How should I respond to an anti from europe?

[JohnL2]

This thread is fascinating. I must visit Europe and see if the whole cultural dichotomy thing is as dramatic as you all make it sound.

I'm sickened of this continent, and I want to move to the US. I signed up for the Green Card lottery last year. No luck . Biggest disappointment I've been through in my entire life .

Is it really that bad?
When I think of Europe I think of quaint villages, Old Europe cobblestone streets, and people on mopeds and driving odd looking cars. Of course high taxes. Maybe it works for them.

I can only imagine the reactions to me. An ethnic Yank.

 

[AirForceShooter]

How do you explain freedom to a slave?
How do you explain self-determination to a serf?

When you can answer that, you can talk guns to a european.

AFS

 

[The Viking]

JohnL2: Yeah, it is. For example, take the stuff I've heard/read about today...night club in Malmö (Southern Sweden) shot at with automatic weapon. Perps got off on motorcycle/moped.
Pistolpacking teens (again on mopeds) robbing armored car in Stockholm.
A few weeks ago: Teen in critical condition after being stabbed in the back by another teen, who had been set loose after less than a year of counseling or something like that. His earlier crime? He had stabbed a 15 year old. In the back. The guy almost died. Why isn't the perpetrator DEADDEADDEAD!?!?!?!

Add rampant socialism, nannyism, anti-americanism, uncontrolled immigration from problem areas (immigrants who then never get a job, and thus live on the dole for the rest of their lives).

Etc etc. Need any more info?

 

[PILMAN]

They closed my thread, I guess they don't feel like debating anymore, and of course they had to have the last word. Somehow I don't feel like I wasted my time though.

 

[Baba Louie]

They closed my thread, I guess they don't feel like debating anymore, and of course they had to have the last word. Somehow I don't feel like I wasted my time though.

There it is then. Perhaps next go round you could try the Shakespearean method I call the "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him" (aka "Brutus is an honourable man")... maybe... should you again choose to tilt at windmills. (and you will Pilman, you will)

Walk a mile in their mocassins attempting to understand their ways, agreeing that what works best for one may in fact be poison for another.

I know that history has a way of repeating itself and twice now Europe has felt the awful impact of US intervention, much to their chagrin I am sure. It may be that the third time there will be no one to answer the beck and call; certainly a question worthy of consideration should the average American lay down not only their arms, but the will to use them in just cause. I'm thinking it will surely be a benefit for several differing cultures to rest assured knowing that the US Lamb lies down for, er, with the Lion as instructed by the all knowing and Innocent child. True?

Naaah. Muddy Pig Wrasslin'... is good sport, ain't it?
Specially when ya get 'em to sing along wich ya in three part harmony.

 

[Dorryn]

For two, since we've already established that the riff-raff in my area are also armed, owning a gun isn't going to do me any good since it'd come down to me vs. them... and I can tell you they likely have fewer scruples and better hand-eye coordination.

"Since you've already given up, can I have the contents of your bank account?"

 

[Jubjub]

I'm sort of partial to quoting this little essay.

Why the Gun is Civilization

Markos Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

 

[JWarren]

Short answer to they OP question:


I don't debate or attempt to rationalize US laws to non-US citizens. Those laws are not any of their concern.


-- John

 

[budney]

JubJub, it's an interesting essay. The choice isn't between reason and force, though: it's between free-will and force. There are lots of ways to persuade you to do something of your own free will, and not all of them use "reason." I can pay you. I can appeal to our friendship. I can do you a favor in return, etc.

The biggest persuader by orders of magnitude is the voluntary trade. Billions of people got other people to do something today of their own free will, by means of voluntary trade.

Which reminds me--I have to head out soon. I'd better go persuade the gal behind the counter to give me a Big Mac of her own free will...

 

[PILMAN]

I got some others i'm debating with from Australia on a european forum.

Wonder what I should respond with.

"i fail to see how you can still put forward all these arguments about the UK and Australia when in American you have this much vaunted right to bear arms, while still having a crime rate that is an order of magnitude higher (than Australia anyway, not sure about the exact figures in the UK).

and for that matter why are you bringing up the writting of the US constitution, a document has nothing to do with the governance of the United Kingdom, while quoting a piece of legislation specifically created to oppose that nations army. You may think this is applicable because of the tyranny of the times, but these are very different times, domestic politics are controlled by public opinion, the sovereignty of the people, a principle that was first penned by the founding fathers of the American nation and government. This makes it highly improbably with the spirit of the time for any western nation to enforce martial law, let alone an untrained, unaccountable minority to take up arms against it.


QUOTE
Wait so we should be unarmed anyways because the govt has bigger guns and we're going to die anyways? In that case I don't see how the right to bear arms matters to you if we're screwed in the end. Seems like if there were a civil war, your indicating it wouldn't matter if you owned a gun or not because you'd likely be killed. Just how do you think the US is going to bomb citys full of unarmed people? Armed citizens are everyday people like you and I.


Do you really truly believe that you have to be armed so you can fight your own government? if so then that is a sad sorry set of affairs when a self proclaimed citizen is willing to take up arms against their own democratically elected government (even if that can be debated about the US ). Personally i highly doubt your military would even carry out such an order if it were given.


QUOTE
In other words, we are the militia. I see this as the trump card for proving why we, as citizens, need firearms.


yes because giving every man and his dog a lethal weapon to use at his (able bodied male, sexist much?) will is good idea...


QUOTE
Goes for Australia as well by the way. I had a look at their firearms laws, and they indeed do have various sections to categorize firearms. Then I looked at the requirements to obtain one, and what kind of limitations they have in place.


and limitations are bad how? you can still buy a handgun here if you have a legitimate use, you can still buy a rifle here to hunt, you can't go buy one off Joe blow
and start shooting up a cafe (Port Arthur massacre) "


Heres the post after it

"damn straight there mower! even though i do not like Australian firearms laws, i still believe that they work well. the freedom of Americans' seems a bit too much for me.

I may not like the fact that i cant own my own pistol (because i have no legitimate reason beyond "i want one"), but at least i can still go down to the pistol range and fire off a few hundred round out of a selection of pistols.

the only one problem i have with our firearms laws is that Airsoft itself is classified under them, and we can not own anything as they are considered military orientated. "

I was going to point out the rise in gun crime in Australia but they claim a snopes article shows that is false and gun crime is actually dropping?

 

[rangerruck]

just pile on him quote after quote, of the founding fathers, most of which , were first or second gen. Europeans, who knew more about, and studied more about european history, thatn this guy ever will. make sure he knows that , also.
quotes on gun ownership.

 

[17poundr]

I MUST PROTEST TO THE POST FROM WIKING, IT HAD RACIST UNDERTONES, AND ALTHOUGH I HATE THE EU GUN LICENCE POLICIES, I MUST SAY THAT EUROPE IS A GREAT PLACE TO SEE, BY ALL MEANS COME AND TRAVEL HERE, THE MURDER RATE IS ONLY A FRACTION OF THAT IN AMERICA SO YOU WILL BE SAFE UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING VERY STUPID..

sorry, the large fonts just 'came on', but I got somewhat mad form wikings post. I mean every country in the world has juvenile crime of the most horrible kind sometimes...
finland is EU's number one for unwarranted violence (meaning: getting beaten up for no apparent reason, just the fun of it).

Still, if you avoid angry looking drunken young men at three 'o' clock in the morning at Saturday night, you will be ok... Most of the violence is alchohol related...

I agree that Sweden has let perhaps too many immigrants into it's relatively small population base, but the old line of 'they are stealing our jobs ect'... Just aint the truth...

Look at America with the plethora of ethical groups working and living together to produce the worlds most powerful and energetic nation!!

Or london, which has About 8million inhabitants, from those at least one million are form the Indian sub continent, the Caribbean or Africa, and I have found London the most functioning multicultural city I have been to!

Not that I encountered any violence in LA in 88 either, but we didnt go to East LA on a Friday night. Especially as the radio stated that two people had been murdered in LA that evening so far...

No country is totally good, or totally bad, that is the wisdom I have picked up in my travels in all Continents but Australasia...

Still, I would love to own a Mossberg shotgun, a half dozen of various handguns, a good cowboy gun, an Ak, and AR-15 clone, and the Ruger 223rem 5round marksman gun, a good bolt action win300magnum, and a fast shooting version of the m-14... And for long range stuff probably the Armalite 338lapua 5round semi auto...

And I would love to learn self loading cartridges, and gunsmithing, and hopefully have a shop with a range at the back, where people who couldnt make up their minds, could for the normal gun range-weapon rent fee, go and test for comparison the guns they are comparing in their minds, and arrange special weekends at the range where I would teach the tactical shooting I learned in th eFinnish army (all abiding to the laws of the state I was in, meaning. if only cops and soldiers were allowed to get this training then so be it), Also I would love to set up a small import-export business where I could scout for the good stuff made in Europe and and export the best cowboy guns into Europe, and try to promote practical shooting in Europe and finally try to get it as a realized 'x-treme game' and get it into the 'x olympics first' then go for the real Olympics!

All of this I know I could acchieve only in America, so please dont get me wrong.

Yours truly,
Mr poundr.

p.s. And one day, I would wish to acchieve, for my part the legal Finland style ownership of guns for citizens with no violent history, or any sentences on their sheets, in Britain... And see the once world leading British gun industry rise again..

And the best way to do that is to get practical shooting into an Olympic sport...

 

[iapetus]

The original debater, judging by the first post, seemed fairly reasonable to me, but just without the personal experience or historical knowledge to justify the RKBA. Did you get anywhere with them before the thread closed?


As for the Australian, he seems less open minded, so I'm not so sure you could get anywhere debating with him.



Some general suggestions for debating this sort of subject:

Find out if there is any situation where they would consider the use of lethal force to be justified. If they say "no", then check if they really mean someone about to be raped/murdered should be banned from killing in self defence. If they say "yes", then they are a lost cause and should be ignored. (But you could point out that even UK law disagrees with them).

If they accept that there are circumstances where lethal force is justified, then they probably think that - on balance - the danger of allowing everyone to have a gun, with no licensing restrictions, will result in more crimes (or accidents) than it would prevent. (They are likely basing their opinions on "facts" about a gun being 43 times more likely to be used against a family member than a criminal, etc). In that case, providing them with better information may help.

Also, try to find out the person's political, ethical, and philosophical stance, and see if you can find an argument that fits with their world view. (For example, in the UK at least, I've found that left-wingers (of the non-blissninny variety), tend to be more receptive to the idea of firearms as a means for resisting dictatorships (which in their view will invariably be right-wing ones) than as a means of crime prevention).

If they are generally tolerant or even in favour of firearm use/ownership for self defence/tyranny prevention, but think you are still going a bit too far in your opposition to licensing/restrictions, I'd point out, as relevant:
* If someone doesn't own a gun, and suddenly discovers they really need one (they realize they have a stalker, for example), then delays on acquiring one could literally put their life at risk.

* Just because a government doesn't (allegedly) want to take your guns away, a future one might (and not just a would-be dictator). Therefore registration, even if introduced by a non-gun-hating government, would allow confiscation by a future government.

* A dictator or would-be dictator, once in a position of power, will not allow his subjects to acquire arms. Therefore, any arms intended to be used in a widespread resistance will have to be acquired before the dictator comes to power. Consequently, it would have to be legal to keep and bear arms under a benign government. (I.e. the common argument "But this government is a liberal democracy, not a dictatorship, so you don't need guns" doesn't wash).

References to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising may be useful. Particularly how many resources had to be diverted away from the war with the Allies in order to quell it. Especially if you speculate on what would have happened if the majority of the ghetto inhabitants had been armed and joined the resistance, rather than meekly boarding the trains even when they knew they were to be killed. And if similar uprisings had occurred elsewhere simultaneously.


Another damning statistic that I realized recently but haven't yet used in a debate: The contribution of the Holocaust alone to the average European murder rate for the past 100 years is a factor of 10 greater than the annual US firearm homicide rate. (11M/100years = 110,000pa vs 11,000pa). And that's before you add the contributions from Stalin, Milosovitch, etc).

 

[ready4shtf]

I usually just use the "You're just jealous" line. And then I pull out the pictures.

 

[igor]

Viking, Sweden is indeed up 5h1t creek but hey, that's democracy in action... :banghead:

It would suit both you and quite a few of the other contributors here not to paint with the big brush meant for fat, dumb four-year-olds, though. Bear with me; one thing (among many) I've learned here is that the US is hugely diverse.

News flash: "Europe" is a couple orders of magnitude more diverse. It's a geographical continent, not a unified blissninny surrendermonkey loserculture from Greece thru Denmark to western Russia, for 's sake.

If you have a beef with the police state that (no-longer-so-great) Britain is in, talk about UK. If a liberal know-it-all flower-hatted pot-smoking soon-to-be-soccer-single-mother from Germany ticks you off, talk back about Germany. But would you be as kind as to get your facts straight before you lump, say, Finland in with them?

Especially the smart donkey "liberators of all of Europe" from WWII truly get to me. FYI, there were three European capitals that weren't occupied in that war: London, Moscow and Helsinki. And we managed that quite nicely without asking for any help from you, thank you very much. We used the Nazis instead.

I quite agree with the Estonian neighbor here that most people who yap illogically with their panties in a wedgy bunch when it comes to firearms are exactly those who never held one and only got their notion of what's what from the tittytainment media. I urge anyone here to show me that this would be any different on any continent. Puh-lee-ze?

And, ready4, I'll bet I have pics to make you jealous...

 

[AntiqueCollector]

And we managed that quite nicely without asking for any help from you, thank you very much.

And respectfully, the Brits would have lost had we not given them help (we gave them lots of supplies and such) even before we entered the war. They had foolishly disarmed themselves even before Hitler came to power. Russia came very close to falling, and if we hadn't helped the Brits as we did which prevented Hitler from getting them, likely, Russia would have fallen.

 

[igor]

AC, allow me to clarify: the one capital I'm talking about and the whole point of the rant was Helsinki.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

the freedom of Americans' seems a bit too much for me.

'Nuff said.

 

[Isildur]

A forget about arguing with European Antis - it's pointless. There are some people you can convince but the majority is ignoring the facts.

Comparing US and European crime rates leads you nowhere since a crime rate is determined by many factors and you simply cannot compare them this way. Every guy with even a faint idea of statistics will tell you that.

There are about 1Million legal weapons in Germany. Let's assume for simplicity that every gun owner owns 10 guns, that makes a total of 100.000 legal gun owners. With 100.000 knowing what their talking about how should they convince 80.000.000 people who know guns solely from the media(which is as biased as the US media if not worse)?

I don't know it - it's dangerous - let's ban it. That's it.

I've discussed this issue in endless debates(which I cannot quote since they're German) and there were maybe a handful of people whom you could describe as open minded the rest are complete antis who do not even bother to respond to arguments(let alone present arguments themselves).

Europe has some advantages but when it comes to gun-control this continent is lost - maybe I'll move to the US when I finished school and university...

 

[Dannavyret]

Europeans will always fall easily to new tyrants. Hitler was the last one, Islamic extremists are the next. Within two decades both France and England will be knee deep in Islamo-fascism.

Anyone feel the need to save these idiots a 4th time?

 

[The Viking]

17poundr: What in Hades are you yelling about? Racist? No effin way. We DO have a problem here. Some immigrant groups have an unemployment rate of 60-80% last I heard. Want to know why Sweden has taken in so many illiterates who'll never get a job? Don't have a job? You live on the dole? Which political party supports the massive welfare program we suffer with now? The leftist parties collectivly. Then these illiterates get a citizenship, often without having worked a single day since they arrived, often without speaking Swedish. And being citizens means they get to vote. Guess who they vote for? They are nothing but cattle. Electional cattle brought in to keep the Social Democratic Party in power. I can't tell you how much I HATE the (present day) Social Democrats. Chicago Democrats have dead people voting for them. Can't really do that here, so we get new people who depend on the Social Democrats to get their money. The arrogance that they show sickens me to no end. They feel that Social Democrats=The Rightful Rulers. Everything else is just inconceivable for them. Why, people who voted for the right-of-center alliance are obviously demented, egoistic fascists, neo-nazis, or company executives who dare to say that they want to make a profit out of their company! How dare they! After all, the purpose of private corporations is to serve the State after all.

 

[The Viking]

Europe has some advantages but when it comes to gun-control this continent is lost - maybe I'll move to the US when I finished school and university...

I'm thinking along the same lines. Start studying, get a degree, get a green card, live free and happy (and watch the old country going to hell . Guess not much can be done about it )

 

[rangerruck]

give them quotes, fromt their dudes, from the 1500''s on, about self defense.

 

[Isildur]

Yeah the problem is that although the won't really agree with these statements on self-defense they would argue that self-defense does not imply the need for a gun. If you tell them that the criminal has a gun so you should better get one as well they'll probably say that you should make it harder for criminals to get a gun or that if you give more people access to guns more criminals would have guns as well.

You're pretty much caught in a circle of BS and every false statement is defended with two other false statements.

 

[Tom Fury]

Not a rational argument...You can't win

And Brits are hypocrites about violence. They deplore it, but excuse it at the same time. I don't understand how a football game can turn into a riot here and they can still perceive us as being somehow more violent than they are. A friend of mine and his girlfriend were mugged here three weeks ago, by three guys with a hammer. Yes, he went to A&E. Generally mugged in the US means you will lose your money and cards; over here, someone will try to send you to the hospital.
They quite abhor us as violent by nature; being interested in firearms or self defense at all will get you classed as violent, dangerous and crazy. In order to take the guns, they had to demonize them and anyone who disagreed. Then they had to sell the idea that self defense was wrong (and it is illegal). And now many cry about whats' to be done, and can't face the inevitable.
This is a bit of a rant, but I've been in the UK a year now and my most common response to anyone's complaints about the "way things are" has become: "And how long are you going to put up with that?" Say what you want about Americans being quick on the trigger, British tolerance flavored with arrogance makes this a scary place to be.
Interesting to see that they are arming all their cops in some larger cities now. This generates a lot of raised eyebrows, but evidently the threat of terrorism is finally becoming great enough to overcome their hypocrisy about violent crime.
Anyone see BBC Americas' "The State Within?" Pretty good TV, and interesting take on how Europeans (Brits especially) see us. Brits imagine themselves as the only rational people left in the world.
I think they're more oppressed than any because they should know better, and won't come off the conceit.
As someone said to me (who should have known better) "Well, when you say you're an American, it does conjure a certain image, doesn't it?"

Homer Simpson in a Uncle Sam suit (with a .45?).

I don't think that tea party was just about tea...

"Got somethin' better to do on the lake today, Major?"
Last of the Mohicans

Cheers, TF