European Mindset: Are they all against guns or is it just me?

[Sharps-shooter]

I've found that a lot of people in Ireland are not anti-gun. some of them are, but for many it's more a matter of political correctness than a deeply held conviction. I also met a number of people over there who had guns, either for upland game hunting or defense (not much deer hunting in Eire, and much of it is illegal).

There were also many people, especially in the north, who liked ar15's which they called "armalites" (regardless of who made them).

 

[ArmedBear]

Many Europeans are like children who never grew up.

Remember: over the past century, a good number of independent, enterprising Europeans emigrated somewhere else. That leaves a certain subset behind.

 

[Fosbery]

I do that with ARs sometimes - calling them Armalites. I know quite a few Brit shooters who call them Armalites too. Rolls off the tounge easier tha 'aye arr' I think, and we know what we mean when we say it.

 

[Manedwolf]

What you're seeing today isn't "Old Europe." It's "Young and Immature Europe."

I hope the few surviving members of the Old Europe populace can awaken the youngsters before it's too late.

I worry about them.

Well, if they have no problem with authority telling them what to do, if they don't "wake up", they'll be all set for their new masters. They'll need to learn which direction is west, and how to say 'allahu akbar', though. They might have issue with the beatings for listening to the wrong music or for women dressing provocatively, but, hey, too late.

 

[Deanimator]

Europeans seem to value security over freedom.

You're half right. They value the APPEARANCE (illusion, actually) of security over freedom.

Any place like France, where there are more arsons in six months than in ten years in Cleveland, OH has only the PRETENSE of security.

The figures for violent crime in the UK are astounding. The difference between there and most place in the US is that we don't have a statutory duty to be a passive victim of violent crime while pretending that we're "protected" by the police.

 

[wacki]

ArfinGreebly,

That is an interesting hypothesis. What were the gun control laws like before WWII? That's seems to be a good way to test your theory.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

European Gun Laws Before WW II?

Wish I knew.

Don't know where to look.

Anyone?

 

[SoCalShooter]

Seems more like complacency and laziness to me. I would rather defend myself than rely on someone else to do it. They are reliant on the parent state at this point.

 

[Fosbery]

In Britain, there were no gun laws before 1920.

In 1920, machineguns, mortars, flamethrowers etc were essentially banned from civillian ownership. All other firearms, except shotguns, required a 'certificate' to own. This was simply a note you could pick up from the post office. It did not restrict ownership, but it let the authorities know who had firearms.

These laws were not meant to stop crime. This was the argument put to the public but in truth it was to keep tabs on communist revolutionaries.

By 1939, the certificate system had become more formalised and it appeared more like a permit. You could be denied a certificate if the police could prove that you were a danger to the public. You also needed to give a reason for wanting to own firearms.

In 1945, the Home Office secretly set a guideline that stated that self protection or protection of property was NOT an acceptable reason. This was really the start of serious gun control in Britain.

 

[Medusa]

Are we unitedly against guns? well... no. In here, for example, the weapon has always been seen as a sign of free man. Unfortunately, having long periods of slavery and now lately communist occupation, having weapons in civilian hands were punished. That's why the guns leave people cold, today. We have ~26,000 gunowners, from the pop of 1.3 million (making it ~2% of whole population being gunowners), as a result of it.

Sadly, the police is understaffed (running on maybe 50-60% of needed number of officers), thus making responding to several crimes at once a questionable thing - it is close to bank, where you take the number and wait for your turn.

Here the things have gone so bad that my military organization is prepping to give out armed soldiers for patrolling. So much from the secure society.

There's no need to start throwing stereotypes, it's immature.

 

[Cromlech]

One thing you have to remember, is that there are FAR less 'bushmen' and hunter types in this country, and far less that live out in the sticks.

The U.K is slightly smaller than the state of Wyoming, yet is crammed full of 60 MILLION people. Imagine taking America, and removing two-thirds of the rural country side (full of more self-sufficient, right leaning people). What would you be left with? The big cities (full of dependent on the government lefties), and the immediate towns around them. What kind of shift in political power do you think that would yield?

Think about it.

Oh, and there is no need to bash the French, they had been fighting battles for more than a thousand years by the time the U.S.A was born. Give the U.S.A a chance to grow out of it's 'diapers', then you can compare the two.

 

[Cromlech]

Oh, and before I get savaged by the rabid wolverines on this forum, I was half joking.

Seriously though, the reliance of us Europeans on the government, is a big factor in this. People just don't want to have to look after themselves anymore.

As much as I would hate to uproot, the whole biometric data for passports and ID cards has made me think hard about leaving.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Dense Population

I don't see the decline of personal responsibility and courage as a natural function of population density.

It is entirely manufactured.

It is a sad fact that the larger part of any population is easily herded and will accept whatever is offered to them as "fact" by whomever is in charge. When "whoever is in charge" decides he wants to exert more control and doesn't want to deal with resistance, the deceptions begin in earnest.

It is, in fact, easier to get acquiescence and conformity from a denser grouping. The idea of "safety nets" and "comfort" and "lack of conflict" are more appealing (in general) to the kind of person who will gravitate to large cities.

Large population centers are almost unavoidably easier to sway with plausibly stated arguments that seem to promote such values. Of course, once the "precedent" is established (the "people" have spoken) the tyranny of the majority begins to work its magic.

It matters not that the popular opinion is almost never right.

Popularity is prized above all else in a "democracy" and is, itself, declared as synonymous with "right" (if the "people" want it, it must be right).

Given that this is the case, the only way to win is to place your message (acceptably framed) on a carrier that will resonate with the majority. That carrier might be (for example) popular music, movies, television, or education.

The bent to power and authority being, as it is, an attribute of those who would rule, those figures in power can be counted on to use those same carriers to propogate their message of control, couched in terms of protection and caring.

Remember, however, that this same personality inevitably bears an attribute of cowardice (which leads them to disarm their subjects), and this core of personal dread can be exploited to neutralize in some measure their otherwise rampant trampling of rights.

They have no stomach for conflict that involves them personally.

In complement, the population needs to be reminded from time to time what freedom and independence and self-reliance are, and what those things can do for one's life and fortunes.

Remind the people that they can be alive. Remind the rulers that they can be dead.

Balance is good.

 

[ArmedBear]

Europeans just discovered the joy of voting themselves other people's money a while back. Of course, that doesn't quite work as planned.

Now, Europeans are quite reliant on government programs to dole back to them what they pay in taxes (or indirectly through unemployment, stagnant economies, etc.).

It's a hard habit to break.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Cromlech

My oldest daughter just came back from 2 1/2 years in (Southern) England.

She and I both love England and the English.

She finds things somewhat restrictive and expensive there. She's not terribly culturally aware, and she's never been exposed to firearms. She just knows it's not as nice as it was when we were there years ago. She finds more freedom, more personal space, and the money goes farther here.

I, on the other hand, grieve for what I know England used to be.

 

[Green Lantern]

I won't say ALL Europeans are like this...but in certian places *cough* U.K. *cough* it's bothers me more that they're not just anti-gun...but anti self-defense as well!

 

[Cosmoline]

I've been debating gun rights with Europeans for years now. You have to be careful to separate the ones who are truly against the RKBA with those who say they're against it *SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER KNOWN ANOTHER WAY* There's also a conceptual link between gun ownership and US foreign policy. I know it makes ZERO sense, but nevertheless a great many Europeans link the ownership of a sidearm with the invasion of Vietnam, Iraq, Poland, etc. It's been ingrained in them since they were little, and they believe it now without thinking. The hard core socialist elite really do want to disarm everybody and it's pointless to argue with them, but the majority of Europeans have simply forgotten how to think for themselves. They're not beyond hope, but you have to bring them over in little steps.

In general, the East Europeans are the most open minded on this subject, but they're being drawn into the EU fold and their governments are forced to go along with anti-RKBA policies to get benefits from the wealthier nations in the west. You can see this from Finland to the former Yugoslavia. The central Europeans, including Germans, Swiss, and others, have a different tradition of civilian arms ownership. In those countries private gun ownership is both socially and legally based around GUN CLUBS. These are not like our gun clubs. Some of them go back to the 16th century. They have their own traditions, history, and even their own songs and uniforms. They often have strong political ties with the right, or what passes for the right these days. Within the confines of the club, firearm ownership is not only allowed but broader than it is in the US. They can own full auto firearms that aren't even imported into the US. The catch is, everything is licensed and most all of it has to stay locked up at the club. There is no tradition of carrying your personal firearms, and many of them consider our carrying customs totally insane. Nor is there any notion that you'd use firearms to defend your person or your home. Even in vaunted Switzerland, the arms are held to protect the state first and foremost, not to protect hearth and home.

The UK is a different animal. 100 years ago, there were few firearm laws. A gentleman could carry his service revolver or bulldog around London without fear of prosecution. Read some Sherlock Holmes stories to get an idea of how this was taken for granted. The millions of little break top CCW pieces sold there tell the tale themselves. All this was brought to an end by a series of increasingly draconian laws, as we all know. It started in earnest during WWI when the aristocracy and Royal Family were scared to death of a red revolt by Tommies coming back from the trenches with newfound arms skills and crazy notions of communism. But these laws were selectively enforced, and it was still common for a gentlemen like TE Lawrence to have an ad hoc pistol range in his back yard and a large personal collection. As the Socialists came into power after WWII, the situation got much worse and their control over public education ensured that the postwar generations of Britains would be abjectly terrified of arms. So it's been an easy matter to take more and more power from the people. At the same time, the British police are getting better and better armed and showing an increasing willingness to blow people's heads off for turnstyle jumping. I've noticed some shift in British thinking, at least from what I've seen on some other forums. They're starting to realize that while they may hate guns, their beloved government LOVES them and loves to use them on warm targets.

 

[ArmedBear]

They're not beyond hope, but you have to bring them over in little steps.

There may not be time, at least for the countries with "No-Go Zones."

The US should leave Europe to its own devices and cultivate relationships with countries that share some common values.

Bear in mind that there's a growing exodus of the young and smart from many European socialist countries. Those remaining at home will leave an even less-independent, less-capable population there.

 

[Mannlicher]

The EuroEunuch mindset is not against guns, per say, the mind set is against letting the serfs have the means to defend themselves against the King.
Yeah, the Kings are pretty much gone, but the mindset of the governing elite stays the same.

 

[Cosmoline]

As long as there's life, there's hope. Remember how close WE came to going down that road. FDR and his socialists (and they WERE socialists!) wanted to include handguns in the NFA of '34 and they came darn close to doing just that. The CCW movement has been repealing and modifiying an array of state laws dating back up to a century that were put into place by legislators determined to destroy the RKBA. This is an old battle, and it's only by the grace of the Lord and a lot of luck that we didn't head down England's road. One thing we really need to do is remember how critical federalism is in this fight, and how dangerous it can be if we are ruled by a parliamentary hyperstate.

 

[Fosbery]

Cosmoline, your point about Brits disliking the wrongful police use of arms in such cases as Jean Charles De Menezes (if you didn't know, he was mistaken for a suicide bomber and killed by armed police) is correct. However, this does NOT equal a more pro-RKBA stance. It only reinforces the view that guns are evil because they killed an innocent person.

 

[ArmedBear]

As long as there's life, there's hope. Remember how close WE came to going down that road.

We didn't have a growing internal population of unassimilated immigrants, with growing violent tendencies and worldwide organizations happy to encourage those tendencies.

That's what I mean by a limited amount of time to change. As-is, Europe can't stay the same, one way or another.

 

[iapetus]

Good points made so far, I think.


I would question the assumption that Airsoft users would be supportive of real guns.

After all, one of the main uses of Airsoft guns is to (pretend to) shoot and "kill" other people. While someone might find it fun to pretend to do that with other like-minded people, it may well enforce the idea that guns are inherently violent things, and turn them against real guns.

I quite like watching gangster films, and playing Grand Theft Auto. That doesn't mean I think such things are good when done for real.


As for why the UK is generally more anti gun (I can't speak for the rest of Europe), some points to consider (some have been mentioned already):

* Two World Wars have made people generally find militarism in all its forms distasteful. And unlike occupied Europe, the general population didn't need to engage in armed resistance against the Germans. (We did prepare for it quite extensively, with the Home Guard, but it was never required to actually fight).

* Generally low crime for a long period meant that there was little need[ for people to own defensive arms.

* Similarly, generally only the rural population has had much need for guns for work, and very few people hunt for food (and AFAIK no-one relies on hunting as a major source of food or income). (NB: in the UK, "hunting" usually means chasing deer/foxes etc with hounds; hunting using guns is normally referred to as "shooting").

* Much of the hunting community is aristocratic / upper-middle class. Meaning (possibly) a bit of bias in early firearm legislation against letting the proles have guns, followed by a backlash from the ordinary people when they got more power, who might have seen gun control as a way to get revenge on the aristocracy.

* "Entirely reasonable" registration and licensing of firearms, with no (obvious) intention of prohibition, that no-one would have any reason to object to...

* Followed a few decades later by "self defence" not being considered a "good reason" for owning a gun (in a country where there was never a great need to have a gun for self defence)...

* Meaning that when eventually a couple of nut-jobs went on shooting sprees, few people owned guns or saw any overwhelming need to have one, while the dangers posed by evil people with ready access to them were obvious.

(Take note America: we had a constitutional right to bear arms about a hundred years before you did, meaning our government and gun-control advocates have had a hundred years head start on yours. About a hundred years ago, our gun rights were still in a fairly similar position to where yours are now).

* Also an increasing culture of dependency on the government and "society" to take care of all your problems for you, and (commonly, not universally) a belief that the best solution to something bad happening is more laws. (PS: unlike in the US, the British police do have a duty to protect you, and there has been at least one case of a police force being sued (successfully, I think) for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent a murder that was obviously going to happen).

* Finally, a media (and media-consuming public) that always finds bad/sensational news more interesting than good (or no) news. And considers a psycho (especially in America) shooting 10 people more shocking that a psycho in some other country starting a fire that kills a hundred. (But then, that’s hardly a problem unique to Britain).


I’d say that’s a good summary of why the UK is generally hostile (or at best ambivalent) to guns.

As British/European hostility towards American attitudes to guns, I’d say take all the points I’ve just made, then add in:

* 10,000 plus homicides-with guns in the US (which without properly investigating all the issues surrounding crime, self-defence, the number of gun-owners who don’t murder people, crime rates in other gun-friendly countries, etc, certainly makes it look as if liberal gun laws lead to lots of shootings).


* A “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out” kind of attitude displayed by some pro-gun contributors to gun-control debates (not as common on THR as some other forums I’ve visited, unless you’re talking about Zombies, but such sentiments do, unfortunately, seem to be more common here than when I first joined).

 

[Cromlech]

ArfinGreebly

What part of southern England were you in? The souther parts of England are 'better off' when it comes to wages, and things like that, but housing is more expensive.

I'm glad that you and your daughter got to see the good stuff that this island has to offer, before it became unbearable. Cosmoline has made some good points just now, about how much Britain has changed in the last 100 years. Being 21, I have not known a different Britain really, as although the nanny state is more prevalent now than in the 80's, it was already headed there when I was born.

 

[Cromlech]

* Two World Wars have made people generally find militarism in all its forms distasteful. And unlike occupied Europe, the general population didn't need to engage in armed resistance against the Germans. (We did prepare for it quite extensively, with the Home Guard, but it was never required to actually fight).

Now that is a good point. We were right on the doorstep of war-torn Europe, but our civilians never had to fight in the streets.