Why do many European nations have such low gun crime figures? I feel European nations have stricter laws a gun control and thus have less gun crime. Switzerland being a prime example, where Guns are legal to be owned, however the gun control laws are strict. There is a near non-existent gun crime rate in Switzerland. This way America still can keep the second amendment without all the deaths.
No, the reason is because Europe does not yet have crime-ridden impoverished ethnic minority ghettos on the scale of America. But this may likely change in the next few decades. People need to realise that gun crime is much more about demographics and social conditions than it is about gun laws. Guns are essentially illegal in Mexico. That does not prevent the country from having a high rate of violent gun crime. When a large segment of society is struggling just to earn enough money to survive, children go unattended, and there is a lack of social cohesion, people will just disregard whatever laws or moral restraints there are. And just to state what should be obvious, ethnic diversity, combined with a high unemployment rate, is a near guarantee for lack of social cohesion.
The problem is that Europeans as well as UKers do not know the culture of the USA very well. They have different standards and different ways of doing things as well. To top it all off we have a strong tradition that equates firearms with individual rights. If all the latter works, strict gun control, well in as long as the concept stays in Europe /UK that's wonderful, I am happy for you all'. You will not see me coming into one of your forums and belittling your pro-gun-control culture and your views on firearms etc. It's your sovereign nations traditions and culture, not mine. I would like reciprocal treatment? Maybe those of you that are anti firearm can understand that I might perceive the UK citizens voluntarily forfeiture of their firearms (certain pistols etc) to the authorities as less than umm' honorable? Again that opinion is made through the lenses of my experience and my culture. When I see anyone bow to the demands an authority figure such as the king just as repulsive as the high firearm death rate in the USA to the sensibilities of a UKer or some Europeans ! In any case God bless this forum and Peace ~ I hope that clears up some of the misconceptions that are rampant these days...if not I will be happy to clarify! reva ps I saw a bumper sticker yesterday it said PEACE VIA SUPERIOR FIREPOWER! Ahhh just sayin' ~
I do think that the European lower gun crime is at least very much influenced by the gun laws. However, I'm not so sure that adding gun control in the US will put them in the same position.
It sounds like you have been fooled by the anti-gun, pro gun-control, freedom hating politicians and fake media bias. You have no sense of reality. I will tell you the truth and take this to heart and understand it with every bone of your body. Yes there gun crime in the UK is low but what you and others dont know is that there violent crimes in general have went up. In the UK most citizens cant own weapons at all. The only difference is that the tool used in the crime have changed from gun to knife, or ax, or bat. There murder rate is up, there home invasion rate is higher and violent crime is higher since they have been disarmed. If you look at the facts, when gun crime goes down in any country, the violent crimes with other weapons goes up to even it back out, thus proving that the gun control DID NOT WORK. Now in gun free countries, people are being beaten to death with bats, poles and other blunt force object. Or being stabbed to death. I would way rather die quickly by a gun then stabbed or beaten to death. BUT the main difference is that most all deaths are now of the innocent where as before the gun control the gun deaths were of some innocent and some the criminal dying from and armmed citizens. You cant deny that the murdering criminal should be the one dead, NOT the forcefully disarmed innocent civilians. And the same goes for all European countries. As far as switzerland, it cant be compared at all to most the rest of the world because they just have a different culture, but rest assured, if their culture changed to like ours, there gun control wouldnt work.
I stayed at a man's house in Switzerland. All men are issued an assualt rifle and three grenades. This man had pyschological problems and bipolar disorder. He tried to return the rifle to the army, telling them he sometimes went into an uncontrollable rage and was afraid he might do something he would later regret. The army refused to take back the rifle, telling him he was legally required to keep it in his home. But the army did allow him to return the grenades. So no, I do not think the laws have anything to do with it. Crime rates have much more to do with the immigration levels than any of the new laws put in place. To a large extent, the same thing is true when comparing educational performance between different western european countries; it has more to do with immigration levels than quality of education. But progressives stubbornly refuse to see the connection.
Those are vitally important points to understand. The cultures are very different, and things have to be viewed in their cultural context. There's nothing 'less than honourable' in the UK population's 'forfeiture of their firearms', because most people never forfeited anything, never had guns, never wanted guns, and are perfectly happy that guns are controlled by law to keep the amount of them floating around in society at a minimum. The UK just doesn't have a 'gun culture' like the US for many reasons (long term lack of wild animals to hunt, lack of wild predators that could seriously damage a human, lack of the relatively recent 'spreading over a continent and building a new nation', 'wild west' kind of experience, and so on), although there are some who want/need guns, and they are still able to get them (as long as they comply with the regulations, which in practise aren't that strict). Even the more recent gun bans (which personally I have never supported) are there only as a result of public demand to which the government of the day responded (and over-reacted, in my opinion), not the other way round. Even though I disagree with that particular measure (IMO they should just be subject to the same conditions as other firearms), I don't see it as a major 'civil rights' issue - the numbers of people involved were actually very small anyway, and restricted almost exclusively to certain types of sporting club use. Guns have not been seen in the culture of the UK as a desirable or necessary personal or property protection tool for a very, very long time. Similarly hunting with guns is just not a common feature of the general social culture - there is just no culture of going off into the woods shooting or anything. For those who want to shoot for fun, reasonably high-powered air rifles are usually considered to be perfectly adequate to the job (and those who actually want to hunt live prey (rabbits, basically - that's about all there is that's edible!) can get a licence to have a gun to do so anyway). The UK population hasn't 'surrendered our weapons to the government', we didn't have them or want them in the first place, and 'we' (the people) asked the government to put controls in place to try to keep them out of society and away from those who would misuse them as far as possible (without, generally, removing them from those with a 'genuine' reason for wanting them ('protection' just not being considered a 'genuine' reason in our culture)). From the UK perspective, the same thing needs to be understood the other way around. The US is a very different cultural context, and what works extremely well here (and is very popular) would simply not work the same there. There are already too many guns, too many people used to having them and using them, different cultural considerations about why people would want them, and so on. Even the context of 'government' is different, since ours is in some ways closer and more accessible to us than in the US, so inevitable less 'feared' by the population (contrary to the previous comments about the monarch, who has no power or relevance to government, I can personally see, or communicate personally with, my elected representative at the very top level of democracy anytime I like - that makes a big difference to public perception of the distance between people and democratic institutions, which is vital in cases like this). In the US, it really would be a case of a distant and remote authority forcibly disarming its population on a massive scale, and that would just never work - people from Europe and elsewhere need to understand that when they discuss the issue as much as people in the US need to understand the context over here to understand why we have gun control. It's quite understandable, given that whole context, why the people of the US don't want gun control. They certainly shouldn't be criticised for that, as strange as it might sometimes seem from the outside. Having said that, that doesn't mean that the issues about gun-related crime in the US, and the readily available supply of guns and ammunition to those who would seek to do harm with them, shouldn't be discussed. It's important, though, for them to be discussed logically and openly by both 'sides', with 'anti-gun' people realising that UK-style gun control is completely impractical for the US, but with 'pro-gun' people recognising that there is a real problem of gun crime that needs to be addressed, and that some limited measures relating to supply of certain things could be helpful (without having a significant impact on their freedom to have and use guns in a perfectly legitimate way). 'Ban guns in the USA' is a nonsense call - it can't and won't happen. At the same time, though, 'don't ever, ever consider even discussing anything at all to do with the supply of guns, ammunition, weaponry, etc.' is equally nonsensical in terms of having a reasoned and logical debate about the problems of gun crime and how to go about reducing it (in conjunction with other considerations, of course). As with any other discussions of practical problems and how to solve them, blind radicalism (from any 'side') is never helpful.
Switzerland is one of the very few sensible places in Europe. Monaco, San Marino, and Andorra are a few others. But most of Europe needs a LOT more guns and a very relaxed gun law. Europeans simply have too much unfinished business with each other. Much more than what we Americans can ever imagine.
Woops, are you European? Whilst I pitty your dog, why do you think that all your fellow Europeans who the countries you support rob to give you a living would not want to shoot back at you occassionally? The only (maybe) clean country near Europe is Britain, and that is because Britain as a maritime power didn't dirty its hands with the Europeans too much.
Did ya READ the OP's question and statement?? Europe has less gun violence NOT because of their gun laws but because they have had their guns taken from them and they're KILLED WIT OTHER THINGS!! cheeseandcrackers gun confiscation. The last step before genocide.
Well said. I can understand your intolerance for individual freedom being from your culture. Persons in the UK have no guarentee of individual rights and freedoms, as you have no constitutional rights of freedon of speech or right to individual protection. I find your leftist British laws and political views on personal protection to be the heigth of arrogance, hypocrisy and studipity. As you must agree, only very important government individuals have the right to be protected by armed guards. Those who have the power can use guns to protect thier own precious hides. Commoners, even those who are at most risk who live in dangerous ethnic urban areas have no right, or as the Brits boast, no reason, to use reasonable force to protect their homes or themselves. There is no "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" laws that allow subjects to adequately defend themselves, especially in one's own car or home. Brits may not even defend themselves with a simple rock or stick from a thief without facing the wrath of the liberal courts. Even bands of apes show more brilliance when dealing with intruders. Gun phobia is common ailment in the UK. You fear tools like knives, swords and especially guns because of the damage they can cause in the hands of criminals that are normally set free in less than six years. The technology will not go away, and criminals will sneak guns into the country just like tons of narcotics, and use them with little fear. Those with some common sense will use the right tool for the right job. Crime is even lower in parts of Europe that allow regular gun ownership than the UK so there is not factual basis for any claim that gun control law make you safer. The fact is, there is no better tool widely available, that does a better job of keeping more people protected than a handgun. At least in the free parts of the world, an older, or disabled, or less physically strong person can properly defend themselves from a large violent attacker with a repeating, lightweight firearm. Nothing else comes close. Your own prejudice against guns is the cause of this driscrimination against the safety of those who are most vulnerable.
That's simple a misunderstanding of the entire cultural and legal situation in the UK. We DO have guarenteed individual rights and freedoms, and freedom of speech (there are some small restrictions to do with inciting violence that the US doesn't have (which are there because the public wanted them), but apart from that we can do and say whatever we like, contrary to what seems to be the opinion about the UK among some in the USA), and we also have the right to protect ourselves and our property with 'reasonable force'. The difference in that latter case is that we generally (not always, but generally) don't regard 'reasonable force' to include shooting someone - that is a cultural difference! Again, that is a clear misunderstanding of the law in the UK. There have been some high profile cases (which were no doubt reported to the maximum with glee in the right wing US media) where people have been convicted for using 'excessive force' in defending themselves and their property, but those are rare examples. 'Reasonable force' would be preventing someone from committing the crime, or restraining them until the police arrive, though, not actually shooting them dead or beating them half to death even when they are no longer capable of defening themselves. Self-defence is a perfectly acceptable legal defence in the UK. Of course, there are armed guards available to protect those very senior officials who might potentially be victims of terrorist attacks, assassination plots, etc., but that's not something seen by anybody as anything other than entirely sensible and resonable. As I said, we don't have the same distance between us and our government, and don't have the same level of fear and paranoia about government as some in the US seem (understandable in some ways) to have. My own elected representative at the top democratic institution in the UK only represents 50,000 people or so, lives down the road, walks around town unguarded, holds regular weekly open surgeries where they can be spoken to face to face, and is very easily contactable at any time to discuss any local or national issue directly (in fact, I have spoken to and communicated with him several times - I didn't vote for him, but he's a decent enough person). Parliamentary figures are not the remote and distant figures to us that Washington politicians are to the vast majority of US citizens, and that makes a big difference in the sense of 'the people' feeling the need to be 'protected' with arms from 'the government'. It's an important cultural difference that needs to be taken into account when considering issues like gun control, and why our laws are different. Guns do get into the country, of course (and there are legally obtained guns here to), and can get into the hands of hardened criminals. The vast majority of criminals don't have or use guns, though, because they don't need them, because their potential victims don't have them (and neither do the police, of course, although they have access to armed units if they need to call on them). The theory is that if more people had guns to defend themselves, more criminals would use guns to counter that - escalation, in other words, and an 'arms race' that people don't want. I disagree. Gun control has kept the number and use of guns low in the UK, because it works in the UK's cultural context. That doesn't mean it will work elsewhere, of course, but it does work here, because of our 'prejudice' against guns and the fact that we (and that includes the overwhelming majority of our 'criminals') don't generally want them or need them. That is exactly what I was saying about the cultural context. In this context, our gun control is very effective at keeping gun crime down, but that is because of our cultural context, not purely because of the gun control itself alone. The vital point to realise is that gun control is there because that is what the people want, NOT because the government have decided to 'disarm' them - it is a fundamental difference with the USA, and why gun control here works where it wouldn't elsewhere.
Britions have no rights guaranteed that can not be taken away with the stroke of a pen, usually by some king or Labour Party member. Whatever "hate speech" is imagined to be at any time may be put into law and those who say or write the wrong things may be imprisoned ,or sued, or both. This means there is no real freedom of the press, except in your own imginations. The leftists who control your press and media outlets, such as the BBC have so brainwashed the masses that the true facts on your pathetic gun control laws are hardly spoken of. Your claim that gun control has kept the UK safe is just biased rubbish, it can't be verified by an intelligent look at the facts. The facts are that the UK's homicide rate has about doubled since the hysteria over the 1997 shooting caused draconian gun control laws to take effect. Looking at countries most similar to your own in Western Europe, the UK has the highest violent crime rate in the EU. In the UN International Study on Crime and Justice's 2010 report (NEUNI #64) the UK has a much higher crime rate than countries like Germany, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and these countries have vastly higher rates of gun ownership. In fact there are rarely any murders at all in Liechtenstein, which has as many guns as the US. How do you explain that? Why arn't guns corrupting these cultures, so similar to your own? Why was violent crime so much lower in the UK over 100 years ago when gun ownership was greater? A reasoned person would think your liberal laws have corrupted your culture. Gun control appears to work in your country only to ensure the victims of crime are unarmed. Of course crime is always going to be higher in certain ethnic urban areas of London, Nottingham, Liverpool and Bristol, but the typical Brit minding his own affairs is not going to commit violent crimes based on presence or absence of guns anymore than the typical gun owner in Germany or rural America. Criminals in your country have little fear of using the some 250,000 illegal guns. Some simple advice though, punish the felon. You, like the liberals here in the US, crow about how civil and righteous your criminal justice system has become since it became liberalized. It's always something else like drugs or guns or underfunded entitlement programs that is pushing up violent crimes. Recidivism rates are around 74% for prisoners in your troubled areas, as your foolish practice of giving reduced sentances is an alsoute failure in controlling crime. Back 200 years ago, your more civilized and cultured forefathers in Britain would have hanged anyone who was found guilty of home invasions and robbing carraiges (carjacking today.) Now you let so many more crimes and victims multiply because you refuse to properly punish felons. I find your liberal culture to be barbaric and and uncaring.
Europe has none of our much heralded 'diversity'...what real crime they do have is almost entirely in their tiny 'diverse' populations. It is not the guns but the differences that lead to crime.
You contradict your hypothesis almost immediately by mentioning Switerland, which has gun ownership rates and gun control laws that more closely resemble those of the United States than the gun control laws of its European counterpart nations. Yet, Switerland's homicide rate is even lower than many of its European counterparts. Hence, guns clearly are not the reason why European nations have lower homicide rates than the homicide rate of the USA. If they were, then states like California, which has strict gun control akin to European nations, would have homicide rates similar to European nations, and states like Utah, with its very lax gun control laws, would have drastically higher homicide rates. However, this is not the case in reality. There are many other difference between the USA and Europe. These include differing gang populations, differing recidivism rates, different prision rehabilitation process, different cultures, different poverty rates, etc. America's illegal immigrant population alone numbers anywhere between 12-20 million people, which is the size of a small European country. Clearly, there are many other variations between Europe and the USA besides gun control laws that contribute significantly to our different homicide rates.
Well this is a horrible misinterpretation of British law. A British person is allowed to defend himself using reasonable force if they feel threatened of being harmed themselves. The people being sent to court and found guilty were people who actually chased the robbers and shot/ beat them to death after they left the persons property. In British law this is a type of vigilantism and taking the law into your own hands, which is illegal. Also Crime in Britain has as a percentage decreased in comparison to the growth in population, but the figure remained the same. This more guns coming into the country by criminals to attack us is a fallacy. I find in Britain that I trust my local police, and am able to talk to my MP personally if I feel that there is a problem in Government or my local area. You'll find there are rough areas in the country, but these are not considered anywhere near as dangerous as American rough zones. I personally agree with Cenydd, I feel America will never relinquish their guns, but restrictions on certain parts of fire arms might aid in decreasing crime rate. You on the other hand have spoken with absolute stupidity and just fallen in line with media sensationalism. Also British people do have freedom of speech rights etc. our Government and law policies however mean that any law passed can be revoked by a future Government. Thus we as a country don't have a piece of paper saying we have rights, we have many laws on paper saying we have rights, passed by our elected officials.
My hypothesis isn't the banning of guns, but the control of them. And Switzerland actually has quite strict gun laws if you read them, such as a fire arms can only be carried from place to place with a permit etc. Also, this idea that immigrants bring gun crime is just childish, Europe gets millions of immigrants as well as illegal immigrants. I also realize there are cultural differences, as there are between European nations. I just get perplexed that when America has a mass shooting the question whether the weapon was too easy to obtain for the criminal who is usually medically psychotic is not asked. The question asked is why aren't the people getting shot at not armed. This seems to be not just a cultural issue but a complete different way of thinking and dealing with situations. I also don't deny by the way that poverty aids the increase in crime rate and gun crime rate. Europe has more Government support to tackle poverty. (Be it wrong or right, I don't wish to discuss this issue in the thread.)
Culture has more to do with it. For instance, gun crime in Australia is lower than the US but did not change when some of the strictest gun control legislation was instituted.
Pretty much the same in the US. To legally carry a handgun from home to the shooting range, you need to have a carry license and are fingerprinted to get it. Places like Vermont don't require that but it is not known as a gun crime capital. Chicago, on the other hand, has a ban on handguns and has daily shootings.
Right. This is similar to most places in America, where you need a carry permit to have a gun in public. This is unlike most places in Europe, where many guns are indeed banned. For example, any handgun larger than 22 caliber is essentially banned in the UK. All I am saying is that Switzerland's gun laws resemble those of the United States more so than they resemble anywhere else in Europe. No. It is a fact. Some gangs, such as the MS-13 gang, are almost entirely composed of illegal immigrants from Central America. These guys contribute to a LOT of gun crime in America. You cannot even compare the scale of illegal immigration in America to any European country. Add up the entire population of Austria to the entire population of Portugal: That's the number of illegal aliens that live in the USA. Such a shooting took place in Olso, Norway several months ago. This shooting, if it occurred in the USA, would have been, by far, the worst mass shooting that ever took place in this country. Doesn't this prove that such events can occur anywhere (even in a place like Norway with strict gun control laws)?
As a liberal Briton, you imagine that your laws and ideas are "civilized." You described how inhumane it was to use force against someone who is mearly running away after ransacking someone's home of vauluables. It is only the job of the urnarmed police to give chase, and maybe lay a hand on them to stop them. Your overriding concern in your posts, is the welfare and safety of the criminal. The welfare and safety of the common man, you could care less about. As you have said, yes someone can use appropriate force to stop an attack in one's home. That's great if you are a mixed martial arts master or SAS operator, as most of them have the real abilities to stop a large violent man, maybe even if the thug is armed with an illegal gun (of which there are about 250,000 of in the UK). This "right" to self defense is also good for younger, fit people who can possibly grab a lamp or club and chase away one or more attackers. As for those who are weaker; women, the elderly and disabled people, well, this isn't good for them at all when facing one or more large thugs. Tell me, is there anything more effective than a small, repeating firearm for the physically disenfrancised to use to stop attacks by thugs? I'd like to know what it is. What would you say to a weaker crime victim in the UK? "Too bad for you, sorry you live in a dangerous area and the police were away," would be your reply. "You see, I live in a safer area where there is less crime. Tough luck for you less wealthy chaps getting killed, raped and injured. Now as you lie there dying from your wounds, you should understand that guns are for savages, like Americans. Not only would you degrade yourself using a gun, but you would degrade our country in the eyes of liberals and anti-gun elitists around the world." Perhaps you arn't that callous, but mabye the focus should be on the "poor victims" than the "poor criminals." I here it all the time: "Having guns in hands of locals will make crime worse." The facts do not support this. Bad areas are bad because of the bad people allowed to run amok without punishment. Crime is just as low or lower in more rural areas with many guns in the US as they are in the rural UK. Yes, our high crime areas are worst that yours in the UK. If you look at the demographics of all the most dangerous cities in the US and the K, they will all have the usual suspects doing virtually all of the violence. We have whole cities populated and controlled by these folks. When the city government, judges, police and DA's office are all under their control, criminals know there is little chance they will be convicted. Conviction rates are only about 10% of those arrested in these urban hellholes. In the UK, the Rape Captial of Europe, rapists are only convicted about 5 or 6% of the time. When most of your efforts are spent, disarming citizens and mollycoddling criminals instead of punishing them, crime will rise. Most of the time---around 95%-- the thugs and gangs in these areas will just kill and attack each other. But as long as liberals control the UK government, crime will remain high and grow worse. The Home Office gave the latest statistic that homocides went up 5% in Britain and Wales and knife attacks up 10%. This cancer of crime will grow into your area soon enough. I believe there is no hope for you. Head for the hills.
What a load of absolute total tripe. Europe is if anything more diverse than US and has plenty of areas which you might call impoverished ethnic ghettos. Where do you dig it up from... We don't have gun crime because gun ownership is better controlled. How hard can that be to grasp? And why would we need guns in normal society? We don't want them in our society. US has some excuse because many people live rurally and a gun is a legitimate tool, but if a majority of people are city dwellers no wild beast is coming to kill you and you don't need a gun for any legitimate reason.
Except for those wild beasts you call criminals, and yes you have them in your country too. In general, EU countries do not have a culture of guns because they were limited long ago, so you have higher knife crimes. Guns are force equalizers which allow a 100 lb woman fight a 250 lb man.
Yet crime is concentrated in cities. I think you suffer what many people suffer and that is "it couldn't happen to me".
