Firearms and their relation to crime figures

[DammitBoy]

However, restricting the gun flow toward civilians is likely to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns as well...

This is why the analogy: "Gun control is like trying to solve drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars..." is absolutely correct.

Thanks sander, for illustrating that so perfectly.

---

ps - why would you think criminals will ever have a tough time finding guns? there are over 90 million firearms in the u.s.a. and we have the most porous borders in the world...

 

[Shoveler]

yeah because I am sure the constiutional rights are always right, right ?

In this case they are. I love how you're trying to tell me how my constitional rights are incorrect be cause YOU disagree with them lol......you're country hasn't been known for pacifism until quite recently mind you. Solve your own gun control problems before telling Americans how to solve theirs like your some kind of "be all" authority on the matter.

What I agree with is that thighter restrictions have no meaning when your neighbours dont share that view and its easy to cross borders. Yes.

Agreed there.

All I know is that most civilians here dont own firearms that I dont see them around here and even if some have firearms it are not automatic weapons. People HERE seem to be mostly happy around it.

Guess what, I don't see guns around here either. Are you under the impression that the US is full of roving bands of gun toting vigilantes? You're so far off it's not even funny.

But things which work here for us have not to work everywhere. The US is a different nation with its own rules and subcultures. There are for sure similarities here and there but in general the differences are quite big. So if the US for example has no restrictions for weapons and it's leading to a safer nation for them so be it. I would be happy for them. Because who would not want to live safe ? I just dont see that working here in Germany either because people have a different idea about what weapons are and they think that the police actualy is doing a good enough job protecting most citizens without the need to be armed. As said that doesnt mean that either the US or Germany are supperior. They just deal in different ways with "weapons".

I agree with some of this.

The reason it's different in Germany NOW is because of a major war in which MILLIONS of your people perished. This had a major psychological effect on every generation of German since. Guns=BAD news, it's not because Germans are somehow enlightened/evolved since then. Hard lessons were learned and it's shaped precisely how Germans view weapons since then. I've had this debate countless times with my German brother-in-law, lives in Augsberg, and feels exactly the same as you do. He can't understand why someone would want guns, however, his ancestors and yours held no such animosities.

 

[DammitBoy]

yeah because I am sure the constiutional rights are always right, right ?

Right.

It's about time you started to catch up...

 

[UncannyGarlic]

We already have driving tests, and there are already licenses for firearms. Anything else?

That depends on the state and getting said license is even more of a joke than getting a drivers license. Also gun shows tend to be pretty bad about going through the proper process.

And I love the "YOU PEOPLE" comment like it's some dirty thing to believe in our constitional rights.

Slavery was also a part of the constitution... until it was amended. The constitution isn't the word of god.

Did I say weapons are EXACTLY 1:1 with cars?

You seem pretty adamant about making direct comparisons between them. It's a shitty analogy. Guns are compact weapons designed to be lethal and really have no other use (destructive entertainment aside). Cars are multi-passenger vehicles designed to transport. The number of vehicular assaults and homicides pales to those of firearms and to the total number of vehicular injuries and fatalities.

 

[Shoveler]

You seem pretty adamant about making direct comparisons between them.

I made the point they are both deadly in the wrong hands, intentions of use aside. And it's still valid.

Guns are compact weapons designed to be lethal and really have no other use (destructive entertainment aside). Cars are multi-passenger vehicles designed to transport.

Tell me more Mr. Wizard.

Slavery was also a part of the constitution... until it was amended. The constitution isn't the word of god.

So guns rights in the constitution are as poorly concieved as slavery? Talk about shitty analogies. Seriously though, whoever said constitutional amendments weren't needed or useful? Some have been. Regardless, our gun rights are going no where, rest peacefully that you tried your feeble best to change that though.

 

[Wintermind]

But things which work here for us have not to work everywhere. The US is a different nation with its own rules and subcultures. There are for sure similarities here and there but in general the differences are quite big. So if the US for example has no restrictions for weapons and it's leading to a safer nation for them so be it. I would be happy for them. Because who would not want to live safe ? I just dont see that working here in Germany either because people have a different idea about what weapons are and they think that the police actualy is doing a good enough job protecting most citizens without the need to be armed. As said that doesnt mean that either the US or Germany are supperior. They just deal in different ways with "weapons".

I agree with some of this.

The reason it's different in Germany NOW is because of a major war in which MILLIONS of your people perished. This had a major psychological effect on every generation of German since. Guns=BAD news, it's not because Germans are somehow enlightened/evolved since then. Hard lessons were learned and it's shaped precisely how Germans view weapons since then. I've had this debate countless times with my German brother-in-law, lives in Augsberg, and feels exactly the same as you do. He can't understand why someone would want guns, however, his ancestors and yours held no such animosities.

Japan has basically the same view with it's military. The military is basically blamed for the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagaski. They're hugely unpopular in japan and people in the military are also paid pretty well to just to keep them in. They also tend to follow an ROE to keep them from fighting or letting off round one at all. Relatively recently, if I remember correctly, they were finally allowed to fire on forces attacking non japanese forces.

 

[Crni Vuk]

You seem pretty adamant about making direct comparisons between them.

I made the point they are both deadly in the wrong hands, intentions of use aside. And it's still valid.

Which can be extended to the point of including biological and chemical agents, or nuclear bombs to the analogy eventually leading to the conclussion that cars require a higher safety then any of those mentioned above simply because more people over the world died in car accidents and we should eventually consider to lower the restrictions with those weapons because some have the feeling they need them for their collection of "weapons".

As said such comparisons dont tell anything. In the wrong hands even a needle is "deadly".

Shaolin Monk Throwing Needle Through Glass (Video)

 

[Shoveler]

As said such comparisons dont tell anything. In the wrong hands even a needle is "deadly".

Shaolin Monk Throwing Needle Through Glass (Video)

Exactly, stricter needle controls are needed! Stricter gun controls won't stop someone whom wants to obtain a gun and kill people, at all.

Japan has basically the same view with it's military. The military is basically blamed for the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagaski. They're hugely unpopular in japan and people in the military are also paid pretty well to just to keep them in. They also tend to follow an ROE to keep them from fighting or letting off round one at all. Relatively recently, if I remember correctly, they were finally allowed to fire on forces attacking non japanese forces.

It's just a mentality from a major defeat. As if the weapons got them in that predicament, not the humans making the decisions. It's interesting sociologically though, at least to me.

 

[DammitBoy]

Germany and Japan were pacified by the rest of the world in order to keep them from starting another world war every fucking fifty years - those two nations were transformed into nations of sheeple on purpose.

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation why modern germans and japanese revile weapons - it's the result we (the winners) wanted.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I made the point they are both deadly in the wrong hands, intentions of use aside. And it's still valid.

So is an eraser. Itentions of use aside, cars are less frequently used as weapons. It never was valid.

Stricter gun controls won't stop someone whom wants to obtain a gun and kill people, at all.

It works pretty well in Great Britain.

Germany and Japan were pacified by the rest of the world in order to keep them from starting another world war every fucking fifty years - those two nations were transformed into nations of sheeple on purpose.

Bad ass Americans totally put those bloody Brits in their proper place too. Look at how Americans managed to completely disarm them too! God America is awesome, the world totally does whatever it wants

 

[Wintermind]

Sociologically/psychologically, I'd love to see how it's resulted in the recurring trends in japanese pop culture, espeically in anime/video games, where a seemingly twelve year old girl dressed in a school uniform uses either A) a sword the size of a small continent or B) a gun the size of a small city capable of destroying a large continent.

 

[DammitBoy]

Bad ass Americans totally put those bloody Brits in their proper place too. Look at how Americans managed to completely disarm them too! God America is awesome, the world totally does whatever it wants

You should note I mentioned the rest of the world was involved, try not to distort - it's not nice. And we couldn't have beaten the british without the french.

ps - we are some awesome fucks though...

 

[UncannyGarlic]

You should note I mentioned the rest of the world was involved, try not to distort - it's not nice. And we couldn't have beaten the british without the french.

My bad. Point remains though.

 

[Hassknecht]

Germany and Japan were pacified by the rest of the world in order to keep them from starting another world war every fucking fifty years - those two nations were transformed into nations of sheeple on purpose.

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation why modern germans and japanese revile weapons - it's the result we (the winners) wanted.

Not really, Germany (and all of Europe) had pretty strict laws on guns way before WW2.
Most of the time, only professional hunters and representatives of the states were allowed to carry weapons.
It's been that way since the medieval ages.
Monarchies don't work well with an armed population, all wars were fought with professional armies of mercenaries. At least most of the time.
The USA on the other hand was founded as a democracy and had no standing army and had the guts to piss off the largest empire in the world, so it was necessary to arm the people to have a more militia-orientied military.
That worked because they had a whole continent for themselves.
In the end, the strict gun laws of Europe result from history and the fact that Europe was always densely packed with warring nations and that these wars were fought with professional armies.
The american constitutional right to bear arms was simply to substitute for a professional army, that was not available at the time. Now it is part of the culture and can not be erased, although there is no need for civilians to be armed to the teeth anymore.
/edit: Although I find it very amusing that in Europe, the left fought for the right to bear arms and the conservatives worked against that, and now in the US it's the other way around

 

[Sander]

Not really, Germany (and all of Europe) had pretty strict laws on guns way before WW2.

True, and most of Europe still has pretty strict gun laws. But it certainly was one of the Allied goals to solve the German Question (how a unified Germany can exist peacefully within Europe) and there's still a significant debate on why Germany was a source of conflict for the first century or so of unification. The allies purposefully tried to make both the German and Japanese populace pacifistic.

 

[Hassknecht]

Not really, Germany (and all of Europe) had pretty strict laws on guns way before WW2.

True, and most of Europe still has pretty strict gun laws. But it certainly was one of the Allied goals to solve the German Question (how a unified Germany can exist peacefully within Europe) and there's still a significant debate on why Germany was a source of conflict for the first century or so of unification. The allies purposefully tried to make both the German and Japanese populace pacifistic.

Yeah, there were even plans to turn Germany completely into agricultural land by de-industrialization just so that Germany may never rise again.
Well, luckily enough that plan was rejected.
But the Allies didn't really pacify Germany by banning all guns.
They did ban all guns shortly after WW2, but in 1952 the old Reichswaffengesetz was active again, making it possible for private persons to have firearms since 1956.
Since 1972 we have the strict state wide laws we know today, with a few changes since then (making it even stricter).
I don't know about Japan, though.
I think most of the pacification of the german people was done by the population itself by putting a huge focus on the Third Reich in our school's historical lessons.
And as most of you non-germans know, we germans are very sensitive about our past. Openly admitting patriotism is still frowned upon, except for special occasions like the Football World Championship. Germany will never start a war again, but not because we don't have guns but because we still feel incredibly guilty.
Seriously, there was a manager-game at a school and one group called itself "Zentralrat der Luden" (Central Council of Pimps), which is a pun on "Zentralrat der Juden" (Central Council of Jews). Totally innocent you might think, but there was a huge uproar in the media and the kids were forced to change that name.

Ok, I hope that post wasn't too OT. In any way, the strict regulations in Germany nowadays stem from the usage of guns in crime, mostly. At the time, there were no studies about guns in crime, but they still pushed it through.

 

[Sander]

Yeah, there were even plans to turn Germany completely into agricultural land by de-industrialization just so that Germany may never rise again.
Well, luckily enough that plan was rejected.
But the Allies didn't really pacify Germany by banning all guns.
They did ban all guns shortly after WW2, but in 1952 the old Reichswaffengesetz was active again, making it possible for private persons to have firearms since 1956.
Since 1972 we have the strict state wide laws we know today, with a few changes since then (making it even stricter).
I don't know about Japan, though.
I think most of the pacification of the german people was done by the population itself by putting a huge focus on the Third Reich in our school's historical lessons.

What, you don't think that was started by the Allies? Education was a large part of that policy of pacification.

 

[Hassknecht]

Yeah, there were even plans to turn Germany completely into agricultural land by de-industrialization just so that Germany may never rise again.
Well, luckily enough that plan was rejected.
But the Allies didn't really pacify Germany by banning all guns.
They did ban all guns shortly after WW2, but in 1952 the old Reichswaffengesetz was active again, making it possible for private persons to have firearms since 1956.
Since 1972 we have the strict state wide laws we know today, with a few changes since then (making it even stricter).
I don't know about Japan, though.
I think most of the pacification of the german people was done by the population itself by putting a huge focus on the Third Reich in our school's historical lessons.

What, you don't think that was started by the Allies? Education was a large part of that policy of pacification.

Yeah, of course that was started by the Allies. I just wanted to point out that the pacification was not done by banning guns

 

[Bad_Karma]

@Hassknecht
Well one could argue how easy it was for some time after the medieval times to still have some weapons (bows, axes and such were still quite able to get, as they are also at the moment) but that would be somewhat beside the point.

For the 'left-right' discussion, these are just names. I mean it's all in all quite complex, simply because the US right-wingers started in some completly different situation than our right-wingers, and the same holds true for the left.

@DammitBoy
I hope you don't mind if i use a quote of your for my signature?

And we couldn't have beaten the british without the french.

I can't help but after reading tons of american jokes about the french this seems like a highlight for me.

@Topic (or not?)

While the allied tried to make the germans more pacifist they also tried to rebuilt the army as an meat shield (well actually made of tanks) against Russia.
So i guess the effect of these different ideas isn't to easy to catch. Especially because there might be a difference in focus. Not much like 'Say no to weapons' but 'say now to your army attack other nations - defence is okay though'. But this simplifies it greatly, i mean the whole thing evolved somewhat over time, as the UDSSR was precived more and more of a threat by the allied.

But on the topic of gun control or regulation.
All we might agree on is that guns alone don't kill, there is and will allways be a human factor (well maybe not allways, as in rare circumstances, like when a house catches fires and some bullet happens to misfire or something like that, there might be no human factor).
The question is how they interact. I personally think in a sensitized society the reaction is different than in one where guns are more normal. And guns and culture influence each other somewhat.
But i think these effects are hard to capture.

Which also really help - i also know that won't happen - would be a harder regulation of voilence in media (especially movies). But than again, it's not easy to capture the effects of some 'Rambo' movie onto the population of a country. Even though "the Godfather" showed that movies can have a big impact.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Not really, Germany (and all of Europe) had pretty strict laws on guns way before WW2.

True, and most of Europe still has pretty strict gun laws. But it certainly was one of the Allied goals to solve the German Question (how a unified Germany can exist peacefully within Europe) and there's still a significant debate on why Germany was a source of conflict for the first century or so of unification. The allies purposefully tried to make both the German and Japanese populace pacifistic.

Which only worked because people actually wanted it. They havnt become sheeps they just tried hard to find out what went wrong. Particularly generations which followed the Fascistic regime. I can not talk for Japan (particularly as they are a bit more complex regarding accepting their crimes like the biological agents they tested on the chinese).

Many of the pacistic ideas and movements started in the 60s and late 70s when US missiles have been deployed on German soil making it a direct target to Soviet strikes. Germany was always choosen as possible frontline in a world war scenario. But many politicans and civlians didnt feelt well about the Medium-range ballistic missile. People might also remember the issues they caused in the late 80s with a NATO manouver which almost caused a third world war the Soviets believing it would have been a foreplay for war.

Germany is just a different kind of culture compard to the US. Hence why we have a different view on weapons and their use. Does that make us sheep ? I dont think so. The population also does not demonize weapons. Many here agree even those wo dont like guns that stronger laws will not stop any crime nor the people who go nutz with weapons. THe issue is just that some politicans think they could score a few points in talking about guns like deamons. But they do the same with games. And it never leads to any laws or results. Just big talking. I guess thats not that much different to the US.

While the allied tried to make the germans more pacifist they also tried to rebuilt the army as an meat shield (well actually made of tanks) against Russia.
So i guess the effect of these different ideas isn't to easy to catch. Especially because there might be a difference in focus. Not much like 'Say no to weapons' but 'say now to your army attack other nations - defence is okay though'. But this simplifies it greatly, i mean the whole thing evolved somewhat over time, as the UDSSR was precived more and more of a threat by the allied.
.

Thing is that many times the oppisition happend to be on the German side. It is a myth to believe that everything was done by the allies. Many things only worked because of 2 reasons. First the population (as whole) was sick of the Nazi regime and the war. Second many political decisions have been own German inventions like the "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" ~ Social market economy. The idea in the begining was to simply democratize the Germans which didnt worked that well since the population didnt accepted this so in the end it was choosen to work out plans in collaboration with German politicans mainly those which have been known as well to be enemies to the Nazis and even fleed from Germany or fighting against it. The huge help by the Allies which was really making a difference was the economic support in the first years which was huge not just the marshal plan. The decision to allow Germany to have some army and support them with weapons. This would probably not have been possible without the cold war though.

But the "decision" to become pacifists was chosen by the people. Not by the Allies they (US) sure started here the evolution by showing people the crimes the concentration camps ordering civlians to help cleaning those camps and burry the dead bodies no one could simply say that it didnt existed particularly younger generations would later ask why it happend. Though the bigest opposition against some post war Germany with a standing army came from the political parties inside of Germany people which have not been indoctrinated by the Allies. This is what has lead also to a different idea about what the army should become which was a completely different approach compared to how the US army is working which is a system or state inside a state. The German army was facing harsh controls and still is.