iceland, lots of guns, no crime, why?

[DrLeftover]

Iceland is awash in guns, yet it has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. US law student Andrew Clark asks why.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22288564

 

[JetWing34]

Iceland has a lot of guns, but the government does not have a crime because only one homicide happened in 2009. Extremely seldom do you see homicides in Iceland.

 

[DrLeftover]

But everybody in America knows that Guns Cause Crime.

Right?

http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html

 

[Andrew Darmac]

I'd like to know what sorts of guns it is they own.

Perhaps it is merely handguns and hunting weapons, or perhaps it is the whole shebang including assault weapons. I personally have no issue with handguns and hunting weapons, as those have evident uses, but I can't see why someone would really have a need to own an armory of AK 47s, or the like. Yeah there are collectors out there and all, but the only guns who people general wield during public shootings seem to be assault weapons rather than personal guns/hunting weapons.

Also, I figure harsh background checks have a good deal to do with the reduced crime, as well as culture. In many European countries, violence and any depictions of it in media are harshly scrutinized, whereas in the US, violence is part of mainstream media.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

Most gun violence studies that I've read don't make the claim that more guns equals more crime. The studies that do might be looking at things too simplistically. Brazil and Jamaica have around 8 guns per every 100 people. That fact does not make them safe havens for violence. Honduras even fewer (around 6 for every 100 people) yet by some estimates Honduras is one of the most dangerous countries in the world in terms of gun homicides. There are so many other factors that are involved.

Firstly, and probably more important than the number of firearms is the availability. For example, Mexico also has relatively few legal guns and tight regulations but Mexico also borders the U.S. which has the most guns per people. Then maybe you have to consider other cultural factors - such as the the influence of organized crime, economic and political landscapes, and whether the country even has a history of violent crime. The U.S. also has one of the highest gun homicide rates of any developed nation, which is a very bad combination considering the amount of guns we have and their availability. The good thing is that I read somewhere that gun violence seems to be going down in the U.S.: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

 

[Jazzy]

Probably because almost everyone in Iceland is somehow distantly related to each other. They even made an app because of this.

 

[Evil Eye]

Now that seems like a pleasant mindset. Really carefree.

 

[DrLeftover]

"Oh gee, what's that large animal over there with the long nose that nobody is talking about?"

"oh, that? That's the fact that Iceland has almost no racial minority population at all. As is the case with much of the rest of Scandinavia in fact. They're homogenous societies. Like Japan and China used to be."​

"Oh, OK, I was just wondering why nobody was talking about it."

"You missed the forum's Political Correctness training class didn't you? I'll sign you right up.​

 

[Andrew Darmac]

but I can't see why someone would really have a need to own an armory of AK 47s, or the like.

Why shouldn't we? (Please take note of my sig line as you consider your reply.)

but the only guns who people general wield during public shootings seem to be assault weapons rather than personal guns/hunting weapons.

Where does this assumption come from?

Well for the first part, your sig mentions "A well-regulated militia". People buying a bunch of guns at random does not fit that definition. I'm merely trying to find a middle ground here, between both gun ownership and practicality. I'm aware of the fact that most gun owners have no more desire to kill people than the average person, and knives/chainsaws/poison/etc are just as effective at killing others. But from people I've spoken to, wielding a bunch of weapons just for the sake of having them, yields a lot of negative stereotypes, which, while are just stereotypes, lead to the tension people have toward gun owners nowadays.

Personally, while I'm not aware of the process gun owners must go through to obtain their weapons, it seems like more thorough mental/background checks would definitely be a good move to stopping issues before they arise. But I still can't help but wonder that perhaps a lot of the stigma around guns is also the inherently more violent nature of American culture to begin with. And that's not going to change in just a few years.

A bit of research actually tells me the second part of my response was wrong, and it's a good thing you brought it up so I could learn more on the topic. Although it is certainly worth noting that the more notable gun-related crimes were committed with automatic/semi-automatic weapons. I do stand by my original belief that handguns should be allowed for the sake of self-defense, and that even if they were banned, other sources of killing would simply be found. As for assault weapons, despite their reduced use, I still find it difficult to fathom their use for civilian purposes, compared to simple handguns and hunting weapons.

Here's an article I found on the topic: http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/08/29/gun-laws-rosenthal

Which does however, note how the U.S does have the highest incidence of gun-related crimes in any developed nation. Again, I believe more than anything it's a cultural thing, paired with a lack of restrictive access/background checks.



In my research though,

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Well I know this isn't really a logical argument, I think Americans are just crazy. Source: I am one.

 

[DrLeftover]

no, this is crazy

(emphasis added)

Cowboy-style cap gun gets 5-year-old suspended from school in Calvert County
By Donna St. George, E-mail the writer

A kindergartner who brought a cowboy-style cap gun onto his Calvert County school bus was suspended for 10 days after showing a friend the orange-tipped toy, which he had tucked inside his backpack on his way to school, according to his family and a lawyer.

The child was questioned for more than two hours before his mother was called, she said, adding that he uncharacteristically wet his pants during the episode. The boy is 5 — “all bugs and frogs and cowboys,” his mother said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/cowboy-style-cap-gun-gets-5-year-old-ousted-from-school-in-calvert-county/2013/05/30/a3a8a178-c93c-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html

 

[Andrew Darmac]

...tyrannical government, just like the one we are beginning to realize is in place now.

Elaborate on this please.

 

[DrLeftover]

It could be she means the recent trend of the US Federal Government to supersede and overrule local governments and even private organizations and businesses on matters that were traditionally left to Home Rule or private matters in what is arguably a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Or did I miss something?

 

[Andrew Darmac]

How about the insanely huge number of Executive Orders this criminal has passed?

Every president has used executive orders. In reading my pocket constitution, there is no explicit mention of executive orders, but there is a line in Article II, section 3 stating "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," which has been used since George Washington as a

How about aligning himself with Muslims?

I'd research this, but I'd likely stumble across a bunch of pundit comments with little logical reasoning in their posts. Also, what do you mean by "aligning with Muslims?" Are the actions of a few radicals enough to poison the image of the majority? I have some muslim friends of my own, and would really like to know what you are trying to get at.

How about his lack of action in Benghazi?

I don't know much of Benghazi personally, but as far as I was aware, there was a lack of proper communication. This isn't to say the President doesn't have his share of blame, but it's very unlikely to be all his fault.

How about the list of lies he has told from day one?

Such as?

And is that the only part of my post you care to discuss, Andrew??[/size]

No, it isn't,

The point of my Second Amendment rights have nothing to do with hunting in the least. It has nothing to do with "bragging rights" about a big collection or any other thing most folks who don't understand guns or are afraid of guns believe.

A well-regulated militia means the citizens of this country being able to protect themselves from a potential tyrannical government, just like the one we are beginning to realize is in place now. This country was founded on freedom from oppression and those in power are quickly ignoring that fact.

Read Article II, Section 2. "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States." Does that mean I agree with the fact that the Constitution states this? Not necessarily, but it's there, and it would require a Constitutional Amendment to change this. Which is likely where the phrase "A well regulated Militia" comes in.

While the President is still not thoroughly elected by the people (rather the Electoral College, whose existence is far outdated), he is far more directly elected nowadays than before. Thus, it is fair to say that he was voted in by at least some majority of the people, who had dealt with him for four years already and decided it was best to put up with him for another four years than deal with an unknown. The same was true with George W. Bush eight years back. Does that mean I like everything Obama's done? No. I didn't like everything Bush did either, but I would hardly place all my blame on either Bush or Obama for everything that went wrong. Congress, public opinion, the Judiciary, the media, and a bunch of other factors all affected where this nation is going today.

Which leads me to my next point. Yes, I do believe the government is overreaching in many aspects, but I would hardly call it tyrannical. I suggest you move to Belorussia if you want tyranny. I find it more tyrannical in having to deal with religious laws here in the South that force people to behave in certain ways, then having to pay increased taxes, which I have come to accept as an unpleasant, but necessary evil for the continuation of society. If you do believe your rights are being infringed upon in any way, I suggest you use your rights now, and protest, march, etc. rather than wait until the government is so oppressive in your eyes that you feel the need to use a gun to express your rights.

Posting on a forum is not going to do much though. If you want political change, I suggest you go ahead and enter the public forum. I personally, while not thoroughly pleased with everything that's going on, don't feel my rights are being infringed upon overall, and when I do, I do what I feel is necessary: sign petitions, spread the word, whatever I can do. If the public feels strongly enough about a certain issue, they'll work to change it.

 

[Andrew Darmac]

Dont the Congress make the president the rank of commander in chief in times of war?

Isn't the war on terrorism an never ending war just like the war on drugs? Hmm...

Commander in Chief is a permanent position. The only military actions the President can't take is to declare war, or leave soldiers stationed in another country for an extended period of time without war being declared (I think it's about sixty days or so). Declaration of war is a right reserved to Congress.

 

[DrLeftover]

come, come, Smooth.

We can give the true believer a couple of examples from just the last couple of days.

Obama Campaign Site:

The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans....

http://change.gov/agenda/health_care_agenda/

Reality:

In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family


"Club Gitmo"

Obama unsure what to do about Guantanamo
US President said the prison is "contrary to who we are" but concrete plans to close the facility remain unclear.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/06/2013649817734435.html


Openness:
(from last month)

The White House today held a secret meeting to try to influence journalists’ reporting on Benghazi.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/05/10/white-house-holds-secret-meeting-reporters/

and much more recently:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Some of President Barack Obama's political appointees, including the Cabinet secretary for the Health and Human Services Department, are using secret government email accounts they say are necessary to prevent their inboxes from being overwhelmed with unwanted messages, according to a review by The Associated Press.

The scope of using the secret accounts across government remains a mystery: Most U.S. agencies have failed to turn over lists of political appointees' email addresses, which the AP sought under the Freedom of Information Act more than three months ago. The Labor Department initially asked the AP to pay more than $1 million for its email addresses.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130604/DA6MPFHG2.html


will those do for a start?

 

[DrLeftover]

It just got worse.

And, note, this order was obtained under Mister Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/politics/nsa-verizon-records/index.html

 

[DrLeftover]

I think I found the reason our friend is, "in the dark"

Well, if it is Thursday, there must be a new Obama scandal. But one thing is for damn sure, whatever that scandal is, you can bet the American mainstream media will be playing catch up and not carrying the glory of breaking a story about a major White House scandal.

Fact: Over the past few weeks, four major scandals have broken over the Obama administration, and it is a very sad (and frightening) truth that our pathetic, American, lapdog mainstream media is not responsible for breaking even a single one.

Verizon? Nope, not our guys. That was the Brits over at The Guardian.

IRS? Nope, not our guys. The IRS broke their own scandal with a planted question.

The Justice Department's seizure of Associated Press phone records? Nope, not our guys. Believe it or not, the Associated Press didn’t even break that story. Like the IRS, we only found out because the Justice Department outted itself in a letter notifying the AP of what it had done.

Benghazi? Are you kidding. With a couple of rare exceptions (Jake Tapper, Sharyl Attkisson) the media has spent the last 8 months attacking those seeking the truth (Congress, Fox News) not seeking the truth. It was the GOP congress that demanded the email exchanges around the shaping of the talking points, not the media.

Left up to the media, we wouldn't know anything about Libya. All of the media's energy was collectively poured into ensuring the truth was never discovered.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/06/06/Mainstream-Media-Did-Not-break-Even-One-of-Four-Obama-Scandals

 

[DrLeftover]

But how many do?

Other than the BBC, how many can name a 'foreign' news outlet?

Do they even know what http://www.sky.com/ is?

And even of those that can, how many go to something like http://wn.com or the http://www.hindustantimes.com/ and read the updates?

 

[DrLeftover]

Good for you.

But it would seem that somebody else that has posted in this thread hasn't.