Saturday, November 9, 2013

More guns, less crime

Here's a fascinating article off Breitbrart (linked on Survivalblog) entitled U.N. Maps Show U.S. High in Gun Ownership, Low in Homicides.

Consider these maps. Gun ownership worldwide:

Intentional homicides worldwide:

Inverse ratio, anyone?

I find it grimly interesting that it's the U.N. who's putting out these maps... yet they're one of the biggest worldwide forces behind reducing private gun ownership.

Go figure.


  1. Obviously the U.N. is being run by liberal-progressives. When nothing any organization does ever makes any sense, when its members are hypocritical, when they lie and break their oaths of office, display no honor, honesty or integrity... it's a certainty they are liberal organizations run by liberal-minded people! --Fred in AZ

  2. Seems that both are not really very related worldwide.


  3. And a 'Liberty' map of the world would should a direct ratio to gun ownership. That's the map the UN dares not show. Earth to UN: Molon Labe!
    Montana Guy

  4. How does owning a gun or three is necessarily related with freedom?


  5. An armed society is a polite society.


  6. From the Husband of the Boss

    Actually ThoDan, the relationship of free gun ownership to freedom is fairly simple. A well armed populace is the greatest impediment to a voracious, grasping, and power hungry government. We know this to be true because historically-in all cases-one of the first actions of a despotic regime is to restrict or abolish the ability of the citizens to "keep and bear arms" It was for this very reason that constitutional delegates insisted on the addition of the second amendment to "cement" the deal and to doubly confirm the natural Right of all humans to self defense. I'm sure you agree that people have a right to protect themselves from those who would break the law in an attempt to harm them. And what law in the US is more preeminent than the Constitution?

  7. Greetings

    Husband of the Boss

    I hear this Argument often from americans but i can not found any one time this did happen in history, less in modern times.

    I´ve yet to see the day, when an unorganiced citicenry can stop an organiced , led miltary or paramilitary force not to speak of overthrowing them, especially not with the difference in force Multipliers of communication, air and heavy weapons.

    The German Freikorps in the Napoleonic wars didn´t seem of any signifikant Military value , neither the militia in your revolutionary war(from General Washington)

    On the other side

    Kapp - Putsch -(Reichswehr don´t shoot on Reichswehr) - Generalstrike the Kapp - Putsch failed.

    Or the Non-cooperation movement Ghandhis and it´s predecessors

    So i don´t see that these arguments are very concincing.
    I think political awareness, civic responsibility , the Courage to stand up etc is much more important than guns.
    If only because without ´these virtues the guns will not matter.

    To the defense from harm issue
    One of my Sisters lives in Delhi, India!

    But if i read These maps right: India, the UK, and Germany(and German rules on firearms, forbid them to be ready accessible in surprise necessity) are in different gun categories but the same crime categories



    PS Excuse my bad english pleas

    1. ThoDan, you're mistaken. A militia -- as opposed to a military -- is composed of individuals from one or more local regions typically bringing their own weapons to form a local defense. That is how the US Founders understood the term and that is the militia they referenced in the Constitution. That is what fought in the French & Indian Wars and in the American Revolution. In fact, it was the guerrilla tactics learned by the veterans of the French & Indian Wars that went a long way toward the British defeat in the American Revolution because the British were accustomed and expert at field tactics. Not quite so many open fields in the colonies.

      The founders were against the idea of a standing army although they provided for it in the Constitution through the calling up of militias. Having a formal, standing army is one of the numerous ways we're in violation of the Constitution.

      When you speak of the kinds of heavy weaponry used by large national armies you overlook that governments have a monopoly on force. By expressly denying the public ownership of any possible weapon and openly preventing them from having any of all the possible arms they harden that monopoly. They switch from the proper mandate of defense into the unconstitutional position of offense.

    2. @LarryR

      AFAIK/IMPOV a militia is an organiced Group who´ve a chain of command(sometimes informal, Commanders possibly elected by the militia members itself).
      They´re not only People who own weapons.

      You cann feed a foreign Army or your own, Winston Churchill

      From the time of Babylon to now , i don´t see much exception to this Rule.
      Especially if you replace Army with Navy.

      AFAIK the US had a Standing Army, since it´s first Days.

      No i don´t overlook the Monopoly of Force by the state, i don´t see how a bunch of People with guns will be able to stop an organiced force with modern Equipment and heavy arms.

      Why would or should a goverment automatically switch from defense to oppressive Offense against it´s citicen?
      Why should the armed/security Forces automatically break their oath to the souvereign and follow such orders?
      See the Carnation Revolution in Portugal

      Why should guns be more effective or effective at all in the Hands of untrained peiole than civil disobedince like a General strike?

      Self defense is only to clear, Fun/Hobby also, but that unorganiced and untrained(to fight against an oorganiced force) gun owners could stop an organiced, trained force with heavy Weapons and modern Support i don´t get.

      I´ve no Problem with the principle(except of misuse), but i don´t see it practically working.