Spain. And don’t get me wrong. We do have violent crime here too. And there is a similar/equivalent justifying of violent acts by white men. Usually by conservatives. Somehow if white men gang rape (to put a local example), they try to downplay it and/or justify it. Or blame anything by them.

And we do have guns here, but it is way less common that it seems to be there. That means that our violent people use other weapons. Like knives or axes. Here, violent crime is usually linked to drug traffic, forced prostitution and gender crimes. Now we have a rise in homophobic and racist violent crimes (not deaths). That points to entitlement by the criminals. But that amount to reasons.

The acid attacks you mention in england seems to be “cultural” in the sense that they are usually used against women as a form of “retaliation” for rejecting men. So they seems linked to entitlement.

But my point remains, if criminals/violent people have access to guns, they would do even more damage. Several decades ago, we had “puerto Hurraco mass murder”. We still remember because mass murders are rare here. Not because we are less violent, but because guns are less available. As I said, the key is that someone with an axe can do a lot of damage, but you can try to outrun the man with an axe. And if there are several people, they can even try to overpower him or, at least scatter. You can pursue several people running in opposite directions. But you can shoot them “easily”.

Violent incidents happen, but the kind of weapons easily available to violent people make a difference about how many people are killed before that person is stopped.

Of course I do understand why you feel uncomfortable with the idea that guns are more regulated if you think that white men would have an easy time getting guns while black men would be prevented to have guns to defend themselves from the racist. It makes perfect sense to mistrust a government that has proven to be untrustworthy (and also racist, homophobic and sexist). I’m just pointing out that without guns, the damage a violent men can do is more limited than the damage he can do with semi automatic.

Now, one questions, the regulations you link (Very interesting), are effectively enforced? I mean, they might be difficult to enforce or maybe vary depending on states and actual resources devoted to enforce them. I don’t know, perspective from here is that there is a black market for more powerful guns and people able to build their own guns from other relatively easy accessible parts.

When we read about the vegas shooting, it seemed like the killer was able to build a repeater or something like that. And also prepare the shooting. Here, someone with that kind of weapons would be considered a terrorist and rise suspicions.

I get it is a complex problem and that there is mistrust of the police (earned), but from european perspective, the less guns, the easier it is to keep an eye on them which helps with prevention.