Side story on the recent gun spree

[J Wolfsberger]

Could we speak at least here of "magazines" instead of "clips", please !??

As long as you promise to never again use the phrase "semi-auto spitzer bullet carbines."

On a serious note, all clips are magazines, but not all magazines are clips. The subject of the ban, as discussed so far, is focused solely on clips. Please don't put ideas in their pointy little heads.

[jmm99]

Actually, the concept of a "removable magazine", or "detachable magazine" - and establishing a "pointy head" legal definition of the same - is already out of the bag, the toothpaste tube and the barn.

For example, last year, State Sen. Leland Yee (D, San Francisco) defined a "detachable magazine" (in SB 249) as:

...any ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action.

I read definitions in criminal law statutes literally - in other words, criminal laws are strictly construed (standard rule).

Does removal using a screwdriver meet the "readily removed" test ? The internal box magazine for a Mauser 98:



and its variants (such as my Ruger .308 M-77, manual p.15 pdf), is "readily removed" as a screw in assembly; it clearly is an "ammunition feeding device"; and its removal does not require "disassembly of the firearm action".

Now, Sen. Yee might say that's not what he "meant" to attack in SB 249 - that is, what he intends to ban are whatchacallits, and not whatchamacallits.

The devil is in the details.

Regards

Mike

[Fuchs]

That's what preamble and interpretation by judges is for. The law people have their theories for the interpretation of laws, and one of them means you shall go with what the lawmaker thought at the time. This requires reading notes, preamble, possibly interviewing.

[J Wolfsberger]

That's what preamble and interpretation by judges is for. The law people have their theories for the interpretation of laws, and one of them means you shall go with what the lawmaker thought at the time. This requires reading notes, preamble, possibly interviewing.

That requires that the lawmaker "thought" to begin with, or that he wrote the law in good faith.

I'm becoming ever more convinced that falls into the legal category of "facts not in evidence."

As jmm99 points out, Sen. Yee wrote a law that applies to every firearm except single shot pistols, rifles and shotguns (and, I guess, double barreled shotguns). That was not an accident. Had he intended it to apply to clips, the wording would have been: "... any device that can be readily replaced to reload the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action."

Sen. Yee may actually be as stupid as he's pretending to be, but that's not an explanation for such a clumsy attempt to ban all firearms.

[jmm99]

Actually, I'd "interpret" SB 249 (despite being unfamiliar with Californianese ), as presently written, as being meant to apply only to semi-automatic actions (whatchacallits - what you call it). It could, of course, be easily amended to apply to bolt actions, pump actions and lever actions (whatchamacallits - what you may call it).

As I said:

Now, Sen. Yee might say that's not what he "meant" to attack in SB 249 - that is, what he intends to ban are whatchacallits, and not whatchamacallits.

All of this type of regulation beats around the bush if one's point of regulation is going to focus on regulation of firearms (as to specific types and components); as opposed to regulation of the persons possessing firearms (criminals and mental cases), or as opposed to protection of places where firearms might be used for mass murder.

So, I tend to some flippancy when discussing that sort of gun control (e.g., I've often said that "gun control" means a near-perfect grouping at 1000 yards ). Probably, I shouldn't, but I do.

Bill Bratton, in the article that currently set me off, points up the real problem - for which, neither he nor I demand a solution:

The problem with the gun and ammo bans, he offers, "is that that's going forward." They do nothing about the 350 million firearms, including assault weapons, and hundreds of thousands of extended clips already in circulation. "You can't deal with that retroactively."

That is also a problem that is long out of the bag, the toothpaste tube and the barn. And, I (like Bill Bratton) would not elect to tackle that ex post facto problem.

However, it could be (as opposed to should be) dealt with in the US, albeit at God knows what costs. Australia, with impetus from Gun Control Australia, did its gun control program after the 1987 Melbourne killings, et al. The first step in the program is gun confiscation - phrased in terms of a gun buyout program:

Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997. [23] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.

In the US, the logical justification (possibly without compensation) could be a combination of public health and national security issues (with liberal application of John Yoo's memos on inherent presidential powers in domestic matters - here's one). Of course, there's the little matter of the Second Amendment; but court cases take a long time - and the Supreme Court of today is not necessarily the Supreme Court of tomorrow.

The second step is a tight regulation of the much fewer firearms that are left - as well as tight restrictions on where they are stored, and who can use them:

Firearms categories

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories determined by the National Firearm Agreement with different levels of control. The categories are:

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.

Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.

Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.

Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. (Albeit both SA and WA do not require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after the deactivation process has taken place. This situation was the catalyst in QLD for the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black-market – the loophole shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.

These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.

Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.

Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

Certain Antique firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.

All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).

I don't applaud the Aussies' result (in my eyes, a horrible situation), but I do appreciate their straight-forwardness in doing it.

Regards

Mike

[Fuchs]

I don't get why anyone would see a need to restrict access to air rifles or paintball markers.

The rimfire rifles thing is also strange. It's quite easily possible to create a powerful rimfire cartridge rifle - especially with reloading and DIY bullets.

[Kiwigrunt]

I don't get why anyone would see a need to restrict access to air rifles or paintball markers.

A few people have been killed or wounded with air rifles in NZ in recent years (accidents).

(Paintball) toys look so indistinguishable from the real thing that an increasing number of crims are using them. A cop shooting a thus 'armed' crim is in kakstreet.

The rimfire rifles thing is also strange. It's quite easily possible to create a powerful rimfire cartridge rifle - especially with reloading and DIY bullets.

Most of the classifications and restrictions are irrational knee jerks IMO. They satisfy the 'something must be done' syndrome. The silliest one being the restriction of meggaclippythingies. Will a nutcase on a shooting spree really be measurably disadvantaged with a smaller capacity, given that no one is shooting back? How long does it take to slap a new mag on? Context dependent (the theatre shooting might be an exception), I could argue that the nutcase could be in a disadvantage if he had a full auto with 30 rnd mags. He would waste most of the rounds. Being limited to 7 rnd mags might make him conscious of the necessity to conserve and aim. But again, a reload is often only a disadvantage when rounds are going in two directions.

That grossly outdated (you can tell I’m not a yank) second amendment is IMO the greatest impediment to more rational control, as much as it is a safeguard against excessive control. Instead of enforcing security checks for each purchase, a licensing system should be introduced.

In NZ, the screening and security checks happen at licencing stage. Specific endorsements are required for collectibles, pistols, and MSSE (Military Style Semi Auto; our police were wise enough not to call them assault rifles. They get some things right.) The single biggest measure of control that the authorities have on MSSEs is that for every one imported, an old one has to be surrendered. A quantitative alternative to the grandfathering-in principle.

We have however had the same silliness with regards to ways of circumventing the definition of MSSE as in many other countries. A thumbhole stock does not require an MSSE endorsement, as long as you restrict the mag to 7 rnds and comply with other cosmetic trivialities like no muzzle flash eliminator or bayonet lug. The police recently tried to tighten up on that and cut their own fingers. The court decided that the police could not redefine what constitutes a pistol grip at their leisure. So now we have gone a step back, in a sense, because now an 'aftermarket ergonomic pistol grip' is allowed on non-MSSEs. When I first discovered this, I spoke to an arms-officer to confirm. The first thing he said was: “Yes, we do stupid things”. AR15s are now streaming into the country at an alarming rate of knots. We will pay a price for that in more that one way.

[Fuchs]

(Paintball) toys look so indistinguishable from the real thing that an increasing number of crims are using them. A cop shooting a thus 'armed' crim is in kakstreet.

No, they don't. That other kind of gun which fires half gram pellets does. I forgot how they're being called.

Paintball/Gotcha weapons usually have a prominent gravity feeder device on top.

[carl]

Fuchs and Kiwigrunt:

I think you guys are speaking of what are known as airsoft guns here in the US.

http://www.hobbytron.com/ElectricAirsoftRifles.html

Many are made to look exactly like the real thing. They shoot, I believe little plastic pellets or BBs.

The only time I ever ran into them as an officer was when hoods would buy them in order to frighten other people without the danger of being charged with felon in possession of a gun.

They are basically adult toys that people use to shoot up (dent at best) tin cans in the basement.

Kiwigrunt:

Whatever controls you put on weapons will only be complied with by law abiding people. Hoods would not bother getting licensed.

[jmm99]

At what point in the weapons control spectrum will law abiding people resist and refuse to comply by:

1. Non-violent resistence ala Gene Sharp, which could get quite confrontational; or

2. Selective violence in support of a larger poltical effort; or

3. Confrontation with military forces if those forces are ordered to quell the "insurrection".

In the US, resistence has been via the courts and the ballot box.

Is there any history in other countries where weapons control programs (including confiscation by whatever name) have been resisted in any of the three escalating ways described above ?

AUS and NZ seem to have accepted the gun controls without substantial adverse struggle. Has that also been the case in Europe ? - my knowledge of response to gun control there is frankly minimal.

Regards

Mike

[Kiwigrunt]

I have pondered over that question a bit myself. I don’t know of any examples. It would depend on a lot of variables. In the US the most prolific variable would be the second amendment. I don’t think anything like it exists anywhere else. As such, I don’t think that the sense of right and entitlement associated with it exists as strongly anywhere else. In NZ, owning guns is really more of a privilege than an absolute right.

For what it’s worth, the gun laws in NZ are still among the more lenient in the world (I’m pretty sure the next massacre here will put an end to that). This is starkly contrasted by Aus where they are among the most draconian. (Ausies come here to play with SLRs.)

I should think that in democratic (Western) countries, the democratic discourse and system are now so entrenched that significant resistance outside of courts is unlikely….but for that tipping point…

It is also a matter of conditioning and mindset. When I first got my licence I did not apply for any endorsements. As much as I was interested in evil guns, I was happy to just play with bolt actions. I then got one of those thumbhole FALs with a 7 shot bullet box. When the police attempted to close that loophole, I was forced to either get rid of it, or apply for the appropriate endorsement along with a higher level of storage security. Needless to say, I chose the latter. My mindset is now conditioned to that….uhmmmm….right. Had I stayed in Holland (22 years ago) I would probably never even have considered a licence. I know full well that I need to enjoy my guns while I still can. It is not a matter of if; it is a matter of when.

Given the very strong conditioning and rights mindset in the US, I should think that a radical approach to control like that in Aus will ruffle some feathers and invite reactions beyond just the legal variety. If the US govt was to have intentions of going anywhere near that far, then they would have to implement changes in stages, proportionate to the extent to which people are ‘willing’ to have their conditioning affected at any given time. But, even if this round of control is not a planned first stage, it will become one by default. NY may already be an example of that.

In NZ, I doubt we would even see much of Mike’s point 1, even with sudden radical control.
In the US, I would not be surprised to see some of point 2, but I can’t see how it would support a larger political effort.
I deem point 3 very unlikely both here and in the US. We like to think that we are right and in our right and all of that, but no one in their right mind will want to go that far. We have it too good and there is far too much to lose. And think about it, what law abiding citizen wants to shoot at our soldiers or police (even if delusional enough to think they stand a chance)? After all, they are us and we are them. Also, to stand even the slightest chance, large numbers are necessary. I think our democratic mindsets and comfort levels preclude us from uniting to an extent required for any form of armed revolution. All of that said; there may still be some individual nutcases willing to give it a go. They will lose more that their guns.

[davidbfpo]

At what point in the weapons control spectrum will law abiding people resist and refuse to comply by:

1. Non-violent resistence ala Gene Sharp, which could get quite confrontational; or
2. Selective violence in support of a larger poltical effort; or
3. Confrontation with military forces if those forces are ordered to quell the "insurrection".

In the US, resistence has been via the courts and the ballot box.

Is there any history in other countries where weapons control programs (including confiscation by whatever name) have been resisted in any of the three escalating ways described above ? AUS and NZ seem to have accepted the gun controls without substantial adverse struggle. Has that also been the case in Europe ? - my knowledge of response to gun control there is frankly minimal.

Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.

In recent UK experience legislation to implement further weapons control has come after massacres, Dumblane in 1996 with sixteen dead children and one adult teacher (at a school) and the 1997 Firearms Act:

which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom.

and Hungerford in 1987, with seventeen killed in the streets of a small town, and the 1988 Firearms Act:

banned the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges (in magazine plus the breech).

Links for Dunblane:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre and Hungerford:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

Which came first is a moot point, public concern and revulsion or a political response "to show control". My recollection is that the legislation was largely unopposed in parliament and public opinion was so in favour extra-parliamentary opposition could easily be ignored.

Actual implementation was easy, as all the weapons legally held were registered with the police and so the vast majority were surrendered. Needless to say not all, as this curious incident shows:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-20994897

It is noteworthy that the Cumbria incident in 2010, with twelve dead shot in a rural area, by a man with a legally held shotgun and bolt action rifle, led to no further weapons control:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

There is a substantial minority here who see that weapons control has disarmed the rural population and reflects the views of an urban elite whon have pursued other laws, notably around "field sports". See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countryside_Alliance

Has weapons control been effective in the UK? For legally held, declared weapons I'd say yes. Much of that success comes from the simple fact gun ownership is so small, farmers, enthusiasts and rural dwellers. As for illegal firearms that is quite different, I'd say no. The complicated array of legislation is a hindrance and pro-active LE investigations are rare. Anecdote suggests obtaining ammunition is the problem, not having a gun.

[Firn]

@jmm99: Here we have the fastest gun in Biathlon, the Austrian Simon Eder:



The stock is of course shaped one the shooter according to his will and purse. His rifle can easily very naturally on his open hand which forms a very stable support down to the elbow resting on the hip bone. A center-fire rifle which a stable magazine of the right lenght and width ( 5 rounds of a slight staggered 308 is fine to me) can be held in a similar way, especially if it is a bit front-heavy.

Being left-eyed dominant I shot on targets mostly with my left, but while hunting I use my right for the action. Still sometimes I switch as it makes shooting from 1 to 3 o'clock much easier from a stand or behind some cover.

---

@davidbfpo:

In quite some areas of northern Italy a considerable quantity of old bolt-action carabines were hidden in the last days of WWI and especially during WWII with the dispersal of many Italian regiments in 1943, the partisan war and the German retreat. Those, in addition of 'civil' weapons of older date were mostly simply not registered and quite a few were used for poaching in the lean years after the war.

If you talk at the right occasions to the right people, who know whom they can trust, one might get a lot of sometimes very similar stories of the weapons of now usually dead people. Keep in mind that the Italian law allows you to keep 'discovered' weapons if they are no 'military' ( think automatic) weapons if you follow the due legal process. (The irony is of course rather obvious, considering that most are infact rifles used during the last big war). The law enforcements and the courts usually don't bother the person in question too much. This mostly relative lax approach has certainly helped to make a good amount of those old firearms legal - and registered. The lack of interest or the silence of others has likely made sure that a good deal of them remain hidden, with many already rendered useless by rust.

P.S: At least in my region I know of no murder comitted by such a weapon.

[jmm99]

David,

I don't quite understand the logic of this:

Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.

Who, in their right mind, would employ any of the three resistence methodologies before a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control ? Even Gene Sharp's non-violent resistence methods often are illegal or involve some illegal acts. Hence, even they are a last resort.

When legislative and executive decisions are pending (as is now ongoing in the US), resort to political and legal methods (ballot box, lobbying, civil court actions, etc.) are the acceptable methods. Then, it depends ...

I'd not be surprised that little or no resistence has been offered against gun control measures adopted in European countries, or in the UK and its colonies. As I understand the history there, Kiwigrunt's comment is quite valid:

... owning guns is really more of a privilege than an absolute right.

The American experiences (and its pieces of paper) are quite different.

As an example, I'd suggest Lexington-Concord (April 19, 1775), which was an attempted seizure of illegal weapons by soldiers of the lawfully-constituted civil authority. From the British Documents:

Orders from General Thomas Gage to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot, Boston, April 18, 1775

Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.

One can find in Massachusetts of that time (even before shots were fired at Lexington) examples of:

1. Non-violent resistence.

2. Selective violence in support of a larger political effort.

3. Confrontation with military forces.

Those methods were just as unlawful then as now. The American patriots were well aware that, if one commits sedition and treason, one had best win - or be prepared to suffer the consequences of losing, including the loss of one's own life.

So, American experiences and ideology (as framed by the Second Amendment) may be unique - as any country has some unique aspects that are material to insurgency and counter-insurgency.

Regards

Mike

PS: Examples of point 2 ("selective violence") are easily found in the era of Reconstruction, Redemption and Restoration (1866-1906). The major efforts by all sides in that complex struggle were political and legal ("lawfare" with some vengence). However, violence was strewn throughout the period - in aid of the political and legal efforts which were the primary focus.

That violence often centered on who was to possess and use firearms. In McDonald v Chicago, Justice Thomes (pp. 67-122) did a bangup job in presenting this history of selective violence and its materiality to the Second Amendment; e.g.:

Take, for example, the Hamburg Massacre of 1876. There, a white citizen militia sought out and murdered a troop of black militiamen for no other reason than that they had dared to conduct a celebratory Fourth of July parade through their mostly black town. The white militia commander, “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman, later described this massacre with pride: “[T]he leading white men of Edgefield” had decided “to seize the first opportunity that the negroes might offer them to provoke a riot and teach the negroes a lesson by having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable.” S. Kantrowitz, Ben Tillman & the Reconstruction of White Supremacy 67 (2000) (ellipsis, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). None of the perpetrators of the Hamburg murders was ever brought to justice.[22]

[22]Tillman went on to a long career as South Carolina’s Governor and, later, United States Senator. Tillman’s contributions to campaign finance law have been discussed in our recent cases on that subject. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (slip. op., at 2, 42, 56, 87) (discussing at length the Tillman Act of 1907, 34 Stat. 864). His contributions to the culture of terrorism that grew in the wake of Cruikshank had an even more dramatic and tragic effect.

McDonald, p.119.

The selective violence in 1775 Massachusetts was on a lesser scale than such scenes as the Hamburg Massacre of 1876. It was more intimidation and assaults on civilian and military agents of the lawfully-constituted civil authority.

[slapout9]

Link to a recent blog over at Fabius Maximus on the regulation of gun ownership(probably better defined as possession since ownership was never revoked) in the Wild West.



http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/24/...ld-west-48208/

[Steve Blair]

Bloody shame they didn't actually check the history before they posted that. Or actually checked with historians as opposed to legal scholars.

[J Wolfsberger]

You might also consider that the United States is the result of several hundreds of years of self selection for people from Europe who did not much care for European social structure.

That we should believe that the means to self defense are a right belonging to the people, not a privilege granted by the King, should surprise no one.

That today's Europeans and our self selected elites believe that firearms should be denied the common people and be solely the privilege of their class should also surprise no one.

[davidbfpo]

JMM responded to my post:

David,

I don't quite understand the logic of this:

My original post (in part) stated:Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.

Who, in their right mind, would employ any of the three resistence methodologies before a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control ? Even Gene Sharp's non-violent resistence methods often are illegal or involve some illegal acts. Hence, even they are a last resort.

I was curious that JMM had jumped to the resistence or resistance options without mentioning what came beforehand. So I commented accordingly and being mindful of the US debate over weapons control - in which I am an interested observer. Even though I live close to Europe I am not familiar with what individual nations do on weapons control, hence recourse to examples from the UK.

What I do find perplexing about American attitudes is that some additional weapons control is clearly needed, but there is no national consensus on this. Indeed politicians appear to express anguish after events like Newtown, Conn. and then hope the issue goes away. Or in the case of the NRA stay silent and then make a statement after a "decent" pause.

[Fuchs]

You might also consider that the United States is the result of several hundreds of years of self selection for people from Europe who did not much care for European social structure.

It's funny how many shapes this nonsensical idea has. Only one is in common; the nationality of the people sharing such an idea.

There was no self-selection.

The felons, the losers, the hungry Irish, the African captives of war, a handful greedy guys intent on robbing natives early on, a couple of his/her majesty's servants from UK/France/Spain and a few fugitives make up the bulk of the immigrating ancestors of the modern U.S. population.


Almost nobody emigrated from Europe because of dissent with social structures which a young European of today would recognise.

[davidbfpo]

John W. posted:

You might also consider that the United States is the result of several hundreds of years of self selection for people from Europe who did not much care for European social structure.

That we should believe that the means to self defense are a right belonging to the people, not a privilege granted by the King, should surprise no one.

That today's Europeans and our self selected elites believe that firearms should be denied the common people and be solely the privilege of their class should also surprise no one.

Yes in historical terms the USA has taken its own course, influenced by the waves of European migration and deciding on self-determination. I am not a sociologist, but you can make a valid argument the USA has ended up with just a stratified social structure, not with kings and queens, as Western Europe.

It is that the argument and viewpoint on weapons possession as being a means of popular, public 'self defense' against elite government is from "across the water" difficult to accept. There are limits to 'self defense' and having weapons, those limits appear strange and do not fulfil defence rather increase the chances of harm. If the American public are willing to have that, then incidents like Newtown will happen.