[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Cerek: That's an interesting response, Grojlach. I especially like the sentence I highlighted, because it is RARELY the Americans who compare themselves to Europe in gun debates. It was shamrock that drew the comparison in this thread, NOT VulcanRider.

No, it was the article I was responding to, not VulcanRider or Shamrock in particular. Make sure you read it in its entirety, I don't think you really saw what I was getting at. It's like you just read the line you quoted, forgot about the rest and wrote your entire argument based on only those few words and VR and Shamrock's earlier debate, unfortunately.

Originally posted by Cerek: Although I DO see another interesting trend in your response and the subsequent article you posted. Europeans criticise the American attitude towards gun ownership and point at their own societies as proof that guns aren't needed and gun laws are effective at preventing crime. Then someone points out that crime is actually going UP, despite the gun laws and the European response is "Well Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with gun ownership. There are MANY other factors that should be considered."

You keep missing the point. Sure, guns aren't needed, but no one here in Western Europe would even contest that - we've been gun free for as long as I can remember. What I was saying however is that rising crime figures in Europe have very little to do with gun restriction laws, precisely because of the fact that we don't have a gun culture over here and that any formal restriction laws hardly affected anyone, because on the whole no one really cared about gun ownership in the first place. The author of that article is however trying to use completely unrelated statistics to further her own agenda. We've got a lot of social unrest and dito problems over here, but trying to put on your NRA-minded glasses as this person does and insinuating this has anything to do with a lack of guns, is simply showing a complete disregard for any social or cultural developments in Europe for the past 15 years or so. I could probably write an essay about how the cancellation of 'Twin Peaks' led to an increase in crime and use the very same statistics, but that still wouldn't make a very strong case.
I'd even go as far as rephrasing this bit

"Well Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with gun ownership. There are MANY other factors that should be considered."

to "Well Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with gun ownership. There are MANY factors that should be considered, but gun restriction legislation isn't one of them."

As for this part:

Europeans criticise the American attitude towards gun ownership and point at their own societies as proof that guns aren't needed and gun laws are effective at preventing crime.

There's still very little wrong with that reasoning in itself, especially if you'd say it in response to Americans claiming that guns are needed for 'protection' and to create a 'safe society'. But I reckon you intended it to be more of an example of Europeans meddling with American affairs and forcing their own ways on you, which I agree could be seen as an attitude of hypocrisy regarding the rest of your argument.
But to be honest, only if crime figures in the US were incredibly low and those in Europe ridiculously high you'd really have a point. Misleading articles and bold statements aside, that's simply not the case.

Anyway, just for the record - I may disagree with gun ownership entirely. I may have praised my own gun-free society and voiced my concerns on how a gun-ridden society like the US would make anyone feel safer (which was pretty much what I thought Michael Moore for example was trying to convey), but I don't care about anti-gun lobbyist groups or fierce gun restriction law proposals because it doesn't concern me. I may think the application of the second amendment is somewhat disappointing, but I'm not contesting its validity - I realize that in the end it's a personal decision, permitted by your laws; and I respect that.
Criminal behaviour can't be rooted out, period. You can only work towards establishing a culture that uses less lethal means to 'defend' itself and in a way lowering the fear level of said culture, but you can't establish that by banning something from one day to another that people rely on too heavily for their sense of safety. If a nation isn't ready for that, then don't do it.

Originally posted by Cerek: Very well. Then take your own advice and consider that there may also be "several other factors" that lead to the number of murders in the US. Guns ARE responsible for the majority of them, simply because guns are more readily available and easy to use. However, if guns were outlawed, then people would just find a different weapon to use - such as knives. Outlaw knives, then the killers might use a club or ball bat. Outlaw those and the killers could use a screwdriver or hammer. Outlaw those and.....well, I think you can see a pattern here...and this was the point VulcanRider was making in his opening post. Outlawing long sharp knives just is nothing more than reactionary legislation. So what if the top chefs of the world don't use them, what about Jane Average Housewife? How many of us really use the same utensils and cooking styles of top chefs anyway? If legislation is passed forcing citizens to prove they have a legitimate reason to own a long sharp knife, then it is a very easy step to expand that legislation to force those same citizens to prove they have a reason to own a hammer or screwdriver. BOTH of these tools could also be used in a "crime of passion", so that nullifies shamrocks argument.

I will disregard this as it has very little to do with my own post. I'm sorry if it was confusing you, but it was basically an off topic response regarding the article that paid little heed to Shamrock and VulcanRider's ongoing debate.

Originally posted by Cerek: Still, it was nice of you to acknowledge that there IS a basic difference in the American and European psyche regarding gun ownership, so any comparisons between the two really aren't valid.

I don't think I've ever contested that in the first place. While you could still compare the two, I don't think applying the system of one onto the other would be really fair. While I think some gun restrictions are in order for the sake of common sense (assault weapons), the US is a gun culture - I may have little respect for gun ownership overall and I may applaud anyone giving up on them entirely out of their own free will, but I'm not forcing anyone to get rid of them.
It's nice of you to say that it's nice of me to acknowledge that , but honestly - it really is somewhat of a disappointment if this is attitude is truly surprising to you. I might get the feeling you're generalizing a wee bit too much now, giving me very little credit in the process.

[ 05-30-2005, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]