Swiss vs. EU Gun Control

[vaupet]

@ machIV shooter

It took the US of A almost 100 years (from 1776 to 1865) to become one nation.

In Europe it will take a bit longer, because the us never had nation states, but we will get there. There is no alternative.
But your arguments, of course, are very valid.

 

[carsten1911]

@Vaupet,

do you REALLY believe you can get cultures/countries like Greece and Spain to work in accord with countries like Sweden or Germany?

This will work the day that Hades freezes over.

Carsten

 

[Mizar]

I would like to add few Off topic commentaries because History is my first and truest love...

...No matter where you live in the US, we all have a common history, as we have always been one nation...

This is true now, but was it true in the 17th or 18th century? You had more that enough time to become a nation and consolidate as such. BTW "nations", as a concept, were born in the 19th century...

Usually by using the term "common history" we understand "national history" - a made up concept. It was adopted as such in the 19th century (see the connection with "nation" concept?). The only true history is by geographic region - i.e. history of the North American continent, history of the Mediterranean area, history of the Balkan peninsula and etc. Having a common history with somebody does not mean automatically that you both belong to the same nation - for example, we were part of the Ottoman empire for five centuries (common history we had), but we are (now) different nations and have different historical background, ethnicity, culture and even religion - Christian Vs. Islam. The Balkans were conquered by the Ottoman empire, that's it.

Back to the guns topic - the majority wants a Nanny State, that would care for them, do the thinking for them and take responsibilities for them. They want socialism. And then we wonder why the state (EU) is taking away our guns? Shame on us, because WE are the ones that put those bureaucrats into power. We gave them the power to decide what is wrong and what is right. And then we act surprised when some idiotic restriction is passed - shame on us. We are the ones to blame.

 

[vaupet]

@ carsten1911

Yes I do, and the secret is young people: the ones with brains travel around europe (erasmus) know people from alover and are very mobile to go look for jobs. I had about 25 nationalities on construction sites i manageded over the last years. It is but the extreme right wing nationalists who try to sabotage things, but they are a small yet noisy minority.

International economics will do the trick.

After all, look how far we have come:

Here are some historical facts involving Germany and its best economic friends:
1803-1815: Napoleonic wars
1848: first danisch war
1864: second danisch war
1866: austrian war
1870-1871: french german war
1914-1918: wwI
1940-1945: wwII
My own grandmother, 102 years old now (born april 1914) still hates germans and says I shouldn't do business with them because you can't trust them.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It took the US of A almost 100 years (from 1776 to 1865) to become one nation.

I'll agree with that, although I'd go with 1792, when Southern territories began being technically admitted. Even though the Southern states were ratified, they definitely didn't consider themselves part of the Union in most respects, especially harboring animosity in a sentiment of being disenfranchised due to having little say in the democratic process with low populations relative to the Northern states. Was pretty much two nations until reconstruction, plus a bunch of Western territories that operated rather independently until the late 19th/early twentieth century, when those territories finally got statehood, the forming the 48 coast to coast states that comprise the continental US ending with Arizona in 1912.

This is true now, but was it true in the 17th or 18th century?

Well, there was no USA in the 17th century, and it was a brand new nation in the late 18th. See above for my perception of what we were prior. However, even before we were united in the sense we are today, the articles of confederation meant that interstate travel, commerce, etc., was a mutual agreement between the original states, and that carried through to the drafting of the constitution once the Republic was formed.

I think the EU policies bear a lot of similarity to our articles of confederation. It just took Europe a couple hundred years to figure out we got it right after all

 

[Mizar]

It just took Europe a couple hundred years to figure out we got it right after all

Rushing things up is considered poor manners in Europe.

 

[Snejdarek]

it has prevented wars for over 70 years now and brought general welfare

That is Brussels propaganda.

20 years of effective military occupation of Germany during which a significant stockpiles of nukes accumulated in France, UK, Denmark (US) and Czechoslovakia (USSR - now taken away) made it impossible for the WW2 German generation to pass onto younger generations their inherent lust for domination stemming from the feeling of cultural and genetical superiority - simply because it offered no chance of success anymore.

The German warmongering lust for domination wasn't broken by defeat in the WW2 neither by establishment of the EEC (after all postwar Germany was run by Nazis) but by turning peace into the only way of survival for German nation. It was peace or nuclear holocaust.

EU was not what brought the peace. It was the prospect of utter destruction in case of repeated attempt at conquest that made peace the only way forward for the German nation and that allowed EU to become what it is now.

 

[barnbwt]

What we need is an executive power that is chosen directly by the public, like your president.

Yup, all the EU needs is a charismatic figurehead to give it purpose. As they are engaged in building an army with the express purpose of suppressing domestic insurrection & saber-rattling the Russians, no less. Brilliant.

On the other side of the spectre, nationalism has led (and leads) to no good.
It is the preferred tool for the power hungry.

What we need is an executive power that is chosen directly by the public, like your president.
And what we need even more is for people to get a Europe-feeling.
This will take another 2 to 4 generations, until all are gone that were ever poisoned in their minds by nationalism.

Man, I sure hope this is some kind of satire. Your "Europe-feeling" *is* nationalism, albeit euro-nationalism. Expansionist nationalism. Ambitious nationalism. The kind not content with its own borders/people, and so certain of its superiority that it seeks to add or influence outside societies and conform them to itself. The kind that has always been dangerous everywhere it existed, but is also the only kind that is successful (unless you think slowly retreating from a global empire to a dreary isle in the north Atlantic is 'success'). I'd love to hear exactly how you believe 'Euro-ism' differentiates from nationalism, though, or from socialism/fascism* for that matter.

Whatever, I guess socio-economic conformity and glorious monuments are worth (another) world-altering nightmare.

Hope ya'll know we're in no position to bail you out or slow down others' atrocities this go-around. Tread carefully or be reviled by history, is all I can say

1803-1815: Napoleonic wars
1848: first danisch war
1864: second danisch war
1866: austrian war
1870-1871: french german war
1914-1918: wwI
1940-1945: wwII

How many of those were directly instigated by Germanic-dominated (Austrian or Prussian in particular) political bodies aglommerating into a larger, ambitious nation-state or trade group so as to gain power/status over their neighbors? All of them going back to Napolean including some you haven't listed, is it? That is exactly what the EU is, it has just finally spread to a weakened France after their utter multi-generational defeat (and/or suicide) and sees (saw) the Soviet Bloc states as its natural rival, and has been forced to use non-military tactics to expand its territory due to US/Russian oversight.

It always ends in blood, with these ambitious Manifest Destiny types. It only worked in the US since we were facing backward tribals amd incompetent Spaniards. It also required we annihilate them, something the EU is neither prepared nor inclined to do, so the conflict cannot be settled.

TCB

*In Fascism, industry is in bed with the government, and corruption between the two drives federal direction of the privately-run economy & politics
In Socialism, industry is formally owned by the government, and corruption between the two drives federal direction of the publicly-run economy & politics

 

[RoscoeBryant]

While I do think, tight cooperation in many topics is essential for Europe, the "United States of Europe" is a fantasy that will never come true. Not necessarily for the cultural differences, but mainly for economic reasons. There is a difference of about 1.000% on average income between the richest and the poorest EU-country, there are gigantic differences in cost-of-living etc. etc. These issues will not be overcome in a few generations.

The problem with tight cooperation is the inherently anti-democratic construction of the EU. The most powerful panel - the EU-comission - can not be voted on, there is no way for the people, to remove comissioners in a democratic process, and there is no way to elect comissioners, who act on behalf of the people.

Therefore, the commission can push for ANYTHING they want without having to fear being out out of office by the people, they are only accountable to politicians.

 

[Odd Job]

On the gun front: i'm glad the britisch will leave the EU because they have the strictest gun laws in all the eu (total prohibition of handguns and semi auto's) and they were working hard to impose their laws on the rest of us.
So for gun laws I say: good riddenes

Actually in terms of good riddance, it is the other way around. You seem to be lacking some facts (which is quite surprising given your location).

The UK does indeed have tough gun laws. We can't have handguns and we can't have semi-automatic centerfire rifles, but we can at least have semi-automatic .22s and shotguns and suppressors. That's how it has been for quite a while.

After the Paris attacks there was a push for more gun control by the European Commission. It wasn't started by any of our MEPs, it came from elsewhere in the EU and it was universally rejected by all of our shooting bodies and several MEPs, notably Vicky Ford.

The original plan would have resulted in the banning of any rifle that looks like a rifle that could be fully automatic. Essentially any black rifle (even a .22 Ruger in AK furniture) would have been banned. My SIG522 would have been banned, but not my Thompson R55. My semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun would have been banned also, since it looks too evil with its detachable magazines.

There were a bunch of other proposals equally ridiculous. A lot of the bad ones have been withdrawn but why should we put up with those proposals in the first place?

What we need is an executive power that is chosen directly by the public, like your president.
And what we need even more is for people to get a Europe-feeling.
This will take another 2 to 4 generations, until all are gone that were ever poisoned in their minds by nationalism.

It's not going to happen. It's so totally corrupt and subject to so little oversight that nothing can be fixed besides a complete disbanding of the EU.

The solution in not less EU, it is the United States of Europe.
And of course there are flaws in the system, as their are in any system, but it has prevented wars for over 70 years now and brought general welfare.
When Spain, Portugal and Greece entered Eu, those were poor countries, farmers still used horses, their were no industrial jobs.
When Poland entered EU, .....

EU has largely wiped-out the memory of communism.

Right...and those three countries are now the pillar of responsibility, both financial and social? You say there is no communism and we need the United States of Europe, but I say to you it is about time that EU countries with good economies stop propping up leeches such as Greece.

The general feeling amongst UK shooters is that we don't need some unaccountable ponce in Brussels imposing even more limitations on us. Judging by the discussion on the forums, there weren't many shooters voting to remain.
Can you guess why?

 

[Snejdarek]

Right...and those three countries are now the pillar of responsibility, both financial and social? You say there is no communism and we need the United States of Europe, but I say to you it is about time that EU countries with good economies stop propping up leeches such as Greece.

That is a grave misunderstanding. Where did Greece borrow from? Mostly banks and funds from those "well doing economies".

It is not so much about saving Greece, which is exactly due to the fact that it remained in Eurozone and took the bad deal on downward spiral already since 2009, as it is about saving investments into Greek bonds. Primarily German investments.

And what did Greece buy for the money? Guns, mostly German guns.

Who benefited from bonds? Mostly German banks. Who benefited from the purchases? Mostly German arm makers. Who would take the fall apart from Greek people the most? Well start reading this line again for the answer.

 

[Odd Job]

You conveniently omit the reason Greece got into trouble in the first place: years of living beyond its means, together with loss of VAT revenue due to fraud and avoidance.
As for buying arms, that's what happens when your voter base fears an invasion from Turkey.

 

[Odd Job]

Actually Carsten said it best a few posts ago:

do you REALLY believe you can get cultures/countries like Greece and Spain to work in accord with countries like Sweden or Germany?

This will work the day that Hades freezes over.

 

[sauer]

The only practical result of the new EU directive would be cap on high capacity magazines (<20) for semi-auto firearms and periodical medical tests (every 5 years). that's it.

 

[RoscoeBryant]

Actually, they are discussing a ban for magazines over 10 rounds capacity for semi-auto long-guns.
As for the medical examination: could be implemented as a "pro forma" measure, but could also be implemented as periodical psychological evaluation, which would be very costly.
The third big problem are the reasons for owning a firearm stated in the proposal: they do not include self-defense. This would be a non-issue for some countries, as self defense there is not considered a reason for owning a firearm anyways. For other countries, it could be a big issue as self defense is a "shall issue" reason for gun permits.
And the fourth problem is the period of validity for gun permits: most versions of the proposal state "(...)the license may be renewed if the criteria are still met(...)" for the evaluation every 5 years. As long as it does not state must be, there is an easy backdoor for confiscation, which does not exist today.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

That is Brussels propaganda.

20 years of effective military occupation of Germany during which a significant stockpiles of nukes accumulated in France, UK, Denmark (US) and Czechoslovakia (USSR - now taken away) made it impossible for the WW2 German generation to pass onto younger generations their inherent lust for domination stemming from the feeling of cultural and genetical superiority - simply because it offered no chance of success anymore.

The German warmongering lust for domination wasn't broken by defeat in the WW2 neither by establishment of the EEC (after all postwar Germany was run by Nazis) but by turning peace into the only way of survival for German nation. It was peace or nuclear holocaust.

EU was not what brought the peace. It was the prospect of utter destruction in case of repeated attempt at conquest that made peace the only way forward for the German nation and that allowed EU to become what it is now.

Up until WW1 Germany was the most advanced continental European country in regards to health, living conditions, industrial capacity, education and scientific discoveries. It had a larger number of Nobel prize winners than any other European nation. If it hadn't have been for their fear of the warmongering French and their allies they wouldn't have been forced to enter into the alliances they did. The French(who I have no respect for either as a people or a country) have been at the forefront of every European war in the last 1,000 years, mainly as the instigator. They couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag since the early 1800's and yet even after the US rescued their sorry a**es twice they had the gall to thumb their noses at us afterwards. From a historical standpoint it is the French, the Russians and the low countries you should be looking out for, not the Germans. If the Germans had won WW1 the world would probably be a better place to live in today.

 

[vaupet]

I stirred up quite a discussion here, which is great, because it is one of the few ways to hear from people from other countries themselves, not via (biassed) media or politics.
Hope the mods leave this running,
shame really and mind-blowing that we Europeans need a US forum to discuss this.

And the fourth problem is the period of validity for gun permits: most versions of the proposal state "(...)the license may be renewed if the criteria are still met(...)" for the evaluation every 5 years. As long as it does not state must be, there is an easy backdoor for confiscation, which does not exist today.

This is the main point were working on right now, it should be "shall renew", the other being magazine capacity.

Medical's aren't that hard (we have them for years and it will depend on the member states how they impose them. In Belgium it is a formality at my GP once every five yeaers and he performs this during an other visit so actually their is no extra cost. (I have a yearly check up anyway because of 'wealth diseases)

The general feeling amongst UK shooters is that we don't need some unaccountable ponce in Brussels imposing even more limitations on us. Judging by the discussion on the forums, there weren't many shooters voting to remain.

I know for sure the British government (mr Cameron and his bunch) tried very hard in the EU counsil (not commission, not parliament) to impose British law on the rest of us , so a total ban on handguns and semi-auto's was in order.
The other big anti-forces were the Dutch, the French and the Swedish chief of police.

I do respect and admire the work and common sense of ms Vicky Ford, who put a lot of work in her report and who took the time to talk to all players in the field. I must say I worried quite a bit, when in the middle of the proces ms Jo Cox was murdered.

 

[sauer]

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12152-2016-INIT/en/pdf

As far as I can see the 10 round cap has been abandondend. We have currently the following set of critieria for the semi-auto rifles:

semi-auto rifles

with one or more
of the following
characteristics:
(a)
long firearms (i.e. firearms
that are originally intended to be
fired from the shoulder) that can
be reduced to a length of less
than 60cm without losing
functionality by means of a
folding or telescoping stock;
(b)
firearms which a
llow the
firing of more than 21 rounds
without reloading, if a loading
device with a capacity exceeding
20 rounds is part of the firearm
or is inserted into it;

 

[Snejdarek]

The third big problem are the reasons for owning a firearm stated in the proposal: they do not include self-defense. This would be a non-issue for some countries, as self defense there is not considered a reason for owning a firearm anyways. For other countries, it could be a big issue as self defense is a "shall issue" reason for gun permits.

This is a good point. As far as the German style "have to be member of sport shooting association and shoot frequently therein" goes, it would be quite interesting to see it pass, as this would be unconstitutional here.

 

[old lady new shooter]

United States of Europe?

Not parallel at all.

Here everybody had relatively recently run away from Great Britain where they were unhappy. If they had a "culture", it was British.

In Europe, most of the countries have existed for hundreds of years and each one has its own distinct culture, and the actual humans who live there are comfortable with their own culture. Even crossing the border from Bavaria to Austria which people probably think of as very similar, one notices a change. Plus each country has its own language. Imagine the French starting to speak German? Never happen IMO.

 

[Mizar]

The official motto of EU is "United in diversity". People change, countries change, language is almost like a living thing - changes every day... To make out a hypothetical assumption (cultural and linguistic unification) and then argue with it... I don't know, does not seem logical to me.
USA started as a bunch of colonies founded by people of different cultures, traditions and language. Some of you think that USA was made for a week, tops. But in reality that was a long and often painful process.

P.S. USA does not have an official language, EU has 24 official languages, Switzerland has 4, Republic of South Africa has 22... So what was your point again, about French speaking German or something?

 

[barnbwt]

Here everybody had relatively recently run away from Great Britain where they were unhappy. If they had a "culture", it was British.

No kidding. Right now, there's likely no way the US could form from its constituent parts, they are far too diverse, and have diametrically opposed ideas on how to operate. At least by maintaining sovereignity, these groups have an extra layer of protection to continue in spite of the aspirations of whoever is strongest.

Vaupet, your description of Britain trying to boss around the EU disproportionate to its place within, while the EU in turn seeks to subvert and dominate a sovereign state, is illustrative of a scenario where separatism is the more ideal solution than unification. Giving the two groups 'inside access' to eachothers' controls results not in resolution through cooperative politics, but additional battlefields to seek complete domination.

Unity only works when all involved have a reason to unify, and a shared common goal itself (wealth/peace) isn't enough; the sides have to actually like each other on some level, which suggests a level commonality.

 

[barnbwt]

The official motto of EU is "United in diversity". People change, countries change, language is almost like a living thing - changes every day... To make out a hypothetical assumption (cultural and linguistic unification) and then argue with it... I don't know, does not seem logical to me.
USA started as a bunch of colonies founded by people of different cultures, traditions and language. Some of you think that USA was made for a week, tops. But in reality that was a long and often painful process.

Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Unity is diversity --it's an oxymoron, sorry, and people don't change nearly as much as people (usually the same ones) like to pretend. I'm afraid your Germans are just as ambitious as they've been for 1000 years.

FYI;
The US colonies had a common people (British)
Common language (English)
Common faith (Protestant, so largely common even between sects)
Common history
Were ruled by a common body (the crown) before independence
Common goals (wealth, growth, survival on the frontier)

It made sense for them to join as a political group, since they were arguably one even before the revolt.

 

[Mizar]

Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength

You do realize that this quote is from a fiction book, right? As much as I admire Orwell, 1984 is just a fiction...

I'm afraid your Germans are just as ambitious as they've been for 1000 years.

I don't have any Germans in stock right now, sorry!

The US colonies had a common people (British)
Common language (English)

Sure - French, Spanish, Portugal, Dutch and Germans were just another English tribe, right?

Common history

Well, your ancestors lived on the same continent so yes, you had some sort of "common history"...

 

[RoscoeBryant]

I stirred up quite a discussion here, which is great, because it is one of the few ways to hear from people from other countries themselves, not via (biassed) media or politics.
Hope the mods leave this running,
shame really and mind-blowing that we Europeans need a US forum to discuss this.

This is the main point were working on right now, it should be "shall renew", the other being magazine capacity.

Medical's aren't that hard (we have them for years and it will depend on the member states how they impose them. In Belgium it is a formality at my GP once every five yeaers and he performs this during an other visit so actually their is no extra cost. (I have a yearly check up anyway because of 'wealth diseases)



I know for sure the British government (mr Cameron and his bunch) tried very hard in the EU counsil (not commission, not parliament) to impose British law on the rest of us , so a total ban on handguns and semi-auto's was in order.
The other big anti-forces were the Dutch, the French and the Swedish chief of police.

I do respect and admire the work and common sense of ms Vicky Ford, who put a lot of work in her report and who took the time to talk to all players in the field. I must say I worried quite a bit, when in the middle of the proces ms Jo Cox was murdered.

Thats exactly the point - it depends on the member states. Politicians in my country already told us, they will not require any additional medical checks, as we have a countinuous monitoring system in place for permit-owners.
If there opinion "magically" changes, we are in a lot of trouble: obtaining permit (necessary for semi-autos and revolvers) in Austria requires you to complete a psychological examination which costs 280€. If they implement this check every 5 years....