Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Historical reasons for the US/Europe split on gun control

lord henry strikes back

18:10 / 18.04.07

I came across an article on New Scientist today (Sadly I can't link to it as it no longer seems to be active for non-subscribers).

Though this was not the basis of the article it made an assertion that I thought was very interesting. It was pretty much as follows:

The history of the USA is one of individuals escaping oppression and forging a new world. Colonies were formed first, then states, and finally the union. The result is that an emphasis is place on self protection, and individual rights in general, as opposed to centralised power.

Conversely, most European nations have a history of feudalism whereby the people (peasants) where expected to be loyal to, and also protected by, the lords. This fosters a more paternalistic view of centralised power where individuals are willing to sacrifice certain rights to the state in exchange for peace and security.

The history element of this argument is painted in broad strokes I admit, but I think it may have merit. I also wonder if the same ideas can't be applied more generally to how the differing societies deal with health care, support for the unemployed/underprivileged and similar areas, with Europe tending to see these as state issues and the US tending towards individual responsibility and voluntary orgaisations.

I just thought I'd offer this up as it caught my interest and I was wondering what the 'lith would make of it.

18:21 / 18.04.07

Can I point out that all the European colonizers of America had the same historical exposure to feudalism as the ones that remained in Europe.

Also the example of Australia could be informative here, particularly with respect to John Howards crusade against guns (which I know very little about) and success or lack thereof.

19:12 / 18.04.07

Could you expand on how this works in relation to the state? I'm not seeing how there's, comparatively, a particularly intense disapproval of paternalistic authority under Bush, and "This fosters a more paternalistic view of centralised power where individuals are willing to sacrifice certain rights to the state in exchange for peace and security." obviously implies that by opposition. Are you speaking purely in terms of self-image?

lord henry strikes back

21:40 / 18.04.07

As I said, this isn't my argument, but I'll try to address some of the points above.

Red Concrete: Yes the colonisers of America were European, but that doesn't mean that they had the same history for the last 200 years, and they certainly learn a different history at school. I feel that that's a more important factor in shaping a society.

Yes, Australia is a very interesting point, as would be Canada. I know very little about either so I will leave others to comment.

Vá de Folia: I don't think that 'under Bush' is really the issue. It's more about general thinking. As I understand it, in the US, you would have to be pretty far to the left to argue for nation wide gun control, universal health care, heavily state funded higher education, and a number of other state interventionist measures. In Europe you would have to be very far right to argue for anything else.

16:16 / 19.04.07

Why doesn't the USA outlaw guns?

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

16:33 / 19.04.07

Why doesn't the USA outlaw guns?

I am going to be as honest as I have ever been about my own gun ownership right now.

The USA will never outlaw guns because we are afraid of each other. If the law came down and I had to turn in my guns I would be inclined to keep at least one, because I would be scared that my neighbor would also keep one.

Living in a city where guns are easily obtained legally or illegally is pretty fucking scary at times. I have had guns pointed at me, had friends robbed at gunpoint, and driven through a parking lot on my way home while guys were pulling guns on each other.

All the statistics in the world showing accidental death and injury being more likely if you own a gun will not take away the fear. Washington DC was the murder capital of the USA, they banned guns within city limits. Now the only people carrying guns in DC are politicians, who are exempt from the laws because of their status.

The black market gun trade is already illegal, and it still takes place. Haus said in another thread that in the UK most young people don't have the criminal contacts that would be needed to purchase guns. I would argue that in most urban areas you don't need any criminal contacts to buy a gun illegally. Right now it is cheaper in the USA for a criminal to purchase a fully automatic AK-47 then it is for a law abiding citizen to obtain one.

I don't want to make this too long, but really, it all comes down to fear. "If I give up my guns that won't mean the Bob will give up his, and when he decides my music is too loud and kicks in the door I won't be able to defend myself".

People will use the 2nd amendment to prove that they should be allowed guns or use it to say that only the army should have guns. The fact is that it is so poorly written that if I wrote that sentence in 6th grade I would have been held back. The 2nd is secondary (ha...) in my mind to the human right that people have to not be afraid, and if a gun gives them that feeling (false or otherwise) I am not going to blame them.

18:53 / 19.04.07

Elijah, great post. I would be scared that my neighbor would also keep one. It's basically the cold war in miniature.

19:09 / 19.04.07

I instinctively feel that the argument is very dubious but don't really have time right now to construct a counter-argument. One obvious shaky point is that feudalism did not survive universally in Europe, and by the time of the colonies (i.e. C17 onwards for Northern America, mostly) was no longer really present in either Britain or the Netherlands; I'm not so hot on Spain but it was AFAIK rather different in social structure from North-Western European nations anyway. Ancien Regime Europe was different again from feudal Europe, so... I don't know how valid any argument that suggests that Europeans had an inherently feudal outlook would be (esp. given events such as the English Civil Wars). All those ideas about the 'great chain of being' etc. were well on the way out by then. And indeed (though this is a subject of some debate, I believe) the Netherlands had an oligarchic society in which the urban, mercantile burgermasters were generally dominant in the period.

The idea about societies with strong immigrant elements having a distinctive outlook has, I think, more merit (particularly where those migrants have been forced to travel by persecution). Will think further.

00:55 / 20.04.07

The 2nd is secondary (ha...) in my mind to the human right that people have to not be afraid, and if a gun gives them that feeling (false or otherwise) I am not going to blame them.

I don't think the freedom from basic human emotions is a universal right but maybe I missed that memo.

Anyway, wrt the argument in question, it may be unfair to say it sounds a little simplistic given that we are getting it in paraphrase form. It may have some merit, but I'm not sure going back to feudal Europe or the Wild West mythology is really necessary. States' rights have always been, and still are, a fundamental concern of American life & politics. So, we do have less emphasis on centralized government than some European countries probably do. However, it's a little bit of a leap from states' rights to a law of the jungle mentality, isn't it? I think American individualism probably owes more to free market capitalism than it does to American sociopolitical structure. I think the force behind positions against universal health care, welfare programs, state funded education, state funded anything, and probably even the right to bear arms, is a desire to look after my own material gains and not have to pay into any system that may reward others at my expense. (Not actually my position of course.) This is essentially a capitalist ethos, not a Puritan Pilgrim point of view.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

07:36 / 20.04.07

I don't think the freedom from basic human emotions is a universal right but maybe I missed that memo.

So you DON'T think that human beings have the right to feel safe in their own home?

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:17 / 20.04.07

That's not what was said, Elijah, by you or anyone else. Is that what you would actually like to argue?

09:30 / 20.04.07

This is essentially a capitalist ethos, not a Puritan Pilgrim point of view.

Except that some historians/historical sociologists have seen a link between Protestantism, particularly Reformed Protestantism, and capitalism (e.g. Weber) so it's perhaps not quite as clear-cut as it might seem.

Hope to come back with more useful comments shortly. This is an interesting topic and I would be sad to see it turn into another debate on current gun control policy.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:47 / 20.04.07

Absolutely. Since no other moderator seems to be able to do it, I suppose that, although I don't really see the argument for removing the discussion about gun control from the thread on Virginia Tech (more in the Policy), I will start a shiny new gun control thread here, and try to direct such discussions there.

11:06 / 20.04.07

As I understand it, in the US, you would have to be pretty far to the left to argue for nation wide gun control, universal health care, heavily state funded higher education, and a number of other state interventionist measures.

and

I think the force behind positions against universal health care, welfare programs, state funded education, state funded anything, and probably even the right to bear arms, is a desire to look after my own material gains and not have to pay into any system that may reward others at my expense.

Could I just point out (though I recognise ibis isn't actually claiming otherwise, as lord henry is) that although not enjoying the 80%+ levels of support that various social programs have in Europe, all the things mentioned above other than gun control are still favoured by a majority of the US public?

That aside, I think that ibis is basically on the money: put simply, liberal capitalism --> privileging oneself above society.

12:35 / 20.04.07

I think capitalism, like feudalism, might be a red herring. It's hardly because Europe is less capitalist that we don't have a "we should have the right to defend outselves with guns" credo. Or am I wrong? I lack data.

What effect did the World Wars have on European gun control legislation, you history buffs amongst us? What effect has the price of guns and the standard of living had? Where the big gun manufacturing capitals of the world? Where was the first cheap revolver developed?

Arguably (much of) the US has been in a "frontier" situation with little law and order, relatively recently (within 150 years), which may have encouraged the development of the gun industry there. Is that less true of Europe? Could you easily buy a gun during the Napolenoic wars in Spain? Did the gun industry in Europe ever have access to an open market? How much state-subsidising or monpolising of the industry has existed in Europe?

In fact, to start with it would be nice to get a timeline for the legislation in, for example, the UK or France, and the US. Is Wikipedia a good source for this? (..goes off to answer his own questions)

12:39 / 20.04.07

OK the Napoleonic wars were a little too long ago... Were French citizens stocking up on guns to defend themselves against the Prussians? Did the assassin of Archduke Franz Ferdinand have to have his gun specially imported, or did he buy it in a hardware shop down the corner?

13:48 / 20.04.07

Arguably (much of) the US has been in a "frontier" situation with little law and order, relatively recently (within 150 years), which may have encouraged the development of the gun industry there. Is that less true of Europe?

This is my guess. There are still reaches of the American West where it's a good idea to have a gun along in case a rattlesnake or bear (or Bad Man) shows up while you're repairing your cattle fences -- places where it'd take you a three-hour drive or longer to get to the nearest hospital (or police station). They're vanishing fast, but they're still there. I don't think that's true for most of Britain and Western Europe, because there've been so many people there for so long, and places seem so much closer together. Guns simply aren't useful tools in civilization the way they are when you're in the middle of a swamp with water moccasins and alligators.

I think the feudalism thing is, not a red herring, but an incidental observation. I don't think there's been a genuine frontier in Western Europe since feudalism was the dominant form of government.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

18:35 / 20.04.07

That's not what was said, Elijah, by you or anyone else. Is that what you would actually like to argue?

My mistake, misreadings in the early hours of the morning.

19:21 / 20.04.07

Why doesn't the USA outlaw guns?

I know this might sound really nasty or fucked up so please allow me to begin with stating my intent is not to belittle the question. I also know other people have said the same thing as I'm about to but I feel the need to throw it out anyway.

We, like the majority of the planet, have outlawed murder and yet it still happens.

There is the overwhelming belief here in the US! that the people not obeying that law are not going to follow the law about not owning a gun or another weapon. The belief is that some people will break the law because they just don't care.

In the US! the connection between outlawing something and limiting availability is pretty sketchy as we get lots of illegal things all the time. Bootlegged media and drugs are pretty common.

No one that I know believes that outlawing guns will actually change their availability to the majority of people who commit murder and other crime.

Now, you and I may agree that it would prevent a statisticly measureable amount of death due to accidental mishap or crimes of passion but the overwhelming majority of my fellow country people believe that the criminals will still have them.

To be clear I'm not trying to justify why we don't have a ban rather I'm trying to explain why we don't have one.

Kiltartan Cross

20:55 / 20.04.07

Did the assassin of Archduke Franz Ferdinand have to have his gun specially imported, or did he buy it in a hardware shop down the corner?

The assassination was fairly directly organised by elements of the Serbian military, so I'm guessing that's where the weapons came from. Wikipedia fingers a (Belgian) FN Model 1910 as Princip's gun.

Mon Oncle Ignatius

23:30 / 20.04.07

One interesting figure (and I don't have the stats to hand right now, but will look into it) is that the normally unarmed British police, specifically in London, were issued with revolvers on a far wider scale in the 1930s than they are now, largely because of a belief that there were armed gangs running around causing mayhem, and were likely to shoot people at random, let alone the coppers. It was certainly much easier to obtain a firearm in that period in the UK than it is now, legally at least, though one would doubt that the criminal element were bothered too much with having a certificate.

As I say, I don't have the figures easily accessible, but will do some research and come back to this point.

01:11 / 23.04.07

Why doesn't the US outlaw guns?

Would that solve anything? I don't think the problem is the guns, the problem is that everyone is so afraid of each other.

Hunting rifles are legal in Canada, and that's about it. In my personal experience, seeing a gun in a non-hunting context is very rare. I have never been threatened, seen anyone be threatened, or heard of any of my friends, family or distant acquaintances being threatened with a gun. Unless you're involved in drug trafficing, guns are not a part of everyday life.

Well, there is one exception. My friend works at the Canada-Us border as an inspections officer.

Officer: Sir, do you have any firearms you would like to declare?
American: No.
Officer: Sir, could you pull off to the side please? We're going to do a routine check of your car.

In the trunk there's two handguns and a shotgun. I'm told the Americans are often not smuggling them, they just plain don't think to declare them. As if having them is a normal part of life *shudders*. Is an American gun liscence even valid in Canada? I suppose it might be, for the hunters...

Canada has its fair share of empty areas that are three hours from the nearest hospital, and we have guns as tools to help us deal with them. The average Canadian doesn't see a gun as something necessary to protect him from his neighbour. Why do Americans feel that way? Is there a historical explaination for this?

03:47 / 23.04.07

Well, Michael Moore's theory (produced in vivid animation by the South Park boys) is that it's a legacy of slavery, with the fear of uprising transferring neatly onto fear of "that element" after emancipation; in other words, America's flavor of racism is closely tied to fear, violence and gun crime.

I'm not sure I buy that -- I think it has as much to do with taming a frontier (where other, different human beings lived) and successive waves of immigration throughout our history (from the Puritans and the Catholics and the Quakers in the 16- and 1700s on down, always somebody a little funny to blame for things), with maybe a side dish of Civil War to go with the order.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

13:52 / 23.04.07

Why do Americans feel that way? Is there a historical explaination for this?

I would imagine that it has to do with the insane media coverage every time some nutjob shoots up a place. Of course it could also be that there are more desperate people in the poverty stricken areas of urban America then there are in Canada.

It isn't like nobody is getting shot here in between incidents like the VT shooting. I would guess that the local news features at least one shooting per night.

Tryphena Absent

10:12 / 24.04.07

I think it's more cultural- guns are tied into the founding/frontier myth so they're accepted as normal and necessary. That's constantly emphasised by the lack of federal infrastructure, in a bind the government does not have a solution so it rests on the individual's tools. Most cultures are too old to be tied to guns in that way.

10:31 / 24.04.07

I guess it's worth looking at the full text of the second amendment again.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Which links the neeed and right to bear arms to the need for a well regulated militia to guarentee the security of a free state....

jentacular dreams

11:12 / 24.04.07

Nina - agreed, at the time when flintlock guns were becoming available, the UK (and to an extent, much of Europe) were close to losing the wolf, their last potentially dangerous wild mammal, so guns were rarely needed for protection. The introduction of breech loaders correlated well with the rise of highwaymen, which may have in some sence 'villified' gun ownership in public perception, and I suppose is arguably one of the factors neccesitating the creation of police forces.

With regard to US history, the impression I get is one of a possibly romanticised involvement with firearms. Many travellers carried guns to hunt (I'm not sure quite when game hunting became legal for the common folk in the UK?) or protect themselves from potential threats (animal and human). They were in that sense a neccessary part of american colonisation. I wonder if how the use of guns is portrayed in westerns as the means by which justice is served (and the good guy always wins) is merely a reflection of this view or whether it serves in some way to propogate the view of gun ownership as a good thing, and part of a national heritage?

19:02 / 24.04.07

Is an American gun liscence even valid in Canada? I suppose it might be, for the hunters...

There's no such thing as an American gun license. Well, there is, but it's only required if you want to own fully automatic weapons.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

00:03 / 25.04.07

There's no such thing as an American gun license. Well, there is, but it's only required if you want to own fully automatic weapons.

Correct for the most part. Owning a fully automatic weapon is not something which can be licensed, each individual weapon requires its own validation. To carry a firearm concealed IS a license, but that is state by state, and I would assume it does not carry over from any state to Canada. A hunting license is just permission from the state to hunt on 'their' land, and these also do not carry over to Canada.

00:23 / 25.04.07

To carry a firearm concealed IS a license, but that is state by state, and I would assume it does not carry over from any state to Canada.

I would expect not... when you move out of state don't you have to get a new license to conceal in your new state? I'm pretty sure that's what my father-in-law had to do and was denied in his new state.

03:12 / 02.05.07

Nina wrote, I think it's more cultural- guns are tied into the founding/frontier myth so they're accepted as normal and necessary.

I think this is very true - but not as anachronistically as one might think. I was raised in New York state, not far from NYC, but with family ties to rural areas. Learning to fire guns was a normal part of growing up, whether one ended up in one's teens going hunting or not. In high school, rifle target shooting teams were not uncommon, and I lettered in the sport. So responsible gun ownership was not just part of a citizen's identity, but part of becoming an adult - for both men and women. Granted - I am in my mid-40's, and I bet these days there are far fewer varsity rifle teams than we had in the 70's & 80's - but the culture is still there. Where there are few rites of passage or markers of adulthood, in some segments of American society, owning a gun and getting your first deer still function as very important symbols.

17:06 / 02.05.07

(Do they "letter" in sports in the UK? That means it's a varsity sport, competing against other schools, and not just an intramural club-type thing.)

Phex: Dorset Doom

17:34 / 02.05.07

(Psst.. no, there's no lettering in the UK.)

jentacular dreams

12:05 / 03.05.07

(But there is a limited varsity system.)