Our 2nd amendment in the US vs Strict Gun Control in Europe.?

Question

I'm a person who adores firearms and other weapons and I do support training and responsibility to both it's use and ownership and I've been thinking about things about it,

I mean, I do support the right to keep and bear arms, But at the same time I have have some mixed feelings concerning it since hearing talks and debates from pro-gun (Americans) and anti-gun (Mostly Europeans) which end up getting reduced to both sides arguing like children.

I mean...I don't want to sound arrogant. heartless or anything offense or I don't want try to turn this into a Pro-gun or Pro-gun control debate. (And Serious Apologizes)

But is our right to keep and bear firearms any better than Europe's or European Unions strict gun control laws?

I mean, You don't hear many tragic shooting incidents in EU like you hear in the US.

And both sides out of misinformation, Mis-Education and arrogance....Europeans still continue to believe that were some kind of society of trigger/stab happy barbarians who would kill someone over a petty differences, While Americans believe that European Union is some Orwellian Dystopia where people act like meat puppet slaves as long as theirs a fare share of bread and circuses.

I feel conflicted over this.

Answer 1

There are two reasons why I believe America's policy on guns is the correct one.



1. Yes, because of strict gun control, they have less gun crime and gun violence, but does that translate to less violent crime? Actually, it does not! Turns out, many countries with strict gun control, including western European nations, have a higher rate of violent crime than America does. See this link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html



2. History gives us plenty of examples of countries disarming their people, for their own safety of course, and then turning around an oppressing them, enslaving them, or even exterminating undesirables. Again, several of these in Europe. See this link http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart Privately owned firearms = freedom! Otherwise you have nothing but "hope" that your gov't won't one day turn on you.



@Sarah - Have you noticed that every Democrat President since LBJ has enacted or tried to enact new gun control restrictions? That's why every time a Democrat becomes President, Americans run to the gun store.

Answer 2

2nd Amendment Vs Gun Control

Answer 3

I guess I can answer you question best by explaining this to you. 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.



When I carry a firearm, 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 firearm 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 gang banger, and a single 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.



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 is 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.



The gun is the only weapon that is as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.



The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I am 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 is why carrying a gun is a civilized act.







@ zack. Yes Japan, the UK, and other countries that ban firearms from their citizens have a low firearm homicide rate compared to the U.S., but their violent crime rate is way over what the U.S. has. I guess you feel it is okay for confrontations to be won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser, right?



No I don't argue with anyone, I state the facts, and liberal gun control bigot can't stand real facts.

Answer 4

The problem with firearms regulation in the United States is the maddening hodgepodge of state and local rules. There needs to be a uniform set of regulations throughout the country, with no exceptions allowed. That means the federal government needs to get its act together, get it's collective head out of its collective @ZZ and "git 'er done"...



BTW - I lived in Japan for a number of years, and you're WAY wrong about their violent crime rate. Why'd you make that sh!t up about it being so much worse than here in the USA?

Answer 5

Two countries with some of the most draconian gun control laws in the world are Japan and Jamaica. Japan's homicide rate is about .5 per 100,000. Jamaica's is 41.2 per 100,000.



Two countries with relatively lax gun control laws are Switzerland and Israel. Switzerland's homicide rate is about .7 per 100,000. Israel's homicide rate is about 1.8.



The lesson here is that homicide rates are culturally determined and not much affected by gun control laws. At 4.7, the USA's is far from the worst and has dropped 42% since 1995 while, in the same period, gun ownership there has skyrocketed and gun laws have loosened in most of the country.



Above figures are from the United Nations. Link below.

Answer 6

Unfortunately, conspiracy theories run rampant on this issue.



Despite the fact that we have MORE gun rights today than we did 5 years ago, many republicans make a mad rush to buy out all of the guns and ammo every time a democrat becomes president.....and they still continue to insist that the government is coming to confiscate their weapons or ban all guns.



We have a VERY high gun violence rate in this country, but we also have a HUGE problem with gun stupidity.....parents leaving loaded guns out around toddlers, accidentally shooting their kids and neighbors while cleaning their weapons, etc.



The solution isn't and shouldn't be to 'ban all guns' or 'confiscate all guns', and that won't ever be on the democratic platform, but 90% of Americans, including the majority of republicans AND the majority of NRA members, AND the majority of gun store owners DO support universal background checks and mental health screenings.



Unfortunately, any point of agreement among the American people means its time for some serious fear mongering and conspiracy theories, in an attempt to divide the country.

Answer 7

Gun crime is no worst in the USA than in diverse urban areas of Europe. London's gun crime rate is just as bad as New York's in spite of the fact that guns are banned in the UK. Overall, London crime rate is 7 times New York.

Answer 8

The tragic shooting incidents you hear about in Europe are called world wars, we have had to go bail them out of two of them. Such mess isn't a problem in the US; “Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass.” - Isoroku Yamamoto

Answer 9

i can't speak for europe, but i do know a bit about australian gun statistics. Basically, ever since australian gun legistlation was introduced after the port arthur massacre in 1996, homocide has dropped from 1.8 in 100 000 people to 1.0 in 100 00 people. Statistics also show a reduction in homicide in general, and kidnapping, sexual assault and robery are remaining steady, in fact the only cases of crime having a major increase in any sort of crime has been alcohol related crime and assault. Alcohol related crime is barely related to gun crime, and assault is classed from anything from headbutt or slap to an all out brawl, even so the statistics are only increasing and decreasing steadily, and since 1996, there have been no mass murders or shootings in australia. If our gun laws didn't really work then in 1997 there would have been a huge spike in homicide, and gun crime, which there wasn't.



However gun laws aren't the only thing needed to prevent gun deaths, as stated above by Jerry H, it depends on the country, a country with a strict government will handle gun legislation well, while a country with corrupt and poor political performace will do poorly. The same can be said for countries with lax gun laws and low crime rates.



don't expect to see gun laws implemented in America soon, they won't work there because

a) Americans will never give up their right to bear arms

b) There are too many illegal guns in circulation

and (c) the laws in america aren't always uniform, one state might have strict gun laws, while another has lax gun laws.



So in short, gun laws do have the ability to work, but only if they are

a) universal

b) enforced by a proactive police force and government

and (c) are found to be constitutional



Don't expect to see any universal law gun laws for america in the future soon.



@Sean, do you even history? i bet you're one of those guys who get's all their information on WWII from romantacised hollywood movies.



what do you mean by "bailed out"? America didn't enter WWI until 1917, 3 year after the whole war had started. America only jumped in because of the sinking of "lusitania" a british passenger liner, and the fact that germany promised mexico they would help them reclaim their territory from their loss in the mexican american war. Before that, the only thing they did was supply ammunition. The only thing you did was send troops to the trenches, and fighter pilots to join the french. Despite what your historically inacurate hoollywood productions show there were never any "bailouts" from america in WWI, only reinforcements.



WWII:

once again, in WWII you only started out by supplying ammunition to allied countries. The only real thing that had a "supposedly" big impact on the war was the nuking of hiroshima and nagasaki, and let's get one thing straight, the U.S. was not the only country involved in the development in the atomic bomb. the team also included Danes, Norwegians, Canadians, British, Italians, Germans, Poles, as well as Americans. America get's most of the credit because they were the ones who dropped the bombs. It was not just americans who were behind it.

Even then, the bombs were not the main reason japan gave up, they had previously been sending out "peace feelers" for months and were ready to surrender, the bombs only sped up the inevitable. The fire bombs they already used against the japanese resulted in more deaths to civilians than fat man and little boy, and the starving population didn't help either. their military and navy was low in numbers, and their production of weapons as well as resources were near diminished.



get off your high horse, you did no such "bailing out" in WWII or I at all.



i also ind it funny how your "quote" is a line from the movie called "tora! tora! tora!" which has no evidence to back it up.



read a history textbook for once.



Sorry about that aditional information, it's just i'm allergic to bullsh!t

Answer 10

Think about it like this: Hunter S. Thompson was a liberal, yet he was also a member of the NRA.



If liberals were like Hunter S. Thompson, I'd never need to vote Republican again. But, they're not, they want everybody disarmed for "safety." I can't abide by that. Not in a million years.

Answer 11

I like firearms...However, the EU, Japan, and many other countries that ban guns have the right idea. These countries have a shockingly low gun homicide rate compared to the U.S. Imposing stricter laws does nothing to curb homicide rates, however, banning the sale of firearms does.



As I said, I like firearms. Firearms aren't always used responsibly...When you use them properly: Self defense, hunting, or sport they are perfectly fine.



In the end, it comes down to the argument, "Guns to kill people, people kill people", true, but would you really trust another possibly psychopathic person with a gun? After all, guns to kill people, people kill people, and the weapon of choice to kill people is a gun.



@The Wolf. The loser? The loser in a gun battle dies. I'd rather defend myself against someone that has a knife than a gun.

Answer 12

"But is our right to keep and bear firearms any better than Europe's or European Unions strict gun control laws? "



Yes. Either you have Liberty or you don't. The EU does not.

Answer 13

American and European cultures are different. American gun ideas come from the Constitution and American history- self-defense, settling the frontier, fighting Injuns, and so on.

Answer 14

Idk why everyone in Europe cares what laws we have in the Usa it's not affecting them what so ever unless they all plan on moving over here it's really annoying how they want to control us.