Trouble in Europe's anti-gun "paradise"

[ExiledV20]

There is a lot to be said for having certain rights guaranteed against infringement. It may not always stop the infringement from occurring but it's a very important tool for getting rights back once they've been taken.

For the most part the UK and other European countries have done well without such guarantees.

I'm not sure where you get that the UK does not have such guarantees. The Human Acts Right 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998) did provide such guarantees to the UK citizenry. Where such guarantees are not given or protected by that Act, they are guaranteed by the Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter...European_Union), which the UK is required to adhere to.

Right = freedom or ability to do something
Infringement = reduction or elimination of a right.
Also, the constitution protects against governmental infringements.

Unfortunately, that is not what the law says a right and infringement is. Here are the definitions in accordance with law/politics/US Constitution:

Civil or Political Right = Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

The key word is unwarranted. Whether or not something is unwarranted is a matter to be decided by the courts, who interpret the law.

However, the current situation with ammunition is NOT considered to be infringement in the legal sense. The reason is that while you have the right to bear arms, the government has the right to regulate the manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition. This has been the case since the Founding Fathers.

But the issue with ammunition costs RIGHT NOW are not related to regulation or infringement at all. Due to the economic booms in India and China, the price of lead has doubled and the price of brass and copper has quadrupled since 2005. Worse, since there's a war on, the military gets first dibs on all ammunition and all of us citizens get the leftovers, leaving ammunition not only pricey but scarce. As a manufacturer said:

"Our prices are purely based on material costs going up," said Jason Nash, spokesman for Federal Cartridge Co., a Minnesota-based ammunition manufacturer.

"It costs us more to make the product, so we have to charge more."

If these prices are instigated by the government without due necessity than they are in contravention with the Constitution.

It's a good thing the government didn't create those prices then.

Furthermore, criminals would likely not be affected as they would acquire their munitions on the black market where prices would still be competitive once more going to show that if you ban something, only criminals will have it.

According to the Feds, the criminals are having the same problem. US Military is the culprit, once again.

That European countries don't guarantee gun rights does not mean they don't still exist, just that they aren't expected to exist.

Let's make one thing very clear; any rights you have are given to you by document/government detailing it. There are no such things as "natural rights". Nature does not give a damn whether you can bear arms or not. If gun rights are not legislated in Europe, then they do not exist.

smoking, it is under the right to pursue happiness, something of an amalgam of other protections summed up as civil rights. Smoking is thus covered as much as any other activity unless that activity infringes on the rights of others.

The "right to pursue happiness" is only in the Declaration of Independence and has never been acknowledged by a court of law. In fact, the courts have pointed out that there is no such right in the Constitution and therefore does not exist. Under the Constitution, you have the right to life, liberty, and property. No happiness.

I think everyone as human beings have a fundamental right to defend themselves from danger and to pursue whatever recreational activity they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

I wish nature and the universe agreed with you.

[Rapscallion]

Obviously you've never tried to shoot a gun or stab someone before. In a very short time, both could either work or not work depending on skill and luck alone. At ten paces a knife wielding opponent is lethal within most people's reaction times, which is why it's so important that later version tazers are longer ranged and why cops keep so much distance even from knife wielders. In both cases, if you cut and run, you stand a good chance of avoiding the initial attack in one piece and after that it's all a matter of staying ahead and out of sight until the criminal gives up.

Oddly enough, I've never had to stab someone. I tried fairground guns, but I don't think that counts, so in short you're right about that. What I do know is that I'd prefer for others not to be routinely armed.

Of course, another option other than cutting and running is to make it harder for the criminal to be armed in the first place!

And people would have the tools with which to defend themselves against violent attack. Fuckwits, as you put it, would have every reason to believe that they can be killed by anyone they might target.

Ah, the old fear defence for gun ownership - it will protect you!

From what? Our crime rates are pretty good, all done and said.

I'm looking for the place where I said that and, no, it doesn't exist. Still, if you're trying to take my gun away I've either done something wrong and you're a good samaritan or cop OR you've done something wrong and want to keep me from fighting back. In the first case, well you've the right to take it, in the second, yeah, I'd cap your ass. If you aren't trying to hurt me, why are you worried about me fighting back anyway?

Cold dead hands was Charlton Heston, right? I'm not worried about you fighting back, it's the idiots who got hold of guns who are going to use them.

Every year in the UK there's still a handful of firearms deaths, logic would dictate that firearms are used more often than they prove lethal, so there's at least some.

Never said there weren't. In fact, if there weren't firearm crimes, there would be no need for legislation in the first place.

It does, actually. Knives are arms after all, and infringing on my right to carry a Balisong if I so choose is just as bullshit as a pan on compact pistols instead of full-size (I mean, that's the whole fucking point isn't it?!)

Fair point.

Than, why do you support it being illegal for those people to have firearms too? or is this complete ban you refer back to, incomplete? I mean, if those people have guns than obviously 'no one has guns' is false.

Which complete ban that I support?

See, I've said earlier in the thread that I don't have a problem with sports shooters. I disagree with some of the effects of the legislation, in that formerly legal sporting clubs were caught up in the same catch-all legislation that was a kneejerk reaction to yet another shooting.

I think you might have missed the part where I said I disagree with the effect on the Olympic shooting team.

That's the wonderful part of licensing and background checks. Not only can you detect lunatics but you can also find them easy if things go shitty. Also, if you go

Er, trust me - lunatics aren't that easy to spot. A determined idiot can do a whole load of damage. Got that sort of situation at work. Long story. However, lunatics still get hold of guns, ostensibly for home defence purposes.

Disadvantage: the ones that slip through the cracks by your logic devastate you. Which leads me to:

Er, no?

See, I was referring to one element of crime that - however surprising to you - suddenly becomes a non-threat (or at least much lower) to me when access to the tool for the crime become remarkably scarce!

Actually, what you need to worry about is the knife user charging into close range where they can use their weapon with the most effect. Unless you can turn away and start running reliably faster than the knife user can react and follow you, you're just as screwed as if you're against a shooter skilled enough to track onto you and fire at a moving target before losing LOS. You still run the risk of becoming cornered in either case but in simple terms it goes thus in both cases: Running away = hit or miss, fighting = hit or miss. It's best to have the capacity to do both.

Ever considered not having to fight?

A gun user intent on shooting you instead of robbing you is also going to close and fire just like the others, and there's nothing you can do unless they miss and then you start having a chance to flee or fight. However, someone intent on robbing you is going to be in your face regardless of the weapon they use and your reaction is going to be circumstantial and that's why self-defenders train to redirect weapons and/or quickdraw and fire several shots, then bolt.

Just how close? Put the gun against your temple? That's asking for the victim to try and knock it away. Ten feet? Victim can't do too much at that point. Advantage to loonie with gun.

That's not what I've seen. Having been at the range on many occasions and in the company of many gun owners, I haven't met one that doesn't take it seriously. By my reckoning there's way more that can be trusted than otherwise, and even if there weren't, it's not either of our places to pre-judge people on this matter. If most people really were irresponsible, the situation over here among legal owners would be catastrophic, and yet it isn't.

Ah, you qualified by 'among legal owners' - assumedly you mean the ones who are 'responsible' etc.

Here we go again. More guns around means more guns in the illegal system, means more threat! By more threat, I mean to me, which is the important part.

Except it isn't as I just pointed out there and you ignored, disarmament of both parties means that they can use improvised and illegally acquired purpose-designed weapons and you can't, stacking the cards in their favor. It is possible to do a lot to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and lessen the threat they pose, but just making it illegal for everyone doesn't cut it.

Well, a criminal having to use an improvised weapons is probably a better option for me (gives me time while they root around for it as I amble away) than if they come prepared with a gun.

Funny, though, making the guns hard to get hold of has actually worked. Gun crime in the UK is down. Huzzah!

Not if you're disarmed in contrast with them, and I've already pointed out that you exaggerate the lethal effect of firearms in the hands of untrained users. And you said that when you said that anyone wishing to protect themselves is paranoid because they think there are people willing to do harm to them. There are people willing to do harm to them so thinking that's true isn't paranoid.

Exaggerate? I think the threat to the ordinary citizen has been exaggerated to make gun ownership seem desireable.

What was it? Four hundred thousand deaths a year if you include concentration camps?

I know it wasn't your point, but I'd like to add that I never thought the concentration camps could be considered ridiculous.

Hardly, we're talking about doing something mildly inconvenient and utilizing a skillset to protect ourselves from something unlikely, within a self defense context. Analogies can be abused, but this one fits the bill.

A skillset? One that - get this - isn't needed or wanted by everyone I know.

Have I been saying Zanzabar? I knew it, I always mix y'all up

Nope, but the emotions in this thread always seem to try and come back to the "Don't destroy our second amendment rights!" Nobody's trying to. We just don't want them forced on us.

Bull-fucking shit! The idea of self defense in Yurp (is that a soft drink?) is no different than in the US. The only difference is that here it's legal and there it would have to become legal, but there's no reason to think it wouldn't work the same way.

Er, yes there is. A gun in every house for home defence - the criminals you would get would be the armed ones.

Both work, actually, except in the first one you've got a chance to fight back and in the second you're apparently screwed from square one. I think you're over estimating your average thug here, hitting someone at any given range, especially if they're moving is harder than you think in the same way as stabbing someone trying to stop you is harder than you think.

Based on what I know, I'd prefer to take my chances against a club or a knife. I'll grant that I'm no expert, but if a knife or club is a better weapon why bother with a gun in the first place?

Go to an NRA meeting, they'll teach you the meaning of 'some of the time'

Heh, anyone for sample bias?

If you're culture is so fucking peaceful you should be fine with guns.

By Jove, I think he's got it!

Except for the part where we don't need them.

After all, if no one's trying to hurt you from square one the presence of weapons doesn't make a difference.

The chance of being a victim of violent crime where having a gun in the UK would make a difference is pretty small. I'm willing to go with that.

Still, I find it comical that you think only them being armed as better than both you and them. Bully for you though, if someone else wants to, I don't see why they shouldn't.

I find it amusing that you think that crimes rates over here are increasing and adding extra weapons are going to solve things. It's just going to increase the levels of gun crime.

But aww Violent crime happens anyway? jeebus.

So, making it easier for undetected criminals to obtain weaponry is the way to go.

Doesn't do it for me.

Also, it's worth noting that the Telegraph is a right-wing paper and the Labour government is left wing. The date is on the approach to an expected election.

A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives,

Admits it.

The Home Office says there has been a downtrend in overall violence for the past decade.

Small print.

It does show that victims of violent crimes are up in number, fine, but I really don't think that putting more weapons into circulation is going to stop that.

Good to know, the length thing always puzzled me. "An inch int he right place will kill a man" and all that jazz. Besides, short blades are better tactically, maneuverability is key.

The Germans in the Middle Ages preferred the messers, if memory serves. Short, heavy blades for close combat. The Roman army would only use their short swords after a volley of javelins. Ranged first, then the blades. A Roman general noted in his journals that the sword was a stabbing weapon instead of how the Germanic tribes of his time used it (long and slashing).

So that means it would be fine for people to have guns for recreational stuff because, there's no threat that people will use them against each other because they don't do that anyway. Let there be watermelons exploded!

On ranges, sure! Shoot anything you want there, provided it's an inanimate target. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to shoot animals then it should be for food and in the wild. Just a personal preference.

But you're all people, right? Not Gremlins or zombies or shit like that? Zombies with guns is scary. People with guns? not so much.

Funny thing, just because we're human doesn't mean we all think the same.

Rapscallion

[Mikkel]

And if he had decided to attack you with the knife, you'd be better off with something to fight back with, right?

I'm not sure, it makes more sense to me to restrict the weapons you can legally carry, the police will search known criminals when they meet them. That is a better deterrence than trying to have a better and larger weapon than the criminal.
Anyway, if I want a gun, let's say that I want to go target shooting, then I can go and get a permit. I don't see it as an unbearable burden that I can't get a permit for the purpose of shooting other people, self defence or not.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I'm not sure, it makes more sense to me to restrict the weapons you can legally carry, the police will search known criminals when they meet them. That is a better deterrence than trying to have a better and larger weapon than the criminal.
Anyway, if I want a gun, let's say that I want to go target shooting, then I can go and get a permit. I don't see it as an unbearable burden that I can't get a permit for the purpose of shooting other people, self defence or not.

News flash, cops don't mystically know who's a criminal and who isn't by looking at them and they sure as hell don't run everyone they bump into through their database 'just to be sure'. Moreover, any known criminal wouldn't be able to get the necessary permit to carry anyway/would have it pulled and they're restricted from carrying even those weapons that don't need permits. But that doesn't stop them from carrying anyway because they know that, unless they attract the attention of the cops, they won't get caught so it really becomes a bit of a non-issue for them.

In the UK, which this thread is about, you can't even do that and to get one for hunting or vs animal protection it's far from a stroll to the local Target to get one and many/most of the suitable options respectively are entirely banned.

Still, no one's demonstrated that CCers pose a threat to society, and unless someone does, there's no reason to restrict their rights. You may not value that right, but there are plenty of people that do. No one's holding a gun to your head, forcing you to get a CCP and carry every day, don't want it? don't get it. Easy.

P.S. What's with this assumption that CC is supposed to somehow replace law enforcement? the two are not mutually exclusive and the ideal situation is having both (preventative AND preparative).

[Rapscallion]

In the UK, which this thread is about,

The stuff I'm talking about is UK based. Yurp contains quite a number of countries, each of which has their own rules and regulations. Yurp's even in the title of the thread as a handy reminder.

Still, no one's demonstrated that CCers pose a threat to society,

Not what the thread is about. The thread is about whether or not relaxed gun laws would make Yurp a safer place. CC or open carry makes no odds - does having more weapons make for a safer place?

You may not value that right, but there are plenty of people that do.

Yes, and they're in America, where they have that right. How many Brits sit around, dolefully waiting for the time that their chance to own guns will come around? My experience, as a lifelong Brit, is none. The answer is more likely to be 'precious few'.

No one's holding a gun to your head, forcing you to get a CCP and carry every day, don't want it? don't get it. Easy.

Yes, but that would require the UK laws at least being relaxed to allow majority gun ownership. Would that make the place safer?

I think not. I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

P.S. What's with this assumption that CC is supposed to somehow replace law enforcement? the two are not mutually exclusive and the ideal situation is having both (preventative AND preparative).

Um, who said that? At most, it would be an adjunct to standard law enforcement, but it would never be a replacement for the rule of law.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I, wasn't responding to you in that post, see. So, to save the headache of quoting everything, I'll just do this in order:

Which is why I said that. Although it's important to note that since we're talking about what we perceive of be a lack of freedom when it comes to firearms in Europe, it goes without saying that the exceptions don't enter into the argument. That's why they're exceptions.

You've talked back and forth with me and others about how firearms serve no purpose except to harm innocent people, whilst also admitting that target shooters and hunters/those threatened by wildlife are justified in seeking ownership. The only section that you don't agree with is the CC or other self-defense minded person. However, you're fears are easily vindicated in a number of ways. Under the circumstance that you propose where target shooters and the like keep their weapons in a secure location (although I wish to stipulate that they need to have easy access so they can take care of regular maintainable so long as they don't leave the premises.) Those seeking to use a weapon for home/abroad defense can also be accommodated whilst also keeping their weapons secure. In the home simply require the use of fast-access gun safes (although it's pointless to split up parts and/or ammo in this context) which achieve both accessibility when needed and the security you want. For those carrying abroad, stipulate that they must keep the weapon on their person at all times and all locations at which they cannot carry must provide secure storage on their behalf. I think it would work fine.

When you make the point that guns wouldn't make an area safer, you're flying in the face of the information that proves that CC holders pose little to no threat to society but not only deter criminals greatly but also go great lengths towards ending those situations that arise anyway. That means that firearms employed properly = more safety.

Contrary to what you might believe, the UK is just as diverse as any other nation. Even if they represent the minority, there's still plenty of people who which to have weapons for a variety of reasons. That they can't get them despite this wish does not mean they jump ship to the US any more than anti-gunners in the US jump ship to the UK. Consider for a moment that chances are, the only people with whom you get into this kind of conversation are going to agree with you. Unless you regularly go to places where the opposite opinion is likely to be held, it's not surprising that you haven't encountered it.

Not necessarily. Under a system that facilitated and required extensive background checks and instruction prior to CC AND weapon receipt, those looking to pursue CC wouldn't have to already own a weapon to move forward (better still if they, like anyone else, can purchase the firearm for target practice but must store it at the range like you suggested). You keep on saying that there's no evidence that more guns = safety whilst dismissing the one section that most applies. It's not hunting or sporting rifles that contribute to safety, it's handguns and shotguns. Therefore, since the only section that under this system would apply is the CCers, and we know from numerous examples that CC poses little to no threat and boasts substantial benefit, these guns specifically make the users and the area in general safer.

And finally, Mikkel said that when he said "Police officers disarming criminals they happen upon and recognize is better than CC/OC" as an argument against CC and OC. The assumption he therefore made is that it's a choice between them and not a matter of which of the two or both you have access to.

A defensive firearm is what you use to establish your personal safety until such a time as rule of law is restored (it having been broken by the occurrence of a crime). Those with the means and will to do so may elect to further assist law enforcement before they arrive by securing any downed suspects and weapons thereby making the area safer for the police to do their job once they get there. Still, when they do arrive, it's their show.

[Mikkel]

News flash, cops don't mystically know who's a criminal and who isn't by looking at them and they sure as hell don't run everyone they bump into through their database 'just to be sure'.

I can assure you that this is a strategy the Danish police use, different training, perhaps, or there may be fewer criminals they have to remember .

In the UK, which this thread is about

I took Yurp as meaning Europe as in "Europe's anti-gun "paradise"", which this thread is about.

Can you tell me how many policemen has been shot and killed in the last year in USA? In Denmark (which is a part of Europe) the count is 3 since world war two. Well, my son-in-law and I came up with four, but the last one survived the shot when we checked. I would think that has something to do with the fewer weapons in civilian hands.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

So much for right to privacy, although I fail to see how their comparatively small police force has the time to do all this checking day in and day out. Still, let's look at some numbers.

All per-capita, over the same time frame (2000-2006)
Murders:
US: .042
UK: .014
Denmark: .010
Switz: .009

Rape:
US: .301
UK: .142
Denmark: .091
Switz: .053

Total crime:
US: 80
UK: 85
Denmark: 92
Switzerland: 36

I did a quick check of other nations and found that, despite being stricter on most counts, the UK had higher rates than any other European nation. Moreover, Switzerland, which has the highest rates of firearm ownership second only to Finland, Yemen and the United States, had the lowest (about half as many per capita as the united states.

We have three countries with high rates of civilian gun ownership spread across a significant array of crime rates (Switz is low, Fin is moderate, US is Bad)

And despite the way in which this kinda proves my point (guns play little part in how much crime you have) I'm still going to throw this out the window as apples to oranges. It's simply too much of a stretch to compare stats between nations. What we do know is that, within the same nation (US in this example) areas with higher CC rates and higher overall firearm rates also have lower crime.

[Mikkel]

And despite the way in which this kinda proves my point (guns play little part in how much crime you have) I'm still going to throw this out the window as apples to oranges. It's simply too much of a stretch to compare stats between nations. What we do know is that, within the same nation (US in this example) areas with higher CC rates and higher overall firearm rates also have lower crime.

I will agree that some of the stats are not comparable, for instance Denmark hasn't a statutory rape law (it's called something else and isn't registered as rape) which will skew the statistic in that case. I remember too that the Danish overall crime rate fell a lot some years ago, it turned out that bicycle theft had fallen to the half, not because bicycles weren't stolen, but because the insurance companies weren't paying so much on stolen bikes and people therefore didn't register when their bike were stolen.

The murder statistics, though. Murder is the same, I presume, everywhere. I wonder what the Swiss are doing right(or what US is doing wrong )? It seems to prove your point that many civilian gunowners aren't the same as a high crime rate.

[crazylegs]

Quick question.

If firearms make society safer, why are the UK police not routinely armed?

[Rapscallion]

I took Yurp as meaning Europe as in "Europe's anti-gun "paradise"", which this thread is about.

I can only refer to the UK side of things as I don't know as much as I could about the other countries in the EU that could contribute. Nice to have a Danish perspective.

So much for right to privacy,

From what I saw, it's for known criminals. Do the crime, do the time.

although I fail to see how their comparatively small police force has the time to do all this checking day in and day out. Still, let's look at some numbers.

All per-capita, over the same time frame (2000-2006)
Murders:
US: .042
UK: .014
Denmark: .010
Switz: .009

Okay, so the UK has 0.14 murders per capita over that time frame, without wide availability of guns, and the US has ... three times as many?

Rape:
US: .301
UK: .142
Denmark: .091
Switz: .053

Higher ownership of guns as a deterrent means more twice the rape figures comparing US to UK. Did I read that right?

Total crime:
US: 80
UK: 85
Denmark: 92
Switzerland: 36

Define crime. Seriously.

The murder and rape figures are a directly comparable statistic as it's comparing apples with apples. However, as I found out the other week, the police take going over the speeding limit rather seriously. Is that counted in the UK figures? Is it counted in the US? That's just one portion of the statistics involved. Where do you get these figures from and what do they measure crime by?

I think you really need to look at why, despite a rate of gun ownership roughly comparable to Switzerland, the US has a far higher crime rate. Throwing guns at the mix is therefore suggested as not being the answer.

And despite the way in which this kinda proves my point (guns play little part in how much crime you have) I'm still going to throw this out the window as apples to oranges. It's simply too much of a stretch to compare stats between nations. What we do know is that, within the same nation (US in this example) areas with higher CC rates and higher overall firearm rates also have lower crime.

Actually, now I get this far down, you make the points I made above, really. Sod it, I'm not typing all that and deleting it.

I still don't see your stats for higher CC and lower crime rates. You're missing your citations.

You've also proved that different countries have different levels of crime regardless of gun laws. There's no evidence that relaxed gun laws would reduce crime in the UK, and I suspect it's the same for the rest of Yurp. I'll leave them to speak for themselves, though.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I'm between classes now so I'll have to keep this short.

There is no "answer". Crime rates have only ever been reliably tied to one measurement: poverty. When it comes to more specific factors there's simply way too many for any one to be pulled out as the cause or solution to it. You can't pull a lever to make everything better because that lever doesn't exist. What does exist is a vast array of other levers some on which you have control over.

I'll try to find a link or two, but suffice it for now to say that the combined research of both John Lott and Gary Kleck have found that higher rates of firearm ownership and greater issuance of CCPs correlates with reduced crime levels and logically those factors could well be causal. Moreover, especially in the face of studies claiming the opposite, when they broadened their research they found that crime reduction numbers get squiffy, but there's no evidence to imply an increase. So if more guns won't hurt and might help, than there's no basis for banning firearms or CCPs to make people safer.

This data, questionable as it is, shows that gun access and crime rates don't correlate much if at all. So if access to guns does not change the game at it's most basic level of simply being there. Government surveys show that there are millions of defensive gun uses every year, if that doesn't impede crime, nothing does.

EDIT: I pulled those individual stats from NationMaster, after checking the cited sources for individual nations and crimes so that it all kinda sorta added up.

[Mikkel]

This data, questionable as it is, shows that gun access and crime rates don't correlate much if at all. So if access to guns does not change the game at it's most basic level of simply being there. Government surveys show that there are millions of defensive gun uses every year, if that doesn't impede crime, nothing does.

Apparently it doesn't impede crime, otherwise the US statistics would be much lower. Something does, though, could one of the answers to the difference between Swiss and US statistics be that the Swiss have all learned handling guns in the army? I suppose good gun safety could both keep guns out of the hands of criminals and prevent accidents.
I don't know how much poverty exists in Switzerland, but you may have something there, most European countries have much better social security than US. The guns may be a minor factor in crime prevention.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

That's what I'm saying, incidentally. The net difference is slight, only a few percent in the most pronounced cases. However, within the scope of individual instances it's been shown (by Gleck to a reasonable if not slam-dunk degree) that firearms represent the most effective equalizer when it comes to ending a crime once it's started often before the 'main event', so to speak.

It is, after all, only one factor. Point being that there's plenty of reason to believe that the presence of firearms is at worst neutral and has good potential to do good if necessary. If anything, European CC legislation should anyone create any would probably have more competency requirements than most in the US. Not that it takes a rocket scientist but I won't begrudge y'all wanting to be abit more careful.

[Rapscallion]

The way I see it, it's definitely cultural.

Take guns away from the US and you'll have a bloodbath - or maybe a blood bidet, not sure which has the most disturbing imagery. Illegal guns will take lives of people the criminal element will know are no longer armed. It would take a long time to get the guns out of the system.

Adding guns to the situation in the UK, quite frankly the burglars are going to start expecting guns for home defence and are thus going to try and arm themselves.

Rapscallion