TexasCHLforum.com

Some one linking me this graph trying to prove a point. But the little asterisk says something!

*Mexico Not included

We include mexico to our jobs and our welfare benfits so why not our graphs. SO I remade teh graph with mexico involved


I wondered what the graph would look like with mexico included

What's with Chile?

(And those who collect these kind of 'statistics' count homicides where a gun is owned by someone involved in the homicide, as 'gun-related'. Even if the gun had nothing to do with the homicide.)

What these graphs imply is that if guns weren't available, there wouldn't be murders. They impress the moron vote, and that is their intent.

The fact is that these events would simply become knife, machete, bat, golf club, rock, etc. murders if a gun wasn't handy.

I have investigated homicides where people were murdered with (not by) a bathroom scale, poodle leash, can opener, Listerine bottle, electric transmission cable, and a pretty good assortment of other miscellaneous items not normally considered weapons but they were plenty effective as instruments of death in the hands of someone with murderous intent.

Murderers use what's handy, and dead by rock is just as dead as by gun. When I visited the evidence room of a Caribbean island's police department, there wasn't a gun to be seen. It was stacked floor to ceiling with bloody machetes and clubs of various types.

A more informative chart would be one that showed the relative use of various instances of death in each country.

Excaliber wrote:What these graphs imply is that if guns weren't available, there wouldn't be murders. They impress the moron vote, and that is their intent.

The fact is that these events would simply become knife, machete, bat, golf club, rock, etc. murders if a gun wasn't handy.

I have investigated homicides where people were murdered with (not by) a bathroom scale, poodle leash, can opener, Listerine bottle, electric transmission cable, and a pretty good assortment of other miscellaneous items not normally considered weapons but they were plenty effective as instruments of death in the hands of someone with murderous intent.
Murderers use what's handy, and dead by rock is just as dead as by gun. When I visited the evidence room of a Caribbean island's police department, there wasn't a gun to be seen. It was stacked floor to ceiling with bloody machetes and clubs of various types.
A more informative chart would be one that showed the relative use of various instances of death in each country.

The statistics can be displayed / manipulated to show pretty much anything in an argument. It's the same with banning so called "assault rifles" for the good of everyone, yet more people die from other things such as hammers or bats each year. If you displayed that data in the same type of chart, it would clearly be shown. That is why the MSM and the gun grabbers never display that data in a similar chart.

Political Agenda: that graph omits the 200 or so countries with murder rates higher than the US.

A complete list of intentional homicide rates by country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... By_country" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whether the intentional homicide was caused by a firearm or something else, it is still a life lost. Trying to segment by the tool used to commit evil is additional political agenda.

Israel is very low on the graph and don't they let their citzens have completely automatic weapons? Aren't they true "2nd ammendment type" citizen soldiers? Homicide rate of Jews killing Jews is virtually zero in Israel. Don''t have the Chicago gang culture.

I'm sure that graph will also include bad guys killed by the police during the apprehension and self defense killings.

So why in Lebanon where anyone who has enough money can have any man-portable military weapon including RPGs. Also, there are private armies and militias more powerful than the Lebanese National forces. Still violent crime is too low.

In Lebanon, homicide rate is just 2.2 per 100,000.

How the liberals can claim that more guns and less regulations means more crime?!

You're in greater danger in the Bahamas and the Virgin Islands than you are in America. http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=161310" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

None of the top ten most violent cities in the world are in the US. They are San Pedro Sula, Honduras, Acapulco, Mexico, Caracas, Venezuela, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Torreón, Mexico, Maceió, Brazil, Cali, Colombia, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, Barquisimeto, Venezuela and João Pessoa, Brazil. If you're noticing a commonality there you're a racist.

Another factor in the stats is homogeneity of the population. Shared culture, mores, and goals reduce murder rates and overall violent crime.

So, because less than 1/100th of one percent of the USA population is murdered with firearms, 100 % of civilian citizens should loose their second amendment rights? Is that their argument? That doesn't sound logical enough to work.

Hmmmm, let's look at it another way. About 32,000 gun deaths per year in the USA; approximately 11,000 of those are homicides, of which about 6,000 are hand guns. This is out of an annual death rate of 2.4 million Americans; fortunately 4 million new Americans are born each year. OK, that doesn't seem to get us anywhere towards figuring out the anti-gun agenda.

Let's look elsewhere. Civilian ownership of firearms is 101.5 per 100 citizens, so civilians in America have about 300 million firearms. American Armed forces have a little more than 3 million firearms; police forces have slightly more than 1 million firearms, totaling about 4.2 million firearms. Now those numbers are perhaps more interesting for why government might want to limit firearms in the hands of citizens. Maybe they are not interesting; I will let others decide for themselves.

Now lets address criminals to see where that rates. There are about 1.2 million violent crimes reported each year. Let's be generous and say that all cases involve firearms. That is not factual, but I admit I am playing with the numbers a bit here to help me to understand. Now let's suppose that only half the cases that occur are reported; again maybe a stretch, but I already admitted that this paragraph uses "loose" numbers. OK, 1.2 million cases with 100% gun use times two for unreported crimes equals 2.4 million firearms in the hands of criminals. That is enough to worry law enforcement since it would mean they are then out-gunned, but if you throw armed good guy civilians into the mix, outlaws are no match number wise or firearm wise for normal everyday citizens.

I'm throwing all this out there to move this thread along. Hopefully no one will be offended by inadvertent omissions where I did not think of something. If I did, add or delete to your pleasure. I'm still here to visit, discuss, and learn.

rotor wrote:Israel is very low on the graph and don't they let their citzens have completely automatic weapons? Aren't they true "2nd ammendment type" citizen soldiers? Homicide rate of Jews killing Jews is virtually zero in Israel. Don''t have the Chicago gang culture.

The two graphs place Israel and some other countries in different positions, so perhaps the data sources varied. In any event, when I did my duty over 40 years ago, I slung an Uzi on a daily basis because of my location and the depth of risk. A truly religious Jew will not kill unless forced under conditions of combat. The current rules require most Jewish Israelis to serve for three years after which they are in reserves. Most have their gear available quickly, they know where to go when called. All small arms ammunition is IMI. Muslim Israelis can serve but are excused upon request. Since there are essentially no Christian Israelis, they are a non-issue.

gdanaher wrote:

rotor wrote: Since there are essentially no Christian Israelis, they are a non-issue.

http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=104341

Christian Israelis do exist.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

gdanaher wrote:

rotor wrote: Since there are essentially no Christian Israelis, they are a non-issue.

http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=104341

Christian Israelis do exist.

Anygunanywhere

Absolutely. But for military purposes there are substantially none. The religious demographics include 75.4% Jewish, 20.6% Arab Muslim, and the balance of 4% includes relatives of Israeli Jews who are not registered as Jews, non-Arab Muslims, non-Arab Christians, and those with no religious classification such as atheists and agnostics. The best number I can find from the Jerusalem Post counts 158,000 Christians. Of these, 80% are Arab and the balance are largely Russians whose parents or grandparents were Jewish. What this means is at the age of 18 when kids are drafted, Arab kids can excuse themselves, Jewish kids normally can't, and the number of Christian kids being conscripted is small enough to be inconsequential.