Two comments about the gun situation in Europe, as I see it:
1. In general, there doesn't seem to be the same obsession about guns (pro or con) in Europe as there is in the States. I've heard numerous comments from Europeans regarding their surprise at the "gun mania" prevalent in America. This attitude, on the surface, is rather unexpected given Europe's recent history of wars, genocides, Resistance movements, etc. On the other hand, maybe Europeans are anxious to put those chapters behind them, or at least blot out the unpleasant memories.
2. That said, there is a wide discrepancy between the gun laws (generally very restrictive) and the actual situation on the ground. In other words, Europeans are much more willing to flaunt gun laws than are Americans. And underground gun ownership seems to be higher, in direct correlation with the severity of the gun laws. Unlike Americans, Europeans don't bitch and moan about restrictive gun laws -- instead, those that want them just get illegal guns. (Law enforcement, even in its published reports, is well aware of this.)
With respect, I'd recommend refraining from over-generalizing.
The UK is part of Europe...and as a rule they are NOT
"much more willing to flaunt gun laws than are Americans".
Their culture is radically different than that of, for example, Finland, Switzerland, and many of the other nations we've been discussing here.
UK citizens have been indoctrinated on various aspects of gun control for generations, even before the 1998 debacle they went through. Entire classes of people in the UK are completely in line with gun control and violating their gun control laws is anathema.
This is, of course, not to say that there aren't people within the UK who disagree with and oppose the strict laws. But this is a far cry from willingly flaunting them.
British history, convoluted as it is on many things, has a long history of gun control. Some say it started back in 1903, but it was very clearly in existence long before their English Bill of Rights, which came out in 1689. The closest they came to something like our more recent Second Amendment was:
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"
Note, however, that it ONLY referenced allowing Protestants having arms (a restoration because gun control laws of the time did not allow it), and ONLY of
"defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". In other words, ONLY if the government allowed it. It's not what we, in the U.S., would call an "unalienable right"...it's an "assigned right", which can be altered, limited, or eliminated at will by government.
To be fair, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 was about yanking a knot in the King's testes and limiting the King's powers. It wasn't really about individual rights, per se.
And even if they didn't have much restrictive gun control laws on the books at any other given time in their own country, they most certainly didn't have any such issues with restricting them elsewhere in their empire.
So please...don't make too broad a statement about "European countries" and their citizens because they are culturally and politically diverse on a great many aspects.