If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Interesting information
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
European gun laws have everything American gun control proponents advocate. Yet, the three very worst public shootings in the last year all occurred in Europe. Indeed around the world, from Australia to England, countries that have recently strengthened gun control laws with the promise of lowering crime have instead seen violent crime soar.
Sixteen people were killed during last Friday¹s public school shooting in Germany. Compare that to the United States with almost five times as many students, where 32 students and four teachers were killed from any type of gun death at elementary and secondary schools from August 1997 through February 2002, almost five school years. This total includes not only much publicized public school shootings but also gang fights, robberies, accidents. It all corresponds to an annual rate of one student death per five million students and one teacher death per 4.13 million teachers.
In Europe shootings have not been limited to schools, of course. The other two worst public shootings were the killing of 14 regional legislators in Zug, a Swiss canton, last September and the massacre of eight city council members in a Paris suburb last month.
So one must automatically assume that European gun laws are easy. Wrong. Germans who wish to get hold of a hunting rifle must undergo checks that can last a year, while those wanting a gun for sport must be a member of a club and obtain a license from the police. The French must apply for gun permits, which are granted only after an exhaustive background and medical record check and demonstrated need. After all that, permits are only valid for three years.
Even Switzerland¹s once famously liberal laws have become tighter. In 1999 Switzerland¹s federation ended policies in half the cantons where concealed handguns were unregulated and allowed to be carried anywhere. Even in many cantons where regulations had previously existed, they had been only relatively liberal. Swiss federal law now severely limits permits only to those who can demonstrate in advance a need for a weapon to protect themselves or others against a precisely specified danger.
All three killing sprees shared one thing in common: they took place in so-called gun-free ³safe zones.² The attraction of gun-free zone is hardly surprising as guns surely make it easier to kill people, but guns also make it much easier for people to defend themselves. Yet, with ³gun-free zones,² as with many other gun laws, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who obey them. Hence, these laws risk leaving potential victims defenseless.
After a long flirtation with ³safe zones,² many Americans have learned their lesson the hard way. The U.S. has seen a major change from 1985 when just eight states had the most liberal right-to-carry laws--laws that automatically grant permits once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their fees, and, when required, complete a training class. Today the total is 33 states. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings, like the three in Europe, fell on average by 78% in states that passed such laws.
The lesson extends more broadly. Violent crime is becoming a major problem in Europe. While many factors, such as law enforcement, drug gangs, and immigration, affect crime, the lofty promises of gun controllers can no longer be taken seriously.
In 1996, the U.K. banned handguns. Prior to that time, over 54,000 Britons owned such weapons. The ban is so tight that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other countries to practice. In the four years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%. Dave Rogers, vice chairman of London¹s Metropolitan Police Federation, said that the ban made little difference to the number of guns in the hands of criminals. . . . ³The underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all.²
The United Kingdom now leads the United States by a wide margin in robberies and aggravated assaults. Although murder and rape rates are still higher in the United States, the difference is shrinking quickly.
Australia also passed severe gun restrictions in 1996, banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively. In the subsequent four years, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.
Both the U.K. and Australia have been thought to be ideal places for gun control as they are surrounded by water, making gun smuggling relatively difficult. Of course, advocates of gun control look for ways to get around any evidence. Publications such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times blame Europe¹s increasing crime problems on a seemingly unstoppable black market that ³has undercut . . . strict gun-control laws.² Let¹s say that¹s the case--even then, these gun laws clearly did not deliver the promised reductions in crime.
It is hard to think of a much more draconian police state than the former Soviet Union, yet despite a ban on guns that dates back to the communist revolution, newly released data suggest that the ³worker¹s paradise² was less than the idyllic picture painted by the regime in yet another respect: murder rates were high. During the entire decade from 1976 to 1985 the Soviet Union¹s homicide rate was between 21% and 41% higher than that of the United States. By 1989, two years before the collapse of the Soviet Union, it had risen to 48% above U.S. rate.
In fact, the countries with by far the highest homicide rates have gun bans.
Wall Street Journal Europe
April 30, 2002
By John R. Lott, Jr.
Maybe the Americans are the ones who are safer....
0
Comments
Some may abuse their right to own a gun by killing others, yet should those who are law-abiding be penalised too? Should all those using their guns on firing ranges or to shoot clay pigdeons be denied any ability to use a gun?
Isn't like saying one person drink drives, therefore they must ban alcohol?
Which city is currently being stalked by a sniper using his perfectly legal rifle to murder totally innocent people? London? Berlin? Sydney?
Nope. Washington.
However, this view will take me in to a minority; I don't necessarily agree with it.
I shoot, and I enjoy doing so. It's a fine sport, it teaches control, precision, patience and self discipline, as well as self-co-ordination; pistol shooting in particular. In addition to that, it is a good social sport, and the people who shoot are among the nicest people I've met.
I can only shoot air pistol in this country, which is a pity. I would like the opportunity to shoot more varieties of pistol and on different courses of fire.
I am not allowed to.
In the interests of the majority, perhaps, it is understandable. But, nonetheless, it is a pity.
"Those who pound their guns into plowshears will plow for those who don't!"
Our 'sniper' incident is one of the best arguments I've seen against gun control as in confiscation...he has no fear that anyone will shoot back because he is in one of the most restrictive areas of the country, US.
Diesel
88888888
(dang...I'm still Turtle...wonder who Turtle is?)
Exactley what I was thinking.
More like no one knows where the fuck he's shooting from. Not that he's going to give much of a shit anyway if anyone tries to confront him and his high velocity rifle with a handgun from 100 yards away.
Back to the starting issue, I'm sure both sides of the argument can present endless statistics to present their case more efficiently. One will name specific cases in which a ban of gun ownership didn't stop a massacre; the other will say that the US has a higher gun murder crime than other countries. And on the whole this is true, at least for the time being.
I am not against shooting for sport, even with assault rifles. Shooting is a lot of fun and I've enjoyed a few rounds with an M-16 a few months ago in the States. But at the end of the day people should leave the guns at the club, not take them home.
*exerts mammoth amount of self-control*
oof. the only thing I will say is that the australian statistic quoted there is a misrepresentation of the facts. violent crime rates were going up by a significantly percentage before the gun control laws came in; also, said laws were wildly misconceived and widely ignored.
there was a very very very long drawn out debate about this about four months ago and I can't be arsed to have it again. (my side won, natch.)
The city in the United States with the most restrictive gun control.
I've heard it mooted on some gun sites, such as Assaultweb, that the sniper incidents might be a gun control ploy, but I don't think such activities do anything to further the case for gun control. Anyone capable of getting away with multiple killing for as long as this guy (guys?) has could probably kill a score of people without the use of a gun if he wanted to. And the fact that the shootings are taking place in an area with restrictive controls does indeed tend to undermine anti-gun campaigners, rather than giving them a boost.
Yup, Washington, where - as Greenhat mentioned - guns are illegal. Yup, making guns illegal CERTAINLY is an effective way to make murder impossible... :rolleyes:
btw ~ exactly how did you devine that the weapon being used is a "perfectly legal rifle"? Some telepathic link to the miscreant? Intel that Chief Moose and his minions are deprived of? Involved in the planning for the events?
Or just making another baseless wild ass guess to support your supposition, as usual? A further demonstration of "I think it, therefore it MUST be!"?
Ya know... if it weren't for gunz, then Nicole would still be humpin' the gigolo, and squanderin' OJ's money on 'im.
Do you have ANY idea of how much easier it would be to do the same thing with edged implements? No sound signature. No ballistics. No empty cartriges to worry about. Just walk up behind, clamp hand over mouth, and slice through windpipe, jugular, and flesh, all the way to the spine. With severed windpipe, no shouts, no whimpering, and no mess upon the miscreant with the victim's body sheltering him from the gushing torent... Just a body to find when daylight comes.
Ya know... if it weren't for guns, then Jack the Ripper would never have become the legend as he did. :rolleyes:
Nice avatar, by the way
Was amplifying your point, not contradicting it...
Politically correct = too gutless to state your real opinion, and too chickenshit to back it up.
Lying comes easily to the politically correct, because they LIVE a lie, existing desperately within the fear that the truth will ever be found out. The politically correct slither along in the fetid offal, with the rest of the liars and thieves, the degenerately perverse. They are the pretentious sycophants who disgust me.
And btw, in the absence of 'gunz', Nicole would only be squanderin' half of OJ's money. Also, how did guns make JTR a legend?
Perhaps if you tell me what my "real opinion" is, I might somehow summon up the courage to admit to it publicly, and to hell with the consequences (whatever they might be... :rolleyes: )
It's also deeply reflective of US society.
As for percentage increases, yes, armed robberies have increased in the UK. Among the yardies and drug dealers in the inner cities. Most of the gun owners don't dare attack an innocent civilian because they know they will get a squa of deranged policemen with MP5's chasing them, and they will lose. The conviction and sentencing rate is much higher for the people who commit gun crime in the UK than it is in the USA. And yes, crime may have risen by a percentage, but not by much in number.
In the UK in 2000 18,000 offences were recorded where firearms were involved. This isn't just ttacking someone, it also includes brandishing a firearm, threatening, playing the fool with a toy gun, that sort of thing.
As a whole in the UK, including Ireland, firearms offences have risen by 3000 for the whole of Britain, however this is partly due to a change in the definition of a gun crime in April 1998 and the changing of the year at that time. In some places like London the rise has been greatest, however in others the number has fallen.
In 1998-1999 the police fired just 8 shots. In previous years the number has been as low as one, and as high as 9. Compare this to the USA, on average how many times are weapons used in the USA???
Just to put this in perspective, for every 100000 people in the UK there are 30 crimes involving the use of guns.
In the USA there are 506.
Still say you have the best system?
*coughs*
Jacqueline the Ripper... she...
Sarcasm, m'dear.
Crimes can be commited without guns :eek:
I couldn't believe it at first either, but it really is true...
Was addressing the concept of politically correct, not an individual. :rolleyes:
Now... if you are laying claim as to being the poster child for the politically correct sect...
Naw... conviction before the act is a better system, as it represents more accurately the ideal of a "free" society, where one is judge not for what they do, but what they might do. Personal responsibility and accountability are then moot... reduction to the absolute lowest common denominator.
All are guilty... that what you prefer?
The words National socialist spring to mind.
Just out of idle curiosity, how would you know what someone "might" intend to do? Do you suggest that we get a team of telepaths to tell us? Or maybe you've been watching too many films :rolleyes:
Isn't that what your system does? Punishes those who would own guns for what they might do?
People with guns, demonstrate a willingness to use them, in the country and inyour own. That is why they are banned.
Or... does that sarcasm smiley denote a lack of sincerity in your latest post? I think that perhaps not having English as a first language might be an advantage when it comes to interpreting your arguments
So glad to hear your opinion of psychological makeup. And your credentials?
Fortunately, those who actually have the credentials and have done the research, disagree with you. Dennis Charney M.D. Ph.D and Nancy Anreasen Ph.D come to mind.
Meaning that you prefer sheep who won't defend themselves, but will rollover and die....
So glad that you know my mindset, even better than I... :rolleyes:
I have concealed weapons permits, for both my home state of Oregon, and Washington - where I spend alot of my time. I carry a .45 1911 24/7/366, plus an AK-47 behind the seat of my truck. I am always armed.
However...
The laws being what they are, it is imperitive to avoid confrontations, because even if the other ( or others) come looking for trouble, the simple fact is that if I do not avoid the confrontation, then I will be arrested, and jailed. Unarmed? I would be much more likely to edify you as to your lack of social graces, and take issue with your boorish behavior...
The "American contingent", in attendence here? Is far less prone to emotional outburst, is far more stable and thoughtfiul of their response (or rejoinders) than the median poster from the UK. In personal life? We are not emasculated, impotent charactures, but still functional men who must accept responsibility and accountability for our actions and decisions, while you have had such stripped from you, and willingly. You climb into the cage, thinking that it will keep you safe from the terrors outside, not realizing that that same cage is the subservient delusion of the slave, believing that "massuh" will take care of you, because you have abdicated your capability of protecting yourself. The terrors are inside the cage, with you.
George Orwell would simply love your obedience to Big Brother, all the time buying the bullshit line that subservience somehow makes you "free"...
You see? I know the most of the "American contingent" from real life. We are veterans of real combat, not "cyber combat". Not Keyboard Kommandoes. Not Web Warriors. Were we as prone to emotionalism as you, then we would likely no longer exist. However, your proclaimed delusion certainly supports you baseless contention, at least from your perspective.
As stated previously, many months ago: I do not require rage to take another's life. I did it as a conscious action, within disciplines and protocols. It is not an act of passion, but simply the "taking out of the trash", and nothing to get upset about. I did it cold, without any emotion whatsoever. Far out of your experience, is it not?
Over confident? Or simply proven through experience?
Stable and mentally secure? You call hiding from personal responsibility secure? Sounds more like congenital insecurity to me.
"Willingness to use them"? Damned straight, and that means that if you push me into the moment which I cannot avoid, it will be you who is carried away in the body bag, and not me. Someday, you might devine the difference between being willing, and being eager... and there IS a difference.
You still have much to learn, Grasshopper. However, that comes with dealing with adult men, rather than adolescents, or subjugated and constrained "subjects".
You tell me... seems to be you Brits who presume that possessing a firearm will turn you into a homocidal maniac...
The :rolleyes: gif was within the context of witnessing the inability of some to comprehend the simple concept, as posted by JtR, and my relative impatience concerning attempting discussion with the comp[rehensively challenged...
btw ~ if the shoe fits, then just wear it.
Someone who carries guns, is like you say willing to use them, even if the situation doesn't warrant it.
As well as this, you are still wrong. The sole reason Greenhat had for creating this poitnless topic was that armed crime in the UK is increasing to a similar level as the US.
Anyone who thinks 30 crimes per 100,000 is close to America's 506 is totally dellusional.
Like it or not, America is still the crime capital of the western world when it comes to violent crime.
There are more gang members in Chicago than there are people in Cambridge, over 150,000 of them. Over here the police are doing a commendable job of ridding us of the vagrants in the major cities who model themselves on the Americans.
In America, cops have been quoted to have said they are fighting a losing war against gangs, all they can do is come and pick up the pieces.
And why is this? Because guns are so prolific in your society. An armed society is a polite society is a complete load of bullshit. An armed society is a society that will collapse into anarchy is more apt.
Ever buckle the seat belt when you drive a car?
Obviously, you must live in a really desolate, desperate, joyless and sad place...
Still have no comprehension of the difference between willing and eager, do you.
Perhaps you should educate yourself, and then come back to the conversation...
That is obviously not the case where you live.