Countries with strict gun control and low violent crime [Archive]

General Cockroach

05-05-2007, 05:34 AM

"In countries that have not had a history of bearing arms, gun control works. But in a nation with over 300 years of bearing arms as a right, it's pointless to try to unwrite what has already been done. I think gun control works in UK, Japan and most of the EU, but in the US, it's actually less logical to take away that right from the people when so many guns are already out there. I'm for proper firearm education, registration and licensing, but for abolishing firearms as a means to reduce violent crime, you will find a cure to cancer faster. It won't work now; it is way too late."

After reading this post by Firefly26 I though I‘ll start a thread on countries that are used as examples of strict gun control and low violent crime. I’ll start with Japan and let others have a go on other examples used.

The Japanese Model
Japan which are a favourite amongst gun control advocates are used as argument that gun control work, an argument that at first seems to establish a cause and affect between gun control and violent crime.

To be fair and scientific on any subject in trying to establish cause and affect these is a need to eliminate other variables that can be the determining factor or cause to the effect you are seeing.

The Japanese have been very effective in disarming the civilian population but there is still some 1500 gun crimes conducted by criminals with illegal gun each year and criminals have little problem attaining firearms on the black market.

To be fair gun violence is still low compared to other countries as gun control advocates argue.

I would like to share with you excerpt from Richards Poe’s book: The seven myths of gun control.

“Japan is essentially a police state.
Cops keep full dossiers on every citizen. Twice a year, each Japanese homeowner gets a visit from a local cop to update the files on who lives there, how they are related to each other, what work they do, weather they work late, what sort of cars they own, how much money they have, and so on.
Japanese police keeps a sufficient close eye on the community that they are able to include, in their year-end reports, detailed statistics of on the *** life of people under their charge.
For instance, they report data on “Background and Motives for Girls ****** Misconduct,” as well as data on how many juveniles are smoking, staying out late, or exposing themselves to “unsound companionship.” Any groups that are perceived as critical or antagonistic towards the government- including environmental activists- are closely monitored.

In Japan, a citizen has no right to trial by jury. If you are arrested, you can be held in court without bail for twenty-eight days, without ever seeing a judge. During that time police may interrogate you for twelve hours a day and forbid you to stand up, lie down, or lean against the wall of your cell. Some times when the twenty-eight days are over they simply arrest you on another charge and the start the cycle all over again. You may end up in jail for months, without ever being brought before a judge.
According to the Tokyo Bar association, suspects in police custody are routinely tortured and beaten in order to obtain confessions. Some times the prisoners attempt to disavow these confessions later. But Japanese judges have a habit of disregarding their pleas, even when they have the bruises to prove they where abused. Not surprisingly, the confession rate of Japanese prisoners is 95 percent. The conviction rate is 99.91 percent. One Tokyo police sergeant explained the high conviction rate in these words: “ It is no use to protest against power”
Amnesty international has declared the Japanese police custody system to be a “flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principals””

Guns are not the only thing kept under strict control in Japan its citizens are as well.
Japan is also a very homogeny population with very little immigration compared to many western societies whish is more diverse. Diversity and immigration for all is a benefit also courses frictions and crime.

The poster I quoted above states that countries such as Japan has no history of bearing arms, for those how knows a little history see this for what it is a flat out lie.

If one further analyzes Japanese society with the feudal past whish has engraved an mentality of submission and conformity passed down in early childhood its is not difficult to draw the conclusion that the cause of low violent crime in Japan has more to do with its culture than its gun laws.

Sure to a certain extent Japanse laws regarding arms has produced low violent crime when it comes to crime committed on one citizen upon another but the price is a suppressive authority that has little or no respect for human liberties. Also violent crimes committed by the government against its people whish have trough history proven mush more deadly has increased dramatically.

The “Sword Hunt” by ruler Hideyoshi in 1588 serves as a reminder what price in human lives, dignity and liberty the Japanese has paid for is low violent crime rate amongst civilians. And Japans history is littered with abuses and violent crime on it citizens caused by numerous authoritarian governments in the past.

Still gun control advocates adhers to the myth that America is one of the most violent nations.

budgie

05-05-2007, 09:46 AM

Poe is obviously a second amendment advocate with an agenda: after all even the name of his book, The Seven Myths of Gun Control, is in itself an argument against gun control. Therefore is assertion that Japan is a Police State need to be taken with a pinch of salt. To his ilk any country that doesn't let you keep an RPG at home is probably totalitarian.

Here's a quick link to Japan's gun laws. Not too different from NZ or Australia in that owners need a clean record and a licence to own a firearm as well keep the weapon in secure conditions.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.guns/browse_thread/thread/2f4f1451b9cd5a2c/e6f28a466912218a

The biggest factor Japan's relatively low rate of violent crime is neither an absence of guns nor an authoritarian regime. It is the more deeply held understanding of the 'social contract' in their society - the fear of stepping to far out of place and shaming one's family, coupled with relatively solid employment rates and a decent standard of living across the board.

General Cockroach

05-05-2007, 10:41 AM

Poe is obviously a second amendment advocate with an agenda: after all even the name of his book, The Seven Myths of Gun Control, is in itself an argument against gun control. Therefore is assertion that Japan is a Police State need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

His assertion should be taken seriously unless you can prove what he and Amnesty international is saying is a lie. Poe is indeed a Second amendment advocate and no one is trying to hide this but your implieng he is dishonest with your take on what he wrote, please prove this!

The biggest factor Japan's relatively low rate of violent crime is neither an absence of guns nor an authoritarian regime. It is the more deeply held understanding of the 'social contract' in their society - the fear of stepping to far out of place and shaming one's family, coupled with relatively solid employment rates and a decent standard of living across the board.

I agree that the latter part of your assessment are important factors but your rejection that a Japanese police state type of system won't affect crime is not a convincing argument.

Also have you dug deeper into what you call a "social contract" has come about, voluntary I think not.

Hollis

05-05-2007, 11:54 AM

Y'all need to research a little more. BBC, violent crimes in the UK are 2 1/2 times higher than in the USA. The USA may have more gun violence but over all violent crime are much less.

Also same stats for Austrialia...........

Really Gun violence is NOT the only violent crimes.

You really need to use your google more, lay off of the mierda de toro too.

Robbee

05-05-2007, 12:06 PM

There's enough stats at nationmaster to keep you happy all day.

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

gaijinsamurai

05-05-2007, 01:42 PM

Geezah

05-05-2007, 02:15 PM

There's enough stats at nationmaster to keep you happy all day.

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

The following is quite interesting......

Crime Statistics > Total crimes (per capita) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita)

United Kingdom

Population=60,609,153

Assaults: 450,865
Car thefts: 338,796
Drug offences: 214.3 per 100,000 people
Illicit drugs
producer of limited amounts of synthetic drugs and synthetic precursor chemicals; major consumer of Southwest Asian heroin, Latin American cocaine, and synthetic drugs; money-laundering center
Murders: 850
Murders (per capita): 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms: 62
Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
Rapes: 8,593
Total crimes: 5,170,830

United States

Population=301,139,947

Assaults: 2,238,480
Car thefts: 1,147,300
Drug offences: 560.1 per 100,000 people
Illicit drugs
world's largest consumer of cocaine, shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean; consumer of ecstasy and of Mexican heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine; minor consumer of high-quality Southeast Asian heroin; illicit producer of cannabis, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, and methamphetamine; money-laundering center
Murders: 12,658
Murders (per capita): 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms: 8,259
Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
Rapes: 89,110
Total crimes: 23,677,800

Hollis

05-05-2007, 02:36 PM

Interesting page on that site you posted Geezah.

Total Crimes:
#6 United Kingdom (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime):85.5517 per 1,000 people

#8 United States (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime):80.0645 per 1,000 people

Total assualts:

#6 United States (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime):7.56923 per 1,000 people

#8 United Kingdom (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime):7.45959 per 1,000 people

There are a lot of externalities that effect stats that are not mentioned.

Some countries have better reporting on certain crimes than other, that will misrepresent the relationship with other countries.

muck

05-05-2007, 02:44 PM

According to the latest crime stats of the German Federal Criminal Office in 2005, only 8,8 percent of all murders have been committed with a firearm. Of a total number of 6391715 crimes and misdemeanours, in only 5309 cases the perpetrator shot with a firearm, and killed 869 people at all. For a country of this size and with this population that's quite a low crime statistic.

At first: Theoretically, German firearm laws allow every adult to own a firearm.
Which firearms exactly are allowed depends on many regulations. Fright Firearms (Sorry, I do not know the english term, meant are "Schreckschusswaffen" that look like real handguns but fire CS-Gas or Pepperspray) are allowed to everyone for self defense, as well as Airsofts and Air Guns.
Real handguns and repeating rifles (except pumpguns with a pistol grip which are prohibited for a reason I totally do not understand) are also obtainable for everyone, but only after the person has received his gun possession license.
All kinds of semiautomtic rifles (without HiCap-clips) and military pistols are allowed but restriced to hunters, collectors and sportsmen, nonetheless to buy them not only a gun possession license is needed, but also a permission in advance, what again requires the proof that you need the weapon for hunting or sport purpose. Full automatic weapons are strictly prohibited.
To carry a live weapon in public is strictly restricted and only allowed to hunters and sportsmen.

To get the required licenses you have to be 18 or 21 years old, must not have a previous conviction, and have to prove your technical knowledge, in certain cases also the mental abilities to own and carry a weapon.

Now it depends on your point of view regarding the topic. I for my behalf assume that strict weapon laws can contribute to minimize the number of crimes committed with a firearm, but, and I want to emphasize the constraint, gun control laws do not necessarily mean a way to success. As I said, I honestly do not see any problem if a weapons owner has to register his property. Nonetheless I am convinced that simply the abolition of the right to own a weapon does not make a country more safe.

MkH

05-05-2007, 02:45 PM

The Japanese have been very effective in disarming the civilian population but there is still some 1500 gun crimes conducted by criminals with illegal gun each year and criminals have little problem attaining firearms on the black market.

Holy ****! 1500 gun crimes in a country with a population of mere 127,433,494. I sure wouldn't want to walk the streets at night there! To put this in perspective, the US has a population of about about three hundred million and close to 50,000 gun related deaths per year.

Hollis

05-05-2007, 02:53 PM

Now it depends on your point of view regarding the topic. I for my behalf assume that strict weapon laws can contribute to minimize the number of crimes committed with a firearm, but, and I want to emphasize the constraint, gun control laws do not necessarily mean a way to success. As I said, I honestly do not see any problem if a weapons owner has to register his property. Nonetheless I am convinced that simply the abolition of the right to own a weapon does not make a country more safe.

I agree with you, there are many factors that cause violence. Focusing on a single inanimate object will not give security or peace, though it may make a person feel good until they are assualted.

Problem with "firearm controls" is that the government is not very trust worthy, or more accurately those elected. Some of the anti-gun people do have some good idea but they seem to be just a way point to their actual goal, the abolishment of all private ownership of firearms. Education is important, but if is made a part of the ability to own firearms, those who take classes and have listed themselves as such, will put themselves in jeopardy of having their firearms confiscated, as in Chicago.

Violence is a community issue, but as long as partisan politics rule how decissions are made, we will never reach a practical approach to resolving this conundrum.

Henry's Fork

05-05-2007, 03:03 PM

Holy ****! 1500 gun crimes in a country with a population of mere 127,433,494. I sure wouldn't want to walk the streets at night there! To put this in perspective, the US has a population of about about three hundred million and close to 50,000 gun related deaths per year.

Unless you are a gangster, then you proabably dont have anthing to fear. If i am not mistaken, almost all of Japans gun crimes are gang related.

Also, suicide is a big factor, when talkinbg about gun related deaths in general.

MkH

05-05-2007, 03:09 PM

Sarcasm is not an easy sort of humour on the internets. I meant that it's probably more likely for one to get killed by a meteorite than a bullet in Japan :)

General Cockroach

05-05-2007, 03:26 PM

muck

05-05-2007, 03:55 PM

Problem with "firearm controls" is that the government is not very trust worthy, or more accurately those elected.

At least in context with a gun register they should be trustworthy, shouldn't they? I don't mean this as a provocation, it's just a question out of surprise about your statement...

Hollis

05-05-2007, 04:20 PM

At least in context with a gun register they should be trustworthy, shouldn't they? I don't mean this as a provocation, it's just a question out of surprise about your statement...

This post might explain it. They should be trust worthy, but they are not depending on the political climate at the time.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=111244

akd

05-05-2007, 05:24 PM

Unless you are a gangster, then you proabably dont have anthing to fear. If i am not mistaken, almost all of Japans gun crimes are gang related.

Also, suicide is a big factor, when talkinbg about gun related deaths in general.

Suicide is an extremely important factor for two reasons:
1. Suicides by gun are almost always lumped into "gun deaths" and "gun violence" statistics.
2. Because they are not separated, and because firearms are often used in suicides if obtainable, gun-control advocates will invariably claim that gun restrictions can help prevent suicides.

...then reality enters the picture. Both Japan and Australia (held up as model gun control states) have higher suicide rates than the US. In the case of Japan, drastically so. In Australia, reductions in gun-related deaths since the enactment of the broad gun ban have occured principally through reductions in firearm suicides. Overall, suicide rates have not declined in Australia.

Of course not even this can get through some thick skulls. I was actually told by another forum member here not long ago that regardless of statistics, it is better for people to commit suicide by other means. The individual claimed that doctors prefer it that way because it is less messy and there would be greater rates of survival for attempted suicides. Sick and twisted brains are at work on this issue.

Calanen

05-05-2007, 05:25 PM

Good that you bring this up Hollis, this mean that United kingdom and Australia will be more or less disqualified from this thread.

Yes, Australia underreports and prepares massively dishonest statistics. Crime goes down every year according to the statistics, but anecdotally, its everywhere, the courts are jammed....There have been a few whistleblower scandals on statistics over the years, and nothing has changed or will change.

muck

05-05-2007, 05:42 PM

2. Because they are not separated, and because firearms are often used in suicides if obtainable, gun-control advocates will invariably claim that gun restrictions can prevent suicides.

Since figures from Germany show that the most suicides here are committed with other measures but not with the use of a firearm, it would really be a legitimated assumption that gun control could minimize the suicide rate. Only then again the present crime statistic also proves the undeniable fact that a person with death wishes finds congruously another way then. And I am sure that this is the difficulty that kindles the issue repeatedly, because the reasoning is possible that both the supporters and the opposers have right.

Geezah

05-05-2007, 10:39 PM

Good that you bring this up Hollis, this mean that United kingdom and Australia will be more or less disqualified from this thread.

Disqualified because they still experience high levels of firearm/violent crime?

Hunterhr

05-05-2007, 10:51 PM

I find the 'Japanese Model' hilarious considering 60 years ago Japan was an authoritarian hellhole and a prime example of why citizens should own guns.

budgie

05-05-2007, 11:52 PM

His assertion should be taken seriously unless you can prove what he and Amnesty international is saying is a lie. Poe is indeed a Second amendment advocate and no one is trying to hide this but your implieng[sic] he is dishonest with your take on what he wrote, please prove this!

Umm. Nope. I simply think his opinion on Japan is just that: opinion and deeply biased at that.

I agree that the latter part of your assessment are important factors but your rejection that a Japanese police state type of system won't affect crime is not a convincing argument.

Also have you dug deeper into what you call a "social contract" has come about, voluntary I think not.

I lived in Japan for four years and I'll be going back next year. Perhaps a little first hand experience will suffice for 'digging deeper'. After all I'm not a sociologist. However below Gaijinsamurai describes in better detail what I was getting at:

And, I would attribute the lower number of violent crimes to cultural factors, such as the scarcity of illegal drugs, stronger families, low disparity in income, and in general, the fact that there is a greater effort to get along with others in society.

And as for this garbage:

I find the 'Japanese Model' hilarious considering 60 years ago Japan was an authoritarian hellhole and a prime example of why citizens should own guns.

It is a myth that America's armed population is some kind of insurance against tyranny. It is the strength of America's democracy that keeps you free. No leader (except maybe Cheney) would seek to oppress you and no military commander would accept such orders. Guns are nice for personal security but for freedom, you have checks and balances. The revolution was a long time ago...

Hunterhr

05-06-2007, 12:01 AM

It is a myth that America's armed population is some kind of insurance against tyranny. It is the strength of America's democracy that keeps you free. No leader (except maybe Cheney) would seek to oppress you and no military commander would accept such orders. Guns are nice for personal security but for freedom, you have checks and balances. The revolution was a long time ago...

So an armed populace would have no effect on a tyrannical government? Speaking in absolutes about the future absolutely amuses me.

muck

05-06-2007, 05:54 AM

So an armed populace would have no effect on a tyrannical government?

For sure it would have an effect. It's megalomania when you think a government that disposes of an army with ten thousands of tanks would be worried about you owning a gun, even about a whole city full of guns.
You should remember in which time the second amendment was established - in the 18th century, a time without enlightement, without the mass media. A time when it was usual that the mostly monarchic governments oppressed their people. The wording of the amendment should better be changed. Not abolished for my behalf, but changed.

velvet-cream

05-06-2007, 07:11 AM

The part about how suspects are treated in jail is true, but I'm not sure about the claim that Japanese are visited x2/year by the police and questioned. I lived in Japan from 2002 until about three weeks ago, and am married to a Japanese woman, and we were never visited by the police or any other government entity. I've never heard of this happending to anyone else either.

As soon as I saw the part about police visiting each household twice a year, I had my doubts over the credibility this author. I've only been to Japan for holidays, and I have never lived there. But I have friends who have lived there (and still do) and they never mentioned this to me. I'm going to ask them about these supposed "visits" from police.

It is silly to put such a bold statement in a book about the Japanese culture/government that could so easily be proved wrong. (I know I haven't proved it wrong yet, but I will ask around. And other people on this forum who have lived in Japan question this supposed fact as well)

Interesting page on that site you posted Geezah.

Total Crimes:
#6 United Kingdom (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime):85.5517 per 1,000 people

#8 United States (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime):80.0645 per 1,000 people

Total assualts:

#6 United States (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime):7.56923 per 1,000 people

#8 United Kingdom (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime):7.45959 per 1,000 people

There are a lot of externalities that effect stats that are not mentioned.

Some countries have better reporting on certain crimes than other, that will misrepresent the relationship with other countries.

As you said, statistics need to be put into context.
It think its fair to compare "total assaults", "total murders" or "total violent crimes" when you're dealing with stats between countries. These crimes by definition are pretty much universal to all countries. And it is fair to compare what proportion of those crimes involved firearms, to determine the effectiveness of gun control and whether it just causes criminals to substitute guns for another weapon.

However comparing "total crime" between countries means very little. After all, "crime" also includes white collar crimes and traffic offences, and activities in one country may not be considered a crime in another country (such as drugs), etc.
Like you said Hollis, there are so many externalities to consider. And in some countries, some crimes just go unreported (especially when citizens don't have confidence that their police will do anything about it). A big one is ****** assault. It is well known that even in "global north" countries such as Australia, the reporting rate is very low compared to the actual rate. In another country, this ratio may be very different.

Calanen

05-06-2007, 08:23 AM

It is well known that even in "global north" countries such as Australia, the reporting rate is very low compared to the actual rate. In another country, this ratio may be very different.

And the statistics are BS anyway, even when reported.

Kitsune

05-06-2007, 08:45 AM

velvet-cream

05-06-2007, 09:04 AM

A big one is ****** assault. It is well known that even in "global north" countries such as Australia, the reporting rate is very low compared to the actual rate. In another country, this ratio may be very different.

And the statistics are BS anyway, even when reported.

I meant the reporting rate for ****** assault is very low compared to the actual occurence of *** crimes.

On the other hand, I believe the reporting rate for murder in Australia is pretty accurate. That's because the occurence of murder is pretty low (according to the website referenced by this thread, it was ~302 per year, and 59 involving firearms) and most murders attract enough attention to be news on TV/newspaper. With that it's hard for the government to fudge those figures. And I'm sure some sociology student with too much time on their hands would be verifiying the official murder rate with news reports.

Of course, many people who are murdered are just "missing", so the real murder rate would always be higher than the official one.

Kaapeli

05-06-2007, 09:16 AM

I don't think it's so much about firearm availability in the US than it's about the wild west gun culture. People arm themselves specifically against other people.
Many nations have as many or guns but they don't carry them against eachother. The US gun culture is something from a 3rd world country where there is no law and order and everyone carries their own AK.

When Americans debate about firearms here it's always about their right to defend against something: criminals, the government, invaders etc.
In other western nations you almost never hear these kind of arguments for firearms: guns are for hunting, target shooting and collecting.

When people arm themselves against eachother they create an arms race.

velvet-cream

05-06-2007, 10:12 AM

To mention that the number of assaults in both countries are comparable simply does not do. The term "assault" is very vague: if somebody punches somebody else on the nose, this can be already counted as an assault (and it usually is). "Murder" however is a pretty clear term. It means that somebody got killed. Somebody who possibly could be a alive if their were less firearms floating around. And that is at least worth to be considered.

You don't even need go as far as punching someone on the nose. Over here, if I raise my fist at someone (with no physical contact) and they have the apprehension of violence, I can be charged with assault. Other jurisdictions may interpret "assault" differently.

I doubt every fisty cuff is reported as assault. As for murder, I agree it is a pretty universal crime in all countries. However, murders in some jurisdictions may be downgraded to manslaughter, hence not represented in those statistics (pre-emptive self defence/ battered woman syndrome)

The other hidden statistic people need to consider are cases of excessive self defence from firearms which are counted as manslaughter/negligent homicide instead of murder.
It would be interesting if someone could come up with figures where firearms have unlawfully killed people, (but not due to negligent discharge or outright murder).

I don't think it's so much about firearm availability in the US than it's about the wild west gun culture. People arm themselves specifically against other people.
Many nations have as many or guns but they don't carry them against eachother. The US gun culture is something from a 3rd world country where there is no law and order and everyone carries their own AK.

When Americans debate about firearms here it's always about their right to defend against something: criminals, the government, invaders etc.
In other western nations you almost never hear these kind of arguments for firearms: guns are for hunting, target shooting and collecting.

I agree. Over here, if you went to get your civilian firearms licence/permit and say you intend to use it for self defence from criminals....you won't be getting that licence.

I can safely say there is no culture of self defence with firearms in Australia. And unless crime gets totally out of control and we live in anarchy, I doubt we ever will.

General Cockroach

05-06-2007, 10:59 AM

For sure it would have an effect. It's megalomania when you think a government that disposes of an army with ten thousands of tanks would be worried about you owning a gun, even about a whole city full of guns.

Does't seems to be megalomania to me when you consider the situation for American troops in Iraq or how the Russians had it in Afghanistan or for the people in the Warsaw ghetto during WW2. Now bombings are the main tool of the insurgency, however it is the AK that they use to protect themselves when going from A to B in prevention from being killed or captured. Also it provide a spiritual help in resisting compared to bare hands.

You should remember in which time the second amendment was established - in the 18th century, a time without enlightement, without the mass media.

I find this to be an insult to the people that established what is now the oldest constitution in the world and it is so for a reason. Technology might change but it is a product of man and if you think that we are so much more enlighten now compared to the 18th and 19th century how come that the 20th century that we just left behind was the most violent in human history?
The relative situation is the same, armies might have more powerful crew weapons but so are the small arms of the average soldier. Remember that they did have battleships with powerful cannons for that time period when the second amendment was created.

A time when it was usual that the mostly monarchic governments oppressed their people. The wording of the amendment should better be changed. Not abolished for my behalf, but changed.
Oppression is oppression whether it is a monarchy or dictatorship etc. I not from the USA but I am forever grateful that they are holding on to the motto that freedom requires eternal vigilance. Where it not for Americans presence your views on the second amendment would probably be very much different.

velvet-cream

05-06-2007, 11:26 AM

Oppression is oppression whether it is a monarchy or dictatorship etc. I not from the USA but I am forever grateful that they are holding on to the motto that freedom requires eternal vigilance. Where it not for Americans presence your views on the second amendment would probably be very much different.

You might want to modify that statement slightly. The price of freedom for US citizens does require eternal vigilance. But of late, "freedom to US citizens" has also been at the expense of the liberty and freedom of other people in this world. Without getting too off topic and too political, there have been a lot of people (non US citizens) in the GWOT whom the US government has denied due process or other fundamental rights. Rights that the US guarantees as a fundamental right to her own citizens. (it's a bit hypocritical.. Do as I say, not as I do)

And before you say "terrorists" don't deserve rights etc, well that's self defeating because, in a sophisticated legal system, you can't label anyone a "terrorist" before a trial (innocence before proven guilty.... that old chestnut).

muck

05-06-2007, 11:45 AM

Does't seems to be megalomania to me when you consider the situation for American troops in Iraq or how the Russians had it in Afghanistan or for the people in the Warsaw ghetto during WW2. Now bombings are the main tool of the insurgency, however it is the AK that they use to protect themselves when going from A to B in prevention from being killed or captured. Also it provide a spiritual help in resisting compared to bare hands.

I find this to be an insult to the people that established what is now the oldest constitution in the world and it is so for a reason. Technology might change but it is a product of man and if you think that we are so much more enlighten now compared to the 18th and 19th century how come that the 20th century that we just left behind was the most violent in human history?
The relative situation is the same, armies might have more powerful crew weapons but so are the small arms of the average soldier. Remember that they did have battleships with powerful cannons for that time period when the second amendment was created.

What I wanted to express was that the things today have changed. Mass-Media and enlightement make sure that governments today cannot easily abuse their power. It could be quickly recognized now. A well built democracy works alone.
Additionally, your examples are not suitable since the United States of America never had to fight a war in their own country. And - was there ever a case of a government abusing it's right so much that the people wanted to revolt within the last century, for example? Many other countries, Canada as well as the European Nations, were quite successful without an equivalent of the second amendment, except Nazi Germany for sure. And the establishment of Nazi Germany could probably not have been prevented through a militia.

Oppression is oppression whether it is a monarchy or dictatorship etc. I not from the USA but I am forever grateful that they are holding on to the motto that freedom requires eternal vigilance. Where it not for Americans presence your views on the second amendment would probably be very much different.

Hehe, not really. It's maybe just that I do not see a need to arm myself for the case my government could abuse it's rights. The German constitution also knows in it's 20th article a right of resistance every German has against everyone who tries to overrule the democratic and constitutional order of the federation. But since we live in a "well-fortified" democracy as the constitution calls it I do not feel urged to build up a weapons cache in my garden now.
To appeal to the second amendment to ensure the own right to carry arms with the reason an individual had to protect itself against possible trespasses of it's government is just a pled reason in my eyes.

Geezah

05-06-2007, 12:00 PM

I agree. Over here, if you went to get your civilian firearms licence/permit and say you intend to use it for self defence from criminals....you won't be getting that licence.

I can safely say there is no culture of self defence with firearms in Australia. And unless crime gets totally out of control and we live in anarchy, I doubt we ever will.

And over here, there is no culture where you must rely on the Police for anything more than Enforciing the Law.
They are not our personal bodyguards!

Hollis

05-06-2007, 12:07 PM

:bash: Additionally, your examples are not suitable since the United States of America never had to fight a war in their own country. .

Not to be nick picky, but the US has, During it's colonial period, war of 1812, Mexican American War, Texas Independence, Native Americans war, Mormon War, and the biggest of all the American Civil War. Also Peril Harbor, Alutians Island, and incidents that I am probably forgetting.

Compare to the war in Europe, Yep, the US has been at Peace the whole time. Europe has a very bloody war history.

NO piece of paper will defend a people or keep them free. History has demonstrated repetitively the Power is extremely seductive. The more power a group or person can amass the more they turn into a despot.

The are many assurances or barrier to maintain Freedom, the final is the ability of the people to maintain more power than any group or individual and to be able to effectively resists being subjugated.

akd

05-06-2007, 12:11 PM

What I wanted to express was that the things today have changed.

Your belief that the world has fundamentally changed and that the writers of the Constitution were ignorant troglodytes scribbling on the walls of their caves for want of Enlightenment shows gross naivety and a complete and total ignorance of history. Governments killed more of their own people in the 20th Century than ever before in history. Many of these most murderous governments were brought into power not through monarchy, but through popular will.

There are aspects of the US Constitution that remain more liberal today than that of any other democracy in the world (save perhaps the copycats). The writers of the Constitution new how the world was then and knew that much would be the same 200 or 300 or 500 years later. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. While it is only one of many steps, the transferrence of the right of self-defense from the individual to the government has always been, and will always be, a step in the direction of absolute power.

velvet-cream

05-06-2007, 12:13 PM

And over here, there is no culture where you must rely on the Police for anything more than Enforciing the Law.
They are not our personal bodyguards!

Yep, here police don't actually have a duty to protect. ie, if the police fail to prevent crime, you can't sue them for failing that duty.

On another note, all this talk about the right to bear arms to fight against an oppressive government in US.... Is it me, or does this line of argument suggest the constitution actually allows for treason against the Federal government?

General Cockroach

05-06-2007, 12:24 PM

You might want to modify that statement slightly. The price of freedom for US citizens does require eternal vigilance. But of late, "freedom to US citizens" has also been at the expense of the liberty and freedom of other people in this world. Without getting too off topic and too political, there have been a lot of people (non US citizens) in the GWOT whom the US government has denied due process or other fundamental rights. Rights that the US guarantees as a fundamental right to her own citizens. (it's a bit hypocritical.. Do as I say, not as I do)

And before you say "terrorists" don't deserve rights etc, well that's self defeating because, in a sophisticated legal system, you can't label anyone a "terrorist" before a trial (innocence before proven guilty.... that old chestnut).
First, you assume to much, I think that all humans has the right to due process.
My admiration for America is not for what it is starting to turn into but for what the founding fathers stood for, the difference is that I don’t discard the freedoms which the US constitution outlines because some people within the US misrepresent them or don't follow them. not saying that you do but many outside the US does. Insteed I try to remind people what America is really all about.
Many cry hypocrisy but are unable to hold up good examples from there own nations.

I feel for America because there is a struggle to hold up and keep its ideals intact while some are tying to chip away at it. The war on terror is testing its principals and I pray that America will make I through the test.

Keep in mind that when the American republic was founded many of the founding fathers looked upon Switzerland as a model of government both in terms of defence and governing.

They had no vision of creating a military superpower. Many of the founding fathers mistrusted government and a standing army that’s why the importance of the militia composed of ordinary citizens with there own arms is inscribed so clearly in the American constitution.

velvet-cream

05-06-2007, 12:25 PM

The are many assurances or barrier to maintain Freedom, the final is the ability of the people to maintain more power than any group or individual and to be able to effectively resists being subjugated.

I agree. And like I said before, in the bigger scheme of things, it means the US goverment maintaining power over other people in the world to ensure freedom for her own citizens.

Can I blame them... probably not. I expect any country to look after their own citizens first. Since I'm living in a country allied to the US, I'm not really impacted by this concept either. But I can understand that many people in this world feel hard done by from US foreign policy.

Hollis

05-06-2007, 12:32 PM

Yep, here police don't actually have a duty to protect. ie, if the police fail to prevent crime, you can't sue them for failing that duty.

On another note, all this talk about the right to bear arms to fight against an oppressive government in US.... Is it me, or does this line of argument suggest the constitution actually allows for treason against the Federal government?

Not so much as to fight but more as checks and balances. Hopefully it never comes down to that.

To adequately respond would take pages, Treason has certain elements that it must have to be treason. Obviously if the government was usurped by some group, in that groups opinion, yes... any resistance to their will would probably be branded as treasonist.

It is the duty of every American, especially Military, LEO, elective official, etc, to Protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic <---- there is your argument. Who is the domestic enemy, the usurpers or the people?

Hollis

05-06-2007, 12:33 PM

First, you assume to much, I think that all humans has the right to due process.
My admiration for America is not for what it is starting to turn into but for what the founding fathers stood for, the difference is that I don’t discard the freedoms which the US constitution outlines because some people within the US misrepresent them or don't follow them. not saying that you do but many outside the US does. Insteed I try to remind people what America is really all about.
Many cry hypocrisy but are unable to hold up good examples from there own nations.

I feel for America because there is a struggle to hold up and keep its ideals intact while some are tying to chip away at it. The war on terror is testing its principals and I pray that America will make I through the test.

Keep in mind that when the American republic was founded many of the founding fathers looked upon Switzerland as a model of government both in terms of defence and governing.

They had no vision of creating a military superpower. Many of the founding fathers mistrusted government and a standing army that’s why the importance of the militia composed of ordinary citizens with there own arms is inscribed so clearly in the American constitution.

Well Said, Thank you.

velvet-cream

05-06-2007, 12:34 PM

I feel for America because there is a struggle to hold up and keep its ideals intact while some are tying to chip away at it. The war on terror is testing its principals and I pray that America will make I through the test.

They had no vision of creating a military superpower. Many of the founding fathers mistrusted government and a standing army that’s why the importance of the militia composed of ordinary citizens with there own arms is inscribed so clearly in the American constitution.

Yeah, the GWOT is going to be a tough balancing act for the US.

But like I said in an earlier post, how can one reconcile a constitutionally sanctioned militia to protect the citzens from an oppressive government, whilst by definition a revolt or fight against the government is treason?

velvet-cream

05-06-2007, 12:36 PM

Not so much as to fight but more as checks and balances. Hopefully it never comes down to that.

To adequately respond would take pages, Treason has certain elements that it must have to be treason. Obviously if the government was usurped by some group, in that groups opinion, yes... any resistance to their will would probably be branded as treasonist.

It is the duty of every American, especially Military, LEO, elective official, etc, to Protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic <---- there is your argument. Who is the domestic enemy, the usurpers or the people?

Thanks. Yeah, its a tough call.
Usually when it comes to such things -Might is right

PPSH41

05-06-2007, 12:40 PM

Yep, here police don't actually have a duty to protect. ie, if the police fail to prevent crime, you can't sue them for failing that duty.

On another note, all this talk about the right to bear arms to fight against an oppressive government in US.... Is it me, or does this line of argument suggest the constitution actually allows for treason against the Federal government?

Hehe, loaded question there. I guess it allows the people to keep the power to hold the government accountable. The simple fact of the second amendment being there is designed to prevent that kind of use from ever having to be made. The second amendment just ensures that the people will have the means reign in an oppressive gov. But if it ever got to that point you might as well throw the whole thing out the window.

General Cockroach

05-06-2007, 12:40 PM

Hehe, not really. It's maybe just that I do not see a need to arm myself for the case my government could abuse it's rights. The German constitution also knows in it's 20th article a right of resistance every German has against everyone who tries to overrule the democratic and constitutional order of the federation. But since we live in a "well-fortified" democracy as the constitution calls it I do not feel urged to build up a weapons cache in my garden now.
To appeal to the second amendment to ensure the own right to carry arms with the reason an individual had to protect itself against possible trespasses of it's government is just a pled reason in my eyes.

The attitude that you are expressing is a formula for reliving history. I wonder what you would have done during Hitlers rule march in line like the overwhelming majority of the German people and then go into denial when it was all over?

All you folks who ridicule the second amendment here, it is because of you I decided to start the thread: Gun control for state and state actors and write my satire.
So far you have keep away from it and I’m not surprised.

muck

05-06-2007, 01:34 PM

Your belief that the world has fundamentally changed and that the writers of the Constitution were ignorant troglodytes scribbling on the walls of their caves for want of Enlightenment shows gross naivety and a complete and total ignorance of history.

I didn't say that, did I? Don't skew my statements. My intention is not to backbite the godfathers of the American constitution, and I used the term "enlightenment" to describe a situation where information and therewith the truth is available for everyone through the bandwith of media, so lies and scandals can quickly be uncovered. I did not mean the age of enlightement nor did I put the phase of enlightement I talked about in any context with the authors of the constitution. You may call me naive for that, but you should not impute me a "total ignorance" of history.

Governments killed more of their own people in the 20th Century than ever before in history. Many of these most murderous governments were brought into power not through monarchy, but through popular will.

I don't think it's rassism if I assume that in some cultures democracy can easier leveraged than in others. So I referred my statement only to western nations.
In that aspect only one nation came into my mind, namely Germany (although the world is very quick with ignoring that Hitler did not only terrorized the world but also his own people). And why did Weimar Republic fell? Because it was a weak democracy, with weak laws and weak representatives, a constellation that paved the way for extremism to get to power. Today it is totally different here, and thats why I am going...

NO piece of paper will defend a people or keep them free. ...turn around this statement and say I am convinced that a piece of paper will defend my freedom and my rights. Surprised?

There are aspects of the US Constitution that remain more liberal today than that of any other democracy in the world (save perhaps the copycats). The writers of the Constitution new how the world was then and knew that much would be the same 200 or 300 or 500 years later. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. While it is only one of many steps, the transferrence of the right of self-defense from the individual to the government has always been, and will always be, a step in the direction of absolute power.

I did never deny that the US constitution is a forward-thinking and liberal constitution. But the assumption that power automatically corrupts a person or a group is a bit paranoid since then you should not see a need to vote anymore and should not trust anyone related to your government.

The attitude that you are expressing is a formula for reliving history. I wonder what you would have done during Hitlers rule march in line like the overwhelming majority of the German people and then go into denial when it was all over?

Well dude since I am living in these days and only know a reliable, fair and just, constitutional Germany with strong own measures that protect our constitution, I can only say I wonder 'what if', too. As well as I wonder whether you really suppose that an armed population could have prevented Hitler from his actions. The resistance movement, those who really wanted to course Hitler out, they had no problems to get weapons. The problem was that the majority of the Germans did not want to join them, due to factors explaining them would lead to far now.

All you folks who ridicule the second amendment here, it is because of you I decided to start the thread: Gun control for state and state actors and write my satire.
So far you have keep away from it and I’m not surprised.

I am simply too lazy to occupy myself with hypocritical theories that mix apples with pears. I went through it but saw no need to take part in that discussion.

theholeinthedonut

05-06-2007, 01:48 PM

@ Hollis:

Could it be that you are blind? Look at a post above yours:

United Kingdom:

Murders: 850
Murders (per capita): 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms: 62
Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

United States:

Murders: 12,658
Murders (per capita): 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms: 8,259
Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

As you can see, the number of murders per capita in the US compared to Britain is three times higher and the number of murders with firearms per capita is even more than 27 times as high. Now, why is that? Could it be that the easy availability of firearms in America has something to do with it? To mention that the number of assaults in both countries are comparable simply does not do. The term "assault" is very vague: if somebody punches somebody else on the nose, this can be already counted as an assault (and it usually is). "Murder" however is a pretty clear term. It means that somebody got killed. Somebody who possibly could be a alive if their were less firearms floating around. And that is at least worth to be considered.

I just trow in my two cents.
There's no clear conclusion you can draw from those statistics. The important factor you would have to consider is the number of crimes committed with legally owned guns. You can buy illegal firearms quite easy in every country so very strict gun laws or even a ban might have no effect at all. Just look what happened in the UK after Dunblane, there's hardly any possibilty to legally own guns but crimes with firearms have skyrocketed, an Uzi on the blackmarket is cheaper then an x-box, and a symbol of status for the members of youth gangs.

I can give you the numbers from the same statistics for Luxembourg 0.009 murders per 1000 capita, less then 10% of these are committed with firearms.

Is there a gun ban in Luxembourg? Do we have strict gun control and tough laws?!
Nope the most liberal in Europe and much laxer then those in many States in the US.
,
So what can we conclude......A legal UZI for everyone?!?

There's no correlation inbetween legaly owned private Guns and crime statistics, but there sure is one between the social situation of people, poverty and a lack of opportunities and gun crimes. (no excuse for violence but merely an explanation)

A few days ago a wanking millionaire killed an inocent bystander with his porsche on the Gumball rallye, there are perhaps as many people killed every year on sporting events then there are with legally owned firearms.
So are we gone ban the Porsche's and Ferrari's or the Billionaires, or Rallyes???? No problemo with me, I don't care about rich people and Porsche's. Rallye sport is , in my perception, something really stupid an childish....But I don't feel that I have the right to impose my views on my fellow citizens.

It's all about the society we live in and it's for a big part our own choice how we want to live and what we want to do with our lives and those of our fellow citizens

muck

05-06-2007, 01:52 PM

There's no clear conclusion you can draw from those statistics. The important factor you would have to consider is the number of crimes committed with legally owned guns. You can buy illegaly firearms quite easy in every country so very strict gun laws or even a ban might have no effect at all. Just look what happened in the UK after Dunblane, there's hardly any possibilty to legally own guns but crimes with firearms have skyrocketed, an Uzi on the blackmarket is cheaper then an x-box, and a symbol of status for the members of youth gangs.

I guess you just found the reason for some countries do not publishing further details about that while others do.

akd

05-06-2007, 02:02 PM

Yeah, the GWOT is going to be a tough balancing act for the US.

But like I said in an earlier post, how can one reconcile a constitutionally sanctioned militia to protect the citzens from an oppressive government, whilst by definition a revolt or fight against the government is treason?

You already have your answer. The Constitution sanctions a government. The Constitution sanctions an armed citizenry. If the government violates the Constitution, the armed citizenry is responsible for defending the Constitution.

Furthermore, an armed citizenry can exist as check on the growth of power in government without ever having to reach the point of an armed insurrection. Only if you remove the check will you find out how likely the government is to grow into something that would justify an armed insurrection.

The right to self-defense is not dependent on the current state of government. It is a check meant to exist now and for the future. It is also defined as a basic human right, and there is no such thing as a government so perfect that humans no longer need their basic rights.

I used the term "enlightenment" to describe a situation where information and therewith the truth is available for everyone through the bandwith of media, so lies and scandals can quickly be uncovered.

First of all, the Enlightment occured before 1776. Also, ignorance is the opposite of enlightment, so if you are going to claim that the Republic was not founded in an age of enlightenment, you must be saying that it was founded in ignorance.

Furthermore, I don't think it is a given that modern media has made people more "enlightened." Far from it, in fact. Nor would I take it as fact that current media access and proliferation serves as a more effective check on government. It can, but that does not mean that it does. It serves first and foremost to create an unprecedented level of noise. Governments often find this noise useful for solidifying their power.

p.s. - Do not attach my name to other people's quotes.

theholeinthedonut

05-06-2007, 02:28 PM

I guess you just found the reason for some countries do not publishing further details about that while others do.

Actually even in the States the statistics work against the arguments for gun control. After the mass murder on V-tech there was quite a good comment about the subject on Deutschlandfunk, which generally is quite objective about facts and has, if any political tendency, rather one to left. Any how, the guy said that the State with the lowest gun crime rate , I think it was Vermont, is also the one with the laxest gun control laws, no control at all, you can buy everything you want as long as you're 18 and have a clean slate with the law. CC no problem, even without a permit I think. Against this you have states like California or D.C. with very tough laws on gun ownership but a very high rate of gun crimes.

Ericsson

05-06-2007, 02:30 PM

you don,t need to have a PHD
when you have easy access to gun
you will have a prodigious murder rate

theholeinthedonut

05-06-2007, 02:38 PM

you don,t need to have a PHD
when you have easy access to gun
you will have a prodigious murder rate

So all the army barracks in the world should be scenes of daily mass murder?

muck

05-06-2007, 02:38 PM

First of all, the Enlightment occured before 1776. Also, ignorance is the opposite of enlightment, so if you are going to claim that the Republic was not founded in an age of enlightenment, you must be saying that it was founded in ignorance.

I did not refer to the historical age of enlightenment so I defined what I meant because I am still searching for an adequate English word.

Furthermore, I don't think it is a given that modern media has made people more "enlightened." Far from it, in fact. Nor would I take it as fact that current media access and proliferation serves as a more effective check on government. It can, but that does not mean that it does. It serves first and foremost to create an unprecedented level of noise. Governments often find this noise useful for solidifying their power.

Well, that's why the United Nations assume people in the third world quickly become addicted to extremism - because they do not havy any access to informations that would allow them to review their knowledge about the world...And that's additionally what I meant with enlightement, even concerning the so-called first world.

p.s. - Do not attach my name to other people's quotes.

Sorry, was not intended. My mistake.

you don,t need to have a PHD
when you have easy access to gun
you will have a prodigious murder rate

I do not agree. I bridle against the supposition gun control won't change anything but as I emphasized, it must not necessarily be the way to success.

PPSH41

05-06-2007, 03:08 PM

In the end it boils down to whether or not you want to live in a nanny/police state or not. Whether you want the government to decide how your money is spent, how you define freedom and who gets those freedoms. I think in the US we are approaching a crossroads, at which we will need to decide if we want the government to take care of us and decide what we need for us like little children, or if we want to take care of and be responsible for ourselves.

General Cockroach

05-06-2007, 03:09 PM

you don,t need to have a PHD
when you have easy access to gun
you will have a prodigious murder rate

So in a nutshell you assessment is that man is a product of our tools not the other way around?

This is a quote from Cesare Beccaria, a brilliant mind which gave us to a large extent the foundation of criminology and the system surrounding it as we know it today.

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty — so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator — and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

General Cockroach

05-06-2007, 04:15 PM

As soon as I saw the part about police visiting each household twice a year, I had my doubts over the credibility this author. I've only been to Japan for holidays, and I have never lived there. But I have friends who have lived there (and still do) and they never mentioned this to me. I'm going to ask them about these supposed "visits" from police.

It is silly to put such a bold statement in a book about the Japanese culture/government that could so easily be proved wrong. (I know I haven't proved it wrong yet, but I will ask around. And other people on this forum who have lived in Japan question this supposed fact as well)

Poe is not a man which just makes things up, the procedure in which police visits each household might be in reference to smaller cities or communities. If you read the text it says local cop and homeowner which could imply this. I’m only speculating here but I’ll try to find out more.
But let’s leave that for a while until there is more information available and let’s focus on what has also been confirmed by at least on member here. Namely how japans police and legal system treats suspects which is also confirmed by amnesty international. The figures cited is right out of the context when Saddam Hussein’s held an election an got something like 97% of the vote. This type of figures tells a story to say the least and it raises serious questions.

I must say that I find it quite incomprehensible that this type of practices won’t affect crime. It defies all of what we have come to know of authoritarian regimes which have model citizens who are scared into submission and obedience when it comes to civilian life. But which suffer horrendous crimes in terms of crime committed by state and state actors on citizens.