Firearms and Freedom

Because when we are fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to visit your shores, we become affected by it. The lives of outsiders become threatened by it. Plus there is also the fact that non US citizens cannot understand how many people dying to gun related deaths is it going to take before people who screech about their constitutional rights start to see some sense. Is there a magic number? Will people start suggesting gun control when the magic marker reaches 50,000 killed per year? Is it higher than that? Or does it not matter because the Constitutional grants you the rights to bear arms and 'dawg gawn it', you're going to bear those arms even if it kills you or someone else!?

Let's face it, gun violence in America is on par with war torn countries. Your gun death rate is ridiculous for a first world country. Your rate of gun ownership is even more ridiculous.

Of the world’s 23 “rich” countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America’s ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.​

When countries that are at war have less guns in circulation than US citizens have per capita, than eyebrows of "non US citizens" will be raised.

When I say ridiculous, I mean ridiculous in the sense that the US had 372 mass shootings in 2015. 64 school shootings in 2015. More people die from gun violence in America, than US citizens were killed by acts of terrorism.

The US spends more than a trillion dollars per year defending itself against terrorism, which kills a tiny fraction of the number of people killed by ordinary gun crime.

According to figures from the US Department of Justice and the Council on Foreign Affairs, 11,385 people died on average annually in firearm incidents in the US between 2001 and 2011.

In the same period, an average of 517 people were killed annually in terror-related incidents. Removing 2001, when 9/11 occurred, from the calculation produces an annual average of just 31.​

More people have died due to gun related violence since the 60's than have died in all the wars the US has fought in.

Not to mention the fact that your policies and laws have a way of bleeding out to affect other countries. The case of Anders Breivik is a prime example of just how much your country's policies and laws in regards to guns can affect other countries and non-US citizens.

Norway has strong gun control and committed humane values. But they didn’t prevent Anders Breivik from opening fire on a youth camp on the island of Utoya in 2011. His clean criminal record and hunting license had allowed him to secure semiautomatic rifles, but Norway restricted his ability to get high-capacity clips for them. In his manifesto, Breivik wrote about his attempts to legally buy weapons, stating, “I envy our European American brothers as the gun laws in Europe sucks ass in comparison.”

In fact, in the same manifesto (“December and January – Rifle/gun accessories purchased,” Breivik wrotethat it was from a U.S. supplier that he purchased—and had mailed—10 30-round ammunition magazines for the rifle he used in his attack.
​

He was not allowed to buy them in Norway. But the US allows gun suppliers to ship them out. And they shipped them out to him very very cheaply and he used them to kill dozens of children.

So when you whine about non US citizens commenting on US gun obsessions, keep in mind that we are directly affected by your country's refusal to address a very real problem that results in the deaths of thousands on a yearly basis.

I'll repeat. Your country had 372 mass shootings in 2015. My country hasn't had a mass shooting since the mid 1990's. People coming to my country aren't afraid that going to a movie or shopping mall could result in being shot at. People visiting your country have travel advisory's about the risk to life and limb because of your level of gun violence. For example, Australian travelers to the US have this for a travel advisory from our Government:

The United States has a higher level of violent crime than Australia, although violent crime rarely involves tourists.

The latest official crime statistics can be found on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) website. These statistics show that metropolitan areas and cities tend to have higher crime and murder rates. Based on 2013 FBI data, the states with the highest levels of violent crime (per capita) are the District of Colombia, Alaska, New Mexico and Nevada. They also show that the southern states have seen a slight increase in gun violence in recent years.

While FBI statistics suggest that violent crime in the United States has decreased over the last decade, the incidence of mass shootings are occurring more frequently. An FBI study shows that the incidence of 'active shooter' events had more than doubled between 2000 and 2013. Most of these shootings have occurred in workplaces and educational facilities. Others have occurred in public places, such as shopping malls, restaurants, community centres and places of worship, as well as military and government properties.

You should be vigilant to the possibility of gun crime in all parts of the US. No matter where you intend to travel, you should do some research on which local areas or suburbs may be less safe – check travel guides and seek local advice such as from your hotel reception or tour guide. For those living in the United States, you should familiarise yourself with emergency evacuation and 'active shooter' drills.

Information and advice provided by United States authorities on what to do if you are caught in an active shooter incident can be found in aDepartment of Homeland Security pamphlet and an FBI video.​

And you wonder why we comment on your lack of gun laws and your ridiculous rate of gun violence? If the issue was not affecting thousands of lives and killing thousands, it would be funny.

I had asked earlier if there was a magical figure that would make people stop and note that enough was enough? I guess you just answered that question. The figure could reach over 100,000 per year and this would probably still be the answer.

 

Do you even know how much the US makes from tourism and how many jobs are reliant on tourists visiting your country?

The travel and tourism industry in the United States generatednearly $1.5 trillion in economic output in 2013. This activity supported 7.8 million U.S. jobs, and accounted for more than 9 percent of all U.S. exports. One out of every 18 Americans is employed, either directly or indirectly, in a travel or tourism-related industry. In 2014, U.S. travel and tourism output represented 2.6 percent of gross domestic product.

While the majority of activity in the industry is domestic, expenditures by international visitors in the United States generated a record-breaking $220.6 billion in sales and a $74.0 billion trade surplus in 2014. According to U.S. Department of Commerce projections, international travel to the United States should grow by 4.3 percent annually through 2020. The U.S. leads the world in international travel and tourism exports, and travel and tourism is the top services export, accounting for 31 percent of all U.S. services exports in 2014. ​

Telling people to stay home is ridiculous in light of that, don't you think?

Have you ever bothered to notice that countries with even rudimentary gun control laws, have a much lower gun related suicide death and less issues with gang violence compared to the US?

I'll put it this way, I am more likely to die to a 'responsible gun owner' no longer being a 'responsible gun owner' in the US than I am to die from being shot in Iran or even Yemen. Which is saying something.

And your numbers would still be much higher than any other country on Earth. Even some war torn countries.

Actually no they aren't.

I mean, sure, they can be if you need to fudge the numbers, but mass shootings are committed by formerly responsible gun owners who are simply no longer responsible gun owners or even gun users.

And even if you did, the rate of gun related deaths in the US (discounting war deaths) would still be higher than most countries.

It isn't flawed.

You just demand it be flawed because that is the only excuse you have left.

I have every right to disparage a "right" that results in tens of thousands of deaths every year.

If you don't like it, take your own advice, don't come here.

You own guns? Yes? Then if you do then you automatically put others around you at risk. That is a proven fact.

In short, you are probably "a responsible gun owner" until you simply are not any more and others are put at risk. For example, someone other than yourself can gain access to your guns and injure or kill you or someone else.

 

Should I bother to point out that you completely disregarded the quoted part from that article?

But tell me, which culture should we compare the US culture to? Because every other developed country in the world has gun laws and does not have the gun violence your country and culture does.

As I noted, no one can compare the US to any other developed world because the US is the only country in the world that allows tens of thousands to be killed out of war time within its own borders and does, to put it bluntly, sweet fuck all about it.

I mean how many more excuses are you willing to make about it?

I'll put it this way. The US is more intent on fixing faulty medical equipment that killed just over 309 people around the US than it is to fix and address something that kills tens of thousands of people every year.

Firstly, good job on comparing the US populace to criminal gangs in Japan.

Secondly, even with their gang violence, the rate per capita does not even come close to that of the US's.

Thirdly, one is less likely to die to a gun in Japan than they are in the US.

Finally, no one is saying there are no guns in Japan. What the article clearly pointed out that their gun control measures keeps the number of gun related violence down, unlike the US where you all seem to believe that gun control measures are a fallacy to induce the populace to not have guns because you seem to believe that the Government will rise against you and you need your guns to take on a Government that has a nuclear arsenal in the unlikely event it became tyrannical...

In other words, Japan is a developed country that has much less gun deaths than the US does, like every other developed country in the world, which leaves the US to languish with war torn undeveloped nations when it comes to gun violence.

The irony in your little spiel is that gun advocates in the US keep telling people that more guns make things safer. And that is clearly not the case. The push in the US to allow guns in places like schools and universities to prevent mass shootings is based on a false premise. Research clearly shows that more guns means more mass shootings. Even taking the US and its ridiculous gun ownership and mass shootings rates out of the equation because the rates in the US are so high, that it affects the results, so they took the US out of the equation to give a clearly picture. Other countries with high gun ownership rates still have more mass shootings than those with stricter gun control laws.

Calls to reduce the availability of guns have followed in the wake of these tragic events. But yet to be determined empirically is whether or not gun ownership is even correlated to public mass shootings. Adam Lankford, an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at University of Alabama, addresses that question with forthcoming research in the journal Violence and Victims.

In his study, Lankford combined data from the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) 2012 Active Shooter report (PDF), the FBI’s 2014 active shooter report (PDF), as well as "data gathered on incidents from other countries" in an attempt to count all public mass shootings occurring between 1966 and 2012 in which at least four victims were killed. In total, Lankford tallied 292 incidents from 171 countries.

Lankford then explored how the number of mass shootings per country were associated with each country's homicide rate, suicide rate (used a rough proxy for mental health), and firearm ownership rate. While he found no link between the number of shootings and suicide or homicide rates, he found a highly significant (p<.01) link between the number of shootings and firearm ownership rates. In countries with more guns, there were more public mass shootings. The association remained even when the United States -- a clear outlier with 90 mass public shootings -- was removed from the data set.

"Many of the nations in this study that ranked highest in firearm ownership rates also ranked highly in public mass shooters per capita," Lankford notes. "For example, the Small Arms Survey (2007) lists the United States, Yemen, Switzerland, Finland, and Serbia as the top five countries in civilian firearm ownership rates, and all five countries also ranked in the top 15 in public mass shooters per capita."

Lankford noted a number of limitations to his study. Older incidents occurring further in the past and in countries without streamlined reporting systems may have been missed. Moreover, since public mass shootings are rare, the sample size is small for the forty-six-year study period.

Lankford also made clear that he utilized the definition of public mass shooting from the NYPD's report. The attacks "must have (a) involved a firearm, (b) appeared to have struck random strangers or bystanders and not only specific targets, and (c) not occurred solely in domestic settings or have been primarily gang-related, drive-by shootings, hostage-taking incidents, or robberies."

For the most part, Lankford steered clear of speculation in his study, preferring to leave that to the political and policy arenas. "I don't want the findings or their implications to be misunderstood," he told RCS in an email.

He did however, state the natural conclusion from his findings.

"Perhaps the most obvious step the United States could take to reduce public mass shootings may also be the most politically challenging: reduce firearms availability."

Lankford noted that the approach seemed to work in Australia. After a public mass shooting in 1996 that left thirty-five people dead, the country's government passed comprehensive gun control legislation. Decades later, firearm homicide and suicide rates are way down, and there have been no more public mass shootings.

He ended his article with a plea for further research.

"Ultimately, more cross-national studies of public mass shooters could help ensure that future strategies for prevention are based on reliable scientific evidence. Some countries and cultures are clearly safer than others; it would be a shame not to learn from them."​

Personally, I think it is sad that the US has to be removed from the study because its rates are so much higher than every other country that it affects the results. But that shows just how bad it is in your country. I mean, I'd be embarrassed. But instead, we have gun advocates declaring in this thread that gun owners do have a right to put other people and their families at risk of gun violence.