S Africans 'armed to the hilt'

[JoeP]

S Africans 'armed to the hilt'
I knew this: "South Africa has one of the world's highest incidences of gun-related crime."

But this is a bit of a shock: "South African civilians own more guns than the police and military combined."

How does this strike you in the rest of the world?

joe

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by JoeP

S Africans 'armed to the hilt'
I knew this: "South Africa has one of the world's highest incidences of gun-related crime."

But this is a bit of a shock: "South African civilians own more guns than the police and military combined."

How does this strike you in the rest of the world?

joe

I applaud that. I think that is the way America should be.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by JoeP

How does this strike you in the rest of the world?

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

I applaud that. I think that is the way America should be.

You're kidding, right?

[ApostateAbe]

You're kidding, right?

No, I am not. The highest incidence of gun-related crime may seem like a real crisis, but that is expected in the country with the highest gun-ownership percentage. A better reason for concern would be made by looking at the general rates of murder and assault. And even if that were a problem, I wouldn't give much more of a shit. South Africa learned the hard way that firearms in the hands of the citizens are necessary to secure freedom and protection from the government.

[Adora]

South Africa learned the hard way that firearms in the hands of the citizens are necessary to secure freedom and protection from the government.

So you're somehow comparing the political situation in South Afirca, to the US.

...

Right.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by Adora

So you're somehow comparing the political situation in South Afirca, to the US.

...

Right.

I hold it as a general principle that the freedom of the general population is best secured when the people are more powerful than the government. And I also hold that any subgroup of people deter abuse from the larger population when the subgroup is armed.

[Adora]

Um, call me nuts, but isn't the government meant to be people too? Since when did this weird view of "Teh Government" as "Strange Dictator Aliens From Outer Space" develop in people's minds, anyway?

And I also hold that any subgroup of people deter abuse from the larger population when the subgroup is armed.

Cos yeah, y'know, it's not like a militia has ever abused its power after it revolutionises a country. Ever. ¬_¬...

I still can't believe you're comparing South Africa to the US. Haven't you ever heard the words "Colonialist Legacy"?

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by Adora

Um, call me nuts, but isn't the government meant to be people too? Since when did this weird view of "Teh Government" as "Strange Dictator Aliens From Outer Space" develop in people's minds, anyway?

The government is a group of people who have been assigned authority and have been granted power. Often, the power and the authority is abused for the purpose gaining more power or to inflict harm or injustice on the public. It happens almost everywhere all the time. The government has always been Strange Dictator Aliens From Outer Space.

Cos yeah, y'know, it's not like a militia has ever abused its power after it revolutionises a country. Ever. ¬_¬...

I still can't believe you're comparing South Africa to the US. Haven't you ever heard the words "Colonialist Legacy"?

Yes.

[Dingfod]

Abe, there are 200-240 million guns in private hands in the United States, probably many times more than in the hands of the military and police of the country, which I would estimate have no more than 10-15 million guns at the most, including their ready arsenal. The percentage of households that own at least one gun is at least 38%, with at least 23% of households owning at least one handgun, far higher numbers than South Africa. We Americans are very well armed, I don't think there is any country with a higher percentage of gun ownership except maybe Iraq. Now, I'm only talking only light firearms, but I suspect so is the article about South Africa.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The government is a group of people who have been assigned authority and have been granted power.

Thank you for bringing this up. One is granted power by the masses. The masses can easily take it away without violence. That is why we have elections. That is why we live a democracy. That is why some people are able to evolve beyond childish aggressor tactics.

Often, the power and the authority is abused for the purpose gaining more power or to inflict harm or injustice on the public.

And whose fault is that? If you elect someone you know is corrupt, then you must take responsibility for that action.

[The Lone Ranger]

Somehow, I doubt that handguns, shotguns, and deer rifles are going to be all that effective against helicopter gunships, fighter-bombers, and tanks.

Originally Posted by Adora

If you elect someone you know is corrupt, then you must take responsibility for that action.

That's the problem in a nutshell: we get the government we deserve. If American citizens weren't so consistently uninformed and jingoistic, we'd have better leaders. The fact of the matter is that you can (and do) win elections in this country by appealing to people's worst instincts, pandering to them, and flat-out lying.

This needs to change!


I'm not saying I know how to do that, by the way, but I do think that we could and should be doing a much better job in this country of educating people and teaching them how to think. Critical thinking skills should be a mandatory part of the curriculum from 1st grade onward.

Cheers,

Michael

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Abe, there are 200-240 million guns in private hands in the United States, probably many times more than in the hands of the military and police of the country, which I would estimate have no more than 10-15 million guns at the most, including their ready arsenal. The percentage of households that own at least one gun is at least 38%, with at least 23% of households owning at least one handgun, far higher numbers than South Africa. We Americans are very well armed, I don't think there is any country with a higher percentage of gun ownership except maybe Iraq. Now, I'm only talking only light firearms, but I suspect so is the article about South Africa.

Good call, warrenly, you got me there. I live in a part of the country where firearm ownership is low, so I underestimated the percentage of households who have guns.

Originally Posted by Adora

And whose fault is that? If you elect someone you know is corrupt, then you must take responsibility for that action.

Certainly, it would be the fault of the people, but I think I would rather safeguard my life and freedom, and I would rather correct the mistake than take responsibility for it by allowing oppressive tyranny.

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

Somehow, I doubt that handguns, shotguns, and deer rifles are going to be all that effective against helicopter gunships, fighter-bombers, and tanks.

You're right. I guess it's time to cut the military.

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

That's the problem in a nutshell: we get the government we deserve. If American citizens weren't so consistently uninformed and jingoistic, we'd have better leaders. The fact of the matter is that you can (and do) win elections in this country by appealing to people's worst instincts, pandering to them, and flat-out lying.

This needs to change!


I'm not saying I know how to do that, by the way, but I do think that we could and should be doing a much better job in this country of educating people and teaching them how to think. Critical thinking skills should be a mandatory part of the curriculum from 1st grade onward.

I'll drink to that!

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Somehow, I doubt that handguns, shotguns, and deer rifles are going to be all that effective against helicopter gunships, fighter-bombers, and tanks.

You'd be surprised. In a Men's Journal magazine issue several months dedicated to Iraqi war stories, there was part of an article that quoted an Army officer that reported the Iraqis very effectively rendered helicopters much less effective with coordinated small arms fire. In the first wave of 60 helicopters every one of them came back with bullet holes in them, wounding several crewmembers. The second wave of helicopters had a couple of them shot down by small arms fire, same tactic, coordinated fire, people just shooting up into the sky at night as they approached. After the initial waves, they avoided flying directly over the cities, towns and villages and Iraqi military positions, a tactic rendering the helicopters less effective at direct confrontation. All you have to do to fight superior machinery is put up a wall of bullets that not even jet fighters can penetrate. 200 million guns could shoot more rounds of ammunition than the military probably even has at it's disposal.

I read of a Basque sheepherder in Wyoming with a .30-30 Winchester put bulletholes in a jet fighter that buzzed his sheep several times. When FBI and military MPs went out to question the sheepherder, they asked him how he managed to put two holes in their jet plane. He said he fired five shots, figured out how far to lead it with the first few shots, then shot it. The pilot was the one that ended up being in trouble, he flew off the flight path and below 1000 feet to make the herd of sheep run.

Most high-powered big game hunting rifles are much more powerful and accurate and shoot further than the light arms carried by soldiers. Also, the non-jacketed soft lead and hollow-point bullets are much more lethal to humans when they do hit than the full metal jacket military stuff mandated by Geneva convention, which both sides are using there in Iraq. There are a lot of handguns more powerful and accurate than the sidearms of the military and most police forces that are using the 9mm (which I've heard called a .38 short). But you do have a point, against WMD, which we do have, bio, chemical, incendiary, and nuclear, small arms are no defense, whether civilian or military.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was to dispute Abe's contention that somehow South Africa was on the right track, when the fact is, American's also have many times more guns than the military and police.

[ApostateAbe]

Warrenly, how do you know so much?

[Dingfod]

I read a lot. Some of it is shit. Some of it is useful. A lot of it is trivial, useful only in playing trivial games.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

South Africa learned the hard way that firearms in the hands of the citizens are necessary to secure freedom and protection from the government.

Not so (bollocks, in fact). That's American thinking. The guns they're talking about are in the hands of white farmers and so on and they won't be sufficient to protect themselves from the government. The majority of the other guns are in the hands of criminals, and they don't have them for protection from the government.

A bgi factor here is that there aren't enough police and they aren't well enough equipped, compared to their "customers".

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Not so (bollocks, in fact). That's American thinking. The guns they're talking about are in the hands of white farmers and so on and they won't be sufficient to protect themselves from the government. The majority of the other guns are in the hands of criminals, and they don't have them for protection from the government.

A bgi factor here is that there aren't enough police and they aren't well enough equipped, compared to their "customers".

OK, thanks for pointing that out.

[wade-w]

As a counter argument to the "gun ownership" = "bad" camp, I invite you to consider Kennesaw, Georgia. This town has a local ordinance that requires every head of household to maintain a gun. Rather than Dodge City style shootouts, the burglary rate there is half that of both the State and National levels, and violent crimes (defined as Murder, Non-Negligent Manslaughter, Rape, Assault and Robbery) are 4 times less than the State and National levels. The first year the ordinance was in place, the burglary rate dropped by 35%.

[viscousmemories]

Hmm. That's an interesting case study, wade, but I can't seem to find much in the way of solid statistics on Kennesaw. I see that the law was enacted in 1982 when the city had a population of 5,000, and that the crime rate "plummeted" and stayed low despite the population growing to 19,000 by 1996. What I can't find is what the crime rates were before. After all, if there were 10 burglaries in 1981 then a 35% drop isn't much of a plummet. Do you know of any online sources on that?

[wade-w]

This link is to the Kennesaw Police Department. Their source is the FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics from 1998. They report a normalized figure of 54 burglaries in '81. They don't give raw figures, unfortunately. All of the other sites I can find are obviously partisan, so I don't trust them.

One thing to consider is Kennesaw's location. It is in Cobb County, and is considered part of Metro Atlanta. What I find compelling about this ordinance is not necessarily the crime statistics themselves. Rather it's counter to the usual impression that gun control advocates give you that in a situation such as this people should be running around shooting each other right and left in Kennesaw. It's simply not happening.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Hmm. That's an interesting case study, wade, but I can't seem to find much in the way of solid statistics on Kennesaw. I see that the law was enacted in 1982 when the city had a population of 5,000, and that the crime rate "plummeted" and stayed low despite the population growing to 19,000 by 1996. What I can't find is what the crime rates were before. After all, if there were 10 burglaries in 1981 then a 35% drop isn't much of a plummet. Do you know of any online sources on that?

Kennesaw has a very low crime rate still.

Crime in Kennesaw (2002):

* 0 murders (0.0 per 100,000)
* 2 rapes (8.8 per 100,000)
* 4 robberies (17.6 per 100,000)
* 19 assaults (83.8 per 100,000)
* 60 burglaries (264.7 per 100,000)
* 426 larceny counts (1879.6 per 100,000)
* 24 auto thefts (105.9 per 100,000)
* City-data.com crime index = 133.6 (higher means more crime, US average = 330.6)

Crime in Kennesaw (2001):

* 0 murders (0.0 per 100,000)
* 0 rapes (0.0 per 100,000)
* 7 robberies (31.5 per 100,000)
* 15 assaults (67.6 per 100,000)
* 51 burglaries (229.8 per 100,000)
* 370 larceny counts (1666.8 per 100,000)
* 24 auto thefts (108.1 per 100,000)
* City-data.com crime index = 117.1 (higher means more crime)

I looked and looked and couldn't find another city of 20,000 with less than a crime index of 200 anywhere. Green River, Wyoming, pop. 11K, has a crime index of 170 and it probably has almost as many guns per household as Kennesaw, but Green River isn't anywhere near a city with a high crime rate.

[godfry n. glad]

If anybody is "armed to the hilt", I'd say it was Americans.

I grew up with guns. Rifles, shotguns, and handguns. I was toting a .308 at 12 years old and killed my first (and only) deer at 14.

I support the right to bear arms. This is because of what I've seen in the past twenty years. I fear that there is the possibility of seizing the government and operating it against the will of the people. If "the people" are to have ultimate sovereignty, then they will need to be armed. Our distrust of national police and a standing army comes from British history. A standing army...a professional army that answers to the payor...is a far, far different thing than a militia. A militia is a band of semi-trained defenders of their country and it's freedoms. That is why we were given the responsibility of bearing arms....each and every citizen...is to protect our sovereignty as citizens against those who would seize the reins of armed control of the nation. It's also a very strong argument against the invasion of the country....as it is in Switzerland.

However, I recognize that there is a problem here in the United States with that ready access to firearms. My view is that it is the small automatic weapons and handguns which are the biggest problem. It is exactly those small firearms that get used against those we know and love in moments of foolish passion. It is those which are easily stolen, hidden and moved in illicit markets, often in the hands of those ill-advised to be handling them. I'm convinced that keeping a handgun in the house is ill-advised. Even if it has a trigger safety guard. I think that anyone and everyone who owns a firearm should be tested on basics of firearm safety, use and care. The equivalent of "Hunter's Safety" should be required of every firearm owner.

The history of handguns in the United States is a bloody one. I think it is as much a reflection of our culture as it is a symptom of easy access to weapons. I don't know how it can be addressed.

I have grown to hate that..."the government"...like it's somebody else. Hey - it's supposed to be "us". We are supposed to make responsible decisions in our elected officials. I personally have been frustrated by this because so many narrow-minded and greedy elected officials, from both parties, seem to be intent on expanding their own, or their friends', opportunities at the expense of the taxpayer. I was unhappy with the outcome of the Great Society, but the Reagan Revolution was a bust and a big lie, too. Yet they were all selected by a majority of the voters....I'm the minority. Pretty much always have been. It seems to me that we have now entered the era of everybody wanting something for nothing. From my view, this Bush is illicit and has made this country a laughingstock overseas. His economic policy is pure self-delusion. The U.S. has become a rouge nation....it's trying to answer too many corporate agendas. Or something.

The thing is, after these recent years.... I've come to wonder that our government hasn't already been compromised. It's bloated way beyond what was originally expected of it. But to extract from some does not mean extract from all. Interstate commerce and it's regulation is still a basic task for a national government. But what concerns me is that functions once carried out at very local levels....neighborhoods...small towns...villages... have been consistantly handed over to higher levels of government; from neighborhoods to cities, from town to county, from water districts and power districts to county, from school districts to state, from county to state...all in the interests of "efficiency".

In my state, it is now the State Legislature that determines school funding for my local school district. That was the result of a statewide ballot measure that "limited property taxes". Yeah, it reduced our growing property taxes, but at the cost of ALL local control. Those people living within the district no longer set the policies that operate the school district and determine the budget....the State Legislature does. Boy, was that a bad idea.

I think these steps have been taken in what used to be called the "Tax Revolution"...to unsaddle the capitalists from excessive taxation, to unburden the working capital from misspent taxes. What started out as unburdening the middle class has become a case of devaluing the communal assets while those at the top rake it in. The schools in my state become more crowded and critical deferred maintenance is soon to come home to roost after nearly twenty years of cutting costs.

Many city and local governments are strapped. Yet we continue to send scads of money to Washington so they can determine which strings to attach to it when they send a portion back. Does that make any sense?

godfry

I say throw the bums out! They had their chance and they muffed it.

[Dingfod]

I found one with a lower crime rate than Kennesaw and it's in godfry's stomping grounds, West Linn, Oregon which has a crime index of 120 and roughly 20,000 population right on the outskirts of Portland.

Edit: West Linn has a median of $72K per household, Kennesaw, a relatively high $60K. Hmmm, rich suburbs have lower crime. Go figure.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by warrenly

I found one with a lower crime rate than Kennesaw and it's in godfry's stomping grounds, West Linn, Oregon which has a crime index of 120 and roughly 20,000 population right on the outskirts of Portland.

Edit: West Linn has a median of $72K per household, Kennesaw, a relatively high $60K. Hmmm, rich suburbs have lower crime. Go figure.

You got it, Warn. West Linn is where a lot of the Trailblazers live (them's profeshunul baskitball players). Nice community. High school kids with their own SUVs, cellphones and charge cards. Interesting place. I don't think anybody's required to keep a firearm.

It sounds like an excellent reason to cut local taxes. They don't need to budget much for police, now, do they?

Heh.

I'll bet that don't show up in the stats.

godfry

[wade-w]

As I said, Kennesaw is in Cobb County, which as a whole is one of, if not the, richest counties in Georgia. However, I hadn't realized that Kennesaw itself had gotten that affluent; it certainly wasn't when the ordinance was passed. In fact, at that time, it probably couldn't have been considered part of Metro Atlanta. That area experienced a huge boom with uncontrolled growth in the late 80's and 90's.

One other thing, they did not have lowering the crime rate there spcifically in mind when they made that law. It was really a statement in response to another small town in Ohio that outlawed all guns the year before.