American Politics

[Ironthunder]

Shuckle, guns are unilaterally dangerous. That's sort of their whole point. They were designed for shooting things with the intention to kill or seriously harm. People can enjoy shooting guns, but that doesn't change the fact that guns were designed to kill. And the minority will often lose out for the benefit of the nation, because they're less important than the majority.

[Talon87]

For people who deal with procrastination, you can't just fix the problem by taking away their primary means of distraction or entertainment. Someone needs to work on an assignment but is on UPN instead. Okay, you take away UPN. Now he's still on the Internet, messing around. Alright, now you take away the entire Internet. Cool: now he's playing video games. Take those away. Reading books. No more books. Painting. No painting. Piano. No more piano. Daydreaming. You can ban as many activities as you like, but if you don't address the underlying problems he's only going to find new ways in which to procrastinate.

I feel it's a similar problem with guns and crime in America. While I think that restricting access to murder weapons would reduce fatalities in this country, I don't believe it would be as striking as in Britain or Australia. Americans would simply substitute one murder weapon for another. Suicides would go from being by gun to being by drug overdose, for example. Homicides would go from being by guns to being by electric shock, chemicals, or blunt trauma. Gangs would still tear each other apart, only now it'd be with brass knuckles instead of bullets. Serial killers would continue to stalk and strangle. Terrorists would continue to detonate.

Taking away guns is not going to solve America's problems. Corrupt law enforcement, civil discontent, poverty, racism, violence ... We have to cure the underlying diseases, and not simply treat the symptoms. Gun violence is a symptom, not a disease in and of itself. The proof of that is simple -- the millions of law-abiding gun owners who don't use their firearms to commit newsworthy crimes. Take away guns from the Orlando equation and you're still going to get the same answer only this time it'll have been explosives (which the swat team was even worried might have been present). Take away explosives and it's nerve gas. Take away nerve gas and it's Ebola. Determined people find a way. Rather than tackling a killer's ways to kill, we should be targeting their determination.

Restating, I am not necessarily against restricting firearm possession. I just don't think that it is the source of the problem. It could very well be a good place to start, given our sister countries' performances after they banned their own guns, but I expect the results in our own country will prove to be unsatisfactory.

[phoopes]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

I don't know if this is worth my time to address. Do you really see guns as unilaterally dangerous? What about hunting or sport shooting? Is it really that incredulous to you that someone can enjoy shooting a gun?

Guns are weapons with lethal force. Yes they are dangerous. As for hunting, if you're going to hunt and then actually eat the animal or something then I don't have a problem with it. Sport shooting, aka killing animals just for funsies, is really dumb in my mind. Sorry if we have anyone here who likes to kill for sport but I think there are better ways you could be spending your time. And no, it's not incredulous to me that someone can enjoy shooting a gun. I just think it's a bad argument. Basically, here are your arguments that I've seen so far:

a) "But people like guns!"
b) "Death numbers/rates have dropped significantly since the 90's so we don't have to do anything else."

To address a): As a society we can only move as fast as our slowest person. If people really only used guns for hunting and legitimate self-defense, then I would be able to change my stance. But too many times there's been some person that has inexplicably been able to get their hands on a gun and it has led to the deaths of many innocent people. Also the fact that with a gun nearby it is much easier for people to commit suicide makes me pretty strongly for more gun control.

b): It is true that there are less deaths due to guns than there were before, however I think we should keep working to make that number 0.

And don't even continue down the heroin path. Do you like collecting pokemon? Playing video games? Eating cake? Deriving enjoyment from something doesn't make it dangerous.

Now you're going down slippery slope territory. I compared heroin and guns because both are something that the users enjoy and both can kill people, which is something you can't really say about Pokemon, video games, cake, etc. The main difference between guns and heroin though, is that guns are legal in some capacity even though they kill a lot more people than heroin.

[phoopes]

Originally Posted by Talon87

Taking away guns is not going to solve America's problems. Corrupt law enforcement, civil discontent, poverty, racism, violence ... We have to cure the underlying diseases, and not simply treat the symptoms. Gun violence is a symptom, not a disease in and of itself. The proof of that is simple -- the millions of law-abiding gun owners who don't use their firearms to commit newsworthy crimes. Take away guns from the Orlando equation and you're still going to get the same answer only this time it'll have been explosives (which the swat team was even worried might have been present). Take away explosives and it's nerve gas. Take away nerve gas and it's Ebola. Determined people find a way. Rather than tackling a killer's ways to kill, we should be targeting their determination.

Restating, I am not necessarily against restricting firearm possession. I just don't think that it is the source of the problem. It could very well be a good place to start, given our sister countries' performances after they banned their own guns, but I expect the results in our own country will prove to be unsatisfactory.

I agree that guns are so deeply rooted in American culture that a blanket ban on guns or heavy restrictions similar to what other countries have done would probably not have the exact same results. However, as I said earlier, the Orlando shooter was legally able to purchase two firearms in the week before the shooting. This was despite him being investigated in both 2013 and 2014 by the FBI because of possible ties to terrorism. I think at the very least we should all be able to agree on a law that bans suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

[Rangeet]

Whoa whoa whoa stop right there.

He was investigated and the investigation found nothing. You want to take away rights from him without any form of due process? Do you understand what kind of rabbit hole that leads to?

[Princess Ana]

I wonder how many UPNers have been investigated before. Let's face it as well; this would not extend to the major demographic of people who commit mass murders either. I'm okay with not allowing people like the ones in Oregon (?) who hosted an armed takeover of a government people of not ever owning guns again, but I'm not okay with a bill that only covers "people who are ISIS sympathizers" because they're the only terrorists people actually care about.

[Snorby]

>Talon
You'll have a point when people are suddenly able to commit mass murder with a baseball bat. The fact is that the only one of those methods of killing capable of mass murderare chemicals. And to my knowledge chemical weapons are almost never used in America since they're pretty fucking impossible to get. Frankly, you can't say firearm restrictions will not help unless you can show me how, exactly, some 20something in Orlando would have been able to kill 50 people, injure 53 more, and hold another 30 hostage with a weapon other than a gun.

>Shuckle. Guns are significantly more dangerous, and, in my opinion, have more reason to be banned than Heroin. One person can't end 50 lives with a heroin needle. And to be frank, I don't care how much you like collecting guns, I don't care how much you like shooting them. Your personal enjoyment of guns is not and never will be worth all the lives guns take in America in even one hour.

Not gonna comment on Geet/Emi because my entire point is that I don't want guns in the hands of anybody, so how they get taken away doesn't matter to me much

[Rangeet]

Except baseball bats kill more people than guns.

[Snorby]

I REALLY hope you aren't serious, because you're wrong on more levels than I can count

[phoopes]

Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper

Whoa whoa whoa stop right there.

He was investigated and the investigation found nothing. You want to take away rights from him without any form of due process? Do you understand what kind of rabbit hole that leads to?

Not exactly. There was nothing to criminally charge him with but he was still on the radar as a known ISIS sympathizer. Maybe we'll disagree on this, but I think anyone that is a known sympathizer of a terrorist group should not be able to buy a gun.

Adding to that, I don't think anyone should be able to buy an AR-15 or other similar weapons.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Snorby

>Talon
You'll have a point when people are suddenly able to commit mass murder with a baseball bat.

First of all, this is a straw man attack. Please do not use straw man arguments in debates here. They're unprofessional with respect to your same-age peers, and the older ones of us have seen too many of them in our lifetimes to have much patience for them any longer. Informally banned from the forum, use of a straw man is going to discredit you in most people's eyes.

I never said that firearms are not suited as tools of genocide. Nor did I say that baseball bats and other tools for causing blunt trauma are as efficacious as firearms in ending human lives in a short period of time. What I did say is that if we took guns out of the equation, be it suicide, homicide, or genocide, American killers would likely substitute in an inferior but still adequate replacement. And I then proceeded to provide examples of these substitutions, several of which can be used to kill many people over a short period of time.

Originally Posted by Snorby

The fact is that the only one of those methods of killing capable of mass murderare chemicals.

Second, I provided a wide range of killing agents in my post, several of which can obviously be used in genocide. From this paragraph, for example:

Take away guns from the Orlando equation and you're still going to get the same answer only this time it'll have been explosives (which the swat team was even worried might have been present). Take away explosives and it's nerve gas. Take away nerve gas and it's Ebola.

you have explosives, nerve agents, and incurable diseases. All are weapons which can be used to commit mass murder. And some are weapons which have been used for mass murder or attempted mass murder in this very country. For bioterrorism, smallpox-infected blankets and the 2001 anthrax scare. For explosions, the Oklahoma City bombings or the Boston Marathon bombing.

We can be pedantic and say that explosives and nerve agents are still chemicals / chemical applications, but you know full well what I meant when I wrote "chemicals." I meant things like chlorine gas or caustic acid. Which is why I then separately listed explosives and nerve agents.

[Snorby]

No need to patronize me with Wikipedia articles, Talon. Both of us know that was not straw man in the slightest. I was making the simple point that the Orlando murderer could not have done what he did with anything you listed. The baseball bat was a reference to your assertion that homicides would happen just as well with blunt trauma weapons as a gun.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Snorby

Both of us know that was not straw man in the slightest.

So we're agreed then: both of us know it was a straw man and you have a hard time admitting it. Because it was clearly a straw man. Called out in Paragraph 1, laid out in Paragraph 2.

Originally Posted by Snorby

I was making the simple point that the Orlando murderer could not have done what he did with anything you listed.

What part of "explosives" don't you understand? Do you not understand that an entire building can be taken down, crushing everyone inside, with strategic placement of explosives? Do you not understand that even clumsy placement of explosives inside of a crowded bar is going to kill dozens and maim hundreds?

Originally Posted by Snorby

The baseball bat was a reference to your assertion that homicides would happen just as well with blunt trauma weapons as a gun.

Not happen "just as well." That they would simply continue to happen. I explicitly stated:

Originally Posted by Talon87

While I think that restricting access to murder weapons would reduce fatalities in this country, I don't believe it would be as striking as in Britain or Australia. Americans would simply substitute one murder weapon for another.

I never said, "We'll go from 50,000 deaths by gun to 50,000 deaths by other means." On the contrary, I took the position that total deaths will decrease if we restrict firearm access. I just don't think they will drop from 50,000 to 25,000, or from 50,000 to 50, or from 50,000 to 2. I think it will be a modest drop. I specifically stated that it would probably be a good place to start, but that if we really want to cultivate a society like other first-world nations' then we're going to have to treat the underlying problems instead of acting like gun violence is the problem.

[JustAnotherUser]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

This is where we differ culturally. I know many uses for firearms. A lot of it is collection behavior, some of it is the simple enjoyment of firearm use. I also have a great deal of military dudes in my friend circle - they're great guys and responsible gun owners.

I don't doubt that those are uses of guns, nor do I doubt that there are responsible gun owners in the US, but you can't use "it's just a few bad eggs" when the fatality rates are this high. Restrictions need to be tighter - which I understand you've said you approve of, so I suppose that's where this point ends.

Originally Posted by Shuckle

You might have a point here, in that gun deaths are Not Good and should be stopped. Having insects in your home is pretty bad. But in this case, you have a squillion cute and cuddly puppies living in your basement, separate from the a few thousand insects you declare to be living in your house.

Are you going to seal the house and light it on fire?

What exactly are puppies in this metaphor?

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Only 60%? That surprises me. That's basically half plus a little. I think this evidence supports my point more than it does yours.

If guns are so dangerous and used only for killing, why isn't that number higher?

That is the flimsiest, most logic-lacking argument I have ever read. Of COURSE 60% is a significant amount - "half plus a little" is still more than half that would become harder to perform.

Originally Posted by Shuckle

It seems nice until you realize that there were only 11 instances in the 15 years before that. Australia has enviously low violent crime rates. The gun control legislation was passed as a knee-jerk reaction to two closely spaced mass shootings in early 1996 and has had debatable effectiveness at curbing gun crime or even gun ownership.

Look at it in terms of fatalities and injuries then - 171 from 1976-96, 21 from 1996 to 2016. That's a 87% decrease. Hell, 4 vs 14 - that's total shootings in the same timeframe - is still a 71% decrease. Blessedly low can always stand to be blessedly lower.

[Snorby]

Okay. I will admit I misinterpreted what you're arguing. In response to your true argument, I'll say this: So what? Are you suggesting that because gun control wouldn't completely eradicate all violence, it's not doing anything at all? I think we all know restricting or even banning guns isn't a magic wand that will fix all violence, and we all seem to agree that restricting/banning guns would help significantly in reducing violence. So, what argument are you making, if not that gun control doesn't matter?

[Rangeet]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherUser

I don't doubt that those are uses of guns, nor do I doubt that there are responsible gun owners in the US, but you can't use "it's just a few bad eggs" when the fatality rates are this high. Restrictions need to be tighter - which I understand you've said you approve of, so I suppose that's where this point ends.

How high? There are, I believe, 150 million or so personally owned firearms in the US.

[Talon87]

In targeting guns rather than the underlying problems which lead to violence, I worry that we are disenfranchising law-abiding people. Instead, in addressing the underlying problems, we could have our cake (reduced fatalities) and eat it too (benefits arising from law-abiding gun ownership).

I concur that illegalizing the possession of firearms would reduce (though not eliminate) firearm-related death.

I am undecided whether that is good enough to justify their illegalization. You mention the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few but I wonder if you have something backwards: aren't the many here the law-abiding gun owners, the few(er, though still many) the victims of gun violence? There is also the counter philosophy that law is all about protecting the rights of the few at the inconvenience of the many, so even if we determine that gun victims outnumber responsible gun owners the pro-gun side can still argue for the law to side with them, e.g. "I need guns to protect my farm from predators, trespassers, and thieves. No other solution is as eloquent as a good shotgun."

[deoxys]

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by deoxys

video

While I enjoyed much of the video, I have to say I disliked how Obama flatly denied that he has proposed rolling back gun ownership in this country. Every single time a mass shooting has happened and he has weighed in on it, he has either implicitly or explicitly stated that we as a nation need to rethink how accessible we make firearms. And whether that's something you agree with or not, the problem is that he denies he's done this. :\ It hurts the arguments that follow. 'Cause hardcore Republicans are going to "LA LA LA LA, LA LA LA LA, I'M NOT LISTENING, LA LA LA LA~" at him while he's giving that great comparison with how we handle automobiles in this country and all because he had to get in some D.C.-style politics at the beginning where he takes hold of the mic, denies the truth, and the other guy can't do a damn thing to disprove him in front of the other attendees. The other guy might have been wrong to insinuate that Obama has proposed taking away guns from responsible gun owners, but Obama was likewise wrong to insinuate that he has never proposed taking guns away from any Americans period. The very notion of "We need to rethink gun ownership in this country" means you have examined who all owns guns currently and determined that at least some of them need to have those guns confiscated. Just say so. The people who already demonize you for it, you're not winnin' 'em back anyway. But the people who like you, they'll respect you for being upfront and honest. "Yes, I am going to confiscate guns from Crazy Ol' Man Tuckett. He's 93 years old and has senile dementia. He shouldn't own a gun any more than he should have a driver's license."

Another thing I disliked, was how he completely ignored the Chicago point. I don't even know if what the questioner said was accurate or not, but Obama's apparent dodging of the issue of Chicago implies that the questioner is right and that Chicago already has tough gun laws but still has some of the highest crime in the country. Perhaps this is addressed in a later Part 2? If so, I'd like to see that video. 'Cause I'm disappointed he didn't address it.

I enjoyed the rest of his talk. The part about driver's licenses, the part about the CDC and not being allowed to report on gun-related deaths, the part about it's easier to place someone on a no-fly list than it is to deny them a gun ...

I think the concern a lot of gun owners in America would have is where do you draw the line between "determined to be fit to own a firearm" and "determined to be unfit." A lot of people worry about dystopian outcomes where the government says you can't own a gun because you're speaking out against Big Brother. But even if we reject that as Chicken Little nonsense, where do you draw the line? If we determine that children are unsuited to possess firearms (as in, not even allowed to go hunting with Daddy, that kind of possession), what policies do we implement for adults who have kids in the house? If we determine that the mentally ill are unsuited to possess firearms, how mentally ill? With what mental illness? How do you take away someone's gun without them feeling violated?

But I think everyone can agree that if the government has placed you a no-fly list then you proooooobably shouldn't be being sold any guns either.

[Doppleganger]

I'm pro-gun.

Guns aren't the problem. They aren't even the easiest-access, best weapon to kill a bunch of people with - those are vehicles. Gun abuse by the few doesn't invalidate legitimate gun use by the many.

Rather than hand society kid's gloves, society should mature enough to work with guns.

[Snorby]

As a Chicagoan, I can say we have pretty flimsy gun laws. It's not even hard to get a concealed carry permit, and there are some gun ranges in the town over from mine where anybody can walk in and shoot without training. There have been 2 suicides and a homicide there in the past year or so.

Idk why Obama ignored that point, haven't even seen the video. Just wanted to weigh in on Chicago gun laws.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

I'm pro-gun.

Guns aren't the problem. They aren't even the easiest-access, best weapon to kill a bunch of people with - those are vehicles. Gun abuse by the few doesn't invalidate legitimate gun use by the many.

Rather than hand society kid's gloves, society should mature enough to work with guns.

I'm sorry, this is just naive. As great as it would be to have society mature enough to work with guns, it won't happen. That's way too idealistic. As long as we have guns and human nature, and even mental illness, we will have gun violence, especially in an ever increasing population of hundreds of millions. And when you see statistics like this, how can you not ask yourself when the fuck is America going to get with the times and the rest of the civilized world?

There are more guns than there are people in the US. As our recent Orlando terrorist proved, almost anyone can legally buy a gun and then carry out something disturbing. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not have a good system in place right now, because this shit keeps happening. And whenever someone wants to propose changing the system a bit, the NRA and the conservatives go up in a fucking tizzy trying to spread shit about how it's the end of the second amendment...

True enough that the second amendment is important. And it should never go anywhere. But it needs to adapt to modern civilization. The founding fathers talk about the right to bear arms in a completely different context - I doubt they ever envisioned a future of huge gun emporiums with walls lines with hundreds of different types of guns with different features and functions. I doubt anyone back then could have even imagined what a semi-automatic rifle could be, and I imagine things would have been different if they did.

There are so many things wrong with our terrible, disgustingly shitty gun laws, and they are being held back by regressive right-wing politicians who won't let anyone so much as touch current gun laws.

We don't need to get rid of the second amendment, or gun ownership. It needs to be updated to properly get with the damn times. We can't rely on society to just mature on its own, because it will simply never happen.

[phoopes]

To add on to what deo said, I'm reminded of a quote from a comedian about the gun control debate. "As a society, we can only move as fast as our slowest person." If you have a solution for society to "mature enough to work with guns," then I'm all ears. Until then, I feel it's in everyone's best interest safety-wise for stricter gun laws. Yeah, you can say that the few are ruining it for the many. But we've had 136 mass shootings this year so far (classified by this website as four or more victims, either injured or killed). This in addition to all the other gun homicide and suicide stats brought up by multiple people in this thread. Therefore, the problem needs to be addressed from any and all angles. This includes better mental health care as Shuckle stated. A tandem of better mental health care and stricter laws (i.e. no assault rifles, anyone on a no-fly list shouldn't be able to buy a gun) is a good starting place.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by deoxys

I'm sorry, this is just naive. As great as it would be to have society mature enough to work with guns, it won't happen. That's way too idealistic. As long as we have guns and human nature, and even mental illness, we will have gun violence, especially in an ever increasing population of hundreds of millions. And when you see statistics like this, how can you not ask yourself when the fuck is America going to get with the times and the rest of the civilized world?

Breaking: The United States was founded on painfully idealistic, optimistic views of society. It's worked into our Constitution and to change those clauses (like the terrible jus soli) is equivalent to fundamentally changing the nation's identity.

I mean, I'm all for practical, sensible laws. But I also remember where I live. This is the land of freedom and curbing freedoms isn't how one demonstrates that.

Originally Posted by deoxys

There are more guns than there are people in the US. As our recent Orlando terrorist proved, almost anyone can legally buy a gun and then carry out something disturbing. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not have a good system in place right now, because this shit keeps happening. And whenever someone wants to propose changing the system a bit, the NRA and the conservatives go up in a fucking tizzy trying to spread shit about how it's the end of the second amendment...

Because they're right.

There aren't many Ted Kaczynskis or Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds around, guys who are intelligent, capable of weaponizing things or building their own weapons, and can use those talents for calculated political aims.

The vast majority of gun abusers are lazy and/or stupid people overwhelmed by emotions. Lazy/stupid because they engage in violence, and conduct violence in a way that's short-lived, because their aims are shallow and (possibly) fleeting. Most Americans have violent thoughts from time to time and it's only these select people who act on them with guns.

So when you say things like,

Originally Posted by deoxys

As long as we have guns and human nature, and even mental illness, we will have gun violence...

Which implies gun violence is a common thing? Relative to the number of guns out there, it's a widely publicized small crime. I currently live in a city with a Crime Index of 1 (meaning 99% of the US is safer), it's poverty stricken, there's a lot of mental illness care homes, everyone owns semi-automatic rifles, and it's extremely rural despite a decent population density...and there's been no murders this year, two last year and only one gun-related violent crime in the past two years.

Human nature my Hobbesian arse. It's economic, emotional conditions causing the problem. California has the strictest gun laws in the nation and even California struggles with gun violence. It's clearly not the guns fault this is happening.

leave rifles alooone

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Snorby

As a Chicagoan, I can say we have pretty flimsy gun laws. It's not even hard to get a concealed carry permit, and there are some gun ranges in the town over from mine where anybody can walk in and shoot without training. There have been 2 suicides and a homicide there in the past year or so.

Idk why Obama ignored that point, haven't even seen the video. Just wanted to weigh in on Chicago gun laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

I'm sorry, but the Illinois gun laws are not flimsy. 72 hour waiting period, strict background check and evaluation. If that's your idea of flimsy, you'd be appalled at pretty much every other state's gun laws.

Also, concealed carry permits actually significantly reduce crime in states where CCW laws are instated. Many people encourage concealed-carry as a way of preventing mass shootings or just general homicide. You should be glad that Chicago encourages CCW.

Also, the suicides/homicide at the gun range does not prove your point and is a little closer to what Talon and I are arguing (that guns are a symptom of a more important thing to address).

The simple fact of the matter is that we do not have a good system in place right now, because this shit keeps happening.

But it's happening less! How can you argue that the existence of mass shooting means our system is bad? Our system has halved the number of gun deaths over the last twenty years without stepping on the toes of reputable gun owners. I'm pretty sure that's evidence of a good system.

Sorry if we have anyone here who likes to kill for sport but I think there are better ways you could be spending your time. And no, it's not incredulous to me that someone can enjoy shooting a gun.

Sport shooting is not the same thing as sport hunting. Sport shooting is like your rifle team at school - it's as much a sport as swimming or football. You compete to see your accuracy and ability to track and hit targets, usually clay pigeons. It's actually shitloads of fun and very satisfying.

Sport hunting is not the beast it used to be - it's tightly controlled and the populations are carefully managed, so it's a perfectly safe and enjoyable activity in rural areas.

As for shooting for enjoyment, I've been to the firing range with military pals and it's just shooting the fuck out of a piece of cardboard/a paper target/a clay pigeon and blowing it to smithereens. It's fun and we are very cautious with safety. I'm not sure why you think that's something that needs to be stopped for the sake of ending something that would happen anyway.

Shuckle, guns are unilaterally dangerous. That's sort of their whole point. They were designed for shooting things with the intention to kill or seriously harm. People can enjoy shooting guns, but that doesn't change the fact that guns were designed to kill. And the minority will often lose out for the benefit of the nation, because they're less important than the majority.

There are legitimate, non-dangerous, non-killing uses for guns. Self-defense usually involves simply threatening your attacker with a gun you own, rather than shooting them. Sport shooting, as mentioned just above.

Guns are used to kill. This is unfortunate. They are weapons, and their design is to be deadly or at the very least injurious. Does this mean that they are unilaterally dangerous and can be used for no other purpose than to kill human beings? No.

i.e. no assault rifles

You cannot buy assault rifles as a civilian in the US. These kinds of weapons have been banned since 1934.

And when you see statistics like this, how can you not ask yourself when the fuck is America going to get with the times and the rest of the civilized world?

"Violent Death Rates: The US Compared With Other High-Income OEDC Countries, 2010."

Interesting definition of "civilized" you have there. What if you put Mexico (9.97) on that graph? US probably wouldn't look so scary anymore.