It should be noticed that the two gun massacres in the UK (only two, ever - bearing in mind our population is 20% of that of the US - not an insignificant amount) were both people with constant access to weapons, both being members of gun clubs. There have been others running amok, but they tend to do it with knives, and thus their death toll is smaller.
Honestly, I can’t believe there’s debate about easier availability of guns leading to more gun massacres, but perhaps that’s just me.
[QUOTE=Latro]
The percentage of cases of people running amok in other countries could well be just as high as in the US.
The fact that they can’t easily lay their hands on a gun and pick the next best thing, like a knife or something, keeps the casualties down and not that newsworthy.
[/QUOTE]
Last year in Emsdetten (Germany) a student ran amok in his school despite limited access to guns. He used a single shot .22 LR rifle that he had acquired illegally and a muzzle-loading percussion rifle and pistol (both also single shot). Five people were injured by shots, some others by smoke bombs. Fortunately everyone except the shooter survived.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
It should be noticed that the two gun massacres in the UK (only two, ever - bearing in mind our population is 20% of that of the US - not an insignificant amount) were both people with constant access to weapons, both being members of gun clubs. There have been others running amok, but they tend to do it with knives, and thus their death toll is smaller.
Honestly, I can’t believe there’s debate about easier availability of guns leading to more gun massacres, but perhaps that’s just me.
[/QUOTE]
I think the ‘anyone, anywhere could get a gun if they tried hard enough’ argument is clouding the issue - I also think this argument ignores the way statistics work.
Generally speaking, if you make something easier, people will be able to do it more easily, making it more likely.
[QUOTE=Polerius]
Do you think that the following is possible though: If someone has a lot of guns that he plays with, does target practice with, and is very comfortable with, maybe that person is more likely to come up with a plan to go on a shooting rampage than someone who has never touched a gun and is not comfortable with them?
Even if someone in any country can get their hands on a gun, is it possible that the fact that they are not as familiar with them in their day-to-day lives makes it less likely that they will come up with a plan to go on a shooting spree?
[/QUOTE]
I do not believe that guns can create intent, intent and motive come from the actor, not the object. Guns are inanimate objects, they can’t create intent to kill.
I think guns increase risk to society in two primary ways. Accidental gun deaths are deaths that definitely would not have happened sans the presence of a firearm. However, tragic as accidental gun deaths are, I view them as an acceptable side effect of what I view to be an essential component of liberty. Obviously, the less important you think gun rights are, the less value you place on the right to own them.
This stance isn’t really that bizarre in my opinion. If we were going to start banning tools because of accidental deaths related to them, we’d have to start phasing out ladders, scaffolds, power tools et cetera. Ladders in particular are dangerous. And of course, let’s not forget one of the most dangerous “tools” around, the automobile.
And, of course, most of us are fine with tobacco and alcohol being legal, both of which cause death in a larger scale than firearms to not only the primary user of the product but also to other, non-using victims (second hand smoke and people killed by drunk drivers–to ignore wives killed by alcoholic husbands roughing them up just a bit too hard.)
The second aspect in which guns increase risk to society is, the rare situation where two people (or more) get very very mad at each other and one of them pulls out a gun, making the situation lethal. In those situations, I think you can make the argument that sans a gun, it wouldn’t have happened.
However, even that is questionable, human beings have gotten very mad, very quickly, and to murderous results in the past pre-gunpowder.
When it comes to most other types of murders–the gun didn’t create the intent so it’s very doubtful it created the murder. If someone wants to kill their wife for the insurance money, there are tons of ways to do so. If a husband walks in on a cheating spouse, a fire poker is just as lethal as a hand gun, or even bare hands for that matter are incredibly lethal. Premeditated murder is of course, definitely not caused by guns, a pre-planned muder by its very nature means the motive is strong as is the desire–and thus the crime will happen (or be attempted) regardless of the availability of guns.
Common replies to the above argument focuses on the fact that something like 66% of all murders in the U.S. are committed with a firearm. That’s an interesting statistic that to me, just shows humans like to be efficient by nature and once they have a motive to kill, they will use the most effective instrument of death they have available. There’s nothing in the statistics to show that a given murder wouldn’t have happened sans a firearm, the fact that the murderer chose a firearm is just indicative of the fact the murderer was using a tool well suited to his desires–but certainly not one essential to the completion of the crime.
What it really boils down to is yes, I do think the problem is societal. Gun control advocate for whatever reason don’t want to confront this. I’ll be honest, if you eliminated all the hand guns in the United States and it was guaranteed to eliminate all violent crime, or even decrease it by 50%, I’d be all for it–the fact is I just don’t see that. We can’t have low murder rates like in Europe or Canada not because of gun ownership, but simply because of societal problems that lead to murders.
I think, honestly, a lot of it stems from entrenched cultures of violence that plague the urban poor. And the common illicit businesses that urban poor engage in, drug dealers have cause to kill competitors, junkies have cause to kill dealers when they can’t afford to buy the drugs. Gang members have cause to kill rival gang members.
The counterargument to that is, “every country has gangs and illicit industries” true, that’s why I think the problem is societal. I simply see nothing that suggests drug dealers and gang members in other countries are less murderous simply because they don’t have access to guns.
Some argue that a large part of the murder rate is–American cities and our urban poor are more violent. It would appear that is the case, however it is not universal which shows it can be fixed.
In Washington D.C., where until very recently hand gun ownership was prohibited, and carry was certainly not allowed you had a murder rate of 44/100,000. Toronto’s murder rate is 1.8/100,000. Yeah, that’s a huge difference.
However, New York City’s murder rate is 6.6/100,000, a larger city, with less restrictive gun laws than D.C.–yet a much lower murder rate?
Seattle has a homicide rate of 4.8/100,000–beating out Winnipeg at 4.9/100,000. Hard to believe–it’s almost like the gun laws aren’t really at the source of the problem here.
[QUOTE=Polerius]
difference between US mass shootings and ones that happen outside the US.
[/QUOTE]
Well, hey! You and Latro et al are preaching to the choir in my case. I was just pointing out they don’t happen exclusively in the U.S. I’m in favor of rounding up all the guns myself, so don’t dump on ME.
I should point out that the list of foreign school shootings is highly incomplete. For example, it completely fails to mention the one in '06 in Canada. Remember that one?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/13/shots-dawson.html
Germany has a comparatively high amount of them, too.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I do not believe that guns can create intent …
[/QUOTE]
I do. I think a car can create intent to drive, a piece of bread intent to eat, a bottle of whisky intent to drink, smack intent to get high, gun intent to kill. While it’s the persons responsibility what happens to the object, the object in itself can “create intent”, or more accurately, plant the idea (take a drive) and help one achieve one’s goal (driving away). If you grow up in a neighbourhood there’s no smack, the chances you end up as an heroine addict are slim, etc. Therefore, no smack = good. Smack everywhere = bad. Sames goes with guns, etc.
I wish life were as black and white as Wakinyan paints it, but from my veiwpoint it isn’t. It’s shades of grey, some are closer to white or black than others, but there are hardly any “whites” or “blacks”.
I don’t see Wakinyan’s post as particularly boolean; quite the contrary, in fact - it’s arguing that a pressure phenomenon can exists. If he/she was saying that guns always create a compulsion to kill, you’d be right.
[QUOTE=Wakinyan]
I do. I think a car can create intent to drive, a piece of bread intent to eat, a bottle of whisky intent to drink, smack intent to get high, gun intent to kill. While it’s the persons responsibility what happens to the object, the object in itself can “create intent”, or more accurately, plant the idea (take a drive) and help one achieve one’s goal (driving away). If you grow up in a neighbourhood there’s no smack, the chances you end up as an heroine addict are slim, etc. Therefore, no smack = good. Smack everywhere = bad. Sames goes with guns, etc.
[/QUOTE]
I again disagree. Most of the time you don’t have an intent to drive per se, you have an intent to travel somewhere. Finding yourself of decent means and either not having alternative forms of transport or not wishing to use them, one typically uses a car to transport oneself in the United States.
The car didn’t create the desire to get from A to B, the desire to pick up groceries or go to a movie created that.
People who go for drives for fun, are again, intent on having fun. Saying the car created that intent is like saying a baseball bat and a baseball create the intent to play baseball, that isn’t true. But rather, the intent to have fun created the game of baseball, and subsequent intentions to have fun have perpetuated the practice.
[QUOTE=Polerius]
What are Australia’s gun laws at the moment?
[/quote]
Edited highlights: No semi-auto longarms or pump action/semi-auto shotguns, anyone wanting to own a gun must join an approved shooting club, pass a safety course, obtain a firearms licence, and keep their guns locked up in a gun safe. No carry of firearms- concealed or otherwise, and possession of a firearm for self-defence is illegal.
I outlined Australia’s gun laws in more detail in This thread here, if you’re interested.
The handgun laws were changed in 2004 as a result of a shooting at Monash University- basically, anything over .38/9mm calibre was so heavily restricted as to be largely unobtainable for most handgun shooters.
Not that I’m aware of. There haven’t been any mass shootings in NZ since then AFAIK, and the last one that came close involved someone who borrowed their dad’s Under & Over duck-hunting shotgun- hardly an Evil Assault Weapon.
What did you expect as answers, incidentally? I’m getting the impression you think that the Australian & NZ examples “don’t count”, for some reason.
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
Australia’s gun laws ended up the way they are now as a direct result of the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996.
New Zealand also enacted changes to their gun laws in 1992 as a result of the Aramoana Massacre.
Mass shootings aren’t unknown outside the US, unfortunately. 
[/QUOTE]
Similarly, the Dunblane massacre led to banning of handguns in the UK .
I heard an American pro-gun chap on the breakfast news who was saying that the gun control measures in place are adequate when it comes to law-abiding people - it was the criminals who were the problem. So that’s okay then.
Guns don’t cause violent crime, but considerably increase the violence of it.
And it’s no good having adequate gun control to accomodate law-abiding people - criminals were all once law-abiding people.
Hmmm…like I said in the MPSMIMS thread, it now appears that the shooter may have been a Chinese national who arrived in the US only about eight months ago. Surely he was not steeped growing up in the gun culture.
Of course, the fact that he was able to obtain guns might be very significant, but it seems that he brought murderous rage and jealousy over with him.
Well, first of all, look at the size of the USA compared with most European countries! If you are going to compare the USA with European countries, go by how many shootings in each state, not in the entire country.
Of course, that still doesn’t explain how little NJ could have two “going postal” episodes.
From my (Dutch/European) viewpoint I am totally bewildered by the American approach to guns. Why do you think you are in any way safer with as many instruments of death as possible around you? Your homiciderates are twice that of the next developed country and you still think you need to sell guns in the supermarket?
Martin Hyde; How come you need so many words to make a simple point? Maybe to create some room to hide the BS?
It is incredibly hard to kill someone with your bare hands. Try to kill someone 10 feet away with a poker.
A hammer is a lethal instrument, but designed to drive nails into wood, a handgun is designed to kill people. Weapons used for sport (as in Olympic) and most hunting weapons (except those for bigger game) are quite inefficient for that purpose. The 66% of homicides involving a gun is exactly the difference between the USA and civilised countrys. And that is not counting gun-related accidents.
kellner :You might want to look at the deathtoll involved before comparing the two.
When you think the USA is in civil war Zabali_Clawbane sure has a point. However when you need to compare yourself with 3rd world countries in civil war; you are in trouble.
Polerius, you might want to take into account the nature of the guns & the reason for owning them.
In Switserland people (soldiers) have their guns at home to ease a speedy mobilisation, not for ‘self-protection’.
In Canada people own guns for mostly for hunting.
To the OP: running Amok isn’t limited to American (western) culture. (the term itself is derived from Malaysian) The ridiculous ease at obtaining a handgun designed to kill PEOPLE is uniquely American.
To me the relation between easy access to guns and an increase in gun incidents is indisputable, but I’d love to hear arguments telling me otherwise.
They don’t always happen in the US, but the availability of guns makes it more likely. Sure, you can have gun violence in places with strict gun control laws just as you can have traffic fatalities where seat belts are required and botulism in spite of the efforts of the USDA. Arguing that this incident “proves” that more guns would help is rather like arguing that traffic deaths would be eliminated if we took seat belts out of cars. If there are 10,000 guns in a city, there will be more shootings than if there are 1,000 guns in a city. Not 10x more, since most of the gun owners are law abiding, but there will be accidents and gun thefts and acts of rage in rough proportion to the number of guns available.
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
Well, first of all, look at the size of the USA compared with most European countries! If you are going to compare the USA with European countries, go by how many shootings in each state, not in the entire country.
[/QUOTE]
I think most comparisons do try to take into account population, but even so, I think comparisons are often worthless, as they can’t possibly take into account all necessary factors, of which population is only one.
[QUOTE=The Librarian]
Your homiciderates are twice that of the next developed country and you still think you need to sell guns in the supermarket?
[/QUOTE]
Why the hyperbole? We have laws to cover every aspect of gun ownership. Gun control in the United States has reached the point where the only thing left is to ban. Nobody thinks that we should sell them in a supermarket. What we have now, a licensed dealer network with stringent background checks (they are, by the way, even if they are quick) and the attendant paperwork, is the right way to go, I think.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Gun control in the United States has reached the point where the only thing left is to ban.
[/QUOTE]
Oh come now. If this was true the only new gun control measures proposed would be bans. You’ve taken the slippery slope and turned it into a cliff.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Why the hyperbole? We have laws to cover every aspect of gun ownership. Gun control in the United States has reached the point where the only thing left is to ban. Nobody thinks that we should sell them in a supermarket. What we have now, a licensed dealer network with stringent background checks (they are, by the way, even if they are quick) and the attendant paperwork, is the right way to go, I think.
[/QUOTE]
I’m surprised that you guys don’t have Firearms Licences, actually (And the 01 and 03 FFLs dont count). I’d say that would more likely be the next step, rather than outright banning, although it’s also just as likely nothing will happen.