Guns per capata, crimes per capata

[Plane]

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

I like this article.

It has the information we are discussing in chart form.

Plus a long discussion of how this information is gathered! This is where the real dirt is.

I learn from this that the reports of murder are generally reliable in the US , so though it is not easy, it is possible to compile meaningful stats.

In most countries the standard is different , generally lower.

In particular the way that England reports homicide . A homicide is only reported as such if there is a conviction for homicide associated with it.

This is not really cheating, they have always had different rules, the problem is that these different standards make a useful comparison difficult , or impossible.

If all murders were counted the same way, then the ranking of the US would improve significantly.

And as it is the US is better than the world average.

[Xavier_Onassis]

And as it is the US is better than the world average.


If we were Number One at everything, then we could claim that American Exceptionalism is a reality.

But we aren't, alas, so we shouldn't.

[Xavier_Onassis]

This is what our friends in the Great White North do.
It sounds perfectly reasonable:

A license is required to own or possess firearms. Federal government safety course required before applying for a license. To be authorized to carry a handgun or restricted long gun for a lawful occupational purpose, such as trapping or working in a wilderness area, an individual must be a Canadian resident, have a firearms licence with restricted privileges and obtain an Authorization to Transport (ATT) permit from the CFO.[10] Semi automatic firearms have size restricted magazines (rimfire rifles excluded) Automatic firearms not permitted.

[sirs]

When you start advocating a similar set of restrictions & limitations on the rest of the Bill of Rights, starting with your free speech, then we'll talk

[Xavier_Onassis]

You will talk, you always do. You say stupid crap on a daily basis.
Reasoning is not your strong suit, however.
The big news flash here is that it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether we talk or not. We do not decide gun policy.

[sirs]

And who the hell claimed we did??  News Flash.....WE DEBATE GUN POLICY HERE, HOWEVER.  You're advocating specific restrictions on our 2nd amendment.  So, where's the support for specific restrictions on free speech??  Where's the link providing what restrictions we should impose on pleading the 5th??  Shall we severely restrict the right someone has to not having their home searched??

[Xavier_Onassis]

You will believe any sort of crap, but I won't.

[sirs]

Believe what crap?

[Plane]

This is what our friends in the Great White North do.
It sounds perfectly reasonable:

.

Two things strike me immediately.

How would this regimen affect crime?

How could the American people trust the American government this far?

The last time the gun regulation crowd had enough clout in the government to pass significant legislation , they passed the "Assault Weapons Ban"  . The Assault Weapons Ban was so poorly thought out that it amounted to an insult to our intelligence more than it amounted to law. Even with a decade of hindsight to make it clear, there was no discernible effect on any kind of crime, just an annoyance to people who might want to obey the law.

The people of Canada have a very different concept of good government than the people of the USA. The Canadian government is almost paternal and the Canadians seem to get along well with that. An American of the US variety is more distrustful and suspicious of motive . If the government wants to make our weaponry somewhat less effective in combat , how do we trust the motive of a government that would love to make us more co-operative , as if we were Canadians or something.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Canadians have better government than Americans in may cases.

The Assault Weapons Ban was not poorly thought out on purpose: it was simply compromised again and again by lobbyists until it was essentially useless.

When Americans pass stupid laws, as a rule they are stupid because of alterations and amendments influenced by the armies of lobbyists that are hired to make our government useless for the purpose of enriching the corporations that hire them.

[sirs]

And yet the left thinks bigger is better, which equates to even MORE lobbyists, and MORE influence my the uber rich, upon the political establishment.  Fricken amazing

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would be quite happy to  BAN all lobbyists from Washington, if it were possible.

I don't want a bigger government, either: just one that has the POWER to act on behalf of the majority of the people, as opposed to the top 1%/

[sirs]

I would be quite happy to  BAN all lobbyists from Washington, if it were possible.

And the bigger Government becomes, the more imossible that goal becomes

I don't want a bigger government, either: just one that has the POWER to act on behalf of the majority of the people, as opposed to the top 1%/

And how many is that??  Currently its at least double what that would require.  You folks are going for triple.  You realize how much of an oxymoron a statement that is, right?  The bigger Government gets to supposedly put a kabosh on the top 1%, the more power that the top 1% can get & innoculate themselves with. 

So the bigger Government gets to stop the supposed 1%, the more power you give them.   

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think you will find that the number of lobbyists grows every year, whereas the number of Representatives and Senators has been 535 since the 1920'S.
It is probably impossible to ban lobbyists, but they do far more harm than good.

The number of employees in government is not really the problem. It is the amount of power the government has.  And at present, it is insufficient to guarantee that the average citizen gets the audience that he needs and deserves.

[sirs]

Professor Literal strikes.....when unable to rebut the point, make one up.  Bigger government isn't about the # of elected officials, and never was.  It's always been about the ever expanding bureaucracy, on top of bureaucracy, on top of bureaucracy.   Like a 2000+ piece of crap legislation that could have been covered in 3 pages.  THAT'S whats being referred to with bigger government