European view.

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

manta49

New member
I will start by saying that i am pro gun. But after reading a lot of posts on this forum people not feeling safe without carrying a gun some not even felling safe taking a shower without having a firearm with in reach. It has got me wondering would i want the gun laws to be as liberal here as in America. I feel safe walking down the street here and the last thing i feel i need is a gun. The difference here their are a lot less illegal firearms and less crime involving firearms. Now if i lived in America with the amount of illegal guns in the country i might think differently. Are their so many illegal firearms in circulation because of the liberal gun laws. And is felling the need to carry a firearm the price you pay for having such liberal firearms laws.
 
Last edited:
The term "illegal gun" is problematic. The same S&W J frame .38 can be illegal or legal depending on who has it, how they "have" it and what jurisdiction they are in. So can my 30-06 hunting rifle. I can make my 30-06 illegal just by carrying it loaded in the back seat of my car. But I can have a Sig Sauer P220 locked and loaded in the same car and violate no laws. I can even conceal it. But you can't, or it becomes illegal.

I'd guess that there are actually FEWER "illegal" guns in the US than in countries with more restrictive gun laws. Within the US I'd say there are probably FEWER "illegal" guns in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and other permissive states than there are in NY, CA or Illinois and other restrictive states.

In the US instances of gun crime are usually higher in places where the gun laws are most restrictive.

Some of the fear and "not feeling safe" you're reading about is just a failure of phrasing. I carry a gun. I carry it for the same reason I carry a cellular phone. I may need to use it. I'll probably have a more frequent need for the phone, but the need for the gun, if it ever occurs, will likely be more acute.

If there were a place where I thought I might need a gun I'd avoid going there. I left the USMC over 20 years ago. I'm no longer obligated to put myself in danger for any reasons other than those of my own choosing. I choose to avoid trouble. On the off chance that someday trouble finds me despite my best efforts, I carry a handgun. That's not fear. That's preparedness.
 
There is a difference between "feeling safe" and being safe.
Lots of folks walk around in condition white, with no thoughts of the possibility of danger.
Maybe they actually are safe - maybe not.
Others choose to be prepared, just in case.
Kind of like having a fire extinguisher in the house and car.
According to recent statistics, the USA actually has lower crime than the UK.
If there are less guns around where you live that might guarantee less gun crime, but there's plenty of other types of crime.
Criminals didn't suddenly arrive with the invention of the firearm.
And wouldn't it be nice to have the means to defend oneself, if the feeling of safety was untrue.
 
I saw a video recently of a disgruntled pub goer in the UK that popped off back home and returned with a running chainsaw...

My point being, anything can be a weapon, and you may feel 'safe' in Ireland, but are you really...
 
Maybe illegal is the wrong word. Lets say the amount of guns in circulation make it easier for criminals to get access to them. I am not saying who's right or wrong just reading some posts on this forum has got me thinking.



A personal protection weapon can be got here but you have to have a reason for needing one and not just think you would like one just in cases. Set out below.

merits.
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
4
(ii) Possession of a firearm for personal protection purposes places a great responsibility on the holder. Any person who has been granted an FAC to possess a PPW will be expected to conduct their daily affairs in such a way that their own personal security and the security of the firearm is not jeopardised.
(b) Good Reason
(i) In the context of an application for a firearm for personal protection purposes the applicant is required by the Firearms (NI) Order 2004 to have ‘good reason’ for such possession. Whilst in most applications a verifiable real and immediate risk may be established by specialised police reports it may not be as obvious in others. In cases where a real and immediate risk is not verifiable by a specialised police report or is otherwise obvious, consideration must be given to all the known circumstances, bearing in mind the general duty of police to protect life by taking appropriate measures to address the risk. [Section 32(1) of the Police (NI) Act 2000 and article 1 of the PSNI Code of Ethics 2008.]
(ii) For the purposes of this Policy an applicant for a PPW will be deemed to have ‘good reason’ if it is established that:
(aa) there is a specific threat against the individual which creates a real and immediate risk verified by a specialised police report; or
(bb) in exceptional circumstances, a verifiable level of risk is established by other information; and
(cc) the possession of a firearm is a reasonable, proportionate and necessary measure to protect the life of the applicant.
(c) Specific Threat
(i) A specific threat is defined as:
(aa) A recent verifiable life threatening attack has been made on the applicant’s life and this level of threat remains; or
(bb) A verifiable personal threat to the life of the applicant has been made, which can be substantiated by a specialised police report or, in exceptional circumstances, in the absence of a specialised police report, other verifiable information or circumstances.
(ii) In establishing that a real and immediate risk exists FEB must consider all circumstances and all the information available to them. In exceptional circumstances the grant of an FAC for a PPW may be appropriate even though a real and immediate risk cannot be confirmed by specialised police reports but it can be verified by other means.
3. INTRODUCTION
(1) Summary
(a) This Policy explains the criteria under which Firearms and Explosives Branch will, on behalf of the Chief Constable, consider applications to possess a firearm for personal protection purposes, in accordance with the Firearms (NI) Order 2004 and the NIO Guidance.
 
Last edited:
The main problem is the gun control laws are actually targeted at taking away guns from EVERYBODY instead of criminals. Its a political action not a safety action. They just want guns gone from anyone and everyone. And the easiest place to start is people who follow the rules.

So all the legislation we have does very little to make the streets safer, because the guy with a clean record is getting his handgun confiscated and charged with a major crime because he accidentally went through the airport in NY with it when he can do this in his home state, or the guy that has to move for his job from Tennessee to Illinois can no longer carry because of state law. Meanwhile the gangbanger who took pot-shots at people wearing the wrong color clothes is pleaing down to a lesser charge and getting out early because the prison is overcrowded.

We could use 10x the amount of gun control laws and enforcement we have now. The problem is right now we have 100x too much that focuses almost entirely on people who were peacefully obeying the law in the first place!
 
Maybe illegal is the wrong word. Lets say the amount of guns in circulation make it easier for criminals to get access to them.
Click to expand...

By "criminals" I'll assume for the sake of argument that you mean people previously convicted of a felony crime.

It is already illegal for these people to possess firearms. And yet they do.
 
Lets say the amount of guns in circulation make it easier for criminals to get access to them.
Click to expand...
That is a popular argument asserted. One main problem is that restrictions affect the criminal last, not first.

We also have a very unique cultural view on rights and freedom. Under our Constitution, no rights are created or given by our government. All rights originate with the individual people (despite the "collective" arguments that have been made and debunked). Laws do not "allow" us to do anything. If it is not restricted by a law (within the scope of the powers given by the people*), then it is allowed.

"We the people" gave the government certain powers. As a last check on those powers being abused, the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That provides a self-defense, anti-crime benefit, but is not the main objective.

I am not trying to preach or beat you over the head with our Constitution, just trying to explain that how we view risks and freedom and safety come from a very different origin than much of the rest of the world.

*This has been abused greatly in the past few decades.
 
Size has an effect as well.

I would also point to the "size" difference. You are in Ireland, which covers about 32,599 sq miles and has a population of close to 5 million people. For comparison I'm going to use TX (I live here so it is only fair if we are using where you live). TX covers approx 269,000 sq miles and has a population of just over 25.6 million people.

With that much space and that many people there is no way to police everything to the same degree as what is done in most European countries. It would take a very large increase in our LEO population to achieve the same levels of person per police officer and frankly I don't want to pay for that.

Second example would be NYC. The 5 boroughs are home to more than 8 million people, agian having the same person to LEO representation is just not feasible without approaching an economic structure that looks more like China.
 
PigFarmer. Quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would also point to the "size" difference. You are in Ireland, which covers about 32,599 sq miles and has a population of close to 5 million people. For comparison I'm going to use TX (I live here so it is only fair if we are using where you live). TX covers approx 269,000 sq miles and has a population of just over 25.6 million people.

With that much space and that many people there is no way to police everything to the same degree as what is done in most European countries. It would take a very large increase in our LEO population to achieve the same levels of person per police officer and frankly I don't want to pay for that.

Second example would be NYC. The 5 boroughs are home to more than 8 million people, agian having the same person to LEO representation is just not feasible without approaching an economic structure that looks more like China.

Fair point N Ireland has a population of arround 2 million and has 9000 police officers. You say Ireland i will point out that the gun laws are different in the republic of Ireland and N Ireland i dont know much about the gun laws in the republic of Ireland but i do know that they have banned handguns.
 
And is felling the need to carry a firearm the price you pay for having such liberal firearms laws.
Click to expand...


It's not so much about feeling the need to carry a firearm. It's about having the natural right to do so if one chooses.

If a government cannot guarantee your protection, it should at least not restrict you from protecting yourself in the manner you wish.
 
Last edited:
manta49,

We’re different than the rest of the world—so far.

You hear of crime in America because it sells papers and get TV viewers.

And we also talk about it on these gun forums.

We don’t hide the truth about crime in America. Do you know if you’re getting the real truth about crime in Ireland, in England, Scotland? What about France and Germany and Italy and Spain, etc., etc., etc?

Our First Amendment provides the truth, albeit it’s sometimes slanted a bit and sometimes slanted a lot.

Which countries have the equivalent of our First Amendment?

Actually very few countries have even a touch of our Bill of Rights.

America isn’t perfect but it damn sure beats whatever else is out there.
 
I see you are from Northern Ireland, Manta. As an American, we rid ourselves from the direct and oppressive rule of London over 200 years ago. In order to ensure that we are not ruled by London, Protestant, Catholic or other theocracies and dictators we were guaranteed the individual right to own firearms. It has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with protecting ourselves from criminals. It has everything to do with protecting our individual freedoms should we one day end up with a tyrannical government.

The guaranty of freedom and the means to ensure our freedom means that we will do not throw down our freedoms in order for our rulers to provide the absolute safest society achievable. If safety is what you want, I'm sure that an even higher degree of safety is achievable through other types of government intervention. Eugenics, castration, and mandatory sedation would go even further in making the streets of your country "safer" from thugs, rapists, thieves, and murderers. It's just a trade-off, really: freedom for safety.
 
It wasn't too long ago that Northern Ireland was a rather dangerous place where even the police and military were routinely attacked. In 1997 the Labour Government of the UK outlawed private ownership of handguns, I can recall seeing the headline on a UK newspaper in 2000 or so:
"It's Official-rate of the street crime in the UK twice that of US!"
One of the difference between the UK-and Europe in general-and the US is that the US culture has always been more one of self reliance-instead of petitioning the lord of the manor or the government we tend to do things for ourselves-the recent case of Sarah McKinley being a prime example.
Carrying a gun for self defense is not that different IMHO than carrying a flashlight or a pocket knife or multitool, or having a first aid kit and tire changing tools in the car, or on your bicycle. Baden Powell said it best:
"BE PREPARED!"
 
Overall, don't mistake a bunch of talk about tactics and rigs and shower guns and underwear guns (really?) and tactical pens and what all else for an actual feeling of threat. People here can carry and maybe will carry. Is the NEED to carry over here more than in Europe? I doubt it. The main difference, here we can if we so choose.
 
A gun left at home is easier to steal than a gun concealed on ones person.

And is felling the need to carry a firearm the price you pay for having such liberal firearms laws.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think liberal firearms laws is a factor that increases crime rate.
 
Manta49 said:
Maybe illegal is the wrong word. Lets say the amount of guns in circulation make it easier for criminals to get access to them. I am not saying who's right or wrong just reading some posts on this forum has got me thinking.
Click to expand...
Criminals always have access to guns. For example, look at Mexico. Mexico has very strict gun laws, much stricter than the U.S., yet the drug cartels are better armed than the combined militaries of several small countries.

How about Russia? Again, very strict gun laws ... only the police and the Russian mafia have them. (That statement may contain a bit of redundancy, BTW.)

Or how about right across the water from you? Have you taken a look at crime statistics in England since they outlawed guns, and compared them with the crime stats from BEFORE they banned all guns?
 
Mantra your questions are interesting, and I think clearly show the difference in how Americans view the role of government compared to the rest of the western world.

Whether I carry a gun everywhere I go (with some states and municipalities being more restrictive, including mine), have them all locked in a safe, have some strategically placed around the house, car, boat, etc, or have none at all is my business. The Founding Fathers of our nation knew all too well that government can and will restrict personal freedom, and abuse power unless there are limits imposed on it by the people it serves. Our Second Amendment which guaranties our right to keep and bear arms, and our willingness to do so are ultimately what stands between us and tyranny in my view.

You may find the notion of law abiding citizens carrying weapons to protect themselves hard to understand, maybe even dangerous. We believe armed law abiding citizens pose a threat only to those who would do them harm. The idea of taking guns away from everyone, to keep them out the hands of those who have, or use them illegally is flawed and dangerous. We live in a dangerous world and free men have the right (and the obligation IMO) to protect themselves and their loved ones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top