Shared publicly  - 
 
As part of the Google Ideas initiative on illicit networks, we’ve created an interactive data visualization to better understand the global arms trade. Explore it: http://goo.gl/LNwLr or get more info:
414
127
Ed Gamble's profile photoHenry Rundkvist's profile photoTracy Brandis's profile photoAperture Mesa's profile photo
90 comments
 
This is fantastic. The data presentation. Not the trade.
 
What a deceitful statistic -- "60% of all violent deaths".  Sounds terrible IF you miss the qualifier -- VIOLENT deaths.  (1) What percentage of deaths (excluding natural causes) are considered violent deaths?  (2) Presumably not too many violent deaths will be due to crossbows or trebuchets, so why is this statistic surprising?  Fail.
 
I love how..."stand-outish" the US is in this little arms trading visualiser.
 
i fail to see the word illicit in any of the data shown. in contrast to the $8.5 billion of data visualized here, another potentially addictive and therefore harmful industry, gaming, is charted at just under $400 billion per year.
 
Violent deaths normally caused by criminals that have guns illegally and if more people had their guns taken away there would be more violent deaths since people could not defend themselves.  Deceptive article.  More legal Guns yield less Violent deaths specially of innocent people.
 
Sad to see an enterprise in such a position of deep trust by its users engaging in blatantly political activity such as this. 
 
Department Of Justice Wants Court To Keep Google/NSA Partnership Secret
 
Court hearing scheduled for next week in ongoing effort by privacy group to expose details of working relationship
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
March 13, 2012

The Department of Justice will ask a federal court to uphold the secrecy that surrounds the working relationship between Google and the National Security Agency in a hearing that is scheduled for next week.
Privacy watchdog group The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is returning to court once again in an effort to disclose more information regarding the widely publicized partnership between the spy agency and the search engine giant.
 
+Tiph Hunter Has it occurred to you that the same effect could be observed in any visualization of any kind of trade?

Didn't think so. 
 
+Robert Quance That is pure propaganda. There is zero evidence to support such a claim, in fact most evidence will contradict your dogma.
 
Google, you should stick to what you know. Don't bring political agendas to your users. You may not like what happens. +1 to +Margaret Leber 
 
Dear +Google , can you see what is the disgusting Apple doing? Please register ALL your fantastic ideas as patents! Do protect yourself!
 
Yuri Orlov:" The first and most important rule of gun-running is: Never get shot with your own merchandise." - +Lord Of War
 
Hilarious to see the uneducated gun nut filth spewing their cowardly nonsense as usual. Dumb fascist scumbags, hopefully it'll be their children killed by guns next, then they might wake up.
 
As the 3D printing develops, the DIY guns will be out of control! Can't imagine what will the world become.
 
Can I find the 'Fast and Furious' gun running on this visualization?
 
Wow, +Seán O'Nilbud, and yet with all these "gun nut filth", yours is the most hate filled post on this article yet.
 
+Seán O'Nilbud Sounds like the bleating of someone who is trying to rationalize the fact that the State has already disarmed him.

Let us know how that socialism thing works out for you as you sell out what's left of your sovereignty to the Germans. No, actually, don't bother. We've seen that movie before.  
 
Flow of money from arm manufacturers into politicians campaigns would be a nice extension of this work 
L CM
 
Visually stunning!
 
+Robert Quance "In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher." - where is the balance? would you allow people to carry bombs... for protection?
 
Looks great...... one problem tho.....It won't load on my Nexus 7..............
 
+Greg Horton It appears that the chrome browser does not support Web Gl yet, but the latest android browser does however. I'm trying to hack it into my rooted N7.
 
+Cliff Bramlett I wasn't referring to your penis. Just pricks like you who worship guns and live in a police state.
 
+Marshall Pyke But they sure do make it easier, faster and pain free. If knives, golf clubs and poison were dialup, guns would be Google Fiber.
 
Did Eric Holder make this chart...? Google if you want to outline the biggest injustice of our lifetime focus your efforts towards the War on Marijuana...
 
Please, piss off and go clean your gun or whatever gun morons do. Murder freaks are sick people. Keep watching your David Icke and Stefbot vids.
 
+Margaret Leber I made only a simple observational comment about the image. I didn't want to take it further than that but....So the same visual effect can be applied to any trade visualization? What are you implying? If the effect can be applied to any trade vis then what is the point of THIS visualization? Please explain...is the image just an image without any specific fact? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 
+Margaret Leber and never assume that I "didn't think so". I will always have something to say.
This thread is super negative. Not my kind of vibe. I won't be around here for long. Better answer quick.
 
+Robert Quance So the best way to avoid violence is to be violent? If someone is going to rob you, and you try to resist our fight back you'll probably get shot or stabbed or something, and there's the risk someone else innocent gets hurt too in collateral damage. If you hand your stuff peacefully you could probably leave unscathed...
 
I love the demonstration of the data. Gives me many ideas to future projects. As for all the political/negative talk, meh.
 
We teach our kids not to carry knives in school as they are more likely to get stabbed if they have one. Can the same logic can be scaled up to firearms, tribes, nations?
 
Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  'nuff said.
 
the "guns don't kill, people do" is one of the worst attempt to rationalise the crasiness to allow arms. At least it always makes the rest of the world lol at US's each time one of them says it
 
You are 100 percent right Guillaume Pavese. I hope life is treating you well.
 
Oh, look, the NRA twitter account got very, very quiet on July 20th... for about 10 days.  I wonder why.
 
Yeah sure guns help to kill people ...but take away all the guns then what...ban trees also? Cause someone can take a stick and beat someone to death.
 
Oh for Godsakes. There is nothing wrong, or rights threatening, by making sure people are licensed and background checked before purchasing firearms say at gun shows, where virtually anyone can get a gun. There is a lot of room for reason between the two oft stated extreme positions: guns of any kind for anyone anytime and no guns at all. Until the industry (I am not referring to the average gun owner but I am referring to the manufacturers) put the safety of people above profit, no reasonable form of compromise will happen.  As for the ridiculous notion of banning trees because you can beat someone with a stick....here's a dose of reality. An assault weapon is a lot more deadly than a stick.
 
+Greg Horton  - very true. Or they could use a knife.  But they couldn't walk into a crowded cinema or shopping mall or school and attempt to kill dozens of people with a stick, or a knife, without being stopped very quickly.
 
Can't understand why the US Second Amendment isn't actually enforced... "You want to buy this gun?  Sure.  What registered state miltia are you a member of?  Got your mandatory training cert?  Got your mandatory minimum annual hours done?  Got signoff from your unit captain?"

Instead of "Yeah, sure, he's a military-grade assault rifle and 6,000 rounds.  That's a lot of bottles and tin cans..."
 
+Peter Kahrmann Necessity is the mother of invention.  The man who wants to kill people in cold blood, or inflict major damage on a group of people no matter how deranged he is WILL find a way to do so with or without guns.  What happened in #aurora, no matter how tragic, could have easily had happened with grenades, pipe bombs, tear gas & barricaded doors causing mass histeria and stampeding people.  The argument is not that "Guns made it easier for him to kill so many people".. the Argument should have been "If I were sitting next to a man who had a gun when all of that happened, would I expect that man to protect me, my family by taking action, or would I expect him to run away like a coward?"  Had that man walked in with a 12" knife concealed under his shirt, tossed a few smoke grenades and followed the crowd not flailing like a madman, but sneaking up behind them and burying it into their backs He would have killed just as many or more before someone stopped him.

It's not the guns we should be worrying about.  It's the people who think it's safe to take them away from GOOD citizens so that the criminals are the only ones who will have them.  Because you know criminals WILL get them, and it's already illegal.  So let's not punish the law abiding citizens for the mistakes of the idiots out there.
 
Ted, while some of what you say has, without doubt, reason to it. It totally ignores one troubling fact: people are able to buy assault weapons and enormous amounts of ammunition - in this last case, 6,000 rounds - with no background checks whatsoever. Anyone who can't see the danger in this is either delusional, blatantly dishonest, or simply doesn't care. There is nothing in responsible gun control measures that will take guns away from honest citizens. The NRA leadership (I don't say members because I know quite a few reasonable NRA members) has block bans on cop-killer bullets and, in fact, they are behind Florida Governor Scott's directive that doctors are not allowed to tell their patients about the importance of gun safety in the home, especially when there a children living there. A judge has blocked Scott's ruling but the FL, AG, and NRA darling, has gone to court to reverse the judges decision. Telling patients about gun safety does not take guns away from anyone. Positions like the FL are utterly insane, and absent any iota of caring about the safety of people, and, in this case, of children.
 
I suspect because weapons, gun manufacturing is an $8.5 billion a year business and Achilles heel of capitalism is profit is more important than humanity. The myth that many buy into is thinking democracy and capitalism are the same thing, nothing could be less true.
 
Google, I wanna contact with your technical department!!!
why I cannot email you..
I have an idea, need you investigate.
If any staff of Google see this message please concat with me via syrinsoft.jfeng@gmail.com
 
Google, guns are not bad, people are. How about tracking the bad people? I really hope Google comes back around and starts supporting our right to be armed.
 
+Peter Kahrmann because had he not bought 6000 rounds, he would not have been able to pull off what he did?  From what I am reading, he used way less than 100 rounds. So how much is "too much" to buy at once? As a firearm instructor, I go through 6000 rounds in a couple months. Does that make me a criminal or someone that should be "red flagged"?  Hmm, no.  Criminals will always have guns regardless of the law.  That's why they are called criminals, they have blatant disregard for the law.  So more gun laws will do nothing to stop what happened. Where there's a will, there's a way.  More people get killed by drunk drivers than by guns. (look it up).  Why isn't there a mob with pitchforks ready to ban cars?  We recognize that the car didn't make a person drive drunk, the person made the decision to drive drunk. We focus on punishing the operator of the "weapon", not the object used as a weapon. Then we raise awareness of the dangers of drunk driving, again focusing on the person, not the inanimate object...
 
So...Are you in the military?  If not, are you a hunter?  If not, do you live in a particularly dangerous place with no police available?  If not, who are you being armed against and don't you think you ought to report it?
 
+Ted Corriveau , you seem to have thought about this... rather a lot.  It's a little disturbing that you'd plan how to commit mass murder most effectively, don't you think...?
 
The first step of a tyrannical government is to disarm its citizens. Propaganda like this is what Thomas Sowell refers to as fallacy of composition - it focuses on the bad apples and disregards everything else. It is like saying that 60% of all vehicular deaths are caused by sedans so we need to rid the planet of these evil devices. Our founding fathers understood the importance of this right and intentionally made it our 2nd Amendment. When people stop fighting for this right and it disappears, you will have no rights. Besides most of the violence caused across the world is a direct result of our (read U.S.) intervention into world politics through underground support of rogue governments, militia, and other (intentionally) de-stabling organizations. The individual should have the power (right to bear arms) to keep power hungry bureaucrats in check.
 
That's moronic. The US is filled with guns and is a ridiculous police state where war crimes are considered normal. Those French funded tax dodgers who wrote the constitution were a pack of politicians and only a brainwashed moron would think irrelevant byelaws from hundreds of years ago were philosophy. You're a clown with a hard on for guns pretending dead politicians were prophets because you've been told to by gun companies. Why did you think an education was optional?
 
+Alejandro Vasquez

1:  "In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher."

2: Noone (I think) is arguing for repeal of the 2nd amendment.  Just that people are sensible about it.  Noone needs an automatic weapon and 6,000 rounds of ammo.  (Except, perhaps, the weapons instructor above.  Even then, I assume he's actually selling the ammo.)

3: Tyranny...government...propaganda... Er, the US 2nd amendment was introduced in fairly turbulent times, fairly soon after the War of Independence.  There may well have been a need for a "right to bear arms" back then, when there was no instant communication and the nearest law may have been a week away.  This, however, is the 21st century.  And the vast majority of developed democracies do not permit their citizens to run around with assault weapons...
 
Oh, there's some real comedy gold in this thread!

+Robert Quance , for instance: "Violent deaths normally caused by criminals that have guns illegally and if more people had their guns taken away there would be more violent deaths since people could not defend themselves."

So, Robert, since you're obvoiusly an expert, you'll be able to tell us how many people successfully defended themselves from attack/robbery/invasion by Xenu's minions last year in the United States?

Funnily enough - in other countries, where you can't just buy a SMG or assault rifle, but the criminals can still get them, we have yet to be see rampant criminal gangs taking over Ireland, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, etc.  Crime rates? Not as high as the US.
 
Like it or not, guns legal or illegal are here to stay. So go back to living in you basement and playing WoW +Seán O'Nilbud .

Maybe we should ban guns so honest people will be defenseless and criminals will be armed with guns.

Just look at Chicago and all the home robberies. Criminals are not stupid, actually they laugh because your not armed and they have their guns with scratched off serial numbers.

I can see both sides. But really the point of this is the amount of guns the US exports to unknown hands.
 
+Marty Stock . See above. In words of two syllables or less: Other countries. Good guys, no guns. Bad guys still get guns. Less gun crime. Less crime overall. No brainer.
 
Yeah that's how Europe was set up and then the holocaust happened.

Wouldn't I have loved to be all safe in my home unarmed.

Criminals come in many forms.

Your argument is flawed; guns are here on earth to stay. I'm not going to be defenseless.
 
Cos your Saturday Night Special would have saved you from a blitzkrieg?

The way the second amendment prevented Pearl Harbour, maybe?

Oh, wait now...
 
I think more like how Syria's people have a fighting chance.

Oh, wait now...

And about said "other countries" you can still own guns in said "other countries". Good guys can still defend themselves...

Your comment "good guys, no guns" really doesn't hold up. Kind of idiotic even.
 
Marty, do you practice being snide and sarcastic and, well, foolish, or does it come naturally to you. For Godsakes, this is (or should be) a serious conversation. One of the reasons nothing every materializes is because the nastiness in the discourse.
 
Hmm. Syria is not one of the countries that come to mind when I think "gun control". Or "democracy" for that matter.

Again, Marty. Other countries can permit their citizens to own guns - say, shotguns for farming, or target shooting pistols - with proper controls. Not pretty much uncontrolled ownership of assault rifles and SMGs. And have less crime than the U.S. Crazy, huh.
 
Always relevant quote every time this topic is beat to death: "Gun control is the belief that a 100 pound woman has a 'right' to fist fight a 240 pound rapist". When bad people stop harming those smaller and weaker than them, I'll gladly disarm myself. Until then, nope.
 
Peter, do you practice being snide and sarcastic and, well, foolish, or does it come naturally for you?

You are a hypocrite sir and need to eat crow, and learn to lead by example and not with your current behavior.

Anton you make it sound like anyone can go to a gun show, walk up and buy a AR-15. It simply isn't like that.

But I will repeat myself "I can see both sides. But really the point of this is the amount of guns the US exports to unknown hands".
 
+Marty Stock You're an idiot. Typical uneducated brainwashed gun freak with a head full of lies and nonsense. I live in a different country to your vile hell hole and I'm grateful for that every day. Stunningly illiterate examples like "I think more like how Syria's people have a fighting chance. Oh, wait now..." are actually a mystery to real people because we can't actually tell which level of nonsense fed to you by your government you're working off. You gullible dimwit. Cowards like you with your fetish for guns are just weak untrustworthy clowns.
 
The only thing gun control laws do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to own a gun... the bad people will still be able to get weapons. If you take away all the guns the only thing that would happen is the rate that people get stabbed goes up, take away knives and the number of people who get hit with sticks will climb. Let me ask you one question tho... let's say you were planing to rob someone...would you try to rob a person who had a gun or the person who didn't have a way to defend them self?
 
+Peter Kahrmann I think you actually understand that we need debate and compromise on the issue. From what I can tell, you've been the only person on this thread attempting civil discourse, and I thank you for that.

To everyone else, "seeing both sides" her is pointless if you're so entrenched in your opinion that you're unwilling to work with the other side.

To those that say guns aren't that easy to obtain, in some states they are. I bought my gp100, mosin nagant, win 30 30, and ruger 10/22 and ammo for all of them, in about 30 minutes for each purchase. Could have been any gun mind you, ar15 and aks were right behind the counter. It might be too easy to buy any gun with any mag limit.

For those that say guns have no place in society, wrong. Hunting is a proud tradition in the states and is actually a much more honest way to get food. And there are animals out there that warrant a 44mag for protection. If you can kill an animal, you can kill a person.

Notice I didn't offer a solution, I'm just pointing out that there are legitimate points for both parties. Stop ignoring the possibility that the answer is in the middle.
 
+Matthew Ulasien Rape alarms. Pepper spray.  Mace.  Taser.  Other non-lethal methods of self-defence.

+Greg Horton   Once again, because people seem to think this bit is in an invisible font:

"In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher."

Crime rates in general are lower outside the US in countries that have proper gun controls.  Ireland, Canada, the UK, most of western Europe.  N.B.: That's not a ban on private ownership of guns - just proper gun controls, where an ordinary citizen can't own an assault rifle or SMG.  Hunting weapons, shotguns, no problem.

Your perception that gun control leads to more crime just does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny in the real world.  Sorry.  It just doesn't.
 
Antonio Sweeney, rape alarms are only effective if anyone is around to hear them. The other non-lethal defenses are effective, however not as effective as a pistol. If someone has already made the decision to attack me (or worse, my much smaller wife), I choose to give myself or herself the best chance possible of surviving, the bad guy's well being is not of my concern once they decided to try to kill/rape my loved ones.

Also, if more gun control always equals less crime, then Switzerland and Kennesaw, GA (requires its residents to own a gun, look them up) would be violent hellholes while NYC and Chicago should have no crime at all, however the opposite is true for each. I acknowledge we have a violence problem, however I believe guns are small variable, but not the root of the issue.
 
Switzerland is indeed interesting:

"Switzerland has gotten its gun control legislation more in line with European standards."

"As a result, the number of Swiss households with guns has gone down substantially in recent years."

"it has been made illegal to carry guns in public."

"it was decided in 2007 that government-issued guns would not come with ammunition; that is now stored in centralized arsenals, outside the home, for emergency use."

Source: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/367104/20120726/gun-control-switzerland-crime-rate-owner-firearm.htm
 
Did you know that 60 percent of all violent deaths are due to humans immoral behavior.  Guns don't kill, people do!
 
I was not aware of the changes in switzerland. Now the million dollar question is: has crime gone up or down afterwards? That would be a great case study.

Anyway, I still point to NYC and Chicago as examples of the failure of gun control to reduce crime and also Kennesaw GA as an example as less gun control reducing crime.

Regardless...look, I'd like to think of myself as being rational enough to see both of sides of the issue. However I've yet to see a case made for increased gun control in the US that 1. Actually keeps guns out of the hands of bad people 2. Doesn't trample on the rights of law abiding citizens to defend themselves (can't link it from my phone, but there are dozens of news stories of people saving their own lives by being able to stop a home invasion because they were armed. if gun control advocates had their way, they'd all be dead), 3. Doesn't serve as a gateway for more resteictions down the road, and 4. Doesnt violate the Constitution, which is kinda important.

For those who say "the Constitution is old and outdated, we don't need it anymore", let's draw that point of view out...

"We don't need the fourth admendment anymore, these are different times.The government should be able to seize and search anyone at anytime, for our own safety."

"We don't need to ensure voting rights. We'd have better officials elected if we restricted the right to vote to those who can prove they're intelligent enough to vote and who actually contribute to society"

"We don't need the first ammendment. We need to make sure no one is offended by what someone else believes. We must be sensitive to our diverse population and make sure everyone feels welcome. Freedom of assembly only leads to gangs plotting to go on a riot."

Are you SURE you want to open the Pandora's box of "these amendments are out of date, we don't need them anymore?" Think about that.
 
I was not shocked to see the details about India...the most shocking is this that its roots are getting deeper and deeper ... it has covered the whole world...
 
+Matthew Ulasien thank you, some genuine discourse!

Swiss crime rate: easy to find out, I'd guess. I'm stuck on my phone right now but can google it later.

Your other points: 1. Nothing will do that. 2. Did they need assault rifles and SMGs with 6000 rounds of ammunition? Would a shouted warning/warning shot from a handgun/shotgun/hunting rifle not have served just as well? Or were these full-on John McClain Die Hard situations?

Nobody here so far has mentioned changing the (U.S.) Constitution so I'll not get into that.
 
To all those who are pro-arms: what is the problem to show statistics about arm trades? Why would this be anti or pro-arms? Yes, I know, there is no such thing as objective data... but still I genuinely ask the question: why are those statistics so embarrassing?
 
It's not the honest people that own their guns legally that have a problem with statistics about arms trade being shown, IF it would be a true and accurate document by all means show the statistics.  I own a gun and have for years, fortunately I have never had to take another's life for my own, but I have the protection if someone decides to start shooting at me or break into my house.  Let me just throw something out here...you have three houses in the neighbor hood, one owns a gun, the other two owns guns but also has dogs, one of which is a bulldog. Thugs are most likely to break into the house without the dog, and they definitely do not want to tangle with a trained bulldog. If the 2nd admendment is changed, only the criminals will have guns and single people like me have to depend on the local law enforcement...Please.  I will keep my gun and take it LEGALLY to places I go, and if some fool decides to start shooting up the place...well, I hope I get him before he gets me so that what happened in Co. doesn't happen again. As I've read some very stupid remarks on this page regarding guns I doubt I come back to this page, so go ahead and say what you wilI about my statement, I pay my bills and until you start paying them...your opinion matters just about as much as dust in a front yard. Just for the record...I worked in the Juvenile Justice system...and more kids hurt/killed people with bats, screwdrivers, hammers and other everyday items more often than guns...Thank you for your time reading.
 
+Nikolaj van Omme, likely the cause for people speaking up is that it's just the inevitable natural evolution of these types of conversations:
<worldwide arms trade-->US has a lot of guns-->US needs to do its part to disarm-->US citizens need to willingly give up their guns to make the world a better place>

Such comments are usually made by people outside the US looking in and usually accompanied by "well your Constitution is out of date and shouldn't be relevant anymore" (hence my previous comments about "do we REALLY want to decide what amendments are still relevant?") To be honest, I probably shouldn't waste my time arguing with someone who doesn't see the importance of inalienable rights that the government cannot touch, but ah well.

+Anton Sweeney (/checks to see what our numbers still actually refer to :P...)
1. True, and yet lawmakers still keep trying to make more laws that only affect law-abiding citizens, and then keep wondering why crime in their cities keeps going up. Isn't trying the same thing expecting different results the definition of insanity?
2. The examples I was referring to of self defense were usually from a handgun or shotgun saving the 'would be' victim's life. However, referring to a couple of the points you made:

- a shouted warning (e.g. "Back off or I will shoot you!") is a valid course of action, and fortunately often effective. However a warning shot is a big no-no, both legally and in practice (this isn't a movie). If an attacker does not heed your warning to back off, you shoot to stop the threat (no warning shots, no 'shoot him in the knee' BS). That infers firing at center of mass until the attacker is no longer a threat, that is per any self defense safety course and what is also correct according to the law.

- also, referring to the type of weapon used: do you know what the difference in lethal capacity is between a 'hunting rifle' and an 'assault rifle'? Nothing, really, aside from mostly cosmetic differences that make an 'assault rifle' more intimidating looking. AR15's are a .223 caliber rifle, same as most hunting rifles that most people seem to have no problem with. You can get higher capacity magazines for 'harmless' hunting rifles that make them just as deadly as scary looking 'assault rifles'. The reason why people were up in arms over the assault rifle ban in the 90's is that the criteria given for what was legal and what was not was mostly for cosmetic reasons (what looks scary). One of the sponsors of the bill even later admitted that they were not knowledgeable in what actually constituted an assault rifle and what did not. Technically speaking, an 'assault rifle' is a politically made up term that actually has no designation in what actually makes some guns different than others.

- referring to amount of ammo purchased: while I don't do it myself, I know that people who like to shoot as a hobby can easily go through 1000+ rounds at a time firing at a range, and can go through 6000 rounds pretty quickly. Buying in bulk just makes economic sense as ammo can get quite pricey (more so when people start going "we need to restrict how much ammo can be purchased!", but I digress).
Add a comment...