Major Changes in European Gun Laws

[Deaf Smith]

Well I tell you what guys. When ISIS and the Muslims start a real war in the UK (and EU), I ain't sending any of my guns to help them like we did in WW2.

To heck with them. They ain't never gonna learn.

Deaf

 

[Dog Soldier]

Deaf Smith, I am with you on that one. We saved their British Butts in WWII. They are voting to decide if our President Trump will be allowed on there little Island.

 

[Ignition Override]

Dog Soldier:
Just a reminder to viewers that we used our "Lend Lease" so-called loop hole to send supplies to the British because we were isolationist.... until Pearl Harbor.
The British RAF--which also included volunteers from many countries--deserves strong credit for creating systems to allow intercepting and knocking down much of the combat-seasoned Luftwaffe (Me-109s with 20 mm Hispano cannon etc).

I agree with you overall. Only giving some credit where it is due, as I have plenty of respect for what they faced in 1940 and how they stood up to the nightmarish threat of invasion...Before our Army Air Corps was allowed to help.

But as for current events, most of the population (not all of it) has allowed UK politicians and their Police Commissioners' views on guns to create their situation today.
Not even an old .22 rifle would leave my hobby room as a donation.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Having lived in Europe (Switzerland), and then seeing that the EU is going to require medical screening for gun purchases, I am incredibly grateful for the United State's 2nd Amendment.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/21/news/firearms-rules-europe/index.html

This story also makes me weep for our fellows across the pond and what they are going to have to put up with. It also is a reminder of what happens when one group makes laws for everyone. As the story indicate's Finland's concerns were not addressed, nor where the eastern European countries concerns. Instead France and Germany made law that overwhelmed the entire continent.

I kinda gave up weeping for them a long time ago.

Why?

Because if these people REALLY cared about their ever-increasing gun control laws, they'd get their act together and DO something about it.

But by and large, a significant portion of their populations either don't care or they directly or indirectly support such laws.

It's hard for me to care about people who don't themselves care about these issues.

 

[Ignition Override]

RetiredUSNChief:
And the minorities in those countries which actually supports owning handguns, or Only hunting rifles and shotguns, isn't alone.

Plenty of reportedly "pro Sec. Amendment" US gun owners care Nothing about supporting our rights to own an AR, M-1A, M-1 Garand etc, or even an SKS.
It's All About Them, the Elmer Fudds.

One exception I've noticed on THR: the Czech Republic is much more similar to most of the US.

 

[Bo]

"Gun Control"....kind of like... "The War on Drugs".... neither one will ever work!

 

[Dog Soldier]

America was an isolationist? The Brits had to defend their Home Land? And how are they thanking us? We have thousands of young Americans buried in England. The "Brits" want to Ban their President Trump from visiting those graves. Sorry, can not sympathize with this.

 

[pharmer]

But as for current events, most of the population (not all of it) has allowed UK politicians and their Police Commissioners' views on guns to create their situation today.

And the thriving black market moves thousands of mostly eastern bloc guns all over the UK. Probably millions of "illegal" guns hidden "just in case", which is always just down the road. Joe

 

[230RN]

People are fed up with these unelected elites running their lives.

They have a long history of that and they are used to it. It's sort of like the attitude in New York City (from which I escaped): "You can't fight City Hall" and "That's just the way things are."

It's hard to beat that attitude after many generations..

Terry, 230RN

 

[huntsman]

I kinda gave up weeping for them a long time ago.

Why?

Because if these people REALLY cared about their ever-increasing gun control laws, they'd get their act together and DO something about it.

But by and large, a significant portion of their populations either don't care or they directly or indirectly support such laws.

It's hard for me to care about people who don't themselves care about these issues.

It's because the politician that gives away the free goodies is the same one who wants to take away freedom, the dependent class has learned not to bite the hand that feeds.

 

[cdk8]

It does not surprise me. Fewer Europeans like freedom than Americans, even though my generation is sadly following the Euroroute.

If someone is OK with limiting one freedom, they tend to be OK with limiting more. This attitude, both here and in Europe, presents one of the greatest dangers to Western civilization IMO.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

 

[mnrivrat]

"No problem.
Where are they?"

Did I miss something ? Wasn't it you who claimed they were sent back, so isn't it you who should know the answer to the question you asked ?

If they are not back home (and some amount of them did get returned as I understand it) , and not in the English channel where there is documention as I understand that this did happen. Then who should know where they are, and I am asking you for that information.

"As with virtually all rifles and handguns, those likely few remaining guns sent to England in its time of desperate need have been confiscated and destroyed
" ( From an NRA article)

I suspect at least some percentage the English took a fancy too and never turned them back in. Fact is , a lot of Americans never received their loaner guns back. Out of those that never returned, where are they ? The qoute from above seems to indicate that Enland distroyed them.

 

[RoscoeBryant]

I kinda gave up weeping for them a long time ago.

Why?

Because if these people REALLY cared about their ever-increasing gun control laws, they'd get their act together and DO something about it.

But by and large, a significant portion of their populations either don't care or they directly or indirectly support such laws.

It's hard for me to care about people who don't themselves care about these issues.

Why should you care for people, who support gun control laws? If you would care for someboidy, than it would be gun-loving people who are a minority over here, and do not have the votes to change something about it. I live in a country, where the laws have been fairly liberal until 2010, but since then it is going downhill fast. Gun ownership is relatively common, but about 75-80% of gun owners are hunters - and many hunters only care for huntin. They fall for the same BS as everywhere else when politicians talk about "dangerous assault weapons" etc.
We who care are active in lobbying groups, we donate a lot for the cause, but sadly do not have real support in any of the political parties, which is why the effect of lobbying is limited. If you don't want to care for us thats fine, but please understand that there are millions of europeans who love guns just as much as many americans do - there are just a lot more who don't, which is why the laws are the way they are.

 

[AlexanderA]

It does not surprise me. Fewer Europeans like freedom than Americans, even though my generation is sadly following the Euroroute.

From what I've observed, Europeans have a different attitude than Americans. It's not that they don't love freedom. But instead of fighting bad laws, they simply sidestep them. This comes from long historical experience with governmental overreaching. In general, the laws on the books don't reflect the reality on the ground. There are plenty of guns in Europe, if you know where to look for them.

 

[Zoogster]

True, but illegal firearms are primarily good only for offensive use.

You can know where to retrieve it if you ever want it, but won't have it available to defend yourself and are subject to the law if you do. Even if how the authorities stumble across it is in a fire or some unrelated domestic issue and not after it saved your life.


This makes the illegal gun of limited use to the average 'good guy'.

The objects acceptance also plays a role in determining how others relate to your situation and can weigh on whether your actions were seen as reasonable or justified even though it is not supposed to have any bearing. A guy using a gun can automatically be viewed as a bad guy some places stacking the deck against them. And an illegal gun even more so.

When guns are heavily restricted you also see authorities move on to restrictions of other weapons too, and self defense laws in general going downhill. To the point of having to retreat and run from your own home if possible under the law some places. In some places you have to take on a criminal mindset to even plan to use a weapon to defend yourself.

 

[RoscoeBryant]

From what I've observed, Europeans have a different attitude than Americans. It's not that they don't love freedom. But instead of fighting bad laws, they simply sidestep them. This comes from long historical experience with governmental overreaching. In general, the laws on the books don't reflect the reality on the ground. There are plenty of guns in Europe, if you know where to look for them.

Very true (but not necessarily good - if you want something, why not fight for it instead of simply sidestepping the law)! And there are even a lot of legal guns over here, just not in public that often.

Two examples from the recent past in Austria:
1) After a series of robberies with pump-action shotguns in 1995, politicians took the usual idiotic way and made them illegal to purchase and old ones had to be registered. About 1% of the shotguns were turned in to to police, about 10-15% were registered, and about 85% of the owners simply ignored the law.
2) In 2010, gun registration became mandatory du to new EU-regulations, not only for newly purchased guns but also for the ones you already owned. You had 2 years to register your old guns, after 2012 they had to be registered or they would be considered illegally owned. Until 3 Months before the deadline, less than roughly 20% of the 2,5 million guns were registered by their owners, in the last 3 months another 20% registered, and this is were we stand now. About 40% of gun owners complied with the law, the rest did not (or kept at least one piece unregistered "just in case").

There already have been some cases of self defense with unregistered weapons, but it did not play a role in court as it is legal to defend yourself with whatever you have on hand, regardless of its legality. You might be however tried for illegal posession afterwards, but this comes down to a fine if you are not a known criminal.

 

[Deanimator]

"No problem.
Where are they?"

Did I miss something ? Wasn't it you who claimed they were sent back, so isn't it you who should know the answer to the question you asked ?

No, it wasn't.

Somebody claimed (without proof) that they WEREN'T dumped. In reply, I asked, if not at that bottom of the Channel, where they WERE.

 

[cdk8]

From what I've observed, Europeans have a different attitude than Americans. It's not that they don't love freedom. But instead of fighting bad laws, they simply sidestep them. This comes from long historical experience with governmental overreaching. In general, the laws on the books don't reflect the reality on the ground. There are plenty of guns in Europe, if you know where to look for them.

But isn't stepping away from tyrannical laws pretty similar to not loving freedom? A few hundred years back we were in that same situation and we chose to fight it regardless of the costs. I'm sure many Europeans do cherish freedom, but opinion polls on free speech show there is a massive body of individuals that wish to see government heavily regulate it.

Among my generation, I see so many people that are OK with the government regulating everything down to free speech. They have the same attitudes that are often found among many Europeans in regards to using government to stop bigotry (ironically, through other acts of bigotry.) To me, this says the people making and advocating for such laws do not love freedom all that much, or they explicitly wish to control the thoughts and actions of others. I think that thought process influenced the European gun laws, influences American anti-gun groups, and influences government to "step in" to stop those "acts of bigotry." Some of it is surely well-intentioned, but democracy still loses regardless.

 

[Indawind]

I believe the problem may run more deeply that "the evil gun" and well into the right to defend one's self.

I look to our British friend to offer first hand input into the scenario.

Your 25 year old daughter is pulled into a doorway by a couple of animals looking for some fun. Obviously a violent crime is in process of going down. Being a forward thinking gal who takes her own safety into account she pulls a sock from her purse that has a fist full of 2 pound coins in it and re-contures the animal's skulls with it.

It is my understanding that she will be the one at fault. She should simply keep a stiff upper lip and allow the rape. I have been told, by a Brit BTW, the only response allowed is, ready for it, spray them with dye so they can be IDed.

What say you? Does your daughter have the RIGHT to protect herself or simply end up a rape victim because you can not act in self defense.

 

[Zoogster]

Some places do regulate self defense so much that the allowed actions are limited to the bare minimum of responses to the benefit of the criminal.
While on the surface they can seem reasonable the result emboldens predators and makes it hard to head off obvious problems.

Such may be an exaggeration of what that 25 year old daughters options are.

Certainly she can fight, but having created a weapon with intent to use it ahead of time can be illegal. As can taking action to stop a crime yet clearly established. The problem becomes stopping a sexually motivated attack even if the law allows force without being able to show it was a sexual attack she stopped. Because clubbing someone that merely grabbed her may be a crime not permitted and the thugs may claim to have had no ill intent.
While waiting for the crime to be more clearly present itself can result in her acting too late for it to even matter. If they overpower her that window of opportunity to fight back hard when she had the best chance is over and her chance to even deploy a weapon gone.

A similar issue at home could be a young woman walking in the parking lot alone at night and a man quickly catching up to her even though her body language dictates she wants to get away, and she even quickened her pace.
Pulling out a gun or spraying with pepper spray to deter or stop a crime that has yet to happen may be the wisest course of action, but illegal. While if she waits for the stronger man to catch up and get violent her chances of success are diminished because now he has the advantage up close, and may even be able to stop her from deploying any weapons.
A reasonable woman that does not typically overreact may make a choice that saves her appropriately assessing the situation, but still have broken the law. After all the thug just wanted to quickly catch up to the lone woman to ask the time or something, if you ask them. And they technically committed no provable crime. That would make pulling a gun or even spraying with pepper spray a crime. These are the type of situations the law does not account for, and when weapons are prohibited and self defense laws even more restrictive even more challenging. You can be expected to wait till you are clearly attacked before even trying to use limited and likely ineffective defense, like only matching a physical attack with your own unarmed physical resistance. If the criminal didn't think they could take you they wouldn't be attacking unarmed, and may be armed with something easy to get but illegal to carry in a lot of Europe like a fixed blade or locking blade knife.

In some places you may simply have to embrace being a criminal to do what is clearly right. Yet then you must include plans to get away with your possible crimes. Making you think and act as a criminal. But defensive criminal actions are a lot harder to get away with than offensive ones, you don't get to choose the time, place, or have your identity concealed. Which is why such societies are not ideal to live in. The only really free people are the criminals, at least until caught. In most of America you get to be free and even carry something like a gun without being a criminal.
Some places force you to be a sheep or a wolf, in the USA you can choose to be neither. That does not mean you will be safe, but you can feel more empowered.

 

[larryh1108]

wow, that is so messed up. I'm speechless.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Why should you care for people, who support gun control laws? If you would care for someboidy, than it would be gun-loving people who are a minority over here, and do not have the votes to change something about it. I live in a country, where the laws have been fairly liberal until 2010, but since then it is going downhill fast. Gun ownership is relatively common, but about 75-80% of gun owners are hunters - and many hunters only care for huntin. They fall for the same BS as everywhere else when politicians talk about "dangerous assault weapons" etc.
We who care are active in lobbying groups, we donate a lot for the cause, but sadly do not have real support in any of the political parties, which is why the effect of lobbying is limited. If you don't want to care for us thats fine, but please understand that there are millions of europeans who love guns just as much as many americans do - there are just a lot more who don't, which is why the laws are the way they are.

While I sympathize for the plight of the minority of european gun owners who love firearms, I grow weary of things like continual snowflake terror over finding decades old ammunition in a pond and acting like it's a landfill full of live mines and grenades. I get sick and tired of people rolling over and showing their bellies whenever newer and more restrictive gun laws come out.

I have enough trying to ward off liberal gun-grabbers here in my own country.

What would really up my care factor for my overseas brethern would be to start seeing groups of citizens and like-minded politicians stand up and tell their governments to pack sand. To tell the United Nations to stick it where the sun don't shine. To battle their way towards the equivalent to out Second Amendment.

To at least make progress FOR gun rights in your battles.

Don't get me wrong...I do understand many gun owners overseas who love their firearms and are heavily out numbered.

 

[Odd Job]

But by and large, a significant portion of their populations either don't care or they directly or indirectly support such laws.

It's hard for me to care about people who don't themselves care about these issues.

Correct.
And although I am here in the UK, and a British citizen now, I agree with those who say they wouldn't send any weapons here.

 

[230RN]

As I've said before, sometimes it takes either a good mugging or a good tyranny to change some peoples' minds about self-protection from either malicious individuals or governments.

And I've pointed out before in a different context, the right of self-defense exists throughout biology, across almost all species.

Even kittens carry concealed weapons.

Terry, 230RN

Pic credit in properties

 

[AZAndy]

"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."
Winston Churchill

I thought that was George Santayana. "All quotation attributions on the internet are false."-- Theodore Roosevelt