, selfish and only look out for number one. Americans just do it more openly. But thats what you get from being the "Free"est Country in the world, right?
This is more a rant really and you know the old saying, if you don't like it you can leave
edit on 2-9-2011 by MRSeuphoric1 because: (no reason given)
See that's the lie people believe. That humans are inherently evil. I don't think that's true. And how the hell are we the freest country in the world? You can't even open a lemonade stand in this country without a stack of paperwork for crying out loud.
And that old saying is one of the most obnoxious sayings there is and every time it is uttered from someone's lips, it doesn't lose any of its original obnoxiousness. I would love to leave the United States, except I have family here and also it's extremely difficult for me to even visit other countries because of the difficulty in getting a passport.
Originally posted by SM2
ahh I remember back in the day when I was young like the OP. i remember the feeling to look on the world with young naive eyes. So lets break this down, Americans are vengeful because we execute criminals. So you are saying that someone that raped 10 or 15 8 year old children deserves to continue their life? How about the person that went into a corner store and shot the place up for a 40oz malt liqour and killed a 22 year old single mother? Yeah, scum like that deserve what they get, sorry. What would your alternative be? To put them into group therapy and let them discuss the feelings that caused them to kill and rape? What do you suggest we do with people that have no regard for human life and commit these atrocities?
Originally posted by rigel4
sooner or later you Americans are going to start WWIII. someone will stand up to you.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
America has helped the world more than ne1 else. We practically hand out money to nations who need it. We're the worlds protector of freedom and it's a thankless job.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
That's why we're vengeful. Maybe if the rest of the world started caring more...
Originally posted by jonnywhite
And you know you're just 21. This country gave you life and you have a lot to learn about that.edit on 3-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by CherryV
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
You pretty much wrote what I was thinking
It's very hard to get a passport in the UK now, you have to go for an interview where they ask you questions, you can't just send off for one like the old days.
America is not the most vengeful, or violent peoples in the world by a long shot.edit on 3-9-2011 by CherryV because: (no reason given)
A lot of the conservative Christians (you know, conservatives, Moral Majority, et. al.) actually are against killing even these. Hence the reason why a local Church of Christ reached out to Jeffery Dahmer and pleaded for the courts to withhold his death penalty. Hell, I'm far more conservative than most the people on this site, and I'm not strictly for the death penalty.
Originally posted by discharged77
I think that we should actually kill the scum on death row the day after they are convicted. It would save the hard working tax payer some hard earned dough. But the Marxist lawyers see a way in to make a dollar and get their name in the paper by helping this garbage escape whats coming to them. Bleeding heart liberals would feel differently if it was their loved one who was murdered in cold blood.
A sidenote: the anti-loitering laws in England at the time of the slave trade gave slavers the right to grab anyone who was begging and force them to work for merely food and clothing. Little orphans were plucked off the streets, drunks were clubbed like seals, simply Whites sold Whites into slavery on the Caribbean plantations. But since there was an organized government that was doing this, this was shut down in an organized manner--something that never happened in Africa.
Originally posted by StratosFearLook it up yourself, Africans sold there own into slavery!
You forgot my favorite: pillows.
Originally posted by Qemyst
Guns ABSOLUTELY can kill people. So do knives. So do rocks, pieces of wood, swords, a video game controller, a fork, a sharpened spoon, a high heel shoe, a regular shoe, bombs, a rope, a bike chain, a pipe, a broken beer bottle, a sharp piece of metal, a pencil, a pen, cars...
I feel that all of the above things should have MUCH stricter rules on them. Many of the items can be used to bludgeon someone to death, or inflict lethal stab wounds, or blow someone up... I'm sure i missed some things. Oh yeah, wrenches, screwdrivers, a saw... uhh... Probably still missing some things.
Cheers
Ted Bundy, to name 1. There are several serial killers that have been paroled or set free in their mother country in "civilized societies".Cracked 5
Originally posted by m1991Civilized societies do not put people to death. It is unnecessary. Believe me, if someone is a serial killer, no parole board is going to let them free.
Take it from a local, it's Choot 'um or Choot 'em.
Originally posted by radosta I say CHUTE 'EM.
Actually, many anti-depressants and anti-psychotics, when given to a not fully developed brain (like teenagers have), causes worse problems than it is trying to prevent.
Originally posted by type0civWell said..Guns are not the only common denominator in school shootings..I believe the SSRI class anti-depressants are also usually present....but those are use to help not hurt.
This is why you look up a name before you use it. One of my old names gives me some interesting problems, due to my not looking things up, as well.
Originally posted by m1991
i had no idea about that actually. i just chose m1991 because my name starts with M and 1991 is a palindrome and a (kind of) recent year.
It's not about living in past comparisons, although plenty are making it seem that way. It's about learning from history so we don't repeat the same mistakes.
Originally posted by m1991You're comparing America to societies thousands of years old and also to dictatorships in second and third world countries. My premise was that America is far more vengeful and militaristic than other modern first world countries.
Harvest Moon.
Originally posted by radosta
Tell you what, you develop and market a video game about peace. Points for every hug. You may even get government subsidies for it.
You won't sell a single game, mind you.
Why? Because the point is entertainment. No conflict = boredom. And that sort of sums it up there.
It goes further than that. When your primary goals are materialistic, you don't have your mind set on other people's needs. We're all buy, buy, buy, not help, help, help.
Originally posted by petrus4
I think the way Americans live with themselves while holding this attitude, is also via the degree of mental externalisation/otherisation that goes on. In other words, if a person gets locked up and the key thrown away, that's perfectly fine, just as long as it's someone else. It's even better if you can play spectator and feel morally superior to the criminality of the poor slob as he gets dragged off to solitary.