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

[Al Norris]

Very well said. Both Bart and Nordeste have slammed that proverbial nail home.

I think we all pride ourselves in being more than just an animal. Yet there is one primal instinct that is at the core of our being. That is the instinct to survive - self preservation.

At the founding of the U.S. we encapsulated that instinct as the natural right to life. John Locke looked upon this as the ultimately property right. The right to own our own selves.

There is something incredibly wrong, when a (man-made) society says that your life is worthless. Strong statement? Hardly. When any society takes away the means to preserve life; when that society punishes the victim, society is saying you are in fact, worthless.

[Webleymkv]

Look at it from a historical perspective: The U.S. Constitution draws heavily on English Common Law. The founders of the U.S. government were not so much unhappy with the British parlimentary system (though they obviously did not view it as perfect since they set up a different system) but more because they felt they were not afforded the rights to which they were entitled as British citizens since they had no representation in Parliment and as such could be subjected to laws without recourse unlike British citizens living in England.

Both the U.S. and British systems of Government are set up the way they are in order to provide safeguards against tyranny. This has been the case dating back to the Magna Carta when British monarchs lost absolute power. By definition, a tyrant is one who exercises absolute power in a brutal or oppressive manner. There is no power more absolute than the power of life and death. The reason that U.S. citizens are guaranteed the right to arms is because the ability to defend one's own life is the final safeguard against tyranny. If the people no longer have the ability to defend their own lives, life being the most basic of all human rights, then liberty has completely failed and tyranny now reigns.

Now, when the word tyranny or tyrant is used, most people automatically think of a monarch or dictator like Nero, Hitler, Franco, Stalin, or Mao or perhaps an oppressive government such as the Taliban or Soviet Kremlin. While such figures and entities do certainly qualify as tyrannical, they are not alone in that definition. When a person is unable to defend his or her own life against a violent criminal, that criminal holds the power of life and death over that person and may exercise that power in a brutal of oppressive manner. By definition, a violent criminal becomes a tyrant under such circumstances.

Personally, I believe that freedom from tyranny, and thus the right to self-defense, transcends one's nation of citizenship and represents a fundamental and inalienable human right. By enacting such Draconian gun-control laws, I feel that the British Government has placed its citizens at an unacceptably high risk of being subjected to tyranny either through an oppressive government or, as recent events have shown, violent criminals.

[Davey]

Quote:
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.

A stun gun without a wire would require the woman to be extremely close to the criminal. No thank you.

A stun gun with a wire and prongs is typically a one shot weapon. If the woman misses? Oh well, rape city. If she does happen to connect the weapon isn't guaranteed to have any effect. Heavy clothing and type of clothing worn by the attacker can render the weapon useless. Rape city once again.

Also...Here in the states it's harder for a civilian to get their hands on an extended range taser. For instance at Taser.com they will sell fifteen foot guns while law enforcement get, I believe, twenty one foot guns.

Fifteen feet is too damn close. Or let me guess. A threat can't exist at fifteen feet?

As for a taser or stun gun being "not risky of killing others in the process"...training, training, TRAINING. Then more practice on top of that.

How is a taser or stun gun easier to use?

P.S. I find taser/stun gun arguments to be among the weakest.

Edit: Oops my mistake. At Taser.com LE guns can have up to thirty five feet. More than double what they would sell to a civilian.

[Davey]

I honestly don't believe gun laws would really make much difference in the US, but I am very grateful that countries like Greece and the UK, which have some VERY dangerous and deprived areas and are full of hot-heads, do have these strict laws in operation.
...


In the US off course I think it would CRIMINAL to pass ANY law that prohibited a citizen to have at least 1 fire-arm in his own home. With all those guns around, i would not feel safe without one myself.

Your logic confuses me. You don't feel safe in the UK or Greece if there are lots of guns but in the US you wouldn't feel safe unless you had one?

Because the US is completely void of dangerous and deprived areas that are full of hot-heads, right...?

[BGutzman]

I think in part it boils down to European governments have had a long history of enjoying much greater levels of power over its citizens than what the U.S. government was ever supposed to have over its citizens.

It seems clear to me European governments in between the lines are telling their subject they will not and cannot be trusted and the state will make decisions for them and most of the peoples of Europe are apparently fine with it... (Not to be insulting but my observation as I see it).

History is littered with states that felt they had the power to rule much of the lives of its citizenry and in the end at some point they citizenry pays a high price in blood to restore freedoms and the political powers usually end up in a "off with their heads" moment.

Such as it has happened in the past it will happen in the future as none of our nations seem to learn very much from the past...

[Eghad]

The founding fathers did not trust any form of government over a period of time. Any government over a period of time could become repressive because some persons in the government would have staying in power as the primary interest.

The founding fathers knew that free speech is vital to protect the "natural" rights of citizens. That the citizens must be enabled to protect that right and that they were also entitled to protect themselves from harm.

That is why the Bill of Rights were put into the Constitution. They are not the government's to give or take.

[Tuzo]

Medieval Europe, particularly England, France, and Spain, sent forces off to crusade against various non-believers and save the holy land. Money was needed to fund these adventures and assorted taxes were levied on the middle and low classes. Revolts became common after the first few crusades and villages revolted. First victims of revolt were, obviously, tax collectors. Second in line were lawyers. Lastly came the men-at-arms who were tougher to revolt against.

From this sprang decrees and laws that essentially disarmed non-military people but not those in power. Less armament meant less resistance by the non-elite leading to more effective political control of the populace. Many European countries have experienced forms of disarmament but hardly ever a long term decrease in violence.

[LordTio3]

I completely agree with my American peers here; and so will not re-iterate what they've already claimed. But here is some actual evidence to support the practical claims that more honest people who own powerful and deadly weapons for the purposes of self defense has a desirable effect on crime.



~LT

[Spammy_H]

LordTio - great chart, I'm going to have to use that one!

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by LordTio3

...But here is some actual evidence to support the practical claims that more honest people who own powerful and deadly weapons for the purposes of self defense has a desirable effect on crime....

Not quite, I'm afraid.

Clearly that data shows that increasing the numbers of guns in the hands of private citizens does not lead to an increase in crime, and that crime can decrease even when the numbers of gun in private hands increases. But it doesn't necessarily show that, "...more honest people who own powerful and deadly weapons for the purposes of self defense has a desirable effect on crime...."

Not having an undesirable effect on crime rate is not the same as having a desirable effect on crime rate. Correlation does not prove causation.

There are probably many reasons for the reduction in crime over the last couple of decades.

In NYC, beginning in 1990, the crime rate dropped precipitously. Murders were reduced by two-third, felonies fell by 50%; and by 2000, felonies on the subways had declined 75% (The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell, Back Bay Books, 2002, pg. 137). The RKBA and liberalized right to carry laws certainly had nothing to do with that.

I have no doubt that liberalized gun laws and an increased willingness for people to take responsibility for their own safety is one factor in the Nationwide declining crime rate. But it's still only, at best, one factor, and it's very tough to prove.

What the data does clearly demonstrate is that right to carry laws and increasing the numbers of guns in private hands have not led to the bloodbaths that the anti-gun crowd so often predicts.

But we do have to be careful about making claims that we can't substantiate. When we do, it erodes our credibility.

What we can substantiate by collecting data on successful defensive gun use, especially published accounts, is that there are many ordinary people who have been able to avoid becoming victims of violent crime because they did have guns.

[shortwave]

Ya know, I've re-read this thread and have thought about it for a couple days.

We've had a good discussion here and I Thank British Bobby for opening the thread although he has not been back to further answer questions or discuss his opinions. Especially his opinions that the citizens in the UK should not be entitled or somehow are not deserving of the basic right to self preservation.

He could not substantiate his opinions of why he feels gun laws in the US are as they are with any sort of financial proof.

IMO, this thread was intended as no more than a 'drive-by' thread by the OP.

British Bobby,

I hope you at least come back and re-read this thread and understand that not only do a few of your own countrymen not agree with your opinions but since you are a LE officer and support the innocent citizens of your country not being armed, you too bear the burden of having the blood of every innocent victim in the UK on your hands.

I also hope you think about that at the next grotesque crime scene your at where the innocent victim/victims may have had a chance to survive had they been armed. Also think that the innocent victims laying there, could have been someone close to you. Just remember, your support in the anti-gun movement in your country has helped in the scene you're witnessing.

If you want to know the reason the gun laws are as they are in this country, its because the citizens here have the right to defend themselves and will never stop fighting those with your opinions and attitude.

Maybe its time for you to re-examine your morals you spoke of earlier.

[Webleymkv]

I think in part it boils down to European governments have had a long history of enjoying much greater levels of power over its citizens than what the U.S. government was ever supposed to have over its citizens.

While you are correct, it does bear mentioning that British citizens historically have enjoyed a much greater level of freedom than most other Europeans. It is no coincidence that the founders based the U.S. system of government heavily on English common law. Where the founders took issue with the British government was that they were not being afforded the same rights as British citizens as those living in the U.K. proper. While it was popular at the time to label King George III as a tyrant and focus anger at him, the British Parliment was just as guilty, if not more so, in oppressing the colonists.

A good example of the differences between English Common Law and that of other European countries is the presumption of guilt under the Napoleonic Code (several European nations base their law on Napoleonic Code). Under that system, the accused is presumed to be guilty until he or she can prove innocence rather than the other way around. This is quite repressive because proving a negative is much more difficult than proving a positive.

[Eghad]

The only problem with the chart in Lord Tio's post is that all it says is that gun ownership went up and violent crime went down. There is still no causal relationship established between firearm ownership and crime..

It does not include such factors as increased or decreased enforcment of laws by law enforcment which also causes violent crime to decrease.

Probably other factors that caused crime to decrease as well.

Violent crime is increasing in some places while gun ownership is also going up. If I use the argument above now I could flip flop it and say that crime is increasing because of the increase in private firearm ownership.

[2damnold4this]

Welcome to TFL, British Bobby

Lesser guns for the public seems to equal lesser gun crime in that society, or at least does where I'm from.

Scotland has a lower firearm ownership rate than England but has a higher homicide rate. If we compare European countries' homicide rates to their firearm ownership rates, there is a negative correlation.

link to pdf of European crime rates

Link to gun ownership rates

I'm not claiming that more guns causes less crime but to claim the opposite certainly isn't true.

[LordTio3]

I'd just like to quote myself for a moment:

But here is some actual evidence to support the practical claims that more honest people who own powerful and deadly weapons for the purposes of self defense has a desirable effect on crime.

Not-

But here is a chart that alone, definitively proves that more honest people who own powerful and deadly weapons for the purposes of self defense has a desirable effect on crime.

No one should labor under the impression that evidentiary support is synonymous with fact, or proof. This is a plot of two factors taken from multiple independently measured studies that shows a direct negative correlation between private gun ownership and instances of violent crime. I realize that we could have just as easily plotted "Cumulative number of bowel movements in the 1500 block of Indianapolis, IN, vs National Violent Crime Rate" and had it look quite similar; but one of those two factors has a greater societal impact.

If you ask me, with the references it quotes and the numbers it shows, it's at least worth examining and investigating. Anyone who tells you different is biased or doesn't understand statistics.

~LT

[BikerRN]

I've had this conversation before with many subjects of the British Commonwealth.

To me it's best summed up as the subjects want someone to do for them that which they are unable or unwilling, ie; defend self.

I desire nothing from my government that I am unable to obtain or secure for myself. Therefore I want as little intrusion by the government in to my daily life as possible and desire to be left alone to succeed or fail. That can, and has often required a firearm by various people in the past and will again in the future.

My impression of the subjects of the Commonwealth is one of denial and lack of responsibility for self. Denial of their manhood and a collective desire to let someone else have the responsibility for the decisions one makes. I realize that may be offensive to some of the subject of the Commonwealth, but it is my impression. Government has no responsibility but that which we bestow upon it. I wish to bestow no responsibility upon government.

It comes down to mindset and how one goes about dealing with daily life, and it's challenges, in my opinion. Some look for ways to succeed, some look for ways to be lifted up by others, with the great manifestation of that being a "hand up" by government.

Biker

[Baba Louie]

I've had this conversation before with many subjects of the British Commonwealth.

People who are here visiting or vacationing is one thing, but when I've talked to Brits who've moved here, do you know several of them actually enjoy firearms and the shooting sports? Go figure.

Hmmmm. Their take is similar to ours. They are HERE for a reason or two. Arms ownership might be one very small factor. Yet some take to it like ducks to water. Isn't that amazing?

It's simply a cultural thing (how simple or complex an answer [non-answer?] is that). Older culture, vs newer. Telling the gov't to pound sand collectively (forefathers) or acquiescing (sp?) to gov't decree willingly. Self governnment vs not my job to control all aspects of my life. There is no simple answer other than differing cultural development.

Thank goodness we're not all marching to the same drummer. Makes life more interesting to have some variety and danger thrown in every now and then.

I do wonder how much tax revenue is generated by sales of arms and related arcania in the US vs elsewhere? Which might lead back to the OP (revenue generated action) but not for the same reason BB espoused, just curious.

[FrontSight]

After reading your posts, Bobby: I feel quite sorry for anyone living in the UK who understands what freedom means & desires it.

[armoredman]

Baba Louie, they should talk to Angus Hobdell. He moved here from England because he couldn't do his favorite sport, shooting. He is now one of the top shooters in the world, leading Team CZ-USA, and runs CZ Custom here in AZ. Great guy.

[Eghad]

No one should labor under the impression that evidentiary support is synonymous with fact, or proof. This is a plot of two factors taken from multiple independently measured studies that shows a direct negative correlation between private gun ownership and instances of violent crime

So what if the purchase of guns is going up in Houston, Tx and the crime rate is too?

I see no links to the studies? I see links to the numbers.

what is that direct coorelation or causal factor?

were these peer reviewed studies?

[Baba Louie]

...they should talk to Angus Hobdell. He moved here from England because he couldn't do his favorite sport...

Years ago I remember reading that Ian Anderson (of Jethro Tull fame) loved shooting his BHP. When the ban came he took it to either France or Switzerland to continue his shooting sports when he visited his home there (don't recall which nation however). I thought that interesting in that here is a man that I for one would NOT think was a shooter who was and who had the nerve and the verve (not to mention financial means) to take that portion of his life off the isle. Sorta like the British Olympic Shooting team had to do, IIRC.

Elimination of cars might eliminate auto accidents, soon to probably have more bicycle accidents or driving horses under the influence or some-such. Eliminate guns TOTALLY, there might be a drop in gun crime, maybe... but more than likely not (someone could & would easily make a black powder device), only to see archery tackle, knives, bats or rocks become something else to ban as self reliant types would find use for self defense and/or mayhem.

However, if you can get the people to ban the object... hey now, you wanted it, we deliver.

I would bet that if this nation was wracked and wrecked by two world wars within 30 years, only to have China or Russia (whoever) save our economy post war to rebuild, I'd opine that a large number of our fine citizens might be singing a different tune...

But I'm probably wrong. I often am.

[oneounceload]

We've had a good discussion here and I Thank British Bobby for opening the thread although he has not been back to further answer questions or discuss his opinions. Especially his opinions that the citizens in the UK should not be entitled or somehow are not deserving of the basic right to self preservation.

Are we sure this person is who he says he is and not just a poser from one of the many anti groups looking to see how we would respond? The OP has not been back now for a while...

Just sayin'..........................

[Maxem0815]

Well Well I have a feeling some one wants us to think they are better than us in the United States. Let me see Europe screwed up themselves since time began with wars and we needed to help them out in Two World Wars. Why gun control works in Europe is simply because Europeans are sheep. So how are the riots going I hear guns are now in the hands of only criminals and terrorists.
How is that working for ya?
Mace

[FrontSight]

Are we sure this person is who he says he is and not just a poser from one of the many anti groups looking to see how we would respond? The OP has not been back now for a while...

Just sayin'..........................

Agreed, probably a troll...

[shortwave]

You may be right oneounceload, as well as you FrontSight.

Clear back in post #49, Manta more or less called British Booby out for not coming back and responding to any questions.

Since there were no insulting posts or any posts written to offend BB, one can only come to the conclusion that he has presented himself to be a troll or coward by not defending his position.

Whomever BB is, I hope he takes these responses,thinks about them and re-evaluates his thoughts and morals as he has stated them.

If he doesn't he'll wake up one day and will not like what he sees in the mirror.