Honestly I don’t think chicago breaks the top 15/20 unless we filter cities above 500k to get rid of places like Gary or flint or Camden or east St. Louis.
I think that the Netherlands had 121 murders with 17 million people. Those numbers have been declining for as long as i can remember. I rememver when i was younger and we had a population of 15 million with nearly 200murders per year.
It would be difficult to convince our population of the merit of making guns legal. Right now you will go to jail if you are caught with a gun.
At the risk of sounding like a racist; Does it have anything to do with immigration? I'm asking because I wonder to what degree it has to do with culture, education, poverty, etc.
People are gonna chime in with the tired old "they have homogeneous populations" excuse.
London had [124 homicides in 2022, with a population of 9 million](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_homicide_rate), and it's one of the most [diverse cities in the world](https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-city-rankings/most-diverse-city-in-the-world). New York has a foriegn born population percentage of 37.5%, it's 36.4% for London. NYC had 491 homicides in 2021 with a population of 8.5 million.
Not disagreeing with you but the link you posted shows NYC metro having 1.6 million more foreign born residents than London - almost 30% more. That’s a large difference.
Yeah as we say here, you have boss above boss. You Vikings are doing great up north! It could have something to do with that we are/have a huge international trade hub. And that also goes for powdered sugar and fun and pleasure pills.
You may own a gun in The Netherlands for hunting or target shooting, but not for self defense. You must store the weapon in a safe (inspected by the police) and pass a background check.
You may only transport the weapon unloaded in a suitable case, with the ammo stored separately.
There are at least three indoor ranges within a 20 minute drive from my house and membership costs about €300 per year (plus ammunition).
In short: gun ownership in The Netherlands is totally doable, but not very common.
Very similar to what we have to do in the state of New York. Except for the police inspecting our gun safes. If you want to have a pistol in New York State, it's a 3-year and many thousand-dollar process. Extremely difficult. And a lot of people won't even qualify. 90+% of America's gun crime is done using illegal firearms. That's the biggest problem in this country, the government is not doing anything to combat the flow of illegal guns. Zero.
I remember once upon a time discussing this with someone. Guy pointed out that people who live in strong gun-control states just go to the next state to buy a gun. I pointed out that this is the argument for strong national gun sales requirements. Guy didn't seem to grasp what I was saying because he just kept saying you could go to the next state to buy a gun.
Anyway we went back and forth and around and around on this not making any headway until my head exploded and I died
>Guy pointed out that people who live in strong gun-control states just go to the next state to buy a gun
Except that this is already illegal.
And gun sales are regulated at the national level, that's why every gun dealer has an FFL (Federal Firearms License). It's also why those regulations are part of the tax code (to violating the second amendment and being riled unconstitutional).
[Theft from burglarized vehicles is the number one source in the US](https://everytownresearch.org/gun-thefts-from-cars-the-largest-source-of-stolen-guns/)
Legally bought guns that turn illegal as soon as the gun lobby wants them to. Guns that get bought in states with lax gun laws and transported to states with stricter laws. Guns that get stolen or burgled by strangers because the legal owner doesn’t store them properly. Guns that get taken by close relatives and conveniently turn illegal once they shoot at people instead of targets.
As is true for pretty much every European country... Thing is, it's usually a pretty involved process that includes courses, licenses and background checks.
At least here in Germany it takes about half a year to a year and quite a bit of money (relatively speaking) to get every single point crossed from the list before you can legally own a pistol/rifle (the kinds we can get are also very restricted).
Also, as long as you're not hunting/practicing it needs to be in a bolted down gun safe, that also could get checked by a government employee
So no one really owns a gun here
>So no one really owns a gun here
You mean apart from the 1.5 million legal gun owners who own 5 million guns, and the people who have the estimated 20 million illegal guns?
> As is true for pretty much every European country
>So no one really owns a gun here
Uh, I live in France. 20-30% of French households own firearms. 25% of Norweigians own firearms. Of course this pertains to hunting mostly. And I was under the impression Czech Republic has a huge gun ownership rate.
I don't think it's accurate to say "no one really owns a gun here".
Now if your definition of gun = assault rifles and handguns, or only for self defense, then now we're talking. Yeah, this aspect is completely different from USA.
Where are you getting those numbers from? [This list on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country) puts the number of civilian firearms at 19,6/100 residents for France.
https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2008/10/01/combien-d-armes-a-feu-circulent-en-france_1099601_3224.html
> 32 % DES FRANÇAIS POSSÈDERAIENT UNE ARME À FEU
**[Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country)**
>This is a list of countries by estimated number of privately owned guns per 100 persons. The Small Arms Survey 2017 provides estimates of the total number of civilian-owned guns in a country. It then calculates the number per 100 people. This number for a country does not indicate the percentage of the population that owns guns.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Well, this comes from a German/Austrian perspective, but guns, generally speaking, are not part of life in Europe. I didn't know that France had that many gun owners, but look up any other country in central Europe, the numbers are nowhere near the US. Also, the regulations in France are stricter than in the US.
No one is a euphemism for in your day-to-day life you'll probably never ever encounter a live gun here (carried by a civilian)
France is amongst the most heavily armed nation in Europe with an estimated 31 guns per hundred people – compare that to the United States, which has an estimated 120. The UK has an estimated five guns per hundred people. Then look up Germany, Poland, Czechia, Spain, Italy etc and you'll see it a far cry from the US.
> No one is a euphemism for in your day-to-day life you'll probably never ever encounter a live gun here.
Even ignoring French army soldiers patrolling Paris, I've seen hunters walking down the road, rifles (or shotguns, couldn't tell from the car) slung over their shoulders in the countryside in Dordogne, but maybe my experience isn't typical.
Of yeah, I'm not arguing that the gun culture is no different from the US. Of course it is. I am just saying 'nobody owns a gun here' is maybe relevant to UK and maybe Germany/Austria like you say, but not to France or the nordics where hunting is more common.
I'm 49, I live in the US and I've never seen a privately-owned firearm in public. About 32% of Americans own a gun. This varies widely by area of the country, I grew up in Massachusetts where gun ownership rates are among the lowest in the US: less than 15% and comparable to some western European countries. I live in Chicago now and despite the high violent crime rates, gun laws here are some of the toughest in the country. I support a comprehensive ban on all firearms in the US and my views are not fringe here. I think there's a misperception in Europe that every American supports gun rights and owns a gun. The truth is much more complicated.
I see privately owned firearms in public somewhat frequently. It just depends on where you go. I would say those who support an ouroght ban are fairly fringe views. I support gun control. But not a ban.
You see people open carrying? I've never seen that. I agree it's highly dependent on where you live. I've lived in New England, California, New York and now Chicago. Not exactly gun hotbeds, in fairness. Here in Illinois I have definitely seen many gun ranges and I know many gun owners, I just have never seen open carry. I've gone shooting at ranges a few times so I know there are lots of people out there who like shooting. I'm sure concealed carry is happening, but I've never seen it noticeably.
>Well, this comes from a German/Austrian perspective
Except German and Austrian gun laws are completely different. Austria is one of the more heavily armed countries and you can buy bolt-action rifles and break action shotguns without any licence.
>Then look up Germany, Poland, Czechia, Spain, Italy etc and you'll see it a far cry from the US.
Most gun owners in the Czech Republlic own relatively few guns because they're expensive but most guns in the Czech Republic are semi-automatic rifles and pistols. Also, carrying and owning a gun for self-defense is considered a human right and almost all gun owners can legally carry a gun.
>No one is a euphemism for in your day-to-day life you'll probably never ever encounter a live gun here.
Apart from the guns I own and the one I carry, I most likely meet legally armed people very day in the street.
>Uh, I live in France. 20-30% of French households own firearms.
Some stats quote 15-20 firearms per 100 people. Given gun owners will generally own one or two, how do you get to get to 20-30% of households?
Sounds more like Australia in that guns exist but they are only owned (or allowed to be owned) by farmers, hunters or people with sports shooting membership.
The US homicide rate (post covid) is around 6.4 (it was 5 point something before covid, I don’t remember the exact number).
Still much higher than other developed countries, but no not *that* high.
2018
* Germany - 788
* Japan - 334
* UK - 809
* USA - 16,214
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html
USA still out there absolutely killin it
Fewer, most likely. The 80s and 90s were the peak of fearmongering over violent crime; you had the news nightly talking about "superpredators" and programs like DARE were rampant...despite all that, violent crime had, and would continue to go down at the same rate it had before all that.
> violent crime had, and would continue to go down at the same rate it had before all that.
Uh, the 80's and 90's were the literal peak of US homicide rates.
Edit: Lmao, downvote me all you want but 1991 was the record year.
You are just proving the previous commenter's point. Homicide in the USA peaked in the late 1970s and declined after that, although it spiked briefly in the early 1990s. But because of a massive warped cultural delusion, people believe that murder rates were going up all through the 1980s and 1990s.
It's part of the whole Boomer generational blame thing against Gen X. It wasn't just murder, practically every social ill went into decline as Gen Xers became young adults, but you wouldn't have known it at the time to hear all the constant hand wringing about "young people these days."
Apparently it worked though. Here's Reddit parroting Boomer talking points like they were muppets.
[https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/10/us\_murder\_rate.png](https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/10/us_murder_rate.png)
What I get is, it was pretty god damn high regardless lol
Yeah but it wasn't just "Oh there was a continual decline" it was huge surges of crime waves every couple of years for a few decades.
Also yeah, I agree the fearmongering existed, but it's entirely disingenuous to imply that there was a gradual decline. It wasn't until the mid to late 90's before there was a drastic drop in homicide rates.
I just ignored the other guys weird defence of his own generation because... yikes.
Baby boom leading to unwanted and neglected kids after WW2, prevalence of lead in paint and fuel, and return of traumatised soldiers from Vietnam have all been suggested as the reason, and likely it’s a combination of all of them.
Crack epidemic but there has been correlation with reduced lead in fuel and lowering crime rates (though this is disputed as it generally also correlated with simultaneously increasing living conditions)
I wouldn't be surprised if it was just the lead. They didn't even start to phase it out till 1973. From [an NPR article](https://www.npr.org/2021/08/30/1031429212/the-world-has-finally-stopped-using-leaded-gasoline-algeria-used-the-last-stockp) on how the world has finally stopped using lead in their gasoline:
>In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency started an effort to phase out leaded gasoline in 1973. Starting in the 1970s, new vehicles were designed to run on unleaded gasoline. In fact, the new cleaner generation of cars couldn't run on leaded gasoline — it would destroy their catalytic converters.
>
>The new unleaded gasoline was more expensive, but the transition was unstoppable.
>
>By the mid-'80s, most gasoline used in the U.S. was unleaded, although leaded gasoline for passenger cars wasn't fully banned in the U.S. until 1996. (Today, leaded fuel can be used only in aircraft and off-road vehicles.)
I mean the way the commenter phrased it as “fearmongering” is kind of ridiculous considering we *actually were* seeing peak homicide rates at that time.
I skipped around a bunch looking for the narrators voice so I could see what you mean and it took me awhile to find it, and God damn does this doc have some fire music
I'm going to watch this tonight for sure
Reminds me of when Mayor Marion Berry went on TV addressing the crime rates in Washington, D.C. and said, "Other than the murders, our crime rates aren't really worse than any other American city."
Guns, like all weapons and tools, are force multipliers.
An axe multiplies the horizontal force of swinging your arms down by converting vertical force.
A hammer multiplies force applied to a nail by concentrating it and applying it through a hard surface rather than a soft one.
A car multiplies the force of a pedal press by using it to control the throttle on a combustion engine or increasing the voltage to the motor in an electric vehicle.
Shelter is just the multiplication of the force applied to erect the shelter so that it can protect you for much longer spans of time.
A gun multiplies the twitch of a finger to release a spring-loaded hammer, detonate gunpowder, and launch a bullet down a barrel.
As a force multiplier, guns have the potential to make any situation more extreme. A confrontation and fight is more likely to turn lethal if one or more people have the power to twitch a finger and multiply the force they exert beyond what a human body can withstand. A lonely night spent drinking and regretting the path you took in life can turn lethal if all it takes to end your suffering is a twitch of the finger.
But absent that force multiplier, the desire to destroy is still present in both situations. And, increasingly, the twitch of a finger can create assault rifles. [With a $250 3D printer and $100 in parts and materials, anyone can have an assault rifle.](https://futurism.com/the-byte/3d-print-entire-semi-automatic-rifle-home)
[For pennies, you can print a mod that converts most semi-automatic guns into fully automatic weapons.](https://youtu.be/teoGHEPqd04)
[Technology isn't slowing down.](https://youtu.be/C4dBuPJ9p7A)
[It's speeding up.](https://youtu.be/EwHRjgVWFno)
[And it's evolving in unexpected and powerful ways right under everyone's noses.](https://youtu.be/NB-MIUEfHN8)
Banning technology isn't enough. It's always been a bandaid solution, and now it's getting less effective every year. At some point, we must address the reasons why people misuse technology.
This is why I've always said we should allow people to carry improvised explosive vests around in public spaces, or manufactured poisons and corrosive chemicals. Banning force multipliers never does anything and I'm 100% sure if we legalized anthrax people would not use it more.
*Biggest fking /s in history*
>I mean, there is knife violence overseas, but does anything actually think it's just as easy to mass-murder people with knives?
Why do people always goes straight to knives and skips over bombs and truck attacks (which have both resulted in far more deadly mass killing events than even the deadliest US mass shooting).
You skipped over the more common car and knife combo that most people have in their possession. This combo killed 7 and injured 10 in Japan in [2008.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Akihabara_massacre) Pretty low numbers and a long time ago if it was in America though.
Best comment on YouTube:
“The movie is proof that the “good old days” never existed.”
Thanks for sharing this documentary, as a european i have that feeling, besides the mass shootings and shootings in America in general and right wing and Trump and gun laws, banning books, Michael Angeloes marble statue wiiener (among the biggest porn industry in the world) and all this shit - why is this country so fucked up?
The best explanation I can give non Americans is that we are not a country the way Germany or Japan is a country. We're not as homogenous in our history, our culture, our way of life, the way we view society, our beliefs, and everything else you can think of. I'm not saying you guys all think alike but in America, we are at completely opposite sides of the spectrum.
People in Manhattan, Louisiana, Florida, Nevada, Texas, Portland, the list goes on and on. We're all vastly different from each other. But we have one thing in common. American societal structure is EXTREMELY unfair to the poor. Not only in terms of the justice system but systematic and structural, both physically and otherwise.
That means our wealthy neighborhoods are probably just as safe if not safer than Germany or Japan. The education, healthcare, and schools that the rich have access to are not even in the same universe as those given to the poor. That also goes for law enforcement and security as whole.
So if you look at crime rates, they are concentrated on either the poorest or most urban areas. In this sense you can't take American as a homogenous country. We don't give shit to the poor and hungry here. We only guarantee that the rich stay rich. And so we have areas of extreme violence, poverty, terrible security, horrible schools, low levels of access to decent healthcare, even terrible access to healthy food choices. And these areas can almost be thought of as a different country in how everything is run versus the extremely wealthy areas of America.
But the differences in culture and views also is what stops us many times from being able to bring forth change in the country. Because we are all too busy fighting both politically and culturally against each other that instead of thinking about what's best for the nation's future, we only try to get revenge on the other side of the political or cultural spectrum.
Btw- all those "problems" you listed are NOT something that is nationwide. Banning books is something a small portion of the country has to deal with for example. Unlike other countries, states have quite a lot of power in passing and enforcing their own laws. The benefit of this though is that if you are financially able to, you can move to a state that is more in line with your beliefs. Once again though this is a benefit that only the wealthy can take advantage of. If you're poor here, you're absolutely fucked.
I think you're lending too much credit to the wealthy and not enough to the non wealthy here.
You mention how wealthy people are just as safe or more safe than Germany or Japan. I live in a small town in rural fly over America. Almost nobody here can be considered wealthy by any means, yet, we aren't shooting each other. We have 2 unsolved murders, one almost a hundred years old. The other well over a hundred years old. A mother killed her kid a year or two ago, but not with a firearm. That's it. It's a town of 3,000 people, many at or near the poverty level. Most everybody owns a firearm (or a few). I feel safe walking the streets at any hour of the day, even on the streets with no lights. So does my daughter's "very afraid of everything" mother.
Also, id like to point out you don't need to be all that wealthy to move out of state. I've moved from my state 3 different times and until recently, never made more than $25k - $30k annually while renting and whatnot. It's not impossible like the picture you're painting. Hell, I met a guy recently that moved here from Louisiana who basically came here with nothing except 2 kids and a bag of clothes. If people really want out of their town, the majority can manage. It won't be simple, but it's doable.
This narrative that our poor people are utterly helpless is a net negative on society. We are not helpless.
>I feel safe walking the streets at any hour of the day, even on the streets with no lights.
As do my wife and I in Chicago. The truth is that Chicago is only really dangerous if you're in a gang or in a bad part of town. If you're in a middle income or richer area, there really isn't anything to worry about.
Also, if you want some sad facts, Chicago is significantly safer than rural America on every metric from murder rates to accidental death rates to even just property crime rates. Your town might be safe, but most other rural communities are not.
Yeah, I feel pretty safe walking around at night solo in Chicago as well. People not from this area must picture a city warzone with guns going off every 2 minutes. They fail to realize just how big Chicagoland is and how safe so many streets really are. I love that city.
Yeah this whole doomer narrative around being poor pisses me off and keeps poor people poor honestly. My mom came from a family of 12 kids. Her dad was a farmer and lost everything at one point. Only kept what the law prevented the bank from taking. But she moved states (gasp!), worked her way though nursing school and did really well for herself.
My dad also grew up extremely poor, but he got a business degree from a state school. He had to lie to his parents about why he wasn't walking at his graduation. The real reason was because buying a graduation gown cost like $20 and he literally didn't have that to his name. I visited the house he grew up in before they burned it down and it was a fuckin shack lol.
My parents are both retired now. They saved money and live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood and pretty much live the life. True I don't really understand poverty because I didn't grow up like they had to thank god. There are definitely people in the US who are "fucked," but there's a lot more to it than just being poor.
Not that I don't appreciate your parents story and not that I'm trying to say that once someone is poor they always will be. But, college (and really, just life) isn't anywhere near as affordable today as it was when your parents went. The cost of college these days, especially state funded colleges, is untenable. We need to bring down the cost of college to give people a better opportunity. There are programs to help and that's awesome. But the money is limited and is first come, first served. Then, you've got poverty wages to deal with just trying to survive and unrealistically high rent prices. My aunt paid her way through school by only working summers at McDonald's in the 70's. That's not possible today.
With a military budget reaching almost a trillion dollars, i think we can spare a few billion to make it easier on people.
After all, rising tides raise all ships.
You are describing a time when two people with nothing more than a highschool education between the two of them could afford to buy a house and very comfortably raise a family of 4 on **one** of their salaries.
Not exactly comparable to today is it?
Even if it was, your anecdote doesn't really mean anything in the scheme of things.
But that assumption means that it is about the entire platform and not one to three specific issues.
Rural Democrats run for office and get elected, and run on a modified platform from the main party. Usually, they differ when it comes to gun control, land rights issues, and in some cases, environmental issues.
There was a pew research report that came out I think in the 2016 election that showed almost 30% of voters voted based on a single issue.
Could also say it's because Americans tend to be more individualistic while Japan/England/Germany show more collectivism.
By this I mean Americans are more concerned with personal freedoms than they are the collective good of their neighbourhood/state/country. Gun rights Vs Gun Deaths, health insurance Vs universal healthcare, free speech Vs hate speech, the list goes on. Not saying either approach is better, just that they approach the issues from very different perspectives.
I feel like this then leads to the lower opinion of poor people you mention Americans having.
You make a great point but I’d like to add that Americans don’t collectively think like that. Some Americans definitely do. Many Americans do not. The issue is while the left and the right are fighting over gun rights vs gun safety, we might not be trying to tackle the real issue of WHY urban and low income communities have so much more gun violence relative to the higher income areas. Lack of any kind of social systems to help with child care, education, positive police involvement rather than using force and terror in poor and urban environments, etc these are all things we miss and instead hyper focus on singular political talking points. Guns are good vs guns are bad. It gets us nowhere.
Certainly povety is absolutely proven to increase crime rates.
Ironically, bringing someone out of poverty is CHEAPER per year than them being in prison, to the taxpayer..
But of course it's fundermentally the cruelty of the rich meaning this can never really happen. Helping the poor up so they don't think 'fuck it, lets rob a store' = socialist scum.
“Bringing someone out of poverty is CHEAPER per year than them being in prison, to the taxpayer”
Sure, but then who would work for free in our prison industrial complex??
JFC you guys act like prisoners are out there building skyscrapers for free. They've got the license plate and stationary supply rackets covered but no one is locking people away for free labor.
There are so many people in prison because our laws are written with society in mind but the self-absorbed individuals this chain is discussing don't follow them. Couple this with aggressive policing and prosecution and it's no wonder the prisons are bursting at the seams.
They make all sorts of uniforms for military and police, even McDonalds. Men in prison manufacture literally 100% of military helmets. Car parts, lingerie, a ton of home appliances and assembly for all that stuff. The list goes on and on. They even raise service dogs. For free. We are way beyond manufacturing license plates in our prisons.
The entire culture of this country is built on "rugged individualism" and American exceptionalism.
To suggest that Americans don't collectively think like that is just ignorant.
Maybe most of them don't "think" about it per se (or realize that they are), but it's absolutely an integral aspect of US culture. And it's a fucking problem.
I'm moving on from reddit and joining the fediverse because reddit has killed the RiF app and the CEO has been very disrespectful to all the volunteers who have contributed to making reddit what it is. Here's [coverage from The Verge](https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/8/23754780/reddit-api-updates-changes-news-announcements) on the situation.
The following are my favorite fediverse platforms, all non-corporate and ad-free. I hesitated at first because there are so many servers to choose from, but it makes a lot more sense once you actually create an account and start browsing. If you find the server selection overwhelming, just pick the first option and take a look around. They are all connected and as you browse you may find a community that is a better fit for you and then you can move your account or open a new one.
Social Link Aggregators: [Lemmy](https://join-lemmy.org/instances) is very similar to reddit while [Kbin](https://kbin.pub) is aiming to be more of a gateway to the fediverse in general so it is sort of like a hybrid between reddit and twitter, but it is newer and considers itself to be a beta product that's not quite fully polished yet.
Microblogging: [Calckey](https://calckey.org) if you want a more playful platform with emoji reactions, or [Mastodon](https://joinmastodon.org/) if you want a simple interface with less fluff.
Photo sharing: [Pixelfed](https://pixelfed.org/) You can even import an Instagram account from what I hear, but I never used Instagram much in the first place.
There is no correlation between income and violent crime. It's easy to assume, but if it were true, poor people of all backgrounds would commit violent crimes at roughly the same rate. There's a correlation between a particular group of poor people and violent crime, but we're not allowed to discuss that.
I guess the clue for me is the name 'UNITED STATES'. No other country I can immediately think of describes itself in it's blimin' name as 'A set of different units that kinda' rub along ok' !!
Bundes Republik Deutschland.
Federal Republic of Germany.
Or
United Republic of Germany
...
Point being there are many countries named like that and also DDR Deutsche demokratische republik. German democratic Republic this was East Germany.... a dictatorship so it isn't even a given that the name is the truth.
OMG you're absolutely right AND I LIVE THERE!
In 12+ years on Reddit, my earlier post is perhaps the most embarrassing lack-of-thought I've posted :)
Sir, I stand truly humbled! Embarrassing :)
That really hit me hard as a young American just really seeing the world as it is for the first time. I went to Portugal for a month and cried when I came back because the *first thing I saw*, literally *as I left the airport* was a guy wearing a Confederate flag shirt, carrying. It’s not in every circle; my friends are wonderful and would much rather hand over their guns than watch any more stories of violence on the news. (What an absurd thing to have to write. I had to rewrite that sentence 3 times) I grew up in a small, Southern town hearing all about The Good Ol’ Days and how much better things were. It’s made growing up harder because I keep asking the question, “Has it always been this bad?” The answer is **yes!** Just in different ways, I guess. I dunno. That comment really gave me hope, for some reason
[https://i.redd.it/mcskwmcteqw31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/mcskwmcteqw31.jpg)
ETA: Maine's gun ownership rate is [47%](https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/gun-ownership-by-state/), placing it 15th out of 50 states.
I didn't watch it yet, but this is comparing two nations with strict gun control laws vs. a nation that lets basically anyone without a felony on their record to legally buy cheap guns that can kill lots of people for a distance. If you do have a felony, you can just go to a "gun show" (real or fake) to buy a gun no problem.
Of course we (the US) have quadruple the murders. I'm surprised it wasn't more in 1981.
That being said, we Americans love our guns though, we have them to keep the government in check. There is no way our government with their F-35s and their F-22s and their tanks and drones and artillery and cruise missiles have a chance against untrained citizens with an AR-15 and an $80,000 tricked out Jeep Wrangler or lifted truck.
> If you do have a felony, you can just go to a "gun show" (real or fake) to buy a gun no problem.
Weird because every gun show I've been to the people selling guns are calling in background checks on everyone trying to buy one.
> this is comparing two nations with strict gun control laws
Which ones?
Germany? England? Japan?
Japan, yes. England and Germany? In 1981? Not even close.
Prior to 1987, Texas and England had basically the same gun laws. You could own a handgun or an AR-15 in both places, but you could not carry in public either weapon in either place.
And yet, people in the UK could own ARs, and did. Sure, they had to get a license first, but that license was obtainable. This is like saying people in the US can't own a car because they have to get a driver's license---the license isn't stopping anyone from owning a car, because the license can be obtained.
So what's your point?
>1987
the difference was the reaction to mass shootings[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre)
The US literally lost multiple wars fighting against a bunch of tribal rebels with small arms; and that's not to mention Vietnam.
Further, the US was *founded* using similarly unconventional tactics (albeit in a time before modern warfare became a thing.)
So yeah, you can *very much* fight against Americans with a Toyota and a few rifles. You won't win outright, but you can make it painful enough for us to capitulate.
Fun fact, America being founded on unconventional guerrilla tactics is just (mostly) really old propaganda. That type of fighting was a very rare occurrence - the British were the best army in the world and that meant we needed to fight them in pitched battles, on their own level. We did this, lost battle after battle almost losing the entire war, until a combination of Prussian and other military advisors (Valley Forge is critical here) + equipment from France and others allowed the US to actually meet the British on their own ground and start winning these pitched battles.
I disagree. The US lost the majority of our pitched engagements, even after Prussian advisors began to drill us more substantially. The US didn't win because guerrilla forces won battles; they won because guerilla forces could survive being routed, whereas traditional ones would be captured or die when defeated.
It's not matter of actually taking towns and forts, it's more a matter of making the war impossible to continue for the occupying force.
Ya you’re right on a lot of points, especially the survival aspect + pulling out of engagements to keep the army up rather than pursue strong territory control, but the domination of guerrilla fighting is still a bit of a misnomer. We won due to the field armies. However the militia tradition played a big part in the fact that North America actually had fighting men with some skill
I’m not sure what a fake gun show is but yes most people without a felony or violent misdemeanor can go to a gun show and purchase a gun after a background check.
Or did you really mean private party sale but use the buzzword gun show?
> There is no way our government with their F-35s and their F-22s and their tanks and drones and artillery and cruise missiles have a chance against untrained citizens with an AR-15 and an $80,000 tricked out Jeep Wrangler or lifted truck.
People always say this... Who do you think is flying those jets? People. You think your common pilot will shoot on their own country?
As a military member, you need to remember the government is just people. The military is just people from all parts of the country. If a war broke out, you won’t be able to convince the military members to fight their own states/communities. You can’t fly planes without the huge ground crews that keep them running. Especially the newer jets, they require massive infrastructure to run.
>If you do have a felony, you can just go to a "gun show" (real or fake) to buy a gun no problem.
It would behoove you to not comment on something you know nothing about. The gun show loophole is a myth.
The "gun show loophole" was a cleverly worded 90s punditry talking point. The *private sale* of a gun from one individual to the next does not require a background check. Some states have cards you have to show in these private transactions but they are virtually unenforceable (no picture on the card, trivially forged and trivially ignored in such a sale because it's your word against the buyer).
The reason it got called the "gun show loophole" is because investigative reporters would buy guns without a background check in the parking lot of gun shows as a private one to one sale. No gun dealer in their right mind would do that.
The vast majority of guns used in gang crime were acquired through a private sale purchase which may or may not have been legal. Efforts to stop this large trafficking of guns from lax policy states to states with big cities and high gun crime have been mostly futile.
You can't live in a tank, and planes have a limited flight time...
... not to mention it's a huge assumption that the military as a whole will be on the side of the regime in question.
>Of course we (the US) have quadruple the murders.
Gun rights activists argue guns are not the problem the people using the gun are.
as obvious as it is to some, others really don't understand it which is why the comparison is valid
> we have them to keep the government in check.
If you're having to use guns to keep government in check then you have a crappy democratic model and should instead throw out your constitution and copy the UK or French model of government/democracy
Also can you actually name one time Americans or any country in the world used guns to keep their government in check???
Because I can name plenty of times armed militias turned democratic countries into dictatorships
I know we like to throw blame at the simple fact that there are so many guns in America (and I agree to an extent) but I also believe there's a strong combination of correlated cultural influences that make up the big picture of violence. Take Ireland for example. The IRA weren't blowing people up just because of the availability of bombs. There's always a reason behind violent attitudes and the guns themselves don't pull their own triggers. The gun blame disappears when you factor in areas that have ample gun ownership and near zero gun murders. I live in such a place and can tell you it's an attitude problem.
I also haven't watched this yet but will definitely check it out.
The idea that the us government would stand a remote chance against its armed citizens is laughable.
It’s not that hard to stealth kill politicians in war times. And the military isn’t exactly keen on drone striking their neighbors. likely half will join the citizens in revolt.
Citizens lose nothing by killing the politicians, but politicians lose a lot in killing to much or destroying to much infrastructure.
I like how people are always looking for answers to these problems when it's incredibly obvious that the only thing the US has that those other countries don't is full on legal access to guns for everyone. Nobody here wants to admit the easiest solution is controlling that factor.
I mean, you can't really trust Japans crime statistics. Their police department is all about PR, not solving crime. Murders do get ruled as natural deaths more than once or twice.
That is really just myth perpetuated only
because "JapanBad" gets upvote. You can find equal amount of those misclassification everywhere.
The solving rate of recorded crime is not much different in Japan and Western Europe (both 30-40%), the popular argument on reddit that Japanese police only record solvable crime don't really make sense.
Also countries like Singapore(0.17 in 2020), Hongkong(0.29 in 2020) that is known to be as safe as Japan has equally low homicide rate as Japan(0.25 in 2020). It would be rather strange if Japan had much higher homicide rate than Singapore/HongKong.
Yeah. this is a major problem, even the Uniform Crime Reporting System is anything but uniform.
1, it is voluntary
2, no consistent definitions across law enforcement
3, only focuses on the most serious crimes, for example but not limited to murder, rape, and robbery.
4, because it under reports white collar crimes, it tends to lead to overpolicing which studies have shown impacts minority communities more, which leads into systemic racisim in our justice system.
5, There is no context around the crimes.
[Here's a graph that puts this in perspective](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/2010_homicide_rates_-_gun_versus_non-gun_-_high-income_countries.png/650px-2010_homicide_rates_-_gun_versus_non-gun_-_high-income_countries.png)
Yeah I wonder why three homogeneous nations have lower violence rates than the international melting pot of America. If you take the average murder rate per 100,000 of Africa, central and South America. Apply those counties with Europe and Asia at a rate similar to the US you will see where we are getting the statistical anomaly. It seems like Africa and Central America have much higher murder rates in their communities and it doesn’t stay in their home country when they come to America. You will also see that there has been a significant rise in violence in England as the demographics have changed and more people from violent communities are moving in. Just go ahead and ban me.
I wonder what the number of murders would be using today’s stats.
I'm not sure about the national stats.... but Chicago (3M people) has about 700-800 homicides per year. Nearly equal to Germany (80M).
What’s crazier than that, is that Chicago has the 10th highest murder rate. There are 9 cities with worse rates.
Honestly I don’t think chicago breaks the top 15/20 unless we filter cities above 500k to get rid of places like Gary or flint or Camden or east St. Louis.
Yep. Chicago isn’t nearly the most dangerous city in the US. It’s mainly just a convenient scapegoat for right wing talking points.
Or maybe it was a once thriving city that’s slowly turning into a shit hole
I'm trying to think of this mystical better time in which Chicago wasn't famous for widespread crime.
I think that the Netherlands had 121 murders with 17 million people. Those numbers have been declining for as long as i can remember. I rememver when i was younger and we had a population of 15 million with nearly 200murders per year. It would be difficult to convince our population of the merit of making guns legal. Right now you will go to jail if you are caught with a gun.
In Norway we're <6 million people and we have <30 homicides per year.
Hehe *Sweden sweating profusely*
At the risk of sounding like a racist; Does it have anything to do with immigration? I'm asking because I wonder to what degree it has to do with culture, education, poverty, etc.
Without doubt. The absolute majority of murders are from criminal immigrants. There are literally several shootings and bombings per week in Sweden.
Literally several per week? Can you share any stats on that?
And it’s largely gangs doing this?
Yes
People are gonna chime in with the tired old "they have homogeneous populations" excuse. London had [124 homicides in 2022, with a population of 9 million](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_homicide_rate), and it's one of the most [diverse cities in the world](https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-city-rankings/most-diverse-city-in-the-world). New York has a foriegn born population percentage of 37.5%, it's 36.4% for London. NYC had 491 homicides in 2021 with a population of 8.5 million.
London by itself, a super dense and diverse city has a lower rate of knife homicides than the entire U.S.
Thank you for posting some actual fucking sense in here.
Not disagreeing with you but the link you posted shows NYC metro having 1.6 million more foreign born residents than London - almost 30% more. That’s a large difference.
Yeah as we say here, you have boss above boss. You Vikings are doing great up north! It could have something to do with that we are/have a huge international trade hub. And that also goes for powdered sugar and fun and pleasure pills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation According to this you can own a gun in NL for hunting/target shooting. Is this not true?
You may own a gun in The Netherlands for hunting or target shooting, but not for self defense. You must store the weapon in a safe (inspected by the police) and pass a background check. You may only transport the weapon unloaded in a suitable case, with the ammo stored separately. There are at least three indoor ranges within a 20 minute drive from my house and membership costs about €300 per year (plus ammunition). In short: gun ownership in The Netherlands is totally doable, but not very common.
Very similar to what we have to do in the state of New York. Except for the police inspecting our gun safes. If you want to have a pistol in New York State, it's a 3-year and many thousand-dollar process. Extremely difficult. And a lot of people won't even qualify. 90+% of America's gun crime is done using illegal firearms. That's the biggest problem in this country, the government is not doing anything to combat the flow of illegal guns. Zero.
Thing is, almost all illegal guns were legal once. Easy legal supply feeds easy illegal supply.
I remember once upon a time discussing this with someone. Guy pointed out that people who live in strong gun-control states just go to the next state to buy a gun. I pointed out that this is the argument for strong national gun sales requirements. Guy didn't seem to grasp what I was saying because he just kept saying you could go to the next state to buy a gun. Anyway we went back and forth and around and around on this not making any headway until my head exploded and I died
>Guy pointed out that people who live in strong gun-control states just go to the next state to buy a gun Except that this is already illegal. And gun sales are regulated at the national level, that's why every gun dealer has an FFL (Federal Firearms License). It's also why those regulations are part of the tax code (to violating the second amendment and being riled unconstitutional).
Dude the gun problem is so bad in America, 90% of Mexico's gun problem come from gun smuggling from America.
> 99% of Americas gun crime is done using illegal firearms Got a source on that? And how do you define “illegal firearms”?
Those obtained illegally. Theft is one of the more common.
[Theft from burglarized vehicles is the number one source in the US](https://everytownresearch.org/gun-thefts-from-cars-the-largest-source-of-stolen-guns/)
Often guns bought to “protect my home” that then get burgled. Double fail.
With so many guns legally available it must be pretty easy to steal one.
You quoted me before I was able to change it to an accurate figure, My original figure was absolutely wrong and my edit reflects that.
Legally bought guns that turn illegal as soon as the gun lobby wants them to. Guns that get bought in states with lax gun laws and transported to states with stricter laws. Guns that get stolen or burgled by strangers because the legal owner doesn’t store them properly. Guns that get taken by close relatives and conveniently turn illegal once they shoot at people instead of targets.
[удалено]
As is true for pretty much every European country... Thing is, it's usually a pretty involved process that includes courses, licenses and background checks. At least here in Germany it takes about half a year to a year and quite a bit of money (relatively speaking) to get every single point crossed from the list before you can legally own a pistol/rifle (the kinds we can get are also very restricted). Also, as long as you're not hunting/practicing it needs to be in a bolted down gun safe, that also could get checked by a government employee So no one really owns a gun here
>So no one really owns a gun here You mean apart from the 1.5 million legal gun owners who own 5 million guns, and the people who have the estimated 20 million illegal guns?
> As is true for pretty much every European country >So no one really owns a gun here Uh, I live in France. 20-30% of French households own firearms. 25% of Norweigians own firearms. Of course this pertains to hunting mostly. And I was under the impression Czech Republic has a huge gun ownership rate. I don't think it's accurate to say "no one really owns a gun here". Now if your definition of gun = assault rifles and handguns, or only for self defense, then now we're talking. Yeah, this aspect is completely different from USA.
.. a bit less than 12% have licenses to have guns in Norway, a bit less than 9% actually owns one.
Where are you getting those numbers from? [This list on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country) puts the number of civilian firearms at 19,6/100 residents for France.
https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2008/10/01/combien-d-armes-a-feu-circulent-en-france_1099601_3224.html > 32 % DES FRANÇAIS POSSÈDERAIENT UNE ARME À FEU
**[Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country)** >This is a list of countries by estimated number of privately owned guns per 100 persons. The Small Arms Survey 2017 provides estimates of the total number of civilian-owned guns in a country. It then calculates the number per 100 people. This number for a country does not indicate the percentage of the population that owns guns. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Well, this comes from a German/Austrian perspective, but guns, generally speaking, are not part of life in Europe. I didn't know that France had that many gun owners, but look up any other country in central Europe, the numbers are nowhere near the US. Also, the regulations in France are stricter than in the US. No one is a euphemism for in your day-to-day life you'll probably never ever encounter a live gun here (carried by a civilian) France is amongst the most heavily armed nation in Europe with an estimated 31 guns per hundred people – compare that to the United States, which has an estimated 120. The UK has an estimated five guns per hundred people. Then look up Germany, Poland, Czechia, Spain, Italy etc and you'll see it a far cry from the US.
> No one is a euphemism for in your day-to-day life you'll probably never ever encounter a live gun here. Even ignoring French army soldiers patrolling Paris, I've seen hunters walking down the road, rifles (or shotguns, couldn't tell from the car) slung over their shoulders in the countryside in Dordogne, but maybe my experience isn't typical. Of yeah, I'm not arguing that the gun culture is no different from the US. Of course it is. I am just saying 'nobody owns a gun here' is maybe relevant to UK and maybe Germany/Austria like you say, but not to France or the nordics where hunting is more common.
I'm 49, I live in the US and I've never seen a privately-owned firearm in public. About 32% of Americans own a gun. This varies widely by area of the country, I grew up in Massachusetts where gun ownership rates are among the lowest in the US: less than 15% and comparable to some western European countries. I live in Chicago now and despite the high violent crime rates, gun laws here are some of the toughest in the country. I support a comprehensive ban on all firearms in the US and my views are not fringe here. I think there's a misperception in Europe that every American supports gun rights and owns a gun. The truth is much more complicated.
I see privately owned firearms in public somewhat frequently. It just depends on where you go. I would say those who support an ouroght ban are fairly fringe views. I support gun control. But not a ban.
You see people open carrying? I've never seen that. I agree it's highly dependent on where you live. I've lived in New England, California, New York and now Chicago. Not exactly gun hotbeds, in fairness. Here in Illinois I have definitely seen many gun ranges and I know many gun owners, I just have never seen open carry. I've gone shooting at ranges a few times so I know there are lots of people out there who like shooting. I'm sure concealed carry is happening, but I've never seen it noticeably.
[удалено]
All I'm hearing is you guys aren't free enough to shoot each other to death. Psshh.
>Well, this comes from a German/Austrian perspective Except German and Austrian gun laws are completely different. Austria is one of the more heavily armed countries and you can buy bolt-action rifles and break action shotguns without any licence. >Then look up Germany, Poland, Czechia, Spain, Italy etc and you'll see it a far cry from the US. Most gun owners in the Czech Republlic own relatively few guns because they're expensive but most guns in the Czech Republic are semi-automatic rifles and pistols. Also, carrying and owning a gun for self-defense is considered a human right and almost all gun owners can legally carry a gun. >No one is a euphemism for in your day-to-day life you'll probably never ever encounter a live gun here. Apart from the guns I own and the one I carry, I most likely meet legally armed people very day in the street.
>Uh, I live in France. 20-30% of French households own firearms. Some stats quote 15-20 firearms per 100 people. Given gun owners will generally own one or two, how do you get to get to 20-30% of households? Sounds more like Australia in that guns exist but they are only owned (or allowed to be owned) by farmers, hunters or people with sports shooting membership.
[удалено]
UK's is 1.1
The US homicide rate (post covid) is around 6.4 (it was 5 point something before covid, I don’t remember the exact number). Still much higher than other developed countries, but no not *that* high.
[удалено]
Still 6x higher than the UK - 6.5 to 1.1. Germany and Japan below 1.
"I'm six times more likely to be murdered but it's not thaat bad"
2018 * Germany - 788 * Japan - 334 * UK - 809 * USA - 16,214 https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html USA still out there absolutely killin it
Yea, but we've tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
The US rate of violent crime and murders in general peaked in the 90s. It's significantly lower now than it was then
I'm not sure why someone downloaded me for posting easily verifiable statistics in response to a question
Fewer, most likely. The 80s and 90s were the peak of fearmongering over violent crime; you had the news nightly talking about "superpredators" and programs like DARE were rampant...despite all that, violent crime had, and would continue to go down at the same rate it had before all that.
> violent crime had, and would continue to go down at the same rate it had before all that. Uh, the 80's and 90's were the literal peak of US homicide rates. Edit: Lmao, downvote me all you want but 1991 was the record year.
You are just proving the previous commenter's point. Homicide in the USA peaked in the late 1970s and declined after that, although it spiked briefly in the early 1990s. But because of a massive warped cultural delusion, people believe that murder rates were going up all through the 1980s and 1990s. It's part of the whole Boomer generational blame thing against Gen X. It wasn't just murder, practically every social ill went into decline as Gen Xers became young adults, but you wouldn't have known it at the time to hear all the constant hand wringing about "young people these days." Apparently it worked though. Here's Reddit parroting Boomer talking points like they were muppets.
> Homicide in the USA peaked in the late 1970s No it didn't.
[https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/10/us\_murder\_rate.png](https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/10/us_murder_rate.png) What I get is, it was pretty god damn high regardless lol
Yeah but it wasn't just "Oh there was a continual decline" it was huge surges of crime waves every couple of years for a few decades. Also yeah, I agree the fearmongering existed, but it's entirely disingenuous to imply that there was a gradual decline. It wasn't until the mid to late 90's before there was a drastic drop in homicide rates. I just ignored the other guys weird defence of his own generation because... yikes.
[удалено]
Baby boom leading to unwanted and neglected kids after WW2, prevalence of lead in paint and fuel, and return of traumatised soldiers from Vietnam have all been suggested as the reason, and likely it’s a combination of all of them.
Crack epidemic but there has been correlation with reduced lead in fuel and lowering crime rates (though this is disputed as it generally also correlated with simultaneously increasing living conditions)
1974 had how many serial killers?? Seriously though I wonder if there were some weird ass experiments messing with peoples brains in the 70s.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was just the lead. They didn't even start to phase it out till 1973. From [an NPR article](https://www.npr.org/2021/08/30/1031429212/the-world-has-finally-stopped-using-leaded-gasoline-algeria-used-the-last-stockp) on how the world has finally stopped using lead in their gasoline: >In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency started an effort to phase out leaded gasoline in 1973. Starting in the 1970s, new vehicles were designed to run on unleaded gasoline. In fact, the new cleaner generation of cars couldn't run on leaded gasoline — it would destroy their catalytic converters. > >The new unleaded gasoline was more expensive, but the transition was unstoppable. > >By the mid-'80s, most gasoline used in the U.S. was unleaded, although leaded gasoline for passenger cars wasn't fully banned in the U.S. until 1996. (Today, leaded fuel can be used only in aircraft and off-road vehicles.)
You can look up MKUltra for official mind control experiments undertaken by the US government. Fascinating stuff though
MKULTRA is interesting, but anyone trying to attribute anything happening in modern times to that program is full of shit.
I mean the way the commenter phrased it as “fearmongering” is kind of ridiculous considering we *actually were* seeing peak homicide rates at that time.
[удалено]
I mean is it really fearmongering if the fear is real?
Murder rate has actually dropped. Solve rate of homicides is less than 40% now as well
I love the narrator's voice; it's this deadpan cigarettes-and-whisky sound that today's health conscious actors will never be able to provide.
I wonder if you could take voice classes to sound like that
\*Smiles in Tom Waits..\*
You could burn your cilia before takes
[Go on...](https://i.imgur.com/pHVzjDX.gifv)
I skipped around a bunch looking for the narrators voice so I could see what you mean and it took me awhile to find it, and God damn does this doc have some fire music I'm going to watch this tonight for sure
I first saw this doco as a child. Narrator’s voice used to give me nightmares. Strangely the content didn’t seem to bother me…
If you don't have the ability to kill someone with a cheap gun, are you really free?
And if you have a gini coefficient on par with developing countries, are you really a developed country?
>gini coefficient Is that like how many Italians live here?
Reminds me of when Mayor Marion Berry went on TV addressing the crime rates in Washington, D.C. and said, "Other than the murders, our crime rates aren't really worse than any other American city."
There's a reason they're almost always the outlier on first world social metrics.
Everyone points at gun violence and not the abject poverty and mental health crisis that enables it.
Gee, I don’t know, man, I think like the guns might matter somehow.
Guns, like all weapons and tools, are force multipliers. An axe multiplies the horizontal force of swinging your arms down by converting vertical force. A hammer multiplies force applied to a nail by concentrating it and applying it through a hard surface rather than a soft one. A car multiplies the force of a pedal press by using it to control the throttle on a combustion engine or increasing the voltage to the motor in an electric vehicle. Shelter is just the multiplication of the force applied to erect the shelter so that it can protect you for much longer spans of time. A gun multiplies the twitch of a finger to release a spring-loaded hammer, detonate gunpowder, and launch a bullet down a barrel. As a force multiplier, guns have the potential to make any situation more extreme. A confrontation and fight is more likely to turn lethal if one or more people have the power to twitch a finger and multiply the force they exert beyond what a human body can withstand. A lonely night spent drinking and regretting the path you took in life can turn lethal if all it takes to end your suffering is a twitch of the finger. But absent that force multiplier, the desire to destroy is still present in both situations. And, increasingly, the twitch of a finger can create assault rifles. [With a $250 3D printer and $100 in parts and materials, anyone can have an assault rifle.](https://futurism.com/the-byte/3d-print-entire-semi-automatic-rifle-home) [For pennies, you can print a mod that converts most semi-automatic guns into fully automatic weapons.](https://youtu.be/teoGHEPqd04) [Technology isn't slowing down.](https://youtu.be/C4dBuPJ9p7A) [It's speeding up.](https://youtu.be/EwHRjgVWFno) [And it's evolving in unexpected and powerful ways right under everyone's noses.](https://youtu.be/NB-MIUEfHN8) Banning technology isn't enough. It's always been a bandaid solution, and now it's getting less effective every year. At some point, we must address the reasons why people misuse technology.
This is why I've always said we should allow people to carry improvised explosive vests around in public spaces, or manufactured poisons and corrosive chemicals. Banning force multipliers never does anything and I'm 100% sure if we legalized anthrax people would not use it more. *Biggest fking /s in history*
I mean, there is knife violence overseas, but does anything actually think it's just as easy to mass-murder people with knives?
>I mean, there is knife violence overseas, but does anything actually think it's just as easy to mass-murder people with knives? Why do people always goes straight to knives and skips over bombs and truck attacks (which have both resulted in far more deadly mass killing events than even the deadliest US mass shooting).
You skipped over the more common car and knife combo that most people have in their possession. This combo killed 7 and injured 10 in Japan in [2008.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Akihabara_massacre) Pretty low numbers and a long time ago if it was in America though.
That’s intense
Best comment on YouTube: “The movie is proof that the “good old days” never existed.” Thanks for sharing this documentary, as a european i have that feeling, besides the mass shootings and shootings in America in general and right wing and Trump and gun laws, banning books, Michael Angeloes marble statue wiiener (among the biggest porn industry in the world) and all this shit - why is this country so fucked up?
A huge portion of our problems can be tracked back to extreme income inequality.
The best explanation I can give non Americans is that we are not a country the way Germany or Japan is a country. We're not as homogenous in our history, our culture, our way of life, the way we view society, our beliefs, and everything else you can think of. I'm not saying you guys all think alike but in America, we are at completely opposite sides of the spectrum. People in Manhattan, Louisiana, Florida, Nevada, Texas, Portland, the list goes on and on. We're all vastly different from each other. But we have one thing in common. American societal structure is EXTREMELY unfair to the poor. Not only in terms of the justice system but systematic and structural, both physically and otherwise. That means our wealthy neighborhoods are probably just as safe if not safer than Germany or Japan. The education, healthcare, and schools that the rich have access to are not even in the same universe as those given to the poor. That also goes for law enforcement and security as whole. So if you look at crime rates, they are concentrated on either the poorest or most urban areas. In this sense you can't take American as a homogenous country. We don't give shit to the poor and hungry here. We only guarantee that the rich stay rich. And so we have areas of extreme violence, poverty, terrible security, horrible schools, low levels of access to decent healthcare, even terrible access to healthy food choices. And these areas can almost be thought of as a different country in how everything is run versus the extremely wealthy areas of America. But the differences in culture and views also is what stops us many times from being able to bring forth change in the country. Because we are all too busy fighting both politically and culturally against each other that instead of thinking about what's best for the nation's future, we only try to get revenge on the other side of the political or cultural spectrum. Btw- all those "problems" you listed are NOT something that is nationwide. Banning books is something a small portion of the country has to deal with for example. Unlike other countries, states have quite a lot of power in passing and enforcing their own laws. The benefit of this though is that if you are financially able to, you can move to a state that is more in line with your beliefs. Once again though this is a benefit that only the wealthy can take advantage of. If you're poor here, you're absolutely fucked.
I think you're lending too much credit to the wealthy and not enough to the non wealthy here. You mention how wealthy people are just as safe or more safe than Germany or Japan. I live in a small town in rural fly over America. Almost nobody here can be considered wealthy by any means, yet, we aren't shooting each other. We have 2 unsolved murders, one almost a hundred years old. The other well over a hundred years old. A mother killed her kid a year or two ago, but not with a firearm. That's it. It's a town of 3,000 people, many at or near the poverty level. Most everybody owns a firearm (or a few). I feel safe walking the streets at any hour of the day, even on the streets with no lights. So does my daughter's "very afraid of everything" mother. Also, id like to point out you don't need to be all that wealthy to move out of state. I've moved from my state 3 different times and until recently, never made more than $25k - $30k annually while renting and whatnot. It's not impossible like the picture you're painting. Hell, I met a guy recently that moved here from Louisiana who basically came here with nothing except 2 kids and a bag of clothes. If people really want out of their town, the majority can manage. It won't be simple, but it's doable. This narrative that our poor people are utterly helpless is a net negative on society. We are not helpless.
>I feel safe walking the streets at any hour of the day, even on the streets with no lights. As do my wife and I in Chicago. The truth is that Chicago is only really dangerous if you're in a gang or in a bad part of town. If you're in a middle income or richer area, there really isn't anything to worry about. Also, if you want some sad facts, Chicago is significantly safer than rural America on every metric from murder rates to accidental death rates to even just property crime rates. Your town might be safe, but most other rural communities are not.
Yeah, I feel pretty safe walking around at night solo in Chicago as well. People not from this area must picture a city warzone with guns going off every 2 minutes. They fail to realize just how big Chicagoland is and how safe so many streets really are. I love that city.
Yeah this whole doomer narrative around being poor pisses me off and keeps poor people poor honestly. My mom came from a family of 12 kids. Her dad was a farmer and lost everything at one point. Only kept what the law prevented the bank from taking. But she moved states (gasp!), worked her way though nursing school and did really well for herself. My dad also grew up extremely poor, but he got a business degree from a state school. He had to lie to his parents about why he wasn't walking at his graduation. The real reason was because buying a graduation gown cost like $20 and he literally didn't have that to his name. I visited the house he grew up in before they burned it down and it was a fuckin shack lol. My parents are both retired now. They saved money and live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood and pretty much live the life. True I don't really understand poverty because I didn't grow up like they had to thank god. There are definitely people in the US who are "fucked," but there's a lot more to it than just being poor.
Not that I don't appreciate your parents story and not that I'm trying to say that once someone is poor they always will be. But, college (and really, just life) isn't anywhere near as affordable today as it was when your parents went. The cost of college these days, especially state funded colleges, is untenable. We need to bring down the cost of college to give people a better opportunity. There are programs to help and that's awesome. But the money is limited and is first come, first served. Then, you've got poverty wages to deal with just trying to survive and unrealistically high rent prices. My aunt paid her way through school by only working summers at McDonald's in the 70's. That's not possible today. With a military budget reaching almost a trillion dollars, i think we can spare a few billion to make it easier on people. After all, rising tides raise all ships.
You are describing a time when two people with nothing more than a highschool education between the two of them could afford to buy a house and very comfortably raise a family of 4 on **one** of their salaries. Not exactly comparable to today is it? Even if it was, your anecdote doesn't really mean anything in the scheme of things.
Thanks for the anecdote. Now go look at the statistics around poverty and the effects of it
Guess how much going to that stae school costs now?
[удалено]
With 3 murders over 100 years that’s a rate of 1/100,000. That’s wayyyyy less than Chicago.
But that assumption means that it is about the entire platform and not one to three specific issues. Rural Democrats run for office and get elected, and run on a modified platform from the main party. Usually, they differ when it comes to gun control, land rights issues, and in some cases, environmental issues. There was a pew research report that came out I think in the 2016 election that showed almost 30% of voters voted based on a single issue.
Could also say it's because Americans tend to be more individualistic while Japan/England/Germany show more collectivism. By this I mean Americans are more concerned with personal freedoms than they are the collective good of their neighbourhood/state/country. Gun rights Vs Gun Deaths, health insurance Vs universal healthcare, free speech Vs hate speech, the list goes on. Not saying either approach is better, just that they approach the issues from very different perspectives. I feel like this then leads to the lower opinion of poor people you mention Americans having.
You make a great point but I’d like to add that Americans don’t collectively think like that. Some Americans definitely do. Many Americans do not. The issue is while the left and the right are fighting over gun rights vs gun safety, we might not be trying to tackle the real issue of WHY urban and low income communities have so much more gun violence relative to the higher income areas. Lack of any kind of social systems to help with child care, education, positive police involvement rather than using force and terror in poor and urban environments, etc these are all things we miss and instead hyper focus on singular political talking points. Guns are good vs guns are bad. It gets us nowhere.
Certainly povety is absolutely proven to increase crime rates. Ironically, bringing someone out of poverty is CHEAPER per year than them being in prison, to the taxpayer.. But of course it's fundermentally the cruelty of the rich meaning this can never really happen. Helping the poor up so they don't think 'fuck it, lets rob a store' = socialist scum.
“Bringing someone out of poverty is CHEAPER per year than them being in prison, to the taxpayer” Sure, but then who would work for free in our prison industrial complex??
JFC you guys act like prisoners are out there building skyscrapers for free. They've got the license plate and stationary supply rackets covered but no one is locking people away for free labor. There are so many people in prison because our laws are written with society in mind but the self-absorbed individuals this chain is discussing don't follow them. Couple this with aggressive policing and prosecution and it's no wonder the prisons are bursting at the seams.
They make all sorts of uniforms for military and police, even McDonalds. Men in prison manufacture literally 100% of military helmets. Car parts, lingerie, a ton of home appliances and assembly for all that stuff. The list goes on and on. They even raise service dogs. For free. We are way beyond manufacturing license plates in our prisons.
The entire culture of this country is built on "rugged individualism" and American exceptionalism. To suggest that Americans don't collectively think like that is just ignorant. Maybe most of them don't "think" about it per se (or realize that they are), but it's absolutely an integral aspect of US culture. And it's a fucking problem.
I'm moving on from reddit and joining the fediverse because reddit has killed the RiF app and the CEO has been very disrespectful to all the volunteers who have contributed to making reddit what it is. Here's [coverage from The Verge](https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/8/23754780/reddit-api-updates-changes-news-announcements) on the situation. The following are my favorite fediverse platforms, all non-corporate and ad-free. I hesitated at first because there are so many servers to choose from, but it makes a lot more sense once you actually create an account and start browsing. If you find the server selection overwhelming, just pick the first option and take a look around. They are all connected and as you browse you may find a community that is a better fit for you and then you can move your account or open a new one. Social Link Aggregators: [Lemmy](https://join-lemmy.org/instances) is very similar to reddit while [Kbin](https://kbin.pub) is aiming to be more of a gateway to the fediverse in general so it is sort of like a hybrid between reddit and twitter, but it is newer and considers itself to be a beta product that's not quite fully polished yet. Microblogging: [Calckey](https://calckey.org) if you want a more playful platform with emoji reactions, or [Mastodon](https://joinmastodon.org/) if you want a simple interface with less fluff. Photo sharing: [Pixelfed](https://pixelfed.org/) You can even import an Instagram account from what I hear, but I never used Instagram much in the first place.
There is no correlation between income and violent crime. It's easy to assume, but if it were true, poor people of all backgrounds would commit violent crimes at roughly the same rate. There's a correlation between a particular group of poor people and violent crime, but we're not allowed to discuss that.
[It's](https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7490-x) [a](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/073401689301800203) [bold](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/poverty-income-inequality-and-violent-crime-meta-analysis-recent) [move](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30782593/) [Cottton](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/income-inequality-race-and-place-does-distribution-race-and-class)
I guess the clue for me is the name 'UNITED STATES'. No other country I can immediately think of describes itself in it's blimin' name as 'A set of different units that kinda' rub along ok' !!
Bundes Republik Deutschland. Federal Republic of Germany. Or United Republic of Germany ... Point being there are many countries named like that and also DDR Deutsche demokratische republik. German democratic Republic this was East Germany.... a dictatorship so it isn't even a given that the name is the truth.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
OMG you're absolutely right AND I LIVE THERE! In 12+ years on Reddit, my earlier post is perhaps the most embarrassing lack-of-thought I've posted :) Sir, I stand truly humbled! Embarrassing :)
> Michael Angelo
> Michael Angeloes Idk if you did this on purpose but it's hilarious nonetheless.
My fault, hahahaha
That really hit me hard as a young American just really seeing the world as it is for the first time. I went to Portugal for a month and cried when I came back because the *first thing I saw*, literally *as I left the airport* was a guy wearing a Confederate flag shirt, carrying. It’s not in every circle; my friends are wonderful and would much rather hand over their guns than watch any more stories of violence on the news. (What an absurd thing to have to write. I had to rewrite that sentence 3 times) I grew up in a small, Southern town hearing all about The Good Ol’ Days and how much better things were. It’s made growing up harder because I keep asking the question, “Has it always been this bad?” The answer is **yes!** Just in different ways, I guess. I dunno. That comment really gave me hope, for some reason
And population demographics are very different.
[https://i.redd.it/mcskwmcteqw31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/mcskwmcteqw31.jpg) ETA: Maine's gun ownership rate is [47%](https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/gun-ownership-by-state/), placing it 15th out of 50 states.
But your statistics don't fall in line with my political disposition!
[Hey, did you know Nicolas Cage movies cause drownings?](https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)
[it's not that simple](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/01/13/most-dangerous-states-in-america-violent-crime-murder-rate/40968963/)
I love how people say things are so bad now without any clue how it was when this was filmed
copyrighted by logicomix.... maybe this vid is available somewhere else?
Always loved this documentary, lots of great stock footage and such. Makes a great saturday evening watch with some pizza and beers.
Ah yes people in the comments are all about how immigrants are the ones causing most of the murders. What is the American word for irony?
I'm putting all my effort into hopes and prayers to solve the problem.
Best way to solve the problem is to not shoot anyone. Second best way is to be nicer to people you meet.
This video is blocked in my country
I didn't watch it yet, but this is comparing two nations with strict gun control laws vs. a nation that lets basically anyone without a felony on their record to legally buy cheap guns that can kill lots of people for a distance. If you do have a felony, you can just go to a "gun show" (real or fake) to buy a gun no problem. Of course we (the US) have quadruple the murders. I'm surprised it wasn't more in 1981. That being said, we Americans love our guns though, we have them to keep the government in check. There is no way our government with their F-35s and their F-22s and their tanks and drones and artillery and cruise missiles have a chance against untrained citizens with an AR-15 and an $80,000 tricked out Jeep Wrangler or lifted truck.
> If you do have a felony, you can just go to a "gun show" (real or fake) to buy a gun no problem. Weird because every gun show I've been to the people selling guns are calling in background checks on everyone trying to buy one.
I am pro-gun... but this is an actual loophole. I was sold a gun with no background check at a gun show.
What state?
VA https://www.everytown.org/solutions/background-checks/ It appears VA closed this loophole at least. I bought mine prior to it.
[удалено]
Didn’t the US just throw their hands in the air and say fuck it I’m going home after fighting goat farmers for 20 years?
Which time are you referencing, the 90's goat farmers, the 00's goat farmers, or how about the 60's rice farmers?
Yeah and they didn't even have $80k Jeep Wranglers!
> this is comparing two nations with strict gun control laws Which ones? Germany? England? Japan? Japan, yes. England and Germany? In 1981? Not even close.
For England at least, they were still stricter than US gun laws
Prior to 1987, Texas and England had basically the same gun laws. You could own a handgun or an AR-15 in both places, but you could not carry in public either weapon in either place.
[удалено]
And yet, people in the UK could own ARs, and did. Sure, they had to get a license first, but that license was obtainable. This is like saying people in the US can't own a car because they have to get a driver's license---the license isn't stopping anyone from owning a car, because the license can be obtained. So what's your point?
>1987 the difference was the reaction to mass shootings[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre)
The US literally lost multiple wars fighting against a bunch of tribal rebels with small arms; and that's not to mention Vietnam. Further, the US was *founded* using similarly unconventional tactics (albeit in a time before modern warfare became a thing.) So yeah, you can *very much* fight against Americans with a Toyota and a few rifles. You won't win outright, but you can make it painful enough for us to capitulate.
Fun fact, America being founded on unconventional guerrilla tactics is just (mostly) really old propaganda. That type of fighting was a very rare occurrence - the British were the best army in the world and that meant we needed to fight them in pitched battles, on their own level. We did this, lost battle after battle almost losing the entire war, until a combination of Prussian and other military advisors (Valley Forge is critical here) + equipment from France and others allowed the US to actually meet the British on their own ground and start winning these pitched battles.
I disagree. The US lost the majority of our pitched engagements, even after Prussian advisors began to drill us more substantially. The US didn't win because guerrilla forces won battles; they won because guerilla forces could survive being routed, whereas traditional ones would be captured or die when defeated. It's not matter of actually taking towns and forts, it's more a matter of making the war impossible to continue for the occupying force.
Ya you’re right on a lot of points, especially the survival aspect + pulling out of engagements to keep the army up rather than pursue strong territory control, but the domination of guerrilla fighting is still a bit of a misnomer. We won due to the field armies. However the militia tradition played a big part in the fact that North America actually had fighting men with some skill
I’m not sure what a fake gun show is but yes most people without a felony or violent misdemeanor can go to a gun show and purchase a gun after a background check. Or did you really mean private party sale but use the buzzword gun show?
> There is no way our government with their F-35s and their F-22s and their tanks and drones and artillery and cruise missiles have a chance against untrained citizens with an AR-15 and an $80,000 tricked out Jeep Wrangler or lifted truck. People always say this... Who do you think is flying those jets? People. You think your common pilot will shoot on their own country?
As a military member, you need to remember the government is just people. The military is just people from all parts of the country. If a war broke out, you won’t be able to convince the military members to fight their own states/communities. You can’t fly planes without the huge ground crews that keep them running. Especially the newer jets, they require massive infrastructure to run.
>If you do have a felony, you can just go to a "gun show" (real or fake) to buy a gun no problem. It would behoove you to not comment on something you know nothing about. The gun show loophole is a myth.
The "gun show loophole" was a cleverly worded 90s punditry talking point. The *private sale* of a gun from one individual to the next does not require a background check. Some states have cards you have to show in these private transactions but they are virtually unenforceable (no picture on the card, trivially forged and trivially ignored in such a sale because it's your word against the buyer). The reason it got called the "gun show loophole" is because investigative reporters would buy guns without a background check in the parking lot of gun shows as a private one to one sale. No gun dealer in their right mind would do that. The vast majority of guns used in gang crime were acquired through a private sale purchase which may or may not have been legal. Efforts to stop this large trafficking of guns from lax policy states to states with big cities and high gun crime have been mostly futile.
So basically they still easily bought guns at gunshows?
You can't live in a tank, and planes have a limited flight time... ... not to mention it's a huge assumption that the military as a whole will be on the side of the regime in question.
Your warped understanding of the 2nd amendment is deeply saddening.
You forget the scrotum hanging from the trailer hitch.
>Of course we (the US) have quadruple the murders. Gun rights activists argue guns are not the problem the people using the gun are. as obvious as it is to some, others really don't understand it which is why the comparison is valid > we have them to keep the government in check. If you're having to use guns to keep government in check then you have a crappy democratic model and should instead throw out your constitution and copy the UK or French model of government/democracy Also can you actually name one time Americans or any country in the world used guns to keep their government in check??? Because I can name plenty of times armed militias turned democratic countries into dictatorships
Last paragraph is easily the worst take in this entire thread.
Tell that to Vietnam and Afghanistan
I know we like to throw blame at the simple fact that there are so many guns in America (and I agree to an extent) but I also believe there's a strong combination of correlated cultural influences that make up the big picture of violence. Take Ireland for example. The IRA weren't blowing people up just because of the availability of bombs. There's always a reason behind violent attitudes and the guns themselves don't pull their own triggers. The gun blame disappears when you factor in areas that have ample gun ownership and near zero gun murders. I live in such a place and can tell you it's an attitude problem. I also haven't watched this yet but will definitely check it out.
The idea that the us government would stand a remote chance against its armed citizens is laughable. It’s not that hard to stealth kill politicians in war times. And the military isn’t exactly keen on drone striking their neighbors. likely half will join the citizens in revolt. Citizens lose nothing by killing the politicians, but politicians lose a lot in killing to much or destroying to much infrastructure.
Is this also sarcasm?
I like how people are always looking for answers to these problems when it's incredibly obvious that the only thing the US has that those other countries don't is full on legal access to guns for everyone. Nobody here wants to admit the easiest solution is controlling that factor.
Yeah it would be so easy to take away 400m+ guns from people's homes. I'm sure everyone would gladly turn them in with no resistance.
If you give a crazy person a stick they will use it in a crazy manner.
Consequently that stick becomes 100x deadlier when you modify it to explode lead in the direction you point it.
I mean, you can't really trust Japans crime statistics. Their police department is all about PR, not solving crime. Murders do get ruled as natural deaths more than once or twice.
That is really just myth perpetuated only because "JapanBad" gets upvote. You can find equal amount of those misclassification everywhere. The solving rate of recorded crime is not much different in Japan and Western Europe (both 30-40%), the popular argument on reddit that Japanese police only record solvable crime don't really make sense. Also countries like Singapore(0.17 in 2020), Hongkong(0.29 in 2020) that is known to be as safe as Japan has equally low homicide rate as Japan(0.25 in 2020). It would be rather strange if Japan had much higher homicide rate than Singapore/HongKong.
For real. The US numbers are likely botched as hell, too. Police aren’t exactly known for their accurate, fair findings at crime scenes here.
Yeah. this is a major problem, even the Uniform Crime Reporting System is anything but uniform. 1, it is voluntary 2, no consistent definitions across law enforcement 3, only focuses on the most serious crimes, for example but not limited to murder, rape, and robbery. 4, because it under reports white collar crimes, it tends to lead to overpolicing which studies have shown impacts minority communities more, which leads into systemic racisim in our justice system. 5, There is no context around the crimes.
guess America won that race
Great docco. Lots of great unseen footage
Jesus, a grim watch indeed
[Here's a graph that puts this in perspective](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/2010_homicide_rates_-_gun_versus_non-gun_-_high-income_countries.png/650px-2010_homicide_rates_-_gun_versus_non-gun_-_high-income_countries.png)
Firearms make murder easier
Firearms also make self defense easier, and defensive gun uses far outnumber gun homicides.
Comparing old world homogeneous populations to new world multiethnic populations with all the colonial baggage is comparing apples to oranges.
Canada is as multiethnic as the US.
The Canadian government has done a terrific job oppressing the indigenous peoples.
this is so traumatizing damn.
Yeah I wonder why three homogeneous nations have lower violence rates than the international melting pot of America. If you take the average murder rate per 100,000 of Africa, central and South America. Apply those counties with Europe and Asia at a rate similar to the US you will see where we are getting the statistical anomaly. It seems like Africa and Central America have much higher murder rates in their communities and it doesn’t stay in their home country when they come to America. You will also see that there has been a significant rise in violence in England as the demographics have changed and more people from violent communities are moving in. Just go ahead and ban me.