After Newtown, the case for gun control seems irresistible. Except that facts, worldwide, do not validate it.
Either employing long-term wisdom or momentary political acumen, President Barack Obama was right last week not to mix up an overwhelming feeling of grief and mourning over the Newtown tragedy with the classic debate about gun control. Still, the question has been raised by pundits like Jeffrey Sachs and political leaders like Dianne Feinstein, and will inevitably be raised again and again: since massacres happen, and are usually perpetrated with firearms, is it not reasonable to repeal the Second Amendment, or at least to interpret it in the most restrictive way?
Jeffrey Sachs contends that John Howard, the iconic conservative prime minister of Australia, when faced in 1996 with a killing spree in Port-Arthur, Tasmania (35 casualties), introduced federal gun-control legislation, and that it worked. Indeed, the country has been spared another Port-Arthur ever since then.
But there was at least one multiple killing case: the Monash University killing in 2002 where a foreign student shot seven people and killed two. Moreover, Sachs disregards the fact that there was no significant decrease in Australia since 1996 regarding global levels of crime, violence, and homicide. Restrictions on legally purchased and owned weapons simply induced would-be killers to resort to black-market purveyors, or to turn to other ways of killing.
The same is true of many other countries. Most Americans may not be aware of it, but attacks on children and teenagers are nowadays as prevalent in China — a country where ordinary citizens are not allowed to own firearms, even selectively — as in the United States.
No less than 21 children and teenagers were killed in China at school premises by adult intruders using knives and hammers over the past three years, and about one hundred were injured. The latest reported case happened exactly the same day — Friday, December 14 — as the Newtown multiple killing: a man randomly stabbed 22 children at an elementary school in Chenpeng, a village in the Henan province. None of the victims died. But it was more a matter of good luck than anything else.
Democratic countries with selective gun-control regimes are not immune to actual or attempted massacres, including massacres of schoolchildren or students. France is still reeling from the onslaught on a Jewish school in Toulouse last spring. Mohamed Merah, the jihadist murderer, was equipped with both an automatic gun and a handgun. His intention was clearly to use the automatic gun in order to kill as many children and teachers as possible. When he realized that this weapon was jammed, he switched to the handgun, and thus killed “only” three preteens and one teacher.
There were other cases in France. Back in 2002, a depressive humanitarian militant, Richard Durn, entered the Nanterre City Hall and shot one by one the 27 members of the local City Council. Eight died on the spot ; nineteen were wounded and managed to survive. Even earlier, in 1993, failed entrepreneur Eric Schmitt took a whole kindergarten hostage in Neuilly. Although he was equipped with guns and explosives, he envisioned cutting the throats of at least six of the children. RAID, the French police’s special branch, moved in before he could act.
Norway is another democratic country with restrictive gun regulations. That did not prevent Anders Behring Breivik from randomly shooting students on Utoya island near Oslo in 2011, and killing 69 of them.
A comparison between world weapons statistics and world homicide statistics is even more intriguing. Unsurprisingly, the United States comes first in terms of weapons, with 88.8 weapons for 100 residents. However, its intentional homicide rate is not horrendous by international standards: 4.2 homicides for 100,000 residents.
This compares against 10.2 for Russia, 16.9 for Mexico, 31.8 for South Africa, and 45.1 for Venezuela — countries that, all of them, have under 15 weapons per 100 residents.
The homicide rate in the United States is even lower when firearm-only intentional homicides are taken into account: 3.2 per 100,000.
What about the countries that follow the United States on the weapons-owning index?
The second country, Serbia, reports 58.2 guns for 100 residents; Serbia’s homicide rate is very low: 1.2. The third country, Yemen, where the guns to residents ratio is 54.8 per 100, the homicide rate is 4.2, same as in the U.S. The fourth country, Switzerland, has 45.7 guns per 100 residents, and a very low 0.7 homicide rate.
One may infer from such data that homicide, including massacres, is not a matter of hardware but rather of software: weapons are not conducive to violence; what makes them dangerous is a violence-oriented culture.
A way to double check this assumption is to look into regional statistics where they are available.
Clearly, there are differences in America from state to state, both in terms of gun control and of homicide. There is not much correlation, however, between gun control, gun availability, and homicide. But there is a correlation between a low homicide rate and a vibrant community life. Utah and New Hampshire are the two least homicidal states in the United States, with, respectively, 1.3 and 0.8 homicides per 100,000 residents. So far, none of them is tilting toward gun control. But both of them are based, in their respective way, on strong community values.
© Michel Gurfinkiel & PJMedia, 2012
Michel Gurfinkiel is the Founder and President of the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute, a conservative think-thank in France, and a Shillman/Ginsburg Fellow at Middle East Forum.
Tout ce cirque pour faire des USA ce qu’est devenu la France ; un pays sur-armé par des islamistes et si possible désarmé du coté des civils américains !!
La tuerie de Newton, nous révolte. En effet, qui peut rester insensible devant la mort de 20 enfants ?
Mais n’est-ce pas un faux-débat, un débat tronqué, que de culpabiliser la vente des armes ?
La vente d’armes est interdite en France, soit. Que penser, alors, des meurtres, à Marseille et des exécutions en Corse ?
Cette interdiction a-t-elle pesé sur Mohamed Mérah, et bien d’autres ?
Est-ce que cela a interdit l’assassinat de l’avocate marseillaise par la famille Azziez ?
Est-ce que cela a interdit l’assassinat de deux femmes-gendarmes, dans le Var ?
Est-ce que la possession d’une arme quelconque, que ce soit un pistolet ou un couteau, permet le passage à l’acte ? Que cet acte soit prémédité ou résultant d’un coup de folie passagère ? Non !
Est-ce que l’homme qui a assassiné son père et ses deux jeunes frères en Savoie possédait une arme ? Non.
Est-ce que Fayçal Fakraoui possédait une arme à feu, pour tuer sa femme et ses deux enfants ? Non. Un simple couteau de cuisine a suffi, tout comme cet employé de restaurant à Castres qui a poignardé trois collègues.
Est-ce que Kevin et Sofiane, à Echirolles, ont été tués par des armes à feu ? Non !
La possession d’une arme à feu ne justifie pas le passage à l’acte. Celui qui a l’intention de se procurer une arme n’éprouve aucune difficulté, surtout en France. 1500 euros pour une kalachnikov dans les quartiers-nord de Marseille, quelques centaines d’euros pour un fusil à pompe dans le quartier « chaud » de Nice, ou un pistolet à Barbès.
le problème, c’est que seule la racaille peut se les procurer. Par contre, l’honnête citoyen se fait tuer sans même avoir le droit de se défendre…S’il se défend, il sera condamné.
Si un voyageur ayant assisté au viol, il y a quelques années, d’une jeune femme gardien de la paix par trois loubards, dans un RER, avait été armé, il aurait été en mesure de les abattre. Mais…il aurait été condamné par la justice française !
En France, seule, la racaille peut tuer. Même la police, est dans l’impossibilité de se défendre sans avoir à se justifier. De plus, bien souvent, les policiers sont traduits en justice par les assassins ou leurs familles.
Posséder une arme donne plus de valeur à une vie que l’on sait si facile à perdre.
La différence entre posséder une arme pour se défendre et posséder une arme pour tuer fait toute la différence.
En France, ceux qui possèdent une arme, sont ceux qui tuent : Une arme ne tue pas. C’est celui qui l’utilise, qui tue !
Bien résumé…
et je rajouterai ça :
COLUMBINE STUDENT’S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER!!
Guess our national leaders didn’t expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee. What he said to our national le…aders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.
They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:
« Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.
« The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.
« In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA – because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent
I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy — it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.
Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You’ve stripped away our heritage,
You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question « Why? »
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!
« Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.
What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws.
Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.
« As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him.
To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen! »
– Darrell Scott
Do what the media did not – – let the nation hear this man’s speech. Please share this with your FB friends!