It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths
BY CHELSEA J. CARTER THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ATLANTA --
The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States. ``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''
The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths. ``What this shows is the CDC is after guns. They aren't concerned with violence. It's pretending that no homicide exists unless it's related to guns,'' said Paul Blackman, a research coordinator for the NRA in Fairfax, Va.
The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income. The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article. Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons. The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia. Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.
Originally posted by knylon90
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
It's part of the American way of thinking to happily and willingly trade personal safety for personal freedom. It's the basis our country was founded on. Back in 1700s we told the king to shove it, ignoring the fact that'd he send an army bigger than our country to put us in our place. It's just how we think.
The freedom to live your life as you please without fear of judgement, oppression, or ridicule is more important to me than my own life. And I mean that for everyone. I'd give everything up to defend not only my fellow American rights as humans but, anyone from any country. Governments don't decide what freedoms we deserve, we do. If you aren't willing to fight for it the you probably will never attain it. No authority figure can make you do anything if you aren't afraid of them. What's your life really worth if it's spent in servitude to those who only want to oppress you?
Also, I'm not saying it's wrong to sit down and be quiet if you feel that's your best course of action but, is that really satisfying in any way?edit on 11-1-2011 by knylon90 because: (no reason given)
The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths. ``What this shows is the CDC is after guns. They aren't concerned with violence. It's pretending that no homicide exists unless it's related to guns,'' said Paul Blackman, a research coordinator for the NRA in Fairfax, Va.
Anyone caught illegally in possession of a firearm, needs to get 10 years prison.
Anyone caught committing a crime with a firearm, life in prison.
Anyone killing someone with a firearm in the act of a crime, death.
it is as simple as this... guns make it easier to kill people.. a lot easier...
they simplu hould be banned....
but no in the usa.. we like big guns... big engines...and big penises
plz lads grow up...
Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by purplemer
Again you just want to ban them from the people who do not use them for any form of criminal act and that is not in any way shape or form fair. I dare you I dare anyone to try and take the guns from this state or any other state where hunting as is big as it is up here.
Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by purplemer
Whos to say I will use a gun when you come to take said gun? You assume this see this is where your logic is wrong. You step a foot in my house and are attempting to take anything odds are you will be knocked the explicit word out. I wouldn't pull a gun on you or shoot you. You will not get any form of real punishment if I did that you would have your way out.
Did they ban fishing poles too?
Is the Obama administration trying to ban sport fishing? Not at this time. Is the Obama administration setting up structures and processes that could, and probably will, eventually result in more regulatory restrictions on sport fishing? You betcha.... bigjournalism.com...
Thus if you entered without these proper things then yes you would receive what you had coming. This would make me angry as you would be violating my rights. Shall we continue?