So terrorist attacks are the only measure of violence? In almost all categories of violent crime the US comes off quite badly. Here's just one example from the UN of homicide rates:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf

So - much more violence... yes.

Fufo - Where is the use of photographing a cross soaked in urine? Yet we still protect it as free speech and "art". Freedom isn't about utility. It is about privilege and enjoyment. Life, Liberty, and the *Pursuit of Happiness*. We don't ban something.just because we don't see a reason for it any more. We also don't make claims about a constitution that doesn't actually exist like the Brits. We write down all laws and we restrict our *government*, not our people.

And if you look at the biggest headline grabbing crimes involving guns, they have been.in states with the *most* restrictive gun control. The reason you don't hear about civilians stopping a would be mass murderer is because the would he mass murderers don't go places they know they will be shot as soon as the pull their weapon and because most places are already restricting the carrying of firearms. You can't legally brimg them into movie theaters or schools so there wouldn't be any armed civilians in those places. Saying "no one is stopping the criminals" when it woild be a criminal offense to carry the weapon that does so ia fucking atupid logic.

You will hear about homeowners who shoot and kill home.invaders though which is why thieves scout out their next heist and plan carefully, especially in places where conceal.carry permits exist (Florida anyone?)

hmm...ok. I cant really judge that. guess i got to wait until i spend some time in the US...

...and Florida is SUCH a shining example of civilization.

lol. This just gets more and more absurd.

The stats don't lie Draugnar - the United States is a violent country.

More violent than Turkmenistan, Israel, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, China, and Algeria.

And many others.

The vast majority of the violence that occurs in the US is perpetrated by drug dealing gangs and against other drug dealing gangs. Tragically, there are innocent victims of this gang violence, but these gangs don't obtain guns legally, so any anti-gun legislation would have little effect on them. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the laws, law abiding citizens do. There are daily examples of law abiding gun owners thwarting crimes, they just are reported upon with as much fervor as the massacres -- which, by the way, are NOT an epidemic, they're just sensationalized for political gain. Lastly, there is no way to account for the number of crimes not committed due to the mere suspicion that the would-be victim is armed. Criminals polled in prison have said repeatedly in studies that ARMED citizens are a much greater deterrent than the police.

"We also don't make claims about a constitution that doesn't actually exist like the Brits."

This quote indicates virtually no knowledge of the British political system or of the uncodified constitution that governs it. To be fair, why on earth should you know about it? Nevertheless, it does 'exist'. It just isn't written down in a single document like most countries. Incidentally, the two countries without written constitutions that are not theocracies are the UK and New Zealand. I would argue they're both pretty 'free' and would also refer back to the UN assessment above of 'freedom'.

What freedoms, besides that to own a firearm, do Americans have that the rest of Western world does not?

And how do these drug dealing gangs get their guns, again?

For that matter where do the Mexican cartels get their guns, again?

Who is making all these guns?

They get them illegally. Because the US does have some restrictions on gun ownership, there is a thriving black market for guns.

Let me ask the Brits a few questions...

What is your oath when you join the service? Do you take one? If so, who or what is the first person on it? Is it King/Queen and Country?

If Queen Victoria decided today to disband your parliament, would they be able to stop her? Or is the military beholden to *her* and would follow *her* orders?

I ask because eI honestly don't know so cannot ascertain this supposed "figurehead only" position.

The British Crown is far more powerful that the Brits, and other Commonwealthers, believe. QEII disbanded the Canadian Parliment a few years back via her Governor General. Just a figure head? Um, ok whatever you blokes say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)

The Oath of Allegiance for the UK. I notice it is purely to the crown and the crown's heirs, not to Parliament or the people...

http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

US Oaths of Office and Service. Notice how they are all to the constitution, not to some figurehead, not even the President. Our oath is to that which *cannot* betray us. It is to defend the principles of that document.

Even our Pledge of Allegiance...

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,: One Nation (under God) indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all.

I intentionally marked out the under God cause it was an addition in the mid 20th century. But note how none of this ,mentions the POTUS or any other person: figurehead or otherwise. We pledge to a set of ideals and to a nation founded on those ideals, not to some person who is no better than the rest of us.

"Draugnar dont worry, i got what you said, but still: that the US is supposed to have a higher level of freedom, means that there is some king of unfreedom in Germany which puts it on a lower level. I want to understand what you mean... "

I never di answer this for fufo, but I will now. Freedom of speech. Germans most certainly don't have it. Try to form a new Nazi party in Germany. It is outlawed. Speak of Nazi ideals? Outlawed.

Mind, I'm not promoting these ideals, but we are free to talk about them in America and even have a neo-Nazi party of our own, something Germany would ban and arrest every member of. Germany is, freedom wise, where we were during McCarthyism in so far as political affiliation goes.

The point is more that we manufacture them in such huge numbers, ostensible for a market driven by legal demand.

There are as many guns in the world as there are because of American gun policy.

@Draugnar - Queen Victoria has been dead for 112 years. You're an american ignoramus.

@mapleleaf,

Keep worshipping your Queen! Your ignorance is just as profound.

Linking the Queen to gun control is actually very useful for people to understand other people's view from a cultural perspective. I personally don't support the royal family but can see why I'm in a minority in the UK where they remain popular. All of our pillars of society support the status quo; parliament, he Media, Police, Judicary etc. the come up with bizarre arguments, tradition, good for tourism, cheap, better than president Blair, etc etc. it becomes ingrained into the British psyche and even through it is clearly outdated and undemocratic Brits start defending it particularly when the notion of monarchy is attacked by outsiders.

I see Americans as having the same relationship with guns. They are so central to the America psyche that good arguments for gun-control just don't get listened too. The stats are clearly against allowing private citizens to own guns. Massive changes to the constitution have been made before and will be made again. Etc, etc.

I feel that if the pro-gun lobby applied the same logic to their beliefs as they apply to say the UK's monarchy, they may mellow their opinions.

I do not WORSHIP any royalty or politicians. Nice try, goof.

Draug, are you seriously comparing Germany's outlawing of the Nazi party to the Red Scare? Are German politicians wildly breaking Godwin's Law without anybody knowing about it for crass political gain?

I understand the point you're trying to make, but 1) it's stupid, and 2) McCarthyism is the wrong comparison to make.

What is your oath when you join the service? Do you take one? If so, who or what is the first person on it? Is it King/Queen and Country?

- We do take an oath (except the Royal Navy for other reasons). I've taken it myself. Yes it is to the Crown. This, however, comes under what is known as the 'Royal Prerogative'. The concept applies in many situations but the crux of it is that the monarch's powers and entitlements (the prerogative) are actually vested in Parliament and her ministers. So, when you're swearing the oath to the Crown in practice it is actually to Parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

If Queen Victoria decided today to disband your parliament, would they be able to stop her? Or is the military beholden to *her* and would follow *her* orders?

The current queen is Elizabeth...? The monarch's power to dissolve Parliament is symbolic. In practice there are two instances in which Parliament will be dissolved and in both the monarch will do so *on the request of Parliament*. If a monarch were to try and dissolve Parliament without the consent of Parliament it would not occur. Instead, there would be a constitutional crisis and Parliament would probably pass some sort of Act to strip that power from the monarchy or abolish the monarchy altogether. Ask the Stuart kings what happens when you try to dominate Parliament.

As I explained, the oath is to the Crown but in reality this means Parliament. If the Queen ordered the army to detain Parliament it would not happen. Ever since the civil wars it has essentially been that the monarchy has powers, either symbolic (rubber stamp) or prerogative (handed to the government/Parliament) *or else*.

Does that answer your questions? I admit, when you don't write this stuff down in a constitution it becomes quite convoluted but it works rather well and has done for a very long time.

But you think The Crown has no control over you, which I find the height of irony! A Canadian calling ME a goof! Lol!

The Crown doesn't really have any control. Seriously, I know nobody learns about the English Civil Wars any more but honestly?

OK, maple. Queen Elizabeth the II. Brain fart. BFD. Point stands. All British pledges are to the crown, not to the people or the ideals or the nation, but the crown.

I did explain that there is more to it than the literal meaning of the words...

Thanks Hereward. That does enlighten. So why the fuck doesn't your government right this shit down in a single document - a collective of rules by which your government will always follow unless they choose to change it?

It doesn't need to. It works. There is actually a rather strong argument that the fact it is unwritten is the reason for the UK's relative political stability over the last four centuries since the Glorious Revolution. Look at most European countries - they have had multiple constitutions. Unwritten constitutions are very flexible while retaining the weight of past decisions. A good analogy is the common law.

That said, I'm obviously in favour of uncodified constitutions and not everyone is. There are proposals for it to be codified. For anyone who is interested:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpolcon/writev/mapping/cde01.htm

So, how is the average Joe supposed to know what their rights are if they aren't enumerated?

It is quite difficult to find outright declarations of rights if you're not interested or educated in the topic. Nowhere near as easy as with a written constitution (particularly the US).

It is stated in some places. Much of it is in statute law - examples are the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Employment Rights Act 1996. I'd also submit that the enumerations of rights in the US constitution are often heavily debated in terms of interpretation way beyond what your average joe would glean from it. The same occurs with rights in the UK.

Still - fair point, it isn't as easy for your average person to find out exactly what their rights are.