Recommended reads

HelenaV5
By HelenaV5 on Wed, Sep 12, 2012 - 8:25pm

Hi all,

We're not a particulalry chatty group I've noticed :)

Anyone have any good recommendations for books they've read? 

I've read a few books this year that have impacted on me.  'The Weather Makers' and '6 Degrees' were both excellent climate change related books.  I also enjoyed 'The Great Disruption' by Paul Gilding, again climate change related but with a focus on how it will impact society as a whole, I recall the author's personal opinion is that around 2018 he thinks we'll be well underway to being significantly impacted by climate events for other areas (food/finance) to be disrupted enough to begin 'collapse'.  I've also read 'The Long Emergency', which of course is really Americocentric and although I appreciated the read I didn't quite find myself sharing all of the Author's sentiments when it came to what collapse would look like; however I have a feeling it will look very different depending on what part of the world you're in and even in which specific locality/region you're located. 

So does anyone else have anything they've read that has particulalry resonated with them on these subjects?  I'm always looking for a good book to read :)

Renee.

37 Comments

nancy_lnl's picture
nancy_lnl
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 5 2012
Posts: 13
Heaps of book recommendations!!

Hi Renee,

Really good idea for a discussion topic - I also hope some others jump in!

The book that lead me onto this path was Requiem for a Species by (Australian author) Clive Hamilton.  It goes a long way to explaining how consuming (shopping) has become the self-defining activity of the vast majority of people in the west, and the consequences of that on trying to stop never ending growth (it's not only politically and economically explosive but also now emotionally and physchologically debilitating for those who don't know how to value themselves if they don't shop... ).

After that, it was Richard Heinberg's End of Growth that was the clincher for me - much more climate change focused than the Crash Course.  His home page (richardsheinberg.com) has a section in it called The End of Growth - exclusive supplemental materials, and it has suggestions for heaps of books, and most of them focused on what you can do.

I also read The Crash Course and then Paul Gilding's book but I think once you have a few under your belt the story is pretty much the same and you don't get an awful lot extra out of them (could be I just chose similar themes I guess?).  In that vein I find The Transition Handbook by Rob Hopkins to be the one I turn to

nancy_lnl's picture
nancy_lnl
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 5 2012
Posts: 13
cont...

oops, seems that I posted that before it was finished...

Anyway, the Transition Handbook is for me the most positively influencing book of the lot - really inspiring and unlike a lot of the feelings people express on this site about feeling not understood by the people around them (feeling isolated and alone), it demonstrates how to bring people together to tackle the problems we all face.  One point, it doesn't focus on the economy anywhere near as much as this site does, but it does discuss local/alternative currencies which in the end will probably be the solutions we need anyway.  So, its definitely my biggest recommendation.

Renee, I also share your intuition that collapse will look very different depending on where you are, and personally I would hate to be in the US at that time - all those guns everywhere (88 for every 100 people!) so we have to find our own solutions.

Cheers!

Nancy

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1509
some good books

Since I run the Agriculture/Permaculture group my book recommendations are all gardening-related.

We've had earlier threads on this topic, but it's a good one and deserves to be resurrected every so often.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 1476
Finance and monetary matters...

Since this is my area of greatest interest, I will recommend a few.  It goes without saying that Chris' book, "The Crash Course" should be on anyone's reading list.   Test:  Define the meaning of primary, secondary, and tertiary assets.   

"The monetary elite vs Gold's honest discipline" by Vincent LoCascio. 

http://www.amazon.com/Monetary-Elite-Golds-Honest-Discipline/dp/09768427...

This is really an amazing book in that it was written in 2005, and it essentially predicts all that has happened in terms of bailouts and the acceleration of moral hazard in the system.  Sadly, I believe Vincent died of cancer shortly after writing this book.  I have read, and re-read this book, and it really helps to see how we got here, in layman's terms.  For example..  Vincent helped me to understand that FDIC insurance, as it stands with near 100% protection of accounts... something most of us take for granted as a good thing.. is really one of the early steps into a world of moral hazard.  By leaving you, the consumer, with no "skin in the game" with regard to choosing which bank you use based on the soundness of their business practices... we end up in a place where the banks are encouraged to take on more risk.  

"Leverage:  How Cheap Money will Destroy the World"  by Karl Denninger       

  http://www.amazon.com/Leverage-Cheap-Money-Destroy-World/dp/1118122844/r...

While I disagree with Karl about the usefulness of Gold and Silver in protecting savings... Karl is the best at presenting the untenable math of our fiscal mess in a very straightforward fashion.  Math is not subjective.  

"Paper Money Collapse:  The Folly of Elastic Money and the Coming Monetary Breakdown"  by Detlev Schlicter 

http://wwSwitch to plain text editorw.amazon.com/Paper-Money-Collapse-Monetary-Breakdown/dp/1118095758/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Detlev is a blogger, as is Denninger.. and I originally found him through his blog.  I think that it is telling that the sole negative Amazon review on this book is from an admitted MMT (modern monetary theory) adherent.

It is very important that everyone understand what money is.. and how it works today, so that when the current system blows up, you can express an opinion regarding what should replace it.  This is not just about having money and finding ways to preserve it, but about being aware of the importance of money, how it can be used against us and to the benefit of elites and bankers.. and how we can remake the system in a way that is more fair.   

HelenaV5's picture
HelenaV5
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: May 9 2012
Posts: 12
that should keep me busy

Hi all,

Thankyou for the comments, it looks like I wont be short of anything to read for a while!  Nancy, thanks for mentioning the Transition handbook, I think it's worth a look.  Safewrite, I have the root celaring one, which is great, I'll check out the others.  Jim H, you've provided some great links, I have to admit money and finance is one of the things I've found hardest to get my head around, so I'll be checking out your recommendations to see if its something I'll eventually get my head around!

Also, you haven't gone insane if you thought you were writing to someone else, I've changed my user name :)

Thanks.

sim's picture
sim
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 1 2010
Posts: 3
Some more..

Some great suggestions here already, but let me add my $0.02 worth anyway.

Most recently, I read Language Intelligence which was superb. You may wonder what it has to do with the topic at hand, but it provides some important context as to why some of the most important messages on climate change, peak everything etc are not getting through - and it provides you with practical tools for improving your communication.

Another great recent read was Resilience: why things bounce back, which focuses on the importance and methods of building resilience at every level of the society and business.

On the food production front, I would have to say Gaia's Garden: a guide to home-scale permaculture has been the most influential books of that genre; it also serves as a good introduction to permaculture which I consider to be a critical design toolbox for future.

Let me end with The Wealth of Nature: Economics as if Survival Mattered which touches on many of the same topics as Chris Martenson in his Crash Course, but from a slightly different and refreshing angle.

Would love to hear others' thoughts if you've read any of the above.

treebeard's picture
treebeard
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2010
Posts: 372
Long list

Kind of a long list, a few of my recent reads and some old favorites, great thing about the internet, you can find old and new titles alike.  Some of them are repeats. Great suggestions as well, I'll have to check them out.

Could we do a book club over the site, never been part one, do they do them over the internet?

Debunking Economics Steve Keen Zed Books 2011 Economics
The Future of Life Edward O Wilson Vintage Books 2002 Industrial society and biological extinctions
Animal, Vegetable, Miracle Barbara Kingsolver Harper 2007 A year of local food
The Unsettling of America Wendell Berry Sierra Club Books 1977 Agriculture and Culture
Tomorrow is Our Permanent Address John Todd Harper Collins 1980 Ecological Design
The Sheer Ecstasy of being a Lunatic Farmer Joel Salatin Chelsea Green Publ. 2010 Ecological Farming
Earth's Answer Lindisfarne Conferences Lindisfarne Press 1977 Essay's on Cultural evolution
The One Straw Revolution Masanobu Fukuoka Rodale Press 1978 Natural/Organic Farming
The Contrary Farmer Gene Logsdon Chelsea Green Publ. 1994 Natural/Organic Farming
Permaculture One Bill Mollison/David Holmgren Inter. Tree Crops Instit. 1981 Permaculture
Permaculture: Principles and Pathways David Holmgren Holmgren 2002 Permaculture
The Lost Language of Plants Stephen Buhner Chelsea Green Publ. 2002 Plants/Ecology/medicine
Hubbert's Peak Kenneth Deffeyes Princeton U Press 2001 Peak Oil
Twilight in the Desert Matthew Simmons John Wiley & Sons 2005 Peak Oil
The Long Emergency James Howard Kunstler Atlantic Monthly Press 2006 Peak Oil/Societal Transition
Power Down Richard Heinburg New Society Publishers 2004 Post Carbon Society
Small is Beautiful EF Schumacher Blond & Briggs 1973 Early classic, appropriate technology
The Lives of a Cell Lewis Thomas Bantam Press 1974 Ecological, societal commentary
The Biology of Belief Bruce Lipton, PhD Elite Books 2005 Implications of new biological research – epigenetics
The Rediscovery of Meaning Owen Barfield Wesleyan U Press 1977 Poetic vs. mechanistic view of reality
Crossing the Rubicon Micheal Ruppert New Society Publishers 2004 Decline of Empire
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man John Perkins Berrett-Koehler Publishers 2004 The structure of Empire
Reclaiming the Commons Brian Donahue Yale University Press 1999 Community farms history of the “commons” in New England
Home From Nowhere James Howard Kunstler Simon and Schuster 1998 Planning and New Urbanism
Cradle to Cradle W. McDonough & M. Braungart North Point Press 2002 Rethinking Manufacturing
John Lemieux's picture
John Lemieux
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2012
Posts: 223
A Story About Ourselves And The World

And about how we got to be where we are now.

The Master and his Emmissary The Divided Brain and the Making of the Modern World  by Ian McGilchrist

From the back cover;

"We need both hemispheres; but, McGilchrist argues, the left hemisphere has become so far dominant that we are in danger of forgetting everything that makes us human. Taking the reader on an extraordinary journey through Western history and culture, he traces how the left hemisphere has grabbed more than it's fair share of power, resulting in a society where a ridged and bureaucratic obsession with structure, narrow self-interest and a mechanistic view of the world hold sway, at an enormous cost to human happiness and the world around us. "

I haven't finished this yet, it's over 500 pages. But the more I get into this book the more certain I am that unless we learn to individually and collectively balance our hemispheric brain functions, we can only continue to use and destroy both each other and the planet. J.

An excellent description of the book is here; 

http://www.iainmcgilchrist.com/brief_description.asp

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
nancy_lnl wrote: Renee, I

nancy_lnl wrote:

Renee, I also share your intuition that collapse will look very different depending on where you are, and personally I would hate to be in the US at that time - all those guns everywhere (88 for every 100 people!) so we have to find our own solutions.

Cheers!

Nancy

Sorry Nancy but statements like these have little basis in fact or reality.  I'd rather be in the US because I CAN own a gun here and I CAN carry a gun here and I CAN use a gun here to defend myself and my family if need be.  If you are a woman, do you think you'd be able to defend yourself against a strong male or gang of males better with your unarmed body or with a firearm?  If you were an old and infirm woman, do you think you could defend yourself better against a machete with your own machete or with a firearm?  In the Rwandan genocide, approximately 1,000,000 people were slaughtered, most of them killed with a machete.  In the period prior to the development of firearms, people were quite capable of slaughtering one another on an enormous scale.  In the time of Ghenghis Khan during approximately 70 years of warfare in Asia, tens of millions of people were slaughtered quite effectively with nary a firearm in site.  So please refrain from these kind of gunophobic comments when history just doesn't back them up.

Reads in the past months:

Glock, The Rise of America's Gun by Barret (this one's dedicated to you, Nancy)

With God, All Things Are Possible (The Victor Marx Story) by Marx

The Power Curve by Kyle

Income Investing Secrets by Stooker

Risk Intelligence by Evans

The Most Dangerous Superstition by Rose

Tax-Free Wealth by Wright

The 7 Most Important Equations for Your Retirement by Milevsky

The Biggest Secret by Icke

How Privatized Banking Really Works by Lara

Strong on Defense by Strong

Tongue Fu by Horn

Nature's Garden by Thayer

The Forager's Harvest by Thayer

Teaming with Microbes by Lowenfals 

nancy_lnl's picture
nancy_lnl
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 5 2012
Posts: 13
ao - opinions are free are they not?

Hi ao,

I'm happy for you that you feel safer because you live in a country where you can own a gun - that's your opinion and you are welcome to it and to express it.  I don't actually believe it can be proved whether one is safer owning a gun in a country with high gun ownership (of which the US is far and away number one), or to not own a gun in a country with low gun ownership (only 15 guns to every 100 people in Australia - we are in the Australian Resilience group discussion thread after all).  For many non-Americans, the thought of being caught up in a bad situation in the US is a scary one simply because we are not used to the prevalence of guns in society - I'm not sure how expressing my opinion about that is harmful in anyway...  

At any rate, I'm a little suprised that a long term member of this site is actually asking me to censor my views on a subject that is not banned by the site.

Thanks for the book recommendations.

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
nancy_lnl wrote: Hi ao, I'm

nancy_lnl wrote:

Hi ao,

I'm happy for you that you feel safer because you live in a country where you can own a gun - that's your opinion and you are welcome to it and to express it.  I don't actually believe it can be proved whether one is safer owning a gun in a country with high gun ownership (of which the US is far and away number one), or to not own a gun in a country with low gun ownership (only 15 guns to every 100 people in Australia - we are in the Australian Resilience group discussion thread after all).  For many non-Americans, the thought of being caught up in a bad situation in the US is a scary one simply because we are not used to the prevalence of guns in society - I'm not sure how expressing my opinion about that is harmful in anyway...  

At any rate, I'm a little suprised that a long term member of this site is actually asking me to censor my views on a subject that is not banned by the site.

Thanks for the book recommendations.

Hi Nancy,

What I get tired of is the propensity on this site for those coming from some of the British Commonwealth countries (most commonly the UK and Australia) to repeatedly snipe at Americans about the gun issue and a host of other issues that are actually none of their business.  It especially galls me because the blood and guns of Americas ensured these individuals the freedom to make these comments during a little altercation called WW2.  Many Americans died or had lifelong problems from wounds and disease defending your country because your own citizens were incapable of doing so in such a manner that the safety and sovereignty of your country was assured.  So I'm not censoring you but I'm asking you to think before you post something that others might find offensive ... and I find those kinds of comments offensive ... and I know my father, who served defending your country, would find them extremely offensive.  Find me one single instance on this board where an American, unprovoked, posted that they didn't want to live in Australia because of X,Y,Z issue.  My recommendation is that if coming to America and getting caught in a particular situation is frightening, the answer is very simple ... don't come.

P.S. And it most definitely can be proved in America that those areas that have concealed carry are safer than those that don't.

rocketgirl2's picture
rocketgirl2
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 24 2012
Posts: 41
ao wrote: nancy_lnl wrote: Hi

ao wrote:

nancy_lnl wrote:

Hi ao,

I'm happy for you that you feel safer because you live in a country where you can own a gun - that's your opinion and you are welcome to it and to express it.  I don't actually believe it can be proved whether one is safer owning a gun in a country with high gun ownership (of which the US is far and away number one), or to not own a gun in a country with low gun ownership (only 15 guns to every 100 people in Australia - we are in the Australian Resilience group discussion thread after all).  For many non-Americans, the thought of being caught up in a bad situation in the US is a scary one simply because we are not used to the prevalence of guns in society - I'm not sure how expressing my opinion about that is harmful in anyway...  

At any rate, I'm a little suprised that a long term member of this site is actually asking me to censor my views on a subject that is not banned by the site.

Thanks for the book recommendations.

Hi Nancy,

What I get tired of is the propensity on this site for those coming from some of the British Commonwealth countries (most commonly the UK and Australia) to repeatedly snipe at Americans about the gun issue and a host of other issues that are actually none of their business.  It especially galls me because the blood and guns of Americas ensured these individuals the freedom to make these comments during a little altercation called WW2.  Many Americans died or had lifelong problems from wounds and disease defending your country because your own citizens were incapable of doing so in such a manner that the safety and sovereignty of your country was assured.  So I'm not censoring you but I'm asking you to think before you post something that others might find offensive ... and I find those kinds of comments offensive ... and I know my father, who served defending your country, would find them extremely offensive.  Find me one single instance on this board where an American, unprovoked, posted that they didn't want to live in Australia because of X,Y,Z issue.  My recommendation is that if coming to America and getting caught in a particular situation is frightening, the answer is very simple ... don't come.

P.S. And it most definitely can be proved in America that those areas that have concealed carry are safer than those that don't.

@ao

Your response may be historicaly accurate however the tone is mean and nancy doesn't deserve to be bullied. Is she responsible for making sure that her opinions and observations are always in line with all of the american history sensitivities?  

I know you can dialogue like no one else and that your insight and knowledge are superior (opera hand clap) but you don't have to be mean about it.

RG

nancy_lnl's picture
nancy_lnl
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 5 2012
Posts: 13
Apologies due

Hi ao,

First up - my sincere apologies for the offense given.  I shall certainly be more careful with my comments from here on in.  To be honest with you I didn't even imagine that anyone other than the members of the Australian Resilience group would be involved in the discussion...  obviously wrong on that one!

ao wrote:

Find me one single instance on this board where an American, unprovoked, posted that they didn't want to live in Australia because of X,Y,Z issue. 

It's funny that you mention this...  I was looking the other day at an old forum on Aquaponics from 2 years ago (that JAG set-up) and came across just that kind of comment (basically about Australia being full of dangerous wildlife and not worthy of the praise JAG had given it).  I just checked to see who it was that wrote that and isn't this ironic - it was you :)  I guess that it just goes to prove that from the outside different things look scary and undesirable, and every now and again people want to vent that feeling... smiley

ao wrote:

My recommendation is that if coming to America and getting caught in a particular situation is frightening, the answer is very simple ... don't come.

Indeed!  I have 2 more trips that have to be made and will try to enjoy my final time with good friends there.

ao wrote:

P.S. And it most definitely can be proved in America that those areas that have concealed carry are safer than those that don't.

That's very interesting - I guess it works like the nuclear deterrent in times of peace.  However I'm not sure if it can be extrapolated out to say that highly armed countries / societies are safer (or more dangerous for that matter) than ones with low rates of personal armament.

Best regards!

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
nancy_lnl wrote: Hi ao, First

nancy_lnl wrote:

Hi ao,

First up - my sincere apologies for the offense given.  I shall certainly be more careful with my comments from here on in.  To be honest with you I didn't even imagine that anyone other than the members of the Australian Resilience group would be involved in the discussion...  obviously wrong on that one!

ao wrote:

Find me one single instance on this board where an American, unprovoked, posted that they didn't want to live in Australia because of X,Y,Z issue. 

It's funny that you mention this...  I was looking the other day at an old forum on Aquaponics from 2 years ago (that JAG set-up) and came across just that kind of comment (basically about Australia being full of dangerous wildlife and not worthy of the praise JAG had given it).  I just checked to see who it was that wrote that and isn't this ironic - it was you :)  I guess that it just goes to prove that from the outside different things look scary and undesirable, and every now and again people want to vent that feeling... smiley

ao wrote:

My recommendation is that if coming to America and getting caught in a particular situation is frightening, the answer is very simple ... don't come.

Indeed!  I have 2 more trips that have to be made and will try to enjoy my final time with good friends there.

ao wrote:

P.S. And it most definitely can be proved in America that those areas that have concealed carry are safer than those that don't.

That's very interesting - I guess it works like the nuclear deterrent in times of peace.  However I'm not sure if it can be extrapolated out to say that highly armed countries / societies are safer (or more dangerous for that matter) than ones with low rates of personal armament.

Best regards!

Hi Nancy,

Regarding the Australia and dangerous wildlife issue, you obviously haven't been here long enough to understand the difference between seriousness and a tongue-in-cheek statement, but, of course, I couldn't expect you to know that.  And a key word there, which you overlooked, was "unprovoked".  There's a history here that I don't think you're familiar with.  Talk to DTM and VF, if you haven't already.

You're coming here to the land of guns, bullets, and gunpowder driven mayhem?  Criminy!  What happens if all hell breaks out while you're here?  Actually, I think you have more to fear from the 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition that DHS has purchased and from ICE than you do from legal American gun owners.  Enjoy your stay and pray you don't wind up in a FEMA camp as a foreign national (that's a tongue-in-cheek statement, in case you don't recognize it). 

With regards to your last statement, it's a non-sequitur since I never made that extrapolation.  Read what I wrote ... carefully ... and don't project what you thought I meant but read what I said.  And be sure to thank your American friends for the blood and guts of their countrymen that defended your country when it couldn't defend itself. 

G'day

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
rocketgirl2 wrote: @ao Your

rocketgirl2 wrote:

@ao

Your response may be historicaly accurate however the tone is mean and nancy doesn't deserve to be bullied. Is she responsible for making sure that her opinions and observations are always in line with all of the american history sensitivities?  

I know you can dialogue like no one else and that your insight and knowledge are superior (opera hand clap) but you don't have to be mean about it.

RG

RG,

Thank you for your comment.  I will take it under advisement.  I discount the "mean" word because so many of a younger generation who feel the least disagreed with, held accountable, challenged, or otherwise moved out of their comfort zone seem to interpret any action of that type as "mean".  And the whole concept of labeling any confrontation as bullying has become the new cause de rigeur and will undoubtedly achieve heights of stunning popularity among the politically correct crowd who don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they believe in and therefore resort to languishing in the role of victim.  If it was my intention to be mean or bully, it would be patently obvious.  I am admittedly direct, however, and don't believe in pussy footing around but if Nancy felt I was mean or that she was bullied, I apologize to her.  I think she did quite an admirable job of expressing her thoughts and sticking up for herself, however, without your intervention.  

rocketgirl2's picture
rocketgirl2
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 24 2012
Posts: 41
ao wrote: rocketgirl2

ao wrote:

rocketgirl2 wrote:

@ao

Your response may be historicaly accurate however the tone is mean and nancy doesn't deserve to be bullied. Is she responsible for making sure that her opinions and observations are always in line with all of the american history sensitivities?  

I know you can dialogue like no one else and that your insight and knowledge are superior (opera hand clap) but you don't have to be mean about it.

RG

RG,

Thank you for your comment.  I will take it under advisement.  I discount the "mean" word because so many of a younger generation who feel the least disagreed with, held accountable, challenged, or otherwise moved out of their comfort zone seem to interpret any action of that type as "mean".  And the whole concept of labeling any confrontation as bullying has become the new cause de rigeur and will undoubtedly achieve heights of stunning popularity among the politically correct crowd who don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they believe in and therefore resort to languishing in the role of victim.  If it was my intention to be mean or bully, it would be patently obvious.  I am admittedly direct, however, and don't believe in pussy footing around but if Nancy felt I was mean or that she was bullied, I apologize to her.  I think she did quite an admirable job of expressing her thoughts and sticking up for herself, however, without your intervention.  

She did stand up for herself quit well and after reading her post I laughed and realized in hind sight that I should have just stayed out of it.  So I agree with you on that point.  As for the rest of it I'll have to quote my dad and say "Pain is the great motivator.  When it gets painful enough, you get motivated".  You'll get it.  We're all in the same boat.

Cheers

RG

HelenaV5's picture
HelenaV5
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: May 9 2012
Posts: 12
Australian thread

Ok well reading through previous comments I just have to say that when I started this thread, in the Australian Resiliance group, I actually assumed only people in the group could read it, a bit naive of me obviously.  Nancy may have assumed the same.  For the record I agree with her, but then again I would, not because I want to be offensive to Americans with weapons, but because we live in a different paradigm, and we can't imagine eachother's realities unless we have lived them.  Nancy was just stating her opinion, which is neither right nor wrong, just an opinion.  We live without firearms, you live with them.  There are numerous references to how beneficial Americans believe their weapons to be, it's only fair that those airing their opinion on the possible downside to owning a firearm be allowed to air their opinions also.

treebeard's picture
treebeard
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2010
Posts: 372
Not all Americans

There are many Americans who do not prize the possessions of weapons.  The need to arm yourself against  your neighbor (or government) is at best a necessary evil, how can it be considered otherwise.  It is odd to me that this level of disaffection from our culture and one another seems now to be considered "normal".

Although I think the question is to often asked backwards.  Gun possession does not lead to violence, fear and violence lead to gun possession.  We are one of the worlds most violent cultures because we one of the worlds most competitive (homicide rates are 5 times higher here than in any country we call our peer).  We have the evolutionary story backwards, it is not species that out competed it's neighbors that survived, but the ones that were best at cooperation.  Until our cultural myths change, I do not hold hope for the change of attitudes.

Fear seems to be the dominant emotion here at the end of the American empire. Here's a book recommendation:

Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDDkNixytd0
A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2311
Education and Responsibility

HelenaV5,

Really, the only difference is the way media portrays violence in society.

The majority (~65%) of murders in American society are committed with firearms, yes.
But, lets take a quick look at some facts - because as you said, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but that doesn't mean that we can't use information to shape our opinions...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

For 2006, Australia was #18 out of 37 nations in murders per capita. The United States did not make the list, where New Zealand, Italy, Greece, Spain, Austria and Germany - ALL of which have severe restrictions on individual gun ownership.

Also, as an interesting side note, violent crime in America has been decreasing for the last 6 years, according to the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime

So, if you look at figures like this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

...And assume that firearms play a role in all this crime, it's easy to see why the opinions of outsiders, and indeed, many Americans, would be skewed into thinking that firearms ownership is the problem. Indeed, less than half of the robberies in the U.S. involve a firearm, and less than a quarter of the assaults. 

This, like drug use, is confined to a significantly small portion of the population.
Yes, accidents happen as well, and they're terrible and preventable, but people accidentally electrocute themselves, fall off ladders, drown in their pools and many other things that could be prevented with caution. Firearms are no different.

To put in perspective, here is another look at "total crimes" with firearms and the national ranking... The United States is #4 on this list:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

...with 9,369.
That's one firearms related muder per ~38,000 people.
That same year, there were 42,642 automobile fatalities.
Accidental deaths in 2005 claimed 113,000 in 2005.
In 2000, 2001 and 2002, there were 195,000 preventable deaths each year due to medical malpractice.

Point is, there are far more dangerous segments of society, with far less oversight, causing far more 'loss of life' than firearms.

While I don't intend to sway your opinions, I do hope that this presents some information that can help you understand why firearms ownership is such a central point to many Americans - the reason we have less violent crime per capita than many of the other modern western societies is that we are legally allowed to equalize violent encounters by possessing weapons. 

Cheers, and I hope this is of some use to you.

Aaron

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2311
Perspective

HelenaV5, Nancy lnl

Really, the only difference is the way media portrays violence in society.

The majority (~65%) of murders in American society are committed with firearms, yes.
But, lets take a quick look at some facts - because as you said, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but that doesn't mean that we can't use information to shape our opinions...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

For 2006, Australia was #18 out of 37 nations in murders per capita. The United States did not make the list, where New Zealand, Italy, Greece, Spain, Austria and Germany - ALL of which have severe restrictions on individual gun ownership.

Also, as an interesting side note, violent crime in America has been decreasing for the last 6 years, according to the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime

So, if you look at figures like this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

...And assume that firearms play a role in all this crime, it's easy to see why the opinions of outsiders, and indeed, many Americans, would be skewed into thinking that firearms ownership is the problem. Indeed, less than half of the robberies in the U.S. involve a firearm, and less than a quarter of the assaults. 

This, like drug use, is confined to a significantly small portion of the population.
Yes, accidents happen as well, and they're terrible and preventable, but people accidentally electrocute themselves, fall off ladders, drown in their pools and many other things that could be prevented with caution. Firearms are no different.

To put in perspective, here is another look at "total crimes" with firearms and the national ranking... The United States is #4 on this list:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

...with 9,369.
That's one firearms related muder per ~38,000 people.
That same year, there were 42,642 automobile fatalities.
Accidental deaths in 2005 claimed 113,000 in 2005.
In 2000, 2001 and 2002, there were 195,000 preventable deaths each year due to medical malpractice.

Point is, there are far more dangerous segments of society, with far less oversight, causing far more 'loss of life' than firearms. 

While I don't intend to sway your opinions, I do hope that this presents some information that can help you understand why firearms ownership is such a central point to many Americans.

While nothing can ever really be "proven", I am of the opinion and belief that the reason we have less violent crime per capita than many of the other modern western societies is that we are legally allowed to equalize violent encounters by possessing weapons. The data can certainly be shown to support the hypothesis, and that's as good as I can do!

Cheers, and I hope this is of some use to you.

Aaron

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2311
Considerations
HelenaV5, Nancy
 
Really, the only difference is the way media portrays violence in society.
 
The majority (~65%) of murders in American society are committed with firearms, yes.
But, lets take a quick look at some facts - because as you said, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but that doesn't mean that we can't use information to shape our opinions...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
 
For 2006, Australia was #18 out of 37 nations in murders per capita. The United States did not make the list, where New Zealand, Italy, Greece, Spain, Austria and Germany - ALL of which have severe restrictions on individual gun ownership.
 
Also, as an interesting side note, violent crime in America has been decreasing for the last 6 years, according to the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
 
So, if you look at figures like this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
 
...And assume that firearms play a role in all this crime, it's easy to see why the opinions of outsiders, and indeed, many Americans, would be skewed into thinking that firearms ownership is the problem. Indeed, less than half of the robberies in the U.S. involve a firearm, and less than a quarter of the assaults. 
 
This, like drug use, is confined to a significantly small portion of the population.
Yes, accidents happen as well, and they're terrible and preventable, but people accidentally electrocute themselves, fall off ladders, drown in their pools and many other things that could be prevented with caution. Firearms are no different.
 
To put in perspective, here is another look at "total crimes" with firearms and the national ranking... The United States is #4 on this list:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
 
...with 9,369.
That's one firearms related muder per ~38,000 people.
That same year, there were 42,642 automobile fatalities.
Accidental deaths in 2005 claimed 113,000 in 2005.
In 2000, 2001 and 2002, there were 195,000 preventable deaths each year due to medical malpractice.
 
Point is, there are far more dangerous segments of society, with far less oversight, causing far more 'loss of life' than firearms.
 
While I don't intend to sway your opinions, I do hope that this presents some information that can help you understand why firearms ownership is such a central point to many Americans - the reason we have less violent crime per capita than many of the other modern western societies is that we are legally allowed to equalize violent encounters by possessing weapons. 
 
Cheers, and I hope this is of some use to you.
 
Aaron
gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Sunday Sermon

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 2346
I grew up in Africa. Weapons

I grew up in Africa. Weapons were a way of life. I view them with distaste. Nasty things. I hope I never have to own another one. I suspect that I will have to. I am not looking foward to the day. Oh God how, I love the pulse of a 7.62 , the boom of a grenade, the gorgeous white plume of a white phosphorus grenade, the sheer sneakiness of a mortar. Ah. The Sport of Kings.

Get thee behind me,Satan.

These are the books that have had the most effect on me.

"The Report to the Club of Rome. Limits to Growth". Meadows, Meadows and Dr Jorgen Randers.

And It's antidote "The High Frontier" by Gerard K. O'Neil. (We have got to do it. see above Limits to Growth, esp. The Standard Run)

"The gospel according to Thomas." For obvious reasons.

"The Master and his Emissary" by Dr. Iain McGilchrist. To help understand how we think.

The "Whole Earth Discipline" Stewart Brand.

"The One Straw Revolution" Masanobu Fukuoka (Because I am Lazy.)

"Gaia" and "The Revenge of Gaia" Prof James Lovelock.

"Stormes of my Grandchildren" James Hansen.

"Mycellium Running. How Mushroome can save the world." Paul Stammets

"The Other Brain" Douglas Fields Ph.D

"The Histories" by Herodotus. (Just to show us how good the ancient brain was.)

"Voyaging on a Small Income" by Annie Hill.

"The Bean Book" by Rose Elliot.

and

"Nuclear Transmutations" by Mizuno

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 2346
My apologies.

There are other books that are also my favourite. But you will have to wait.

theisland's picture
theisland
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 16 2012
Posts: 62
Murders per capita - dodgy data source

Aaron there are other sources of data on homicide rates that put the US at 4.2 per 100,000 while Australia is 1.0, UK 1.2 and New Zealand is 0.9. The US should have been ranked highly on the nationmaster.com list. Ironically the website you cited is run by Australians.

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2311
Bowskill

Do you have some sources?
As it stands, there is a higher number of murders in the U.S., I understand that.

The point of contention is that per capital, the U.S. is every bit as safe, if not significantly more so than most other nations in the world. You're also overlooking that most violence here is done in social enclaves and does not effect the bulk of the population in any way. I recall a few Aussies who came into a gun shop I worked in when I was a kid, and they were shocked at what we were allowed to possess. Not because we were allowed to possess it, but because there wasn't open season, WWIII in the streets with all the free access to military grade hardware. It's a social bias - and one that's not correct. Just like Americans are fed political agendas, Europeans and Aussies are as well - "gun violence" and the "blame the tool" mentality is just one of the more obviously facile ones.

The entire point is that crime is a component of all socities and it always has been. It will continue to be. 
Societies in which you're legally allowed to defend yourself are safer, as it creates a more problematic social field for career criminals. 

Not that America is some sort of utopia because of guns - it isn't. If guns weren't needed, I'd happily turn mine into manhole covers. But until that day comes, I refuse to cede any advantages to a criminal. In a similar fashion, I don't cede any advantages to physics when I'm driving, because I wear a seatbelt and have airbags. 

Truth be told, a motivated individual could turn a seatbelt into a pretty passable garrote. Intent is the ultimate arbiter.

Same same. 
Cheers,

Aaron

theisland's picture
theisland
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 16 2012
Posts: 62
re US vs others murder rates

Aaron,

Google "homicides per capita" and every hit places the US well above other western countries on a per capita basis. If you go to http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime (the same website you cited) it shows that there are 158 times as many murders with firearms in the US as in Australia. Even on a per capita basis there is an order of magnitude difference. The overall homicide rate is listed as 9.1 per 100,000 in the US and 1.88 in Australia. It's a hard sell to convince that high rates of gun ownership improve public safety in peace time. It seems to me that the gun debate gets muddy and heated when the right to bear arms is confused with the need to bear arms. Us Aussies, Brits and Kiwis do accept the former for your culture but don't understand the latter.

However.... in times of anarchy it may be different.

John

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2311
Interesting to say...

John,

Conversely, Aussies, Brits and Kiwis also place the rights of the offender above the rights of the victim, by systematically disassembling the ability and mentality of defending yourself, even in your own home. 

The overall homocide rate is saying that of the murders committed, 9.1/100,000 of the murders committed with a firearm compared to Australia's 1.8/100,000. Well, that makes sense. But it doesn't mean that more murders are committed. It just means that when they are, they're committed with firearms. Another thing to consider is we have an extremely aggressive legal system, and often enough, self defense is prosecuted as murder.

Because it generates legal revenue, even parties innocent of outright murder will settle into a plea agreement that many be recorderd statistically as a "murder", but are actually not acts of aggression that lead to a justifiable homocide. I agree that this is not something that should be glorified, or taken lightly...

I also understand the quantitative information here is blurry at best. As an American, I've been around guns all my life. It's not even remotely close to the perpetual state of gunfighting that other nations perceive. Shootings are actually pretty rare, and the media policy of "if it bleeds, it reads" is what has built the persona you're presenting here.

Further, taken to conclusion, your "right versus need" argument is perpetually degenerative. You don't "need" to be able to use the internet. Certainly not to vent your opinions. You don't need an home. You could just as easily be put in communal housing. You don't need the right to free speech. You don't need a hammer, drill or spanner. It could all be left to the "professionals". 

What you "need" is never the governments concern, nor is what you want. 
This is something I cannot understand about Australian, British and New Zeland's cultures. No authority is more apt at judging your level of safety than you are. 

So, rounding out my thoughts on this, yes. I do need the right to bear arms. I need it because:
a. Paraphrasing John Locke: Not all men are reasonable and rational. I can't count on a criminal to hear reason, and desist. If the application of force is one sided, that arbitrarially puts my life at risk, and;

b. "There is no social interest in preserving the lives of the aggressors at the cost of those of their victims." - Herbert Weschler. 

If you're interested, here is an old discussion on the subject, in a more appropriate venue. I'd be more than glad to continue discussing this with you, and thank you for your thoughts on the matter.

Cheers, and best wishes either way, John.

Aaron

Macs's picture
Macs
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 27 2011
Posts: 40
Conversely, Aussies, Brits

Conversely, Aussies, Brits and Kiwis also place the rights of the offender above the rights of the victim, by systematically disassembling the ability and mentality of defending yourself, even in your own home.

Bullshit, but don't let facts stand in the way of an agenda. Try this, near me, just yesterday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19727222

The point is rights apply to all, or they are not rights. The law applies to all, or it is not law. Under our legal system we have a right to self-defence with reasonable force. What is 'reasonable' is a case by case judgement - but if you hurt someone, it will be investigated. Self defence with reasonable force is a perfect defence, but you don't just get a free pass because the person hurt was a bad guy.

What you "need" is never the governments concern, nor is what you want. 
This is something I cannot understand about Australian, British and New Zeland's cultures. No authority is more apt at judging your level of safety than you are.

It's clearly not the only thing you don't understand about our culture. We are simply much less violent than the USA. I agree that it's not the number of legally held guns that is the issue. There's plenty of cases where other 'armed' societies are more peaceful, so it's not a gun problem, it's a social problem.

Personally, I support gun control here, but if I were to move to the USA I probably would have a gun. It's not something I see as a black and white principle, but given the choice I prefer an unarmed society. Even the police here are not routinely armed (same in NZ, Oz I don't know off the top of my head) although there are firearms units for rare occasions. I believe they've discharged fewer than ten rounds in the past year in the UK. It would be interesting to see what would happen if US police disarmed, but I guess it wouldn't be pretty. Over here 80% of cops recently polled said they didn't want to be armed, because it would totally undermine our model of policing. I agree, and think it would make life here a lot less pleasant.

Sorry to derail the thread further, but that comment about offenders' vs victims' rights couldn't stand unchallenged. As is often said, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Edit:

Also this:

But, lets take a quick look at some facts - because as you said, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but that doesn't mean that we can't use information to shape our opinions...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
 
For 2006, Australia was #18 out of 37 nations in murders per capita. The United States did not make the list, where New Zealand, Italy, Greece, Spain, Austria and Germany - ALL of which have severe restrictions on individual gun ownership.
The reason USA is not on the list is that it is not considered at all in this data set. Unless you're suggesting there are fewer murders in the USA than Malta that year, ie less than 1? The FACT is that murders by firearms alone would put the USA in 11th place.
 
Totally irrelevant way to 'use information to shape your opinions', huh?
A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2311
Macs

First and foremost, keep a civil tongue. 
If you wouldn't speak to me like that in person, I'd ask you don't do it from the safety of your PC.

All my information was cross referenced with the FBI's uniform crime report for 2006-2011.
You wouldn't know this, but it was embedded, and I had to repost. The links were lost, so please - feel free to do your own research and present facts. If you do, I'll gladly and openly look them over, and admit if I'm incorrect.

Quote:
What is 'reasonable' is a case by case judgement - but if you hurt someone, it will be investigated. Self defence with reasonable force is a perfect defence, but you don't just get a free pass because the person hurt was a bad guy.

Again, refer to Weschler. If you want to charge citizens in a court of law for defending themselves against people who willfully violated their homes, in order to willfully commit crimes against those persons, you're - plainly put - a part of the problem.

Further, you've got one example where a citizen defends himself, and you're collectively getting the thumbs up, conveniently forgetting the last two decades of prosecution against citizens, Riots,  and that Ken Clarke finally said in 2011 Brits should be able to defend their homes - after decades of English citizens being consternated by the courts for defending themselves.

Maybe because there was no problem?
Could also be because there's an ongoing trend that is well established (Lots of violence, unjust persecution) lineage of British citizens being incarcerated unjustly by their governments bad laws.

So with your lack of literally any evidence to support what you're saying, and a fair amount of statistical and even a few opinion pieces there for you to read, you can bury your head if you choose, but if you want to call "bullshit" on my information and invoke populism and groupthink, take the time to consider who really has an agenda.

Also, let's not forget that Australia's violent crime rose almost 50%, over the last few years, and you have the nerve to scapegoat Americans as violent brutes?
Maybe - correct me if I'm wrong here - but humans are predisposed to violence. 
Maybe, this is irregardless of location.

Maybe it has to do with Aussies being the king of the heap when it comes to drug use?
Who knows. 

Also, it could be that you're yet another VanityFox troll - which is my bid. How long did it take you to log off and on, giving yourself a thumbs up on your comment to make it look like you make sense?

Aaron

Macs's picture
Macs
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 27 2011
Posts: 40
I have absolutely no problem

I have absolutely no problem calling bullshit in person, thank you, but it's bit of a long way to come to do so.

Thank you for the link to Ken Clark's words, because that article makes it clear the law is not substantively altered, merely moved from one book to another for clarification, typical government shuffling of paper to make it look like they're doing something:

But the government is set to place people's right to defend their property, long present in common law, in statute law........ He added: "We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so."

As I said, we have the right to reasonable self-defence, have had it for a long time and it is a perfect defence. I still maintain it's BS to assert we "place the rights of the offender above the rights of the victim", and that we are "disassembling the ability and mentality of defending (ourselves)". So I only presented one example - that's sufficient to nullify your assertion. It only takes one falsification to disprove a hypothesis.

If you want to charge citizens in a court of law for defending themselves against people who willfully violated their homes, in order to willfully commit crimes against those persons, you're - plainly put - a part of the problem.

What's the problem when you have a perfect defence? The whole essence of the rule of law is universal accountability. Hit a burglar in the face with a baseball bat, fine. Hit him on the back of the head when he's running away, not. First case reasonable self defence, second case, common assault. Civilised societies adjudicate in court. It's when justice becomes partial that you have a problem.

Also, let's not forget that Australia's violent crime rose almost 50%, over the last few years, and you have the nerve to scapegoat Americans as violent brutes?
Maybe - correct me if I'm wrong here - but humans are predisposed to violence. 
Maybe, this is irregardless of location.

Oh, well, you really got me there. Except I didn't refer to Australian figures specifically; when I say 'we' I usually mean the UK. Our antipodean cousins generally do a damn good job of standing on their own feet. A rising trend from a lower base doesn't alter the relative positions. 'Violence' is too loose a term to debate accurately because different jurisdictions have different classifications making direct comparisons of offences complicated, so I'll qualify what I said: We are simply much less prone to killing each other than the USA. There. That is incontrovertible.

You seemed to like the 'List of 37' (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita) when you thought it backed up your thesis, but your failure to address that in your reply speaks volumes. It says you didn't read the data, you didn't analyse why the US 'didn't make the list', yet you can still lecture me about 'doing some research'. I loves me a nice dose of chutzpah!

But it's quite easy to locate the data needed to find out where the USA would have sat if it had only been included. http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf It's an interesting document. I will assume you don't regard the "Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008" from the Bureau of Justice Statistics project as too kooky for your consideration. It gives a figure of 17,030 homicides in 2006, with a population of what? 300 million? Is that fair? Which gives a homicide rate of 56.7 per million.

Carry that back to the 'List of 37' and you'll see that totally dwarfs Australia's rather weedy 17 per million, or Germany's 2.45 per million. How does this statement look to you now?

The United States did not make the list, where New Zealand, Italy, Greece, Spain, Austria and Germany - ALL of which have severe restrictions on individual gun ownership.

Embarrassing, I should hope. You really didn't do your research, did you? You didn't even read the source you cited. Imagine how much incentive that gives me to check up all the spurious references you sprinkle around.

Far from 'not making the list', once you include the FACTS, USA sails right into number six. So close to the medals. Hey, look on the bright side, at least the figures were looking better by 2010. It's down all the way to 48 per million, which has dropped the table position to... oh dear, still sixth - somewhere between Ukraine and Estonia. Great neighbourhood.

You also failed to draw attention to Finland, the highest placed of all the 'Western democracies' in that list. It weighed in at no. 11 with 32 homicides per million. And guess what their gun laws are like? A lot laxer than the UK's, which also 'didn't make the list'. According to the Home Office, England & Wales* with joint population of 58 million suffered 642 homicides in 2010/11 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary) which works out at 11 per million and a table position of 22nd, between Italy and Slovakia. Nice climate. The trend here is also declining, as it is in the USA currently.

feel free to do your own research and present facts. If you do, I'll gladly and openly look them over, and admit if I'm incorrect.

No need, I've already demonstrated that. The trend is clear, in comparable societies (ie western, democratic, market economies) a higher level of private gun ownership does not equate to a safer society as judged by the murder rate. Social and economic factors play a greater role, as do strict adherance to the rule of law, and general public faith in institutions. Look wider to Eastern Europe, Africa and South America where these other factors are far worse, gun ownership widespread and homicide rates astronomical.

Finally

Also, it could be that you're yet another VanityFox troll - which is my bid. How long did it take you to log off and on, giving yourself a thumbs up on your comment to make it look like you make sense?

That's just low. And wrong, yet again. I'd have thought by now you'd realise I don't give a rat's about popularity.

* Scotland and Northern Ireland are devolved with seperate legal systems

Steve Hardiman's picture
Steve Hardiman
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 12 2012
Posts: 1
Who says he's comments are

Who says he's comments are accurate! The citizens of the United Kingdom in WW2 stood up to tyranny in a way that no body else did till much later on. Sure the people and resources of the United States made a massive contribution to the liberty and well being of the people of Europe but that has nothing to do with the will and ability of the people in the UK. Many citizens of many countries died and had life long problems defending Europe.

If fact my uncle had life long problems caused by helping the United States Attack a foreign country and he had no choice!  Do the people of France bring up the fact that they contributed 40 000 troops to the war of independance every time the yanks put the boot into them? Nup not recently.You being offended doesnt give you the right offend.

The courage displayed by the citizens of the United Kingdom under attack from Nazi Germany and they way they collectivised and galvanised for a common good is an example to everyone of what can be achieved.

Not wanting to live in the US because of the high rates of gun ownership is a fair thing to say and there is absolutely no reason for you get offended. This website is about preparing for the potential breakdown of society, If i am am prepared and have my house in order i definately dont want to have to worry about it being taken from me or taken over by some lunatic just cause he's got a gun. And if your answer to that is that i get a gun then you're an idiot.

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
like a bad penny, he keeps coming back

Steve Hardiman wrote:

Who says he's comments are accurate! The citizens of the United Kingdom in WW2 stood up to tyranny in a way that no body else did till much later on. Sure the people and resources of the United States made a massive contribution to the liberty and well being of the people of Europe but that has nothing to do with the will and ability of the people in the UK. Many citizens of many countries died and had life long problems defending Europe.

If fact my uncle had life long problems caused by helping the United States Attack a foreign country and he had no choice!  Do the people of France bring up the fact that they contributed 40 000 troops to the war of independance every time the yanks put the boot into them? Nup not recently.You being offended doesnt give you the right offend.

The courage displayed by the citizens of the United Kingdom under attack from Nazi Germany and they way they collectivised and galvanised for a common good is an example to everyone of what can be achieved.

Not wanting to live in the US because of the high rates of gun ownership is a fair thing to say and there is absolutely no reason for you get offended. This website is about preparing for the potential breakdown of society, If i am am prepared and have my house in order i definately dont want to have to worry about it being taken from me or taken over by some lunatic just cause he's got a gun. And if your answer to that is that i get a gun then you're an idiot.

Hmm ... let's see ...

First time post suggesting a new online alter ego.  Check.

Posting in the wee hours of morning.  Check.

Grammatical and spelling errors suggesting an inebriated state.  Check.

The key word, "collectivised", indicating the poster's socialist/communist leanings.  Check.

Historical distortions - hint: research where those 40,000 troops were planned to go and check comparative contributions vs. WW1, WW2, Vietnam, etc.  Check.

Calling someone else an idiot when displaying those characteristics yourself.  Check.

Yep, sounds like our previously banned poster checking back in under a new identity, lol.

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2311
AO

Yeah, definitely more Vanityfox. 
Good to know I'm still an idiot.

As for the original point, and this:

Quote:
But it's quite easy to locate the data needed to find out where the USA would have sat if it had only been included.http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf It's an interesting document. I will assume you don't regard the "Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008" from the Bureau of Justice Statistics project as too kooky for your consideration. It gives a figure of 17,030 homicides in 2006, with a population of what? 300 million? Is that fair? Which gives a homicide rate of 56.7 per million.

Carry that back to the 'List of 37' and you'll see that totally dwarfs Australia's rather weedy 17 per million, or Germany's 2.45 per million. How does this statement look to you now?

It still looks like bullshit, because your numbers are wrong. The U.S. is clearly at 5.1, which places it slightly below Norway in terms of murders. That's not making the list, when you're talking about the top 25 countries, fella.

Saying the "US" is homogenous in terms of murder rate is like including the Balkans in your figures for Europe. 

If you remove statistics from D.C., and the South, our murder rate would look like any other country in the world:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf

...Which ties directly into what I was saying about crime in our society being relatively compartmentalized to certain areas and demographics. Interestingly enough, Washington D.C., with a murder rate of 24/100,000 is one of the most restrictive in the nation in terms of laws. 

In any case, twice now, you've inflated the murder rate of the U.S. by using the ratio of firearms used, rather than the actual rate, which aggregate is 5.1%. It's important to note that we have 7 states with Murder rates as low as Australias, and you're right - the US should have made the list, so I retract that. 
We should be right after Norway in terms of Safety, overall, which would place us at 32. 

The Nationmaster website now looks contentious, so here's their credentials:
http://www.nationmaster.com/about_us.php

They derive their information from the CIA World Factbook, and the website is run from Australia.

Were you interested in a discussion, and not another vanityfox troll, this is something that could be discussed in a thread intended for the purpose. 

We've managed to turn "good reads" into "bad/boring" read. 
I'm going to flag this and have the moderators delete all this noise and try and le some signal through.

Cheers,

Aaron

Macs's picture
Macs
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 27 2011
Posts: 40
Aaron, really, you're not

Aaron, really, you're not actually this obtuse in real life, surely?

It still looks like bullshit, because your numbers are wrong. The U.S. is clearly at 5.1

That would be 5.1 per 100,000 according to the census report you derived it from and linked to. That's 51 per million, in line with my figures derived from the DoJ report. This is another source you've cited without reading it properly!

I give up, there's clearly no point.

The first law of cherry picking is to pick cherries, not lemons.

We've managed to turn "good reads" into "bad/boring" read.

Now that is grounds for 100% agreement. My apologies to our long-suffering antipodean hosts, I think we owe you a few tinnies.

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2311
You're right

Sorry Macs, you're right.

I have no time for this conversation, and shouldn't be discussing it. 

Back to real life. Hopefully, the next person will make it harder for you to make them look like an idiot.

Cheers,

Aaron

Mike K's picture
Mike K
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 15 2012
Posts: 13
Another perspective from an Aussie...

For what it is worth, as an Australian, I think owning a gun or 2 is a great idea for the coming troubles. I realise that the statistics maybe a bit damning of the US and their more liberal gun laws but statistics often do not take things into account. For example, it would be interesting to firstly eliminate those few areas like DC and South Central LA etc from the stats and see what they look like in more normal comparative neighbourhoods in UK, Aus and NZ. Also interesting, would be the information relating to each of the use of the guns. Where they used on someone doing something they really shouldnt have been doing? The other thing I would like to point out is Switzerland. They have very high gun ownership however I am guessing they are quite low on the charts for gun murders? And whilst I am adding things on, what about the idea that when the proverbial hits the fan and the bad elements start banding together (with guns) and the police are overwhelmed (which they pretty much already are) who is going to defend my wife and daughters from being raped? Not to mention the fact that I live 40 mins away from the nearest Police station. I think the majority of the gun problems in the states can be linked back to mental health issues and the liberal use of strong antidepressants which actually cause people to be more unstable.

My 2c worth.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments