Now, yes they probably are, but I'd say for a few years after WW2 it was fear .. I mean dropping a couple of A bombs and destroying numerous innocent civilians with the knowledge that ALL your country was in the cross hairs, would scare the crap out of most people .. as to Germany, the destruction pretty much curtailed any risk involved with Germany waging war again. As to the rest of Europe WW2 took us to the top of our tolerance for war, and for the UK, Iraq & Afghanistan was the straw that broke the camels back.
Funny but the right of gun ownership came from the duty of gun ownership from English law that we adopted. One knows freedom could not last long in a society that is used to being ruled.
therein lies our differences. There are some that prefer the socialist governments and those who don't. While I do understand your position, that doesn't mean it is right for me ..and mayhap ours is not for you. Our concepts are alien to some...and that's too bad, because more should embrace a more independent life style without government controlling every aspect of their lives. Not to make decisions based on government rules and regulations. Figuratively speaking, governments shouldn't have the power or authority to stick their noses up one's ass to see what they had for dinner.
No, the difference is that I am more than prepared to discuss/debate the issues WHEN the actual premise is not based on assumptions without merit, where as almost every poster in favour of gun ownership in this topic has done nothing but cast assertions and generally run down a whole host of other countries with no reason to do so. Had the OP not made assumptions I could have given a number of reasons why Europeans are more likely to not want the same type of gun ownership that Americans do .. and it has little to do with abhorrence (A feeling of revulsion; disgusted loathing) or being "controlled"
and here I thought you didn't want to debate guns. Nope. We stand on our Rights. You see how easy it is for someone like you to say something as ridiculous as "your rights are immaterial to this debate" and since that is the attack, almost all of us lawful owners need only stand on that. YOU may not think so, but that's too bad. And since it is American Rights you are challenging, (and you present the same argument) your argument is immaterial to our 2nd A Rights. We are aware that in Europe things are different. You live as you desire, we are not going to change. We too, live as we desire. It appears to us, that the Europeans that argue this fail to grasp what Liberty means to us. Not to be lorded over, not to be threatened with force from our own government, and for us to enjoy all facets of personal Rights. No, we do not have the Right to murder and commit mayhem. It is insane for anyone outside of the US to state that we have out right gun battles in every corner of our country. There is a cost for Liberty but we do not condone those things which the rest of the world accuses the people of doing. You don't want guns for personal reasons, as most people do. I have debated this with several from across the pond and most of them are afraid of our guns, some 4000 miles away from you. Since the attack focuses on our Right to own guns, mostly unrestricted by government, we defend as we choose. If someone from Europe tells us we need to get rid of our guns, it is mostly because guns are "scarey" or "why would you desire war with your government.?" Since it is the government that wants the guns in the end, it will do whatever it wants, short of an outright ban, then we know there is a more than just the seemingly apparent reason. They know there will be rebellion against those who would impose their will upon us. Less civilized? Maybe, but we do love our Liberties and Freedoms. Most of us know that Man has not changed one damned bit in 4000 years, and neither have governments. Not all of us are "nutters" who play with guns. That is absolutely stupid and ignorant. Man is capable of great evil, and abusive governments are still rampant throughout the world, led by the same people who haven't changed one damned bit in over 4000 years. Your history has shown us this to be true. So, while we remain vigilant about this, some naysay this away. You do not live here. You have not tasted what real Freedom can mean, so it is easier for some, from there, to "pull the monkey from the tree." It is one thing to look for clarity, it is another to attack. And when we are attacked, we will fight back. Our guns give us that ability. Oh, and most of us will not cave in so easily to the "might" of the world. I often wonder how people who are disarmed will defend themselves against tyranny. It may not exist in Europe today, but there are no guarantees you may not be living under tyranny tomorrow. So, if Europe wants to be subjects (unarmed) then we will allow it there.
The above reads as paranoiac ramblings to a sane person. In what circumstances would your "freedom" (whatever that might mean) be so challenged as to require immediate resort to firearms?
when people cut from the same bolt of cloth that demands our surrender.... and what do we care about some third party interloper's opinion about us. I've told this to many......don't want us to have them, some get them yourselves. Now that's real patriotism and Liberty...see how easy that was?
Had the OP actually been about debating guns instead of some assumption made about the general population of Europe (all 739 million of them) then it might have been a topic worth debating. As you have speech marked part of this, you should have no trouble actually finding where I do say that. .. I'll save you the trouble of looking I haven't, so why do you need to resort to lying about my comments? and please stop trying to play the victim, its pathetic, as pointed out your very first comment on this topic was a degrading attack on Europeans as a whole. More lies .. show me where I have attacked your 2nd A right, in fact if you actually read my comments you will find this - "you have your constitution that protects your right to bear arms, something I have never argued against " - what I am challenging is the assumptions made by the OP and pretty much all the comments that follow. If you are aware of that fact why do you insist on running all Europeans down, instead of actually discussing the issues with them? I have a pretty good idea what liberty means to Americans, again a reason I don't, nor have not, EVER disputed their right to own and bear arms. so why do you think it is ok to run down 739 million people? What makes you think we are 'lorded' over, have you ever lived in Europe for longer than a few weeks holiday? Again I have never even alluded to "our right gun battles in every corner of" your "country" so what has that got to do with me, and remember it is me you are replying to .. or is this just more generalization without facts. No as most Americans do. Your guns hold not the slightest bit of fear for me. I spent the first 25 years of my life around guns, crossbows etc .. I could shoot pretty much as soon as I started school (5 years old), ok not the same type of hardware you guys can get hold of, but my point being I was raised with guns so the only time I would fear one is when it is being pointed at me and anyone who says they wouldn't be afraid in that situation is a liar and a fool. I'm still waiting for you to actually point out this mythical attack of mine. Then take it up with the people who say it and don't assume that all Europeans are of the same mind, don't post your first comment as a degrading one aimed at Europeans in general. There is not one single comment of mine that in anyway, shape or form tells you to get rid of your guns, or tars you all with the same brush .. unlike the majority of comments coming from your side. got to ask you, when was the last time your government was abusive to you .. in fact has it EVER been abusive to you, unlike in Europe where we have suffered 2 world wars on our turf and for the UK specifically suffered for numerous years with the IRA (funded in part by US citizens I add) .. hell, if anyone should want guns in every household it should be us .. but perhaps we have the mentality that to lower yourself to the level of those who would harm you makes you no better than them, violence begats violence. I actually lived in the US for 10 years, so yes I have "tasted" what you call "real Freedom" and that 'real Freedom' is little different to what I feel living in the UK, and again please show me where I have attacked you, or your 2nd A rights? The same way we did in 2 world wars and through a protracted campaign of violence from the IRA, and BTW it isn't up to you what you "allow" anywhere but in your own country
Oh the irony. Ok first some education. You might want to look up what a straw-man argument is before you make the accusation. I will demonstrate by using an actual straw-man argument. A straw-man argument is when an opponent attacks a completely different proposition (The straw-man argument you are now reading) and seems to have won the argument by defeating the straw-man, leaving the original argument unresolved (in this case the op). So to recap a straw man argument is one where the original argument is sidelined (OP) and new related argument put forward (This) and defeating the straw-man (Me pointing out that the OP is in fact not a straw-man) thus winning the argument (OP) Basic idea is all I have to prove is you are wrong about some statement you made and thus I win, even though I never touched the original argument. Oh and this excludes the entire fact that the OP is not an argument but a question. Notice the "?" mark at the end. Get the irony now? Oh double win for me. [MENTION=61087]Fugazi[/MENTION], Powerbird. While I get that all six pages of previous posts are at most pure drivel, more like nonsense. I would like to point out that generalizations are used due to the shear impossibility of accounting for every single possible opinion, idea, outcome, etc. If you cannot give the benefit of doubt to someone who is using a generalization I think the issue has more to do with your opinion of other people than your opinion about an argument. You obviously believe that they are too stupid, or have some deficiency, to understand that a generalization is not indicative of every single individual and you must point out that very fact to them. Give them the benefit of the doubt, honestly i sometimes wonder myself though. Enough straw-men for now. Living in Europe currently the first thing I need to say to answer the OP's question is this. The mentality, mode of life, way of doing things and thinking about things is vastly different than in the US. This has a lot to do with history, everything actually. Europe has a much deeper cultural and historical background than the US. People have become very used to the idea of not having guns because they could never have them the way Americans are used to. I'm going to skip the classical age because I don't want to write a thesis. From the middle ages weapons where cost prohibited well into the Renaissance. The average person could not afford a weapon be it gun or sword. The basic idea is that weapons were used to fight wars be it gun or sword and not everyone had access to them. When they became cheaper to obtain one must remember that people never had the habit of having a weapon in the first place and they were/are seen as a mode of violence. Another big point is that if you know your European history you also know that governments had a lot of power over their citizens and in Europe this is still mostly true. And can be demonstrated by the laws they make. Take for instance Germany's privacy laws, In the US this is exclusively a control on governments power (That's the idea anyway now that there is PRISM, Hi NSA). In Germany the privacy laws are a control on private individuals and companies and less a government control. In Austria, Germany, Italy, UK, and almost every other European country the police can stop you and search you any time they want for what ever reason they want and people have to put up with it. Also there seems to be two different methods to how laws are made. Over here it seems to be more of a system of laws that ensure good behavior regardless of costs be they financial, social, etc a strictly legislate problems away approach. In the US this is more difficult due to a variety of reasons but the Constitution is a good start. Where as the constitution in the US is a limit on government powers In Europe the constitutions tend to be a granting of rights to citizens at government discretion. But we need to remember that this is how it has always been, it is something that is ingrained in society the way football is in the US or soccer is over here. The thing is it (sorta) works, the priorities are different but they work in different ways. Job security over here is a very important thing due to the fact people were very poor until only relatively recently, two world wars, a great depression. Rebuilding the lives of their families was a more important thing for people and jobs helped. Oh and lets not forget the vast amount of influence the Church has had in laws and how people thing, not going to get into details. The US is unique in that the US places a very high value to the personal liberties almost no other country (That I have found, there are a lot of countries) places the same sort of value on personal liberties. To make this long answer short people over here have always been used to the vast government power in their lives. They have a different way of thinking about the things that affect their lives. Edit: Sorry for the redundancy in some of the arguments, it's getting late and it's been a long day.
Sorry but in this case there is no benefit of the doubt, look at the title of the topic and tell me there is room for any misinterpretation, then read the OP it makes a statement with no reasoning. Had the OP said something like - "Just wondering why it appears Europeans in general have such an abhorrence toward having the right to keep and bear arms? " then the answers would have been somewhat different. Then you can move onto the first set of responses; - assumption without facts - General attack - Attack and assumption without facts - Attack and assumption without facts - attack and assumption without facts and that is just the first page of responses!!! So with all due respect to your comments, the whole topic and the initial responses are nothing but assumptions without facts and unwarranted attacks.
Like I said drivel and nonsense but I see your point. What are your thoughts about everything else though?
I believe the OP is incorrect in it's assertions that generally Europeans have an abhorrence to guns, in fact I would hazard a guess that generally Europeans couldn't give two figs about Americans right to bear arms. I think that generally Europeans don't see a requirement for guns in the household, that they don't generally have a mistrust in their relative governments and if they do use other avenues to show that mistrust ie demonstrations, the poll tax demonstrations (and later riots) are a perfect example of how the people can change government policy. It does have a lot to do with culture differences as you rightly pointed out, cannot really comment on other European countries but as far as the UK is concerned guns were not strictly controlled until the 1920's Firearms Act which was partially spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of firearms available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period. Its main stated aim was to enable the government to control the overseas arms trade and so fulfil their commitment to the 1919 Paris Arms Convention. Shootings of police by militant groups in Ireland may also have been a factor as Britain and Ireland were at that time still in union with each other and the Act applied there too. The 1920's Firearms Act did not 'ban' guns per see, but made their ownership right conditional upon the Home Secretary and the Police, Funny thing is the banning of fully automatic firearms in private ownership (1937) took its inspiration from the US 1934 National Firearms Act. Such weapons became restricted to certain special collectors, museums, prop companies, the military, Police Forces and anyone with the permission of the Home Secretary. So one could say that the peoples right to own fully automatic firearms was curtailed based on US legislation .. go figure that one out. The historically aspect also is very relevant, Americans seem to forget that for much of European history its people were subject to the whims of the monarchy, something they never really had and even less after the War of Independence. The monarchy's rule was absolute, they were basically rulers by grace of God and as such no 'commoner' could ever question their authority .. it was tyrannical, but accepted due to the long, long history of it being that way .. since the 9th century if memory serves me right, that is a lot longer than the 238 years that America has been an independent country .. of course a few things have changed such as a number of European countries ousting their relative kings and queens or reducing their powers (as in the UK), but the culture of acceptance is still there, Europeans accept that the governments will curtail rights under the guise of actually protecting them which is a totally foreign concept to most Americans. So in essence the question asked is like comparing apples to oranges, its not that generally most Europeans have a disgust and loathing for guns its just that we actually don't see the necessity of having them in our homes.
I disagree with the common assertion of "hate" when disagreed with. Because most Europeans don't seem to particularly care about having firearms doesn't mean they hate or abhor them. I'm not aware that Euros are trying to restrict my ownership of firearms, so I really don't care about their opinions on the matter. Yes, I know I ended a sentence with a preposition. Sue me.
It means little in the context of American gun laws agreed, though that does not mean opinions cannot be held or debated .. as to other issues then European opinions hold as much credence as any other, especially when it comes to items that may have an effect on the world as a whole. I may be wrong, so apologies if I am, but your comment alludes to European opinion meaning little on anything.
Fug, once advocating against 2A in its current form it is no longer an opinion but a call for action.....who is zooming who? Since I have been a member here Euro's jump on 2A threads, call it uncivilized, call us killers etc etc. Please blow smoke to someone who cares. Tomorrow morning when I wake.....2A will still be in place and another Euro will be (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing all the while this insane rush to mount more CCTV cameras to watch over the people......for that warm safe feeling. http://youtu.be/7YvAYIJSSZY
There really is no answer to the Liberal threat but force of arms. No tyrant, or would be tyrant, has ever been stopped in any other way. Fortunately, we have ways to stop them.
mostly, third party interlopers have no real wareness as to the real America,only what they get in the afternoon cartoons and westerns..of course Hollywood is sooooooooooooooo accurate. Go watch Quigley again
That's more like it, back to the topic of puling and whining about how misunderstood the real 'Murkans desire to keep on killing 3500 people a year is.
