Reasons why Europeans will never understand US gun policies and vice versa

[nei]

Some good points, I'll add some or point out where I disagree.

Originally Posted by Ariete

[list][*]The gun culture in the US is romantic. Guns represent individualism, freedom and self-sufficiency; the frontier mentality. In Europe guns represent oppression, dictatorship and misery. Americans have a love of guns, while Europeans fear guns, because they represent the opposites.[*]In the US guns are looked as a tool, a thing which represent your independence. A common argument is that an armed populace ensures democracy. But come on, the US military is by far the strongest in the world. If a corrupt president would seize power he/she could do it in no time. It's not like armed civilians would make much of an resistance. Meanwhile, in Europe this ethos never got ground, as the populace were never armed. The UK has always had very strict gun laws, and how many coups have there been? Zero.

I'd emphasize historical tradition. The US early in its history was a mostly nation where the populace was armed and outside of bigger cities had non-existant gun laws. Plenty of Americans take guns and gun ownership as normal. European comments are often the reverse "why are guns allowed?". To many Americans, this sounds backward; they are items that are usual and the onus is to justify the restriction. Especially in lower crime rural, gun restrictions sound unnecessary.

[*]This policy is also evident in legislation. The "Stand Your Ground" laws in the US are much more lax than over here. If a burglar armed with a knife comes into your house, you shoot him in the head and so you stood your ground. In Europe you will be charged with murder, because you used unnecessary violence.[*]That brings us to the next point: the concept of honour. In this aspect much of the US has this macho attitude left. Having a gun protects you and your family, it's a sign of the same things I mentioned before: individualism, freedom and self-sufficiency. Duels were a big thing in Europe just 150 years ago, but somehow we started to think that the whole concept is stupid and obsolete. Look at American and European football.

New England never had much of a culture of honor, it was too communitarian [it was settled as a Calvinist theocracy] for that. Obviously, Americans today don't duel. Dueling fell out of fashion much earlier in the north, maybe sometime in the early 19th century for the North, while somewhat after the Civil War for the South.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duelin..._United_States

this shows the obvious regional differences... from the mid 1840s by a Boston orator and soon-to be Massachusetts senator.

he wearing of arms has always been a provocative to combat. It has excited the spirit, and furnished the implements of strife. As we revert to the progress of society in modern Europe, we find that the odious system of private quarrels, of hostile meetings even in the street, continued so long as men persevered in the habit of wearing arms. Innumerable families were thinned by death received in these hasty and often unpremeditated encounters; and the lives of scholars and poets were often exposed to their rude chances. ...In those portions of our country where it is supposed essential to personal safety to go armed with pistols and bowie-knives, mortal affrays are so frequent as to excite but little attention, and to secure, with rare exceptions, impunity to the murderer; whereas, at the North and East, where we are unprovided with such facilities for taking life, comparatively few murders of the kind are perpetrated. We might, indeed, safely submit the decision of the principle we are discussing to the calculations of pecuniary interest . Let two men, equal in age and health, apply for an insurance on their lives; one known to be ever armed to defend his honor and his life against every assailant; and the other a meek, unresisting Quaker. Can we doubt for a moment which of these men would be deemed by the Insurance Company most likely to reach a good old age?

The True Grandeur of Nations, by Charles Sumner

Much of the speech is very flowery for modern standards. Twelve years later, he gratitously insulted a southern Senator in the hall and the insulted senator beat him with a cane. Southerners thought he was defending "his honor", northerners were appalled.

Yet, just because there was little "culture of honor", guns weren't banned. Vermont placed this in its 1777 constitution along with universal male voting rights.

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Constitution of the State of Vermont | Vermont General Assembly | Vermont Legislature

the clause is still on the books today. While Vermont today is one of the more political left states in the US (in favor of gay marriage early, government health care, etc.) there's not much support for stringent gun laws; in fact the state has almost no gun laws [why have more laws?!]. Vermont, like most Vermont have weak "Stand your Ground" laws.

I'm not particularly pro-gun nor do I support stand your ground laws at least outside of the home, but it seems wrong to me to prosecute someone for defending themselves against an attacker, as long as they had no other choice.

American football should be compared to rugby, which it's related to; not European football.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Ariete

Gun policies are an ever-recurring theme, and I've thought about it why the Americans have such a different view.

My points are:

• The gun culture in the US is romantic. Guns represent individualism, freedom and self-sufficiency; the frontier mentality. In Europe guns represent oppression, dictatorship and misery. Americans have a love of guns, while Europeans fear guns, because they represent the opposites.
• In the US guns are looked as a tool, a thing which represent your independence. A common argument is that an armed populace ensures democracy. But come on, the US military is by far the strongest in the world. If a corrupt president would seize power he/she could do it in no time. It's not like armed civilians would make much of an resistance. Meanwhile, in Europe this ethos never got ground, as the populace were never armed. The UK has always had very strict gun laws, and how many coups have there been? Zero.
• This policy is also evident in legislation. The "Stand Your Ground" laws in the US are much more lax than over here. If a burglar armed with a knife comes into your house, you shoot him in the head and so you stood your ground. In Europe you will be charged with murder, because you used unnecessary violence.
• That brings us to the next point: the concept of honour. In this aspect much of the US has this macho attitude left. Having a gun protects you and your family, it's a sign of the same things I mentioned before: individualism, freedom and self-sufficiency. Duels were a big thing in Europe just 150 years ago, but somehow we started to think that the whole concept is stupid and obsolete. Look at American and European football. In American football brute force is the main deal, in European football sneakiness.
• History. Europe is a continent which has suffered so much in internal fighting that it's almost in our genes by now, while the US got some only once in the Civil War, and the rest was Manifest Destiny. Again, romantic John Wayne views versus Erich Maria Remarque's "All quiet on the Western Front".
• What some pro gun owners claim is that con gun people don't know how guns work or understand guns. That might be, but that is/was not the case in Europe. Until the end of the Cold War most European countries had conscription, meaning that every able-bodied got to fire lethal hi-power assault rifles. Europeans including me, fired assault rifles, pistols, 50 cal AAMG:s, a LAW72 and threw hand grenades. I believe that this was an incentive to make Europeans having a respectful dislike for guns.

• The circle of guns. Americans have gotten used to that everyone can be armed. In Europe the mentality is that nobody is armed. It affects you. You have a sarcastic joke that if someone gets fired you say "well, he's probably coming back to shoot us". Europeans don't get that joke. It's utopistic.

What do you think? Agree or disagree?

You are free to have whatever opinions you want.

Even if some think of them as wacky!

[GregW]

FWIW - I am a member of the Democratic Party and I do, with the major exception of their absurd gun control fantasies, support their positions on equality despite any differences in race, gender, national origin or wealth. I do as well and strongly oppose any types of privileged education, non meritorious hiring and cronified politics.


Some consider my economics to be far left because I understand the goals of a free market economy are opposed to the goals of business. The former is based on every participant having the same access to resources while the latter concentrate on developing monopolies based on controlling the prices paid for the raw materials and the prices paid by the customers while eliminating any risk of competition.


Our tax system, that allows a business to deduct the cost of doing business even if it exceeds revenue, before calculating taxes is very special treatment for business when an individual has, after a meager deduction, forced to pay taxes on their income even if they spend more than the earn. Businesses by a cronified system of legal bribes and golf course deals has bought this protection from the government. That is the underlying corruption destroying open government.


Indeed some Democrats indulge in this fraud but the Republican Party has institutionalized it. I will vote Democrat and keep and carry any firearm I deem necessary.

[Ariete]

Originally Posted by nei

Some good points, I'll add some or point out where I disagree.



I'd emphasize historical tradition. The US early in its history was a mostly nation where the populace was armed and outside of bigger cities had non-existant gun laws. Plenty of Americans take guns and gun ownership as normal. European comments are often the reverse "why are guns allowed?". To many Americans, this sounds backward; they are items that are usual and the onus is to justify the restriction. Especially in lower crime rural, gun restrictions sound unnecessary.






I'm not particularly pro-gun nor do I support stand your ground laws at least outside of the home, but it seems wrong to me to prosecute someone for defending themselves against an attacker, as long as they had no other choice.

American football should be compared to rugby, which it's related to; not European football.

Yes, it's understandable that Americans were (are) more armed because of the differences in the whole environment; vast wilderness with dangerous animals, aggressive Native Americans and weak law enforcement in the territories.
And yes, Europeans ask themselves "why should guns be allowed", and thus we have strict gun laws.

Well, the prosecutors look at case by case what is considered acceptable violence in self defence. If it's you or him, of course you are allowed to use lethal force, but also it's always considered if you can flee. Playing Rambo is very disencouraged.