4 ms·

May I ask how gun control is not a tool to deal with that? In other words, what are the differences between Americans and Europeans that prevent most of such vi

by fijal 14y ago

May I ask how gun control is not a tool to deal with that? In other words, what are the differences between Americans and Europeans that prevent most of such violence happening in Europe (mostly at least), other than hard access to guns?

rdl 14y ago
It may be a tool, I just don't think it's a major or the main tool, for three reasons. 1) There are enough guns out there now that a ban on new production would have only a minimal effect, a ban on transfers would have only somewhat more effect, and a ban on possession, given that criminals are willing to break laws, wouldn't have a huge effect. For spree shooters, even a pump-action shotgun or lever carbine and a 10-rd handgun or two (or even just a couple revolvers with speedloaders) would be pretty adequate to kill 50+ unarmed people, even if they weren't 6 year old children. So you'd need to address not just "assault rifles and 100 round drums" but basically most firearms (maybe leave single-shot shotguns/rifles). 2) The cost of ending the media deification of spree killers is almost zero. The cost (in terms of implementation cost as well as loss of rights) of any gun control is far higher. The cost of a comprehensive gun ban and confiscation could be up to (probably localized) civil war. Pick the tool which has the least costs first, especially if it's probably more effective. 3) Even if there were zero guns, you'd have other instruments of death, assuming people had the desire. I'll accept that guns are easier for some of the more amateurish and unmotivated killers (including maybe the CT guy), but Columbine involved bombs, McVeigh was a bomb, and now that the "spree kill and become famous" thing is out there, all it would take would be another McVeigh or two to show how its done and then people would be doing bombings, or running over a bunch of kids at bus stops, or whatever. In places where drugs and alcohol are banned, they make alcohol out of prunes, get high off glue, etc. It's a lot better to focus on demand than supply. I think Europe generally doesn't have incidents like this, not because it's disarmed, but because even "losers" in Europe can live a somewhat comfortable life compared to losers in the US. Better healthcare, better social support, etc. Europe has certainly had some serious violence in the past, generally by organized groups that feel they are "losers" vs. individuals, more so than the US. European society seems to have less inequality and thus fewer positive and negative outliers than the US. (Similarly, there is a gender difference in distributions of most traits; men tend toward the extremes; which may be why most criminals and other horrible people seem to be male)
- stdbrouw 14y ago
  > a ban on possession, given that criminals are willing to break laws, wouldn't have a huge effect A recurring element in a lot of these shootings is that the shooter gets/steals his weaponry from an uncle, dad's rifle cabinet, a friend or so on. These are the kind of people that would dutifully get rid of their guns if they were banned. Thus closing up a potential source of destructive firepower for nutcases. > I think Europe generally doesn't have incidents like this, not because it's disarmed, but because even "losers" in Europe can live a somewhat comfortable life compared to losers in the US. Is there any indication that any of the recent shootings happened because the shooter didn't have any food to eat, no shelter or bad healthcare? Because that's the sort of comfort that a welfare state provides and I don't see the link.
  - rdl 14y ago
    > [stolen from family members] Especially true for minors. True for a possession ban. Less so for sale prohibition or transfer prohibition. More so for sale/transfer prohibition with generous buybacks. (if new-sale is prohibited, prices will rise, so they'll be secured better; if transfer-ban, you'd probably see prices fall (since there's no market), so less of a reason to secure them, ironically). > [food, shelter] Clearly they have insufficient mental health services (in the CT case, some of the problem was that he wasn't a minor, and his mother was trying to have him committed). Not so much "how to pay for mental health" vs. general delivery issues. They do seem to generally be middle class and not starving or anything, but I meant "failure" in the sense of social standing/competitiveness/etc., not just absolute poverty. After all, even a fairly poor person today lives (in absolute terms throughout history) fairly comfortably, but feels the relative social standing and status.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      Mental health services were available and the killer made use of them. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324677204578183910797348422.html?KEYWORDS=lanza+ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732467720457818...
jacquesm 14y ago
A part of this is Europe's abhorrence of violence in general dating back to the end of world war II. Those lessons are slowly being forgotten but there definitely still is a strong undercurrent to that effect. Having a half decent welfare program is another element in there. But with the current crisis and the upcoming pension plan troubles it remains to be seen if we can sustain that and if we can not I predict an increase in crime and associated violence.
001sky 14y ago
Violent offenders were the [victims] of most State prison homicides (61%), and their jail homicide rate (5 per 100,000) was over twice that of nonviolent offenders (2 per 100,000). == Interesting to note that Prision murder rates are higher than many states in the US, and many countries in europe. None of this is guns, though. It seems in the abscence of weapon x a killer will use y or z. lots of people killed this way with pens and spoons etc.
- rdl 14y ago
  I would assume gang affiliation a major factor in that.
DennisP 14y ago
There's a high rate of gun ownership and little violence or gun crime in Switzerland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland So if you're sincerely asking what differences other than gun ownership might be preventing violence, that'd be a good place to look. Time Magazine just had a good piece on the cultural differences that lead to a safe gun culture there: http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/ http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-...
- fijal 14y ago
  Switzerland is very special for multiple reasons. They have a direct democracy, federal system with very small cantons (equivalent of states) and until very recently every mail had an assault rifle at home. They're also very law-abiding citizens in general with >80% of crimes being commited by immigrants. I like swiss model a lot, but it's not 100% clear it can be scaled to a bigger country or if you need centuries of public awarness (they never had a king for example). The differences are so big, it's really really hard to compare with any other country.
  - DennisP 14y ago
    All true and I admire Switzerland for all those reasons. However, at least some aspects of the "Swiss gun culture" actually exists in the U.S., among enthusiasts, who have a serious "culture of responsibility and safety" and teach their kids the same. Go to, say, a competitive shooting event, and you'll get an entirely different impression of gun owners than you may have now. As someone in the Time article says, "If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence." For the patriotic side, check out Project Appleseed (http://www.appleseedinfo.org/ http://www.appleseedinfo.org/), which conducts weekend courses on rifle marksmanship and Revolutionary War history. (It's run by volunteers, and costs $70 for a weekend.) This culture used to be more widespread in the U.S., back when rifle shooting was a high school sport. The more we crack down on legal gun ownership, the more we stamp it out.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
One key fact to observe is that crime without guns in the US is also very high. The US has a stabbing+bludgeoning+poison+etc murder rate of 1.8/100k, which is still higher than murder by all methods in most of Europe. I.e., Americans just like to kill people. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... One possible cause is demographics - more than half of our murders are committed by a demographic group making up only 10% of our population, and this subgroup is very uncommon in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_St...
- rdl 14y ago
  Possibly also the drug war, which is quite connected with violence, race, racism, poverty, urban/suburban/rural migration patterns, public health, human nature, geography, immigration, expansion federal power, military conquest, etc.

by fijal 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

It may be a tool, I just don't think it's a major or the main tool, for three reasons. 1) There are enough guns out there now that a ban on new production would have only a minimal effect, a ban on transfers would have only somewhat more effect, and a ban on possession, given that criminals are willing to break laws, wouldn't have a huge effect. For spree shooters, even a pump-action shotgun or lever carbine and a 10-rd handgun or two (or even just a couple revolvers with speedloaders) would be pretty adequate to kill 50+ unarmed people, even if they weren't 6 year old children. So you'd need to address not just "assault rifles and 100 round drums" but basically most firearms (maybe leave single-shot shotguns/rifles). 2) The cost of ending the media deification of spree killers is almost zero. The cost (in terms of implementation cost as well as loss of rights) of any gun control is far higher. The cost of a comprehensive gun ban and confiscation could be up to (probably localized) civil war. Pick the tool which has the least costs first, especially if it's probably more effective. 3) Even if there were zero guns, you'd have other instruments of death, assuming people had the desire. I'll accept that guns are easier for some of the more amateurish and unmotivated killers (including maybe the CT guy), but Columbine involved bombs, McVeigh was a bomb, and now that the "spree kill and become famous" thing is out there, all it would take would be another McVeigh or two to show how its done and then people would be doing bombings, or running over a bunch of kids at bus stops, or whatever. In places where drugs and alcohol are banned, they make alcohol out of prunes, get high off glue, etc. It's a lot better to focus on demand than supply. I think Europe generally doesn't have incidents like this, not because it's disarmed, but because even "losers" in Europe can live a somewhat comfortable life compared to losers in the US. Better healthcare, better social support, etc. Europe has certainly had some serious violence in the past, generally by organized groups that feel they are "losers" vs. individuals, more so than the US. European society seems to have less inequality and thus fewer positive and negative outliers than the US. (Similarly, there is a gender difference in distributions of most traits; men tend toward the extremes; which may be why most criminals and other horrible people seem to be male)

stdbrouw 14y ago
> a ban on possession, given that criminals are willing to break laws, wouldn't have a huge effect A recurring element in a lot of these shootings is that the shooter gets/steals his weaponry from an uncle, dad's rifle cabinet, a friend or so on. These are the kind of people that would dutifully get rid of their guns if they were banned. Thus closing up a potential source of destructive firepower for nutcases. > I think Europe generally doesn't have incidents like this, not because it's disarmed, but because even "losers" in Europe can live a somewhat comfortable life compared to losers in the US. Is there any indication that any of the recent shootings happened because the shooter didn't have any food to eat, no shelter or bad healthcare? Because that's the sort of comfort that a welfare state provides and I don't see the link.
- rdl 14y ago
  > [stolen from family members] Especially true for minors. True for a possession ban. Less so for sale prohibition or transfer prohibition. More so for sale/transfer prohibition with generous buybacks. (if new-sale is prohibited, prices will rise, so they'll be secured better; if transfer-ban, you'd probably see prices fall (since there's no market), so less of a reason to secure them, ironically). > [food, shelter] Clearly they have insufficient mental health services (in the CT case, some of the problem was that he wasn't a minor, and his mother was trying to have him committed). Not so much "how to pay for mental health" vs. general delivery issues. They do seem to generally be middle class and not starving or anything, but I meant "failure" in the sense of social standing/competitiveness/etc., not just absolute poverty. After all, even a fairly poor person today lives (in absolute terms throughout history) fairly comfortably, but feels the relative social standing and status.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Mental health services were available and the killer made use of them. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324677204578183910797348422.html?KEYWORDS=lanza+ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732467720457818...

jacquesm 14y ago

A part of this is Europe's abhorrence of violence in general dating back to the end of world war II. Those lessons are slowly being forgotten but there definitely still is a strong undercurrent to that effect. Having a half decent welfare program is another element in there. But with the current crisis and the upcoming pension plan troubles it remains to be seen if we can sustain that and if we can not I predict an increase in crime and associated violence.

001sky 14y ago

Violent offenders were the [victims] of most State prison homicides (61%), and their jail homicide rate (5 per 100,000) was over twice that of nonviolent offenders (2 per 100,000). == Interesting to note that Prision murder rates are higher than many states in the US, and many countries in europe. None of this is guns, though. It seems in the abscence of weapon x a killer will use y or z. lots of people killed this way with pens and spoons etc.

rdl 14y ago
I would assume gang affiliation a major factor in that.

DennisP 14y ago

There's a high rate of gun ownership and little violence or gun crime in Switzerland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland So if you're sincerely asking what differences other than gun ownership might be preventing violence, that'd be a good place to look. Time Magazine just had a good piece on the cultural differences that lead to a safe gun culture there: http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/ http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-...

fijal 14y ago
Switzerland is very special for multiple reasons. They have a direct democracy, federal system with very small cantons (equivalent of states) and until very recently every mail had an assault rifle at home. They're also very law-abiding citizens in general with >80% of crimes being commited by immigrants. I like swiss model a lot, but it's not 100% clear it can be scaled to a bigger country or if you need centuries of public awarness (they never had a king for example). The differences are so big, it's really really hard to compare with any other country.
- DennisP 14y ago
  All true and I admire Switzerland for all those reasons. However, at least some aspects of the "Swiss gun culture" actually exists in the U.S., among enthusiasts, who have a serious "culture of responsibility and safety" and teach their kids the same. Go to, say, a competitive shooting event, and you'll get an entirely different impression of gun owners than you may have now. As someone in the Time article says, "If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence." For the patriotic side, check out Project Appleseed (http://www.appleseedinfo.org/ http://www.appleseedinfo.org/), which conducts weekend courses on rifle marksmanship and Revolutionary War history. (It's run by volunteers, and costs $70 for a weekend.) This culture used to be more widespread in the U.S., back when rifle shooting was a high school sport. The more we crack down on legal gun ownership, the more we stamp it out.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

One key fact to observe is that crime without guns in the US is also very high. The US has a stabbing+bludgeoning+poison+etc murder rate of 1.8/100k, which is still higher than murder by all methods in most of Europe. I.e., Americans just like to kill people. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... One possible cause is demographics - more than half of our murders are committed by a demographic group making up only 10% of our population, and this subgroup is very uncommon in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_St...

rdl 14y ago
Possibly also the drug war, which is quite connected with violence, race, racism, poverty, urban/suburban/rural migration patterns, public health, human nature, geography, immigration, expansion federal power, military conquest, etc.