I think the OP asked a valid question, but if he is genuinely seeking information, not simply flame-bating Europeans, he rather precluded ready answers from the only source qualified to give them, by the (perhaps unintentional) method of questioning. The title is not unlike "have you stopped beating your wife?" It makes assumptions of similar magnitude, and casts similar aspersions. I have lived for 19 years, and at no time felt the need to employ a gun, nor have any of my friends. I actually find guns quite interesting objects (as a piece of machinery) and have fired a shotgun, and a rifle (when I was in the ATC) so I have neither fear nor abhorrence of guns. I simply have no need of the things in the course of my life in my particular society. I am aware that something over 31,000 Americans die every year from gunshot wounds, and I would not find that an acceptable situation in my own society, (where the gun death figure in 2012 was 39,) but if Americans find that an acceptable trade-off for the constitutional right to carry firearms, who am I, or any other European, to tell them how to conduct their society? Autres temps, autres murs, and all that sort of thing. Not unlike another British poster, I find allusions to serfs and the like (in relation to Europeans) unnecessarily demeaning, and certainly counterproductive as far as constructive discussion is concerned. But if a sensible American cares to civilly ask me why my compatriots and I are not particularly interested in guns, I am happy to (equally civilly) explain why.
I think the question is valid given the bolded part of the question. "Just wondering why Europeans in general have such an abhorrence toward having the right to keep and bear arms? " I do get your point though so maybe it should say something along the lines of "That post on this forum" and that would clear things up. Glad you find weapons interesting...that is a good start. I generally find though that some who post your opinion about not needing one, seem to project that because of that thought, no one else needs them either. This is a prevailing attitude from many anti-gun posters and examples are abundant on this forum alone. I am quite certain that those who have been attacked without the means of self defense wished they had alternatives and those that had the means were dang glad they did. My belief is that a weapon is nothing more than another tool to use when it is necessary to do so. Are you also aware of the statistics behind those numbers or just that 31,000 American's die, there are some important facts to consider in your very broad statement. Personally any unnecessary death caused by any method should be unacceptable but the narrow view of guns causing death creates a very heated response in many cases as to motive of cause. Americans find the trade off acceptable for many reasons but chief among them is the complete and total understanding that with or without guns evil is going to happen and those of us who choose to obtain and use firearms to defend ourselves and our families would rather have the right than to await a government response. To be honest...it isn't just "outsider", their argument is the same as our own internal argument.....outsiders are just seeing the results of an old, tired, discussion that has no basis in reality. Yes our times and customs are our own and it's nice to see some recognize that. While you may have a point about the allusions and the like...remember we can find comments about our times and customs unnecessarily demeaning as well. As a sensible American who responded civilly, in the end I don't know why you would think an outsiders opinion about why you don't particularly have an interest in guns. I have enough of my own countrymen to deal with who can't grasp the very intelligent point that it's not the instrument it's the person. Thanks for your comments though!
Good point, and thank you for making it civilly. The reason for my post was to try and explain the reactions of various Europeans to the OP. Other than trying to explain my personal views of the matter, I generally try to avoid any gun-control discussion here and elsewhere. Absolutely, and having spent a little (too little) time in your society, I have a very positive attitude toward Americans. Of course I am familiar with other ways of ordering society, but that does not alter the fact that the Americans I encountered were amongst the most welcoming, likeable, and generous people I have encountered anywhere in the world. I was relatively young - (14) when I travelled around both coasts of your beautiful country, and most of the Americans I encountered were very kind to this 'foreign kid' (and LOL, the older ladies seemingly entranced by my 'British accent' ) It seemed to me that the only thing Americans asked was that one admires their society, which seems little to ask, (and a well-mannered person would do that anyway,) in return for such hospitality and generosity of spirit. I feel sure I am misunderstanding this sentence - "I don't know why you would think an outsiders opinion about why you don't particularly have an interest in guns." It appears incomplete, but also appears to convey the message 'Mind your own business'. If so, might I respectfully remind you that this is an international discussion forum, in which this question has been asked of Europeans. In view of which, might not a response of 'Why do you think an 'outsider's opinion matters?' be a touch illogical? As I indicated in my previous post, I would not presume to tell an American, or a German, or a Frenchman, how he should run his society, but what I may think of guns, or cars, or aeroplanes, seems a reasonable question worthy of some effort to answer. I am also aware that Americans are more overtly patriotic than most other nations, and thus sometimes very sensitive to what they might see as implied criticisms of their society. It is as well to be aware of these things, else one can easily give offence where no such offence was intended (LOL, I am often mildly offended when the American spell check corrects the perfectly correct British spelling of words such as 'offence' and 'aeroplane', ) So I understand why a number of American posters indicate irritation when Europeans seem to not agree with their estimation of US society. The solution on both sides of the pond, IMO, lies in the realisation that this is a very inefficient form of communication (no intonation of voice, facial expression, or body language is afforded us,) added to which is the temptation to consider one is communicating with a machine - disregarding the very real human being at the other keyboard. This can lead one to write things one would not, by any standards of politesse, say to the face of a friend or acquaintance.
In the "Top 178 charts of gun ownership" 20 European states are listed within the 40 places on top. The list has the USA place No.1 , with 89 guns per one hundred citizens. Place 2 is Serbia with 58.2, place 4 is Switzerland (45.2), followed by Finland (45.3) and Cyprus (36.1), Sweden, Norway and France are on places 10, 11 and 12 with 31.6 to 31.2 guns per 100 people. Places 13 and 14 are held by Austria and Germany with 30.4 and 30.3. guns per hunded. Place 41 is Luxembourg with 15.1. That is still on top of Australia and Mexico, both 15.0, and Russia (8.9). That means: less guns per citizen are counted in Europe, but if roughly one third of a population has legal guns at home, there is no real "gun abhorrence" to be observed. The murder rates roughly should have similar propotional differences. The murder rates per capita in the USA should roughly be two times the rate of Switzerland and three times the rates of Germany, France or Austria. That is cleary not the case, the difference is closer to 1:10. All European states have 0.6 - 0.8 murders per 100.000 citizens, the USA have 4.8. Mexico, a dwarf state concerning gun ownership, has 23.7. Since decades the list is lead by El Salvador with 100+ murders per 100.000 per year. It coulkd therefore be asked why the US society is producing more murderers as compared to European societies and why the fact of one third of a population of 780 Million people (European Community) possessing fire arms is called "gun abhorrence".That sounds like calling the USA the "United Killing Fields of America". Both is two things: unpolite and wrong. In reality it looks like the dependent and independent variables being confused, murder rates predicting gun ownership rates, because more peope have the wish to protect themselves and not the way around. The simple fact that a certain part of every population cannot own a gun is the cause for a 10 fold higher rate of murder "causing" a two times higher rate of gun owners only. At 89% like in the USA it comes close to its theoretical maximum, 11% being toddlers, prison inmates and tree huggers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Good post and this is what brought me to the belief it was not the guns themselves that was responsible for the gun homicide rate differences. One of the few glaring differences between the countries with high gun homicide and those with a lower rate is the attitude toward gun use
Europeans generally submit to their government that is why England was able to conquer most of it until America used guns for freedom. For example now the economy is terrible in Europe and it is caused by their ruling elite, the underclasses there are not able to get respect from their governments because they have unarmed protests. In the American south the political protests are from armed individuals, and that is why the government isn't able to humiliate them in the same way.
LOL, whilst the concept may be flattering to nationalistic Englishmen (thankfully, a relatively rare species,) which history book teaches you that England conquered most of Europe? The various early Anglo-Saxon Kings temporarily conquered bits of France, but that was as far as we got on the European continent. And they were colonial Englishmen who used guns to commit high treason - there were no such things as American nationals at that time. And it was the might of France which afforded them their 'freedom', not their muskets.
Those were not 'Englishmen', but Americans who won their freedom from slavery, or taxation without representation, with the use of guns. Europe has a Gun Abhorrence because the government or wealthy ruling elite there cannot afford to have the 20 percent of unemployed, the middle class who lost their pensions and welfare, and the nationals become armed.
Don't be ridiculous, there was no such nationality as 'American' in 1776, these were colonial British. Just as the people in Australia were colonial British until federation in 1901.
Possibly. They simply kill by other means. - - - Updated - - - The obsession lies with those who have a problem with guns.
Yet the UK has more violence............... https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/uk-violent-crime-rate-eight-times-higher-than-the-us/ UK Violent Crime Rate Eight Times Higher Than The US Posted on September 11, 2013 by stevengoddard According to the FBI, there were 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the US during 2011. FBI Violent Crime According to the UK government, there were 1.94 million violent crimes in the UK during 2011. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_296191.pdf There are almost exactly five times as many people in the US as in the UK 314 million vs. 63 million. The violent crime rate in the UK is 3,100 per 100,000, and in the US it is 380 per 100,000 population. Brits are eight times more likely to be victims of violent crime than Americans. For some reason, Piers Morgan doesnt talk about this.
and of course you have taken in to account that "violent crimes" are detailed and reported differently in the UK than in the USA. Violent crime in the UK is defined as "Includes all violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery as violent crime." Where as the USA defines it as "The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report (FBI UCR) counts four categories of crime as violent crimes: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." Definition of ‘violent crime’ has impact on numbers According to the FBI, there are four crimes classified as “violent” in crime statistics: murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. The list does not include burglaries, which is considered a property crime in the U.S. but a violent crime in the U.K. In addition to murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault and burglary, England and Wales classify domestic violence and all sexual offenses – not just forcible rape – as violent. Scotland and Northern Ireland compile their own statistics and systems. In England and Wales, sexual offenses and domestic violence contain a wide range of offenses and make up a significant part of the overall number of their violent crimes. Sexual offenses include rape, sexual assault, sexual activity with children, soliciting prostitutes (but not prostitution itself), sexual threats, sexual touching and indecent exposure. Domestic abuse, described as a form of “intimate personal violence,” includes the following: non-sexual emotional or financial abuse, threats, physical force, sexual assault and stalking carried out by a current or former partner or other family member. Several other crimes that are classified as violent in the U.K. include vehicle theft, purse-snatching and bicycle theft. In all, the definition of “violent crime” takes approximately six pages to thoroughly explain. It is found in a user guide to crime statistics published by the Home Office, a U.K. government department addressing crime. - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/116226/user-guide-crime-statistics.pdf Lets just take rape for example, Until 2012, the FBI only counted “forcible rape” in its violent crime statistics, defining it as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” The narrow definition has affected the FBI’s overall numbers. In 2010, the Chicago Police Department could not include 1,400 sexual assaults in federal numbers because the city’s definition of rape was broader than the FBI’s definition. In England and Wales, a person is guilty of rape if “he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of the complainant with his penis, the complainant does not consent and the defendant does not reasonably believe consent has been given,” according to the BBC. With these different definitions in mind, England and Wales reported 14,000 rapes in 2009. Based on a female population of approximately 27 million (although males are included in official reports), that comes out to 51 rapes per 100,000 females. The U.S. reported 88,097 rapes in 2009, which comes out to 56 rapes per 100,000 females. Despite having a narrower definition of rape that only includes female victims, the U.S. still has a higher rate of occurrence than England and Wales. The U.S. also has a higher rate of murder, and most happen by way of gun: the FBI said 67.8 percent of murders in 2011 were by firearm. So your comparison isn't really a comparison at all.
Yes. Those people count too. At least here in the US they do. We believe that had those people been armed, they could have had a fighting chance in defending themselves. So you're correct. There is no comparison. The UK as well as other nations that have a problem with guns, has made their people more vulnerable to violent crime no matter how you define it. - - - Updated - - - I did take it up with them............... Quote Originally Posted by iamkurtz View Post The obsession lies with those who have a problem with guns.
That is a matter of opinion, and your figures in no way support the allusion you made. No, you replied to me, not them, unless you are trying to allude that I am saying there is a "problem with guns"
Disprove my figures. Yes. I replied to you yet you confuse that with about you. If you infer what you assume was implied the mistake is yours
Europeans in general have no abhorrence having the right to keep and bear arms. But many people - me too - don't like killing others. And I've rarely heard of problems solved by weapons. Although I'm not against self-defense, but not in the way of everbody's slaughtering.
Your numbers, as usual, are wrong. But first, when comparing countries, you do not compare by labels. You cannot compare the "violent crime" calculated by the FBI with the "Violent crime" calculated by the UK. You have to go into the database and calculate an equivalent "violent crime" by compiling the data for equivalent crimes. So lets do that. The US data is from the FBI UCR. The UK data is from the Statistical Bulletin, Crime in England And Wales, 2012, Appendix A. Numbers are crimes per 100,000 people. Murder: US 4.7 / UK 1.4 (the UK nbr does not include non-negligent manslaughter, the US number does, but its not important in the total) Rape US 26.9 / UK 40.7 (yes, that is "rape", not sexual assault or indecent assault or intercourse with a minor or threats or any other category. The UK does have rape as its own subcategory (its offence #19). In fact there are other subcategories I should add to the UK nbr but I'll give the UK a break and be lazy) In your post you have the correct number of rapes, but the rate is wrong Assault with serious bodily injury US 242.3 / UK 700.1 (It does not include DUI, or assault with minor injury, but is equivalent to the US aggravated assault) Robbery US 112.9 / UK 1,586 (for the UK, that does not include robbery of a business, just personal property) And the grand total is: US 386.8 / UK 2,328.2 The only area the UK comes out ahead is in murder, but that is such a low number that its irrelvent in total violence. The UK is far more violent than the US. And its not due to some number play with mixing categories. Those are the facts.
I haven't got the time or the inclination to sift through reams of data when it is obvious that the way certain crimes are reported cannot be compared between countries. You may twist what ever figures you wish in order to try and support your erroneous conclusions, the fact remains that the UK is by far a less dangerous place to live than the USA.
Not to me, but that is my opinion and like you I don't have time to sift through reams of data. I do believe you are supporting erroneous conclusions though.
The numbers prove you wrong. The post earlier gave you the link to the actual UK database, go here http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_296191.pdf and in that doc is the link. And as to twist numbers, you could not even calculate the rape rate for the US correctly and came up with 56 per 100,000. The rate is given to you in the UCR. You had the right number of offences but either used the wrong population size for the US or copied the wrong rate number. You almost doubled the rate, a big error. How long can you deny the truth? Its amazing and a bit scary to watch someone lie to themselves for so long.
Have you ever lived here for longer than a weeks holiday, oh and before you ask me the same question I lived in the US for ten years.
They just aren't as keen on 2nd Amendment solutions as we are. They've seen enough of those solutions over the years.
big whoop............lived here all of my life. I think I know my country better than you................
