# 18 Dead In First European High School Shooting - What About The Gun Control Argument? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2002, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809 "2002-04-26T16:48:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/121 "2002-05-02T00:46:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flowbark \* > > 1. I should say that I honestly have not seen a decomposition of homicide figures. [Bass Voice] Until Now. [/Bass Voice] The [Bureau of Justice Statistics](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/) has a page devoted to [homicide trends.](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm) Below, I summarize some of their points, blatently stealing their language in some cases. **Eris** , **Anthracite** , **ExTank** and others may find the site interesting, if probably not conclusive. Univariate data is like that. Enjoy. Note that there is a .pdf file available on the 2nd link which collects the charts in one place. My summary: 1. Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the late 1960s. (Data is through 1999). 2. Most victims and perpetrators are male. 3. Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders. (In total, there are approximately the same number of white and black victims.) It appears that most murders are either black on black or white on white. 4. The breakdown by circumstance is interesting. ```auto Date Felony Argument Gang Other Unknown Total 1976 3327 9106 129 4630 1588 18780 18% 48% 1% 25% 8% 100% 1986 3992 8602 357 3015 4644 20610 19% 42% 2% 15% 23% 100% 1996 3688 6621 1091 2330 5919 19649 19% 34% 6% 12% 30% 100% 1999 2622 4983 841 2466 4638 15550 17% 32% 5% 16% 30% 100% ``` Unknown has gone up over time. I don’t know why. **Extank** : Note that crime-related (gang+felony) homicides range from 19 - 25% of the total and 20 - 35% of the total excluding “unknown”. Look how low gang is (relative, at least, to its media coverage). I’m not sure how to define “crimes of passion” (although I used the term first). Still, look how high “argument” is. It would also appear that a minority of homicides are pre-meditated, in the narrowest sense. **Eris** might note that we are more interested in homicide rates than in their actual level. He would be correct; presumably the decline in homicide rate would be more dramatic. 1. Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. The extent to which mayhem-providers would successfully substitute into knives, blunt objects, other guns or guard dogs if handguns were less available is an empirical matter. Among others. In 1999, 51% of all homicides used handguns, 14% used other guns and 35% used other methods. 1. The southern regions historically have had higher homicide rates than other regions. 2. Changes in homicide trends have been driven by changes in the number of homicides in large American cities. To those posters who are wondering why I bothered with the above: Jeez gang, the first step is to get a rough factual grounding on what we’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/122 "2002-05-02T02:40:28Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ExTank_ > This is on page 3, and has remained relatively civil. Let’s see if we can keep it that way a little longer. In flowbark’s and quix’s defense, they have remained rational and intelligent throughout the debate, let’s not pile upon them too harshly. Well I for one am getting increasingly pissed off. I’m topping 700 posts here 😊 and this is the very first time I have had my honesty impinged. (Hey, if flowbark can’t stand the heat…) > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Riboflavin_ > Oh, wait, you earlier stated that you believe that one can only be honest if they support ‘gun control.’ That’s it. Please accept my invitation to join me [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112805), at the usual forum for discussions of a personal nature. Maybe we can clarify matters. ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/123 "2002-05-02T06:07:34Z")
Skins is a little thin to be slappin with pig skin… ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/124 "2002-05-02T18:04:10Z")
What’s even more interesting, **flowbark,** is the discontinuity between the DoJ stats and the NCHS stats. I haven’t the time at the moment, but I’ll dig up the NCHS stats and post 'em here tonight, with links, and we can break them down for comparison with Doj’s and perhaps reconcile them (may simply be differences in data gathering or number crunching (it’ll be early tomorrow morning, I’m currently working a mid-shift, and gotta scoot for work). ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/125 "2002-05-02T19:15:31Z")
What sucks is that I am a very bad research hound. The interesting thing about the BJS data is the overall trend of homocides _not_ by gun to be more or less stable. But, looking at some of the more specific charts (for example, where age was an isolated variable) we see that the relative slopes of homocide seem to be similar… that is, when the homocide rate went up by guns, so did the homocide rate with non-guns. Check out exactly what I mean here: > **[Home](https://bjs.ojp.gov/)** > > The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is the United States' primary source for criminal justice statistics that cover a wide range of topics. This seems to, at first glance, support my contention that there are other factors at work here, and that violent crime is probably _not_ a function of handgun availability or control. Certainly gun control would have no effect on murder-by-knife (or the candlestick in the library), and yet the age-isolated curve (most pronounced in the 25+ age group, but to a lesser extent in the 14-17 and 18-24 age group) seems to show that gun availability simply makes killers more efficient. I’d LOVE to see how these graphs, on similar scales, apply to [non-gun homocides + non-gun assaults]. If my guess is correct then we should see that guns, in fact, make more efficient killers, but really, as pro-guns say, have no effect on the underlying people. Looking at the city-size graphed data [here](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/city.htm) we can also gain some interesting views. Note that the city population rather obviously affects the raw number of homicides (which, duh, seems obvious). But if you scroll down to look at the chart which groups the cities in the manner of 1mill+, 500K-1mil, 250K-500K—you see that one?—well we see something much more interesting. Comparing the lowest group and the highest group: the number of deaths per 100,000 is roughly similar in shape, varying only by about 25 homicides at the biggest peak (between heaviest population and least populated around the year 1991) and staying around what I would hazard to be an average difference of 10 homocides per 100,000 (how they normalize the homicide rate). Let’s think about that. Is this data telling us that a 10-fold increase in population affords us a 10-fold increase in homocide rates? Interesting indeed, I think. So we can say that the homocide rate can be controlled or normalized for population… it seems to _me_, anyway. More people == more people will get murdered. Probably not something earth-shattering, but something to consider when we think of the glory of the big cities. The last graph on that page is _most_ telling… homocides _by intimates_ are inversely proportional to population, reaching an impressive 20% of all homicides in the smallest areas. Holy shit! So much for the small-town comfort, they just wanna learn the best way ta’ kill ya’! 😉 ALSO of importance to note (and I’m looking at charts [here](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm) now), back to the age thing, is that the largest portion of homicides are committed by the 18-24 year old population. _This means, when coupled with the point about guns comprising the majority of murders, that gun control measures **will** work to some extent_! That just can’t be denied. I highly doubt that most of the 18-24 group got their guns on the black market. Apart from that, the 25-34 year old group (apart from a recent explosion seen in the 18-24 during the early 90’s) was following a close second, supporting even further that most of these homocides (in this group) were done with legal weapons (guns or not). Also note that this isn’t a raw-number analysis, though it is based on how much these groups contribute for the homicide rate, so it is directly proportional to the total population… what is missing is what percentage these groups make up of the total population since if the 18-24 group is the largest portion of the population, and since we’ve seen that population is directly related to the number of homicides, we might be fooling ourselves into thinking that the 18-24 group is somehow “more violent” than other groups when that really may not be the case. More room for investigation, but compelling data nonetheless. (the jump in the 18-24 group and the 14-17 group is astounding, but it seems as though it is settling out) I am still intrigued by the dramatic increase in homicide across all populations around 1991, even though the minor population grew the most. What the hell was going on then? Anyone think of anything that might conceivably affect the homicide rate? We’ve instituted _more_ gun control measures in this time frame… haven’t we? Or is the decrease a result of more gun control measures? On the same page there is an _incredible_ correlation between average age of victim and average age of the offender. I mean, it almost looks like they copy and pasted the same curve as a different color, doesn’t it? Also, note this isn’t really affected by our strange 1991 leap at all. True, the average age has gone down slightly, but we see here that it seems to just dance around the 30 year old mark. Not quite what we would imagine based on gang propaganda and the whole “youth violence” load of crap, especially when we see how insignificant the murder rates of the older age group is. I’m going to have to look at these in more depth when I get home, but some food for thought out there. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/126 "2002-05-02T19:32:27Z")
How many of those homicides in the 18 - 24 year old age group were gang members and/or drug dealers killing each other in a business capacity? By the way, for half of that age group it already is illegal to own a handgun and they cannot legally buy one. Federal law (as I had to testify to on my BATF form 4473) mandates that the purachaser be at least 21 years of age. So um, apparently these people who are 18 and committing murder with handguns ARE getting illegal arms. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/127 "2002-05-02T19:38:53Z")
Yeah… whoops! Good point. But shotguns/rifles are still legal to own under 21. We need more breakdown by gun type data. More data, more data! ---
**Author:** ![Demise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@Demise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demise)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/128 "2002-05-02T19:42:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > **I highly doubt that most of the 18-24 group got their guns on the black market.** The problem with this statement is that the age bracket is made up of two distict group of people, for this purpose. 18-20 year-olds cannot legally buy handguns, while 21-24 year-olds can. And since the majority of gun violence is committed with handguns… And on preview, I see that the estimable **catsix** brought up the same point. From the [this BJS page:](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm) > [@](#): > > According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from - > > -a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2% > -a retail store or pawnshop for about 12% > -family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80% So much for the “gun show loophole” that gun-grabbers whine about. No one brought up that issue in this thread, but it stuck out for me. That aside, I wish that 80% block had been broken up. Merging illegal methods of gaining a gun with methods that may or may not be illegal is confusing and misleading. While having a friend buy a gun for you by proxy might be illegal, it isn’t illegal to receive a gun as a gift unless you are in a restricted category, i.e. a felon, insane, etc. It’s hard to draw any conclusions from that data due to its format, so I wonder why it was presented as such? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/129 "2002-05-02T22:12:03Z")
Thanks for the extra info, **Demise** , and I agree that the merging there is somewhat inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/130 "2002-05-02T23:54:37Z")
First glance at the data in excel shows that in the \<14 age group, the change in homocide (from year to year) doesn’t show a correlation between gun and non-gun homicides. In the 14-17 age group there are some similarities, but nothing striking. In the 18-24 chart the correlation seems to stand out. In the 25+ chart the correlation seems to be about as good as in the 18-24. I also totalled everything from all age groups. There are some areas of striking similarity, but others that are complete opposites. So, perhaps my assessment was a little premature. The number of homicides between gun and non-gun don’t appear to be completely similar. Though it seems there may be a correlation, this cursory glance doesn’t really seem to support it outright. Well, enough extra credit for now, I gotta go play learning programmer for a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/131 "2002-05-03T00:38:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > By the way, for half of that age group it already is illegal to own a handgun and they cannot legally buy one. Federal law (as I had to testify to on my BATF form 4473) mandates that the purachaser be at least 21 years of age. Not quite - in some states it’s legal for someone under 21 to own a handgun, the Federal law only prevents them from buying one from an FFL. While a number of states do require that a person be 21 to own a handgun, some don’t though I’m not sure about the ratio. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/132 "2002-05-03T00:51:56Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by erislover \* > This means, when coupled with the point about guns comprising the majority of murders, that gun control measures **will** work to some extent_! That just can’t be denied. Can’t be denied?!? I’d like to see the argument for that! > [@](#): > > I highly doubt that most of the 18-24 group got their guns on the black market. I doubt your doubt, especially since in many states half of that group can’t legall own a handgun! (IIRC, New York, Claifornia, and Illinois completely forbid anyone under 21 from owning a handgun). [/QUOTE] Apart from that, the 25-34 year old group (apart from a recent explosion seen in the 18-24 during the early 90’s) was following a close second, supporting even further that most of these homocides (in this group) were done with legal weapons (guns or not). [/QUOTE] Look, the fact that you presume something simply doesn’t mean that it ‘can’t be denied’. Saying that you think that 25-34 year olds don’t use illegal guns doesn’t constitute an undeniable argument by any stretch of the imagination. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/133 "2002-05-03T01:37:28Z")
Hmm, guess you missed my retraction. That’s ok, I wasn’t paying much attention to you, either. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/134 "2002-05-03T02:48:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by quixotic78 \* In the spririt of ExTank’s request, I’m going to drop the whole ‘was it a good cite/was it reasonable not to think that it was a good cite’ bit. I think it’s kind of a pointless tangent at this point, and we both ought to just ditch it and move on. > [@](#): > > Well, I may very well be wasting my time here, because my [new cite](http://www.columbine-angels.com/other_shootings.htm) doesn’t claim to be complete either. Before you read this part, note that I’m going to conceede some things for the sake of argument below. You’re not going to like this, but I don’t accept this as a reasonable cite either. There are simply too many small US incidents for me to believe that the foreign incidents are complete; I really doubt that the list includes every incident in Europe like the one where a varsity coach clubbed another coach into the hospital in a non-student bathroom (Crockett High School). Further, I don’t think that one coach clubbing another is what you were talking about with school violence. The list also includes some incidents like non-school-related crimes on University property, which I don’t think really are relevant to this argument, for example the Donna Marz case (stabbed while walking across a university from a job in a restaurant) and which I’m damn sure isn’t complete. (For example, this article incidentally mentions 379 violent crimes reported, including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, on UNC campuses in 1994 - none of which are on this list). What you’ve got is a collection of anecdotes, not a complete list. While I am interested in finding a good list of these sorts of incidents, this simply isn’t such a list. Also, if you consider that a reasonable list, what sort of school violence are you talking about? I think you’re going to need some tables with numbers, not an anecdotal list, especially if you’re going to include aggrivated assault between two coaches or violence occuring on college grounds. On to the questions. > [@](#): > > (a) Do you concede that the U.S. has had _far_ more instances of school violence than the rest of the world? From what I’ve seen the US does have more instances of school violence, but the ‘far’ part is what I’m interested in seeing numbers for. Rather than argue about the exact amount of ‘farness’, and since we probably both agree on the ‘more’ part, lets address your other question. > [@](#): > > (b) If you do accept that fact, then why do you suppose that is? Less homogenous society (which is changing for Europe, leading to their rises in crime rates), increased gang activity, lessening of certain values (not ‘10 commandments’ or ‘family values’ type stuff, but things like acceptance of personal responsibility (as an example, the lawsuits after Columbine) and belief in right and wrong (the ‘don’t judge anyone for anything’ mentality that seeps around). Bear in mind that _I_ don’t claim to be able to support these assertions with evidence; you asked for speculation and I gave it - and that is almost pure speculation, not something I’d put forth as an argument to defend in GD. Since I know that you suppose it’s because we need more gun control, I have a few questions for you. How do you support that assertion when the number of school shootings has increased a lot since the 1968 Gun Control Act (the biggest single piece of federal gun control), and has even increased after the Brady Bill and the ‘Gun-Free Schools’ laws? Why were the earlier school killings, in an era with more easily available guns (kids used to make rifles in shop class), both rarer and less likely to involve guns (the biggest, in 1927, used dynamite, for example)? Also, I do want to see the chain of logic showing that ‘less gun control’ is responsible for ‘more school shootings’, and your reasoning ought to stand up to the two questions above. > [@](#): > > Well, now that we have the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey… Two of the more glaring caveats to your rationale are: (1) homicide is not included (as it is a victim’s survey), Homicides are an incredibly small part of the violent crime rate - they’re measured in single digits per hundred-thousand while contact crimes are measured in thousands per hundred-thousand. You can add .01% or so to the US numbers if you really want to - hell, add 10% and they still don’t match E/W Aus, but the simple fact of the matter is that all homicdes stopping for a year wouldn’t make a significant difference in the violent crime rate for a given country. > [@](#): > > and (2) “the threat of assault” is included in this statistic – if I call you on the phone and tell you that I’m going to whup you silly, you could respond that you were a victim of this contact crime, even though it seems to me that no violence has occurred. Except that the actual question asked “have you over the past five years been personally attacked or threatened by someone in a way that really frightened you,” not just whether you were simply threatened. Threats of violence are normally considered a violent crime; extortion, bank robbery, and similar crimes all rely on a threat of violence without actual violence if the crime is successful. If you really don’t believe that a crime using a believable threat of violence is a crime of violence, then you don’t believe that the list of ‘school violence’ that you posted earlier - it contains incidents like: > [@](#): > > Oley High School, Oley, Pennsylvania > > Thursday, January 24, 2002 > > A school bus driver, with a loaded semiautomatic rifle, kidnapped 13 students this morning and took them over 150 miles away before stopping in Landover Hills, Maryland, near the I95 and 495 interchange. The driver, Otto Nuss, 63, stopped to feed the children at a Burger King and went into a nearby Family Dollar store where he surrendered to the store security officer. The children, ages 6 to 16, were picked up from the high school and were supposed to be taken to Berks Christian Academy in Exeter, which is 15 minutes away. Instead, they went for a five hour drive south. None of the children were injured in this kidnapping. Otto was hired at the beginning of the school year and passed a back ground check. He only used a threat of violence, none of the children were injured, but I think you’d be hard pressed not to call it a violent incident. > [@](#): > > So I’d like you to either find a cite that says that violent crimes are most prevalent in Australia and England/Wales, or else retract your statement. I consider crimes that involve a credible threat of violence unless the victim complies to be crimes of violence, and this is the normal usage of the term - the web page you cited earlier explicitly includes as violence in schools incidents where only the threat of force was used. And as I pointed out, the murder rates don’t make a significant difference in the overall crime rate - add in a generous .01/100 to the rates on the ICVS for the US (that’s a murder rate of 10/100,000, higher than the actual rate) and you’ll still get the same result. > [@](#): > > Speaking of retractions, I’d like to make one myself: I was not aware that people _did_ actually hunt with handguns. Can I assume that it’s a fairly low percentage? I don’t know what the percentage is, but I’d estimate that it’s low but not vanishingly rare, probably about the same rate as blackpowder or bow hunting. (It would be rarer if there wasn’t an extended season for blackpowder, bow, and handgun hunting pretty much everywhere). Also, it’s very common for hunters to carry a pistol when hunting, at least in some areas, both to deliver a coup-de-grace to a wounded animal or for protection against native wildlife (things like bobcats, aside from Alaska bears don’t normally attack people) (technically it would be there against two-legged predators, but crime is pretty rare in the woods and most criminal types are going to be deterred by a long gun). > [@](#): > > I’m not trying to wiggle out of it here–I’m just wondering why I’ve never heard of it before). Consider me educated. You’ve probably never heard of it before because you likely tend to read anti-gun publications (for example, you cited the gunlawsuits site, which states on the upper left side that it’s associated directly with Brady), and people using handguns for anything other than crimes is generally not the sort of thing they publish. The fact that you didn’t seem very aware of shooting sports also supports that; in genral, the anti-gun crowd doesn’t even touch on legitimate uses of guns, and certainly doesn’t want to conceede that some of the scarier-looking handguns are actually optimized for sport or hunting (scopes, for example, are almost never found on handguns used in a crime, but are pretty common for hunting or certain shooting sports). > [@](#): > > **Riboflavin** , this post is lengthy enough, so rather than flounder around, I’d like to say: re-ask, re-phrase, or re-C&P the issues you’d like me to address that I haven’t addressed yet. OK: Do you believe that violence is justified in self-defense? If not, we can take that one up. If so, why did you exclude self-defense as a legitimate use of a handgun as a tool? Blah, I’ll bring up more questions later, I’ve spent enough time on one post as it is and I’m getting tired. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/135 "2002-05-03T10:30:02Z")
I haven’t said anything in this thread so far, mostly because others have been handling the debate quite well, but this caught my eye and compelled me to respond, as I dislike having misunderstandings between parties… > [@](#): > > I find it odd that gun control advocates doubt the use of cross-national homicide studies, but think cross-national suicide studies are valid. Not quite so, Mr. Flowbark. We believe that both types of cross-national studies say the exact same thing… that a country’s social and economic climate is the deciding factor in its crime rates, not the levels of gun ownership it has. In other words, cross-national gun crime studies are often dismissed, not because nobody likes them, but only that they prove nothing about corollaries between gun ownership and crime levels. Conversely, cross-national suicide studies are embraced simply because the indicate that there is NO corollary between gun ownership and suicide levels. In short, the former type of study attempts to show a positive corollation, while the latter attempts to show a negative corollation… and that is how they differ. Now, carry on. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/136 "2002-05-03T18:28:40Z")
And handguns have to be registered, which means there must be at some point an FFL involved. An 18 year old cannot, AFAIK (after asking the FFL I buy from) have a handgun legally registered in his or her name. Which means that while they might _use_ one, they cannot be the legal _owner_ of the handgun. If someone can point me to a provision in either federal or state law that says otherwise, I’d be happy to take a look. ---
**Author:** ![Demise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@Demise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demise)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/137 "2002-05-03T19:16:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*If someone can point me to a provision in either federal or state law that says otherwise, I’d be happy to take a look. \*\* [Firearm laws in the State of Texas](http://www.ghg.net/fastlaw/tx-laws.html) You do not have to register any rifle or pistol in Texas, and you may own handguns if you are over the age of 18. I’m not sure how many states require handguns to be registered, but Texas isn’t one, so I assume there are others: probably Arizona, Vermont, and West Virginia at least, if not many more. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/138 "2002-05-03T19:48:31Z")
I didn’t have to register my hangun in Ohio, but if I still owned it I would here in MA. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/139 "2002-05-04T06:36:39Z")
Apologies for the delay in responding, the Benadryl kicked in last night and just knocked me out. Anyway, here’s the data I promised to supply, courtesy of the [National Center for Health Statistics.](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/Default.htm) Unlike **eris,** I don’t want to expound upon it too much here; I’d rather you all examine them and draw your own conclusions. [Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2000.](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_12.pdf) [Deaths: Final Data for 1999.](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_08.pdf) [Deaths: Final Data for 1998.](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_11.pdf) [Deaths: Final Data for 1997.](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_19.pdf) I thought that they had removed the data for 98 and 97, but a little digging turned them up. I’ve bookmarked them for future reference. If you want an argument, I’ll make one. Later. The current dose of Benadryl is kicking in. Gah. I hate allergies. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809/140 "2002-05-04T16:38:16Z")
Well, I think I’m officially bowing out of this thread, **Ribo** _et al._ But I have my reasons… which I’m sure you’ll ignore and smugly dismiss. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Riboflavin \* > **You’re not going to like this, but I don’t accept this as a reasonable cite either. There are simply too many small US incidents for me to believe that the foreign incidents are complete; I really doubt that the list includes every incident in Europe like the one where a varsity coach clubbed another coach into the hospital in a non-student bathroom (Crockett High School). Further, I don’t think that one coach clubbing another is what you were talking about with school violence… What you’ve got is a collection of anecdotes, not a complete list. While I am interested in finding a good list of these sorts of incidents, this simply isn’t such a list. Also, if you consider that a reasonable list, what sort of school violence are you talking about? I think you’re going to need some tables with numbers, not an anecdotal list, especially if you’re going to include aggrivated assault between two coaches or violence occuring on college grounds.** You obviously will never be pleased with any cite I provide, and yet you refuse to provide any cite of your own to trump mine. I thought the thread title made it pretty clear as to what kind of violence I was talking about–high school shootings. It seems to me that you know that, as well, if you acknowledge that I’m not talking about one coach clubbing another. When I posted this link, I said, “Keep in mind, this page gives more than just deaths at schools from firearms.” If you’re willing to ignore that, then I might as well take this debate up with my hamster. Also, if said list contains a fistfight among coaches, is it entirely reasonable to believe that this list is, for lack of a better word, “overcomplete” for the purpose of illustrating school shootings? I mean, do you really think that they’re going to include a fist fight among adults but are going to leave out a shooting incident?? I’d wager that not even my hamster would take such a ludicrous position. So there’s my First Point – if you won’t accept any **facts** I can provide in this debate, I’m not going to expect you to accept any conclusions that can be derived from them, either. \*\* > [@](#): > > Rather than argue about the exact amount of ‘farness’, and since we probably both agree on the ‘more’ part, lets address your other question.\*\* [Emphasis added] Well, you certainly allowed yourself an impressive amount of wriggle room there, and now I don’t know what to think. Earlier in the same post, you said that you’re going to concede things “for the sake of argument.” Now, you’re allowing yourself an out: “I don’t accept that there are more shootings in the US than in Europe! I said probably, and this might sound Clintonesque, but that doesn’t mean that I accept it!” There’s Point Two–even if you magnaminously deign to, you know, _debate_, you leave yourself room to back out. And I don’t trust you… but that’s a later point. \*\* > [@](#): > > Why were the earlier school killings, in an era with more easily available guns (kids used to make rifles in shop class), both rarer and less likely to involve guns (the biggest, in 1927, used dynamite, for example)?\*\* I didn’t even notice this at first, but it serves as a nice Point Three. You just made a claim–that [I presume “era” = pre-1968] guns are less available now than they they used to be. And what do you offer as proof for this claim? Numbers showing the amount of guns produced _per annum_? Perhaps a breakdown of households owning guns from both time periods? No, of course not! A piece of anecdotal evidence, the very same anecdotal evidence you refuse to accept from me (well, okay, to be fair, I offered up over a hundred pieces of anecdotal evidence, as opposed to your **one** :rolleyes: ). So there’s Point Three: you’ve made many claims in this thread, back up few (if any) of them, and yet you apply a double-standard and want me to not only back up my claims in a manner YOU see fitting (see Point One), but you want me to demonstrate causality as well. I’m amazed I’ve made it this far, when we’re clearly playing by such different rules. \*\* > [@](#): > > Homicides are an incredibly small part of the violent crime rate - they’re measured in single digits per hundred-thousand while contact crimes are measured in thousands per hundred-thousand. You can add .01% or so to the US numbers if you really want to - hell, add 10% and they still don’t match E/W Aus, but the simple fact of the matter is that all homicdes stopping for a year wouldn’t make a significant difference in the violent crime rate for a given country.\*\* This Point (Four, if you’re keeping count at home) burns me up the most. I pointed out something that is easily verified and eminently true–the ICVS survey _ **makes absolutely no conclusions about the rates of “violent” crime** _. Rather than conceed that point (and, incidentally, even my hamster acknowledges that you fucked up), you add your own conclusions (uncited, of course–see Point Three) to the conclusions of the ICVS, as if you’re going to give them credibility. Sorry, bucko, that shit don’t fly. Point Four in a nutshell? Even when you are dead wrong about something, you refuse to withdraw it. That doesn’t make for a healthy debate. \*\* > [@](#): > > Except that the actual question asked “have you over the past five years been personally attacked or threatened by someone in a way that really frightened you,” not just whether you were simply threatened.\*\* A quick aside–so, you’re admitting that your ICVS survey has a flaw, i.e., it introduces an element of subjectivity? \*\* > [@](#): > > If so, why did you exclude self-defense as a legitimate use of a handgun as a tool?\*\* Well, I suppose I’ll wrap up with Point Five. Your memory (or maybe it’s your reading comprehension, or perhaps your honesty, or maybe even all three) is suspect. Where, precisely, did I exclude self-defense from “legitimate” uses of a handgun as a tool? About the closest thing I can find is, “Perhaps because knives serve many, many purposes outside of violence, which guns simply do not? What uses do you find for a handgun as a tool?” Then, when you offer self-defense as a non-violent use of a gun, I **asked** “Explain how this is a non-violent use for a gun?” If you offered any explanation, I missed it. Well, I’m sure that you’re patting yourself on the back right about now. “Ha! I win! Head for the hills, hoplophobe!” Whatever. Remember where I succinctly stated my thesis? Probably not, given Point Five, so here it is again, _verbatim_: “The greater availability of guns in the US leads to more homicides in the US as compared to, say, Western Europe. This trend is poignantly illustrated in both statistically verifiable homicide rates as well as instances of school violence.” Both **flowbark** and I established that there is a greater rate of homicide in the US. You rejected his data in a “Clintonesque” manner as not recent. I offered up [a pro-Second Amendment site](http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/world.htm), which says that (second table) the Homicide Rate was 6.3 in 1998. **Extank** ’s newest link gives, as preliminary data for 2000, a rate of 5.9. That’s such a HUGE shift, Mr. Clinton :rolleyes:. **Flowbark** offered up a [site](http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html) with a listing of “Percent of Households with Guns,” and guess who is #1, with 39%? Finally, I offered up the cite that you refuse to accept, and guess who is #1 in school shootings? Fuck it all. I’m out. Quix [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/18-dead-in-first-european-high-school-shooting-what-about-the-gun-control-argument/105809.md?page=8)