U.S. Most Armed Country in the World

[Doug]

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.

India had the world's second-largest civilian gun arsenal, with an estimated 46 million firearms outside law enforcement and the military, though this represented just four guns per 100 people there. China, ranked third with 40 million privately held guns, had 3 firearms per 100 people.

Germany, France, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil and Russia were next in the ranking of country's overall civilian gun arsenals.

On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

See here.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Gun nuts argue guns make us safer. How is that working out for us considering the above?

"According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15
is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other
industrialized countries combined. American children are 16
times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times
more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine
times more likely to die in a firearm accident than
children in these other countries."

--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths
among children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR
Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 :101 –105

LINK

[Dardedar]

Speaking of the US being "armed" this is just disgusting:

***
World military spending

Monday, 19 June 2006

World military spending in 2005 reached $1.12 trillion with the U.S. accounting for almost half. NATO allies make up another 23% of spending, while Japan, S. Korea and Australia make up another 7% (included in the rest of the world slice). While accurate data for 2005 is not available for some of the countries labeled as the 'axis of evil' by the administration, it is likely that these countries - Cuba, Iran, Libya, N. Korea, Sudan and Syria make up only around 1% of world military spending.



source

[Tony]

Ok, I'll try this post again....
We have to rethink the common liberal line on guns. Finland is almost as high as we are per capita in guns, yet it has nowhere near the gun death rate we do. In Switzerland, which also has tons of guns, people who serve in the military are encouraged to take their assault rifles home with them, yet they too, have nothing like the firearm homicide rate we do. Something else must also be at work there. Guns make it easier to be bloody, yes. But we are still much more violent than the rest of W. Europe and Canada. My socialism says it has to do with inequality and poverty.
As for military spending: Thats the price of Empire. Cold war level military spending with no Cold war.

[Dardedar]

Ok, I'll try this post again....
We have to rethink the common liberal line on guns. Finland is almost as high as we are per capita in guns, yet it has nowhere near the gun death rate we do.

DAR
Tony, you ought to check gun nut claims before you pass them along:

Finland: 56 privately owned weapons per 100 civilians.

United States: 90 per 100

Let's see if their gun restrictions are similar:

***
Civil reserve

Military service weapons are stored by the Finnish Defence Forces, and are only given to them in reservist re-training exercises or during mobilization. At present, a strong political consensus exists that military weapons must not be stored by individuals, even if they are reservists in first-line, quick response units [citation needed].

Regulation

The ownership and use of firearms is regulated by the Firearms Act of 1998.

Firearms can only be obtained with an acquisition license, which can be applied for at the local police for €32. A separate license is required for each individual firearm and family members can have parallel licenses to use the same firearm. According to law, the firearms must be stored in a locked space or otherwise locked, or with vital parts removed and separated. Even then the weapon or any of its separated parts must not be easily stolen. If an especially dangerous firearm or more than 5 pistols, revolvers or self-loading rifles or other-type firearms are being stored, they must be stored in a certified gun safe or in a secure space inspected and approved by the local police authority.

They may be carried only when they are transported from their place of storage to the place of use (shooting range, hunting area or such). Even then they must be concealed or kept in carrying pouches. Only security guards with special training and a permit are allowed to carry a gun in public places. The ownership of air-rifles is not regulated but carrying or firing them in public places is not permitted. A crossbow is parallelled to an air rifle in legal matters.

To obtain a firearms license, an individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun. Acceptable reasons include: hunting, sports or hobby, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signalling. Collectors can have licenses for firearms not permitted to be owned by non-collectors (e.g. pocket guns or select fire weapons). This is usually shown by a collectors long history of gun ownership, but ultimately the issuing of licenses is at the local police's discretion. Conversely, a license for a pistol or a rifle is relatively easy to obtain, requiring only an (often nominal) membership to a marksmanship association, although the police usually require that the first gun is suitable for a beginner (usually a gun chambered in .22LR).

LINK

DAR
Do you see any resemblance to our (lack of) gun control in the US? No.

TONY
In Switzerland, which also has tons of guns, people who serve in the military are encouraged to take their assault rifles home with them, yet they too, have nothing like the firearm homicide rate we do. Something else must also be at work there.

DAR
Regarding this common Switzerland claim, I refer to this post in our forum by Barbara:

***
Barbara Fitzpatrick

PostPosted: 11 Dec 2006 01:37 pm

Actually, Switzerland has very strick gun control laws. The "assault weapon" also know as army rifle in "every" home is there, along with an army uniform (with train ticket to deployment area in the pocket), to dispense with the need for an armory/meeting and arming point for when their army deploys. These weapons are only in the homes of members of the army. The fact that every able-bodied male from 15 to 55 is in their army is why there are so many homes with army rifles in them. Any other guns owned by Swiss goes through shooting clubs (trained and more or less licensed). In Switzerland it is much harder to get a gun than in America. Just because there is wider (as a percent of population) gun ownership doesn't mean it isn't more controlled.

viewtopic.php?t=822&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80

***

So again, contrary to what the NRA types claim, no comparison.

TONY
Guns make it easier to be bloody, yes. But we are still much more violent than the rest of W. Europe and Canada.

DAR
I don't know that the US is more violent than W. Europe (probably Canada). Europe has some high crime rates too I think.

My socialism says it has to do with inequality and poverty.

DAR
I think it has to do with a whole lot of guns, a whole lot of ignorance and very little coordinated (national level) gun control.

D.

[Tony]

Darrel wrote:

Tony, you ought to check gun nut claims before you pass them along:

Darrel, I'm shocked that you would lump me with NRA gun nuts. I thought you knew me better than that.
All I was trying to say, admittedly in an unsophisticated, knee jerk fashion, is that I think the usual liberal response to the high murder rates in the United States are overly simplistic. Yes, I agree, having tons of guns around makes it much more likely that a violent confrontation will become bloody. Yes, I agree we need stricter gun laws, up to a point. Background checks-sure. I wouldn't not mind if handguns were banned outright. So I'm not an NRA hack.
I do think that with this issue, along with quite a few others, the mediocre left in this country responds, like rightwingers often do, with simplistic answers to complex issues. I disagree with the simplistic notion often espoused by American liberals, that America's high murder rate is a simply a direct result of the numbers of firearms owned here. I simply do not think that is all that's going on. Something else must also be going on here compared to other industrial countries. Why?
My main assertion seems obvious: Murder rates are more than simply a product of the number of guns floating around. For instance, that report on world gun ownership points out that Nigeria, one of the most violent places in the world, only has 1 gun per 100 people. Its certainly more violent than France which has 30 per 100 according to that same report. Extreme case I know, but I am attacking knee jerk liberal opinion here.
Consider these stats:


Guns per Homicide rate Homicide rate
100 people Per 100,000 Per 100,000
UN 2004 British Home Office
1999


Austria 30 0.9 0.84
Canada 30 1.4 1.85
Finland 56 2.8 2.55
France 30 0.7 1.63
Germany 30 0.9 1.28
Sweden 30 1.1 1.94
Switzerland 46 1.1 1.18

USA 90 6.6 6.26

So, first I am shocked Darrel, that you didn't know Western Europe has a much lower violence rate than we do. This fact usually prompts simplistic liberal notions that solely guns are to blame. I think they are to a great extent, but as the data shows, something else is going on here as well. Good to note that Finalands homicide rate is higher and so is its number of guns. But then look at Switzerland, and we don't see that. All the data shows that the US is insanely violent. We are talking third world levels for the most part. Now, can all this solely be due to such a high gun ownership rate? I don't think so.
Pretend we half the gun ownership here, giving us 45 guns per 100 people. If we assume what I am in attacking simplistic liberal notions, then we should have a 50% drop in homicide rates as well, right? That still gives us over 3 homicides per 100,000 people.
I know that the issue is much more complex. That is my point. I'm attacking simplistic liberal notions of complex problems. I am only asserting that there is more going on in the U.S. to explain our insane violence rates than simply and only high gun ownership.
I agree with you, too many guns is a huge problem, but not the only one. The rest of that problem, I assert, has to do with economic inequality and poverty.

Tony

[Tony]

Damn, my stats got all messed up. I'm not very good at using this forum yet.

The first numbers are nest to the countries are: Guns per 100 people.
The second numbers are: UN Homicide rates per 100,000 people from a study in 2004.
The thrid numbers are: British Home Office Homicide rates per 100,000 from a study in 1999.

Sorry folks.
Tony

[Doug]

Damn, my stats got all messed up. I'm not very good at using this forum yet.

The first numbers are nest to the countries are: Guns per 100 people.
The second numbers are: UN Homicide rates per 100,000 people from a study in 2004.
The thrid numbers are: British Home Office Homicide rates per 100,000 from a study in 1999.

DOUG
It seems the numbers indicate that the U.S. totally kicks the ass of any of those European countries in guns per capita, and also in the murder rate.

I am sure Tony is right that poverty and other factors play a significant role in why people in the U.S. are more violent, but it is also the elephant in the room that is often ignored that the U.S. just has way more guns available and practically zero effort to control their possession and distribution.

[Tony]

Yes you're right Doug. The sheer numbers of guns in the U.S. is the elephant in the room, no doubt. I merely assert that there is also something else going on here. The Switzerland stats point that out best. They have a lower homicide rate than France even though they have more guns per capita. Other factors must be involved also, and it is not merely, as it sometimes is asserted, thats its just guns.
We are all on the same page, roughly. I just wanted to add that little extra to the debate.
Tony

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Tony - the most knee-jerk thing of this chain is the assumption that the liberal response to gun violence is across the board fewer guns. There is nothing in the Brady law - that signature piece of "anti-gun" legislation - forbidding anything but assault weapons and missile launchers. It requires licensing combined with a background check. Even the mandatory waiting period was only for states that didn't do background checks when they issued a gun license.

Part of the connection - gun violence and gun ownership - does have a connection with poverty/inequality, but it has more to do with education - and mythology v. history. A nation that includes as its heros Robin Hood, Jesse James and Bonnie & Clyde sees as appropriate a violent response to inequality. A nation that thinks John Wayne movies are documentaries has little or no respect for official legal channels. They "take care of things" themselves.

Part of the issue is fear. Modern life is full of strangers who could be life-threatening. If your basic philosophy is that they ARE life-threatening, all those shootouts at the OK corral makes a gun mighty comforting. Logic has no place here. This is an emotional issue and a dominance issue. An entire "tough guy" fictional genre refers to guns in the same terms as it refers to other male "equipment" and as far as I can see, for the same reasons.

Another chunk of the problem is training. The 2nd amendment prohibited infringement of the right to bear arms because a well-regulated militia was necessary to the maintenance of freedom. Militias, as stated in the Constitution itself, were volunteer units whose officers were chosen/appointed by the states but whose pay and arms were funded by the federal government and whose training procedures/manual was approved by the federal government. As with the Swiss, there was no problem with the milita (who became the National Guard in 1916) taking their weapons home or even having other weapons at home. In the days of expensive, handmade guns, that was the main reason guys volunteered for the militia - to get a gun.

The NRA in its early days did very valuable work, along with the Scouts, and other youth groups who included hunting/weapons training/gun safety as part of their programs. Unfortunately, a few decades back the NRA got a taste of political power and got addicted to it. They now hold that training has nothing to do with it, military service has nothing to do with it, an American has the right to buy any number of any kind of firearm. America's gun laws, as they stand (and as the NRA is determined to keep them as their hold on political power), is arming domestic and international terrorists and every individual nutcase with a grudge. Those guys, who would have to at least get within touching distance of each individual they wished to kill if our gun laws were as strict as Switzerland's or Denmark's are where our 3rd-world murder stats come from.

[Dardedar]

Darrel wrote:

Tony, you ought to check gun nut claims before you pass them along:

Darrel, I'm shocked that you would lump me with NRA gun nuts. I thought you knew me better than that.

DAR
I wasn't certain that you were the Tony Red that we know and love (thought you were probably), but regardless, I was trying to go after the gun nut arguments you were passing along, not your beliefs. The Swiss example is a classic (google "swiss guns") and fails for the reasons pointed out. Same with Finland which even if it had equal rates of gun ownership (and it doesn't by a long shot) wouldn't be expected to have the types of gun problems the US has for the reasons mentioned (strong national gun control). So it's not the raw number of guns but how they are stored, bought/sold and a bunch of other variables.

The US has marginally murder rates (and violent crime) but extraordinarily higher death/murder by gun rates. Off the charts. Regarding violent crime (comes in many varieties), the US is generally higher but has some lower crime rates in categories that can turn violent. For instance the US has lower burglary than much of Europe and Canada. I have been very busy this weekend (still moving). I read a larger PDF on this and then didn't have time to post about it with the stats.

Also, there is a group in Fayetteville called "Liberals with guns," (I am thinking of joining) so being liberal doesn't not necessarily mean one is anti-gun. I am just anti-bad gun arguments and the Swiss/Finland examples are NRA stinkers.

D.

[Tony]

Dar said

I wasn't certain that you were the Tony Red that we know and love (thought you were probably), but regardless, I was trying to go after the gun nut arguments you were passing along, not your beliefs.

No worries. I just wasn't sure if you knew it was me or not. I haven't been on here in a long time.



Dar said

So it's not the raw number of guns but how they are stored, bought/sold and a bunch of other variables.

Yes indeed, that is a huge problem.
The reason I posit economics as at least a partial cause of this (besides being a socialist) are roughly:
In a Sociology class I took about six years ago, the statistics cited on the U.S. homicide rate were well over 8 per 100,000, something like 8.4. This was from data collected in the mid to late 90's. Since then we have seen a tremendous drop in the crime rate in the United States to the levels I cite in the statistics above, which are around 6.4 or so. That is a big decrease. Meanwhile, Europe remained roughly the same. Now, what can account for that drop?
It is fairly certain that in that period that the homicide dropped, gun ownership was actually increasing. That seems odd. Again, not a thorough argument, just food for thought.
The other thing is, who are the vicitms of gun violence? Besides a few cranky middle class boys who go off and slaughter their classmates, and a few postal workers going postal, most gun deaths in the U.S. are the result of inner city/gang violence, which, I don't think I have to argue too strenously, seems most certainly to have an economic component.
Such are the reasons I posit economics as at least a fairly significant part of the problem.

Dar wrote

Regarding violent crime (comes in many varieties), the US is generally higher but has some lower crime rates in categories that can turn violent. For instance the US has lower burglary than much of Europe and Canada. I have been very busy this weekend (still moving). I read a larger PDF on this and then didn't have time to post about it with the stats.

I would like to see that data when you get the chance.
Where are you moving to by the way?

Cheers,
Tony the Red.

[LaWood]

I think the numbers we should be considering are:

1) how many acts of gun violence does a minor see on TV per day?
2) how often is media gun use shown as the solution to a problem?
3) this is poorly phrased but- how many average times is gun violence
glorified as a patriotic, and a "threshold crossing" thing for teens?
4) How many millions of video games are sold which allow the young users to use some type of "gun" to win the game?

About 20 years ago my adolescent son would rate movies/tv shows as desirable or avoidable by how much (his words) "hi-tech killing" occurred. So did his peers in our middle class neighborhood. Later in his teen years he was given a gun and training on how to use it safely. Hopefully we taught him that guns are not toys and killing is the most serious thing any individual would ever do.

I think the above questions and what they imply combined with a gun ownership society produce a culture of violence. I'm reminded of the youngsters at Jonesboro, Ark who calmly shot teachers and classmates in March of 1998 as if they were playing a game. Those kids did not come from poor, impoverished families.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Larry is right. Our society is violent by every measure you care to name because violence is taught as the most successful solution to any problem. Might might not make right, but it sure puts an end to the discussion. Our society is also very disconnected from reality - food comes from the grocery store, water from the tap, and the dead guys in this week's movie will be playing in next week's movie. Easy access to guns, little or no required training (a driver's license is evidence you've been tested and are competent to use a car - a gun license should do the same), and a total disconnect with reality is a deadly combination.

[Dardedar]

TONY:
" Such are the reasons I posit economics as at least a fairly significant part of the problem."

DAR
Oh, I can totally agree with that.

TONY
"Where are you moving to by the way?"

DAR
Just six miles north of where we were. Old Wire Rd. in Fayetteville.