BP and gun control

[spocahp anar]

Hildo;

I can't imagine having to be required to shoot 18 times ayear, and being required to join a club? So much for the right to free assembly (which is an American right). I own many firearms and have a free public range 20 minutes from my house and I'm lucky if I get out to shoot 5 times a year. I am glad you can live with that because I couldn't.

Also to drive a car is a priveledge, not a right as defined by our constituiton. Noone in America relishes the actions of crazed individuals and what happens when they snap. But what would happen in Holland if one of the Legal gun owners flipped out, unlocked his weapon and carried it into a school armed with many magazines and loads of ammo, chained the doors and started shooting? or kicked in the door to your house and walked in? Would you have time to run to your safe, unlock it, retrieve the gun, load it and then confront the individual?

These things happen here for many reasons: violent strereotypes perpetuated by various media as protagonists, a culture of selfishness, a culture of disobedience, or in general a lack of moral upbringing.

We have singers (used loosley) over here who cater to a gangsta crowd that have done interviews that claim they would never, under any circumstance, help the police in any way solve a crime, "that if a serial killer lived next door to me I wouldn't tell the police; I would just move." This is why we have so much gun violence. Becuase people in this country can't handle being "dissed". They don't have the proper upbringing to live in a society that doesn't condone violence. They aren't emotionally developed to handle being an adult.

 

[Steve Swartz]

Hilda and All:

1) It's not about "culture" as much as it is about "philosophy" (althought he two overlap significantly, and with "values"). In Europe, the philosphy-culture-values hold that "Rights" and "Freedoms" are retained by the State (monarch) and are granted to the people. Those who fled Europe and settled the New World created a system where "Rights" and "Freedoms" are retained by the People and only grudgingly loaned to the State in order to serve narrowly defined "public necessities." Therefore, any discussion of hte differences between "USA" and "Pretty Much All Other Country's" approaches to gun control will be colored by this "apples to oranges" problem.

2) Given that, we (Americans) have strayed far in terms of Culture and Values toward the European way of thinking. While our Constitution has not changed, we have allowed it to be re-interpreted along the European model.

3) The "philosophy" instructs "practice" with the application of the principle of "prior restraint" (see the sci-fi film Minority Report). In the European model, since the rights are retained by the monarch and granted byt eh monarch to the people, prior restraint is fine: the assumption is that an individual is forbidden from exercising rights unless he/she receives permission from the state. In the US, the opposite is true: the concept of "prior restraint is considered anathema to the exercise of civil liberties. Consider the arguments over the exercisxe of prior restraint to the First Amendment- what would our gun laws look like if we were to apply those arguments to the Second Amendment?

4) O.K., so philosophical arguments aside . . . in both the US and Europe, the state has no responsibility to protect the individual. This principle has been upheld consistently from the most libertarian tot he most totalitarian forms of government over time. O.K., so given that every society has Bad People, and given that the state has no responsibility to protect the innocent, what do the innocent do for the 10, 15, 20 or more minutes until the hostage negotiation team (or coroner) arrives? Without the ability of self defense, the innocent generally Die. Horribly.

5) As to the police- most are good people, well intentioned public servants. But understand their mission. They do not have a responsibility to save you. Indeed, attempting to save you through the application of force is generally frowned upon. Their duty is to society as a whole- not the hostages behind the barricade.

Yes, during Columbine-Virginia Tech- and more recently, the Houston Space Center incident- police procedure is to set a cordon, arrest/detain/question every living thing available in the cordon, and then bring in the hostage negotiation team. Hours pass. Eventually, the Bad Person decides to quit (one way or another). In the meantime, the innocent . . . ?

Steve Swartz

 

[O.S.O.K.]

Posted by Mykeal: "Posted by O.S.O.K: "...the police run around outside the building with AR-15's posturing for the cameras but don't go in to stop the carnage...."

I am insulted by that characterization of the police. It is simply untrue. I realize that is your opinion, and you are both entitled to it and to voice it. However, it is disrespectful of people who do a very difficult and dangerous job. Even more to the point, it is disrespectful to the hundreds of policemen and women who have died trying to enforce the law and keep us safe, and especially to their families. You owe them an apology.

Show me that you have the training and experience to be able to make the difficult tactical decisions in such a situation, and are thus qualified to make such judgments and might have more respect for you. Otherwise, as a result of your statement, I have none."

You are entitled to your opinion too, and if you are insulted by the truth, then I certainly understand in this instance.

What do you call it when there's plenty of time for photojournalists to get hours of video of the police running around taking cover with their AR's? All the while, the shooting goes on. The same thing happened at Columbine, and just a few day's ago in Houston - it took them 3 hours - 3 hours to get inside and discover what had happened.

Sorry, but when I look at the facts, it takes hours for the police actually do anything. I know that they are restricted to what their "superiors" order and when I say "police" I am including the whole organization - not just the people that work the street and have to dogde bullets. Again, the truth is ugly and while I respect LEO's for the dangerous jobs that they do, the facts are the facts in these situations. You can't deny it.

Time after time after time in these shooting incidents the police wait outside while hostages and others are shot dead one after another - at VA Tech - over 30 people.

The point being that in today's litigious world (thank the lawyers for this - and no, I won't appologize to any of them either) the police are now pretty much worthless in these situations. That is why we the people must not be restricted in our firearm rights - the 2ndA says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and that's what it means, and this is why.

I'm not going to appologize for speaking the truth. I was not intending to disparage LEO's but the fact of the matter is what it is. Yes it's ugly and yes it's quite embarrasing for the police.

Again, what do you think the VA Tech shooting victim's families think of the police's performance? I sure know what I would think.

 

[Steve Swartz]

. . . LEOs have no responsibility to protect "the people inside" during these situations . . . (see above)

No knock on them, just the reality. "Containment" is their mission, not "protection."

Steve in North texas

 

[Vermonter]

I believe the police at Virginia Tech DID storm the building once they realized what was going on.

The problem there was that they didn't shut down the campus while they looked for another suspect - the boyfriend of the first woman who was shot. They looked for him because ....... he owns guns :banghead:

Meanwhile Cho was back in his room making his videos and getting ready for his rampage in the classrooms.

 

[mykeal]

To O.S.O.K, redux

Well, I must say I'm a little surprised and very disappointed.

I was rather hoping you would say that you had some tactical police experience or training, so you knew from first hand knowledge whether they did a good job or not. What I find out is that you get your "facts" from television news broadcasts.

If I understand you, you believe, from watching television, that the police simply stood around and waited for the killer to finish shooting people before taking any action.

Is it just possible that the reason you only saw police outside the buildings is because the "photojournalists" were prevented from taking video of the police at the front of their assault? Perhaps this is because the "photojournalists" 1) get in the way, 2) would provide the killer with real time data on where the cops are and what they are doing and 3) would be in danger of becoming additional casualties (and then blame the cops for "not protecting them").

You didn't see "truth" on television. You saw what was safe and easy for the "photojournalists" to film. I don't blame the "photojournalists" by the way. They did what they were allowed to do. I have no doubt if it was up to them they'd have run right up to the killer and tried to interview him while he was pulling the triggers. You are the one who drew a conclusion about what you saw and then called it "the truth".

So, apparently, in your mind, this is all the fault of the cops because they didn't stop it sooner. And the proof is the stock video footage taken by "photojournalists" who were unable (or perhaps unwilling) to film the real action. Let's certainly not blame the killer, he was just doing what the cops let him do.

I hope that my characterization of your position is in error, but based on the "truth" you have published, it looks like the truth to me.

 

[O.S.O.K.]

OK

Mykeal, You have a point for the VA Tech shooting.

We will see how the facts pan out. But it sure looks like more of the same deployed policy that we've seen in past incidents.

And you must admit that when the cameras are rolling, the LEO's on hand will be sure to look good - only natural - they are people after all.

Columbine is a certainty and so is the incident in Houston at NASA - due primarily to it's small scope. In other situations, it has been private citizens that stop the killer, not the police - there was a school shooting were a teacher or principal retreived his handgun and stopped the killer that I remember. For some reason, this is downplayed...

Already succinctly stated by Steve Swartz: the police work for "containment", not "protection". And that's afer they actually arrive. A whole lot can happen in 10 minutes.

So, you are right about them not just standing around, they were acting to contain the situation.

That is the truth - like it or not. I don't like it - not one bit.

Especially when it's used as a cornerstone for location dissarmament - the police DO NOT PROTECT us. They mostly investigate and try and apprehend criminals AFTER THE FACT OF THE CRIME. Truth.

And that reality or truth eliminates one of the "logical points" for gun guntrol - that the armed police will protect us and we don't need guns because of that. This is a lie.

I think the LEO's should be allowed to do what I am certain their instinct is to do - shut the killer down upon arrival but again, they aren't allowed to do that.

Mykeal, I fully understand wanting to be supportive of the police and other LEO's. They do a very dangerous and neccessary job in our society. It just doesnt' include protection unless you are a VIP. Another unfortunate and embarrasing truth.

See where I'm coming from?

Again, I wasn't trying to purposefully cast the LEO's in a bad light - just commenting on the ugly facts as they are.

Finally, I DO blame the killer for the deaths of the students and professors. I Don't recall or see anything were I implied that the police were responsible?

I also DO blame the people in responsible positions that insist on creating so-called "gun free zones" that set-up our kids and teachers for mass slaughter. I do blame them for creating "law-abiding citizen gun free zone/mass murder killing field zones" accross our country.

The very people that bleat "for the children" are the very ones that are responsible for 80% of the deaths of our children at the hands of the psycho shooters - because that's the number of victims that would be saved if there was someone close at hand to stop the killers from racking up the body count.

Mikeal, your heart is in the right place and I am not mad at you for your response. I just don't agree with your insinuations regarding my motivations and I don't understand that you don't see or don't want to see my point?

 

[hildo]

spocahp anar,
I Have no problems to shoot 18 times a year. There are 52 weeks and have been shooting 48 of them last year, I love to go. My club shoots (rents) the range just once a week. I'd like to go more, would have to join another club or rent the range myself. I have no limit to where I or when I want to shoot, as long as it is on a range. If you would live in Holland you would not be a gun owner either since you refuse to shoot at least 18 times a year. Not interesting enough, or you have better/other things to do with your time. That's one of our burdons, some people are tight in time and have difficulties to get to their 18 shooting sessions. If you fall ill, have to work abroad or so exceptions to this rule can be made.
I will never say it is a perfect arrangement here but the mandatory 18 shooting sessions does keep guns limited to people that really want to shoot. I do regret we may not own more than 5 licensed weapons. It would not make a politician popular when he would suggest upping this to 10 weapons or even more... sigh.

Then: Yes it would be very well possible for a legal gunowner to flip out and kill everybody in sight. But this has never happened. We meet on a regular base and know eachother. If someone would become 'emotional unstable' it would probably be noticed. I would do what I could do for him so he would not use his guns in a wrong way. Would not turn my head and not care.

We probably have something like 60.000 legal gun owners on a total of 16 million people. That's how interested most people are in shooting, not really.
Imagine we would have no gun restrictions and would have 16 million gunowners I am sure Holland would not be a safer place. It would take just 1 crazy person out of that 16 million to mass murder childeren in a school or kill loads of people in another crowded place.
The chance to find a crazy person amongst 16 million is much higher than find a crazy person amongst 60.000 licensed gun owners.

Note that I have not mentioned guns for self defense. This is a big issue in the US, but not that much of an issue here.
I am not afraid that sombody will kick in the door and kill me. I am also not afraid that somebody will start shooting in a public place, I think that nobody will pull a gun on me and I am not afraid to open the door after 8.00PM.
If something would happen, in a country with 16 million people, there would be a giant chance that I would not be present. I feel I have a bigger chance on winning the lottery than getting shot.
I live in a small place in the north of Holland, farmer country so to say, and it is different from places as for instant Amsterdam. I may avoid some neighborhoods there. The lack in moral upbringing is present here as well. I guess some parents can definately do a better job.


Steve Swartz
You're way of thinking about our state (monarch) is interesting, but maybe not correct? Not sure since I'm not much into politics. Our monarch (the Queen) is sitting in here palace, but keeps well away from rule making and laws. She never even gives her opinion, since she may not. She basically has nothing to say or do apart from opening a bridge or shake hands. The fact is that we are ruled by political parties that are chosen by the people. From a practical point of view in every day life the 'Rights & Freedom' of Americans I do not see much different from our own, they differ somewhat here and there but I do not find the American Freedom better than ours. From a guncontrol point of view, yes, but from some others it seemes more restrained. Innocent things like drinking a beer on the street I believe is not allowed in the US?


It is nice to see the opinions of all the people here as Americans, and reflect those to mine as a Dutchman / European, and then trying to understand.
I do understand that I will not be able to win you over with my views on a some sort of guncontrol, and neither will I be in favour of no gun control.
Still it is good to see eachother opinions and beliefs and respect them for that as they are, and that I do.
Have learned many years ago that the truth is different depending on the angle from which you look at it.

I will be going to the US next saterday for a week long training for my job in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Will walk the streets unarmed and hope I will not get shot!
Hildo

 

[mec]

Sounds like you have a nice place to live

 

[6_gunner]

DixieTexian, coincidentally, I used to carry an 1858 when that was all I had. It DOES have quite a presence. It may be a 150 year old design, but it'll sure make the would-be bad guy reconsider his career choice.

 

[[email protected]]

Always wondered about something, guns made before 1899 are classified antique, not guns. Even in Cali I can mail order an original 1886 winchester in 45/70 & it can be shipped straight to the house. If I carried a Colt SA in say 44-40 & it was an original pre 1899 concealed, is that legal since it's not classified as a gun?

 

[DixieTexian]

We mentioned that earlier, except in Texas it is not just antiques, but replicas of antiques that do not use centerfire or rimfire. This means technically you could carry it. My roomate just bought an 1851 Colt in .44 with a five inch barrel (I know it never existed) because I am slowly converting him to the dark side. He is friends with the University Chief of Police and asked him about them. Basically, he said it wouldn't be a good idea.

 

[rusty from italy]

I Have no problems to shoot 18 times a year. There are 52 weeks and have been shooting 48 of them last year,

Hildo..a small question, if you, with your legal arms a day for a change in your lifetime can't go to shoot for the minimum of time per year??
You can keep your arms at home, for all your life without shoot a sigle round more??

We have in Italy many kind of weapon carry, and also a single licence for buy a gun (or more) to simply keep it at home!
I shoot weekly, but i don't loose my right do keep my arms if i stop every shooting activity!
And more, we can buy an illimitate number of hunting rifle, and for our laws are hunting rifles every long gun with a shell brass long more of 40mm and a caliber more of .22 (5,56) so, pratically only .22 long rifle isn't a hunting caliber.
For pistol and revolver we are limited to 3 common arms and 6 sprt arms , this number include short and long arms, that isn't "for hunt"!
Muzzleloader single shot are free.

A couriosity, the gun control in Italy started in 1956 (if i remember right) when two armed person take a school and close themself inside with the child!

ciao
Rusty

 

[____hoot____]

Who in their right mind[or wrong mind]in society would take it out on the kids if they had a general disagreement with how things are? Lots of alternative targets of the rich and powerful that are just as "soft". These school shootings are all government black psycops by "clear eyes" mind control subjects on flouride based antidepressent drugs such as Prozac[developed by the Bush family owned Ely Lilly Co. from nazi research]. Always fresh gun control legislation already written waiting in the wings for the next "act" in the play. How in the Hell else are they going to get rid of the second amendment?

Interesting how they have the cops stand down instead of going in and doing their job. When are you people going to wake-up to the fact that this place has already been taken over by an evil klan that has declared war on us?:banghead:

 

[Steve499]

Hildo, what are your rules about gun transfers between private individuals? If they limit you to 5 firearms but transfer between individuals is possible, I would be trading one of my 5 for one of your 5, then at some agreed upon point in the future, we'd trade back!

I used to 'own' guns I didn't really own. My best friend was married at the time to a woman who was difficult, to be nice about it, about his guns, particularly the acquisition of more. He would buy one with his stash money and tell her it was mine, which he was borrowing. He would contact me when he got an addition so we would be on the same page. I had 5 or 6 of 'my' guns at his house most of the time. From time to time we would swap our guns around in the old razzle-dazzle just to keep her hoodwinked. She never did figure it out and I got the use of my friends guns any time. After all, what could he say if I asked for one in her presence?

No doubt your government is smarter than she was, but it would be a great way to double your arsenal with only one good friend you could trust with your babies.


Steve

 

[arcticap]

Just like some people here opine about the Europeans, Iraqi and Afghani citizens probably think that the USA has too much oppressive gun control too, since they can buy just about anything they can afford. Would anyone here accuse the US or other armed forces of just standing down & watching all of the carnage over there?

 

[hildo]

Rusty,
The rules in Italy are definately more liberal.
We must all shoot 18 times a year, minimum. If you don't it is considered you don't like shooting enough to own your own guns and you will have to give them up. The basic idea is that it should not be made too easy to have guns lying around in homes that are not/hardly used. All licensed shooters in Holland are therefore active shooters.
We can have no more than 5 licensed guns, and it don't matter what guns they are... a flintlock musket or an AR15 makes no difference. Weird, is it not?
I'm 50 miles from the border with Germany, where all single shot muzzleloaders are free as well. I could buy one easily, and there is no bordercontrol between Germany and Holland... but it would be a crime to take it back to Holland though.
Can't have that since I must stay free of a criminal record or I would loose my license in the blink of an eye.

The government here, and the general public as well, are scared of guns.
A good example is a guy that was an antique gun collector and licensed gunowner. Cartridge revolvers made in 1873 or later are not allowed here. Someone probably blew the wistle on him and the police came by.
A complete SWAT team in the middle of the night that rammed down his door and stormed in with loaded guns!
Massive unnecessary overkill but it does show how scared people in Holland are of guns. They called in the SWAT team since they wanted not to take any risk what so all... and he was just a simple antique arms collector, and he indeed possesed an antique gun that he was not allowed to have.
The rest of the free antique guns were returned to him, but he did loose his gun license because he had an illegal gun.
Those are the rules, and he knew it. Just got carried away a bit in his collecting.

I must say that in Holland blackpowder weapons were not seen as firearms either, and therefore free to have. Untill the rulemakers found out you could actually kill someone with a blackpowdergun, and they were quick to ban them. Believe this was the late 60's or early 70's.
Antique guns are still free to have though (lucky for me cause all I find interesting is BP only)

Steve
The above mentioned is why I would not try to have more guns than I legally should have. Violations of the gunlaw mean you will loose your license, all of your licensed guns and maybe even a fine too.
I may not give my licensed gun to anybody, it is my personal responsability. It must be with me or in my safe at home, nowhere else. However I may hand it over to everybody that would like to shoot it at the range, even if that person has no experience with guns what so ever. It is my responsibility that nobody accidentally gets shot and I must stay with to the shooter that shoots my gun.

Lemmie tell you how it works when you want to buy a new gun here in Holland.
First you get the OK for the weapon of choice from your gunclub. Then you go to the gundealer to buy the gun. You cannot yet take it with you but you will get a paper with the data of the gun on it. Then you go back to your gunclub where another paper is filled out which includes that data of your gun. With that paper you go to your local police. They will check your background once more (to make sure you did not comit a crime in the mean time). After the police has checked you out and found you to be a model citizen they will make an appointment to visit your home, to inspect if you have a proper gunsafe that is bolted down. After the gunsafe check you return once more to the police where you can finally get your gun license on which the specific weapon is mentioned, including serial number and caliber. With your gun license you travel once more to your gun dealer to get your gun and the ammo that is also mentioned on the license.
Congrats! You now own a gun
Low and behold! It's not over yet! Then you must travel within 3 weeks, with your gun, back to the policestation again where you give it to the officer so he can check the serial number on the gun. If you do not visit the police with your guns within the 3 weeks, you will have to apply for another gunlicense.

Wow! They are carefull right?
But remember, it is not just what 'the state dictates' but there are not much Dutch people to be found that would have it more easy. Not even among the licensed shooters.
In view of these rules I am happy that I am allowed to shoot at all! Am sure we have one of the strictest gun laws in Europe and because of we do not have too much licensed shooters... you must really be enthousiastic about shooting! Very enthousiastic, and that I am.
I could do with more than 5 licensed guns though, but that's not going to happen I'm sure.

I can imagine the horror thinking about such gunlaws ever becoming reality in the USA. Then again, better have a gunlaw of any sort than a total gun ban...

As said before, freedom in Holland is not bad at all and you can get away with amazingly much, although there is some overruling in my view (how about tax deductibility for the illegal gun purchase by a criminal!? He could not show the bill that would have made it tax deductible I believe...). But the thumbscrews are on when it comes to owning legal guns.
Hildo

 

[Coyote Rider]

"Posted by O.S.O.K: "...the police run around outside the building with AR-15's posturing for the cameras but don't go in to stop the carnage...."
-------------------------------------------------------

I heard an interview with an eye witness who said the Feds ordered the police to wait for hours, and some of the police were so upset they were literally punching a wall.

 

[O.S.O.K.]

exactly

that's what I'm talking about - as stated, I wasn't trying to disparage the police (though it does sound bad - and it was bad).

Bottom line to that situation is that the victims are dissarmed and the police are also dissarmed, though they have their guns - they are dissarmed by policy.

The solution is to allow those on campuses to be legally armed. They are the real "first responders".

 

[Steve Swartz]

Steve Swartz

Hildo:

[Sorry about the long post. This is a greatly misunderstood and complex topic. Couple hundred years ago these issues used to be discussed, debated, and argued over by regular folks in pubs and restaurants, and discussed extensively in the mainstream media of the time. In both Europe and the US. Nowadays, you have to be a college professor or something to even think about this stuff!]

Just to follow up on your last couple of posts . . . and to clarify my use of the term "monarch."

- The power of the state in Europe historically was embodied in the monarchy.
- The underlying principle of the relationship between the staate (monarch) and the people (subjects) was that the state retained all rights, and granted them to the people.
- While Europe got rid of the "trappings" of monarchy, the underlying principle remains: power flows from the state (monarch) to the people (subjects).
- While the subjects may have various forms and levels of input into how the power of the state is wielded (monarchy vs. democracy and everything in between), fundamentally the powers (like rights) are retained by the state and flow to the people.

In the U.S., the fundamental premise is the exact opposite. Our country was founded on the premise that the power of the state should reside in the people, who only yield their power in specific circumstances for specific "public goods."

(At least that's what our constitution says. It used to be what we followed in practice, but today "European" political philosophy has taken over much of our culture. Indeed, those who follow our founding premise are considered "nu cases" or "radicals." Just like the old days!)

This is *not* a "distinction without a difference." This is fundamental to our two systems (U.S.A. vs "The Rest of the Planet"). You need only contrast the American Revolution to the French Revolution (and the two aftermaths) to see the difference in practice.

O.K., so how this is supposed to be operationalized is through the principle of "prior restraint" (PR). PR means you can be forbidden from doing something a priori by the state; ie, you need "permission" to exercise a "right." The European model is based on PR.

In the U.S.A., PR is "fighting words" and the basis for many civil rights laws and disputes. In the U.S.A., the state does NOT (well, is not supposed to)have the power of PR. In Europe, the state uses PR as a fundamental tool of civil order.

Hope that helped- sorry again about the long-windedness of the post. Regular folks used to talk about this stuff alot back in ~1750-~1850.

Steve in The Republic of Texas

 

[Plink]

Steve, that was an outstanding explanation. I'm going to commit that to memory for the next time I'm having a political discussion with my friends, many of whom seem to have a strong left leaning bent and no understanding of why their socialist ideas should be opposed.

 

[hildo]

Steve Swartz,

Long post is no problem, anyone can skip it if they want.
I did not and have red it several times even in trying to comprehend it all, since I am not much into politics, and then looking for the differences between Europe and the US.
History is mighty interesting and it can be followed back to the times we live in today.

For instance the ground on which my house is built was owned by the church, once a very mighty institution. The person rented the ground 274 square meters (something like 2500 square foot probably) from the church and had to pay 3 dutch guilders. He could do with the premisis what he wanted. Built a house on it, grow vegetables, or whatever. The ground was rented by all that was on it, or came from it, was his.
This is a fine example of the rights that you talk about
These 3 guilders was a lot of money back in 1600, they mayby only made 10 or 20 guilders a year. Somewhere in time the church decided to sell the land to a new owner. The new owner is still not me! I muist still pay these 3 guilders a year (1.50 US dollar) to the true owner of my land. His problem is that he can only sell the rights to cash the 3 guilders a year, but he is not even allowed to set one footstep in my (rented) premisis. Nobody is interested in them rights any more. He wanted to sell me my land for 50 guilders (25 US $) once, but I did not take him up on the offer. Too expensive.

Well, this whole story does not say much, apart from the fact that it shows how things have changed in modern times. It is the same with our Queen, it's hardly anything more than a symbol these days and I do not see much difference between the US and Holland. We may both vote and choose whom we want to represent us. Although one big difference remains. The power that the US president has is much bigger, not quite like a dictator (no offense though!) but he is very powerfull. In Holland this is not the case, that's why there will be discussions, almost without end, before we can ship a couple of soldiers to Iraque or Afganistan. Just imagine if one of them would get hurt!
In fact the influence of the people on the state is extremely high and they could not make a discision that would be against the whishes of the majority of our inhabitants. That is why we have a welfare state, not because the state wants it, because the people want it. It is very simular to the Swedish welfare state. People that make a lot of money should pay a lot of income taxes to help support those that do not make a lot of money, or have no income at all. In the 1980's it was at it's high, and there was a lot of fraud too. Why work if your welfare check would not be much lower? It has been changed a bit now but still it is not necessary for any Dutch inhabitant to go hungry or become a bum and live on the streets. The only bums on the streets are those that have a mental problem, and it is not allowed to take them in for better care, unless they are a direct danger to other civilians.
The freedom of the individual is quite high, higher than it ever was probably, but it ends when there is an expectancy of that the freedom or safety of other civilians would be at risk.
Hence our strickt gunlaw. Not forbidden, ofcoarse not since we pound ourselves on the chest for being so liberal, but very much regulated since it poses a potential threath to safety in our society.

The US constitution has a different base as our 'granted rights', I understand.
But that was century's back and society changes and it does so at an ever quicker rate. I think the major difference is that in Europe the individual must adapt to society, less so in the US where the individual's rights are more important than those of the society because it says so in the constitution.

By the way, in Holland we had a civil war too. In 1830 or so. Holland send in a couple of thousand soldiers, lost the fight, and the rebels got their own state. It's called Belgium now.

We should drink a beer together, talk and do some shooting.
Damn, just too far away!

By te way, I will keep my posts shorter from now on. Promised!
Hildo

 

[drdirk]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Very interesting discussion and proably now is more part of the politics section. Let me give you my personal view on this: I grew up in Europe. I have been in the US for a very long time now and am a US Citizen. I CHOSE to live in the US because I did not like the restrictions put on "free citizens" in Europe. The above post is correct, the European history is of being subjects to a monarch and the attitutes are still the same. The state takes care of you, the state tells you what you can do and can not do. As a general rule everything is forbidden unless specifically allowed. In the US, everything is allowed until forbidden. This is a HUGE cultural difference. Take firearms: Unless prohibited, I can own them. In Europe I need permission. Take aviation (yes, I am a pilot): Unless it is ALLOWED you can not land anywhere in your helicopter. In the US, unless it is specifically forbidden you ARE ALLOWED anywhere you want. Want to have your own airport? Just do it, put a sign out and you are done. In Europe you will need PERMISSION to do so from the state, monarch or current representative.

Take helmets on motorcycles: In the free states you have the right to splatter your blood without a helmet if you want to. In Europe, you better wear that helmet or you will get fined. In Texas I can wear it or not. Sometimes I do, sometimes not. It is up to me and I am well aware of the rist of not wearing it. But hell, it is 100+ and I sometimes just don't want to!

Imagine you are a store owner in Europe: Again, the monarch will DICTATE when you can have your store open. No, you are NOT ALLOWED to work hard and sell your products on Sunday or late at night. Needless to say, in the US you can work as much or as little as you want.

Back to firearms: Although a lot of Europeans argue the US is more dangerous because of more guns I certainly feel safer in the US, at least in the area I live in. Yes, we have more shootings per capita but also don't have all these eastern european gangs stealing, breaking and entering. This happens a lot in Europe and is always downplayed.

So, these are NOT 200 year old outdates differences. These are cultural differences that are here today and will be here tomorrow.

I can tell you from my unscientific sample of friends and family that they are subjected to much more crime than my friends and family in the US. And the are completely defenseless!!!

Happy shooting to all, no matter where you are!

 

[hildo]

My last post on this subject, since I do not feel I have much left to add.

DrDirk
Excellent post. It sums the basics up in one go.
The European restrictions, although basically always done for the better of the people, can drive one nuts. We have a lot of burocraty, too much.
The truth about the matter in Europe is variably depending on which angle you look at it.

Motorcycles.
I ride 27 years now, and not just on a sunday afternoon cruise but for regular transport. My life has been saved by a helmet probably twice, would not write this post without it. I am no saint, and took my helmet off in helmet free states during my 3 month trip through the US and Canada. It can be blazing hot indeed.
Because of the design of my chopper, high neck and handlebars, I would probably be severely hurt or die when hitting a car since I cannot be thrown clear of the bike as on a regular motorcycle. I am extra carefull with cars and take the risk.

Store owner.
Open from 9.00 to 18.00 and you go home to enjoy your family or what ever.
Your competitor will have to do the same. More free(dom).
The money that is spend in total will not be more or less because in general people will spend all they have anyways. The only difference will come when one store owner is open longer than another. In some degree this is already happening and this is not a good thing for the one man operated shops. You will have to put in may more hours to make the same money.
Goodbye family life.

Firearms.
I have traveled, by motorcycle & tent, into each European country at least ones. This includes Iceland, Turkey upto the Iran border and all of the former eastblock states. All unarmed. I was taken out of my tent at gunpoint only once (1988) by people in Turkey armed with double barrel shotguns, just to see if I was a terrorist. (Imagine what would have happened when I would have started shooting in self defence by a wrong interpetation of the situation!). After checking me I was invited the next day to come to their nomad camp and eat with them in their tents and to look at their sheep of which they were very proud.
Last year I completed a trip through the Baltic States, again with nothing but a tent. People seemed unfriendly at first, but I ran into some trouble and everybody was there to help us out. Same thing in Poland, where I broke my rear axle once, they were more than glad to help me out. Excellent people.
Sure there are gangs out there, sure they can mug you. But it never happened to me yet. People should not be too scared of everything since most is of hear say and the actual chance of something happening is not that great. It is mostly the fear in your own head. and once it's there it is hard to get it out.
My trip trough the US was the best since people are friendly, interested and the countryside can sometimes be awsome in beauty. Since my looks and the look of my bike attrack all kinds of strange people I had a lot of contact. What struck me the most is that many Americans are scared ****less. I ran out of petrol a couple of times. Nobody stops to help! I once pushed my bike along the road upto a house, in Georgia somewhere, where an oldtimer came out after I rang the door bell. A very friendly man and we hopped in his car before I knew it to the next gas station for some gas. He told me that if I would have rang his doorbell after 20.00h he would not have opened. Too dangerous. He shook his head in disbelieve when I told him I was traveling the US on my bike and with a tent to sleep in. He whished me a safe trip and told me to look out for crazy people 'that will shoot through your tent just for the hell of it'. He was absolutely not the only one with simular remarks.
Because of all these people warning me I got an unsafe feeling myself and I must say this trip through the US was alltogether the one with the unsafest feeling.

Even if I would have been mugged and had a gun, would it protect me or just let the criminal pull the trigger on his one quicker?
If I would be on the othet side of the law I sure as hell would not take any chances in the US and shoot my victem dead at his very first flinch.
I would not want to trade in Europe for the US. Nothing is for free and the American freedom is paid for in my view. I would, for instance not travel the former Yougoslave anymore, I did shortly before the war started there, but now feel there are to many angry people, armed with guns left over from the war. Maybe the situation is not that bad... but fear can be in ones head and limit your freedom. If you have no fear of someting happening, you need no self defence guns.
Hildo

 

[Tommygunn]

Even if I would have been mugged and had a gun, would it protect me or just let the criminal pull the trigger on his one quicker?

There is a good point that the criminal often has the advantage, in that he gets to know what his plans are and initiate them. But keep in mind, in the United States, there are between 1 and 2 million incidents each year in which honest law abiding citizens use fire-arms successfully to defend themselves, in spite of the "advantage" the criminal supposedly has. If people defend themselves wisely, and aggressively, it can be done."...would it protect me..." IT would do nothing. It would sit there, inanimate, unthinking, uncaring. A gun is a tool.
YOU have to defend yourself, your weapon won't do anything for you.