Gun Homicide Rate By Country [Pic]

Submitted by: Gerry1of1 3 years ago

Per country, per capita.
There are 122 comments:
Male 2,357
@Canoas

[quote]Sorry if I`m not a psycopath.[/quote]
It`s not so much that you`re psychopath. At best you`re naive and at worst an idiot.

[quote]It`s the exact same one you`ve cited.[/quote]
The evidence I`ve presented suggests that, in most cases, a well-armed population correlates with a less violent and safer population. So, to be plain, first world countries with a higher percentage of armed citizens, on the average, enjoy lower homicide rates.

This evidence completely contradicts your statement that I requested a citation for:

"The fact that anyone can get a gun will drastically increase the homicide ratio"

Please cite some sort of statistically meaningful evidence to support this claim.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

[quote]If someone is intended on killing you then a gun won`t protect you[/quote]
Ummm... You`re kidding, hopefully. Seriously, just type something in the realm of "My Gun Saved My Life" into Google (or Bing I suppose) and I`m sure you`ll find countless cases that completely disprove your stance.

But no, seriously, conjecture is like, so totally more persuasive than first-hand accounts and stuff - and like, common sense man. <--- This is what I think of you.

[quote]should you be able to shoot someone in order to protect your phone/tv/etc?[/quote]
Well this is an interesting tangent - albeit completely unrelated to what we`ve been discussing.

[quote]Your phone/tv/etc is not more valuable than a human life[/quote]
Well hell, might as well just hand over my house and car while I`m at it. After all, they`re just "stuff" right; I shouldn`t protect them.

0
Reply
Male 427
@5cats
the sentence is perfectly coherent

@HumanAction
"Based on this, you are suggesting that you prefer a system where people are completely at the mercy of their biological constraints; they do not have the option of protecting themselves."
If someone is intended on killing you then a gun won`t protect you, so this isn`t about protecting yourself at all, it`s about protecting your materialistic assets. So, the question you`re really asking is, should you be able to shoot someone in order to protect your phone/tv/etc? No, you shouldn`t. Your phone/tv/etc is not more valuable than a human life. Sorry if I`m not a psycopath.

"Where exactly is the evidence you are citing? I`ve shown you mine, now you show me yours."
It`s the exact same one you`ve cited.
0
Reply
Male 184
Half of everybody in Columbia dies from guns? 49.52% of every 100,000 people. Am I reading this wrong?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Whew, let`s continue shall we?

[quote]The fact that anyone can get a gun will drastically increase the homicide ratio[/quote]
Where exactly is the evidence you are citing? I`ve shown you mine, now you show me yours.

[quote]the more guns there are in a country where guns aren`t available to the public the higher the homicide rate[/quote]
Again, please cite your evidence here. I`ve shown you a statistical analysis of first-world countries that suggests the complete opposite.

[quote]Anyone who isn`t retard can understand this[/quote]
... and the word of the day is: retard.

[quote]but I can`t say I`m surprised you don`t.[/quote]
Well shucks, I`m honored. Clearly your presentation of emotionally-charged, statistically-absent arguments demonstrates a superior intellect - especially compared to my lousy statistics. Oh wise one, I offer you my humblest sarcasm.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

[quote]That`s the most retarded thing I`ve heard all day[/quote]
What a pitiful and uninteresting life you must lead...

Now, seeing as how you apparently prefer to argue based on hypothetical, statistically-bereft "facts", let`s see where we can take your logic.

First, let us consider your "whoever doesn`t have a gun is at a disadvantage" line. Naturally, some people are at a disadvantage - this is natural and there is no way to overcome it. For example, a 5`2", 110lb woman stands exactly a zero percent chance of fighting off a 6`4", 240lb male attacker with her bare hands. Based on this, you are suggesting that you prefer a system where people are completely at the mercy of their biological constraints; they do not have the option of protecting themselves. I believe you should now see the error of this logic; if not, please do not hesitate to ask for additional assistance.
0
Reply
Male 36,388
[quote]...the more guns there are in a country where guns aren`t available to the public the higher the homicide rate. [/quote]
@Canoas: Don`t be so "fast on the draw" with your accusations of "retard" eh? If English is not your first language I can forgive you for this abomination of a sentence...

#1 Most of the high death countries severly restrict guns already.
#2 Per Capita: USA is highest, but NOT the rate of gun deaths. Countries with MUCH LOWER rates have MUCH HIGHER gun deaths. Facts! Become aquainted with them.
#3 In areas in the USA with HIGH gun ownership rates? LOWEST gun violence. Again, it`s a fact.

You can repeat "gun-grabber fiction" all you like, but the facts remain unchanged.
0
Reply
Male 427
@HumanAction
Are you serious? That`s the most retarded thing I`ve heard all day, and I just posted on a topic about global warming filled with conspiracy theories.

The reason why guns per capita correlates with lower homicides rates is because anyone can get a gun. You see, if anyone can get a gun then whoever doesn`t have a gun is at a disadvantage, so getting a gun will increase your security. However, this is only IF ANYONE CAN GET A GUN IN THE FIRST PLACE. The fact that anyone can get a gun will drastically increase the homicide ratio, and then the more people have guns the better chances of defence you have. BUT IN A COUNTRY WHERE YOU CAN`T GET A GUN that is no longer true, having a gun only means you can kill someone and they won`t be able to protect themselves, the more guns there are in a country where guns aren`t available to the public the higher the homicide rate.

Anyone who isn`t retard can understand this.. but I can`t say I`m surprised you don`t.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

[quote]"In germany we don`t need a permission from the government to use our balls. And without arms i couldn`t work anymore - they will never take my arms. " [/quote]
WTH!!!!
Germans are still carrying guns? Ya know, that hasn`t worked out too well in the past. Why are you guys worked up over the USA when the krouts are still armed!
0
Reply
Female 655
Hahahaha.. Latinos like to shoot each other. Beans, beans the magical fruit. The more you eat the more you shoot.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]Lower GUN homicide rate. Not overall homicide rate.[/quote]
I am using the homicide rate per country data from Wikipedia. I am not using firearm homicide rates in my data. My statements are accurate that, in general, gun per capita rates inversely correlate with total homicide rates in first world nations.

Trying to isolate and compare firearm homicides only would be a rather pointless endeavor; the rate would obviously be higher in a country with a greater gun prevalence. Similarly, we would expect to see vehicular homicide rates higher in countries with more vehicles per capita.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"Yes, quite literally, in first world countries, more guns per capita correlates with lower homicide rates"

Lower GUN homicide rate. Not overall homicide rate.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

So let`s, for your sake, consider the 24 first world countries. For the moment, we`ll forget about homicide/firearm ratios and just talk about guns per capita and homicides per capita.

Remove the US, and we have a negative trend: -0.022x with an R^2 of 0.1303. What happens if we add the US? We get a positive trend, 0.0205x and an R^2 of 0.1397.

Now, these are very weak R^2 values, but clearly we see that the US is an outlier. After all, weighted against 23 other countries, the inclusion of the US into the dataset not only negates the trend, but completely reverses it!

What then has been the point? Well, the entire point in today`s exercise has been to demonstrate that the US cannot be directly compared to other countries because the US does not fit into the same trends and patterns. Because of this, comparing the US to another country would be disingenuous.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Canoas

[quote]Yeah, maybe it`s because WE DON`T HAVE FIREARMS[/quote]
Kind of looks like you didn`t read the rest of it. When we assume the US is an outlier and exclude it from the dataset, an obvious and solid inverse trend exists between guns per capita and homicide rates.

Yes, quite literally, in first world countries, more guns per capita correlates with lower homicide rates. Based on your reaction, I imagine you didn`t already know this.
0
Reply
Male 425
I think no one uf us needs a gun.
0
Reply
Female 53
proud my country ranks the third best out of all of those wimps.
0
Reply
Male 427
"For instance, using the homicides/firearm ratio, the US has a better (lower or lesser) ratio than: Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Israel, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Denmark, Turkey, Australia, Luxembourg, Belgium, and Greece."

WTF? Yeah, maybe it`s because WE DON`T HAVE FIREARMS. In a country with 0 firearms and 1 homicide then homicide/firearm ratio is infinite. OMG it`s infinite what a pooty country!!11!eleven!
0
Reply
Male 1,558
you get half down before you get to rational people who hate soccer!!
0
Reply
Male 4,893

rizzo - It was a play on words. This is a post about gun control. The word "arms" has 2 meanings. Wasn`t being completely literal.
0
Reply
Male 481
I still say gun owners should be held to a higher standard, and be proud of it. They should be willing to learn a gun`s history, proper maintenance and cleaning, and absolutely be able to pass a proficiency test. Because, as it stands, the lack of distinction between a responsible gun owner and the one`s who aren`t is what`s causing a lot of the backlash.

I worked for years at a convenience store, right on the edge of urban and rural. I`ve had guns pulled on me with intent to rob. I about had a heart attack when two guys walked in with loaded AR-15s, who then bought snacks and left. One time a guy pulled out a giant handgun with `Raging Bull` printed across the side and pointed right at me. All he wanted was to show me his new toy. I threw up after he left.

It is really hard for me to tell which gun owners are the ones I`m supposed to be defending the rights of. Separate the two, and it`ll be harder to blame the responsible gun owners for what the crazies do.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Rizzo

[quote]Thanks HumanAction ;)[/quote]
Ha - well at least you took it in good fun, which is more than I can say for most. But seriously, you had to know that type of response was coming =P
0
Reply
Male 425
[quote]Another thing you don`t want to be waving around in public.[/quote]
Absolutely!

[quote]...too lower of a caliber to scare anything off anyway...[/quote]
Can`t complain.

[quote]But the balls require a permit from the govt. Besides, what good is yer dick when the govt. has taken your arms.[/quote]
In germany we don`t need a permission from the government to use our balls. And without arms i couldn`t work anymore - they will never take my arms. They aren`t that stupid.

Thanks HumanAction ;)
0
Reply
Male 4,893

[quote]Thank you @humanaction![quote]
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@lifester

[quote]but when it`s so clear that the US positions itself closer to poor countries than developed countries that is saying something[/quote]
The issue, of course, is that this is only clear given the narrow stats you are relying on. Just as you imply that my statistics are being used to "paint a picture", I suggest that yours are too.

For instance, using the homicides/firearm ratio, the US has a better (lower or lesser) ratio than: Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Israel, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Denmark, Turkey, Australia, Luxembourg, Belgium, and Greece.

Canada`s ratio is slightly better (~4%).

Interestingly, the best countries are: Iceland, Switzerland, Norway, Austria, Germany, Sweden, France, and New Zealand. The average gun/capita rate is 31.6/100 in this group.

The "bad" countries average gun/capita rate is 10.0/100.

More guns = safer gun use.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

[quote]"True, stats can be used to paint any picture you want," [/quote]
That`s true.
"9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape." - Jimmy Carr
0
Reply
Male 2
True, stats can be used to paint any picture you want, but when it`s so clear that the US positions itself closer to poor countries than developed countries that is saying something.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@lifester

[quote]Really puts it into perspective no?[/quote]
Not really; if anything, it takes it really out of perspective. The US, has on average, far more than 9x the amount of guns than the other nations you reference (per capita). Therefore, it stands to reason that the incidence of misuse per capita is also much greater.

Consider if Canada outlaws crowbars but the US doesn`t. As such, Canada has far fewer crowbars per capita than the US. Do you suppose that the Canada`s crowbar-homicide rates would therefore be lower that in the US? Duh.

Let`s think about it a different way. The US has a homicide rate of 4.8/100k and a gun-prevalence rate of 88.9/100. The UK has a homicide rate of 1.2/100k and a gun-prevalence rate of 6/100.

This means that there are 0.000054 homicides/firearm in the US and 0.0002 homicides/firearm in the UK. A gun is 2.7x more likely to kill you in the UK.
0
Reply
Male 2
Assuming this is correct, I think it is fascinating that basically the only countries above 1 wouldn`t be considered first world countries, with the exception of the US of course. In fact of the first world countries on the list excluding the US, the US is on average 9 times higher. Again, the only ones above 1 are, for the most part, corrupt drug and gang riddled countries. Really puts it into perspective no?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@turdburgler

[ quote ]Stuff in quotes...[ /quote ]

Leave out the spaces within the brackets and you`re in business. Fair warning, the filter breaks if you use quotes and links, and the closing bracket creates a newline for you (so no need to have the space after it).
0
Reply
Male 4,893

How do you guys get your quotes in italic font?
0
Reply
Male 4,893

"I don`t need a gun - i still have a dick!"

But the balls require a permit from the govt.
Besides, what good is yer dick when the govt. has taken your arms.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

[quote]"I don`t need a gun - i still have a dick!" [/quote]
Another thing you don`t want to be waving around in public.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Now the UK has Knife surrender bins wonder why that might be??? Remember folks "utopia" is just a few more bans away!
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]I don`t need a gun - i still have a dick![/quote]

Never get get to shoot that either huh? It`s too lower of a caliber to scare anything off anyway....
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]I don`t need a gun - i still have a dick![/quote]
... yea, mint condition - never been touched.

Disclaimer: Stupid comments beget stupid comments.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
0
Reply
Male 425
I don`t need a gun - i still have a dick!
0
Reply
Male 37,888

Canoas, [quote]"It`s not the gun control that preceded the gun problems, it`s the other way around." [/quote]
Correct. My point was gun control laws do not stop gun violence. Those laws are enacting in low economic areas and haven`t stopped any gun violence. Economic factors are far more important.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]It`s not the gun control that preceded the gun problems, it`s the other way around. Since there are problems stricter gun control was implemented. [/quote]

And it did nothing mabey that would tell you to look beyond objects. Asking alot from someone from the UK where sharp objects are illegal too.
0
Reply
Male 14,330

0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]Just to focus on an exception to the rule?[/quote]

Ya and you don`t do that sure buddy....
0
Reply
Male 427
"Our states with the most lax gun laws have the lowest gun problems. Chicago, New York, California, those places with tight gun control have higher gun problems."
It`s not the gun control that preceded the gun problems, it`s the other way around. Since there are problems stricter gun control was implemented.
0
Reply
Male 4,893
"My god...how is it that *I*, a Brit, am explaining that to you?

Anyway, the constitution is like a dictionary: it merely records, not dictates. And if the rights determined by your society and your democracy changes, your constitution changes with it, as it has numerous times. AMMENDMENTS."

You obviously don`t understand it right. In a democratic society the laws can and should change as society demands. Constitution included, except the first 10...the bill of rights. The foundation of this country. These are the "god given"/unalienable rights that the country was built around. If you can`t live with those rights, you need to find a new country to live in. It wouldn`t be America with out those rights.
0
Reply
Male 4,893

Musko42 - All your comments sound so arrogantly european. As if europe is paradise..
As if we want to be more like europe.

Personally, I am just fine with how things are. I have a CPL but I don`t feel the need to carry a gun with me. America is not as violent as you imagine. Most all of these homicides are in a few areas, and are gang or drug related.

Call me an evil bastard, but I don`t care if they kill each other. If your country was as large as the US you would also have some small areas with gang and drug related violence making the whole country`s homicide rates seem much higher.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

So along that same line of thought, one could easily suggest that the "gun ban" in Australia was counterproductive.

Additionally, if we are to use such examples, then we should also consider actions that correlate with homicide rate declines in the US. For instance, if we look at the seven years after the Assault Weapons Ban was LIFTED, homicide rates fell on average 40x more than in Australia during the seven years after the "gun ban". Does this not then imply that the lifting of the Assault Weapons Ban was potentially 40x more effective in reducing homicide rates than banning guns?

This is the problem creating comparisons amongst different countries.

[quote]My answer to that is the same as I give to the "what if" scenario of being attacked by a tiger.[/quote]
I think you are far more likely to be "jumped" than attacked by a tiger. I don`t have the stats, but I`m pretty sure.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

To me the graph shows low economic levels = violence. It is not just because they have guns that there is gun violence. Our states with the most lax gun laws have the lowest gun problems. Chicago, New York, California, those places with tight gun control have higher gun problems. But those 3 places also have low economics. That`s where the American Ghettos are.

On the graph the poor countries have higher violence than the wealthier countries. So it seems poor people commit crimes.

Go figure, that`s news.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]But what is that opinion based on?[/quote]
Well, I can`t necessarily state the reasons that papajon0s1 have for that opinion, but I tend to agree with him based on my own research.

First off, I don`t think it is appropriate to directly compare homicide rates amongst different countries because it attempts to simplify the complexity in order to shoehorn data into a specific motive. In doing so, we willfully ignore important differences like: geography, culture, race, and other violence.

So for example, some people are quick to point out that Australia effectively "banned guns" and their homicide rates fell. This neglects the fact that their homicide rates were already considerably lower than in the US. In addition, it neglects that the homicide rates were already dropping prior to the ban, and that the rate of decline slumped after the ban relative to other nations.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@turdburglar

"We have more guns than we have people. You will never be able to remove them."

You`re right, I do ask why not even try? Why is it your national rhetoric says that you can accomplish everything...except for when it suits you?

Again...richest country in the world. You have ZERO excuse for not figuring out how to do it.

"taking away basic rights guaranteed by our constitution."

The constitution is just a peice of paper (parchment?) and it doesn`t guarantee you ANY rights; it merely states what rights are inherent in your people.

My god...how is it that *I*, a Brit, am explaining that to you?

Anyway, the constitution is like a dictionary: it merely records, not dictates. And if the rights determined by your society and your democracy changes, your constitution changes with it, as it has numerous times. AMMENDMENTS.
0
Reply
Male 427
@randomxnp
"If you rape someone that is violence too. The rate of rape here is about 3 times the US rate."
Rape per 100k in the UK: 28.8
Rape per 100k in the USA: 27.3
source


5Cats
"32% THEFT = "legal"?
7.6% Fence OR Black Market = both illegal

The POINT of that chart is that ONLY 16% of criminal`s guns come from a source that WOULD BE affected by current "gun laws". OK? Unless sweeping new laws are enacted? And many Americans lose their rights? The rest of those sources would not be changed by "more laws"."

Yes, only 16% of those guns are affected by current guns laws, which only proves my point of a need for better gun control. All those guns WERE originally legal, their owners were just not careful enough and had their gun stolen. Therefore, proper gun con
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"Mexico....."

Going to ignore the cluster at the bottom of the graph, are you? Those nations with extremely strict gun laws, with extremely low levels of gun murder?

Just to focus on an exception to the rule?
0
Reply
Male 4,893

"Correct. You can never 100% get rid of a crime...but why do you think then that it`s pointless to minimise it as much as possible?"

musko42 - We have more guns than we have people. You will never be able to remove them. You say "why not try". The answer is not just that it wouldn`t work (which it won`t), but to EVEN TRY would mean taking away basic rights guaranteed by our constitution.

"In a word, yes. Just as it`s easier for a criminal to get hold of a pair of socks or a pack of cigarettes than a machine gun."
Take the word "machine" out of that sentence then it`s not really true. Maybe in europe it is, but then you guys will give up just about all your rights for the promise of a government ran "paradise".
0
Reply
Female 2,509
Still cannot understand why every amendment is "a living and breathing document" that needs to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, but the 2nd amendment is cut and dry....
Just saying
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"For example, in your "scenario", if I were being harassed by a group of six gangsters, what is my recourse?"

My answer to that is the same as I give to the "what if" scenario of being attacked by a tiger. My chances of being attacked by a tiger in England are about on par with my chances of being attacked by gangsters.

What pro-gun advocates seem to be forgetting is that the very need to have to carry a gun for self-defence for your daily lives is a shameful admission that your society is broken and beset by threats that should not be occurring on a regular basis in a civilisation nation.

You`re a rich country. Why can`t you solve your crime problem so your people don`t NEED to be armed for self-defence?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]But what is that opinion based on? That graph seems to show that the "disarmed" nations tend to cluster down at the bottom.[/quote]

Mexico.....
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"I don`t think he was arguing this at all. Rather, I believe that he suggested that, specifically in the case of gun control, the proposed legislation would at best be a non-factor and at worst - counterproductive."

But what is that opinion based on? That graph seems to show that the "disarmed" nations tend to cluster down at the bottom. The tactic may not work for America, being a different nation with a different society, but you can`t claim it doesn`t work for other nations. So there is potential that it could work for America.

It couldn`t do much worse than America`s current approach!
0
Reply
Male 26
I wish republicans could stick with the same logic on welfare. They want to get rid of it because some people abuse it, but the same reasoning doesn`t work for them on gun control.
0
Reply
Male 573
America is shocking high on that list.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]You are arguing for having no laws or policing at all, because we can never make things perfect.[/quote]
I don`t think he was arguing this at all. Rather, I believe that he suggested that, specifically in the case of gun control, the proposed legislation would at best be a non-factor and at worst - counterproductive.

Perhaps a different perspective would be to consider that we all agree that we cannot eliminate the presence of firearms entirely. Now, consider whether or not you believe it is "fair" to enable an individual to protect himself (or herself) from aggression with equal force.

For example, in your "scenario", if I were being harassed by a group of six gangsters, what is my recourse? In your "scenario" I can either run and hope to escape, or suffer a beating/torture/possible death. Is that fair when I could have presented a firearm to potentially save my life?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]You are arguing for having no laws or policing at all, because we can never make things perfect. Why are you arguing that? You can`t possibly believe that`s correct.[/quote]

Laws that punish those who try to abide to them help nothing.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@papajon0s1

"Even in the most peaceful society in the world, people still commit crime using guns. Unless you can find a way to remove all guns and all weapons of any kind from the entire world and never have them again, gun control simply will not work."

Correct. You can never 100% get rid of a crime...but why do you think then that it`s pointless to minimise it as much as possible?

You are arguing for having no laws or policing at all, because we can never make things perfect. Why are you arguing that? You can`t possibly believe that`s correct.
0
Reply
Male 579
@Musuko42 Even in the most peaceful society in the world, people still commit crime using guns. Unless you can find a way to remove all guns and all weapons of any kind from the entire world and never have them again, gun control simply will not work. It`s a liberal pipe dream as is many a liberal policy that, while almost always well intentioned, almost always makes this worse.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]SO: In Canada (and Brasil) the criminals, the cops and the RICH PEOPLE all have guns... NOT nice![/quote]
This is ridiculous. I know of a few friends and family that have guns for hunting, and they are not "rich" or cops or criminals. I wonder @5cats, how much gun crime was there in your city last year?
0
Reply
Male 2,549
Well thank goodness Columbia`s doing something about overpopulation.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Ya that gun bans working so well for Mexico! European thinking they know what`s best for the rest of the world yep never seen that in history before....
0
Reply
Male 296
What, no Russia?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@5Cats

"And also the #1 all-time BEST method of self defence is... handguns too."

I would have thought the number one best method of self defence is having a relaxed, crime-free society which isn`t full of people who might attack you.

Look at Scandinavia to see that it is possible.

So pro-gun people, why don`t you work to acheive that? If nobody is killing people with guns, then you won`t have to defend your guns against people who say they are dangerous.

Stop defending the usefulness of the bucket for catching leaks and get up and fix the damn roof instead!
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@MeGrendel

"And you seriously think that outlawing gun will make them harder for criminals to get?"

In a word, yes. Just as it`s easier for a criminal to get hold of a pair of socks or a pack of cigarettes than a machine gun.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@randomxnp

"Here in the UK we have a far higher rate of violent crime."

Violent crime is very hard to measure between countries, because different countries class different things as a violent crime.

Eg: if I cut off a lock of your hair without your permission, that could be classed as a violent crime because it is an assault on the person. Some countries may class it as such, others may not.

Murder, however, is far easier to measure. There is much less ambiguity, and it makes for a much better comparison between countries.

And personally, I`d rather have a lower murder rate and a higher rate of violent crime than the other way around. I can recover from a punch to the face. Being dead is pretty terminal.
0
Reply
Female 2,027
so poor countries. America is still the highest for the western world
0
Reply
Male 481
- "Hahaha, as soon as you move into Europe things calm down. (albania excluded...)"

United Kingdom (England and Wales) : 2009 (Most recent recorded year) 722 murders, 41 by gun. That`s about 6%.

Australia : Also 2009, 263 murders, 30 by gun. A little more than 1 in 10.

Not making any point, but I have the files open and you guys commented, so there you go. :)
0
Reply
Male 481
I missed this before, at the bottom of the UNODC spreadsheet from which the OP graph is distilled.

"* For the United States of America number of homicides by firearm is adjusted for limited coverage of homicide by firearm data by multiplying the total number of intentional homicides by the ratio of homicides by firearm."

The ratio is listed as 67.5%, but how do they know the ratio of deaths by guns if they don`t know how many people we`re killed by guns? I mean, that`s typically how you get the ratio. So... Some number less than the total number of murders, but greater than zero.

Asterisks aren`t supposed to make things more confusing.
0
Reply
Female 4,349
oh, we no rate. could have something to do with complete lack of guns. Dont worry, I`m sure we bash heaps of eachother to death though :)
0
Reply
Male 671
Hahaha, as soon as you move into Europe things calm down. (albania excluded...)
0
Reply
Male 14,773
Hmm, not bad by third world catholic countries.

Hey, what happened to the UK? That`s right, they all but banned guns. You should give it a go.
0
Reply
Male 110
I find it interesting that the US is only behind like all the countries that have all the drug gangs in them... But that`s my perspective on this and will probably be ignored by most of the IAB regulars...
0
Reply
Male 37,888

Know guns, know peace, know safety.
No guns, no peace, no safety.
0
Reply
Male 36,388
@Gerry1: As I mentioned (and it`s sort-of linked to) the ratio of "gun crime" vs "self defence" is:
600,000 USA crimes involving guns
2,000,000+ "self defence" involving guns.

75% of "self defence" incidents do NOT involve a single shot being fired.

iirc: the actual number of "justified self defence killings" is about 260 per year.

FBI Home THIS is a treasure-trove of real information. It takes a bit of digging though... and half a brain ;-) which I know you`ve got @Gerry1!
Go "get `um" tiger!
0
Reply
Male 36,388
[quote]Ice Cream Truck drivers aren`t always on the up and up[/quote]
@darkmagic14n: lolz! I do remember that news! It caused a couple of "shoot-outs" didn`t it?

However, nothing like the "gang bangin" in Chicago, DC and LA... Toronto...

[quote]The problem is handguns.[/quote]
@Andrew155: And also the #1 all-time BEST method of self defence is... handguns too.
I hear what you`re saying: The "gun grabbers" are going after the "scaryguns" which are rarely used for crime. WHY don`t they address the REAL issues?
Answer: Because they cannot. They have NO stats, NO solution and NO morality to back them.

So they play the "fear card" because the "race card" only supports the 2nd Amendment side.

Heaven forbid that liberals would EVER admit that "blacks" have a problem...
0
Reply
Male 4,893

Nearly 4 in 100,000 is not good, but not nearly enough for me to consider giving up my rights. Especially when a very very high percentage of those homicides are gang, drug, or some other illegal activity related activity.

In my 30-39 years on this planet I`ve only seen one person shot. It was drug related. Dude pulled a gun out and was threatening a crack head, who pulled out his gun and opened fire. Shot dude in the arm. Instant justice.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

You do not shoot a gun to kill.
You shoot it to stay alive.

There`s an assumption that all gun deaths are tragedies. How many are well deserved deaths? By that I mean how many rapists or muggers or home invasionists? were killed by their wouldl-be victims because those people were allowed to own a defensive weapon?

Just asking a question.

0
Reply
Male 2,578
An ordinary "hunting rifle" is more lethal than an AR-15. Bigger bullets, more powerful shot. If you`re going to ban AR-15`s, you have to ban these "hunting rifles". But really, "Assault style" weapons are a red herring. The problem is handguns. Every statistic supports this. They`re just not as scary. They are easier to hide, easier to kill with, easier to reload, easier to obtain and operate.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
In case you all were wonder, here is the latest development in 3 D printing. They printed the receiver for an AR-15 that could withstand 1,000 rounds. The receiver is the only part this is regulated, so now you can basically build one on the down low.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tAW72Y_XPF4


But "Assault style" weapons aren`t the problem anyways. They represent something like 2% of gun crimes. And AR-15 ammo, .223, is actually weaker than 9mm, unless you`re sharpshooting. An AR-15 is essentially a low calibre, high capacity hunting rifle. It is not automatic. So the capacity is the issue. Magazines can already be 3 D printed, rendering any regulation of magazines moot.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

You do not shoot a gun to kill.
You shoot it to stay alive.
0
Reply
Male 1,625
@5cats "Who do YOU THINK is killing all those people in Chicago? Ice Cream Truck salesmen?"

you jest, but:



Ice Cream Truck drivers aren`t always on the up and up
0
Reply
Male 481
Took me a while, but I found the source. It`s a spreadsheet, so you`ll have to download it to check it out.

Link

The link adds valuable context. Not just the `per 100,000`, but also the actual number of deaths and the percentage of total deaths from murder by gun.

Statistics should never be used for bias. They are for understanding, not arguing.
0
Reply
Male 1,625
@Canoas:

Europe in charge of knowing about guns
lel
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"these gangs aren`t all running around with CCL, the guns they have are illegal. guess what happens when you ban guns?"

Would you guys please stop claiming that we`re trying to ban guns? That`s not happening. The assault rifle ban would only ban one type of gun, and it`s almost certain to die in congress.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

[quote]"If 1 out of every 5 gun use is a violent crime then that`s not good at all." [/quote]
Conversely, 4 our of 5 is NOT used in a crime.
How GREAT is that!!!!!
0
Reply
Male 3,412
Without reading, I`m going to predict that there will be several people who say "there are third world countries on this list, and therefore invalid".
0
Reply
Male 36,388
"unloading"
Gun homicide thread...

I swear to Heaven that was an accidental pun!
0
Reply
Male 36,388
Gee I`m grumpy tonight!

Sorry if it seems like I`m "unloading" on you @Canoas! This is really directed at the "AIB Gun-Grabbing Brigade" eh? They know who they are...
0
Reply
Male 36,388
[quote]@Wattstone
But you forget that in Brasil it`s easier to get an illegal firearm than a legal one.[/quote]
Not trying to speak for @Wattstone, but I think it IS HIS POINT! He didn`t "forget" anything!
His point is: criminals can STILL get guns! Despite all those laws. It`s honest citizens who are unarmed. Same for Canada (where I live!) it`s the same thing.

Criminals HAVE GUNS and can always get more! But honest, lawful citizens have a hard time getting one. Unless you`re RICH! Then it`s super easy!

SO: In Canada (and Brasil) the criminals, the cops and the RICH PEOPLE all have guns... NOT nice!
0
Reply
Male 36,388
[quote]If 1 out of every 5 gun use is a violent crime then that`s not good at all.[/quote]
Noooo, there`s 200 million+ guns in the USA, and about 600,000 gun crimes.
Also: Just over 2,000,000 times a gun was used in self defence.

So it`s a TINY % of guns used in crime. (In the USA) Guns are 3X (or more) more likely to be used legally in self defence than to be used in a crime.

[quote]Also, are you claiming that gangs are responsible for 3/4 of USA`s gun homicide?[/quote]
Um, YUP! Who do YOU THINK is killing all those people in Chicago? Ice Cream Truck salesmen? It`s GANGS! With ILLEGAL GUNS!
0
Reply
Male 36,388
[quote]then 97.1% of all guns were originally legal[/quote]

@Canoas: Wait, what?
32% THEFT = "legal"?
7.6% Fence OR Black Market = both illegal

The POINT of that chart is that ONLY 16% of criminal`s guns come from a source that WOULD BE affected by current "gun laws". OK? Unless sweeping new laws are enacted? And many Americans lose their rights? The rest of those sources would not be changed by "more laws".

Ok? It seems so straightforward to me. How can you miss that?
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Canoas

If you rape someone that is violence too. The rate of rape here is about 3 times the US rate.
0
Reply
Male 427
@Wattstone
But you forget that in Brasil it`s easier to get an illegal firearm than a legal one.
0
Reply
Male 642
We all know that the USA have more police than colombia.. and in colombia the gangsters "replace" the police. When people have a problem they go to their gangster friends, not to the police.. so what would be a simple arrest in the USA turns into a homicide in colombia

Just wondering
0
Reply
Male 427
@5cats
Car accidents, falls and poisonings are mostly accidental, gun related deaths are not.

If 1 out of every 5 gun use is a violent crime then that`s not good at all.

Also, are you claiming that gangs are responsible for 3/4 of USA`s gun homicide? I highly doubt that, please provide the source of that information.

According to your "ways criminals obtain guns" then 97.1% of all guns were originally legal, which means that the gun control is terrible.
0
Reply
Male 167
In Brazil, legally owning a a firearm is difficult and costly. Having the right to carry it out on the street is almost impossible for a common, law-abiding citizen. And yet we`re on top of the chart, way ahead of countries like the US where gun ownership is common and more accessible. Makes you wonder: whoever said "guns don`t kill people, people kill people" was damn right.

Friggin hate it here.

0
Reply
Male 36,388
[quote]@5Cats
Pie charts with no sources are irrelevant. I can make the exact same pie charts saying the opposite.[/quote]
WEE WEE WEE! Little piggie! @Canoas, I`m getting to it!
;-) I say "little piggie" because of your avatar, not trying to offend you. Ok?

0
Reply
Male 36,388
"According to: National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 60, Number 3 December 29, 2011 Deaths: Final Data for 2009 (Table 18) in 2009, a total of 177,154 deaths were classified as injury related Four major mechanisms of injury in 2009— poisoning, motor-vehicle traffic, firearm, and fall— accounted for 75.1 percent of all injury deaths."

That second chart relates to deaths other than disease, eh? Guns (including suicide) comes 3rd, slightly ahead of accidental falls...

Source: A Blog

And yes, it is a fact that when one takes "gangs" out of the equation, USA`s gun murder rate is almost as low as Europe`s. That`s a "race" issue, so it`s easier to take guns away from whites than it is to deal with coloured gangs... right liberals?
0
Reply
Male 427
@5Cats
Pie charts with no sources are irrelevant. I can make the exact same pie charts saying the opposite.

@darkmagic14n
And do you know how they get illegal guns? Because someone buys them legally, erase the serial number and then sell them.
0
Reply
Male 427
"The US is not close to the most violent civilised nation; this only shows one, numerically minor aspect of violence. Here in the UK we have a far higher rate of violent crime."

Yes, you do, but violent crime is not the same as homicides. If you punch someone in the face it`s considered a violent crime, if you punch 5 people in the face it`s considered 5 violent crimes.
The rate of violent crime doesn`t take into account the nature of the crime, so it`s rather useless when comparing the violence between countries. On the other hand, the murder rate perfectly illustrates this, and the USA`s murder rate is 4 times higher than the UK`s.
0
Reply
Male 1,625
[quote]that gangs have such easy access to guns?[/quote]

liberals, I swear

these gangs aren`t all running around with CCL, the guns they have are illegal. guess what happens when you ban guns?

protip: banning guns takes them away from responsible people, the criminals will still gladly break the law
0
Reply
Male 7,339
FoolsPrussia-"don`t think that part of the problem is that gangs have such easy access to guns?"

And you seriously think that outlawing gun will make them harder for criminals to get?
0
Reply
Male 36,388
Where`s @HolyGod to complain how the "little countries" have skewed the statistics? You know, tiny places like Brasil and South Africa! Mexico, the Phillipines...



And furthermore:



Those "gun deaths" INCLUDE suicide, fyi...
0
Reply
Male 427
"It`s highly misleading because it only looks at gun murders, not total murders. As though the tool to commit a murder really changes the outcome."


Check this table then


UK has 1.2, USA has 4.8, Canada has 1.6
This is intentional homicide, not just any homicide, so accidents don`t count.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Gerry

The US is not close to the most violent civilised nation; this only shows one, numerically minor aspect of violence. Here in the UK we have a far higher rate of violent crime.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
FoolsPrussia

"What we do claim is exactly what is shown on this chart; the USA has an abnormally high murder rate among first world nations. "

The chart shows nothing of the sort. It does not show total murder rate.

When you have to support your contention with lies, you are acknowledging that you have lost the argument.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
@Gerry: I don`t think anyone has ever asserted that the USA is the most violent country. What we do claim is exactly what is shown on this chart; the USA has an abnormally high murder rate among first world nations.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

FoolsPrussia [quote]"I`m sort of surprised that Gerry posted this, considering how it doesn`t seem to reinforce the pro-gun argument much." [/quote] I`m interested in anything internestind. And it does dispell the myth that the USA is the most violent, murderous country on the planet. Just the most violent `modern` nation.

Here`s a titbit for you, 64,999,987 firearms killed no one yesterday. Statistically, very VERY few are involved in deaths.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"The fact is that if you take away gang related murders in the United States, our murder rate is below 2 per 100k. This is evident in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Minnesota`s murder rates being about 1/100k, less than Europe even with the presence of guns. We have a gang problem."

I agree that gang violence is a major contributor to the murder rate, but you don`t think that part of the problem is that gangs have such easy access to guns? Guns are ubiquitous in inner cities, and it`s a major problem.
0
Reply
Male 5,005
MeGrendel your country lead the first world countries in this list.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
It`s highly misleading because it only looks at gun murders, not total murders. As though the tool to commit a murder really changes the outcome.

I know for a fact that the UK`s murder rate is about 1.2 per 100k. That means it goes up tenfold from this statistic. The US`s would not go up tenfold. This is a common trick to make the gap look even more drastic.


The fact is that if you take away gang related murders in the United States, our murder rate is below 2 per 100k. This is evident in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Minnesota`s murder rates being about 1/100k, less than Europe even with the presence of guns. We have a gang problem.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
I`m not quite sure what point this graphic is supposed to be making, but a quick check of UNODC stats shows it is not overly accurate.

Examples:

Columbia shows nothing near 49.52; the highest was 40.1 (2004) and the "most recent year" was 27.1 per 100,000 (in 2010).

Honduras was 26.7 in 2005 and jumped every year hitting 68.4 in 2010, but was never 30.57 in any given year.

Dominican Republic isn`t even close. The last 3 recorded years (2008-2010) were 18.6, 16.9, and 16.3 (a far cry from the "4.00" in the graphic).

Incidentally, the U.S. figure is pretty close (though dated), 3.9 in 2006, 3.2 in 2010.
0
Reply
Male 7,339
What? USA is not #1? I mean, we`re the only country with the NRA, and liberals keep telling us that the NRA is the cause of all the murders.
0
Reply
Male 2,629
For Italy and the countries listed after, I`d be interested to know what the knife violence rate are, compared to knife and gun violence in all the other countries- except Switzerland of course, where drunk chicks wearing bikini`s made of 1,000 SF notes can stumble the streets and be safe. Or is that sweeping generalization about the Swiss racist?
0
Reply
Female 169
is it bad that i read "gay homicide rate" first?
0
Reply
Male 687
haha you can see when Europe starts
0
Reply
Male 3,445
I`m sort of surprised that Gerry posted this, considering how it doesn`t seem to reinforce the pro-gun argument much.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Yay! We`re on par with Uruguay, the Dominican, and Albania! Woo-hoo!
0
Reply
Male 37,888
Link: Gun Homicide Rate By Country [Pic] [Rate Link] - Per country, per capita.
0
Reply