" Newsmax: The media typically spins these mass shootings as an American phenomenon. They suggest we ought to be more like Europe, with strong gun control, because then we would not have these problems. Is that true?
Dr. Lott: No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.
You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.
Newsmax: So can you give us a correlation between crime rates in jurisdictions that try to ban concealed guns and the crime rate in those that do not?
Dr. Lott: If you look over past data, before everyone that was adopting [concealed carry laws], you find that for each additional state that adopted a right-to-carry law . . . you’d see about a 1.5 percent drop in murder rates, and about 2 percent drop in rape and robbery . . . Just because states are right-to-carry doesn’t mean they’ve issued the same number of fees. You have big differences in states’ training requirements.
Newsmax: Would it be a good idea to have teachers who have concealed carry permits in the schools, to better protect kids?
Dr. Lott: I’m all for that. I’ve been a teacher most of my life. I’ve been an academic. I have kids in college still, and kids below that. It’s not something that I take lightly. But it’s hard to see what the argument would be against it.
People may not realize this, but we allowed permit-concealed handguns in schools prior to the ironically named Safe School Zone Act. And no one that I know has been able to point to a
The bad guys will always find a way to get a weapon, be it a gun or otherwise. So why would you disarm regular civilians.
There are a number of cases where would be mass-killers were stopped by average joes carrying concealed weapons. Sure, the police can be helpful, but their response is not immediate. It is better to have someone right then and there to can respond to the threat.
Maybe if there had been some school faculity who had access to a firearm this recent tradegy might have been averted.
A few things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:
Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.
In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.
The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.
Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.
Supporting Evidence:
more proof
(www.nationalreview.com)
I'll be the first one here (other than you) to comment. Though might I say you've done a fine job of it so far! I am saying, guns result in death. No guns, less death. I cannot make it more clear!
Here is an entirely different argument that shows that your argument does not support water. In Africa, they use machetes. Are we supposed to ban machetes also?
I saw a documentary portraying people from all over the states all supposedly normal people, but in fact all murderers who anywhere else in the world would be locked up, but in America, it's said they were let go for shooting the other person in self defensive. One guy (from Alabama) shot a black man because he was intimidated by him. Another got his shotgun out and killed two people performing a robbery about 6 houses down from where he was. There was no fight, they saw him, they tried to run, and then he shot them both. Some other guy who had required his firearm responsible just a few days before shot a teenager three times "by accident". All of this is bullshit, however you still think that the NGA and other republican crap like that. World wide, knife related deaths are higher yes. However, you might be surprised to hear that America is not the only country in the world, and that in fact gun related deaths are higher than knifes. Understand this chump:
The fact gun regulations in the USA are, and have been so loose is the reason so many innocent people are being killed. You can say "Making regulations tighter won't help" well then if your own hicks have become so attached to their damned weapons, that's your fault. Like turning your baby in to a smoker at the age or 1, they won't live long, and what little life they have they will need their smoke. Regulations must be made, and if you get a couple of rednecks kicking up a fuss because they're remorsing over it, tough love.
Jungleson you ignorant little French dude, your argument supports my cause. If the people that got shot had been packing, they would have been able to defend themselves.
And your stinking little French country, which has gun control laws, is not immune to to mass shootings. You know why? Here..., I'll give you a clue..., Because gun control laws do not deter mass murder nor does it deter mass shootings. Maybe if you lay off that French wine long enough to look at the data you won't go around making a fool of yourself in public ;)
Nice, however fact remains more people in America are killed by guns than France. Which I challenge you to dspute. Come up with an argument explaining why, with no shortcuts or deviations, why you think America is better off with guns than without. Let's not delve in to "But some will be smuggled" Lets pretend we have an America with guns, and an America without guns. You give me a convincing answer explaining why you think America with guns is better for its people. You do that, without being snooty, witty, obnoxious or ignorant in any way. By the way insulting France doesn't have much to do with what we're talking about, and given fact per fact France is a better place to live, I suggest you stop downing on it. So, give me a response :) And try not to mention France, I know it's in your nature to belittle others ( not that hard given your countries obesity rates ) but see if you manage not too. Not too difficult? Shouldn't be. It's what you've been defending all this time! Explain to me why America as a country is a better place with people shooting each other. Think you can do that Joe?
OK..., France would be a great country..., if it weren't for all those stupid, liberal French people ;)
Second, if you stopped criticizing America and calling me names, I will respond in kind.
Third: I like to debate reality not fantasy. Americans own more guns than the citizens of any other country. Our form of government makes it almost impossible to pass any meaningful gun control laws and those gun control laws will be highly ineffective because the guns that are currently out there would be grandfathered in. No one is going house to house taking guns away from people. If you really think that's going to happen, you know nothing of our country.
Fourth: I don't have to argue whether or not America will be a better place without guns. That is NOT the topic of this debate. And as I have already stated, an America without guns is a fantasy.
Fifth: How can France be a better country when in Paris, a major city, the citizens piss on the street? You people are supposed to be civilized ;)
Sixth: Our obese citizens can shoot the snot off any Frenchman any day of the week ;)
Oh yes, of course I forgot all the child prostitution in Paris, all the other people being shot in Paris, the disgusting smells of open sewers in Paris, all the.. Wait, that's New York! You say stop being mean about America ( diddums ) it's rather hard give you persist in having the last word. Which I recall began with you starting the war of the countries. My calling you a noob was inconsequential. But as I imagined you couldn't answer my question. Enough of this nationalism it's getting tedious. OK then, we have gun regulations in Britain, and gun related fatalities are far lower here. Sweden has the lowest gun related crimes anywhere, and France its self ( I'm just looking at the statistics) has quite a low gun crime rate.
Can you sight your sources? I would like to see them. You may know a lot about your country, but have you stepped foot in ours? Have you ever touched a firearm, much less shot one? You need info, not opinion.
Actually, gun, knife, and gang related crime increased after Britain banned private handgun ownership. Have you ever handled a gun? Probably not, but I might be wrong. By the way, how's that 75% tax rate in socialist France working for you?
Surely you can see that not allowing easy access to weapons will decrease their use, that's just a simple fact of life. True there will always be those people who will want to kill and will find a way to get a gun but if it was harder to obtain the weapons many would be deterred, as soon as situations escalate to the use of guns there are clearly going to be more deaths than say with a knife, as a British citizen I can say knife crime is the largest killer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/ 2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state . This link shows with data from the F.B.I the obvious fact that most murders in the US are by gun and this is obviously going to be the case, when a powerful weapon is so readily available why wouldn't people use it. I don't know if it's just me but I don't see why people need guns at all. ( apart from hunting etc. but in those cases special laws can be made to permit farmers and hunters to have hunting weapons like in the U.K. To say the gun control laws don't work is wrong, while you may find articles showing a few shooting here and there that's the point, they are far rarer and with fewer casualties because the laws only allow select guns anyway and very few people can obtain them.
Surely you can see that if more people carried guns, they would be able to defend themselves against the crazy people and the number of deaths would decrease because the crazy shooter would get taken out quicker.
NOTE: it is the crazy people doing the shooting, they are in the minority. Making guns more readily available will help identify the crazy people and they will be dealt with by the majority in a timely manner. ;)
If it was harder to kill someone because they too would have a gun, many would be deterred.
By the way..., I can tell from your argument that you did NOT read the article. if you choose to stick to your talking points without looking at the evidence, there's no hope for you. ;)
An armed society is a polite society. In the Old West, when everyone carried a gun, everyone called each other "mam" and "sir." ;)
People need guns for self defense and to deter crazy shooters.
The evidence given, that 1 article that gives little data from 1 source (as a scientist that is not enough to make a conclusion from) is used to back up a statement made, a statement that may I say is wrong, for the simple reason that you can find good evidence that gun control laws do work. As for the part of the article about concealed guns or not I find irrelevant due to my opposition of guns anyway. To even make a comment about the Old West being better times is ridiculous considering there clearly was higher death rates and a poor quality of life not to mention a far lower level of intelligence which is an interesting point as there a psychology articles showing a correlation between decreased intelligence and the purchasing of guns ( A quick note on that point is that it excludes those sales for hunting and job purposes). My point is just that if you don't have guns on sale then there's less crazy people with guns and therefore no need to carry guns. I am a British citizen as I said so I cannot really comment on the need for a gun, I think if I lived in America where guns are available so readily i probably would buy one and say I need it for self defence but I feel sorry that you feel the need to possess a gun, to possess a tool capable of killing someone. I apologise if you feel I did not read the argument or if you feel my point was misplaced but when a point "Gun control laws don't work" is made on a website made for debating and I disagree with the point then I am going to reply, even if you seem happy to accept one piece of evidence with no regard to it's possible bias.
If you were to attempt to write a law governing media copyright in 1998, would you attempt to do so without acknowledging the existence of the Internet and compression methods like MPEG-3? Any law crafted under such restrictions would be laughably incomplete.
Likewise, if you were to discuss a law that allows or restricts the creation and distribution of firearms, would you attempt to do so without acknowledging the existence of 3D-printed weapons and the ability to transfer blueprints for them online?
Will ISPs use deep packet inspection to watch for gun files being traded? Will torrent sites hosting firearm files be taken down, their server rooms raided? Will all the ineffectual tactics of digital suppression be tried again, and fail again?
Will 3D printers refuse to print parts, the way 2D ones are supposed to refuse to print bills? Will printers have to register their devices, even when those devices can print themselves? How is it proposed that control is to be established over something that can be transferred in an instant to another country, and made with devices that will soon be as common as microwaves?
Part of the discussion has to be that, government or otherwise, there can be no more control over printed guns than there can be over printed spoons. Regulation or banning of firearms, whether you think the idea is good or bad, will soon be impossible.
While the blueprints may be available the ability to produce is tightly regulated, you cannot simply start a weapons factory and that seems a little expensive since you would only be able to supply yourself if laws preventing sale were being enforced. Maybe I've misunderstood but I can't see your point, I understand your point with regards to things like torrents and blueprints but these are not physical objects, banning the sale of weapons is a physical thing and the production of them is physical, compared to say torrenting a DVD for example where everything remains digital and does not require you to construct the product once receiving the data. With regards to printing 3D weapons then the law would clearly stop them being allowed publicly, legally. Obviously the illegal distribution would still occur but if remove it from being so publicly available then there would be a clear decrease in usage. Given the seriousness of weapons then i would expect such sites that would pass on blueprints would be shut down and this would mean people would have to search harder and this again would reduce the final number of people who would obtain it. If you stop people having it to start with then it prevents any possible situation involving prevention, to say you want weapons for self defence would be to say you think Iran is entitled to nuclear weapons to defend themselves because other countries have them, surely you don't think that and would agree less people/countries with potentially destructive weapons is good. As it so happens the news just give out some figure on gun deaths, 3.2/100,000 in U.S.A, 1.6/100,000 Canada and 0.1/100,000 Britain. I just give the view if it's not there then it can't be used, your argument into what the law would control is far to vast to discuss(however if on the topic of things like torrents I would perhaps suggest that if a site allows for or can consolidate illegal activities it should be shut down, especially if it's main usage is illegal trade ( U torrent, Pirate bay etc..) as would any public store if it was known to allow illegal activities to take place in it and I believe it it got to/ gets to the point of weapons being able to be transferred like this we would see far more intrusive laws passed by governments to monitor and flag peoples internet usage)--- apologies if I sidetracked
What I am saying is that the technology currently exists for people to build their own weapons. And that just as the government is unable to stop the spread of illegal MP3 files, they are unable to prevent the transfer of blue prints on how build said weapons.
This world would be a better place if people would just stop believing in the fairy tale about living in safety.
I know that my life became infinitely simpler once I made the conscious decision to no longer intent to live forever ;)
People have always been able to build their own "weapons" and consumer grade 3d printers have not changed that. Consumer printers print plastic so you can only make a crappy plastic gun which self destructs at high caliber or after a few shots. It will be a long time before the average consumer can "print a gun" that would be better than a cheap handgun (which most people don't want to ban). What would be the point?
Are you saying that gun control laws work in MEDCs? Did you not read the article? Did you read the other arguments that use other arguments besides the one originally given? I can repost them here for your convenience if you like ;)
So? There is no way to pass gun control laws in this country. We have to find some other solution. We love our guns. Americans are a bunch of Europeans that hate the way Europeans run their country. And as long as we are the strongest country on the planet, there's no reason to change ;)
If you are smart as you claim to be than you would know that there are 10 types of people on this planet. Those that understand binary and those that don't ;)
Very clever. I shall not dignify your obvious errors with answers. There are many categories of people, which divide down in to smaller sub-categories. The point is each person is different, and though some may be similar, you cannot categorise them. I still do not understand your point. If by smart you mean I just an A on my French GCSE mock, A* in RE, English and History and another A in Japanese, a B in maths ( teacher is a bitch though...) and I have an IQ 132 ( which I think is good..) e.t.c. I may not go to Wellington, but I don't count my self to be below average. In any case. Guns are machines- things that kill. If you have no things that kill, then you have no things that.. You know...
How do I put this delicately..., If someone truly wants you dead, whether or not there are laws (any type of laws) is besides the point, they will have options. No one can promise your safety and deliver. Especially the government.
BTW, I now know which one of the 10 you are ;)
My statement stands. Gun control laws don't work in Europe. People are still massacred by guns and the rest are just massacred by some other weapon or object. ;)
I know what the binary system in astronomy. I don'[t really know but it's when a group of stars are close enough they 'orbit' their own mass. I really don't know astronomy is not my strong point. Though I do like black holes very much!
However, with no gun regulations, things would be far worse in Europe. Nothing is perfect. Gun regulations in Europe mean it is near the bottom of the gun crime stats. And America is near the top!
And If she suddenly got pissed off with her class, or some kid was being a dick on her period. All it takes is one little flush of anger. And what could have been a lunch detention ends up with life imprisonment and some parents mourning for their dead children. God way to go Joe, you just killed some more kids...
Hey..., as long as the number of deaths per year go down, what difference does it make? When the radical Muslims take over your country because of lack of guns, I will be here to say, "Good going Jungelson, you just lost your country." ;)
There are many ways to solve the same problem. It is not possible to pass European style gun regulations in America. We don't go for the socialist shit. So..., another way to solve the problem is to increase the number of people who own guns. ;)
At the very minimum, Gun Control will NOT work in the U.S.
In the aftermath of contemporary gun tragedies, we don’t see new gun legislation. What we do see is a spike in gun sales. After the shooting last summer in Aurora, Colorado, gun sales went up. After the Giffords shooting, there was a surge in purchases of the very Glock semiautomatic that wounded her. Certainly, the firearm industry and lobby will confront some bad P.R. in the coming weeks, but they can likely find succor in an uptick in business. Following the Newtown shooting, Larry Pratt, the Executive Director of Gun Owners for America, suggested that these massacres might be avoided in the future, if only more teachers were armed.
As David Remnick detailed on Friday, both in his Chicago years and as a candidate in 2008, Obama expressed support for greater gun control. After his election four years ago, gun sales shot up in anticipation of forceful new regulation. But the regulation never arrived. When Attorney General Eric Holder suggested in February 2009 that the Administration might seek to reinstate the assault-weapons ban, he was reportedly chastised by Rahm Emanuel, and told to drop the subject.
Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat from Arkansas, joked that the President had become “his own stimulus plan for the gun industry.”
(When the state of California outlawed civilian ownership of the Barrett .50 caliber rifle several years ago, the company’s owner, Ronnie Barrett, suspended all sales of the weapon to California law enforcement, on the grounds that the authorities should not have access to more powerful weaponry than the average citizen. “I told them, ‘I’m cutting you off,’” he said, to applause, in a recent speech.
And many many more. Now I realise not all of these are correct. In fact there is a chance none of them are correct. I am simply illustrating to all you lazy douchebags out there who can't be bothered to come up with your own arguments- These sources are not always correct. Or if you think they are, maybe take a look at some of these ^^
If everyone had a gun, and no one knew who the crazy people were, everyone would be extra nice to everyone else and the crazy people would not have a reason to shoot anyone. You need to think outside the box ;)
If we could snap our fingers and either have all guns disappear or have every citizen have gun, I think most people would choose "disappear". So while it may be hard and take 100 years, the end result of "no one needs a gun" vs "everyone needs a gun" seems much better and more sane.
Think about how popular Halo, Call Of Duty, and Medal Of Honor are. When those kids grow up..., what do you think they'll want to own? And already I know of many women who own their own little arsenal (i.e., multiple guns). And Hollywood glorifies guns. No..., I think most people would choose "to have" ;)
If that's true though, then that means that most gun enthusiasts just want guns for the "fun of it" instead of protection from gun wielding criminals. And if that's true it's hard to argue that having mass shootings is worth it so some people can peruse their "hobby" of arsenal building.
The shooting in the Philippines involved just one victim. Nothing like the massive numbers of victims you get every few months in the U.S. The shooting in the Philippines was also in 1999. How many massacres have you had there in the U.S.?
When I say, "It doesn't work" I mean that it does NOT eliminate gun crime. And that's a problem because if I am going to give up MY freedom, I better get something worth while. MY freedom is VERY EXPENSIVE. I will not give it up for a half ass solution that only reduces gun crime. Especially when there other half ass solutions that also reduce gun crime and I don't have to give up my freedom.
Freedom does not come cheap. If I have to give up MY security for it, then I am willing to pay that price. If security is more important to you, then move to some socialist country. This is a FREE country.
Would you agree that problems have different solutions? What's wrong with improving our ability to identify crazy people? The problem is not the guns. The problem is the crazy people that use them. I don't want to be "punished" because of a FEW crazy people.
How about if we put a chastity belt on both males and females so they can't procreate out of wedlock and oh..., they can't masturbate either..., oh, well..., too bad..., it's for the good of society. Would you feel punished for not being able to touch yourself because of a few irresponsible people? ;)
Maybe we should ban alcohol..., again..., to fix drunk driving. And while we are at it, let's ban fast food and fix obesity. Let's make women wear burkas and fix rape. Let's ban porn and fix..., whatever ;)
The problem with the "crazy people" argument is that we can't always identify the crazy ones. While I can, to some degree, identify mental illness; there are also a range of transient mental conditions which can be implicated in these events. Furthermore, is an intellectual cop out to simply dismiss every mass shooter as "crazy". Andres Brevik was assessed by several psychiatrists and deemed to be NOT mentally ill.
Gun control does not mean that you cannot own a firearm. In Australia, you can still own a firearm; but you cannot own fully or sem-automatic assault weapons which are designed primarily for killing people. You can, however, own a hunting rifle or marksman rifle. These weapons can still be used to kill people. However, they are slower to reload and to prime, thus giving potential victims more time to escape; thereby reducing the body count. Even banning all guns outright still wont prevent these massacres from happening. We can, however, take step to reduce the burden of such shootings.
You say that you don't want to be punished because of the actions of the few. I get that. I think most gun owners are responsible people. However, the victims, the dead and their families also never wanted to be punished for the actions of the few crazy or irresponsible gun owners. Now, who is being punished more? The victims, those killed and their families? Or the shooters who are now limited in the number or type of gun they can own?
Chastity belts...this is called a "strawman" logical fallacy. :-)
When you begin to rely on logical fallacies for your arguments, you forfeit the debate.
Also, Even banning all guns outright still wont prevent these massacres from happening. what we need to make sure everyone has a gun so that they can defend themselves and others ;)
