[hijack]
How is Bavaria the Texas of Germany?
[/hijack]
[hijack reply]
> It’s in the south
> Our cars are Bigger
> We don’t only want to be a republic we ARE a free state
> We have our own flag and we’re darned proud of it!
> Lots of big money
> Close you eyes and wish for conservative heaven blink, blink…now you’re either in Texas or…
> Even the rest of Germany thinks that Bavaria is too German
> Where the Law is the Law and you don’t mess with it
> Bavarians speak funny
> There’s more cattle than people
> On a good day you can smell the cow dung in downtown Munich
> Bavarians wear funny hats
[/hijack reply]
Cite, please. I’d like both a source for the number of of ‘school shootings’ in the US and the number of ‘school shootings’ by the same definition in Europe over the same time frame. I’m aware that a lot of people believe that they’re a purely American phenomenon, but last time I (briefly) looked into it, Europe seemed to have them at roughly the same rate.
And TheSnack, you said both that you “don’t think this touches at all on gun control legislation,” and that “Certainly, this event shows that there is a need not only for gun control legislation”. Which is it and is there a rational reason for these conflicting statements from you?
Also, if you consider this case irrelevant to gun control because the gun used was according to you illegal, why would you consider American school shootings which use an illegal gun a good reason to assault the second amendment?
How soon we forget. Since I see you’ve already admitted that this is far from the first high school shooting in Europe, have you asked the mods to amend the thread title?
Um, no there hasn’t. There has been a reactionary, paranoid case made, but I certainly wouldn’t call it “strong.”
What “situation”? School shootings make big news over here precisely because they are so rare. The number of people who die each year in the US from lightning strikes still far outshines the number of people who die in school shootings. I wouldn’t gamble on those odds.
We can only hope.
You mean, will the anti-gun movement fail to say, “If only the gun he’d used were really really really really illegal, instead of just really really illegal, this would never have happened!”? Nah, I think they’ll stick with the party line.
Not quite.
Those who believe that greater firearm availability leads to more violence can point to this event. The influx of weapons from Eastern Europe allowed a lone wacko to acquire a firearm, or so the argument would go.
Germany is on top of the situation though; ironically, a firearm control bill had just been passed by the legislature.
As for the wider gun control debate, a single anecdote is not data. Whether a connection exists between firearm availability* and violence is a separate empirical question.
- There is another empirical issue: to what extent can laws affect firearm availability in practice?
Actually, according to the studies done by UNC-CH on football injuries and statistics from the National School Safety Center on violence in schools, more children die from football injuries in school-related events than die from firearms in school-related events.
I modified the quote to correct the factual inaccuracy, but I think it’s pretty clear that there have been more school shootings in the US. No, I don’t have a cite, and yes, I realize that it’s tough to draw conclusions from such a small data set.
Those disclaimers aside, however, I think Revtim’s point is the most (forgive me) germane made in this thread so far. Any thoughts on that?
ADDENDUM: I now DO have a cite for lethal school violence (since 1979)! You can see it here . Here are my counts:
Deadly school violence incidents in the US: 12
Deadly school violence incidents in Europe: 2
Others: 1 in Canada, 1 in Japan, 1 in Kenya, 1 in Yemen
Even if this list isn’t comprehensive (insofar as it disregards the shooting if there aren’t fatalities), I think it’s clear that the US leads the pack. I’d also wager (I found one cite, you can find the rest) that the US has some of the most lax gun control laws. NOW what can you say about the effect of “easy” availability of weapons on violence at schools?
Quix
P.S. To those posting “Well, guns kill fewer than lightning/football/safes falling from the sky,” I ask… so fucking what? As long as that many kids aren’t dying, then we shouldn’t do anything about gun availability? Is that what you’re implying? Far be it from me to put words in your mouth, but I’m a little offended at your willingness to write off school violence as [paraphrased] not that big a deal.
Just some more info from that cite. In the US, 42 people have died from school violence (40 since 1988) and 139 have been injured (132 since 1988). In Kenya, 67 people died… but the implement of violence was a fire. In Japan, 8 people died and 21 were injured… but the implement was a knife. (Please, let’s show some restraint and not play the “Well, we should outlaw knives and fire too!” card.)
Forty-two people dying in the US might be statistically insignificant, but I ask: why shouldn’t we attempt to minimize that number? ::sigh::
Quix
I’m not trying to be intellectually disingenuous; I just forgot. Those numbers above do not include today’s shooting. Sorry. My last post for a while.
What disturbs me is that Europeans are better at killing than we are. I guess it’s that whole quality vs quantity thing. One of their kids can kill 19, but we need two kids to even kill 15.
I and several other people don’t, which is why we asked for a cite.
The CNN list above doesn’t even claim to be comprehensive, so it’s not a cite of the information asked for. I know I’m looking for a list that, at the very least, says that it’s complete.
First, you need to show a casual connection between gun availability and school violence. Absent that, you’re simply using these tragedies to promote your agenda, not working to actually solve the problem despite whatever rhetoric you may use to the contrary. Then, you have to look at priorities - if you’re actually concerned about kids dying, then I’d really expect you to explain why you’re so concerned about a less-frequent cause of death (for example, school shootings rather than school-sanctioned football), especially when one such cause of death is already illegal and one is legal and generally encouraged. Finally, you have to balance costs and benefits - there are between 1.5 million (Clinton DOJ estimate) and 2.5 million (Kleck estimate) defensive uses of firearms by American citizens per year. On the balance, is it worth subjecting those people to crimes such as rape, murder, and assault which they could have prevented in order to prevent the small number of deaths, especially when there is a generally sanctioned school activity which causes far more deaths which you could start with? You’ll incidentally want to explain how more gun laws will help when the guns used in such incidents were typically illegaly held.
Far be it from me to put words in your mouth, but I’m a little offended at your willingness to write off the 1.5 million to 2.5 million violent crimes stopped by private citizens using firearms per year and a whole constitutional amendment as not that big a deal.
Please, let’s show some basic reasoning ability and explain why knives are exempt from the same ‘logic’ that says that we need more gun laws. If it is neccessary to restrict one tool because it was misused, why does the same neccessity not apply to other tools?
Because there are other numbers that are worth minimizing, and because you have yet to show that your plans to ‘minimize’ those particualr deaths won’t result in even more deaths from removing people’s ability to defend themselves. One of the numbers worth minimizing is the number of restrictions placed on law-abiding people, especially groups like gunowners who are statistically less likely to comitt a crime than non-gunowners.
And, of course, you could always move to a country with even less legal access to firearms like the UK or Aus - of course, you’d best put your wallet where you can easily hand it over, lube up the appropriate orifices, and make sure your medical insurance is paid up since you’re significantly more likely to be the victim of a violent crime there.
Is this really true?
Here are some interesting stats on European gun related violence:
Yup. The 2000 International Crime Victim Survey, sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, rates Australia #1 and England and Wales #2 on the list of “countries where you’re most likely to become a crime victim”. Annual rate: 58 out of every 100 citizens. America is tied for fifth place, behind the Netherlands and Sweden.
Wow. It shouldn’t surprise me, but it does. Now I guess the question that remains is: are guns, then, really a factor one way or the other in violent crimes at all?
Fine, I will amend what I originally said, in order to make it a statement demonstrably true by my CNN cite: there have been more lethal school shootings since 1979 in the US than there have been in the rest of the world. By far.
**
I’ll give you that–I haven’t rigorously shown a chain of logic, to wit, more guns available = more school violence. That being said, perhaps you could suggest why they are more numerous in the US than in Western Europe, not to mention the world? Cultural differences, perhaps? Keep in mind: I’ll want you to demonstrate a causal link between your rationale and the decreased amount of school violence in Europe, or else you’re just…
**
You continue to say
I’m just shooting from the hip here, but I would think one difference is that school attendance is mandatory, whereas participation in football is optional and comes with certain risks that all participants must be willing to accept in order to play. If little Johnny doesn’t want to attend school, he doesn’t have that option. If little Johnny doesn’t want to play football… well, aside from certainly vicariously-living parents, that’s his prerogative.
**
I can’t believe you mentioned the Kleck Estimate and expect me to take your argument seriously. Kleck’s Estimate was based on 63 people out of about 5000 saying that they had defended themselves with a gun. Throw in one person who misunderstood the question, three who had done it before but not annually, five who lied to advocate their politics… suddenly, your number is much less impressive.
I like these numbers better: “The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports only about 85,000 annual civilian defensive uses of guns. A study analyzing the NCVS data from 1987 through 1990, concluded that an average of less than 65,000 crime victims, or fewer than 2 victims in 1000, defended themselves with a gun in each of those years. And, another study reported that the use of a firearm in self-defense during the commission of a violent crime is associated with a seven fold increase in the likelihood that the defender will be attacked with a gun.” (Sigh, I know, I likely opened myself up to Cite Wars. But hell, this is GD, ain’t it?)
**
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? Let me extend the question back your way: why do we restrict ownership of chemical weapons, simply because some lowlifes might abuse them?
**
Ahh, the “We’ve got bigger fish to fry” argument. I’ve never understood this argument. Just because something isn’t the ULTIMATE evil, it’s not worth combating? Why can’t we combat gun-related deaths and [Cause of Death #2] simultaneously?
**
How do you suggest I go about demonstrating this number for you? Tell you what–let’s restrict gun production for, say, a decade. After that decade, we can compare our data. Barring that, all I can do is point you to countries where access to guns IS restricted, and ask you to make comparisons such as the one on school-related gun violence.
**
– (emphasis added) I think erislover already asked, in a roundabout way, but I’ll ask more directly–cite for the italicized portion? Keep in mind: I’ll want numbers for VIOLENT crime, not simply the “crime victim” MaxTorque referred to.
Quix
Another nitpick about all the crap being heaped on the NRA, about how they will “crow” over this.
Even if they did, it wouldn’t be any different than Clinton and Brady Bunch rolling in the blood of victims to promote an anti-gun agenda. Whether further restrictions are right or wrong, using the dead to shamelessly promote an unproven, partisan agenda is reprehensible.
However, since two wrongs don’t make a right, look here. I see no mention of today’s incident.
The points Riboflavin brings up in his last post, which I agree with, are similar to the ones I’ve brought up before. Rational analysis of empirical evidence to identify and establish causal relationships (if such indeed exist) are much better platforms to recommend further legislation, not emotional appeals backed up with the junk science and historical revisionism sponsored and endorsed by the Brady Bunch.
Hell, I’m not asking for irrefutable, incontrovertible evidence; I doubt anyone is. But before we restrict Constitutional Rights in the USA, we’d better show a damned good reason why, not the rhetoric of hoplophobes (thank you, Col. Cooper).
As to other countries: they are free to do as their duly elected legislature sees fit, and legislative process allows. As they are not America, I am yet to be convinced that what works elsewhere will automatically work here.
Buzz! Riboflavin stated one was more likely to be a victim of a VIOLENT crime in these countries. It’s not at all the same thing. Personnally, I would vastly prefer to be victim of a car theft or pickpocketing than of a murder. So, I’m still asking for some evidences backing Riboflavin’s statement.
Your argument seems very dishonest to me . You’re comparing all the cases where a weapon has prevented a crime (not even that, actually : all the cases where a weapon has been used defensively, which is a very different thing) to a very limited subset of the cases where a privately owned weapon caused unjustified death or injury (high school shootings).
I could as well say : there has been X millions cases where a legally owned weapon has been misused while there’s only 3 cases where it prevented the rape of a red-haired woman on a parking lot at noon, so weapons should be banned, especially since car accident is a higher risk than rape for red-haired women on parking lots.
Read the thread again, calmly and thoroughly. You’ll find that I have not conceded that this is not the first European shooting along the lines that I use to define ‘High School Shooting’. Your cite is a case that falls under my definition ‘shooting in a high school’.
But that’s academic nitpicking. My point was never to claim that Europe is better off, to the contrary I am saying the Europeans sometimes erroneously claim that this is an ‘American’ problem. You seem to believe that I am making the case that gun control will eliminate incidences like this, when in fact I have proposed several times, in the OP and subsequent posts that this is not an adequate response to a far more complex problem. At the end it’s a question of how many and how often, I have a pretty low tolerance for how many people we should accept have to die at someone elses hands before their time, pretty low as in that ideally we should aim at zero.
I am not one of those Europeans that frown at America for lax gun control. I understand the historic and cultural reasons for the constitutional right to bear arms. I understand it and respect it as one of the founding principles of the nation.
In a historical cultural perspective the European ban and the American right comes out of the same source, pre revolution European feudal oppression leading to an unequal society. Europe chose to take away the exclusive right to bear arms from the upper classes while the US made it every citizen’s right. At the time it made a lot, a lot of sense to do it that way in both places. Times change though and the security and threat concerns of the 18th century are not the same as those of the 21st. How for instance would the right to bear arms have been able to stop the hijackers of 9/11? Guns on the planes could have done it, but if you ask me I’d only feel safe on a plane if that right is pretty much restricted to appointed, approved and thoroughly screened air marshals.
What I am saying is basically that the gun control, not your constitutional right to bear arms mind you, but gun control needs to be reassessed out of a modern perspective, not just in the States, but worldwide. It won’t eliminate violence, it won’t even eliminate shootings, but the easier to get a gun the easier it is to use one, that’s just plain logical.
Max Torque, you mention crime statistics, but as someone already pointed out this is not quite satisfactory. What crimes are we talking about? Take instead gun related deaths and the picture comes out dramatically different. In 1995 the US had 13,7 gun related deaths per 100.000 inhabitants while in the UK 0,57 died at the end of a gun, in Sweden the figure was 2,31 and for Germany 1,47. Out of these homicides made up 6.0 in the US, 0,57 in the UK, 0,31 in Sweden and 0,21 in Germany – most of the rest were suicides and between 0,01 and 0,5 where accidental deaths. The Western nation that comes closest to the US is Canada with a total of 4,08 deaths out of which only 0,6 were homicides. Although I have no good cite right now I know that these figures have gone down across the line and for all nations since then, but not dramatically so.
Sparc
You’ll find a complete overview of above stats here, and incidentally these stats were collected by Gunfree magazine, an anti gun control publication.