Massacres Often Bring Tough Gun Controls

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rusher

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
156
Location
Gaston,NC
This story floored me on the one sided biased and misguided propaganda aswell as the Canada, Britain and Australia gun free haven references.



Massacres Often Bring Tough Gun Controls

By WILLIAM J. KOLE
Associated Press Writer

After a loner armed with assault weapons turned a scenic resort into a mass of mangled bodies and thrashing injured in 1996, Australia took quick and decisive action. Twelve days later, the government pushed through a tough ban on semiautomatic rifles.

Australia, which had been bloodied by 13 mass shootings in the 15 years that preceded the slaughter in Port Arthur, Tasmania, hasn't seen one since.

Gun control proponents say the Australian experience, and more modest successes in other nations that enacted strict gun controls after suffering mass shootings, could serve as examples to U.S. lawmakers dealing with the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre.

"Countries that have managed to thwart this kind of gun violence have thrown up multiple barriers," said Alun Howard, policy officer for the International Action Network on Small Arms, a London-based group campaigning to end the abuse of light weapons.

"Of course, no system is perfect. Somebody may slip through multiple barriers," he said. "But if you place several barriers in the path of unsuitable gun owners, you have more chances of preventing them from committing violent acts."

In Washington, House Democratic leaders said they are working with the National Rifle Association to strengthen laws aimed at keeping mentally ill people from buying guns. The NRA, however, declined to comment on whether it thinks the tougher approach taken by other countries would work in the U.S.

Britain cracked down after gun enthusiast Michael Ryan massacred 16 people and wounded 13 others in 1987 in the rural English town of Hungerford. The slaughter led to a ban on semiautomatics like Ryan's Kalashnikov rifle.

In 1998, two years after suicide gunman Thomas Hamilton used four legally owned handguns to slay 16 children and a teacher at a kindergarten in Dunblane, Scotland, Britain extended the ban to handguns.

Today, under laws that make it illegal for private citizens to own anything larger than a .22-caliber and subject them to thorough background checks, Hamilton would have a difficult time obtaining the guns he used in Dunblane: two .357-caliber Smith & Wesson revolvers and a pair of 9-mm Browning pistols.

"I feel very safe," said Marion Collins, a college lecturer in Edinburgh. "Virginia Tech happened because guns are so accessible in America. I don't understand why they continue to allow this situation."

Britain has one of the world's lowest gun homicide rates - 0.04 slayings per 100,000 people, according to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey for 2004. That puts Britain on par with Japan, where the rate is 0.03 per 100,000.

By contrast, the United States has a rate roughly 100 times higher: 3.42 gun murders per 100,000 people, the survey said.

The U.S. ranked 13th highest out of 112 countries, according to a 2006 study by Wendy Cukier, a professor at Ryerson University in Canada who writes on violence prevention strategies. It appears in a book she co-wrote, "The Global Gun Epidemic: From Saturday Night Specials to AK-47s."

Peter Squires, a criminologist at Britain's University of Brighton, said there are significant cultural differences between his country and the U.S. that would make it hard to disarm American citizens.

"We are very much a paternalistic, collective society," he said. American society is "more individual" and has a deeply ingrained sense of "a right and duty to self-defense," he said.

Jan Dizard, a professor of sociology at Amherst College in Amherst, Mass., and editor of "Guns in America," a collection of essays on America's gun culture, agrees. "Gun laws are not going to make us like Japan," he said.

Even so, Dizard contends tighter restrictions can lower the risk of massacres. "You can squeeze access and increase waiting periods, and that will reduce school shootings," he said.

So would the Virginia Tech shooting have been averted if the U.S. had tighter gun control? Nicholas Marsh, an expert on small weapons at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway, isn't so sure.

"I think it's very difficult to state that if the law had been different, it wouldn't have happened," he said. "Obviously, if someone is that determined to get a gun, in most countries it's not that difficult."

But Marsh, an advocate of basic gun controls, says making it harder to walk into a shop and walk out with a gun could make a difference.

Tough laws, however, haven't been foolproof.

Britain's gun homicides have gone up and down in recent years despite its tougher laws.

In 1998, when the Dunblane-inspired handgun ban took effect, there were 49 gun homicides, Britain's Home Office says. Firearm homicides spiked at 95 in 2001, dropped to 68 in 2003, rose again the next year to 77, and have declined steadily since. Last year, there were 46.

Canada overhauled its laws after gunman Marc Lepine killed 14 women and himself at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique college in 1989. It's now illegal to possess an unregistered handgun or any kind of rapid-fire weapon.

Canada also requires training, a personal risk assessment, two references, spousal notification and criminal record checks. Government figures suggest the measures have been at least a partial success: Canada's gun homicides have plunged more than 50 percent since 1991, when the changes took effect, dropping from 240 that year to 138 in 2003.

Yet Kimveer Gill still managed to obtain a Beretta semiautomatic rifle and two other weapons he used in last September's shooting at Montreal's Dawson College. Gill killed a young woman and himself and wounded 19 people.

Although Japan restricts handguns to police officers and others who can prove they need weapons for their jobs, it has suffered a recent spate of gangland shootings. That violence, including last week's murder of the mayor of Nagasaki, prompted Japan this week to adopt even stricter controls aimed at stemming the inflow of foreign guns.

Germany has also had mixed results since toughening its gun laws in 2002, the year an alienated former pupil killed a dozen teachers and four others at a high school in Erfurt.

Authorities raised the legal age for owning recreational firearms from 18 to 21, outlawed pump-action shotguns and required buyers to undergo psychological screening. Yet in 2003, the number of gun homicides jumped to 252 from 243 the previous year. It has declined since, to 228 in 2004 and 212 in 2005, the last year for which figures are available.

Germany's crackdown didn't stop a teenager last November from opening fire with a pistol, a longer-barreled gun and a small-caliber rifle at his former school in Emsdetten, wounding five people before killing himself.

In Erfurt, the Virginia Tech massacre has reopened old wounds and revived a sense of resignation.

"There's no way to rid the world of such horrors," said Wolfgang Miltner, a psychologist helping survivors cope in the German town. "Not even if you toughen the gun laws as much as possible."

---

Associated Press writers Sarah DiLorenzo in New York, Rob Gillies in Canada, Ben McConville in Scotland and Jochen Wiesigel and David Rising in Germany contributed to this report.

---

On the Net:

Small Arms Survey: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org

International Action Network on Small Arms: http://www.iansa.org

University of Sydney gun law study: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/6/365

Small Arms/Firearms Education and Research Network: http://www.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/index.html

Impact of gun violence: http://www.prio.no/page/preview/preview/9429/47012.html

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
 
I'm a little surprised at the lack of replies to your thread. It's very good food for thought. In fact the whole tragic episode is fascinating, taken from a political standpoint.

What fascinates me the most (and only in a clinical way -- my prayers go out to the familes of the victims and the family of the shooter) about the VT massacre is how the issue of gun control has really not come to the full forefront. It's been teased and...how to say this tactfully...almost "baited" by the press, but no one is biting. The Dems/Libs are not saying "ban handguns!" and the RKBA crowd are not deafening in their defense of handgun ownership. Sure, a few people are saying "the easy procurement of handguns by a deranged individual means we need stricter laws" and, conversely, the handful of RKBA people (like myself) are saying "if only someone had been packing in one of those classrooms, much more bloodshed could have been prevented". But, in my opinion, there's something shifting here. I think the mindset of the public may be changing. And -- at least at this early point in time -- it seems like a positive thing for our cause. How can you deny that the day would've ended much differently had there been a proficient, heroic, CCW'er on campus WITH their sidearm? You can't deny it. And so far, no one is. And in the final analysis, that is a step in the right direction.
 
I'm a little surprised at the lack of replies to your thread.

I think maybe we're all a little burned out right now.

As for my own opinion, one of the definitions of insanity is constantly repeating the same action and expecting a different result. We've tried "Gun Control Laws, maybe now it's time to try "Personal Defense Rights".
 
I also think we are saving our strength for the big hurdles yet to come, including the NRA's collusion with these lunatics. I want to read the legislation before I start calling for LaPierre's head, but I have also just about had it with talking to Anti-Constitutional idiots who blame the NRA for 9/11.
 
here's an interesting rebuttal to that, by the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

So if you believe the BBC article, then the AP article is full of it.
 
In 1998, when the Dunblane-inspired handgun ban took effect, there were 49 gun homicides, Britain's Home Office says. Firearm homicides spiked at 95 in 2001, dropped to 68 in 2003, rose again the next year to 77, and have declined steadily since. Last year, there were 46.

Is that so?

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

“Table 1.03 Offences currently1 recorded as homicide by apparent method of killing and sex of victim: England and Wales 1995 to 2005/06″

Shooting homicides:
1995: 66
1996: 47
1997: 58
1998: 52
1999: 46
2000: 61
2001: 72
2002: 97
2003: 75
2004: 68
2005: 75
2006: 50

Funny. The smallest number I see there is from before the ban. And where is this post-2003 "steady decline" they speak of?

Australia, which had been bloodied by 13 mass shootings in the 15 years that preceded the slaughter in Port Arthur, Tasmania, hasn't seen one since.

Except for, you know, the one which took place six years after the ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

Two dead, five more wounded, and it wasn't stopped by a law. It was stopped by a brave teacher and a student tackling the gunman.
 
Last edited:
I'm gettin' tough on my own gun control. I'm pretty good with the sand bag thing, the Weaver stance, and the bi-pod on the rifle for shooting in the crossed legs seated position. But I'm needin' better control with the weak hand, one handed, and off hand shooting. I'm practicing for these "real life" shooting styles and being tough on my self is paying off!

That's what tough gun control is all about. It's learning how to shoot when the going gets tough.

Woody
 
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York.
Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

And that's in NEW YORK! Wanna know what the rate of home invasions, violent crime and homicides is here in Elbert County, Colorado, where guns outnumber people about six to one?
 
One thing we do have to take into account is the country has about 70 million people in the space of a state roughly the size of colorado itself. Most of these are crammed packed into cities in areas covering less than half this space since large parts of Scotland and Wales are hardly settled. Colorado has a population of 4 million amongst the whole state. Imagine if your Elbert County with its population of 22,000 suddenly was suddenly closer to 400,000. Add to that many of them being poor, with a lack of work. The crime would shoot up in that region too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top