Guns Europe vs. America

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

An armed society is a polite society

- Robert A. Heinlein

A taxi driver went on a shooting spree across a rural area of northwestern England on Wednesday, police said, killing 12 people and wounding 25   others before turning the gun on himself.   

This tragedy should not have happened in England. They have some of the toughest  gun lawsanywhere. This should only happen in cowboy land USA or Mexico maybe Australia…but not Europe where they keep gun violence in check.

My research turned up some alarming facts about gun violence in Europe:

·         Worst k-12 school shooting: Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed.  

·         The second, worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, Killed 16 kindergartners and their teacher and wounded 12 children and two teachers.

·         The third, Winnenden Germany  high school attack, with 16 deaths, including the suicide of the perpetrator    

·         The fourth  shooting was in the U.S. -- Columbine High School in 1999, killing 12 students and one teacher. They also injured 21  other students directly, and three people were injured while attempting to escape.

The fifth worst school related murder spree Emsdetten, Germany, 11 murdered

 

I find the school shoots the most vile so I open my argument with them but mass shootings In Europe are not uncommon because of their stricter gun laws.

 

- Zug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001: a man murdered 15 members of a cantonal parliament.
- Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city.
- Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.

Freising, Germany on February 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded.
- Turin, Italy on October 15, 2002: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city.
- Madrid, Spain, October 1, 2006: a man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from.  

 

If we compare mass shootings in Europe to America from 1977 to 1999 where there are 4 or more shootings Europe has 11.8 deaths per year and America has 10.56

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/10/john-lott-america-gun-ban-murders-multiple-victim-public-shootings-europe/

 

Do stricter gun laws make us safer? It appears not. In fact I believe the opposite is the case

 

Maine has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the country, but when it comes to violent crime, those guns are seldom put to use.

 

Disclaimer: I am certain there is data I don’t have that you can find that will prove your counter argument as well, I’d like to read that. I find these numbers to be very compelling though. I’ve presented my case in a civil manner, please follow suit.

Comments

Mod question: tags

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

WHAT happened to all my tags! They were deleted in two seconds! How are you that fast???! drat! double drat! you will not thwart me again!

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Wait, what? No-one has removed your tags. Only you can do that. What were they btw?

[3fgburner.livejournal.com]

Note also, that most mass shootings occur in "gun free" zones.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I’ve presented my case in a civil manor,

I'll respond only if allowed to present my case in a country manor.

Grammar check?

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

Did I use the wrong word? English is my second langue ya know. As cave man I struggle greatly with words that sound a like, difficult to spell, commas are a real bitch, I have never successfully used a colon or a semi colon, and I was flamed pretty hard for my use of accept and except once.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

but seriously, data about gun deaths per capita is obviously lacking here. Why would you only include data about relatively rare mass shootings? Those are too infrequent to use for drawing general conclusions about gun safety.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Please explain how you think gun fatalities would drop if gun access was wide-open.

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

I don't think it would increase. Why restrict freedom if it does not save lives?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

It's the old meme that carrying a gun serves as a deterrent.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

".. if gun access was wide-open."

Strawman (I think). I don't think the OP was proposing no restrictions on availability.

[sizequeen.livejournal.com]

To really talk about gun laws, you have to 1. Take America's insane drug war into account and the gang murders that result. 2. Look beyond mass shootings to total gun death rates. And 3. You cannot use anything from Fox News as a source of credible info.

Regarding 3

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

I provided data for the gun shootings and Wednesdays shooting from other sources than Fox news. However I didn't find anything in the Fox news sours that was not credible.

Regarding 1

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

Does Europe not have a 'drug war'?

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf

I am not sure focusing on mass shootings is really the best way to assess these things. I am also a bit suspicious of studies that have odd date rangers and 1977-1999 is odd. Why not 1975-2000?

That being said gun law differences are hardly the only thing at play here. We have a much larger gang problem then Europe, though you could say that has to do with access to guns, and also have a much more stratified society.

I don't favor banning guns by any means, but I would like a better means to track them for law enforcement purposes.

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

The 1977-99 was what the Fox News site used. I found the number interesting because it showed that stricter gun laws didn't stop/reduce mass murders. When a mass murder occurs is usually when people panic and demand stricter laws.

**reading the PDF now.**

[usekh.livejournal.com]

It also leaves out the tightening of gun control laws in response to many of these mass shootings. After Dunblane was when the UK got really strict. Just like after Port Arthur was when Australia got really strict.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

When I was trying to formulate my position on gun control, the data I looked at was:
- incidence/prevelance of gun related deaths
- portion of that total which was suicide/accident
- overall ratio of gun related suicide to all suicide
- gun related crime rates
- within the US, gun related crime rates across communities

All of that data is available with some hunting on the web.

As a final postscript, in the US, there are approximately the same number of non-suicide gun deaths than there are alcohol related driving deaths. Note that these numbers don't account for the fact that a) there are thousands more deaths from liver damage caused by alcohol, and b) nobody's ever defended themselves from an attacker using a Rob Roy. Unless you want to ban alcohol as well, there isn't a compelling case to be made for a gun ban.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

The hard truth is, a lot of people are irrationally afraid of firearms. This fear motivates them much more than any statistic.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

I love guns. I love shooting. I see absolutely no credible need for the average person to own a gun. Australia has incredibly strict gun control laws, and our homicide rate is lower than the US. Same with the UK, which has similar overall levels of crime and assaults, but a lot less deaths. As the average criminal finds it a LOT harder to get a gun.


I will also point out that the Dunblane shootings prompted the current very strict UK gun controls.

I will also add that whilst in comparison to the US Germany has strict Gun Control laws, they are pretty much just license requirements, and no carrying in public. Weapons are pretty freely available.

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

This particular debate is somewhat of a hot button topic in Arizona currently. There is a state law removing the requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon that goes into effect in July.

Yep, you heard me right. Carry a gun, stuff it in your waistcoat, walks ANYWHERE you want. Even better? Registration and background checks are no longer required!! Talk about the wild-fucking-west.

That being said, there are good points and bad ones for this law. On the one hand I'm in agreement that violent crime (read: robbing a 7-11 for instance) will no longer be quite so cut and dry. Walking into a place that may or may not be frequented by several people who are packing would certainly make me think twice.

On the other hand, Mohave County sheriffs claim that 90% of gun-related incidents stem from people with firearms who overreact, and due to a lack of firearms safety training, end up shooting someone innocent, or themselves.

I've no doubt that this will certainly result in a handful of high-profile incidents where a couple of idiots get into a shootout...but lets be honest here. This always happens. The only difference is that the people having shootouts are people that are going to carry a gun with or without a permit.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

With that other recently passed law, I might consider moving there, if it wasn't so fracking hot.

[thies.livejournal.com]

it'd have been helpful if the above was split among usage of legal and illegal guns

[thies.livejournal.com]

Zug, Switzerland

where you get to take home your gun after military service.



yeeaaaahhhh....

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Your fully automatic gun, at that.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Those figures from the Fox News article look awfully cherry-picked.

(Nota bene: I follow the old Virgina approach; standing armies are a threat to liberty and should be replaced by a well-regulated and inclusive militia)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

As plenty of others pointed out, I am unsure if mass shootings is really the best way to establish the safety/unsafety of guns.

Then there is also the cultural aspect; the gang-violence aspect is one as is the general attitude of the people as is the stratification and "inevitability of the negro-criminal" as WEB Dubois spoke of. [and no, that's not saying blacks are inherently criminals, but that in a society that deprives them of education and opportunity they have no choice but crime if they want to survive]

It's also unwise to compare all of Europe to America; one is a continent one is a country. The stats should be by individual country AND per capita; that would make the stats considerably more compelling.

Having said that: if you take away guns people will need to do more work to kill other people--but they will still have a way. Do we want to make it more difficult or less difficult for a crazy to kill a bunch of people?
And I'm not for banning guns 100%. But certain types of guns (say, automatic handguns) I see no need for; not even for self defense. The avg citizen doesn't need an AK-47

Also, I'll let the great GC speak for me:

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I've never heard any gun advocate offer ANY useful consolation or solace to a victim of gun violence. Never seen one undo the damage once done. Never seen a dead loved one kiss the cheek of their child again. Its setting the bar high, I admit, but its kinda their responsibility to own up to the effect of their favorite toy.

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

So, in effect, if gun advocates cannot cast magic and raise the dead back, then all of their arguments are null? That's not setting the bar high; that's intentionally retreating away from discourse that you may not want to hear. That's nothing short of forfeiting the entire discussion; it's the argument of a three-year old.

Maybe you should think about an unarmed populace being easy prey for those criminals who use guns. People die because they cannot fight back. Then think about an armed populace, who see a crazy, armed gunman shooting up the place, and then take him down before he kills anyone. At least with guns being legal, you won't have any dead ones to sob about, other than the homicidal maniac in the first place.