20 most trigger happy countries

I'm not just taking in the Mail mate. As i said it's not that bad but it';s definetely on the rise. we;ve had 5 guys shot in glasgow over last weekend.

and as far as a civil war goes, i can see something similar happening in the near future with people taking up arms when terrorists start hitting targets regularly and I'd rather be prepared for that than sitting on my arse waiting for it to happen.

call it paranoid but many people, most notably the Jew's have found out the hard way that a little paranoia can be a good thing.

Yeah - because Israel is a fantasticly safe place to live right now

i was actually reffering to when the Germans started heaving them into trucks.

Might have had at least a fighting chance if they at least had the ability to fight back. I'd rather take out some cunts then go down than get hauled away against my will.

Israel isn't exactly safe either but again. I'd rather be armed walkign about there than not.

RichieW2001:Given your argument that anyone firing second will wind up dead, and that arming citizens leads to better armed criminals, what the heck do we call the police for? Anyone intent on murder will already have done the deed by the time the police show up. Actually, criminals are worse at their jobs than you'd think (how many gangbangers go out to the range for an afternoon?), and use incredibly unreliable weapons like the TEC-9 and Lorcin pistols. It might surprise you to learn that citizens acting in self defense kill something like 10 times more assailants than the police do.

Mike:Yeah, the US homicide rate is higher. Something like 75% of the guns are owned by 30% of the gun owners. There's an extremely high rate of multiple gun ownership in the US, and only about 1/8 of the population owns weapons. Also, the Center For Disease Control (a US group) recently released a study that says gun laws have no impact on crime.

I'm not saying that there's street warfare going on. That's not my point at all. My point is that when the people are disarmed, there will be street warfare or worse, own oppression by government forces. I vaguely remember hearing about the LA riots. My most accurate memory is a story about a shopkeeper who used an AR15 and a Beretta against thugs who tried to trash his store. Maybe if the average citizen had've had a gun during those riots, there wouldn't have been so much destruction of private property, cause if I recall correctly, the police were pretty tied up.
In the 90s there were several bloody school shootings in Israel. Schools were gun free zones, and the occupants were especially sensational targets. So the terrorists picked schools quite often. Then the state of Israel wised up and started handing out semi-automatic handguns to school teachers and parents serving as aides in schools. The rate of school shootings ***drumroll please*** dropped to....zero percent. As of 2001 the last Israeli school shooting took place on a field trip to one of the countries on the Israeli border. The teachers were instructed to leave their weapons home. Remember the Florida statistics I posted? Once the crooks realized that the people weren't going to take it anymore, they started picking on tourists. Hijacking rental cars, following people leaving airports, stuff like that. Why? Because the tourists wouldn't be carrying concealed weapons.

The founders wanted us to have weapons of military usefulness. Hunting had nothing to do with it. The second amendment doesn't say "A well regulated duck, deer, and squirrel population, being necessary to the feeding of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear single-shot squirrel guns shall not be infringed". It does say, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." During the Revolutionary War, colonial arms were the equals to (and sometimes superior to) British weapons. The founders realized that if tyranny were to be kept in check, as power always corrupts, the people were to be armed with weapons that were at least equal to those wielded by their possible government oppressors.

--Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

Tenche Coxe, Feb 20, 1788

The founders MEANT for us to have guns in a civil war. And they meant for those guns to be as deadly as anything the government could use. They knew if there was going to be a civil war, it would be because of government oppression. If you take outlaw guns, not only with the outlaws still have guns, but the group we need to fear most, the government, will have guns. That's how the jews were killed so easily. That's how the Chinese and Russians were killed so easily. That's how the Iraqis were killed so easily. That's how the Americans will be killed so easily.

Adrian

I'm happy that India is not in the list.

Bringing a gun to the siuation is only going to make it more dangerous. That is for you, and not just the criminal.

Wow - Imagine the homocide rates if more people had guns.... they'd be through the roof. Not sure what disease control has to do with guns & crime. Maybe a survey by someone more specialised would be a good idea.

That was Jim's point. According to Jim, we are at street warfare, 9 in 10 people are immigrants & the EU is on a secret mission to take over the world.

Or maybe they'd just shoot the hell out of each other.

& the terrorists started blowing new targets up.

Also the fact that they had a large amount of expensive items on their person.

This constitution was written 200 years ago when very few guns were even small & reliable enough to be concealed. It was also written at a time when you were genuinely threatened by invading forces. That fact that the country is a democracy should be safeguard against a political oppression.

The British are no longer a threat.

It's out of date. You are falling into the fear factor that the Bush government seems to be spreading.

"Swords and other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American??" That is one scary statement.

You aren't living in Iraq.

That isn't the only reason for civil war, and the addition of guns will make any civil war very bloody. Not only do you have a democracy, but you have the UN to pretect yourselves against such far-fetched scenarios.

Far from the US being in nearly the same position as Russia or China, the Iraqis had widespread gun ownership & still do. Why do you think it is so hard to make the place secure??

The statistics say you're wrong. FBI surveys, CDC surveys, independent surveys all say differently.

That's actually not the point. Most of our guns are owned by a few people, and everywhere gun control is liberalized (the true sense of the word - loosened) crime goes down. I don't know what the CDC had to do with it either, but they did the study, and they are very specialized.

Again, statistical evidence proves contrary to your theory.

And they started leaving the schools alone, thanks, you just proved my point. Armed citizens, not the police, not the military, were an effective deterent against terrorism. All the missiles the Israelis rained down on the Palestinians, all the barbed wire they put up, all the buildings they crushed and the civilians they killed, nothing deterred terrorism like average, everyday people with guns.

Prison polls of tourist muggers and murderers told a different story. The majority of the criminals who targeted tourists were looking to avoid concealed weapons.

Democracy is essentially mob rule. The people are too easily manipulated for freedom to last long without stringent guidelines. Those guidelines would be the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution which have been ignored for the last 140 years. I like what founding father Benjamin Franklin said "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. A republic is an armed sheep contesting the decision." Gun owners preserve freedom and democracy.

Never said they were. My point was, and is, that for people to be free from oppression, they need to be allowed to own weapons that are at least equal to those owned by the government. The vast majority of people up until after World War 1 were gun owners, and many were experienced with weapons such as the Browning Automatic Rifle, which was invented by Mormon tinkerer John Moses Browning, who was not working for the government. A large part of the American successes in the 2 World Wars came from the fact that most recruits were familiar with weapons similar to the ones they'd be issued like the M1 Garand and the Colt 1911.

I'm not afraid of foreign invasion. Its that "and domestic usurpation of power by rulers." that's got me scared. "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."" Bush would never spread information like this. His answer would be some idiotic quote about protectorizing our borderations and how we need more government to protect us from government. The difference between a citizen and a slave in ancient Rome was that the citizen could wear a sword, the most lethal, most modern weapon of the day, and the slave couldn't. Slaves all throughout history were oppressed because they didn't have weapons.

Not really. When you consider the fact that America was, up until about World War 1, basically one giant armed camp, and had the lowest crime rate in American history, and the smallest government in American history (it was expanding by the time the Civil War started however), its really not that scary.

No I'm not. And I don't want a Saddam Huessein to come to power here, that's why I want the American people to own guns.

Civil war is always bloody. Democracy isn't a deterent to oppression. It just means the oppressors will sanctify their oppression with "votes" and "representation". And I can't imagine the UN coming to the aid of American revolutionaries fighting for Constitutional ideals against our current socialist government. It wouldn't happen.

I've got a quote here from a soldier who's fighting in Iraq, written to AWBansunset.com (a gun-rights website):Hi there I am in the U.S. Air Force stationed in the middle east. If you want an excellent example of the reason that this "assault weapon" ban should expire just come on over here and look into some of these mass graves. Most of the Iraqi people, except for the elites and Saddam's personal henchmen of course, were prohibited from keeping firearms. Apparently Saddam feared that the people he was oppressing might rise up against him and take his power away. You don't see the bodies of the elite and their friends and family in those holes, of course not, they were armed. You see the little guy, the unarmed guy and his family there. Many people say that the United States would never come to what Saddam did to his own people, many long dead Jews said exactly the same thing back before they were rounded up and put into camps in WW II. How about another example: Bosnia. The U.N. walked into most major cities and told the people that if they turn in their guns that they would be protected. Well the U.N. left them high and dry and took their guns with them. Guess we all saw the massacre that happened next. Anyway I was checking through the policies of the Dem's on Google and happened on your site. You guys got it exactly right, thank you for all that you are doing and keep up the fight, we may all be grateful one day. ShaneThe reason its so hard to make Iraq secure is that we kill their citizens. If we didn't, maybe we wouldn't have such a hard time over their.

Adrian

I'd have thought common sense would have prevailed over 'statistics'. Certainly the statistics that more ppl get shot in the US disagree.

You are arguing it is every Americans right to be born with a gun.

Ermm.... take a look at what is happening around the world at the moment.

So you are telling me that terrorism is no longer an issue in Israel because the Isralians fight back with guns?

Then explain why tourists all over the world are crime magnets....

Thus meaning that if all sheep were armed, there'd be nothing for the Wolves to eat. More to the point it'd mean that sheep would shoot each other over who's field was who's. Democracy is maintained by people, not guns.

You do realise that this encourages aggressive dissent.

That would have played a tiny. probably immaterial part of the war

We are not living in Roman times. You are meant to be a developed society.

That is a reflection of our lack of development. Now that they have weapons, they proceed to murder each other

Nor did they have such an extensive way of recording crime. From what I can gather the wild west was not a safe place to live.

If all Iraqis had guns do you not think the Shi'ites would hold the same possition that Saddam did?

They will only be able to do this to a certain extent.

Why not?

What that soldier fails to realise is that the majority of those bodies were form the Iran-Iraq war & the chemical weapon attacks against the Kurds.

Quote:

Many people say that the United States would never come to what Saddam did to his own people, many long dead Jews said exactly the same thing back before they were rounded up and put into camps in WW II. How about another example: Bosnia. The U.N. walked into most major cities and told the people that if they turn in their guns that they would be protected. Well the U.N. left them high and dry and took their guns with them. Guess we all saw the massacre that happened next. Anyway I was checking through the policies of the Dem's on Google and happened on your site. You guys got it exactly right, thank you for all that you are doing and keep up the fight, we may all be grateful one day. Shane

And one of the reasons you kill their citizens is that they ae armed.

Given the fact that statistics say firearms are used between 700,000 and 2.5 million times per year in self defense in the US, and gun crime, accidents, and suicides only account for about 50,000 deaths and injuries, what does common sense say?

What I'm arguing is that it's every American's right to buy, maintain, and use whatever firearm they choose in defense of their freedom and safety. Its also every American's right not to. However, if they don't want to own firearms, I'd hope they'd have the good sense not to impose their beliefs, through the firearms of the police, on me.

Yeah, the world's going to crap because governments have turned their back on true freedom. When you stand on someone's back long enough, they're gonna throw you off, whether or not you think you're justified.

I'm saying that when the Israelis wised up and started issuing school teachers and aides guns, the problem of terrorism in schools stopped over night. The Israeli government has not, to my knowledge, started a similar practice with their regular citizens. If they did, I'd bet the rate of terrorist bombings would go down, and if attempts didn't go down, I'd bet the rate of bombing related casualties would.

Did I say all over the world? I remember saying Florida...

Well, since every country that has disarmed its citizens has started abusing its citizens, democracy or not, you're free to take away from that whatever interpretation you want.

Nazi Germany started out ok. They were a democracy. After Hitler took office, he encouraged (I'm not sure if it was mandatory or not) citizens to start handing in their guns. They are good for nothing but killing after all...The jews handed in their weapons to prove they were law-abiding citizens. Long story short, Hitler's power was unopposed when he started marching them into the death camps. However, at great cost, the jews of the Warsaw ghetto managed to obtain 14 rifles and a few dozen pistols. For 2 months they held off the army that did its best to kill them. Imagine that! Supposedly, according to their government, they were inferior people, and yet surrounded and armed with less than 100 weapons, they managed to hold off the German army! I'm assuming that in your perfect world, only the police and military would have guns, that guns would be forbidden from citizen ownership. Are you saying that if it was in your power, the jews of the Warsaw ghetto would've started their rebellion with less than 14 rifles and a few dozen pistols? Don't say in your system Hitler would never have come to power, etc. Would you have made sure these people were disarmed, in the face of the army that was starving them, shooting them down in the streets, and sending millions of them off to die in gass chambers? Would you have disarmed them?

We'll never know. I'm guessing it played a bigger part than you think.

The difference between a free person and a slave are their rights. A free person has some, a slave has none. A slave is property. A slave has no way of defending itself legally. When you take away the people's ability to defend themselves (and right now they're losing their rights too) they are slaves. Whether or not they can vote in a new statist president or a representative is immaterial. When the people no longer have any way of enforcing their rights, they lose those rights. This has been the story all through history.

While we develop, I'll keep my guns, thank you. Our government shows a remarkable lack of development and actual regression. I do not fear the average criminal. I fear my government.

Look in the editorial section of newspapers from the time. Gun crime wasn't even looked at as a threat, much less a serious threat. It was basically nonexistant. People had property rights, and when you transgressed against them, you did so at your own risk. Where does your information on the west come from?

I think if all the Iraqis had guns, not only would Saddam have had a hard time beating them down, but the Shi'ites and the Americans would have a hard time too. Not that that's a bad thing mind you.

I don't want to be a test case for that limit, do you? Think of all the crap they've been able to justify already. They can push the envelope a LOT further.

Because the government the revolutionaries would be fighting would be sitting on the UN council, and given their track record of cowing all opposition, I don't think they'd have much trouble convincing the rest of the world that the freedom fighters were just troublesome upstarts yakking about some old piece of paper (the Constitution). Then they'd start saying stuff like "isn't it time for more reasonable gun control". Never mind the fact that the "gun control" experiment is closing in on 100 years old and 20,000 laws strong and still has yet to prevent criminals from getting guns. Seriously, what gangbanger is going to go to Scheel's Sports and buy a $1000 Glock, complete with background check and cleaning kit, when he can buy a used Lorcin off the street for $50? Gun control doesn't disarm the criminals, it only ensures that their victims can't fight back.

A lot of them were bodies of people Saddam had killed. And even if they were chemical weapons victims, do you think Saddam would've gotten off scot-free with gassing his own people if he hadn't disarmed them first. If the people had've been in possession of real weapons, AKs and RPGs, I don't think Saddam would've had a prayer. Its interesting to note, Saddam seriously loosened the restrictions on gun purchases only months before the US invaded. Before that, his laws were extremely similar to those in the US. Now the US is imposing gun control on the Iraqis, taking away their RPGs. What really ticks me off is that the average Iraqi can now own a fully automatic weapon, and I can't. I don't say this from some sort of macho, hey-everybody-look-at-me-I've-got-a-bigger-gun-than-you-do perspective, I say this because the US is allowing more rights to what is essentially a conquered country than they allow their own, supposedly "free" citizens.

Supposedly we only kill armed citizens when they're pointing their weapons at us. The average Iraqi on the street is ticked cause of all the accidents, plus the fact that they don't have a free country.

Adrian