The National Review Online recently published an article on the realtionship between gun control and mass murders in Europe and America. It also explores the misperception that mass murder is an exclusively American phenomenon. As it turns Europe has us beat. And they have tons of gun control. The author is John Lott, well known author of More Guns, Less Crime There are some very interesting facts:
“all the multiple-victim public shootings in Western Europe have occurred in places where civilians are not permitted to carry guns. The same is true in the United States: All the public shootings in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns. “
As evidence he includes a list of European mass killings:
- Zug, Switzerland, Sept. 27, 2001: A man whose lawsuits had been denied murdered 14 members of a cantonal parliament.
- Tours, France, Oct. 29, 2001: Four people were killed and ten wounded when a French railway worker started shooting at a busy intersection.
- Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: A man killed eight city-council members after a council meeting.
- Erfurt, Germany, April 26, 2002: A former student killed 18 at a secondary school.
- Freising, Germany, Feb. 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded.
- Turin, Italy, Oct. 15, 2002: Seven people killed on a hillside overlooking the city.
- Madrid, Spain, Oct. 1, 2006: A man killed two employees and wounded another at a company that had fired him.
- Emsdetten, Germany, Nov. 20, 2006: A former student murdered eleven people at a high school.
- Tuusula, Finland, Nov. 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal killed at a high school.
- Naples, Italy, Sept. 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall. (This incident is not included in the totals given below because it may have involved the Mafia.)
- Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: Ten people shot to death at a college.
- Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: A 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.
- Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: Ten people injured when a man opened fire on a nursery school.
- Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: Three people killed and two injured by a student at a vocational college.
- Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: Three people killed and one injured at a crowded café.
- Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: One dead and 15 wounded in an attack on a Sikh temple.
- Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: Four people shot to death at a mall.
- Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: Twelve killed by a British taxi driver.
Finally there is a break down of annual averages. In the U.S. the yearly average of people killed in mass killing is 10.6, whereas in Europe it is 12.5. And again there is this interesting little tid bit:
“all the multiple-victim public shootings in Western Europe have occurred in places where civilians are not permitted to carry guns. The same is true in the United States: All the public shootings in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns. “
Clearly criminals and psychopaths prefer unarmed victems. I find it very interesting that people get up in arms (pardon the pun) over the killings listed above when governments kill far more people than any of the mass murderers in the previous examples.
« Another bill to watch out for HB 2570 HB 2536 off for another week »
Quoting from the article you rely on:
“If one looks at just those cases where four or more people have been killed in an attack, on average 10.6 people died in such attacks each year; the worst attack was the Luby’s Cafeteria shooting in Killeen, Texas, in 1991, in which 23 people died.
I don’t have exactly comparable data for Europe; however, the data I have been able to collect for the nine and a half years from 2001 through now indicate that on average some 12.5 people per year have died in such attacks. To be sure, Western Europe has a lower per capita rate, since its population over the last decade has been about 48 percent larger than the U.S. population over the earlier period (about 387 million to 262 million). Still, the fact that there are such attacks at all belies the conventional wisdom. ”
That’s right. It’s not just multiple shootings – they would include most of the amateur/unbalanced shooters that kill only a few people, and that is exactly the kind of shootings that happen more if you don’t control guns – it is shootings where there are more than 3 deaths.
And of course, the comparison isn’t with Western Europe – not as anyone has defined it since the Wall came down (and even then only in the context of the cold war). Finland is in Northern Europe (notorious for its lax gun control and high murder rate – by European standards), Greece is in Southern Europe. As a consequence of this odd definition, the population is almost 50% larger than that of the US, and the mass murder rate is therefor much lower. It is absolute poppycock that gun control isn’t helping keep the murder rate down in Europe.
Please cite your sources for Greece and Finland. AFAIK Finland, and Switzerland have extremely low murder rates of any kind, let alone mass murder rates. Please stop lieing. Gun control doesn’t work on people intent on bad things because they don’t obey the laws. Gun control only stops honest, law abiding, decent people because they are the only ones who obey laws.
If you want to spew lies get your own blog.
“Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: Three people killed and two injured by a student at a vocational college.”
The truth is THERE WAS NO MASS MURDER. The perpetrator injured 3 men and committed suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAED_Vocational_College_shooting
I’m Greek and I don’t know about your other “facts” in other countries, but since the only “fact” I could recall to my memory turns out to be false, I really can’t help but start thinking:
Why would someone use false facts? Is it possible that the author of “More Guns, Less Crime” was just manipulating things to his liking? Maybe because he couldn’t find evidence to “prove” his statement? And what happens to “Europe has more mass murders than the U.S. ” that I read on your title?
Sorry for the delay in replying. Searching the web, the numbers you mention appear in many reports. As far as I can tell they were an initial mistaken report that got repeated and never corrected.
We see that in many of these incidents. Initial reports are confused and mistaken. Usually they get corrected later.
This does not change the fact that both internationalyl and within the U.S. places with stricter gun and weapon control invariably have higher crime, higher violent crime, and more mass killings and attempted mass killings.
It does not change the fact that you cannot prevent bad people from getting weapons as they will ignore the laws. Only those who who obey laws will be affected by them.
I agree that when somebody is determined to get weapons, most of the times he can manage. Besides, a “gun” (at least according to greek laws) is anything that is used as such. A stone or a knife is a gun, if it’s used to kill and not to fix a wall or peel an apple.
And obviously “bad” people exist everywere. The ultimate solution would be to cure the pathogens (in society and individualy) that lead someone to crime and that’s not an easy thing at all…
But some measures do help to that direction (even indirectly), in my opinion. Reading the above wiki link I posted, I noticed that the “wannabe killer” used sound replica guns, that had been modified. That indicates he couldn’t have easy (and safe…) access to serious weapons, like say an AK47; and even if he had, it would be much more difficult to carry it in public, when it’s illegal. If he could, it’s reasonable to assume that there would be deaths. So, stricter gun controls (even not 100% succesful) do help.
On the other hand, one would say that if everyone can carry a gun, the “bad” guy would consider that fact and maybe decided not to draw his, at the first place. While that can be true for say “sane” people that value their life, it clearly doesn’t work for someone determined to suicide anyway (or at least doesn’t care that much, for any reason). And that’s the case in mass murders, usually. Besides that, chances are that an otherwise “sane” guy may use a gun that happened to be handy under weird conditions and commit crimes, while if he just had 5′ in his dsposal to calm down, instead of an armed gun, he wouldn’t.
With the above, I don’t mean I’m completely convinced strict laws in general is the effective way to achieve whatever is aimed by the state. And of course crime is not the only issue. We could talk for hours about freedom, civil rights, depresive goverment, social relations, you name it. Anything affects a series of other things. I just feel that it’s a mistake (and one mankind do all the time) to release powers that cannot completely handle/control.
Now, as for higher crimes at places with strict gun laws, I highly doubt. Crime is not only a matter of weapons, they just help very much. To determine whether (and to what level) a strict law is responsible or responsive to crime, is also very important – and difficult. And of course, comparisons between oranges and apples don’t help, rather comfuse. To say that one state or country has lower violent crime rates than the other and that is ought to the laws only, is clearly oversimplifying. If I had a suggestion to make, it would be to carefully (and thoroughly) exam every condition and variable, concerning the use of weapons, prior to make easy conclusions for highly complicated issues.
Sorry for the lengthof my reply…
The problem in the US is not controls, because we do have them and now they will be even stricter giving an opening to those who black market weapons. We had restrictions with some other type of more high tech weapons but the law expired and it will be interesting to see if it is put back into place. Some of this is cultural and mental health issues and not just access to guns perse. Others are the lengthy time it takes to get anything changed if it pertains to something in our Bill of Rights which most foreigners don’t seem to understand. I see stricter control and now control over the secondary markets where there were loopholes and no background checks. It will help to close the gap but in the US it isn’t just Federal Law that has to be fixed but each state has a Constitution as well that enhances the laws or adds to them somewhat if it isn’t banned in the original amendment. I hope whatever they do that it will address the issues and not start another bickering session between the parties and delay any regulations beyond what are already in place. The NRA will lobby to keep rulings less rather than more. I can only cross my fingers that they will address this type of violence in our country.
Just so you understand what most think of the definition of mass murder I will put it here:
Mass murder is a legal term used to describe multiple murders committed in one instance or in a short period of time by the same person or people. The exact number of murders that must occur to warrant the use of the term is not well defined, though it is generally considered to be four or more if the murders are committed by an individual or small group. Mass murder can be committed on a small scale by an individual or small group or on a large scale by a military force, state, or government. Killing sprees, the killing of an individual’s family, genocide or strategic bombing of a civilian area can all be referred to as mass murder.
It is interesting that recent studies point out that when an armed person stops a potential mass murder it almost always happens at no more than 2 deaths. By using 4 deaths as the standard the lame stream media excludes almost all instances of an armed citizen stopping the tragedy.
Pirate, The lamestream (national) media always excludes any mention of a gun being used in a positive way. Fox news is the only one that will report on guns being used to prevent crime.
The Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon was stopped by a guy names Nick Meli, who was legally carrying. As soon as the shooter saw Nicks gun, he went around the corner and killed himself. This shooting was stopped without ever having to fire a shot, why? Because there was a gun there.
The real problem in America is a violent culture, rampant use of SSRI drugs (anti-depressants), and especially lack of responsibility, mainly parents who have don’t show their children love, and teach them ethics, morals, and respect. It ha been shown that every single one of these murdering kids has been on SSRI’s, every single one.
It’s interesting that people want to blame semi-automatics, but we have had these types of weapons since the late 1800′s, but we have not always had this level of mass shootings, so how can you possibly blame the guns. It’s also interesting that mass shootings began to escalate in the late 50′s, early 60′s, at the exact time psychotropic drugs were introduced.
Now some will argue, “well they already messed up, or they would not have been on drugs” thats true, but they were not committing mass murder, until they were on the drugs.