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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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..
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rioters fired at unarmed officers...

www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-21/rioters-fired-at-unarmed-officers/2848704?section=world

Thug shot police helicopter...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...opter-Birmingham-riots.html?ito=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
 
England3.jpg


That's pretty much how I feel.
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Attachments

Last edited:
Tom Servo said:
...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....
Click to expand...
Tom, see post 47. Is that the sort of thing you're looking for?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 :p. 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 :rolleyes:.

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.
 
British Bobby

My take on why gun-restriction works in Europe but not in the US
Click to expand...

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/ukn...73/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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...?
 
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...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top