Hacker News Reader

Comment by sp332 | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand your question. Mass shootings seem to be more rare in e.g. Europe. But how does that help anything?

"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."

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Lott-guns-Connecticut-shooti...

"Mass shootings seem to be more rare in e.g. Europe."

History indicates otherwise.

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

I can't downvote you, but that's a useless comment and you know it.

Don't worry. Your cobelievers already did it.

I guess I just don't have the "sophisticated" European point of view that says that millions killed by government don't count.

It's not relevant to the conversation. We're talking about individuals. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... seems to have a lot more action than the part of your page since the late 18th century, so I think you're wrong either way.

It's absolutely relevant, since the purpose of the Second amendment is largely protection against governments, not critters, varmints, or even criminals.

So... your argument is that tightening gun control would lead to more wars?

The death toll from the European wars is in the millions.

In addition to the wars per se, European governments have killed millions of their own citizens, and they've been at it for centuries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com