Just looking at the number of guns is very shortsighted and makes it sound you're focusing on "punishing sinful people" instead of making reasoned policy decision.
Belgium:
"Until 2006, Belgium had surprisingly lax gun control laws. After a man shot two innocent people, however, the nation become increasingly concerned with the illegal flow of firearms. The 2006 legislation requires gun permits to be renewed more frequently and sought to prevent the impulsive purchase of guns by requiring prospective gun owners to go through a three-month process which includes an extensive police screening. Six years later, in 2012, the European Union passed regulation aimed at interrupting the transportation of guns across borders by requiring exporters to obtain a special license.
Today in Belgium, it's not easy to own any type of gun, unless it's a rifle or shotgun. The nation prohibits the private possession of fully automatic weapons, and permits ownership of semi-automatic weapons only in certain case scenarios. Furthermore, the private possession of handguns is only allowed after obtaining special permission from the government. In the country, long guns, such as rifles and shot guns, are the only guns not prohibited by the state. According to GunPolicy.org, these regulations categorize Belgium as a country that has "restrictive" gun control laws."
https://www.bustle.com/articles/149385-what-are-brussels-gun...
Czech Republic:
"The most recent statistics show that on a per-capita basis Czechs own about one-tenth the number of guns Americans.... Still, owning a gun in the Czech Republic isn't so easy. Permits are for 10 years and are reviewed after five years. People have to pass a written and practical test, as well as a medical check that includes mental health, and a clean criminal record...
Mass shootings are rare in the Czech Republic, but not unknown. In 2019, seven people plus the gunman were killed in Ostrava, and in 2015, eight people plus the gunman were killed in Uherský Brod. There was also a case in 2009 with four victims plus the gunman."
https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/how-does-gun-owners...
"The most recent statistics show that on a per-capita basis Czechs own about one-tenth the number of guns Americans."
The Czech Republic has 10% the per capita gun ownership of the US, and some moderate controls on ownership, and suffers from occasional mass shootings. That seems to me consistent with the idea there's a relationship between gun ownership, and its lax regulation, and mass shootings.
The Czech Republic has less ownership, a bit more regulation, so has less mas shootings. But it still has them because those values are not 0.
Also, use of gun in self-defense is way less permissive then in USA. The stuff that pass as self defense in USA simply would not in Czech - you truly have to have no other choice.
1. You must be (or believe you are) in imminent danger of harm
2. Your response must be proportional to the threat
3. You must not be initial aggressor
4. Your decisions must be reasonable based on the information you had available to you
A few states also impose what they call a "duty to retreat", which basically means you must have exhausted all safe avenues of retreat before resorting to self-defense. Most states have removed such requirements because determining whether or not that criteria is met is really hard and doesn't really add much to the other four criteria.
Whether a gun was used doesn't really matter: dead is dead. Using a gun doesn't make them more dead. If you were justified to use deadly force, then the means shouldn't really matter.
[1] I am not a lawyer, but my knowledge of self-defense law comes from attorney Andrew Branca and his book Law of Self Defense
> Whether a gun was used doesn't really matter: dead is dead. Using a gun doesn't make them more dead. If you were justified to use deadly force, then the means shouldn't really matter.
First, gun heightens chance of someone dying. But yes, you can shoot to wound to stop attack. But second, there are special laws that say how and when you can use the gun itself - so legally the gun or not does matter.
A gun is considered deadly force in the US, and thus would only be justified when facing a deadly force threat.
> But yes, you can shoot to wound to stop attack.
That is not really a thing. Often people don't die when they are shot, but you can't realistically have a goal of only shooting to wound. You shoot to stop the attack.
> But second, there are special laws that say how and when you can use the gun itself - so legally the gun or not does matter.
Can you give some examples? It's not obvious to me what such laws would be or why they would be beneficial.
In my experience people who argue it was unjustified usually are lacking some key facts (most of which were available the night of the riot).
"Anglo" culture can support it just fine. The U.K. actually had lower violent crime rates before they banned guns. The fact that they felt the need to ban knives in London has very little to do with "Anglo" behavior.
Likewise, most places in the U.S.have rates of gun violence comparable to Belgium or Switzerland.
Knives (in general) are not banned in London. Some types of knives are outlawed in the UK.