Uncle Ted’s Manifesto: Ted, White, & Blue: a review

He sounds like a caricature of the libertarian Ron Paulites. This sentence:

“Nobody owes you a thing. Nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Everything you will get out of life will be based solely on what you put into it…You will get no more than what you are willing to bust your ass to earn.”

…. would be fine if we lived in a perfect world where efforts and work would be rightfully valued and there was a kind of justice in the equation “what you put into = what you get”, which is not often the case. It’s ideology of the worst sort, a kind of anti-communist in the sense of anti-matter type. Both are insane, for they trust the system too much (If not, why the “anti-whining” theme?). There’s always a reason for protesting, to make things heard, to demand things.

I think this ideology where the market is perfect and everyone should be treated almost as if they are commodities, where you “choose” your bosses and they “choose” you, has really some good things into it, I love the freedom of it, but it also has a lot of problems, because if deregulated, this relationship degenerates to a feudalistic relationship, always, creating a huge gap between rich and poor.

I can talk about this a lot, because I’m portuguese, and the score of portuguese inequality (rich vs poor) is the same as in the US, both countries occupy proudly the third place in the world in inequality (behind mexico and turkey). The reason why US suffers this I leave you all to identify. In portugal, people simply don’t care about the laws, and treat the neighbours as their own slaves, if they are able to.

Create a $100,000 reward for any U.S. citizen who shoots and kills a paroled felon during an assault or home invasion.

This is insane. Very, VERY dangerous stuff. If you can’t see the problem of this, you’re distracted. Big time.

Encourage all states to expeditiously execute all convicted child molesters.

Don’t believe in death penalty. Quite american stuff there. I’ll pass that.

I’ve just read Luis’s comment as I went to post this and I think it’s one of his best. (He’ll be horrified to think I agree with him although note that I don’t expect he will agree with my take.)

ON Oliver Stone and Ted the red:
“I make my films like you’re going to die if you miss the next minute. You better not go and get popcorn.” He failed.
I walked out of “Platoon” after the first few minutes when a soldier, probably American, was shown bashing the brains out with the but of his gun of another human. The only film that I’ve ever walked out of. I have persevered through many other violent films so this is not simply a female aversion to the phenomenon. Now the film geeks will no doubt correct me on the finer points of my hazy recollection of the film, but frankly I’m not interested. If a writer or film director can’t tell a story without resorting to sensationalism then the tools of his art are nothing more than an attempt at stimulation of the limbic system, Like pornography, its fit for teenagers or for jokes.

Ted sounds like he’s out of the same Mould. Violence on the brain, he needs some bromide in his tea.
That’s probably the problem. Either that or get a hair cut and learn some humility, it tends to give better results in concealing the caveman within from the ladies and the voters.
It might be interesting to note that there is a known link between violence against animals and psychopathic crimes. To glorify killing of anything for the thrill is so wrong and betrays such a lack of compassion and that alone causes me to doubt that the man condoning it has any understanding of honour or duty.
Removing the levees to force the people out of their homes? Well I believe that would constitute genocide.
The rest of his remarks betray a love of money beyond all else. Each point has money woven in except the idealistic one about 5% government nonsense…clearly the man is deranged. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to make money, even loving it, but it’s not a virtue many admire and its not vote worthy.

As for his writing, which you so revere Mr Briggs (44):
1. Yours is better (faint praise but sincere)
2. Exaggeration for dramatic effect, whilst amusing to read is the literary equivalent of shouting to make a point and is rarely taken seriously by those who believe themselves to be of greater insight!. I don’t believe you do. Perhaps you’re just feeding the fish for a laugh. (myself being one of those fish (a sea horse, not a dog fish of course). If so, can we have a discussion about guns or the death penalty?
For Example the number of murders in England per population is lower than the same in America.
Lesson: guns kill people. If you want to keep trespassers off your land, use fists, get up close and personal. It’s sweatier but sexier and safer. That would be my tag line for the youth in the US.

Joy:

This is perhaps the last place you should assume correlation = causation (re: England vs US murder rates). I believe that the US has had a higher murder rate since before the UK banned guns. And just for a quick counter-example: How about Switzerland? Lower murder rates and higher gun ownership than both.

Matt:
Guns have been illegal in England since the table was a tree, are you talking about hand guns? When the cowboys were chasing Indians, we were sipping tea! (to quote JC)

So what does this say? That Americans are more inclined to murder? Have you ever been to Switzerland? There’s about three people there (five when I was there).
Where do you get your data? Is it from Wikipedia? Not being sarcy, I would like to know.
I would like someone to convince me that legalising the ownership of a deadly weapon of any kind will decrease the likelihood of or has no bearing on whether that weapon might be used in anger.
If the article doesn’t exist it can’t be used in anger. It’s simple really.

The old chestnut about deterrent doesn’t wash, It’s the mentality of certain factions of the youth in London at the moment to carry a knife simply because the kids believe they are safer. It’s immaturity, fear and cowardice. The same goes for gun ownership.

If you’re arming up for war, you need guns and artillery to kill. Guns are designed for this purpose.
If you don’t intend to use the weapon to kill then why carry such a contraption? It’s like wearing flippers and an oxygen tank in case of a flood. It’s that ridiculous.

The US doesn’t “suffer” from inequality. Nobody starves in this country. Our poor are fat. Obesity is a problem, not malnutrition. Everybody has access to free education. We don’t have feudalism. Nobody is anybody’s slave. Opportunity is there if you want it. Our poor self-select, for the most part. Protests and demonstrations are rare street theater and do not impact political decisions. We have freedom of speech and choice in most matters. We laugh at sign-carrying goofies, because they are so useless and ineffective.

We are NOTHING like Portugal.

We do have a high murder rate. We have fewer traditional inhibitions than other countries. Freedom can be dangerous, no doubt about it. But most murders are crimes of passion and victims are family members or close associates. Gang member shoot other gang members, mafia hits are are on fellow mafiosos, etc. Violence here is not random, usually. Gun ownership prevents crime, though. Robberies are very rare in my rural neighborhood. Homeowners are armed; it’s a deterrent. And a necessary one in a country where anything goes.

Ted Nugent is a typical American: brash, outspoken, outrageous, deadly, industrious, eccentric, smart, proud, wild and free. That ought to be really scary to the rest of the world.

Mike
“freedom” I suppose you are talking about the right to carry a deadly weapon? As there are very few countries left in the world that are not “free”. This seems to allude the average American that simply repeats the mantra “we are free”.
An Englishman and no doubt a Portuguese man would say “yeah! And…aren’t we all?” “Now tell us something we don’t already know.”
Have you ever been to Portugal? I’ll bet if you walked down the street in Portugal carrying a placard saying “Matt Briggs (44.0666recurring for president) you wouldn’t get arrested but you’d get plenty of personal space. Now I bet if I did the same down Fifth Avenue I’d be arrested inside five minutes. That’s not freedom. Whilst on holiday in Colorado (a heavenly place) I was sitting in a hotel bar after skiing. I laid my head down on the bench seat and was severely chided by the bar man for breaking vagrancy laws! (I think he was just enjoying the chance to get at a group of English people) but that’s not freedom either. I mean I didn’t have my feet on the furniture…a practice that deserves to be punished by pain of death. I didn’t exactly fit the bill for a tramp! I think he was trying to get something going with the guys in the group.
On equality:
I would guess that the US does suffer from inequality when it comes to disability, which is the Cinderella of minorities. Going by the reaction I got when travelling on my own to upstate New York. The airport staff displayed ignorance about disability that was laughable. I had a tight transfer so I asked for someone to show me how to get from the plane to the next gate. They brought a wheelchair and the man spoke louder saying “can you walk?” The man that was supposed to escort me spoke with a Dutch accent and called from down the tunnel “are you the lady that…I walked towards him and the American man was now shouting to his collegue “she’s warkin’! But she says she can’t see!” The Dutchman was delightful as were the staff in Albany so it’s not all bad, but I had a similar response on the way back from a woman who needed to be told three times… I had to raise my voice and say “I’m blind!” This lack of familiarity tells me that in America disabled people are seen as inferior and should look as such, else they are a fraud.
On murder and guns: Murders are usually commited by family members or persons known to the victim, yes, excluding the ones by mad men that go into schools and universities and mow down innocent Nugent- loving hopefuls. If a relative lashes out at a family member with anything but a gun, even a knife, they are less likely to kill. The same goes for the opportunistic robber that pulls the trigger on a whim without necessarily thinking about the effect. Mafia types and gangsters will always acquire guns but that is not relevant to whether the public should be allowed them. You argue that gun crime is low in rural areas but that is true all over the world. Cities are more dangerous. To claim that guns are the reason for safety in the countryside is as credible as arguing that cows and trees are a deterrent. In England farmers have guns (don’t ask me what type but they’re long and metal).
“We have fewer traditional inhibitions” no you don’t. You have more inhibitions, you simply have a love of the gun just as the English man has a love of the motor car. Both are boyish hobbies. One is more deadly than the other.
Don’t think I don’t like Americans, many are loveable. Ted ought to be an embarrassment. The fact that he is not is a little weird.
But then I love Ozzie osbourne and Russell Brand but I must apologise for his recent naughtiness at the MTV awards. He is a loose cannon as well. Your list of adjectives could be applied to Russell Brand or even the average terrorist so it doesn’t reveal the man’s true character if you say he is a good one.
Briggs if you’re still awake:
Quite right too, they should have never let you loose on the record player. There’s always a Lead Zeppelin or Rush fan ready to strike at any moment. School disco goers should be ever vigilant.
James Blunt is the way forward, but you can’t dance to that either. So, ABBA it is then.

Joy, very nice comment of yours, and I thank for your compliment as well.

Mike:

We are NOTHING like Portugal.

Never said you were. But you do sound as if I touched a sensitive point.

Everybody has access to free education

Apart from that being also the case here, well jeez, I thought that was SOCIALISM! Oh wait…

We don’t have feudalism

No, just some folks who mess up with companies and get 30 million dollar compensation while the peasants go out the door with nothing. Of course, that ain’t feudalism, it’s capitalism!

Protests and demonstrations are rare street theater and do not impact political decisions.

It impacts political awareness. But that also depends upon having independent media, you know, free media, which, huhumm, you don’t have. Yes, even there, Portugal isn’t like the US ;).

Our poor self-select, for the most part

Perhaps those exceptions aren’t true americans, so they don’t count, hey? This mentality that the system is always right, so if there are poors it’s but their own fault is a red herring of an hard core ideologue. I’m sure that even in the eigthies there were many soviets crying out loud that if people weren’t happy, it was their fault as well.

Ted Nugent is a typical American: brash, outspoken, outrageous, deadly, industrious, eccentric, smart, proud, wild and free. That ought to be really scary to the rest of the world.

Nutcases always are.

Uncle Ted made an huge, enormous mistake when he was a young man. He purposely got himself out of the Vietnam draft. He knows he must answer for this moral crime. I am tempted to say, a la the media, this “youthful indiscretion”, but I won’t, because what he did was wrong. The only question now is: can we forgive him?

Normally, you (Briggs) show a lot of distrust for the government. For example, you pretty clearly support limited government in the economic sphere. This seems inconsistent with the statement quoted above. How is it immoral to avoid getting drafted to fight a war we had no business fighting if it’s also immoral for politicians to force certain economic choices on us? The American politicians who chose to (force others to) fight a war in Vietnam were no more knowledgeable or wise than the politicians who now commandeer hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to pay for any number of ill-conceived social programs.

Guns have been illegal in England since the table was a tree, are you talking about hand guns? When the cowboys were chasing Indians, we were sipping tea! (to quote JC)

Joy once again makes up history hoping that no one will notice. Gun rights were in fact enshrined in English common law until at least 1920. It’s true that gun licenses for handguns were introduced in 1903, but these were available for purchase over the counter with no questions asked and therefore hardly count as restrictions on ownership. After 1920, of course, there was a national gun registry, which is gun control in anyone’s book. Note also the crude appeal to national stereotypes. Entertaining, but not an argument, and certainly not enough to wish away the facts of history.

I would guess that the US does suffer from inequality when it comes to disability, which is the Cinderella of minorities.

Perhaps it does – but I note with amusement that after asking Matt for statistics to back up his claims, Joy offers nothing but a personal annecdote to bolster hers. Her claim is anyway off topic. The discussion was about economic inequality generally, not comfort zones in airports.

So what does this say? That Americans are more inclined to murder? Have you ever been to Switzerland? There’s about three people there (five when I was there).

What does the paucity of population have to do with anything? The argument is about the firearms murder rate, which is gun-related deaths per-arbitrary-unit-of-population. There are any number of countries with firearm ownership rates comparable to that of the United States without the comensurate guns homicide rate – Finland being the most outstanding example. Finland has the second-highest gun ownership rate in the world, and a MUCH lower gun homicide rate than does England, for example. Clearly, therefore, a prevelance of guns, while perhaps a necessary condition, is not a sufficient condition for rampant gun violence.

I would like someone to convince me that legalising the ownership of a deadly weapon of any kind will decrease the likelihood of or has no bearing on whether that weapon might be used in anger.
If the article doesn’t exist it can’t be used in anger. It’s simple really.

If you have hit upon a method for making guns vanish from the world, I’m sure we’d all be anxious to hear it. In the meantime, ask any police officer in any district in North America (yes, including Canada), and he will tell you it as good as never happens that guns used in homicides were legally purchased. Roughly-speaking, 99% of all guns involved in crimes are black market items. The rest of us need access to legal guns in no small part to defend ourselves against the illegal guns that may be used against us. If you can make illegal guns go away, please run for Prime Minister, because no other politician anywhere in the world has been able to accomplish it.

Joy:

Here was where I looked to check relative murder rates:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

From the page:
“SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 – 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)”

Yes, I suspect that Americans are simply more inclined statistically (ha!) to murder. My personal favorite suspected reason is that it has something to do with the type of person who would leave their homeland and start over somewhere else. Of course, many of these people were criminals to begin with, so maybe Europe has simply been exporting its more murderously inclined people for some time. 🙂

You’re certainly welcome to live in a place that doesn’t allow citizens to own handguns, but I’d rather not. Public (school, library, etc) shootings are pretty rare, and in places where it is lawful for citizens to have guns, the shooter is often stopped much more quickly, with much less loss of life. Most gun owners are lawful citizens, and I think that the abuse by a few shouldn’t be cause for denying ownership to the rest. If we followed this rule, we wouldn’t be having the current discussion over fuel efficient cars, because owning a car would already be illegal.

Many of us would rather do things for ourselves, out of a powerful sense of self-reliance. It’s cheaper for me to build my own deck ($1400 vs ~9000 for what I built) or repair my own car (I’ve had brakes done for $300, or bought $20 in parts). My P12 was a lot cheaper than the taxes it would cost to have the whole place crawling with enough police to “protect” me as well as I can do it myself. I’d rather not have that many around anyway, as when there wasn’t already a crime to prevent they’d be minding everyone’s business, if only to justify their existence. No thanks.

Now, there are statistically basically zero instances of the sort of person who goes to the trouble of obtaining a concealed carry permit, committing violent crimes at all, nevermind going postal. Many states require considerable safety training, etc. In a public place, I with my P12 am like an extra police officer, ready to protect others as well as myself if the need should arise, and I’ll do it gratis. You have to consult alternative media to find the many cases where this has happened, because it doesn’t fit the agenda of the dominant media.

Isn’t there something to the effect of an absolute ban on handguns in the UK? Why then, is the rate of handgun violence not ZERO? You see, you’ve disarmed the people who need protection, but not so much the ones they need protection from. Aren’t knives of a certain length banned in London? How’s that working out? Although, as I understand, self defense is itself illegal; if you hit back you’ll be charged with battery, and the advice is to simply curl up and hope your attacker lets you live. You know, if that attacker was capable of reasoning to the point of understanding that he stands a good chance of having his face blown off, he may think twice about attacking in the first place. That’s a deterrent in my book.

JoshuaHerring:
“Joy once again makes up history hoping that no one will notice.”
Are you calling me a liar Joshua?
I am many things. I am not a liar. If you think you spot me doing it, be sure and tell me straight.
“Gun rights were in fact enshrined in English common law until at least 1920. It’s true that gun licenses for handguns were introduced in 1903, but these were available for purchase over the counter with no questions asked and therefore hardly count as restrictions on ownership. After 1920, of course, there was a national gun registry, which is gun control in anyone’s book.”
So, are we talking about ”the right to bear arms”, “gun rights”, “licences” or “gun control”, which? They are not the same. I suppose you know that anything that requires a licence for legal ownership is by definition restriction of ownership. Today, farmers and even policemen require licences for their firearms. Are you trying to compare this with a right to bear arms, American style? We have a right to ‘bare’ arms but that’s it. I could have worn a T-shirt today but it was too cold. Hundreds of years ago before guns, under the feudal system, the King charged all land-owners with the responsibility to provide so many archers and pike men for battle or war purposes. At one stage, the common man, however poor, was expected to possess weapons and armour, for the purpose of protecting the realm from infiltrators and ‘wrongans’. We have had gun licences but never the right to bear arms. This is a United States attempt at appeal to authority if and when it suits. Mention monarchy at any other time and they run scared calling it a form of oppression or something. That’s irony.
“I note with amusement that after asking Matt for statistics to back up his claims, Joy offers nothing but a personal annecdote to bolster hers. Her claim is anyway off topic. The discussion was about economic inequality generally, not comfort zones in airports.” Joshua, you didn’t read my comment or Mike’s one. My response was to the equal opportunity question. Opportunity is not just about money. I did not speak about comfort zones in airports, that was your own confabulation. We can talk about them if you like though.
As for requesting data, there is nothing insulting about this, where is yours? It’s not a reason to be defensive. I expressed an interest and Matt provided me with his link. I do not claim to have any data on the subject what so ever. Should I? I mean to have an opinion based on my own observations and knowledge of the world? I haven’t heard a good argument yet to convince me that anyone should have the right to own a deadly weapon. I thought that there might be some statistics to convince me otherwise.
In the case of a farmer, soldier, policeman, or individual that uses the gun for his living (I mean food), fair enough, but that’s it. As for defending yourself against others that have guns, well that’s self-perpetuating. Burglaries are carried out when the homeowner is out or unaware of the intruder. If I were allowed a gun in case of an intruder I would expect that the burglar would then have a gun instead of a stick. Given the choice, I’ll take my chance with the stick thank you. I hear that a pitch-fork is a useful implement though. Apparently if you aim right you can get one on each prong.
“Clearly, therefore, a prevelance of guns, while perhaps a necessary condition, is not a sufficient condition for rampant gun violence.”

Without the gun you can’t have rampant gun violence and just one episode in a school should have been enough for America to wake up and stop the rot. These crimes are not perpetrated by Mafia types, but by depressed and disaffected youths. Where are they getting their guns? Who is manufacturing the guns? Who stores them? Who sells them on the black market? Without the widespread “legal” ownership that keeps too many gun manufacturers in business there would be less floating around in the first place. To pretend you don’t understand this looks like cognitive dissonance.

Matt:
Thank you for the link, I will look at it. What I’d like to see is figures that show rural versus city populations. To take a nation such as Switzerland which is full of farmers and Bi-athletes is naughty selection of convenient numbers. Rural populations are not the same as city ones, obviously, and Switzerland is rural. Then there is the problem of the terminology “gun rights”, “right to bear arms”, “gun licences” “gun laws”, what, exactly are we comparing here? I’ll look at your link though, as I say.
“Yes, I suspect that Americans are simply more inclined statistically (ha!) to murder. My personal favourite suspected reason is that it has something to do with the type of person who would leave their homeland and start over somewhere else. Of course, many of these people were criminals to begin with, so maybe Europe has simply been exporting its more murderously inclined people for some time.”
You mean the recent ones as opposed to vintage ones? They don’t make European immigrants like they used to.
The founding fathers that were breaking new frontiers, needing guns to defend themselves in days of yore? They left their homelands in Europe. The problem is that America is still carrying on this practice and can’t let go.
For some reason it has become them, their core, their identity. I’m sorry butI feel this is a shame.

Joy,

you and others all make the same Leftist arguments about guns.

Our right to keep and bear arms is for protection against a gubmint that has become overbearing to an extreme, in addition to protection of self, family, home, town…

There is something called the Federalist Papers that should be required reading for anyone who wishes to be an American citizen (including those BORN here) where the writers of our Constitution explained what they were attempting to do with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You will find this laid out there along with many other explanations that would Amaze and Confound modern Constitutional Lawyers such as Barack Obama.

Here is a very good page of information including excerpts from the Federalist Papers:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

One parting SHOT. If you can not trust your neighbor with a gun (ignore the training issue for the moment) what else shouldn’t you be trusting them with?? A drivers license, baseball bat, tire iron, knife, poisonous home chemicals, pilots license………….

I HAVE been to Portugal. I did not do an in-depth study of that country, but from what I saw it is very poor. Two things I recall from my visit: an accident on the main highway (2-lane) tied up traffic for 12 hours, and we ate at a small restaurant that threw its garbage out the back door. There was a giant mound of garbage there that appeared to have been built up over years.

Look, I’m not knocking Portugal, but there really is no comparison between a small, southern European country and the USA.

I also visited Belgrade on that trip. That was before NATO decided to bomb that small, defenseless European capital for 88 days straight because you all didn’t like the leaders there.

Yes, we did the bombing for you, on the orders of Bill Clinton, who wished to distract the USA from his sex-capades with a young intern in the Oval Office. You see, American liberals want Europeans to LIKE us, so if you want one of your capitals bombed, they are happy to oblige.

We are about to elect another liberal who wants you to like us. Which tiny backwater Euro nation do you desire to have us bomb this time?

It goes without saying that America can detonate the bejabbers out of which ever victim-nation you guys choose, since they are all defenseless, depending, as they do, upon America to do all the heavy lifting when it comes to war-making, deterrence, defense, and all the sacrifice of lives and treasure that go with that stuff.

And yes, Vietnam was no fun. America walked away from that war and as a consequence over 3 million people were slaughtered Nam and Cambodia. Remember Pol Pot? Killing fields? And those “victorious” countries remain today among the poorest and least free on the planet. So-called “peace” turned them into hellholes.

Maybe we are a violent nation, but we don’t generally throw our citizenry by the millions into death camps and gas chambers. We didn’t start the two World Wars; Europe did. We didn’t enslave millions in Communist dictatorships with gulags and machine-gun turreted walls; Europe did. Whenever some power-mad dictator starts chewing up his populace and murdering humanity by the bucketful, who gets called to save the downtrodden? France?

Yeah, we’re armed to the teeth and I’m not talking about our military. It is very unlikely that some crazed politico is going to mess with Joe Sixpack in the way Euro leaders do to their own citizenry every generation or so. Joe is too dangerous and certainly not inclined to be herded like cattle. While that may grate on the Euro ideal of progressive social comportment, it seems that civilization, as we know it, has to be rescued all too frequently by crude and rude American gun-toting yokels.

I am many things. I am not a liar. If you think you spot me doing it, be sure and tell me straight.

You were, and I did.

So, are we talking about ”the right to bear arms”, “gun rights”, “licences” or “gun control”, which? They are not the same.

We are talking about the “right to bear arms” and restrictions thereof. All of these things are therefore in the same category.

Today, farmers and even policemen require licences for their firearms. Are you trying to compare this with a right to bear arms, American style?

Obviously not, since I was talking about the history of gun right and control in England in response to your completely ahistorical assertion that gun have been illegal there “since the table was a tree.” Of course, if you wish to now change the subject to focus exclusively on the present day that will be fine since England’s relatively high rate of gun crimes compared with other countries that have less restrictions on gun use will also fail to make your point.

I do not claim to have any data on the subject what so ever.

Then why do you have an opinion about it?

If I were allowed a gun in case of an intruder I would expect that the burglar would then have a gun instead of a stick. Given the choice, I’ll take my chance with the stick thank you.

You DON’T have that choice and that’s the whole sodding point. Criminals are in the habit of bringing guns to knife fights whether or not the government tells them it’s OK. Even in England.

Matt:
First, thank you for your polite reply. I took a look at the chart and I don’t want to seem churlish by saying the following, but I haven’t changed my mind. I was flattered that you even took the time to comment.
Now, we have a saying in England, “if you lose your way, ask a policeman.”
So I did. I know as much about guns as I know about quantity surveying. He quite rightly informed me that there are considerable cultural differences between our nations (he has experience of working with Californian detectives as well as for the Met. And would know better than to get himself on such a sticky wicket as I now find myself but it’s causing him great mirth at my expense.
The graph shows only numbers that countries own up to and have been reported. I guess there’s no other way.
Note, the numbers are murder rather than gun murders so it doesn’t help us much.
The comments reveal some interesting insight if you believe them.
The graph is out of date
England’s figure wouldn’t you know it is skewed by Scotland.
South Africa should be at the top, T&T, and Brazil should be in the top five.
Some countries don’t even feature that ought to.
India, I know for a fact should figure much higher on that graph. Girls, especially blind/disabled ones are dumped as infants in the sun to die. This is true but they don’t count what doesn’t count in India.
Joshua claims Finland is very virtuous on this subject. That graph shows Finland has twice the murder rate of England even with our handicap of Scotland. So someone is wrong.
The countries that are highest on the list have legal and widespread ownership of guns, are drug havens or are in states of civil unrest.
The goody two shoes are mostly rural with the exception of Japan and Hong Kong.
I’d be interested to see whether Hong Kong has slipped up since they came under Chinese rule again as the figures were given only a year or so after the hand over.
You people over the pond deserve to be safe and happy. This is my motivation. It is intriguing to hear your reasoning. I still wish you’d put the guns down. Mike can keep his but Ted should hand his in forthwith, on his way to the hairdressers. He looks and talks like yosemite Sam.”I’m a comin’ in, and I ain’ a comin’ to play marbles!”
Thomas:
I admire your heroism but don’t really agree that we should let everyone wander about with a gun waiting for something to kick off. The criminal, if he’s cunning and callus, will “blow the face off” first knowing that other gun owners are around if that achieves his goal.
Remember, he knows he is a criminal before you do. As far as I know there are all sorts of weapons that are ok to own but not to carry such as baseball bats and swords. You have to have a good reason to be carrying such things if you’re stopped. Knives in London? I already commented on that, but can’t tell you about lengths. Yes hand guns are banned but obviously gun crime still exists just as criminals in general still exist.
I would be genuinely interested to know how an American would feel walking down the street in London knowing that they are not allowed to carry their gun. What would you think/feel about that?
Here’s what my policeman friend said about where we are now:

“The basics of ownership in this country stems from the firearm act 1968, there were amendments in 1988 and 1997.
A “firearm” in this country is defined as a “lethal barrelled weapon”. This includes the CS & PAVA spray carried by everyday police officers in this country. A firearm does not need to be able to discharge to be a firearm. eg an imitation firearm that has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile.
All firearms and ammunition in this country must be licensed and stored in accordance with regulations securely. The movement of firearms and ammunition is regulated strictly. When I taught PE and used a starting pistol at school track events I was required to store the pistol in a locked safe and only loaded ammunition when required immediately before use.
There is a great deal more to it, I do think that the cultural differences between us and other countries are the main issue that are not easily broken down in written correspondence and may be perceived incorrectly when correspondence is in a discussion forum. It is an interesting read”

Kuhnkat:
It’s not about left or right. That’s an American viewpoint. I understand that we are discussing America but if you want to bring in any other countries as a comparison then the left/right wing is out. In any case, I’m not left wing, anyone who knows me would find that amusing.
As for the passing shot, you missed. Whether my neighbour should be allowed to drive, fly, own poison, ducks or string or teddy bears, these things are irrelevant to the gun argument. “it’s the thin end of the wedge” a prediction without substance and frankly it’s silly. Each case should be taken in turn. This prediction would have us banning hands, feet, teeth, and elbows, they can be sharp.

Joshua:
Apart from the obvious, I know myself whether I am lying, first, you must prove that I am wrong, then, that I know that I am wrong and thirdly, that I deliberately concealed this. So far you haven’t shown that I am wrong.
Guns have been illegal in this country since the table was a tree. So of course it’s important to qualify what illegal and “the table was a tree” means, so licensed ownership compared with a right to bear arms are very different.
Briggs:
Next time I’m in 5th Avenue and I’ve got a spare hand that isn’t laden down with shopping bags, I’ll give it a go with the placard.

It’s nothing to do with heroism, really. In fact it would suit me just fine if I never had need to sight on a human target. I’m not “just anyone”. I’ve had to pass background checks etc., so it’s already established I’m not the sort of person to worry about. I’m certainly not out looking for trouble, just going about the business I would be doing anyway. Should someone go nonlinear in my vicinity, of course, I would be protecting myself as much as anyone else; others just benefit incidentally.

Aside from specifically firearm murder rates, what about other violent crimes? Home invasions, muggings, rapes, that sort of thing. I wouldn’t fancy my chances with a baseball bat or steak knife against four or five thugs busting in to my house, however they were or were not armed.

Thomas:
I don’t mean to call you just anyone in an insulting way.
“. Should someone go nonlinear” I’ve never heard that, I like it! Is that like going postal? That’s also a new one.
A bit more on the technical about weapons, I was wrong about the hand guns. All guns are banned.

“All guns are banned unless licenced, there is no such thing as hand guns banned. No gun is distinguished differently than any other, as with the definition the classification is for lethal barrelled weapon. A person in possession of a sawn off shot gun has no defence as they are not designed to be sawn off, the difference this makes is to spray the pellets from the shot gun cartridge wider and inflict damage over a wider area meaning you do not have to be as good a shot.
As far as knives go you cannot carry any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed in a public place. Folding pocket knives are exempt as long as the blade is less than 3 inches. Any person carrying a blade or sharply pointed article must prove they have lawful reason to carry if they wish to make a defence. eg a chef carrying knives on their way to work.”

“I wouldn’t fancy my chances with a baseball bat or steak knife against four or five thugs busting in to my house, however they were or were not armed.”
The way I see this is that if guns were allowed by normal people, then four “oiks” breaking in knowing that you were inside would have to prepare by bringing guns; Four against one now, or worse, an automatic. The criminals are more cowardly and less honourable than you, so they’ll shoot first and think later. If they didn’t need to resort to a gun because you are not allowed one, you still stand a better chance of survival than if there is any sort of firearm in the equation. (This is assuming their purpose in itself was not purely to murder, in which case, you’re probably now in Mafia territory. So, jump out of the window or if you’re in a high rise, set the fire alarm off and open the window.

“ere was where I looked to check relative murder rates:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita”

“Finland has the second-highest gun ownership rate in the world, and a MUCH lower gun homicide rate than does England, for example.”

This statement and that link are wildly inaccurate. The standard unit of measure is gun deaths per 100,000, not per 1000. Ted Nugent is in favour of gun ownership, including automatic assault weapons (military use), so the statistics you needed were not murders but gun deaths.

Now here one must be careful because more people die in the US by the gun per year than in Iraq but that is because about half the 30,000 or more deaths per year are of people taking their own lives using a gun. One needs to remove suicides from the statistics… fatal gun accidents too.

That link also doesn’t mention one of the most violent countries on earth, Brazil. Brazil has some cities with a gun murder rate of over 180/100,000. The third most dangerous city there is currently Curitiba, once voted the best city in the world to live… so even the Germanic south is now suffering crippling gun crime associated with drug trafficking.

UK 0.1
Germany 1.2
Sweden 1.6
Australia 1.7
New Zealand 2.3
Austria 2.5
Canada 2.5
France 3.0
Belgium 3.7
Finland 4.6
Switzerland 6.2
USA 10.2

So you can see that the UK has one of the lowest rates of gun murder in the world, 46 times lower than Finland. That’s why Finland is currently revising it’s gun laws.

Mr Nugent’s hypocrisy:

1) Regarding promoting war while being a Vietnam draft dodger (you will not want to google what he claimed to have done to avoid the draft, it’s more than disgusting). You also neglected to mention that this man, who does not understand the trauma of war, advocates that health care and welfare for veterans be temporary. So he has even less respect for the sacrifice of health and peace of mind US military personnel make than the average recent Republican.

2) Regarding the expeditious execution of all pedophiles… would that be retroactive? Because at 21 years of age he started dating his future first wife when she was either 13 or 14 and that is paedophilia under US law, and was in 1970. He’d certainly be listed on the sex offender’s register in the UK. Later, in his 30’s he took out legal guardianship of a 17 year old Hawaiian girl to continue a relationship with her. That is pedophilia in 11 US states.

What a moral vacuum there exists today in Republican circles!

I hope this book is as entertaining as (House of Bush, House of Saud). I wonder if Ted Nugent uses any excuses for his own mistakes in the book; a vital point of his book seems to be that one should own up to one’s mistakes.

I think Nuge has some good and some not-so-good ideas. He has my admiration, because I know how much silliness and bravery it takes to put forward seemingly instinctive and intuitive ideas without responsibly thinking about the consequences and practicalities. Darn, people pay to read his ideas, but not mine.

I wouldn’t vote for Ted Nugent if he were to run for Michigan governor. How he handled his prey freaked me out. He is a nut… it’s a wonder that Michigan black squirrels haven’t gotten him though.

@Joy, most Americans (and squirrels) embrace loudmouth-ness (leftist and rightist) and disability as diversity. I would like to point out that sometimes people, American or not, just don’t know how to offer help to physically challenged people for reasons you probably already know… off topic, but this is important to me.

@Matt, according to my Australian cousins, they ship their rednecks to America. 🙂

You see, American liberals want Europeans to LIKE us, so if you want one of your capitals bombed, they are happy to oblige….

@Mike D, This seems to be a “skewed-to-the-right” opinion about liberals.

** Stop reading right here if you are a Republican. **

I just came up another reason not to vote for McCain who vehemently would like to claim victory in the Iraq war. All I know is that
If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing. ~Lao-Tzu

For some reason my last comment seems to have been rejected on the (erroneous) grounds that I don’t have Javascript enabled.

Never mind – here’s the substance of it again.

Concede the point about Finland. I went looking for a source that Finland has lower gun homicide rate than the UK and couldn’t find it. The numbers I found were much lower than Sebastian’s (3.5 for Finland, making it safer on guns than Belgium, for example), but the UK does, it seems have a lower gun homicide rate than Finland.

I noted that Sebastian doesn’t cite his souces and ought to, but that the Home Office stats will back him up. I added that the Home Office stats also show, however, that the 1997 handgun ban has had little or no effect on the gun homicide rate in England and Wales, thus basically negating the argument that gun control policies have done much good in the UK.

I then invited discussion about the proper tradeoff between gun violence and violence generally. After all, it’s likely to be safety from violence in general that we’re interested in as citizens more than safety from gun violence in particular. Guns are a great equalizer in preventing violence when the criminal attacker is either stronger or more numerous than you, and for that reason I should think that banning this avenue of self-defense is the sort of thing that should not be undertaken lightly.

My CHANCES for survival, well there we get to the raison d’etre for this site. My chances. Well, yes, if firearms are not in the equation, the PROBABILITY of my survival may well be greater. However, your assertion presupposes that the decision to invade has already been made. I prefer to think that even the thugs would factor the possibility of facing a faceful of 00 buckshot or worse into the decision in the first place. Those foolhardy enough not to will shortly select themselves out of the gene pool.

But SURVIVAL… survival for what? To live to be robbed another day? I’ve already been made to forfeit my dignity, not to mention my property, in order to be allowed to forfeit them yet again? Survival is simply not good enough for me. I have only pity for those for whom it is, whether or not they acknowledge it or have even realized they deserve it. This is supposed to be civilization, not anarchy. I assert my right to live as a civilized human rather than as a victim of whatever random bipedal animal should happen past. Suit yourself, but leave me to do the same.

Joshua:

“Concede the point about Finland. I went looking for a source that Finland has lower gun homicide rate than the UK and couldn’t find it. The numbers I found were much lower than Sebastian’s (3.5 for Finland,”
So where were they? If one’s not allowed an opinion without the statistics in the matter I want to see that you do the same.
“I noted that Sebastian doesn’t cite his souces and ought to,”
“the 1997 handgun ban has had little or no effect on the gun homicide rate in England and Wales,”
England and Wales? How about Cornwall and Yorkshire? Or Chipping Sodbury, Little Piddle and Upton Snodsbury? I hear Pity Me and Chipping Ongar are even safer now.
“thus basically negating the argument that gun policies have done much good in the UK.”
No, it might, if you wanted to ignore the details, negate the argument that gun policies have done much good in:
ENGLAND & WALES.
“Guns are a great equalizer in preventing violence when the criminal attacker is either stronger or more numerous than you,”
Like Thomas, Joshua, you construct a situation in a perfect scenario where you have the gun and ‘the others’, the varmints, have silly knives or sticks. In the real world, the varmints, knowing that you “have the right to bare arms” will come adequately prepared to the party. Just as the children from certain places in London are doing, the ante is upped. It’s upped not because most Americans are murderous, in my opinion, but because rational fear of the common gun leads them to feel they must adopt the same mentality.

Thomas:
Your theory, call it “survival of the gunest”:
” your assertion presupposes that the decision to invade has already been made. I prefer to think “that even the thugs would factor the possibility of facing a faceful of 00 buckshot or worse into the decision in the first place. Those foolhardy enough not to will shortly select themselves out of the gene pool.”
This argument ought to follow then that crime in general I.e. robbery, burglary, rape, should be lower in a land with legal gun ownership by the masses, but it isn’t.
“But SURVIVAL… survival for what? To live to be robbed another day?” Hopefully, yes, and another day you may have better luck. Your pitch fork skills will now be honed and if you have any sense, it’ll be longer, thus keeping them at greater distances.
“This is supposed to be civilisation, not anarchy. I assert my right to live as a civilised human” you don’t have to assert your right, just live as one (not in the John Lenin sense and Don’t take that to mean that you are not) but It’s puzzling that anyone should need to “exert their right” I have never had to do this before. I just live in a civilised way. Guess I’m old fashioned.
Civilised society has law enforcement, to tackle the FEW . Lock the FEW up for a long time. This tends to help to stop them bringing other little varmints into the world as well and gives you a chance to outbreed the varmints!…a double whammy.

Joy –

The Home Office data are here. On page 36 is a table that shows the rate of gun violence since 1998. It rises steadily until 2003 (there is a spike in 2001, though the Home Office insists that’s an anomaly owing to a switch in collection methods) and comes back down since then. The overall picture is one in which the fluctuations are the normal yearly fluctuations in a small dataset. There is no evidence that gun crime in England and Wales (which is what the Home Office is reporting on) has changed a whit since the passage of the 1997 ban. Indeed, handguns continue – at 43% – to make up the lion’s share of the weapons involved in firearm crimes, despite having been banned (pdf p. 38). Hardly what one would call a roaring success.

For a comparison with years before the ban, you’ll have to look at earlier Home Office BCS reports. The homicide and guns supplement for 2003/4 is here. If you look at pdf page 17 (document page 10) you will see raw numbers for homicides by type for the preceding decade. Note the lack of any discernible shift in the guns homicide rate until AFTER 1997, at which point it begins to rise. The UK guns policy has at best had no effect, at worst made Britons more likely to die by gun violence than ever before.

If you want to get into regional differences within the US and the UK respectively, I think it is only fair that you produce regional statistics for both countries, after having asked several other people to produce statistics (which they have all done). Your usual “I hear that something I pulled straight out of my ass makes my point” will no longer cut it.

As for the idea of self defense with a gun, I have done exactly the opposite of constructed an ideal situation. I noted that with a gun I have a fighting chance against a gang or an individual regardless of what they are armed with (including guns). It is true that if the criminal fires first I will die, but that is not substantively different from the situation where he attacks me with a gun and I have none. If he pulls a gun on me first, then my gun will do no good of course, but again, to proceed from that bit of common sense to the point that gun control policies will render him less likely to have a gun, you would have to show that gun control policies reduce the prevelance of firearms among the criminal population, something you continue to insist is true without yet producing so much as a single shred of evidence to bolster the claim. You cited the UK – and even the Home Office will not back you up there. Since the UK banned handguns way back “before the table was a tree” in the mist-shrouded distant past of 1997, the gun homicide rate first rose sharply and then recently fell back to slightly higher than its pre-1997 level. If that to you suggests that handguns are less available to criminals in England than they were before, you’re using a different math from the rest of humanity.

Your repeated insistence that people who disagree with you produce statistics when you yourself happily claim to have “no data whatsoever” has gotten old. The ball is in your court. Kindly either substantiate your claims with data now, or move along.

TIME OUT: Wow, after reading that lot my hat’s off to you, professor, for displaying the patience it takes to allow trolls to usurp your thread that way. Nugent is an extremely complex individual disguised as a country bumpkin, some think. Thanks for the post. I do like about half his proposals. Imo they make more sense that either party’s current platforms, but what do I know?
TIME IN: Stay inside the lines.

Joshua Herring:
The link, the second one, is broken. Is it old?
Firstly, the word several, in my book, (Joy’s Oxford English dictionary, pending publication) means more than two. Furthermore, I asked Matt to tell me where he was getting his data. Then, having been poked by yourself about my lack of evidence, I explained that my opinion was based on my own musings but that I was interested in hearing about where real evidence to support widespread gun ownership might be found. Following this you charged me with answering the question: “So why do you have an opinion about it?”
There are many things in life about which I have no data but yet have formed an opinion. That makes me normal. For the record, climate science is not one of these as I have spent greater than a year reading little else, and yet have not changed my stance. It’s looking like the gun argument might go the same way for me.
Most vexing, and my reason for replying, is your cheeky first link to the home office’s 101 page document, which shows a graph that proves nothing in support of either argument in terms of recent trends. The rest of the document does not help in this regard either. If we accept the home offices explanation about a change in their data collection or even if we do not, the line is currently set to be about the same. Proving nothing. Furthermore, and again, I know nothing about guns but I know a handgun is small. This allows me to say that if I need a handy weapon then a handgun it must be. This will probably always be the weapon of choice in a civilian setting for this reason. Not rocket-science, but common sense.
I looked for the rocket science, and it wasn’t there.
Meanwhile, I had a Latte meeting with my policeman friend this very day, and heard what he had to say. In short, “you’re wasting your time Joy, and what were you thinking!”
Lastly, if a policeman tells me to move along, then that’s what I do.

Switzerland has:
“The third highest rate per head of hand gun murder of any country in the world.”
It must be true because Steven Fry says it’s true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQXPjLBc6Nk