Shared publicly  - 
Believe It or Not. There are still people out there who believe...

● that only Weapons can ensure a peaceful coexistence on earth.
● that Climate Change is a global Conspiracy and Hoax.
● that Same-sex marriage opposes nature and offends God.

And not a few of them even believe all three...

If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for Stupidity, Ignorance, Greed and Love of Power. - P. J. O'Rourke 

Photo credits: Seth Perlman/AP Photo: ― Bennett V.: ― Valentina Svistunova/Interpress/Reuters:
Ali Adelstein's profile photoZephyr López Cervilla's profile photoJim Carver's profile photoAdrian Azzopardi's profile photo
>>If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for Stupidity, Ignorance, Greed and Love of Power. - P. J. O'Rourke << thanks for the share :)
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King, Jr. 
the human stupidity is linked with the human intelligence, after all we learn making mistakes :) Think again what Einstein said ;)
"we should test them for Stupidity, Ignorance, Greed and Love of Power"

Who will you find that comes up negative on all three?
The problem is not them it is us. Blaming others is pointless because those you point the finger of blame at will turn on you. Point the finger at yourself deal with your Stupidity, Ignorance and Greed then you can help others.
Believe it or not, there are still people who believe in whatever that they be told without need of being convinced by evidence.
+Zephyr López Cervilla
By evidence just wondering isn't that things that you have been told...or do you receive all your evidence first hand
It is quite funny, if you look at past cultures and civilizations they always appear to self-implode on a prevalence of a faith based system derived from early successes in science and technology. I heard a wonderful talk about how the Mayans had a hugely successful underground water system that they let go because they lost interest or the ability to continue innovating it as their society grew (very similar to the infrastructure of bridges and roads that need constant maintenance but we DONT invest). Soon everyone believed that they had all the answers and they stopped listening to their own past successes. 

Can someone please help me find that awesome talk by a woman named....damn what was her name again?
+Ezra Allen: "By evidence just wondering isn't that things that you have been told...or do you receive all your evidence first hand"
- You may provisionally trust information from any reliable source as long as the raw data and the methodology applied to generate their results are available to all. 
+Zephyr López Cervilla
Yeah you know what I'm getting at. There is plenty of evidence that the moon landings were faked there is plenty enough evidence that they weren't. I can't get up to the moon to check for foot prints so I guess I have to take someones word for it in short I believe what I'm told. Climate change there is evidence that the planet goes through cycles of heating up and cooling down. There is evidence that we are messing up the balance.

In either instance I need to go on what I'm told, because I don't have time to become an expert or a scientist and research it all.

Some people don't see things the same way we do. If we call them an idiot will that persuade them?
+Ezra Allen calling someone an idiot means you can not persuade him/her. He/She is stuck with himself
We may eventually get there... but for a long time, strength will be necessary to ensure peace. Even if we solve the violence problem locally and weapons become less needed, whenever we encounter beings that may not hold our advanced beliefs, we're going to want to be able to greet them from a position of strength that ensures our security.

Weapons are part of what has kept smaller, intelligent creatures safe from the larger, more beastly ones. Like a warrior monk, a peaceful nature with the ability to back it up will probably remain useful for quite a while.

It's restoring the focus on our peaceful nature, and values like compassion, reason, personal and collective effort, education, and compromise that provide the foundations for  tremendous progress. The glorification of greed and power for power's sake rather than security are characteristics of a person - or a nation, or a world - in decline. 

Love the quotes - thanks +Ali Adelstein. 
+Tihomir Stoev
Yeah I think some people believe they win a discussion/(argument) when the other person walks away in disgust, but I guess the best that you can achieve is if the other person understands your point of view whether they accept it or not.
this is the result of an argument with intelligent person. One does not need to push his way of thinking/opinion. An argument is to share the viewpoint and to enrich ones viewpoints.
+Denise Case in the context of alien life forms putting effort in weapons effective against our own nature does not make much sense. 

Can you define 'advanced beliefs'. Advanced to what or when. Judging the universe even(t) in the context of our own world does not really match our history. We are currently technological savages. Technically we haven't changes much to the caveman. What defines a person is the reason to act. Putting our survival in front of the survival of our kind shows that we are still in the caves, seeing danger in everything that is outside the cave/pride 
The masked guy is by the way from Russia and not from U.S., which reinforces my conviction that every country has its share of racists, bigots and other idiots. Or mathematically speaking, let us assume that the madmen are highly likely to spread evenly over the earth...
I find it disgusting that some people may believe guns are the only means to peace on earth, but most reasonable gun advocates like myself do not in ANY way claim this... just an FYI for you. Most of us just want a defensibility to protect our loved ones from the threat of guns, which will not go away within our lifetime no matter what laws we pass. Even if you ban them outright, sick and/or violent people will still get them (after all, many drugs are illegal and they aren't exactly difficult to find.)
● Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
● Across states, more guns = more homicide
Source: Harvard School of Public Health ➜
i wish all of you would live in detroit for one year. i don't think you can really rap your mind around what is happening here. the land banking taking place with agenda 21 better known as the presidents council on sustain, green, grow etc., this is a Marxist movement which is coming to your city, or most likely it is there already. home owner ship will be something of the past. This country is heading for regional police. Canada is talking about regional police.  Ask people in the bay area fighting agenda 21 google it. all of us have to stop thinking locally and start reading about united nations agenda 21. we must get a grip on this. It is a shadow government along side our government. i realize this is hard to swallow. please start reading sovereignty international has five video's that take a couple hours to watch. please watch them thank you
Share of people with such thinking is indeed the same all over the world +Ali Adelstein

We have them here in Slovenia as well.

Anyway, I'm sure there is a global conspiracy of conspirators about conspiracy in everything that might be doubtful. Which is just about anything. So the older I'm, the less I read and give a damn about them. I promote what I know. And joke about what I believe.
I believe that liberty, personal responsibility, capitalism and limited government are things that can ensure a peaceful coexistence on earth. Until those things exist for everyone, weapons will be needed to protect us from thugs and tyrants. It's not about weapons; it's about keeping what's rightfully yours.

Climate change:
I will agree that the climate changes from time to time. It's the charge that humans are causing it that is so ridiculous and fraudulent. The left is just using climate change as a way to dupe people out of their money, as a taxing mechanism and  a way to transfer wealth. It's not about climate; it's about money.

I don't claim to know the mind of God. In America there is nothing that stops two people from having a relationship similar to marriage without the certificate itself. The things not available are the tax and other benefits limited to married couples. It's not about the romantic notion of marriage; it's about benefits.
Colleen, I think your tinfoil hat is too tight again. Agenda 21 is not a marxist plot to take over the world. 
When it comes to guns, meddling with those is simply too dangerous. Peace and safety is something that doesn't involve guns, or if it does, then the guns must only be held by trained and honourable policemen. Handing guns to civilians is utter madness.
When it comes to global warming: that's dubious. It's not exactly very easy to prove that humans are actually causing it. Climate changes are natural. I'm not saying it actually IS a hoax, just that it's nearly impossibly to prove whether or not it is. I consider myself agnostic on the matter. I don't believe it is a hoax, but I don't believe it is truth either. I simply don't know. There isn't enough data available to know. Can't hurt to at least try to be responsible with the world we live on. Acting responsible at the worst will not make a difference, and at the best will make the world a better place. The risks are minimal, why not give it a try?
When it comes to homosexuality. Well, if you're a Christian (or Jewish or Muslim), you'd believe it is sinful, if you're from a religion that doesn't state anything about it, or not religious at all, you probably don't have anything against it. Thing is, you can't force ideas onto someone. This goes for Abrahamic believers as well as non-Abrahamics (thus other religions and irreligious). In the western world the people who are the most mouthy on this matter are usually Christians. As a Christian, you can only try to stay clean of it yourself. You can't force people your way if they don't believe in it (society doesn't work that way, it doesn't always do what you want it to do). If you're a Christian, you should want as many people as possible on God's side, but that isn't done by hating people and judging them (which, I believe, is also considered quite sinful in the bible). That will only make more people hate you back, and drive them away. Starting a witch-hunt will do no one any good at all. It won't do the hater any good, and neither will it do the hated any good. A Christian who is too busy hating people will only cause more people to hate Christianity. Also, forcing idealism or thoughts onto other people is highly immoral. Society doesn't work by other people doing what you personally think is best. You're not the only one on the planet, and not everyone is the same as you. These protests are utterly useless and only cause damage.
+Ali Adelstein: "Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide"

- Last time I checked the list of countries by GDP per capita (, Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, Norway and Canada were high-income nations:

New Zealand 

"You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland."

— Sowell, Thomas. The Great Gun Control Fallacy. The Guardian. December 18, 2012 

Further reading:

—  Worley Jeff. In Defense of Self-Defense. Research in Review (Florida State University). Winter, 2009. 
PDF: (pp. 22-35)
Maybe a naive question +Colleen McGinley, but how often did you have to use your weapon already to protect your family or yourself?
+Tihomir Stoev - qood point. I was meaning advanced  - as in presumably more peaceful - beliefs in our hypothetical future. I agree we're still relatively primitive and although our human nature is capable of amazing things, but it also creates some pretty bad situations. For a country or an individual, I'd still pick being gentle and strong over just being gentle.

I believe humanity should keep working towards a more advanced approach built on cooperation, but I think it might be a bad idea to believe we're already there.

It's ridiculously practical for an idealist like me - probably a direct result of learning from earlier mistakes. :)
+Zephyr López Cervilla: The rate of homicides involving guns in Switzerland is 0.52, four times higher than the Australian rate and more than double the rates in France and Germany. The only nation that makes Switzerland look good is the United States, which is so far above all other advanced economies, with a rate of 3.59 gun homicides per 100,000 people, that it is in a category of its own.
i am not trying to discuss weapons in detroit. i am trying to allow other people from all over the world to understand that there is a movement a political power that is taking charge by making certain things happen. in detroit the police will not come unless there i a gun. they will not come if a person is breaking in your home, unless they have a gun. if they come at all it will be the next day. if somebody is killed they will come. women are being raped old people are being mugged children are afraid to play outside. this is america we are not at war. why is this taken place. why do we have detroit land bank? why are they saying we must turn detroit into a farm? why do they want us to live in a high rise? they are turning the electric off in some neighborhoods because no people live there. yet the people moved because of crime and murders. the schools are closed and corporations have taken them over. they want to get rid of city council and have some other entity come in.......this is all agenda 21, look on web under bay area fighting agenda 21.
If prohibition of 1920s didn't stop alcohol and the "war" on drugs has failed outright, then why should I believe that gun control will be any different. There is, in fact, enough historical evidence to suggest that this will be another very costly failure. Worse still, it will create a profit incentive for criminal organisations to exploit vulnerabilities within the system, with the collaboration of corrupt government. Arming the criminal minority, while disarming the law abiding citizenry, is beyond idiotic.
Of course +Ali Adelstein All the time :) By the same token, I should be asking if you're being paid by organised crime :P
"The use of guns for defensive purposes is a highly debated topic. Numerous studies have been done that place the range as low as 65 thousand and as high as 2.5 million. Although both sides of the argument heavily cite studies, and both sides identify methodology and sample problems in the other studies, the truth is likely somewhere between the two figures. Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate at 1.5 million per year."
If a gun is the surest way of reducing the physical inequality gap, between a man and a woman, then it's safe to say that being pro-gun control, is sexist.
So you think I read the whole thread? I assure you I haven't. But never mind, I'll head there asap. One doesn't need to be an expert to be rational.
+Ali Adelstein I cannot answer him because he hasn't stated whether he believes global warming is natural or man made.
From my understanding, there are some countries where many people can own firearms, and where gun incidents are rare, as well as firearms-rich countries where gun incidents are relatively common and firearms-poor countries where incidents are uncommon. There are, as far as I have found any data, very few countries where crime, especially gun-related crime, runs rampant even though they have very strict gun control. This brings me to the hypothesis that strict gun control implies a low chance of incidents. By the definition of an implication, it doesn't mean that a loose gun control means crime rates are high, but unlike a strict gun control, it doesn't imply a low chance of a country having a high amount of incidents either. Thus according to this hypothesis a country with a strict gun control will have a better chance at being relatively safe (if implemented properly, as +Adrian Azzopardi said you can't go around carelessly prohibiting things, a systematic development will thus be necessary).

The biggest point here is that even if there were relatively many countries with no or little gun control and low crime rates, it wouldn't mean that gun control doesn't do anything to make a country safer.
There's quite a few of us gun owning liberals who grew up in the Rocky Mountain States mostly. We vote liberal, but we want our last back-up plan also. Most of us don't even hunt much either.
Many in the West don't really care what goes on back East, that's like a different country many times. And if you live in a sparsely populated area, you have to put up with laws that are not can look at it philosophically if you want, but I'm more of a pragmatist.
How does one protect oneself against this?
The Armed Citizen: Fight Crime By Fighting Back
The Armed Citizen II: Public Defense

+Marco Meijer There's no such thing as implemented properly. At best, criminals invariably outwit the authorities and at worst, are assisted by them, as in the case of Fast and Furious. As long as there's a profit incentive, a black market for firearms will always spring into existence.

What the debate should truly be about, is not gun deaths but violent crime perpetrated against law abiding citizens.

In 1984, crime in the US dipped below that of Europe for the first time in recent history. Both trendlines then rose together with America leading the charge. Though, since 1990, the US has parted company with Europe and has seen ever decreasing crime rates.

Gun sales in America have been steadily climbing since 1982. While governments in Europe have been working overtime, clamping down on gun ownership.

* My theory: Buy guns.
+Adrian Azzopardi I think the illegal gun trade, that would spring up overnight, would be far worse. Now you would be empowering criminals with money.
I don't see the War on Guns working any better than the War on Drugs. Oh wups! it will be the same guys...already is really.
Obviously, pollution is bad. There are natural cooling and heating cycles on the planet. Running in circles screaming global warming won't stop them, or reduce global black carbon & carbon monoxide. Then there is YOU (not you, but you), buying a Prius to do your part, then everything else in you home, office, LIFE, is made in China, at one of those factory thingys. It's a global issue. Won't change no matter how dramatic the news makes it, if you consume the products that are actually making the air 3x the acceptable pollution levels. See that article?
+Adrian Azzopardi Absolutely, and since there already is an illegal gun trade and the infrastructure is already set up, all you have to do is ramp things up. Now you turn average citizens into criminals. Just like the Drug War and who makes a killin'? I think we all know that's it's the people who pay no taxes.
Just saw the morning paper here in Sydney (it's 8:20am), Gillard is looking into ways to end the gun violence in Sydney, 135 shootings in 2012, 20 in the last two months. This country doesn't appreciate how relatively safe it is.
+Thomas Miller Within reason, we're all environmentalists. As you so rightly pointed out, the greater majority is against pollution. But when one considers that the US has a 170 thousand pages or regulation and legislation, makes one wonder why so many jobs have gone abroad. Naively assuming that there aren't bad, unintended consequences to be suffered. Opportunity cost dictates that in order to achieve a desired goal, something else must be forsaken in its favour. Can't have the cake and eat it.
Relative is important. There's extreme violence in some areas even with more primitive weapons.  Originally, it was probably partly our ability to engineer weapons that helped our ancestors survive, secure food, and get enough free time to specialize and evolve. 

Once a technology is available, it becomes hard to limit it to the good guys. If the good guys negotiate weapons reductions, it’s hard to guarantee the capabilities won’t spring up somewhere else.  In addition, power itself may have a bit of a tendency to corrupt, and it can be hard to ensure that the ones we chose to manage the weapons for us will stay good guys forever. 

I'm not sure that statistics actually support the idea that having lots of weapons in homes and handbags necessarily makes us safer. I think civilization goes a long way to help with physical safety. When people participate in their government and fund collective services with taxes, we get the benefit of safe and prosperous communities. The declining crime rate is interesting – I haven’t had a chance to read all the links above, but there are likely many factors involved. 

In the US, the founders were motivated by the need to protect themselves from government soldiers - not each other.  I’d say it’s likely the balance of power that goes the farthest to ensure stability and safety - and the prosperity that comes with being able to focus on more productive undertakings.  We can't unlearn our weapons knowledge, and we most likely would never want to -  it's worth some attention to make sure we survive it. 

Many good topics in this thread. :)
Ok, my post is black and white and therefore provocative. But I got into this mood after seeing this new promotional video of the NRA ➜ But what do you say here means, that the criminals already dictate your life and you will let them do, isn't it +Jim Carver, +Adrian Azzopardi? I am sure it is not just a Gun Problem, but a Gun Culture problem what you have in US...
+Jim Carver Good point regarding the already existing black market in prohibited firearms and the link with the unseen drug wars raging behind the scenes. Wonder how many of the people killed throughout the year, are in fact gang members. Since I'm a firm believer in equality and understand that these criminals aren't paying a dime, then I propose that taxation should be abolished, entirely :)
+Thomas Miller God, can't stand that creepy crawly, Gillard. The aboriginals put a smile on my face, when they went for her. Hardly like Cinderella :)

What I'd be interested to find out is the rate of violent crime in Australia. In a previous discussion here on G+, I dug up the source below, but can't remember the figures offhand.

Firearm trafficking and serious and organised crime gangs
© Australian Institute of Criminology 2012
Good one +Adrian Azzopardi I could get behind that one! ;)
+Ali Adelstein Ya maybe, but I'm not so sure what that is. We have a "gun culture" I suppose here in GOP land were I live now, (sorry Todo, we ain't in Colorado no more) there are about 25 000 people in the county. Almost everyone has at least one gun and many have several. In the past ten years there was one murder but it didn't involve a gun and happened with some illegal aliens.
What I think we have here, in cities, is a "gang culture", where fighting for turf is a common thing. Sometimes I think you guys live a sheltered life and don't see some of the realities on the street. I have lived in cities and specifically Denver was the worst I've lived in, but not as bad as some others. My son lost a friend to gang violence (he was my friend too) and another was shot at Columbine. So you've got the gangs and an occasional crazy in there to make the news.
Those conservative assholes are not the ones who are killing people. At least with hand guns...they like to do it with bombs.
+Ali Adelstein You do remember that I'm neither American nor live there, right? I'm from the tiny, 100sq mile island of Malta. Bang at the centre of the Mediterranean sea. Hence my love affair with sea-level and global warming. Can't fool a little islander :)

Good commercial but I'm not one to trust the NRA. Somehow, I feel they're controlled opposition. Makes good business sense, but nothing more than that. Though, I wouldn't mind posting their commercial :)

By criminals, do you mean the private-public partnership of government and organised crime? If so, the answer's yes.
I would never take the NRA's position on anything. Those guys are nuts.
+Adrian Azzopardi Appreciate that! You know if they had a moderate party in this country, I might be for it. This is the Land of the Polarized right now. Everything is either red or blue and I'm mostly green. What do ya get when you mix purple and green? That shade doesn't seem to come to mind w/o looking it up.
In the future we will all be color coded and we will show them our card or chip and they tell us which voting section to go to...specially blended with your preferences in mind. <yikes>
+Jim Carver I agree. We need to turn our backs on them and walk away. Demoting them to the deserved state of insignificance. No need to fight or shoot a single round. Let's stop giving them any importance.

Seen this? The Tiny Dot - by Larken Rose
+Ali Adelstein Good :) Hardly someone who can be on the payroll of big oil or a gun lobby group. Guns are restricted here.
I would say this is good for Malta +Adrian Azzopardi! Anyway, since Internet you can be on every payroll from everywhere. I'm not really convinced that you are not:-)
+Adrian Azzopardi Guns are restricted here also. They do an extensive background check and you can't buy one if you've had any major offense and also minor ones if they involved violence. I think just about all these high profile cases have been from illegal possession. Seems like just about all that made the news were whacked out kids.
+Ali Adelstein: "The rate of homicides involving guns in Switzerland is 0.52, four times higher than the Australian rate and more than double the rates in France and Germany."

- Actually, in 2004 the number of homicides per 100,000 was 0.8. Anyway, are you aware that the rate of homicides in Germany not involving guns was also higher than in Switzerland? Compare both kinds of homicides the total rates in both countries are almost the same. There's no use preventing gun murders if the same total number of murders remains the same, isn't it?

Switzerland (2004) [pop. 7,452,075 (2000)]
Percentage of homicides by firearm 72.2
Number of homicides by firearm: 57
Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population: 0.8 (0.765)
[57 · 1000,000 / 7,452,075 hab. = 0.765 per 100,000 population]

Germany (2004) [pop. 81,799,600 (2010)]
Percentage of homicides by firearm 30.5
Number of homicides by firearm: 247
Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population: 0.3 (0.302)
[247 · 1000,000 / 81,799,600 hab. = 0.302 per 100,000 population]


Switzerland (2004)
0.765 homicides by firearm rate per 100,000 population · 100 homicides / 72.2 homicides by firearm = 1.06 homicides per 100,000 population

Germany (2004)
0.302 homicides by firearm rate per 100,000 population · 100 homicides / 30.5 homicides by firearm = 0.990 homicides per 100,000 population

- As for Australia, the rate of homicides (with or without guns) in Australia was significantly higher than in Switzerland in 2004.

Australia (2004) [pop. 21,507,717 (2011)]
Percentage of homicides by firearm 12.1
Number of homicides by firearm: 32
Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population: 0.2 (0.149)
[the population was probably significantly less numerous in 2004]
[32 · 1000,000 / 21,507,717 hab. = 0.149]


Australia (2004)
0.149 homicides by firearm rate per 100,000 population · 100 homicides / 12.1 homicides by firearm = 1.23 homicides per 100,000 population

Approximate homicide rate per 100.000 population (2004):
1.23 (Australia) < 1.06 (Switzerland) < 0.990 (Germany)

+Ali Adelstein: " the United States, which is so far above all other advanced economies, with a rate of 3.59 gun homicides per 100,000 people, that it is in a category of its own."

- It's funny that you have excluded Mexico and Brazil from the advanced economies and from the same category as the US, despite sharing many similarities between them.

For instance, the three of them have been recently largely populated by immigrants from Europe and Asia, and in the case of the US and Brazil, of slaves brought from Africa, who have generated a number of groups of different ethnic origin and culture, in the US, mainly whites of European origin, blacks, Asians, in Mexico, mestizos, indians, whites, in Brazil, mestizos, mulattoes, blacks and whites who often will clash and compete for the same limited resources.

No wonder that in Mexico and Brazil the rates of homicides is even higher than in the US.

United States (2008) [pop. 315,125,000 (2012)]
Percentage of homicides by firearm 67.0
Number of homicides by firearm: 11,030
Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population: 3.6 (3.50)
[11,030 · 1000,000 / 315,125,000 hab. = 3.50 per 100,000 population]

Mexico (2008) [pop. 115,296,767 (2012)]
Percentage of homicides by firearm 38.6
Number of homicides by firearm: 5,095
Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population: 4.6 (4.42)
[5,095 · 1000,000 / 115,296,767 hab. = 4.42 per 100,000 population]

Brazil (2008) [pop. 190,732,694 (2010)]
Percentage of homicides by firearm 70.8
Number of homicides by firearm: 34,678
Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population: 18.1 (18.2)
[34,678 · 1000,000 / 190,732,694 hab. = 18.2 per 100,000 population]


United States (2008)
3.50 homicides by firearm rate per 100,000 population · 100 homicides / 67.0 homicides by firearm = 5.22 homicides per 100,000 population

Mexico (2008)
4.42 homicides by firearm rate per 100,000 population · 100 homicides / 38.6 homicides by firearm = 11.5 homicides per 100,000 population

Brazil (2008)
18.2 homicides by firearm rate per 100,000 population · 100 homicides / 70.8 homicides by firearm = 25.7 homicides per 100,000 population

Approximate homicide rate per 100.000 population (2008):
5.22 (United States) < 11.5 (Mexico) < 25.7 (Brazil)

- Other American countries with much higher homicide rates than the US are (homicide rates per 100,000 population in parentheses in the most recent year listed)

Honduras (82), Jamaica (52), El Salvador (52), Venezuela (49), Belize (42), Guatemala (41), Saint Kitts and Nevis (38), Trinidad and Tobago (38), Colombia (33), Anguilla (30), Dominican Republic (25), Bahamas (25), Panama (22), Puerto Rico (19), Guyana (19), Ecuador (18), Mexico-2010 (18), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (18), Nicaragua (14), Paraguay (13), 

and still higher rates than in the US in 2010 (4.8), in other countries such as 

Costa Rica (8.0), Barbados (7.5), Uruguay (6.0), Chile (5.8), Argentina (5.8), Cuba (5.5), Peru (5.2), 

In fact, the only American countries with lower homicide rates than the US in 2010 were Canada (1.6) and Grenada (0).
As a matter of fact, the US is one of the most peaceful countries in the Americas.

and Wikipedia for the populations of Switzerland, Germany, Australia, Mexico, Brazil and the US.
Thanks for the detailed figures +Zephyr López Cervilla. I am sure that the truth lies not only in the numbers, not in the sheer number of weapons, but is a combination of the Gun Culture and possession of firearms in the US. I don't want to escape this now, but for me it does not make sense to go even deeper into the statistics and the sources ...
+Ali Adelstein: "I am sure that the truth lies not only in the numbers, not in the sheer number of weapons, but is a combination of the Gun Culture and possession of firearms in the US."

- If you have a look at that chart published by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, you'll find that several European countries present higher homicide rates than the US (4.8): 

Lithuania (7.2), Moldova (6.7), Estonia (6.3), Northern Ireland (UK) (6.2), Ukraine (4.9), Belarus (4.9) and Latvia (4.8) 
[Russia isn't included in the chart]

Are those high homicide rates caused by a combination of the Gun Culture and possession of firearms? I don't think so since only a small fraction of those homicides (2.5%, 3.3%, 3.9%, 4.5%, 4.5%, 2.5%, and 4.6% respectively) were by firearm.


- So we have some industrialized regions like Northern Ireland (e.g., the Titanic was built in Belfast), and with similar cultural background to the US (many Americans have some Irish ancestry) but with much fewer gun owners in the general population, and a small fraction of homicides by firearms, and yet, with higher homicide rates than even in the US.

If we compare some of these countries with the US, we'll find stronger correlations than gun ownership values (which doesn't actually exist). For instance, a direct correlation with average adult male body size and homicide rate. 

It's well known that Lithuania has one of the tallest male populations in the world. No wonder how a small country like Lithuania (a population of fewer than 3 million in 2012) has been able to form a top class basketball team capable to win several medals in the Olympics, the FIBA World Cup, and the EuroBasket.
Estonia and Latvia aren't very far from Lithuania, at least as for body size.

On the other hand, the US has a more heterogeneous and diverse population, but the groups with higher homicide rates also show larger adult male body sizes (particularly, black adult males, blacks with more than double the homicide rate of the US general population). 

Curiously, the US has also formed the most successful basketball team in the history of this sport by relying almost exclusively in a relatively small ethnic minority of about 44 million people, 12.6% of the population. Incidentally, some of the most significant players in the US national team of basketball are former felons or had belonged to criminal gangs.

Examples of violent sports in which black males seem more gifted are American football and boxing.

So we have a link between populations with violent crime rates (regardless of the use of firearms) and an adult male large body size. Does this mean that larger males are more violent and more prone to commit homicide? Not necessarily. 

Their larger body size may be instead an adaptation to a more violent social environment, in which a larger body size confers a clear advantage. 

Of course, this was before the invention and perfecting of firearms and other long-range weapons. The selection of such body traits may have required of many generations under positive selective pressure. It wouldn't be surprising that other traits such as an aggressive temperament would have cosegregated with a large body size to take advantage of the chances in a violent social environment. 

Besides, the very violent society may be a cultural or biologic adaptation to a harsh environment in which the individuals had to compete for a limited availability of resources and in which cooperation didn't pay off (with the exception of the cooperation for the use of violence such as in violent gangs).

In those countries there has been a conflictive coexistence of several communities. In the Baltic countries, Belarus and Moldava there's an important Russian community, in Northern Ireland, Catholics and Anglicans, and in the US, there have occurred periodic riots of racist violence (e.g.

If the high rates of homicides in those populations are the result of an adaptation to the persistent secular violence in their regions of origin (many areas of Central and Southern Africa have been periodically convulsed by episodes of extreme violence), a change in the gun control laws will do little to redress the current situation since it's the people who are genetically and/or culturally prone to behave violently.
+Ali Adelstein Though, there are around 150,000 shotguns on the island. Pistols and rifles can be obtained with difficulty on the black market, but are ever so costly. Needless to say, crime is extremely low on a densely populated little rock. Hardly anywhere to run to. And for the reasons given, the army, police and politicians are somewhat, well behaved too :) But the few killings and burglaries are generally through the use of firearms. By definition, criminals do not adhere to the law, while the greater majority of citizens, do. We also have a drug problem. Addicts have to rob old ladies in order to finance their habit. Some are tied and beaten black and blue. Had drugs not been prohibited, prices wouldn't have been so steep and addicts wouldn't see the need to resort to theft.
+Adrian Azzopardi I wouldn't be surprised. Usually they get someone who is somewhat unbalanced anyway and then put 'em on drugs. This very seldom, if ever, works.
The side effects of the pharma begin to take hold while the initial benefit is gone. This leads to a disparaging individual and one who doesn't care about himself or others.
It's kind of like when Tim and Terry bombed OK. I didn't hear any calls for bombs to be banned. They obviously already were. That didn't stop them from killing hundreds and bringing a building down...and oh yeah, there were kids in there too. Would I be laughed out of the country if I said, "Let's ban Bombs?"
Of course I would, because bombs actually kill large amounts of people. Not like the little shit that gets big press.
+Jim Carver What was particularly surprising, in the video to the link I posted in my previous comment, is that executive director, Beverly Eakman PhD, of the National Education Consortium, states that prior to 1960, random mass shooting were practically unheard of. So what could have triggered this madness if not psychotropic medication.

Posted this other nugget today
+Cd Martel $5,000 a bullet would effectively mean prohibition. Organised crime would just love it. Do you know what alcohol prohibition of 1920s spawned? The likes of Al Capone, Charles Luciano, Bugsy Siegal, etc...
Add a comment...