Russia Has Far Fewer Guns than the US, but Far More Homicides

[LowDown]

From the NPR, oddly enough:

The most recent homicide statistics for Russia show that there were 21,603 killings in 2009.

According to the FBI, the United States had 13,636 homicides in 2009 with a population that is more than twice as large. More than 80 percent of those killings were gun-related

So, Russia's homicide rate is 4 times that of the US per capita with one tenth of the guns in private hands. And Russian gun laws are very strict. Guns are registered there even to the extent of filing ballistic fingerprints on all guns in private hands.

So, why is NPR breaking from the preferred anti-gun narrative? Because the Russians insulted Pres. Obama, of course.

Alexander Puskov of the Russian Parliament tweeted:

A new shootout at Navy headquarters in Washington — a lone gunman and seven corpses. Nobody's even surprised anymore. A clear confirmation of American exceptionalism.

 

[iacardsfan]

Well I agree with what you are trying to get at but really the Russians are the Russians.

 

[Starbuck]

The thing people keep missing in the gun-control debate is how statistically insignificant all of these 'mass shootings' really are.

Sure they are unfortunate, but in reality any American is highly unlikely to be involved in one of these incidents.

 

[MMC]

The thing people keep missing in the gun-control debate is how statistically insignificant all of these 'mass shootings' really are.

Sure they are unfortunate, but in reality any American is highly unlikely to be involved in one of these incidents.

Which that's what the Media and others should be hitting up those politicians with Right off the bat. Even steering them to admit that some of them already know that answer.

 

[Carjosse]

Russia is also the only country where you have to worry about being run over by a drunken tank driver.

 

[Starbuck]

Which that's what the Media and others should be hitting up those politicians with Right off the bat

Thing is, there are big lobbies on either side of the gun-debate.

Unfortunately they all used flawed arguments and that's what we get through the media.

Honestly, I don't think gun control will really change the statistics, one way or the other. Make the laws stricter and only criminals will have them, very true. Make the laws more lenient and more stupid people will have them legally, very true. I think the murder rate, via gun violence, would be a wash either way.

However, there is hardly anyone out there just being honest, on either side.

The pro-gun people should be out saying "the fact that we want to own guns, should be reason enough for them to be legal." This is America, right?

The anti-gun people should be out there saying "I either don't like or am scared of guns, so no one should have them." That'd be honest, right?

 

[Starbuck]

Russia is also the only country where you have to worry about being run over by a drunken tank driver.

I'm not sure where it was, but I think that actually happened in the US a while back. . . oddly enough.

 

[Starbuck]

It was in San Diego:

San Diego tank rampage

 

[MMC]

Thing is, there are big lobbies on either side of the gun-debate.

Unfortunately they all used flawed arguments and that's what we get through the media.

Honestly, I don't think gun control will really change the statistics, one way or the other. Make the laws stricter and only criminals will have them, very true. Make the laws more lenient and more stupid people will have them legally, very true. I think the murder rate, via gun violence, would be a wash either way.

However, there is hardly anyone out there just being honest, on either side.

The pro-gun people should be out saying "the fact that we want to own guns, should be reason enough for them to be legal." This is America, right?

The anti-gun people should be out there saying "I either don't like or am scared of guns, so no one should have them." That'd be honest, right?

Not really.....those for, also understand that an armed populace. Acts as check to a government and itself when it entertains thoughts of becoming tyrannical or Progressively Elitist wherein it decide what the peoples Rights are......and will do all their thinking for them.

 

[Starbuck]

Not really.....those for, also understand that an armed populace. Acts as check to a government and itself when it entertains thoughts of becoming tyrannical or Progressively Elitist wherein it decide what the peoples Rights are......and will do all their thinking for them.

I understand that a lot of people feel that they need guns to protect against a tyrannical government, but I just don't see that as realistic.

The military, our governments right hand, is made up of Americans. Many of the same Americans that cry about the need for an armed populace are the same people serving in the military.

 

[MMC]

I understand that a lot of people feel that they need guns to protect against a tyrannical government, but I just don't see that as realistic.

The military, our governments right hand, is made up of Americans. Many of the same Americans that cry about the need for an armed populace are the same people serving in the military.

Yeah and Power corrupts.....Eventually and Absolutely.

 

[Starbuck]

Aside from hunting or limited self-defense, there really isn't much practical use for firearms.

For me though, it's not about practicality. Just like anything else, I think that people wanting to own a firearm should be sufficient reason to have relaxed laws surrounding guns.

 

[Starbuck]

Yeah and Power corrupts.....Eventually and Absolutely.

Sure, but just like many other countries, if it were to get to that point here, the military would just as likely be the group stopping the government.

 

[MMC]

Sure, but just like many other countries, if it were to get to that point here, the military would just as likely be the group stopping the government.

Yeah and with ours.....hence the very same division within. Then there is that point of government being an entity in itself. Which it will strive to protect itself using all means. Which again goes back to the power issue and keeping that government up and running. Despite its people deciding they wanted it out and changed up.

In Democracy.....he who has the Mob. Controls the Flow of the Spice.

 

[Starbuck]

Yeah and with ours.....hence the very same division within. Then there is that point of government being an entity in itself.

That's something that's been going on for some time, nothing new.

But again, just like in other countries that've found their rulers to be oppressive, the Military (generally) didn't stand in the way of the people, because the military is often made up of the people. The same can be said of the United States.

Government is just another one of those human constructs.

 

[MMC]

That's something that's been going on for some time, nothing new.

But again, just like in other countries that've found their rulers to be oppressive, the Military (generally) didn't stand in the way of the people, because the military is often made up of the people. The same can be said of the United States.

Government is just another one of those human constructs.

Well, that was until the formation of Homeland Security. Which Bush should have had a swift kick put up into his ass for that one. Their Primary mission will entail the dictates that come out of Washington or wherever they relocate to should disaster strike. As that mission entails the preservation of government.

Like I said.....it goes beyond just the two arguments that was presented.

 

[Starbuck]

Well, that was until the formation of Homeland Security. Which Bush should have had a swift kick put up into his ass for that one.

Yes, I am well aware of the department of Homeland Security and completely agree that it was something that should not have been created. . . knee-jerk politics often result in sub-par decisions.

As a prior Coastie, I spent the better part of a decade associated with the DHS, which leaves me with two distinct thoughts surrounding this issue:

1. Although the message behind the DHS is horrible and the mission is borderline draconian, it's a bit exaggerated.
3. The majority of the people who comprise the DHS, I'm talking about the individuals here, are normal red-blooded Americans. Many of them are as weary about the government overstepping its bounds as anyone else. Hell, a whole branch of the military is currently operating under the DHS.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Russia is also the only country where you have to worry about being run over by a drunken tank driver.

Ever been to California?
Stolen tank rampage - YouTube

 

[CRUE CAB]

Aside from hunting or limited self-defense, there really isn't much practical use for firearms.

For me though, it's not about practicality. Just like anything else, I think that people wanting to own a firearm should be sufficient reason to have relaxed laws surrounding guns.

Recreation, sport, collecting, re-enactments.

 

[Starbuck]

Recreation, sport, collecting, re-enactments.

I agree those are all valid reasons to own or want to own a firearm. However, like I've said they aren't the most practical reasons.

I could by an old Corvette, because I like to drive fast, participate in car shows and want to have a specific year. However, these are all wants as opposed to the practical reasons that might drive me to otherwise purchase a 2006 Toyota Camry.

For me though, simply wanting something should be reason enough to justify owning it. . . in the United States anyway. I just don't understand why the 'pro-gun' people don't look at it from that angle. Every time they say we 'need' our guns for some practical reason, people blow holes in their story.

It's hard to dissect a 'want' however.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I agree those are all valid reasons to own or want to own a firearm. However, like I've said they aren't the most practical reasons.

I could by an old Corvette, because I like to drive fast, participate in car shows and want to have a specific year. However, these are all wants as opposed to the practical reasons that might drive me to otherwise purchase a 2006 Toyota Camry.

For me though, simply wanting something should be reason enough to justify owning it. . . in the United States anyway. I just don't understand why the 'pro-gun' people don't look at it from that angle. Every time they say we 'need' our guns for some practical reason, people blow holes in their story.

It's hard to dissect a 'want' however.

I may need my guns for a very practical reason. Who are you to say different. I may need my guns to defend my home and family. Try blowing holes in that. Its my family, we believe in taking care of our own.

 

[Starbuck]

I may need my guns for a very practical reason. Who are you to say different. I may need my guns to defend my home and family. Try blowing holes in that. Its my family, we believe in taking care of our own.

I'm a statistics junkie, and statistically speaking the odds of you actually needing (and using) your firearms to protect you or your family are very slim. I'd say slim to the point of statistical insignificance. Kind of like me saying that I might need to purchase a Ford F-350 dually, in order to transport my kitchen table.

Sure it could happen, but the odds of me transporting my kitchen table are statistically insignificant.

If you want to have a gun to protect your family, that is a different story. You can want to take care of your own, which is a very genuine ideal (I can't say that I disagree), that however is a want.

But, like all great Americans, I feel that wants are important and should be recognized.

If I want to buy a gun, there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to do so.

 

[Starbuck]

I may need my guns for a very practical reason. Who are you to say different.

If you live in an area without adequate grocery store coverage and require the use of a firearm for hunting in the way of sustenance, I couldn't argue. However, such a small percentage of the population lives in that situation, it's not a valid point for a national dialogue.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I'm a statistics junkie, and statistically speaking the odds of you actually needing (and using) your firearms to protect you or your family are very slim. I'd say slim to the point of statistical insignificance. Kind of like me saying that I might need to purchase a Ford F-350 dually, in order to transport my kitchen table.

Sure it could happen, but the odds of me transporting my kitchen table are statistically insignificant.

If you want to have a gun to protect your family, that is a different story. You can want to take care of your own, which is a very genuine ideal (I can't say that I disagree), that however is a want.

But, like all great Americans, I feel that wants are important and should be recognized.

If I want to buy a gun, there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to do so.

Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

 

[Starbuck]

Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Sure, I completely agree.

However, that's the basis for a 'want' as opposed to a need. If the gun lobbies were simply honest with themselves and everyone else, they could make a much better argument.

"We want our guns, and there's no reason to deny us of this."

What's the problem with simply stating that?