Bitcoin Forum

Yemen is apparently one of the freest, if not the freest, country where it comes to gun rights.  I found this video discussing the gun culture there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzTiui1fJrg).

I know very little about that part of the world and Yemen in particular.  I'm curious if anyone more familiar can tell me what effect the pervasiveness of weapons has on Yemeni society.  Do people there generally feel safer or freer because of the guns, as some advocates would predict?

My dad visited Yemen on UN work, and he said shopkeepers regularly left gold items unattended :) going out for gossip, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

USA and Switzerland both have some of the freest gun laws and one of them has one of the highest gun crime rates in the world and the other one of the lowest. societies are just too complex to draw any causal relationship from correlation or lack there of. much better is just to think through the implications logically.

Ask yourself this: if 300 million guns in America hasn't been successful at lowering gun crime, will 500 million? Will one billion?

I posted two charts above. Feel free to divide each of them into two sets on each side of their mean. Then determine the size of their respective intersections.

as a strong opponent of gun control i agree with your assessment. more guns in the united states will probably not reduce private crime but then that's not the point of the second amendment now is it.

also dont bother responding to me firstassent, i blocked you long ago, i only displayed this message because i knew it was a reply to me. im not displaying the next.

I don't keep track of people who ignore me. Why would I? That's rather egocentric of you to think you're on my radar. I merely respond to posts which I might feel inclined to respond to. In the future, keep that in mind.

Furthermore, any response I make might be for the benefit of other readers, regardless of whom was quoted. Keep that in mind as well. Feel free to suggest what I do when posting all you want though. But the last thing I ever might do is respect or follow the suggestions of those who like to volunteer that they've ignored me.

Although the USA and Australia are both Western countries and have quite a similar culture, I do understand that when it comes to guns Americans are way more passionate. One of the best things our Government did in Australia was initiate a gun buy-back scheme. Those of you who aren't aware, in 1996 there was the Port Arthur massacre where the murderer used a gun to kill 35 people, the worse in modern history. Prior to that there were massacres once every about two years between the 1980s through the 90s until laws were passed to create this scheme and ever since 1996 there has not been one massacre involving firearms in Australia. Even with these restrictions, there are still many places where you can shoot for sport, I believe acquiring a gun for this reason is slightly more difficult and of course working in agriculture you're allowed to buy gun(s).

I've heard that about other Muslim countries, so the number of arms in Yemen may not be the full reason for that.

That's probably true.

@FirstAscent- Have you done any sort of formal statistical analysis on that dataset?  Just eyeballing it may not give you the full story.  Besides, the number of firearm related deaths isn't a very useful statistic.  All a correlation would show is that when guns are available, people use them.  It's the amount of crime we're concerned with, not the tool used to commit them.

Not sure the gun ban is the real contributor to that, though: the homicide rate in Australia had been falling steadily from before then, plus it has also declined about 50% in the USA since 1980. The UK today does not have a lower murder rate than it did before gun licensing laws were passed circa 1920. There is no strong correlation between stringency of gun laws and homicide rate, which is no major surprise, since it isn't guns which kill, but the people using them. Murder is murder, no matter which tool you use.

Actually it's not complex.
Switzerland = 99% white, guns or not, it will have low crime rate.
US = 12% black, 20% hispanic, guns or not, it will have higher crime rate (though lower than African/South American countries)
South America/Africa = Majority black/hispanic, some of the highest crime rates in the world.

Guns really have no effect on crime rates, like the popular saying "Guns don't kill people", it's the people that matters.

Switzerland absolutely does not have free gun laws. Read up on it.

True, it's tightly regulated, military-issued rifles. But the point is that there is a general circulation of weapons in Switzerland. You see military personnel carrying them openly sometimes.

It's absolutely true that tighter gun control laws will decrease the amount of gun violence in a country: there would be no guns to commit gun crimes with.

But that's a red herring, as the real issue is violence, not a specific group of violence.  Of course, you'll see low gun crime rates in places where guns are hard to come by.  But crimes can be committed with or without guns; you can be violent with just your hands, you can be violent even with your head.  You can be violent with just the words you say and how you say them.  So the real question would be, do nations with loose gun-control laws experience a lower or higher overall crime rate?

It is my belief gun laws have no effect on crime rate. Guns don't make a normal person go out and commit crimes. On the other hand, not having a gun won't stop a criminal from for example, robbing people with a knife or their bare hands, or just gang up 3v1 etc...

Though the availability of guns, does have an effect on death rate. For example a Chinese incident of a man rampaging thru kindergarten with a knife, resulted in 0 death. In the US, the same incident with a gun, resulted in more than 20 deaths.

^still a true statement

  ^

As far as the USA is concerned, no more needs be said.

The point of the second amendment is very clear if you read it. In 1791, in the absence of a military, there was a necessity for A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, - and thus - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.



Of course, the fact that American conservatives usually support the Second Amendment and a standing army is quite ironic.

Excellent! In 1791, we needed a properly working militia, obviously.

Now, please, sir, demonstrate to us how the proliferation of 300 million guns among the populace via a gun supporter's interpretation of The Second Amendment translates to a properly working militia. Switzerland, the U.S. is not. And let it be noted, that in Switzerland, the militia is well regulated by 21st century standards, meaning, regulated, and regulated tightly, by the government.

The original intent of the Second Amendment was lost in 1865.

You've made a good point, that being something along the line that the 2nd is poorly worded, poorly stated or obsolete.  And that the long string of Supreme Court decisions contrary to your opinion are without merit, because you've drawn the fine line of grammar through it all.

How about that...

You've made a good point, that being something along the line that the 2nd is poorly worded, poorly stated or obsolete.  And that the long string of Supreme Court decisions contrary to your opinion are without merit, because you've drawn the fine line of grammar through it all.

How about that...
[/quote]

I say again:

It was not poorly worded. The intent was exercised. The revolutionaries were snuffed out. Federal control of military power was solidified.

Now we have groups like the NRA fighting for our right to go hunting.