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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joyce Lee Malcolm has written about this extensively, but the facts are that the UK has the highest per-capita violent crime rates in the "developed world" (UN data) since 1993.

One cannot separate the prospects of acting in self-defense and being jailed for it, but the UK has done all it can to deny the means to the law-abiding for self-defense, with firearms, handguns particularly, being just part of the banned items. Yet, as elsewhere in Europe, gun crime is accelerating and guns are freely available to criminals. And they on an island.

Fixing the moral and ethical environment is just part of the problem. Depriving anyone of the effective means of self-defense abrogates their right as a human being to live other than by tooth and claw.

No sir, the European gun controls don't "work", except to makes criminality a safer profession. the "shall issue" experience in the US affirms this.

The question is not whether crime levels are tolerable, or less here than there. The question is how low can crime rates be driven. The law-abiding are not the problem. Stop treating them as if they are.
 
Obviously guns, crime etc would be of no consequence if people had more love and respect for the sanctity of human life and their fellow human beings. But I hardly think that's something that will ever cease to be the case.
Click to expand...

If that were true, there would be no militaries, no police forces, and no governments. It would be a perfect Utopian world.


The only reason firearm restrictions work in European countries, is because the people allowed themselves to be disarmed. In my opinion, it did absolutely nothing to lower crime rates. It just changed the weapons being used. (There was a reason for the recent knife ban. ;) (Last year, I believe?))



The reason "gun control" won't work in the U.S., is because citizens built this country. We built this country with muskets and rifles. It was the only way to attain our freedom. Now, our government is slowly turning itself into an entity that many U.S. citizens see as very similar to the British Empire we fought so hard to leave behind.

As such, tens of millions of firearms are kept by citizens of this country, not to defend one's self from common criminals; but to defend one's self (and one's freedom), from our own government. As long as citizens keep firearms to defend their freedom, there will be ways for criminals to get them, as well. As long as criminals can get their hands on firearms, "gun control" will do nothing.

Just as is the case in the U.K., there are only two ways to handle firearms:
1. Allow them.
2. Disarm everyone.
There is no "happy medium" that can be found in between.

---
Not all firearms in this country are kept for the above reason, of course. Aside from recreation, many people in the U.S. still help put food on the table, by hunting. Last year, alone, my family harvested nearly 1,000 lbs of meat from game animals. Half a ton of meat saves a lot of money.
 
By what standard do you conclude that gun restrictions in Europe work? The UK apparently has a violent crime rate (though less gun crime) than the US.

You are assuming that if gun possession by law abiding citizens were more prevalent, crime would necessarily increase, therefore, European restrictions= less crime. That may or may not be the case.

In the US over the past 25 years, a vast number of restrictions have been eliminated. In the early 80s, only a few states allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons, now over 40 states have laws requiring the issuance of a license (or allowing concealed carry without a license) unless a valid reason (such as a criminal record) can be shown not to. A few have a discretionary system, and only 1 of 50 prohibit it (and it is likely that they will very soon be forced to allow it by the Supreme Court). Also during that time, our violent crime rate has dropped to the lowest in forty some years, and the homicide rate the lowest in thirty some years.

When confronted with deadly force, the firearm is the best equalizer. Stun guns, pepper spray, etc are much less effective, and in some cases are next to useless.

The right to preserve one's life is the most fundamental of rights. To deny the effective means of doing so is simply immoral.

As far as the financial aspect, even if the total revenue is $3 billion (also taking into account that many US produced guns are by foreign owned companies like Glock, Beretta, etc), that is a tiny drop in the bucket of the US economy. Gun control groups here in the US like to assert that our big rich gun companies own right wing politicians, but that is simply ludicrous drivel.
 
Last edited:
IIRC Violent crime in the UK went up dramatically after the Great Gun Ban of 1997. I was stationed the UK in 1998. It was made clear to us that criminals were not to be assaulted if they were stealing our things. If we were to so misguided as to physically interfere with Mr. burglar, we were likely to be in more trouble than he. It wasn't said, but I couldn't help wondering if the local authorities would like us to help the poor oppressed burglar load our stuff into his vehicle so he could be on his way. From what I could tell property crime wasn't considered a big deal in the UK, judging by all the burned out cars I saw on the A11 near Thetford. The magistrates don't take it too seriously either, Time served plus a fine seems to be the best way to deal with one man crime waves. Assault & battery isn't serious unless your kicking a dog. Then it's a big deal, and you WILL do time.

Firearms in the UK, from what I could tell, were/are considered the purview of the very rich and/or noble. It would seem the govt would prefer to keep it that way, judging by the loss of rights involved in legally owning one. I called the Norfolk Constabulary and asked what I would need to do to own a firearm: The firearm must be stored in an approved storage device secured to a wall in your house. The ammunition must be stored separately in a similar manner. I forget how much the license was, but it wasn't cheap. IIRC, the local constabulary can search your house to verify security of your firearm any time they feel like it. Make it expensive, difficult & invasive enough and no one will bother. Assuming your willing jump through enough hoops, where would you shoot it? Talking to average working class brits, I was left with impression that it wasn't something they thought was realistic. There, of course, were those that recoiled in horror at the thought that a gun might not be evil. Culturally the UK has programmed people to not think about protecting themselves. Therefore having an effective means to do so isn't brought up much in polite company.
 
Last edited:
I believe it all hinges upon the fact that the US has some many factories actually producing weapons, whereas European countries have so few (many don't have any). Such a large part of the US economy involves the producing and selling of fire-arms that it's only a logical consequence to have so many gun-stores and shows that are legally licensed to sell-them as 3rd parties.
Click to expand...

Imagine the boost to European country's economies if gun laws were relaxed EU-wide...

Perhaps gun manufacturing employment and gun store sales would help to reverse a failing collective economy? Or not. Maybe making Turkey a full member would be a good start.
 
Last edited:
Don't know Skadoosh, even with our 3+ billion dollar/year gun industry, our economy isn't looking very good either.

Maybe we need more gun factories to sustain our economy.:D
 
This is my take on why stricter gun-laws in the US would NOT help decrease gun-crime particularly
Click to expand...

My take is we are free men not under commonwealth law :) we have so many maufacturing plants cause we are free and can buy what is produced. No market means no factory to build something cant be sold.

Supply and demand kind of thing pip pip..
 
British Bobby, you have it completely the wrong way around - guns are not important/popular because there is a large domestic gun industry. That is impossible. There is a large industry because they're popular.

It's also a myth that the reason for the difference in gun culture between Europe and the US is simply down to the monarchic, feudal nature of European countries. There are US states and cities that have far stricter laws then many old European countries - try comparing New Jersey to Switzerland, or the Czech Republic for example. Most people don't realize this, but the UK is a nation built on rebellion also; they've had more revolutions and civil wars than the US has had. And look at Ireland, where I come from - a country founded in a bloody revolution less than 100 years ago - yet now our gun laws are even stricter than the UK's.
 
Clarification i posted this on another thread but id doesn't seam to be registering. Just as you can't talk about gun laws in America in general because different states have different laws.
The same goes for the UK the gun law in N Ireland which is part of the UK its gun laws in a lot of respects is different than the rest of the UK.
Examples in N Ireland you can own a handgun, but you need a licence for an air rifle in the rest of the UK you don't.

As for the republic of Ireland its only last year that they brought out a law banning handguns.
 
Gun control in America is different than gun control in Western European nations because of social differences. I'm Canadian, and have lived here my whole life. Though there are a lot of people on both sides of the Canadian-U.S. border that abhor the idea of considering our two societies similar, we're still considered by many to be the two nations on earth more similar than any other two (like it or not, that's a pretty common general perception). Here in Canada, we do have far stricter gun laws than the U.S. (though still far more relaxed than many other developed nations). Looking at the statistics, you may notice that the U.S. has both a more lenient gun control policy and a higher percentage of violent crimes involving guns than Canada. Canadian gun laws are more restricting, but a greater percentage of Canadian violent crimes does not involve guns. There is no conclusive evidence that gun control reduces violent crime, just that gun control leads to a higher percentage of violent crimes being committed by other means. Canadian gun control laws have been repeatedly tightened since the late '70's (before my time), yet violent crime in Canada has consistently been rising for over 30 years. Many U.S. states once had tighter gun control laws more closely resembling those currently in force in Canada, but over the last 20 or so years have been relaxing gun control more and more, and THERE HAS BEEN A DEFINITE CORROLATION BETWEEN RELAXING GUN CONTROL LAWS AND REDUCED VIOLENT CRIME. Taking guns away from U.S. citizens would have the same effect in the U.S. as the effects that have already occured in Canada due to tighter gun control laws here. There would be less firearms related violent crimes, but an approximately equal rise in other forms of violent crime. These violent crimes cannot be addressed effectively with gun control. The simple fact is that every society is dysfunctional to a degree. This is definitely true of both Canada and the U.S. It will not be until these underlying dysfunctional elements are appropriately addressed that violent crimes will be lessened or eliminated. When racism, poverty, and the other contributing factors to the unhappiness of our societies is addressed more effectively, violent crimes will decline in proportion. When a man is given a fair chance in a free and equal society to work hard at a good job and earn enough not only for himself and his family to live but to prosper, he has no need or reason to commit a violent or desperate act. When society is unhealthy and dysfunctional, people turn to desperate, violent acts and self-destructive behaviour.
 
Interesting thread in that it highlights the two perspectives at odds:
1) Gun laws are needed/not needed to reduce crime.

2) Guns are effective tools that every citizen has a right to keep and bear for protection against tyranny and attack.

In the US the first priority is our Bill of Rights (or should be, but is being eroded in the minds of citizens). The first purpose of the Second Amendment is to have arms to resist tyranny, whether successful or not.

The second purpose of the 2A is to guarantee every citizen has access to the best means to protect themselves from criminal attack: car jacking, home break-in, mugging, robbery, rape, angry drunk, etc. That implies having a gun at home or wherever you are otherwise.

To many gun owners this is the crux of the issue. We have a God given right to protect ourselves from oppressive government as well as personal attack, and a firearm is a great equalizer: woman against man, one against many, smaller against bigger.

Gun banners ignore or ridicule the right enumerated in the 2A, and even the responsibility one has to protect themselves, and favor perceived public safety over individual liberty or safety. Primary tactics of oppressive regimes to control their populace, such as gun control, propaganda, and surveillance of citizens, should not be implemented by nations that honor liberty and personal responsibility.

Taken to extremes the tactics of tyrants can be effective to control the populace and perhaps even reduce public crime, but the individual citizen gives up much liberty in exchange. A society that treasures freedom ought to recognize that freedom incurs the risk that some people will choose to abuse that freedom and hurt others. But the freedom of all is more important than the safety of some.

Even under strict regimes like China, an individual is not safe from attack. Only if the State chooses to protect them. If you live in a backwater village the government may do nothing to protect you but be quick to pounce on you for small infractions. So safety may be an illusion even after giving up individual rights. Makes it easier for the government to rule, and safer for the government police though!

As a practical
 
Don't the bad guys steal the firearms from citizens when they rob their home?

Oh yeah... I forgot that your government FORCED the serfs to turn in most of the firearms that could be used to curb violent crime...

I realize not everyone has the intestinal fortitude to use fist, knives and clubs to get real up close and personal with the person you are content with brutally killing in self defense...

Brent
Click to expand...

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

Personally, I cannot conceive of a society that only has 'organized' crime wielding firearms. All somebody in the organization has to do is get a cel phone and set up sale of illegal guns to more casual criminals. And supposing, for a minute, that the casual criminal somehow never gets a gun, does that really matter?

Shod foot, cricket bat, sharp stick, or cobblestone, the intent to do harm by a criminal is the deciding factor, not the question of which type weapon he chooses. And after seeing what I've seen of the rioters, I cannot believe that the penchant for that type of violent activity in the UK has been proven to have an upper limit yet. Criminals break laws. If we can accept that concept, then how does one go about thinking that there's a set limit to a criminal's stomach for breaking laws?
 
If you want to see if gun control laws are actually working look at the numbers before and after the laws were passed.

I would be willing to bet if gun rights were restored to law abiding UK citizens that the gun crime numbers would not increase significantly. It would still be that one group using firearms to commit crime.

Gun control laws are that which politicians sell to the masses to make them feel safe.

You told us that criminals are still getting guns and committing crime with them. Looks like the only people gun control in the UK has slowed down is law abiding citizens who would never have probably committed crime with them.

If you think that gun control laws work then have the police force give up all their firearms. It will not be the law abiding citizens you have to worry about.
 
I am very pleased with the amount of responses this thread has gotten. :)

It really is great to be able to see such greatly articulated arguments when you want to hear peoples' opinions on a controversial (to some) issue.

Without meaning to disregard or in any way ignore some of the great posts so far, I'd just like to respond by saying that I Greek citizens used to have guns (before there were any laws prohibiting them) so I very much doubt that our involvement in the World Wars, Balkan Wars and Civil War were otherwise avoidable. Politics on a much grander scale took place, we were just swept up and caught in the cross-fires really.

It is an interesting point however that maybe had we carried guns in 1967 when the military took over, they might not have had such an easy time taking over or the length of their regime (7 years). But I'm still skeptical about how an army of untrained can effectively counter and subdue a trained and well armed army. But I will concede that it has been done many times before, and you guys know that all too well.;)

Concerning the situation were a woman (or anyone else for that matter) were to face multiple intruders, I still believe that a gun might only be of little use. If it's legal for her to carry, then it's probably legal for them as well. But still, I'd fancy my chances against 5 armed robbers a little better if i were also armed. So point taken my friend.

I'm beginning to see the main point US citizens have a strong argument for: better have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Also, to clear up my own omission about the few guns that are in circulation in the UK, the organised crime I spoke of before is usually quite "sophisticated", ie they won't be your average burglar or street mugger, but usually bank robbers or high-end drug dealers, and any police response unit going up against them will be armed to the teeth I can assure you.

As far Athens at night, I was actually referring to Omonia my friend, not Syntagma Square, I did not think however that someone here would know the city well enough to require the classification. I stand proudly corrected that someone knows as much about my home-town as you.;)

Anyway, I hope I haven't missed out too many of these very good responses, if I have, please feel free to assume that I have conceded the point in your favour. :D
 
While some have said to read our Constitution and study our government, I would suggest you look at Switzerland - they are now what our country USED to be - they modeled their government after ours and managed to actually maintain the aspects of small central government, great local rule, and a common-sense aspect about gun ownership and the real reason why the common folks should own guns

Maybe one day we will be able to overthrow the current status quo and return to what the Founding Fathers really had in mind
 
nope

sorry buddy but I believe you're sadly mistaken, gun control does'nt work anywhere. crime rates, particularly violent crime rates, are through the roof absolutely every single place on the face of the earth that tries to ban or strongly restrict the sale, use, ownership, or carrying rights of firearms. look at crime stats and gun laws on locations throughout the U.S.A. and the world for that matter, they have a very relative responce to each other, I am a firm believer that if people get over this idiotic gun hating in the world there will be far less crime, and the little crime that does still happen will tend to end a lot worse for the criminal and a lot better for the innocent. the way it should be, an eye for an eye is'nt even fair enough! I think if I did nothing to you and you started it that you ought to pay more, maybe both your eyes for my one and all your teeth for one you took. am I right? (I certainly am not left so that kinda narrows it down a bit eh?):)
 
Violent crime is an issue far too complex to be boiled down simply to firearm restrictions when examining different countries. In looking at various countries, one will find that many with stricter firearms laws than the U.S. do indeed have lower violent crime rates, some are nearly identical, and some are actually higher. Likewise, if you look at nations which have similar or less restrictive firearm regulations than the U.S., you'll find the same lack of correlation.

What is more useful, and the U.S. is somewhat unique in this respect, is comparing the violent crime rates of different regions of the same country with varying gun laws. Here in the U.S., states with comparatively relaxed gun restrictions generally have similar or lower violent crime rates than states with stricter gun laws. Even more telling, states which ease certain restrictions, particularly those on the carrying of handguns outside the home, typically experience reductions in violent crime after the restrictions are eased.

What it boils down to is this, every law passed removes some degree of freedom from the people; sometimes the degree of freedom lost is small and sometimes it is great depending on the restrictiveness of the law. Where the disagreement lies is where the amount of freedom lost outweighs the benefit of the law. Most people in the U.S. agree that the benefit of requiring a criminal background check prior to buying a gun is worth the small reduction in freedom associated with it. However, most of the U.S. populace would also say that the benefit of banning handguns is not worth the reduction in freedom that is associated with it.

As far as the gun laws of the U.K., my opinion is this: the degree of restriction placed on firearm ownership in Britain does most likely make guns less available to the criminal element when compared to the U.S. However, that same degree of restriction also severely limits the ability, and therefore freedom, of the people to defend themselves. Self-defense is a concept that I view as a basic human right and, as such, I feel that the loss of freedom associated with U.K. gun laws outweighs the benefits associated with them.

As to less lethal alternatives such as pepper spray, stun guns, and tasers (I personally hate the term "non-lethal" because any weapon capable of disabling an attacker with any degree of reliability can be lethal under the right circumstances), they are good and useful, but they still have their limitations. Few would argue, I think, that a defender armed with pepper spray or a taser is at a distinct disadvantage when faced with an attacker armed with a firearm. This is why even though less-lethal alternatives have been embraced by law enforcement, they have not replaced firearms. Personally, I want a means of defense that is equal to or greater than an opponent's means of attack. The only way that I can even come close to ensuring that is to have a firearm.
 
Actually i don't agree with vengeance. It is for the Police and the State to impose the sanctions and penalties the people's representatives have enacted.

That's why i don't believe in the death penalty. Despite it, people still commit capital offenses and all it ends up being is the taking of a life when no other is in danger.

I'm an atheist personally, so Biblical or any form of religious philosophy has to be to in agreement with my own personal sense of morality. I agree with not killing, stealing, baring false witness, but I cannot agree with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Revenge isn't justice, and I'd prefer to live in a society where the Law is not based on retribution but on imprisonment. Revenge if often bloody, over the top and uncontrollable, hardly the example a society should live by.
 
British Bobby, welcome to The Firing Line.

Despite any apparent correlation in gun laws vs. crime, there is no real causation. This has been borne out in several major studies over the last decade. This includes studies that started under the premise that more gun control = less crime (See 2003 CDC Study)

Fact is, there is no actual correlation between gun control and crime, whether we are discussing the U.S. or Europe. See Google Scholar for more articles on this topic than you would otherwise think.

Given that correlation is a myth, I guess that the question I have, is what do you mean when you say gun restriction works in Europe and not the U.S.?
 
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.

I feel a great part of it has got to do with the general access people have in the US. The overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes in the US are guns legally manufactured and bought in the US by US citizens, which are then either stolen or used in criminal activities.

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

But given the amount of guns in the US, I would NEVER be in favour of strict gun laws there. It would be murder (literally) on the honest law-abiding citizens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top