This is another sad, sad day. A young man once again his armed himself to the teeth and executed 32 people in classrooms, dormitories and other areas of Virginia Tech, about an hour and some change from where I live. It was like 9-11 all over again for me. Again, I was working and oblivious to everything else when one of the managers in the corporate office conversed with someone near me in a shaken voice "He's all right. My son is all right. He just called me." My ears pricked up but I had no idea what the hell was going on....eventually I made my way to the break room where CNN was broadcasting video footage taken from students' cell phone cameras of gunshots, running, panicked students and exploding windows. No one knows this man, he has no identification on him. He chose to be a John Doe for whatever reason, walked onto an open campus and rained down hell on unsuspecting students. Perhaps this man felt he was a vigilante, trying to right some wrong that had been done to him or someone he loved. Perhaps it was for no reason at all. I'd hate to think it was the latter. If it was, then the world is already the powder keg I believe it to be, who throws in the match only circumstance or fate will tell.
shocked
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
kieli's journal
found out when ni told me about it.
very tragic indeed. very tragic.
this month is def. crazy.
but this month for my state and every other state in the East Coast.
and yea...not just this month for everything added up...
Anyways I was in Atlanta for an interview last week and it's quite promising. Hope to hear a positive result soon.
Don't take this the wrong way but again and again, events like this in USA makes me grateful for the Swedish gunlaws. Sure, organized criminals have their share of firearms but the worse thing that can happen if someone goes bonkers is a hunting knife, Anna Lindh now withstanding.
It's easier to say it's better in smaller countries like Poland and Sweden....both countries fit inside of the state of Texas with room to spare! Policing countries that small is far easier than trying to police a country as wide and open as the US. If our citizens only had more fucking SENSE to try to resolve their differences without breaking open a case of ammo.....anger management classes should be required in ALL US schools >_>
Sorry to elaborate, but after getting more info, I feel quite shocked.
And I feel the need to write something ;_;.
I believe it is not a problem of the country size: the gun law in the whole EU is more less the same, ie. restricted. With the population around 375 million Europe is much more crowded than US. But the number of civilian victims of gunfire is less than 2000 people per year in the whole Europe, while in the US it is around 12 000.
The visible difference comes from simple fact, that people here have no guns. I can see that lots of Americans believe that the right to have a gun to defend yourself is the basic right of freedom and democracy. It is American tradition.
But in Europe, devastated with countless wars, the attitude is very different.
Fire-arms are always the source of violence and death - they were made for it, and it is naive to think that humans won't use the opportunity, if the have one :(.
Here it is the country's responsibility to protect it's citizens. It may not work the best way, but crazy people armed with knife or axe won't kill so many in so short time.
Condolences for the families of the victims.
Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that people in Europe have no guns AT ALL, one should refrain from stating things as fact.
It seems more of a mindset than anything else. Why is it that, in certain places in America where children are raised to respect the power of firearms, who learn gun safety at a very early age have less gun violence than, say, a major city or metropolitan area? It could be a variety of factors from overcrowding to the proximity of gangs and drugs. Texas, one of the largest states that where citizens can be visibly armed, has less gun violence than East Coast states. Odd isn't it?
Our country's responsibility to its citizens is no less than yours. However, we have other external stimuli that your country may not have: excessively violent video games, excessively violent media (i.e. rap music, movies, television shows, etc) and a government that promotes war first as a solution to problems.
We have two guns in our house but neither of us have once pulled them out to use them, despite having a prowler break into our flat twice. Not all humans will use the firearms they have for no reason at all. To date, we still have no idea WHY this man did what he did...why he felt he had no other recourse than to meet a violent end along with countless others. But banning guns never has been a solution. Before guns, there were other weapons that were just as dangerous. Violent tendencies seem to be an inseparable part of human nature; the key to dealing with them is control, something children in the US are no longer taught. Self-control.
I would love to know where you've gotten your facts. I'm curious to see those statistics myself.
So naturally, what eurpoans largely jumps on will always be the fact that there actually are armed civilians. If someone breaks in-they can steal your gun. If someone breaks in only to steal some money-you can actually *kill* that person and justify it with self-defense. If someone walks onto my private property- I have the right to actually defend it through armed conflict. The list of WTFs??? for us in europe goes on, and no, we will largely never be able to understand when for us the problem seems so very simple.
For us, the problem at hand is the existence of civilian weaponary, but after having read into what several people have said, and through my general impressions from the few americans I have met is that US might rather have an attitude problem regarding violence in general. For some reason, I doubt free weapon laws in Tibet would create an onslaught of violence :D.
Take no offense Kieli, but I like Furi thinks the US weaponlaws are madness, beyond madness which they really are in our world and the reality we live in. Both me and my mother have been to New York, and my mother also to Washinton, and I have to admit that we really -hated- the fact that we couldn't be guaranteed safety in certain parts of town- just a few blocks away from our 5 stars hotels! We went out for a walk for half an hour, and when we upon our return told a few other guests and later the staff, they went to pieces with warnings and worry. It made Rotterdam and Paris seem like playgrounds and I won't even mention the time when me and a friend of my mother's stepped onto the wrong sub in NY and ended up in Harlem, which we only discovered after a few blocks of walking. (Run Shigan, RUN!)
I also have to admit that I am quite horrified, if not revolted at the fact that you own firearms on your own. To be a hobbyist is one thing, but to just own those things and have them lying around makes me queasy to say the least.
I don't mean to critisize your way of life over there, and I have in thought that those guns, however they might disgust me, might one day save the lives of Diana and yourself for me in the reality you both live and work in. A pretty fair trade for a healthy dose of hypocrisy, for your life and safety I will gladly yield my opinions.
I guess I only want to cast some light on that a discussion between Europeans and Americans about gunlaws in general will always, in many way be like a Christian and an Buddhist arguing over existencial questions. I and Furi will probably never fully grasp why things like this is allowed to happen when for us it seems so simple, like you Americans will always have to take some blows from the zealot in all of us about what we think is apparent stupidity. Stupidity so very human, but which comes with a bloody and tragic price.
*wants to be hugged* T_T
We have firearms in our home for various reasons. I, for one, grew up in a military household and served time as a military cadet myself. I'm a responsible owner and have never drawn a weapon in anger. Again, it's all about self-control as I've stated time and again. However, if I am threatened with physical violence, I'll use whatever I have handy to defend myself. If it happens to be a gun, so be it. No one says one has to be bloody stupid just more intelligent than the next person.
I'll try to overlook that sanctimony of your remark about my owning firearms...as if doing so lacks intelligence. If that's your opinion, you're welcome to it. But I think the real world beckons you to take a closer look at it. No law is perfect and laws are only as good as those who enforce them. One of the biggest problems is greed. Our politicians won't enforce much when lobbyists give them huge amounts of money to take their side in government. It happens everywhere and not just the US.
For some reason, I doubt free weapon laws in Tibet would create an onslaught of violence :D.
As Tibet has been under the boot heel of China for so very long, you'd be surprised. If given the opportunity to free themselves from oppression by using firearms, I think you'd be VERY surprised at what might result. Don't kid yourself. As much as we'd all love to believe that we're peace-loving, etc, when ones we love are threatened, the gloves come off.
Human stupidity comes in many many forms and one need not have a gun in hand for that to be readily seen.
I don't mean to critisize your way of life over there, and I have in thought that those guns, however they might disgust me, might one day save the lives of Diana and yourself for me in the reality you both live and work in. A pretty fair trade for a healthy dose of hypocrisy, for your life and safety I will gladly yield my opinions.
Actually you do and you did.
Americans make an easy target for a variety of reasons. Makes it much better for the rest of the world to sleep at night knowing that we're getting our just desserts while also ignoring the things that happen in their own countries (has anyone REALLY forgotten the Serb/Croat conflicts? The Russian Mafia that pretty much owns their country? What about the armed conflicts in places like Thailand where people still are trying to kill each other over what religion they're in, who they're married to or what level of society they were born in?)
We're not perfect and it pains me to see that our government touts us as such. But Europeans are not saints either. Not by a long shot.
Isn't history awash in horrible things that it seems many don't know or thing is all past us? I think any society that loses its sense of self-control and self-responsibility will eventually lose its freedom due to their own impulses.
I just see is the differences are more a result of different histories and values which I don't think one is better than another, but help understand why someone else thinks differently. Though I am curious to think what will happen in the near future in Europe when the people who remember WWII are gone, will they change views due to never having experienced a war on their homeland?
Exactly.
A lot of people in the northern parts are really tired of the immigration flows that the wars in Afghanistan, African countries and Iraq has created. It's cute to be humanitary, but to be honest, the resources and patience around my turf is running out. My parents both pay 45% of their paychecks to taxes, and I have to pay 32% on the measly money I make on a few parttimes. To pay the sums and then see the money go to endless lists of refugee plans/education plans and housing is taxing on people here. When Sweden back in the 90´s let hundredthousands of refugees in (keep in mind, the swedish population is only 10 millions) and critisized Finland and Norway heftily for their lack of humanitarian insight, this was -not- how they expected it to turn out.
A lot of the northern European countries have been having boatloads of social problems, a whole lot partly due to the massive immigration, but also because that the countries lacked the proper system (if there even is one) to deal with such massive amount of people coming, coming to peace and settling. And to be honest, the economy around here could have been sexier, so that made the whole misery-scapegoat circle roll.
That's what the whole anti-globalisation attitude around here is about in the end. Kick them all out, keep Europe european and protect our jobs and markets. Bunch of hogwash if you ask me, but I'm a fierce globalisation supporter so I could be biased. ;)
Countries like Denmark, Sweden and Holland were stupidly kind, but Norway and Finland ended up as the wise guys. See why people around are getting just a bit antsy?
We don't need a bloody war really, the right-extremists and Attac are kicking each others' asses enough as it is.
The answer is to stabilise things for people in their own countries to help stem the immigrant tide but how does one go about that? How does one get rid of the warlords in Somalia (who were, in part, funded by us, sad to say), the dictators in Central America, the strongmen in Eastern Europe? There's a reason why these people are fleeing to places like Denmark, Sweden and Holland. They're looking for relative sanity, safety and a chance to live a better life.
It's like that whole "America for Americans" bullshit. WTH? America is what it is today because of immigrants! They helped build this country! *grr*
I do not get that either. Maybe since 100 years ago my own ancestors were on the recieving end of that because of different culture and religion than "Americans". Do people really know how difficult it is to try to go through proper immigration channels? It really should be easier and faster to deal with.
Where I live you don't have many people complain about such things. (one town council withstanding and they are not too popular) I don't get the cultural arguments either on not wanting people to come here, since there is no such thing as a real "American" culture. That and considering my family and background, I would be more culturally similar to the immigrants than many of the ones protesting them. Even more true if I do get that job in Atlanta.
The European countries -are- not. All those arguments that seems so naturally off their feet and silly in US cannot be applied here.
"Sweden for Swedes"- works in some kind of twisted way for a lot of people. That is of course, til we go even further back in history and the Swedes discover that ops, here be land of the Laps. -_-
How? To much money passes through here, cuz that's what all political powers are about in the end. True, EU will probably have to change, and yes I believe there will be much harder immigration laws enforced (Spain will be happy so happy). A shrinking work force may be a problem, but you forget that with the eastern states rallying to join in, western europe can place a lot of the production plants earlier often scattered around expensive land there, and cut a lot of production related costs. Dare I mention China?
So yes, the biggest social problem will probably be creating a market with enough jobs, but the -work, the production- itself is going pretty dandy. The companies have just relocated their facilities as of late. If anything bad is going to happen here, it will probably be social problems related to the increasing drift between white-and blue collared workers.
Problematic yes, but hardly bloody on such a scale of severity. In worst case, a repeat of France 2006.
And as Kieli said, the demographic shift is something all Industriallised countries are facing and things are actually moving around already, at least in the right direction. People who are born in the 70´s and forward are already facing different relief-systems which has been causing a ruckus among those who're against this "americanisation" of the programs regarding the common man's wellfare.
Some are doing better, like Denmark and the middle continental countries, while Italy and France have lagged behind.
What do you do? Europe as a unity is facing its share of problems, but who doesn't? A whole bunch of people try to simplify the problems by blaming it wholesomly on immigration and the cultural clashes, others think we should just send every Iraqi and Afghanistanese to US since "they bloody started it, they bloody take care of the scraps!", I say its a bunch of hogwash which have a few stains of sad truth.
Europe has to change and make immigration harder, which will increase the smuggling and the illegal kind, but things have come to - if you want to sum this large tirade up to something- is that it is no longer an option to be humanitarian just for the hell of it. The economy won't keep up, and even if it does, the jobs it will create will hardly draft its human resources from refugees many without the proper education. People here are tired and fed up, and in a democracy, that is a bad bad thing.
Non-European immigrants usually try to lay as low as possible, especially in the UK where immigrant hatred (especially against Indians, Pakistanis and Haitians) is hitting an all-time high. The clash comes when their culture butts heads with European culture (mostly in the area of religious practices and strong cultural practices such as arranged marriages). Lack of understanding (or the lack of willingness to understand) breeds all sorts of troubles.
Low birth rate might wind up causing some real troubles down the line. Also consider that religious fundamentalists of all stripes tend to have higher birthrates making me wonder if they will dominate the future. I still think that could be reason why a number of them in the US are anti-immigration since that prevents it from happening.
Gets me thinking that I should soon find someone to settle down with and cause some birthrate to go up a bit. Hopefully I would be a better parent than many I see, since some are just scary in either not parenting at all or teaching them some wierd stuff.
But still it's not much in 38 million people country.
The point is that people don't feel the need to have guns at home here.
The law is harsh to the gun users. For having illegal gun you can spend few years in jail. For illegal use of gun - maybe even the whole life.
It is also hard to get the gun legally. Lots of chceckings on you, tests, courses, and when you finally get the permission - it's temporary, you and your gun are registered, and, well, guns are expensive. We have shops with guns, but you can't just walk in and buy a gun. Even if you are buying toyish air gun you don't need permission for, you are registered.
People are simply discouraged by all these difficulties.
The majority of gunshot victims (not that there are many anyway) are mafia members. And mafia is not interested in common people's lives.
With law giving you not many possibilities to use firearms, people feel safe without guns around.
Giving the example of Serbia, Croatia and Chechnya is bad idea. There was (is) war there. The same like in Iraq, so war atrocities are expected. But we are talking about peaceful times.
Gun-involving incidents here are so rare that most of them are first page news. Unlike other more common crimes, there is not underreporting when gun is involved.
I don't think Europeans are less violent or not exposed as much as Americans to the violence in media etc. I suppose we have different traditions here, what makes the whole difference. First - it is the law, not only the gun law I mentioned, but the law in general. The property law is not so restricted as in US I believe. We don't have the right to kill somebody just because one enters our property. In many cases it's the opposite: law allows people to walk free in somebody elses forest or field :). Then there is our history. Millions of civilians died here during WWII. There is probably no family without victims of these times. It make us hate guns greatly. So we don't raise our children in respect to guns. We raise them to avoid firearms. Because there is no reason to have them, besides being soldier, Policeman or gun maniac :)
Oh, the facts. Internet is full of informations of this kind. Gov. pages should be reliable:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/w
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer
There are many many more, but I would like to qote this one:
http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/is
"In 1996, 2 people were murdered by handguns in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. [FBI Uniform Crime Report]"
It's little outdated, but I couldn't find the source I used being at work at the moment. I don't think the core of this statistic changed much.
According to population chart
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004
total number of citizens in four mentioned countries (where the gun law is much more restricted) is 246 mln with 336 killed by gunshots, while US with 298 mln population had 9390 peoples death caused by gunfire.
You can see the difeerence?
Rifles are a bit different, but then you'll have to be a member of a hunting association or somekind which comes with their own darn package of education and keeping-regulations.
Getting your hands on one of those toys will prolly you 4500 euros before you've even fired a shot. Picking up an martial art cost about 30 euro for a semester, go figure XD
Many people here in the US have such a safe (we've got two fireproof, waterproof lockboxes due to the size of our flat), but it's the truly foolish who leave around the key to said safe or have highly inquisitive children who know how to open it. Irresponsible, yes but not all American gun owners are like that.
It's easier to buy firearms here in the US because the right to bear arms is written into our Constitution. It might be the same for you if Sweden had such a codicil.
And hoo, those martial art weapons are restricted here. If something is classified as a weapon here, it has be registred. I'm barely allowed to carry around on a stupid iaito. -_- You're correct however about that training weapons are not, even if it is suggested that you carry those discreetly (through ridicullously large bags).
And yah, the Swedish constitution is scarily short. Figures since most of the kings from the Vasa family were to busy with wars rather than worrying about something as trivial as passing a few laws.
Did you know that the current Royal family of Sweden is actually french, and that their forefather Jean Bernadotte was invited or asked to become the Swedish king? They even had a job interview of somekind before passing the guy. XD Pretty sweet, I want a job like that too.
Good choice if you ask me, they should all do like prince Haakon of Norway, marry a ex-heroin addict with a four years old son (gorgerous, gorgerous woman, Mette-Marit is). Brings them down the earth a notch and makes wonders for the publicity.
Did you know that the Laps are still calling Swedes "The Newly Arrived Settlers" XD XD XD.
Royals marrying commoners would definitely put perspective on the importance of a royal family. No longer is the view of aristocracy being a god given right, eh?
Swedish aristocracy is more or less earned. And the newer titles can no longer be passed down in the families. Only the five greatest houses, noble names older than the current royal family, can take their position for granted for their oldest child.
The danish and the norweighan nobles earned their rights anew during the previous generation I suppose. WWII did not go by them unblooded, especially the danish King then.
I'm kinda fond of royalities, but yeah, it is rather fun to see them a bit closer to earth than Queen Elizabeth now.
We have more or less the same law as yours. I just did not go into details (yes, safe is needed :D).
I am the member of shooting club myself for most of my life, but never bought a gun.
I was referring to airsoft or weak pneumatic/CO2 gun-like things (often shinny copies of orginals). Lately they are allowed to buy without so many restrictions. They're not guns, although they're called that. It's probably easier to kill somebody with stick than with this thing.
Kieli threwt me so much material to analize
*tries to wake up*
If you want to shot a gun, grow up til you're 16, join a club, get the education, wait til you're 18, buy one or rent one and then go blasting all you want at a shooting range. Playing around with half-baked plastic toys that cannot kill but sure as hell maim and hurt makes it almost worse.
Bleh.
It's those whose parents never teach them about the dangers and how to use them properly that have the problem. Canada has no problem with children hurting themselves using airguns and that's the only weapon they allow up there. It's all about EDUCATION, TRAINING, and INTELLIGENCE. Don't you two get that? Banning won't do a damn bit of good. It's getting people to use their heads and use their weapons responsibly.
What good does it to have a safe if the parents aren't smart enough to put the bloody keys where their children can't get to it, or even LOCK the damn thing? Again, simple intelligence and wherewithal goes a long way to preventing stupid things from happening.
There is nothing in the culture here that allows guns and the proper education is largely unavaible if you're not a hobbyist. True, the kids up in Norrland (northern Sweden) know how to use their rifles astonishgly well but the soft-air gun incidents have been largely located to the bigger cities, where there is -no- culture involving weapons at all.
There are to few who actually owns the guns to make largescale school education about them productive and most youths here save the few mislead ones would deem such a class a waste of time. it's simply not in our everyday life to worry about shooting weapons.
In Sweden, the fact is that the act of banning works. Sure, its impossible to cancel out tragic accidents and acts of stupidity to 100%, but the number of fleshcuts from knifes during fights/drunken fights bombdropped when they forbid butterflies and other larger folding-blades, I see no reason why softair guns wouldnt be the same.
To make something socially unacceptable works here, big time, for once The Law of Jante actually do some good.
I already KNOW that Swedes have a different world view. It's not new information to me.
I'm still trying to figure out what the point is about soft air guns. What, these kids suddenly don't know how to read? Anyone with half a brain that can read directions can pick up a softair gun and learn how to use it. Realistic video games make it astonishingly easy for anyone to pick up a thing or two (sadly, they haven't picked up on the SAFETY portion). You wanted to know where they would get their training? Try that lovely little device called Google.
US Code, Title 26, Subtitle E, Chapter 53, Subchapter D
Title 26, Subtitle E, Chapter 53, Subchapter C
Federal Firearms Regulation
Let's look at the size of the countries you note:
GERMANY: 82,422,299
NEW ZEALAND: 4,076,140
JAPAN: 127,463,611
CANADA: 33,098,932
UNITED STATES: 298,444,215
All of those countries COMBINED are not the size of the US. The size of the country definitely makes a hell of a difference especially when you're talking about number of law enforcement personnel per capita and such.
I never disputed that there was a difference, as you can see; I'm neither being blind nor biased. Lots of other factors contribute to that difference other than strict gun laws (i.e. stricter immigration laws than the US, cultural factors, etc). To simply say that their strict gun laws is the sole reason for the lack of gunshot related deaths and ignore the other factors would be like arguing a case with blinders on. Throwing stones in glass houses and all that.
The problem I have with statistics is that they are notoriously underreported, biased and inaccurate. Unfortunately, it's the only data we have to use. Too bad we don't have more accurate statistics of gun homicides in other countries, especially European ones.
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/p
http://prague.tv/city-beat/?p=177
As you can see, data from some countries could not be obtained to give more accurate detail as to international gun related homicides. To simply focus on the US and not include real statistics on other countries is biased. There were even times where the the homicide rate dropped in the US while it rose in Poland:
http://mesharpe.metapress.com/(o0u2mf55p
The majority of gunshot victims (not that there are many anyway) are mafia members. And mafia is not interested in common people's lives.
As you will read in the study above, that shoots holes in your argument.
Giving the example of Serbia, Croatia and Chechnya is bad idea.
Actually it's not a bad idea. Serbia, Croatia and Chechnya weren't always at war. Even in "peaceful" times, their citizens owned weapons. They're still a part of that Europe you claim does not own weapons in the home.
Official info says that at least one gun the murderer used was bought legally in the shop. Also it mentiones that this guy had mental problems, noticed and reported to the police. No way he would get gun permission here with references like that.
Do you get my point here?
Yes, the banning a thing does not prevent people from acquiring it. But it makes harder to get the thing. Prohibition is not the best example, because acohol can be easily made at every home, while firearms not :). But the drugs case is probably similar. The're illegal, black market is very wide, but still it's not so easy to get them.
Ah, about county size/number of citizens... I made the counting already. Yes, the area of these countries combined is smaller than US - but it only means that these countries are more crowded and it's obvious that crime increases in crowded areas. The total number of people in these countries is smaller than in US. But slightly smaller. The difference is 52 mln people. Fell free to fill the gap with for example France or GB and it's number of dead by gunshots. Still the difference in the number of gunshot victims compared to the US will be enormous.
I never said that here we have less violence. All I'm saying is that we have less acts of crime with firearms involved.
And I wouldn't go anyway near the subject of firearms use in the countries where the war lasts.
War makes everything different. Soldier killing enemy soldier is not considered as murderer. And so on.
Oh, data from Slovakia - it must be mistake. Probably somebody put the comma in the wrong place. ... but on the other hand they have absinthe legal there, so you never know...;)
You missed the fact that the store owner did not know that the man had mental problems....the only one who noticed was his teacher and she was ignored. Apples to oranges. The right people did not have the background to prevent him from getting firearms. The store owner did everything by the book but the fact that
a) the shooter did not have any previous criminal history either here in the US or in South Korea for a red flag to come up
b) the shooter also purchased his firearm quite legally, with no obvious signs of disturbance to the store owner
this man was never prevented from getting the gun. His pathology showed that he was quite patient. Even with stricter rules, he still might have purchased the firearm with murder in mind. Would people in Poland REALLY have caught this man with their super spidey senses? Let's be sensible here. Even with the strictest laws in place, if someone wants a gun, they'll get one. And despite your apparent view that all of us Americans here live in the cowboy West, far less of us own handguns that is permitted under our laws.
I'm sorry to see that you're so naive. Prohibition is still a good example because guns can, and I've done this, be made in the home. Ever made a modified zip gun out of wood, or simple plumbing pipes? If not, you have no idea how easy it is. Incarcerated criminals make guns out of less material than can be found in the average home. One can even buy gun kits from Russia and Czechoslovakia! If you want proof, my dear, that I can give you. The black market is easier to get to than you think (perhaps not there in Poland but that's debatable) due to that lovely thing called the Internet. I know of several magazines that blatantly advertise their underground wares! Do you really think Europe is so innocent as that?
Erm, actually you disprove your own theory. By your statement, those countries should have MORE crime in more crowded areas and not less. The US crime rate is not a widely distributed thing but concentrated in areas with dense populations. Actually, if you'd read the text I sent you, Ireland and GB were right up their near the US with the amount of gunshot related deaths. Populations make all of the difference for all of the reasons I stipulated above which you've yet to address or disprove with any certainty.
In countries where war lasts, I am not even remotely counting where soldier kills soldier. I'm talking where civilians kill each other as part of roving bands of thieves, warlord lackeys, etc. Please don't mislead yourself into thinking that all of Iraq's or Afghanistan's casualties are all military ones. Even Reuters can disprove that.
Absinthe is legal in Canada, too.....and the point is?
It's obvious that you really do believe that only America has this problem and that their gun laws are the defining issue and I doubt anything I say from the first point on will help you see otherwise.
LOL. I don't think so. I wouldn't count on effectiveness of our Police.
But they didn't have to.
His coming to shop to buy a gun wouldn't happen here.
Being foreigner he would never get the permission (from the Police) to buy a gun. The end.
... but let's say he is Polish. To get the permission he has to join teh shooting club and attend all these courses and tests Shigan mentioned, including few meetings with Police counselor. Also his past would be checked carefully by the Police, with interviews with his neigbours/coworkers/teachers. Even speed ticket is the reason not to give him the permission and this guy had a case because of stalking. Not legal guns for him.
Of course some unstable people get guns legally regardless.
One has to be desperate to make a gun oneself. This weapon for sure won't be very effective for the massmurder. Thinking this way a bomb would be much... better. Dangerous explosives are also easily homemade, with using common igredients. Yes, if smomebody wants to have a gun, they would have it. I never said that Europe was innocent.
By your statement, those countries should have MORE crime in more crowded areas and not less.
Exactly.
*sigh*
I thought my statement was clear. I never said that there were less crime or violence in Europe.
I said that the amount of civilian deaths caused by gunfire in Europe (and many other countries) was drastically lower than in US.
I've read the links you posted. The conclusion seems to be always the same: more firearms at households, more shot people (in absolute numbers).
Firearms are made for one and only reason: to kill.
There is no other use for them. They're highly effective and very easy to use, because of that very dangerous.
Unlike bricks, knives, axes, basetball bats, chain saws and many other tools used in need as a weapon, guns have no alternative use.
Man with the birck is usually the bricklayer. Man with a gun is potential killer.
We say 'opportunity makes the thief'. It means some people wouldn't do something if they had no chance to do it.
With the fast car the possibility that you'll drive fast is higher than with the trabant.
Oh my, I really don't 'believe that only America has this problem'. I'm only showing my point of view, which happened to be different. I can see that bigger popularity of handguns in my country visibly transfers into bigger number of crimes with firearms used. It is something to worry about.
I think that where are roads, there are car accidents; where are rivers, there are drowned people; where are guns there are shot people. Of course we can teach people to drive safely, to swim or to use a gun in responsible way. It may lessen the numer of feral accidents, but never reduce them low enough.
Of course the case is more complicated and you pointed it.
But for me this is fundamental: when there are no guns people would use something different to kill each other. In most cases this 'something' is much less effective than a gun.
I do agree that the war makes people evil, nothing more to say.
Absinthe - it's lokal joke :).
We also had our sad share in the Virginia Teh homicide. One of the victims was the Polish proffesor's wife...:(
Exactly my point. Although it's good that, in your country, non-citizens cannot legally get guns. It was always my thought that non-citizens couldn't even get guns here! Non-citizens don't have the right to vote, why should they have access to weapons here? O.o This incident has disproved my assumption.
One has to be desperate to make a gun oneself. This weapon for sure won't be very effective for the mass murder.
We're not even talking about mass murder, per se. Just one murder would be bad enough and a zip gun could still do that. My point was that if someone really wants to have a weapon, they WILL find a way. I made one just to see if I could do it and if it would work. I had no evil intent (nor did I practice with it in my neighbourhood; I went to the shooting range that we cadets used back then) but it was still easy to make.
Firearms are made for one and only reason: to kill.
There is no other use for them. They're highly effective and very easy to use, because of that very dangerous.
Unlike bricks, knives, axes, basetball bats, chain saws and many other tools used in need as a weapon, guns have no alternative use.
Man with the birck is usually the bricklayer. Man with a gun is potential killer.
I must point out a fallacy in your statement. Firearms have a use: hunting. Thus it does have an alternative use.
In most cases this 'something' is much less effective than a gun.
Not hardly. O_O Ever see a stabbing victim? Gunshots are impersonal sometimes...using knives to kill is personal and tends to be VERY ugly. Icepicks are the cleanest kills as they tend to be used to pierce the brain with minimal bloodshed (it can even leave the victim alive for hours). Guns are easy but they're not necessarily the most effective.
BY THE WAY
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.s
The issue here is FAR more complex than just a sweeping ban on firearms. You want to know why more people here carry guns? Because of facts such as these:
1) The US spends 481.4 billion dollars on Defense while only spending approximately 4 billion on law enforcement (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pdf/justic
2) The amount of law enforcement personnel allotted to citizens in the US is less than that allotted in countries with smaller populations (i.e. the US only has 243 officers per 100,000 citizens at last count in 2001 while Germany has 290 per 100,000....odd isn't it?)
3) Immigration has seen an increase of gun-related crimes due to firearms being illegally smuggled into the country (Canada is also seeing their share of increase in firearms related crimes due to this factor...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Ca
I highly doubt Poland has an issue with an influx of immigrants into their country causing an increase in crime.
These factors alone mean that citizens are not getting as much protection as they require and thus feel that they must look to their own needs. Interestingly enough, the states that have the fewest gun-related crimes are also the ones that have the fewest gun controls. I'll post more information for your education as the day goes on.