My take on why gun-restriction works in Europe but not in the US

[hogdogs]

But I'm still skeptical about how an army of untrained can effectively counter and subdue a trained and well armed army.

You miss history class, buddy?

The USA was basically a bunch of RAG TAG farmers with guns in their hands and burlap sacks on their feet when we sent the redcoats home for more tea!

It wasn't our ability to form a line of armed gents for the "volley" of lead balls that lead to victory...

It was our hunting ability that put our men in the trees, fence rows and between buildings waging guerrilla warfare against the most powerful army on earth that beat england from our shores...

Same would go for a euro population that had 200+ years of gun ownership and hunting to survive...

Is that fair, do you think? BB doesn't make the laws in the UK any more than you make the laws here

No he doesn't but I would give the same argument to a fellow countryman who thinks as BB does...

So in the UK a 110 woman doesn't need a gun to protect herself from a brutal 230 pound rapist / killer?
In my opinion a taser/stun-gun would be a better choice. easier to use and not risky of killing others in the process.

Easier to use? How do you figure? Easier to use than a 6 shot revolver? Easier to use on 3 attackers than a 6 shooter? How about accidentally dropped in a bucket of water? Then retrieved by the 110 pound female? Would you rather your momma/wife/sister pull out the stungun/wire fed tazer or a real piece of self defense weaponry?

BB, Most of us American gun owners think a stungun type "less than lethal" item is good for you cops to use rather than kill every punk who resists... But we tend to steer folks from such devices designed to preserve the well being of an attacker who doesn't have the well being of the victim in mind...

Brent

[Hardcase]

There are also some governmental peculiarities at work, I think. European citizens seem (at least to me) to be more accepting of a paternalistic government that has a responsibility to take care of their needs and regulate their behavior than American citizens do - it's not just gun control.

Historically, a paternalistic central government has been difficult (although certainly not impossible) to establish in the United States because of the relationship between the state governments and the federal government. I think that the differences between our rather unique system of somewhat adversarial state and federal governments and the strong European federal governments makes for some misunderstandings about how things "ought" to be.

Of course, having a Constitutional right to own arms sets the bar at a certain level.

[JohnKSa]

...gun crime is virtually non-existent compared to other forms of crime.

For the sake of argument, let's take that point as a given. That still doesn't mean anything unless at least a reasonable number of the following statements are true.

The crime rate overall is reduced compared to the levels of crime in the U.K. before the restrictions were implemented.

The crime rate overall is lower than the levels in the U.S. or in other similar nations where there are no such restrictions.

The violent crime rate is reduced compared to the violent crime levels in the U.K. prior to enacting the restrictions.

The violent crime rate is lower compared to the U.S. or other similar nations with gun-friendly laws.

The murder rate is reduced compared to the murder levels in the U.K. prior to enacting the restrictions.

The murder rate is reduced compared to the U.S. or other similar nations with gun-friendly laws.

If none of those things are true, or even if most of them are false, it really makes no difference if there's no gun crime. There's no practical benefit in reducing one specific type of crime if criminals are still able accomplish their goals via other means.

[shortwave]

hogdogs posted:

My moma illegally toted a revolver in her purse...

...and no doubt was not afraid to defend her own regardless of the law of that time.

I've got the old 'topbreak' 32 S&W my grandma toted in the front pocket of her apron from as early as the depression era till she passed.

Today, I'm proud to say my mom (age 77), sister, daughter, three sister-n-laws and two wives of nephews all have their ccp's.

Not only have the men , but the women in this country were/are also instrumental in the fight that has changed the laws and insured our RTKBA. Something that was once in danger in the US and had it not been for US citizens taking a stand against some of the powers-t-be, we probably wouldn't have the gun rights we have today or the rights we're going to gain in the future.

[hogdogs]

...and no doubt was not afraid to defend her own regardless of the law of that time.

With a quickness... with a quickness buddy!

She would first exude some severely advanced diplomacy and tact... if that failed she was one ready woman!

It was her that explained the whole "turn the other cheek" deal... She said "But son, you only have two cheeks and you ain't no punchin' bag... Only turn it once and then you go all country boy on 'em..."

When it came to her offspring (I really was a step child but don't think that gave a person a free pass)... I pity the poor soul who really crossed her. If anyone thought she was a heavy handed parent... they oughta worry what she was capable of with a person she cared naught for.

She really wasn't the "gunny" type at all but rise in violent crime against gals had her ask dad to teach her to shoot with his Ruger gen I .22 pistol and then she "acquired" the .38... Shot it 6-12-18 times (no memory of more) and in it went in her purse... come to think of it I think she started with one box of shells... a 20/25 count or a fifty count... she fired all but 6 in practice and the last 6 were in the pistol...

My point? Simple. Not every self defense minded American is a devoted gun lover. Some just want to live.

Brent

[azyogi]

While looking for my remote for the TV, I caught a news story of a guy dressed only in his briefs wonder down an English street bashing out windows with a shovel. All caught on CCV [street cams] when the police showed up he gave up right away. The announcer then said he had 273 previous convictions. IMHO that is 270 too many to be out of jail, or prison. So long as the courts practice catch and release social reform instead of justice that will happen. With or without guns some folk just belong behind bars.

[manta49]

I Will ask the question again British bobby. You stated that the metropolitan police had basic firearms training this is news to me, when did the met start giving basic firearms training to officers. A failure to reply will leave me thinking you are making it up as you go along.

As for armed response units the clue is in the name response usually to late.

Unarmed police came across Derrick Bird on his shooting spree in cumbria but had to withdraw alloying bird to continue with his shooting spree.

If it had of happened in N Ireland he would have being stopped by the first officers came across him.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/10214661

[Webleymkv]

The crux of the issue is really much deeper than guns. The heart of the issue is the rights of the public vs. the rights of the individual. Proponents of gun-control expouse the supposed right of the public to live in a crime-free society and tell us that strict gun control laws work towards that goal. As has been pointed out, however, gun control laws cannot be demonstrated to have a meaningful correlation to the overall violent crime rate.

Opponents of strict gun control laws, including most of us here, look at it from this perspective: regardless of how strict laws are and the severity of punishments for breaking said laws, violent crime still occurs. I am a firm proponent of individual right as well as individual responsibility. I understand that no one, including the police, can protect me from violence 100% of the time. As such, I believe that the ultimate responsibility for one's own personal safety rests upon the individual. Because I bear ultimate responsibility for my own safety, I should be able to own and use the most effective tools to guarantee that safety. By removing or severely restricting my access to firearms, which are the most effective means of self-defense, the government has stripped away a good deal of my individual rights while providing collective rights that are questionable at best.

[ClayInTx]

British Bobby,

Perhaps the London riots have offered the UK citizens a chance to do it right. Instead of deploring gun ownership you might now start a petition to do something about your rights.

It should begin with:
When in the course of human events…..

[shortwave]

IMO, when you strip or have a hand in stripping a person of their basic rights of survival, if something happens to that person, you have a portion of their blood on your hands.

That also goes for government passing laws restricting the people they govern, stripping them of the rights to do the same. The enforcers of these laws hired by the government have to accept a portion of the victims blood also.

BB,

I asked if you had ever witnessed a violent crime scene in which you looked at the grotesque aftermath of the innocent victim/victims and asked yourself if things may have been different had the victims had the opportunity to be armed and defend themselves.

Knowing you are not obligated to publicly answer that question, if you have witnessed this, or in the future, you have the misfortune of witnessing a scenario such as this, I would ask that somewhere along the line you take the time to at least think about this discussion. Surely after witnessing something like this, you'll have many sleepless nights for years to come. That would be an excellent time for you to think about your stance on restrictive gun laws for good citizens in your community.

[BGutzman]

Actually I did a college report last year on the UK and violent crime and what was interesting was.

Violent crime went way up after the laws were imposed because criminals knew homeowners in general would not and could not have arms so breaking into the house or apartment became safer for criminals.

Violent crime actually rose significantly in the UK but due to policy changes in what the UK considers to be "reportable" violent crime for the purpose of gathering statistics the government was able to create some reports of crime going down even though independent and less biased groups disagreed strongly.

The methods the UK uses for reporting violent crime and the policies that mandate what is and isnt a violent crime are not consistently utilized and in some cases seemingly ignored to get a result the police department and the government wants rather than any sort of honest appraisal that even a average 8th grade student could compile. (Not to be insulting but simply the truth of what I found)

Seperately from my report:

Further what much of Europe seems to forget over and over to the cost of millions of lives at various periods of history is how does the ordinary citizen protect themselves when a government goes corrupt or no longer cares what the people wish. If only the military and limited segments of police have most the arms how is the average citizen to demand anything of a corrupt government or a government that decideds to impose its will.

We can pretend that no modern government in europe would ever do such a thing and yet a closer examination shows continuing ethenic murders by governments and people being dealth with by the end of a government barrel here and there.

When any people overall have no arms, and the government imposes its will the people have no voice and no ultimate way to resist and when and if that sad day every comes they will simply be slaves to the government and it happens.... See North Korea, China etc..

[FrankenMauser]

Further what much of Europe seems to forget over and over to the cost of millions of lives at various periods of history is how does the ordinary citizen protect themselves when a government goes corrupt or no longer cares what the people wish. If only the military and limited segments of police have most the arms how is the average citizen to demand anything of a corrupt government or a government that decideds to impose its will.

The first thing that comes to mind as an example: Ireland.
They took weapons from the Police and Military, by force; then used those weapons against the oppressive forces. Had a few men not sacrificed their lives, to help arm the freedom fighters, things would have turned out much differently.

[johnbt]

Rioters fired at unarmed officers...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-2...?section=world

Thug shot police helicopter...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

Something is seriously wrong when the bad guys have guns and the police can't, or won't, respond in kind.

Now, who wants to try to explain to me how the police are going to protect the unarmed citizen when they can't protect themselves? Seriously, don't bother.

And somebody get Joss Stone a handgun in case some more sword wielding morons decide to attempt to kill her at home. (Not that she'd take it.)

Gun control does not work. The entire idea is completely delusional.

John

[armoredman]

That's pretty much how I feel.

[shortwave]

armoredman,

You just proved that age old saying:

"A picture is worth a thousand words"

My sentiments exactly.

[Tom Servo]

Violent crime went way up after the laws were imposed because criminals knew homeowners in general would not and could not have arms so breaking into the house or apartment became safer for criminals

Can you cite sources for this? I spoke with an English journalist who promised me the relevant stats, but he never followed up, and I've been unable to track them down on my own.

My understanding is that the police massage the statistics before they're released to the general public.

[armoredman]

Does this help?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...e-in-europe.do

[BGutzman]

Can you cite sources for this? I spoke with an English journalist who promised me the relevant stats, but he never followed up, and I've been unable to track them down on my own.

My understanding is that the police massage the statistics before they're released to the general public.

If I can still find it I will post the whole report, its a good read in my opinion..

[BGutzman]

Here Tom is my final Thesis although this WAS NOT the last version of it and it contains a few typo errors, the information and references are good and can lead you to volumes of information on the situation in the UK and elsewhere.

I did not re-read the entire text so keep in mind this was intended and used for a college class and not actually intended for posting to this or any other forum but I think whats in it is valuable....

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

...Can you cite sources for this? I spoke with an English journalist who promised me the relevant stats, but he never followed up, and I've been unable to track them down on my own....

Tom, see post 47. Is that the sort of thing you're looking for?

[Tom Servo]

Thanks, guys!

Apparently, there was a report circulating in 1999 that confirmed a tremendous increase in firearms crime in London following the 1997 ban and roundup. A guy from the Daily Mail alluded to it while we were talking a couple of years back, but he never followed up on my requests.

Nevertheless, the materials provided in the last few posts are very, very helpful.

[Chris_B]

What I mean is that preventing the general public in the UK and Greece specifically from owning guns has meant that gun crime is virtually non-existent compared to other forms of crime.

Boldface by me

I think the crux here is the concept of "gun crime". I do not subscribe to the idea that there is "gun crime", any more than there is "knife crime" or "stone crime" or "closed fist crime". We have for instance, assault and murder. I believe that a concept like "gun crime" is merely a sensationalist term

Laws already exist to make violence against innocents a serious breach in any country I can name. I do not see the value of breaking up the offense by means that the offense used.

Is a stabbed dead rape victim any superior to a rape victim who was clubbed to death? Also, how were the crimes of two different types? The means used to come to the end may be important in an investigation but I question their value concerning the end result; dead is still dead

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think this piece by Pajamas Media sums it up well:

"It all comes down to this: Is there an inalienable right to self-defense? If there is, each man has indisputable, inestimable value, value that he may rightly preserve even if the life of another man is forfeit. A man may kill another in lawful self-defense even if the policy preferences of the state would prefer his death. If a right to self-defense actually exists, it is in a very real sense the highest law of the land and all lesser laws must pay it deference. It fundamentally defines the social contract, the nature of the relationship between man and the state.

But if there is no such inalienable right, the entire nature of the social contract is changed. Each man’s worth is measured solely by his utility to the state, and as such the value of his life rides a roller coaster not unlike the stock market: dependent not only upon the preferences of the party in power but upon the whims of its political leaders and the permanent bureaucratic class. The proof of this analysis surrounds us."

I disagree with British Bobby that removing this basic natural right from law-abiding citizens is ever a just thing to do, regardless of the culture or where it is located.

[Nordeste]

I think I can provide a useful point of view. First, as a European, secondly as a LEO, and in third place as someone who understands the American approach towards firearms, because I had Americans explaining it to me.

I have to say that I FULLY support it. You guys have described it perfectly, the same way someone else explained it to me some years ago. I honestly and sincerely envy your right to self-defense, and your right to have a last line of defense against oppresion, whoever is willing to carry out that oppresion. This parragraph explains it well:

To answer the original question is simply history.
Europeans have always lived under a feudal system of Lords, Kings, dictators, etc. The people were, and still are, subject to the authority of the rulers. The people are accustomed to that system and don't really understand differently.
America was born of rebellion against authority. We are still rebellious and guard our hard earned freedom jealously.
In America authority to govern is granted by the people to it's elected officials. Not the other way around. Although, I have to admit, at times it may look like those elected are trying to become rulers and change that system.

Don't let yourselves be misguided by the fact that some countries in Europe are still Monarchies (us, for example). At least in the case of Spain, the King is just a representative figure far from anything feudal, and that seldom (very seldom) interferes with the Parliament or Government, and when he did, it was for things like telling Hugo Chávez to shut up when he interrupted our soon-not-to-be-anymore Prime Minister Zapatero at a Southern American countries summit . That was a lot of fun.

Then, facts. Every once in a while, a American shooting incident makes the tv news in Europe. Either it is a Columbine, L.A. shootout or Waco disaster, a fired employee who shoots his former coworkers or a thug that gets pulled out by the cops on a highway and unleashes a lead firestorm on the officer/s. It's THIS, plus the usual demagoguery on the news, what makes the average European think "this happens because over there, anyone can own a gun". Then they head for their usual pub and feel "safe" because there are no firearms (that they know) in their neighbourhood... Until some sad day a daughter gets raped or their house broken into. And they realize they have laws that do not entitle them to self-defense, and if they do defend themselves, they end up facing charges in Court and paying for the offender's hospital bills plus a fine, plus a compensation, plus the cost of the whole process at Court. Lovely!. But you know, it's safer here, you can't go to the store as an honest citizen, and buy yourself a firearm .

As said, it is the actual violent crime rate what matters. Granting "firearm related crimes" such importance is, IMHO, a bit silly. I'd rather be shot that beaten to death with a club, stabbed or being chopped out with a cutlass, and particularly in the UK, this kind of incidents happen. We, in Spain, have amongst the lowest crime rate in Europe. However, stabbings are becoming more and more frequent, and the other day, we had a crazed kindergarten worker murdering three little and innocent ones by suffocation using plastic supermarket bags. Therefore, a ban on plastic bags ir urgent and needed. Uh, and there's been quite an increase in gunfire-related crimes, carried out, of course, by types who had gotten them ILLEGALLY. There's no small arms industry in Spain anymore... Who are we to blame, then?. To make things worse, there was a time in which several ex-eastern block gangs specialized in invading homes with their occupants inside and asleep, terrorize everyone inside and steal at will. Cases of owners beaten up, daughters and wives raped have occurred, until in one of these incidents, the owner was an IPSC shooter and kept his Walther P99 at home. He made it to the gun and shot dead two of the assailants, wounding the third one, who fled and was arrested thereafter. He was trialed and declared not-guilty, but still had to pay a lawyer so he didn't end up in prison. It's such a stupid a system the one we live in.

Then the recent norwegian massacre. There was a cop amongst those so sadly and brutally killed. What if he had the chance to carry off-duty, had carried that day and had at least ONE chance of protecting his citizens and himself?.

"If guns kill people, then I can blame my pen for my orthography". I read this here and I couldn't agree more.

British Bobby, what we are going through in Europe is completely insane, my friend. We live in societies that are more protective to the rights of the bad, than those of the fair and honest, this of course includes us police officers, who, in a lot of cases, are "guilty until proven innocent" and not the opposite, if we have to use force on a violent individual. We already are paying and will pay a high toll unless dramatic changes take place, and the first one should be to fully restore the right to self-defense, and the right to own tools with which to carry it out.

[Mello2u]

British Bobby

My take on why gun-restriction works in Europe but not in the US

Some would argue that gun restriction is not working in England. For evidence refer to the article below and the recent days of riots in England. According to this article below, the UK has more violent crime than the US per 100,000 population (a per capital basis).

UK is violent crime capital of Europe
The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.

By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent
7:00AM BST 02 Jul 2009

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

Opposition leaders said the disclosures were a "damning indictment" of the Government's failure to tackle deep-rooted social problems.

The figures combined crime statistics for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html

I submit that every individual has a right to self-defense and access to the tools (handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.; and ammunition) with which to exercise that right.

Further, I submit that the only legitimate restrictions upon that right to self-defense that can be imposed by a legitimate government is when that government identifies a conflict between the individual's exercise of the right to self-defense and the need for security at some particular places such as prisons, courthouses, and some other places where there is a clear need for restrictions; and that the government have at those places armed personnel to ensure the security of the people at those location. Thereby, the government ensures the safety of those citizens whom have their right restricted at those specific places, and actively assumes the duty to defend each person who is denied the tools to exercise the right.

If the government can not or will not provide trained armed personnel in sufficient numbers to accompany those persons who the government seeks to have disarmed then the government shall not disarm the people.