Why isn't Europe as crazy about guns as US?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

infoiltrator

Senior member
Feb 9, 2011
704
0
0
Europe has minorities which believe in independence, ethnic cleansing, and assorted nationalist ideals.
Ireland, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, the Balkans. Some of which date hundreds of years. Generally Europe has been "guns for the wealthy."

US Militia was intended as a cheap alternative to (and possible oppression by) a standing army. The record of US Militias called into wartime service was dismal.

In WWII National Guard units (supposed to hold to professional standards) varied from good to terrible. Some political/country club units could not be retrained, had to be purged and rereretrained, usually requiring 2-3 times the training period of raw recruits.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,764
10,066
136
The US has a Bill of Rights to protect its people from the government. Naturally this required the 2nd amendment to have our people armed and capable of resistance. Of maintaining that the people hold power even if their Government disagreed. A government for the people, by the people.

The world has shifted dramatically in favor of government prowess over the last two centuries, both in terms of military and economic dependence. Such notions of rebellion might seem foolish while Uncle Sam pays the bills. Bite the hand that feeds you? Hah!

Still that is the impetus of our difference. Europeans had laws by the government, for the government. An armed people were heretical to their power structure and so they were more guardedly disarmed. Contrast that with Americans taking up arms.

Servile Citizens or Armed Citizens.

Never fear, we're all trending towards becoming servile passive creatures with no arms to speak of. Dependence has that effect on people. When making a choice between guns or food - Americans will eventually all choose food.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,108
11,284
136
.. but
what is the single, complete thought in the sentence?

Arguably that to have a well regulated militia you need to have an armed population.

I'm not bothered either way about your gun rights but to argue that that sentence is unambiguous just looks like people are determined not to take anyone else's views into account.

As I said your laws are what they are now you can't keep looking back an ancient document for the details of legislation. Its fine for a broad idea but to imbue it with powers to know exactly what to do in situations that couldn't be imagined when it was written elevates it to the position of a religious text.
 

Tango

Senior member
May 9, 2002
244
0
0
You make some good points, but people in NYC are not good representations of the bulk of America. They liked to be coddled by government. Living on top of one another like so many sardines in a can shape's one's view of things.

America's love with guns frankly goes hand in hand with the sense of personal freedom. I realize most Western nations have similar laws to the US on most matters, but the US's freedom of speech goes further than most Western countries, as does its protections for self-defense. Simply, the rights of the individual are held to a higher regard.

The New York example was made precisely to support my idea that it is mainly esthetics that drive attitude towards personal firearms. New York City's are much closer to those of urban Europe, and we also see similar attitude towards owning guns. It is when you move towards the more rural ares and what used to be not so long ago the frontier, that you encounter what is the more stereotypical "American gun lover".

Personally, I have issues with the argument about personal freedom. I see it often mentioned (again, somewhat stereotypically) by Americans, but as somebody who has lived in a dozen countries and still divides equally his time between the US and Europe I have a hard time understanding what it really means aside from the rhetoric.

In fact, if you ask most people abroad they would tell you that having dudes walking around with guns impact negatively their freedom. Most specifically their freedom to walk around without being surrounded by dudes who have the means of shooting you whenever they have a particularly bad day.

In terms of freedom of speech I am also a little dubious. I can come up with only one significant example, that is the prohibition of apology of nazism/fascism, which I personally very much support. It only impacts nazis/fascists, which I am all for impacting.

Other than that I cannot think of anything published in the last 50 years in the US that was not published in Europe because of censorship. I can however tell you that in term of nudity and references to sex, the United States see orders of magnitude more censorship than western Europe. The very first thing my girlfriend, who is American, noticed about Paris was the amount of nudity in more or less any advertisement billboard. Not saying it's a good thing, but certainly some people in Europe feel the American censorship in that respect limiting freedom of expression more than rules limiting apology of nazism.

Honestly, these days I feel very little factual differences between the urban United States and Western Europe. The biggest ones are based on esthetics more than ethics, and are mostly about the romanticized idea of the american frontier (big cars, cowboy boots, the military life, guns, sparse settlements) that are instead associated in Europe with a weltanschauung very much frowned upon. There is never a good way I can explain to my European friends why on earth so many people here drive a truck. It is a constant source of puzzlement, and again it is based on the way people culturally receive these objects.
 
Last edited:

mammador

Platinum Member
Dec 9, 2010
2,120
1
76
er.. cos we have sense? lol.

I'd say it's your history and culture. And to be fair having a gun was needed for much of your history. Settlers in the West both post and antebellum needed guns for protection. Today, hell no.
 

mammador

Platinum Member
Dec 9, 2010
2,120
1
76
The US has a Bill of Rights to protect its people from the government. Naturally this required the 2nd amendment to have our people armed and capable of resistance. Of maintaining that the people hold power even if their Government disagreed. A government for the people, by the people.

The world has shifted dramatically in favor of government prowess over the last two centuries, both in terms of military and economic dependence. Such notions of rebellion might seem foolish while Uncle Sam pays the bills. Bite the hand that feeds you? Hah!

Still that is the impetus of our difference. Europeans had laws by the government, for the government. An armed people were heretical to their power structure and so they were more guardedly disarmed. Contrast that with Americans taking up arms.

Servile Citizens or Armed Citizens.

Never fear, we're all trending towards becoming servile passive creatures with no arms to speak of. Dependence has that effect on people. When making a choice between guns or food - Americans will eventually all choose food.

Can't speak so much for France or Germany, but we Brits didn't have a revolution, nor were founded by revolting against another power. We generally don't need a gun culture, and glad we don't have one.

Nobody really needs a gun in modern society, or at the least the scope for such is limited.
 

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,622
0
0
NYC is pathetic. They are living in a mass delusion.


UK is pathetic. They are living in a mass delusion.


Sad bunch of criminal lovers. It's sad to see how their liberal policies cause violent crime to go up.
 
Last edited:

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Can't speak so much for France or Germany, but we Brits didn't have a revolution, nor were founded by revolting against another power. We generally don't need a gun culture, and glad we don't have one.

Nobody really needs a gun in modern society, or at the least the scope for such is limited.

I am 35 years old now.
35 years before I was born a madman tried to dominate Europe.
The British sent a man to try and talk him out of it.
He failed.

The Americans and Canadians sent guns.
They succeeded.
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,429
3,213
146
er.. cos we have sense? lol.

I'd say it's your history and culture. And to be fair having a gun was needed for much of your history. Settlers in the West both post and antebellum needed guns for protection. Today, hell no.

Can't speak so much for France or Germany, but we Brits didn't have a revolution, nor were founded by revolting against another power. We generally don't need a gun culture, and glad we don't have one.

Nobody really needs a gun in modern society, or at the least the scope for such is limited.

Maybe read up on your own history... up until about the 30's it was very normal for a "gentleman" (read: people with money, not the poors) to be armed in public.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,600
6,084
136
Different supreme courts interpret the constitution differently. As it is written, guns apply to a "well regulated militia" - but you never hear gun nuts bring that up.

"Well regulated" in the colonial context means "in good working order", i.e. ready for combat. It has nothing to do with laws/regulation that we consider "regulated" today.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,600
6,084
136
First: Because it has the largest standing army in the world.
Second: This has nothing to do with the question, and is an entirely separate issue.
I merely argue, that due to the presence of a large industrialized military, there is no need for a popular militia. There isn't even conscription going on, which would make the armed forces a true people's army.

The U.S. does not have the largest standing army in the world. The People's Republic of China does. India at this point has an army comparable in size to China, and growing.

Russians are approximately the same size.

DPRK (North Korea) and ROK (South Korea) together have a larger army. Not to mention each side basically every male (and many females) are reservists.

Anyways, in regards to the point you are trying to make, the founders specifically wanted people to be armed to guard against a standing army and possible oppression. The abuses of King George's troops were fresh in their minds.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
Can't speak so much for France or Germany, but we Brits didn't have a revolution, nor were founded by revolting against another power. We generally don't need a gun culture, and glad we don't have one.

Nobody really needs a gun in modern society, or at the least the scope for such is limited.

Money buys politicians here and the National Rifle Association (hybrid lobbying and industry trade group) hands it out like candy. So the laws are loose.

But availability is only part of the picture. I truly don't understand the attraction to guns. A feeling of ultimate power? First person shooters? Killing? Shooting holes in things?

But I guess if dynamite was as popular and available, there would be a lot more random explosions.

It's emotional immaturity. A gun is risky to have in any situation that includes feelings of revenge or anger.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Thankfully the world isn't based on one person's understanding of "attraction"
 
Last edited:

Murloc

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2008
5,382
65
91
The US has a Bill of Rights to protect its people from the government. Naturally this required the 2nd amendment to have our people armed and capable of resistance. Of maintaining that the people hold power even if their Government disagreed. A government for the people, by the people.

The world has shifted dramatically in favor of government prowess over the last two centuries, both in terms of military and economic dependence. Such notions of rebellion might seem foolish while Uncle Sam pays the bills. Bite the hand that feeds you? Hah!

Still that is the impetus of our difference. Europeans had laws by the government, for the government. An armed people were heretical to their power structure and so they were more guardedly disarmed. Contrast that with Americans taking up arms.

Servile Citizens or Armed Citizens.

Never fear, we're all trending towards becoming servile passive creatures with no arms to speak of. Dependence has that effect on people. When making a choice between guns or food - Americans will eventually all choose food.
that is just ridicolous, in my country the citizens own the laws, constitution, governments and army.
There's nothing to rebel against as the people and the state are the same entity.

Meanwhile the US government acts like it's an independent entity and representativity is lacking.
But there's no rebellion to be had whatsoever since you already gave up all your power, liberal gun laws allowing weapon carry don't mean anything in a people vs government context. Also I don't think a relationship based on "do what I want or I shoot you up" is healthy at all, wouldn't it be better to create a system where that is not necessary at all?



I truly don't understand the attraction to guns. A feeling of ultimate power? First person shooters? Killing? Shooting holes in things?

But I guess if dynamite was as popular and available, there would be a lot more random explosions.

It's emotional immaturity. A gun is risky to have in any situation that includes feelings of revenge or anger.
people have always liked weapons. The caveman with the nice hunting spear sure cherished it. I think it's evolutionary.
Dynamite isn't popular and available but firecrackers sure are. There's plenty of random explosions on carnival.
 
Last edited:
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
A large frontier, and violent treasonous revolt. Both drive home the necessity of being armed.

That covers a lot of it, but there's more at work.

On the American side you have to look at the inherent individuality of our national identity. America has never been 'a people', but instead a collection of individuals. It is the core mindset that every person is utterly responsible unto themselves...for their safety, their sustenance, and so on. Since we share no ethnicity, nor long history, we have no ties to one another that would lead us to believe we should be protecting each other...only ourselves.

Also the 'large frontier' wasn't merely about the frontier as imagined as the old west, but the simple size of the nation. We're not just larger than any country in Europe, we're larger than Europe itself. What's more, we experienced an unprecedented population increase without natural evolution of plan. That led to an unheard of distribution of the population across huge distances never before dealt with by a single legislative group. The rules had to be different because the realities were different.

Most other nations have a long history, and zealously guarded inbreeding, which resulted in a unique cultural/ethnic identity upon the world stage...one which invokes significant pride and a drive to stand up in common defense.

What's more, most other nations had deeply ingrained the separation of aristocracy. This led to two concurrent cultural paradigms: the idea of being cared for by your rulers/country, and the idea of preventing the people from rising up against you if you were a noble. Both of which refute the idea of personal armament (even though it was frequently granted anyway, as with the English Bill of Rights).
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Because our founding fathers enshrined the right to bear arms in the constitution. No European nation has the right so enshrined in their bill of rights. I am still amazed many nations don't even have the freedom of speech, but that's another thread.

This is pretty subjective, as it depends how you define 'enshrined'. Ours is largely based upon the English right, and many other nations have variations of it. The modern fervor with which we regard it is just that...modern. This extraordinary dedication to that one right didn't use to exist even here, as it was simply common sense. There was not any question that the people should have right to arms, so there was no need to get worked up over the defense of that right (especially one shared by many, and eventually most nations).

It's only when other nations neutered the right, and forces within our own country began to dismantle it here that it became such an important Amendment.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
First: Because it has the largest standing army in the world.
Second: This has nothing to do with the question, and is an entirely separate issue.
I merely argue, that due to the presence of a large industrialized military, there is no need for a popular militia. There isn't even conscription going on, which would make the armed forces a true people's army.

I figured your response would start out with the military. Apparently you forgot that the second amendment is there to protect us from government, both foreign and domestic.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
There are much less nuts over there.

Stripping out the ignorant bias, there's some truth to that statement.

There's less divisiveness in most other nations as they have greater cultural/national/ethnic unity. This leads to more general agreement on issues, and more political efficacy. This translates to fewer 'blow ups'.

There's fewer problems in most other nations, largely because they're much smaller, less populated, less diverse, and have stronger and more supportive social infrastructure. This includes things like mental health care and economic opportunities that dissuade the rampant crime we've had in the US.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
The founding founders enshrined the right to bear a few muskets - to deter British soldiers. They did not enshrine Ak-47s, sniper rifles, and other modern weapons capable of massacring a town full of people.


You are factually, and ideologically exactly wrong. This idea has been so thoroughly debunked as the worst, most ignorant garbage, that it's not even worth going back into it as anyone who espouses it is beyond salvation.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
If you want to fight crime, fighting poverty is a far more efficient tool than fighting guns.

If you want to fight gun related accidents then you have to do some kind of regulation. Whether it will be bans or a gun license like a drivers license.

I can't really see the problem for a requirement of some kind of education and exam for a being able to buy a gun. Except for the very strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Just imagine how bad traffic would be without any requirement for a drivers license.

Also you could make it in different classes.
a. hand guns
b. hunting rifles / shotguns
...
...

Actually that's proved to have next to no impact whatsoever. What's more, there's no need of it because there are incredibly few accidents - especially compared to other things that cause accidents.

If you DID need to address accidents and such then you'd have to focus on education, and generally increasing intelligence of the populace, as well as fixing other social issues like poverty and mental health that are so often correlated with these accidents. In the end, however, you need to accept that some accidents are unavoidable, and will continue no matter what.
 

Tango

Senior member
May 9, 2002
244
0
0
There's fewer problems in most other nations, largely because they're much smaller, less populated, less diverse, and have stronger and more supportive social infrastructure. This includes things like mental health care and economic opportunities that dissuade the rampant crime we've had in the US.

The only European countries with lower density than the United States that I can think of are Norway, Sweden and Finland. If you are referring to population in absolute terms, I do not see why would that be relevant.

What you say about social infrastructure on the other hand probably does play a role.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Different supreme courts interpret the constitution differently. As it is written, guns apply to a "well regulated militia" - but you never hear gun nuts bring that up.

Because you're historically, and legally wrong.

'well regulated militia' means every citizen trained to shoot guns. Look it up, either in history and language texts or legal opinions.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
The constitution can and has changed many times over the 200 years. What made sense generations ago, no longer make sense. With any luck, the 2nd amendment can be gotten to of.

I see all the gun nuts cry about their gun rights being infringed - but no one complaining about their 4th amendment rights being violated on a daily basis.

Go to P&N, your assertion is disproved. Everything you think and say subsequent to it is therefore invalid. Again, you're simply wrong.