Firearms Legislation and Gun Violence in Europe: A Review

Introduction and Background

While literature on the relationship between firearm legislation and its impact on firearm-related violence exists, its quantity and quality are questionable. As Duquet and Van Alstein (2015) have shown, "studies investigating the correlations between gun ownership and violent deaths in a purely European context seem to be lacking" (p. 41). While these researchers, after performing their own study of European data, concluded that there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and firearm-related deaths in Europe, "additional variables for possible complicating factors such as unemployment rates, alcohol consumption or criminality rates" were not included in their analysis (Duquet & Van Alstein, 2015, p. 41). Thus their study — one of the foremost studies on firearms, firearm-related violence, and firearm legislation in Europe — indicates that a significant gap remains in the literature regarding the relation of firearm legislation to firearm-related violence, and whether other variables play a significant role in that relationship. As new legislation approaches passage in Europe, questions remain about the efficacy of such measures and what balanced position nation-states should take toward the regulation of firearms amid the security and cultural pressures brought about by the War on Terror.

Firearm legislation is not new in the West. As early as 1594, when the Protestant Queen Elizabeth of England — fearing attack from Catholics — banned wheellock pistols near the palace (Jardine, 2006), firearms have been at the center of controversy. On the one hand, they have been recognized as instruments of protection and their possession deemed a constitutional right in many regions, most notably in the United States. On the other hand, they have been viewed as threats to peace, life, and security. Queen Elizabeth felt that the concealed wheellock endangered her life, though the underlying cause of that fear — serious antagonism between the Protestant and Catholic cultures in England — was more to the point. Guns, therefore, can be seen as a symptom of a much deeper societal problem that runs in two opposite directions at once: firearms can be used for sport, to assert one's rights, and to protect one's home and country, but they can also be used to take life in a malicious manner. They can be used to threaten, harass, undermine, and destabilize.

The question of whether guns are to blame for violence or whether blame should be placed elsewhere is often sidestepped because administrators and leaders have little inclination or ability to address the underlying causes of strife. Their immediate aim is simply to eliminate the possibility of violence — hence restrictions on guns. In England, the Pistols Act of 1903 was the first piece of legislation to restrict the sale of pistols. This was followed by the 1920 Firearms Act, which was partly a response to the flood of weapons hitting the market in the wake of World War I and class uprisings, and partly grounded in the 1919 Paris Arms Convention (Greenwood, 1972, p. 241). The 1937 Firearms Act modified this by raising the legal purchasing age from 14 to 17. Both the Firearms Amendment Act 1988 and the 1997 Firearms Amendment Acts followed massacres in the UK that prompted legislators to restrict firearms sales further. The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 targeted air weapons following steep increases in their use in criminal activity. In short, over the past century the UK increasingly restricted citizens' ability to bear arms. To a large extent, the data indicates that these measures have worked. In 1992, violent crime related to firearms in England stood at 13,341 incidents and peaked in 2003/04 when 24,094 incidents were reported. By 2013/14 that number had dropped to 7,709 (Povey, 2005; ONS, 2015).

Table 1. Firearm-related crime reports in England and Wales.

Other countries have shown less success in addressing gun-related violence through legislation. Italy, France, Greece, Belgium, and Portugal had the highest rates of firearm-related homicides in Europe in 2013, and Greece topped the list in unintentional firearm deaths that same year (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2016). Greece is currently undergoing a destabilizing crisis related to its mounting debt to the EU, which could be viewed as a factor in the population's turn to firearms-related crime. Italy's firearm laws are less restrictive than England's, though firearms are still denied to individuals with criminal records and a license is required to carry, to use for sport, or to use for hunting (Butchart, Mikton, & Krug, 2014). According to the Small Arms Survey of 2007, there are 7 million registered guns in Italy, whose firearms laws fall within the parameters of and are guided by the European Firearms Directive. A comparison between nations could easily prompt one to ask whether the UK's more restrictive gun laws are the main reason its firearm-related violence rates are lower — or whether there is more to the picture than legislation alone. England is much better off economically than either Greece or Italy. Finding literature, surveys, and studies to help answer these questions is the main problem that researchers face (Duquet & Van Alstein, 2015).

This study is therefore faced with many questions — not only about what the relationship between gun legislation and rates of gun violence truly is, but also about how to find the relevant data and the important studies that can shed light on questions such as: Do guns lead to greater rates of violence? Is legislation effective in curtailing gun-related violence? Are there other factors that should be considered when attempting to limit firearms-related deaths? What should effective legislation look like?

The issue is important because there is currently a proposal in the EU to further restrict member states' citizens' access to guns. This proposal has considerable support, and the EU Parliament approved it, setting the stage for new legislation to amend the current European Firearms Directive (NRA-ILA, 2016). Not all countries view this proposal favorably — most notably the Czech Republic, which conducted an assessment of the proposal and found it to contain a number of risk factors that could exacerbate national security, economic stability, and cultural identity (Czech Ministry, 2016). The worry of the Czech Republic, much like those in America who view firearms as both a right and a deterrent to violence, is that new legislation will further destabilize the member state's sense of sovereignty, stability, and order. This paper uses this critical juncture to evaluate the role that legislation should play in discussions of how firearms should be regarded and regulated in European society.

The aim of this research is to investigate the relationship between firearms regulations and the levels of gun-related violence in Europe. The research seeks to establish how well the existing literature addresses the research questions set out below.

The research objectives of this study are to assess the following points:

1) To what extent do rates of gun violence vary in different jurisdictions, Western countries, and European countries? This is examined with respect to (a) firearm ownership, (b) firearm homicides, and (c) suicides.

2) What role do firearm regulations and other factors play in accounting for the different rates? This is examined with a focus on (a) the geopolitical context, (b) the sociological context, and (c) the historical context.

3) What might an effective national strategy to reduce gun violence look like? This is examined from the perspective of (a) education, (b) culture, and (c) legislation.

Methodology

The literature gathered for this study was obtained using a collection methodology that draws on a wider spectrum of sources than the traditional academic database. The idea behind seeking sources of literature on this subject — in an attempt to fill the gap identified by Duquet and Van Alstein (2015) — is to locate data points that may not be included in traditional scholarly databases by employing pertinent academic search engine optimization (ASEO) codes. Many publishers today understand the importance of web publishing and SEO content. To locate adequate source material to answer these questions, a comprehensive web-based search was imperative. Moreover, time constraints required the researcher to gain fast but broad access to a range of studies that could serve as a representative sample of the research subject, further supporting the use of Google Scholar. The chosen methodology allowed the researcher to conduct swift searches using multiple simultaneous keyword and content searches and to quickly produce a manageable set of literature sources for assessment.

The keywords used to search for relevant literature included "firearm regulations," "firearm legislation," "gun legislation EU," "gun violence EU," "firearm homicides EU," "firearm suicides," "gun laws Europe," and "Europe," used in a variety of combinations in Google and Google Scholar. Initial searches produced more than 22,000 hits. When searches were restricted to periodicals published after 2013, the number of returns was reduced to 17,200. When the specific phrase "firearm regulations" was searched in conjunction with the above keywords, 65 returns were produced — a much more manageable figure. Ten duplicates were excluded, bringing the total to 55. Of these, 37 were excluded based on title or abstract, reducing the number to 18. Of the remaining, 6 were excluded based on full-text examination. The remaining 12 articles were considered applicable and relevant to the purposes of the review.

Figure 1. Literature review search process for articles 2013 and later.

To add to this pool of literature and to gain contextual information for a more historical picture, a revised search was conducted for articles dated 2000 and later, using the same search parameters. The search yielded 196 returns. Articles were excluded by title or abstract, duplicates were removed, and the remaining studies were assessed based on full-text relevancy and content. Of these, 8 articles were deemed relevant to the research objectives and were included among the selected literature.

Figure 2. Literature review search process for articles 2000 and later.

The 20 articles gathered from these searches were then used to locate further sources via the references cited therein, producing an extensive collection of material for analysis. One of the most comprehensive web sources available for firearms-related research is GunPolicy.org, hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health. This site compiles thousands of pages of data, charts, and news related to firearms law, violence, and guidance while promoting "the public health model of firearm injury prevention, as adopted by the World Health Organization's Global Campaign for Violence Prevention and the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms" (Alpers, 2017). The university has partnered in this pursuit with organizations ranging from the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin to the Institute for Economics and Peace, the Global Alliance on Armed Violence, and Conflict Armament Research. This site proved to be a valuable resource when used in conjunction with searches conducted in Google Scholar.

The search criteria were determined based on the research aim and research objectives. Keywords were generated using the main subjects of the paper, and articles were selected based on their relevance to these pre-selected keywords. Articles ranged in focus from specific European countries to general European trends. Articles that revisited similar themes — such as guns, gun laws, and suicide — were restricted to one or two representative studies that yielded the most recent findings while conveying a sense of the history of prior research. The majority of articles were therefore selected according to subject criteria and original areas of focus as relating to this study's research aims. For instance, an article on firearm legislation reform in the EU and its impact on firearm-related deaths in Austria was included because of its direct relation to the study, while an article on the detection and policing of gun crime in Europe was included because of its thematic relevance. Inclusion was wholly at the discretion of the researcher, who sought to limit the number of studies examined to a manageable figure while acquiring enough content to conduct an adequate and representative assessment.

Beel, Gipp, and Wilde (2010) have shown that articles obtained via Google Scholar rely on academic search engine optimization (ASEO) codes for visibility, as the platform utilizes a simpler interface than those used by dedicated academic databases such as PubMed. As Schultz (2007) notes, Google Scholar is "not without its flaws" even while it offers researchers "a simple way to access 'peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts, and articles from academic publishers' sites, professional societies, preprint repositories, universities and other scholarly organizations'" (p. 442). However, there is no evidence that data lost through Google Scholar searches would otherwise be found via alternate interfaces and databases. Google Scholar is constantly refining its interface and can serve as "an excellent free tool for scholarly information discovery and retrieval" (Jasco, 2005, p. 208). Because of the cross-disciplinary nature of this study, Google Scholar provided the most immediate approach to accessible material across a broad range of keywords. Schultz (2007) has shown that in at least half the cases of a side-by-side search between Google Scholar and PubMed, Google Scholar produced substantially more unique but relevant returns, indicating that results depend substantially on the application of search terms.

The limitations of the chosen strategy are that searches may not result in the most comprehensive collection of data possible. The strengths are that it provides fast, convenient access via a user-friendly interface to thousands of peer-reviewed articles from a broad range of scholarly and academic journal databases. This broad range of selection is highly suited to a research aim that is itself broad in terms of cross-disciplinary subject matter — one with roots in international law, gun violence, firearms policy, criminology, sociology, political science, geopolitics, and psychology. By utilizing databases such as GunPolicy.org alongside Google Scholar, a better range of data could be compiled to help fill the gap noted by Duquet and Van Alstein (2015).

Variation in Gun Violence Across Europe

The question of variance is important because it highlights the fact that regions within states and within the EU as a whole differ dramatically from place to place in terms of type of gun violence and the extent of gun ownership. The European Firearms Directive of the EU provides member nations with a minimum set of standards for civilian firearm ownership, but beyond this minimum standard European nations are free to establish their own national laws. Countries in Europe that are not part of the EU tend to have the most liberal firearm laws and tend to be in regions historically rife with conflict, such as Serbia, Georgia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina (DW, 2016). The extent to which rates of gun violence vary across European jurisdictions will help to provide a better understanding of how guns are viewed and used by people in these regions and underscore the factors that impact the relationship between gun violence and firearms regulations.

There are numerous reasons why civilians own guns in Europe — sport, hunting, and protection among them. The most comprehensive data on ownership variance comes from the Small Arms Survey (2007), which examines civilian gun ownership rates and connections to violence. As the Small Arms Survey (2007) notes, "in the early days of international small arms research, scholars relied on indirect techniques to approximate the scale of global firearm numbers" (p. 41). Killias (1993) and Killias, Kesteren, and Rindlisbacher (2001) note that firearm suicides are an effective indirect indicator of civilian ownership in the West. The Small Arms Survey (2007) finds that "the ten largest gun-owning societies have roughly 380–480 million civilian firearms, 60–75 per cent of the global total" (p. 46). Germany and France together account for nearly 45 million firearms. Italy is third in Europe with 7 million, followed by Spain with 4.5 million and England and Wales with 3.4 million — though in the UK firearm classifications include air guns (Small Arms Survey, 2007, p. 48).

These numbers are not perfect estimates, and the case of Germany illustrates why it is nearly impossible to obtain an accurate count of civilian-owned firearms. Germany has "a long history of civilian gun ownership, encouraged by militia-based armies in the 19th century, the side effect of two world wars, and interest in hunting and sporting shooting" (Small Arms Survey, 2007, p. 51), and yet it reports "relatively little gun crime" (Small Arms Survey, 2007, p. 51). If Germany's case is taken as an illustration of the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence, it sets a precedent not matched in other regions. In Italy, firearm violence is higher though the number of owned guns is far fewer. The cultural and behavioral differences between the two countries suggest that far more important variables must be examined when considering the relationship between firearm legislation and firearm violence.

In England, homicide rates actually increased following the initial 1996 firearms ban. As the data shows, rates reached their highest in the post-9/11 period, which may be explained by increased tensions, suspicion, mistrust, and anger among differing communities in England. Several studies have found violence to be an increasing problem in English communities with significant Arab populations, citing Islamophobia as a primary driver (Sheridan, 2006; Mantri, 2011; Ciftci, 2012).

Table 2. The rise and fall of firearm-related homicide rates in England.

As Duquet and Van Alstein (2015) show, the regions across Europe with the highest rates of firearm-related homicides are completely different from those with the lowest rates in terms of economic and political stability: "The chance of becoming a victim of gun homicide differs strongly across Europe. The European countries with the highest firearm homicide rates per 100,000 inhabitants are Montenegro, Cyprus, and FYR Macedonia" (Duquet & Van Alstein, 2015, p. 26). In Cyprus, 66% of homicides were committed using firearms; in Montenegro, 93% of homicides involve firearms — by far the highest rate in Europe (Duquet & Van Alstein, 2015, p. 62). Meanwhile, "the European countries with the lowest firearm homicide rates per 100,000 inhabitants are Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, the United Kingdom, Poland, Slovenia, Austria, Denmark and Germany" (Duquet & Van Alstein, 2015, p. 26). A geographical explanation helps to clarify this difference: Montenegro is located in the Balkans in Eastern Europe, a region where war and violence have been woven into the social structure for many years as a result of continual insurrections. Macedonia and Cyprus are both located near this same region and face similar ethnic tensions.

Each year in Europe approximately 4,000 firearm-related suicides are reported, averaging roughly 1 suicide by gun for every 100,000 people across the continent. As Duquet and Van Alstein (2015) point out, this ratio is rather low compared to the United States or to nations in the East. Regional suicide rates vary considerably: Cyprus 33%; Montenegro 38%; Serbia 14%; Austria 17%; Finland 16%; Italy 13%; UK 3%; Germany 7%; France 13%; Spain 5%; Moldova 1%; Sweden 11%; Czech Republic 11% (Duquet & Van Alstein, 2015, p. 62; European Detailed Mortality Database, 2015). The low ratio in the UK can be explained by the country's strict firearm ownership laws. However, the highest rates — in Cyprus and Montenegro — suggest that the same economic and social factors driving high homicide rates in those nations are also factors in their gun-related suicide rates.

Rates of gun-related violence clearly differ across Europe, and legislation may be one explanation for this variance, as multiple studies indicate (Small Arms Survey, 2007; Duquet & Van Alstein, 2015). The lowest rates are found in countries like Moldova, which are particularly rural and still closely aligned with older European cultural traditions. In regions where crises and conflict have become endemic — such as Cyprus and Montenegro — rates of gun-related violence are disproportionately high. In England, the significantly lower rates can be speculated to be at least partly related to the UK's ban on firearms.

England's rates declined after its first legislative ban in the mid-1990s, then surged following 9/11. A more restrictive ban enacted in 2006 was followed by a further decline in rates, indicating that in the UK at least, gun-related violence is impacted by gun regulations. These themes are not isolated and will be explored in more detail in the following chapter, which discusses the geopolitical, sociological, and historical contexts associated with gun violence, firearm legislation, and regional variances.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Key findings show that legislation is only one aspect of what causes gun violence to occur in Europe. Legislation is a variable — but others clearly exist. The increase in firearms-related violence following the West's declaration of the War on Terror is one indication that legislation was not initially capable of preventing firearms violence. However, more restrictive firearms laws in England did correlate with a decline in gun-related violence rates from 2006 onward. There is, however, no concrete evidence that legislation was the primary driver of this decline.

In Germany, gun ownership is deeply embedded in culture, as it is in other regions such as the Czech Republic — yet firearms-related violence rates are relatively low in these countries compared to regions such as Montenegro, where conflict is more deeply rooted in culture. These findings further indicate that legislation is not a primary factor in the reduction or escalation of gun-related violence. A comparison of regions suggests that ethnic structure, cultural norms, economic stability, and political leadership are also factors, and may even be more primary drivers than legislation. Legislation appears to be a form of control, but it is also a manifestation of an underlying culture — of cultural norms and expectations. The Firearms Directive of the EU can therefore be seen as an extension of the underlying European culture's attitudes toward limiting the possibility and risk of gun-related violence in society.

The implications of these findings are that while legislation may be preferred by some leaders as a means to mitigate the risk of firearms-related violence, it is no guarantee, and it is viewed in many regions as an encroachment upon a way of life. Arms have been a large part of many European cultures, especially in Germany and the Czech Republic, and the rates of gun-related violence in these regions are not as high as in others predominantly affected by political and economic instability.

England has shown some tenacity in restricting gun usage, but violence has not disappeared from society and the risk of black-market firearms sales remains — as it does throughout much of Europe, especially as militarism and the War on Terror continue. With the rise of nationalism across the globe and the UK's exit from the EU, greater consideration should be given to understanding the relationship between culture and firearms safety. Legislation may be considered a tool in protecting citizens, but it is by no means the only tool available to leaders and legislators. Just as organizations focus on developing a workplace culture to promote desired values and objectives, national leaders may consider how they can improve their countries' cultures, promote appropriate values, and pursue a policy of education alongside legislation in curbing gun-related violence.

Key recommendations of this study are: (1) for more research to be conducted into the extent to which culture is an impactful variable in the rates of gun violence throughout Europe; (2) for countries to focus on developing legislation that can be policed without sacrificing civil liberties and the right to privacy; and (3) for European nations to consider the impact of continual war and aggression, NATO build-up, Middle East interventions, unmitigated immigration, open-borders policies, trafficking, and the role that blowback can play in negatively impacting civilians' safety. As the 21st century progresses, moods and attitudes will continue to evolve to reflect growing unease with EU policies, already expressed by several political parties throughout Europe — from the pro-Brexit wing in England to the anti-EU faction in the Netherlands to nationalist parties rising in France, Italy, Spain, and elsewhere.

Future research should focus on the relationship between cultural inputs and gun-related violence in Europe, assessing whether culture is a significant predictor of gun violence rates. This could be a valuable area of research as nations begin to look inward for solutions to the problems of violence in society. With the future of the EU increasingly uncertain, regulations may be seen as a less popular tool. If popular movements arise among citizenry to arm themselves in the face of increased immigration and geopolitical pressure, the impact of stricter gun laws could be more damaging than positive, as the Czech Ministry has pointed out. A study focusing on how addressing cultural issues can help reduce the threat of violence in society may therefore be highly worth pursuing.

Legalistic aims and solutions are only effective as long as the public respects the institutions and rule of law responsible for developing, implementing, and overseeing them. Once this respect is lost, the regulations cease to have an effect. Whether this moment has arrived or is in danger of soon arriving is a question that future research may help to clarify. The existing literature has been shown to address the research questions with reasonable adequacy. With the help of databases such as GunPolicy.org and the annual Small Arms Survey, as well as the study by researchers at the Flemish Peace Institute, a thorough examination has been possible. The next study on this subject should focus on the impact of culture and how the promotion of cultural values can help further reduce gun violence in Europe.