If the possession of weapons became legal in the Netherlands, would crime, violence and mass shootings suddenly increase? Or is it a behavior that we could call ‘ typical American ‘?

(Answer requested by Quora user, for which thanks)

I am pretty sure that the frequency of such incidents would increase.I think even substantially, but of course I have no hard figures to underpin that.

Why do I think that?

Every society, however well organized, is home to radical elements that, if they were to see the chance, would force the expressions of their frustrations to power with violence.And every society knows its own mentally derailed fellow men.

In addition, for example, we have seen in Australia that, after the gun ownership was regulated there, the number of firearm incidents more than substantially decreased.

And further: purely the presence of firearms already creates a risk in itself.The number of incidents with small children who suddenly sat with a pistol in their knuilists, with a fatal outcome, is already no longer counting on the fingers of two hands, as well as the number of people who were converted by others with their own weapons.
And further: if you, as a burglar, have a considerably greater chance of being confronted with an armed occupant, you also make sure that you are armed.And because as a burglar you have the advantage of the surprise, and you, especially if the occupant has his pistol neatly behind lock and Bolt, have a considerably greater chance of being the first to persuade the tractor, let it guess in whose advantage that arms race Fails.

Release the gun possession in the Netherlands, and you get the same phenomena here.


I also think (but now have no data to underpin that) that it would be less frequent than in the USA.

Let’s think aloud.

This type of phenomena has its causes of social and cultural nature.

  • The American society is by nature more each-for-itself than the Dutch society.

It is not uncommon in the USA to be driven to despair, and to get the feeling that, through wronged injustice, you have been deposited in misery where you will never come back… To hit the rails completely.

  • American society is, much more than ours, steeped in Second Amendment thinking -many people think that every citizen has the right to defend his own home and hearth with flying lead (see the “Stand your Ground” principle), or To protect against a seemingly unwell-minded government.
  • This mistrust of the government is also in the Netherlands (anyone who has ever been on the Internet is more than once in contact with messages that talk about the rover), but the tendency to violence is less.

  • The American culture is much more militaristic than ours.
  • It would be an interesting experiment, in itself, purely theoretically, but I am not sure to try it.;)

    Gun possession is legal in the Netherlands, you only have to meet some conditions before you get a permit.

    We in the Netherlands often do not understand the discussion around gun ownership in the United States.This is because we are projecting our own lives on the United States, a country that is as big as the whole of Europe.
    But also a country where people are forced to be very self-reliant in many places, and the life of the country (hunting and fishing) is part of it.
    Americans appreciate this autonomy, it is one of the topics that separates politically right and politically left, although both pursue a much greater degree of autonomy if we are accustomed to Europe.America lacks the influence of socialism.

    What we often do not understand is how law and politics work in America.We think in 1 President, two parties and states that form the country. In Reality, the states are part of a federation, in which a constitution and political structure are drawn up so that the countryside and urban areas have approximately the same voting rights within the Federation, irrespective of the number of inhabitants. Without this distribution, a country like the United States is at risk of taking decisions based on a number of votes that are detrimental to a large proportion of the population, as more people are living in cities and rural areas.

    One of the parts of federal law is the possession of weapons, because it can guarantee the autonomy of people.
    In fact, the then government said: if there is ever a federal government that is opposed to the interests of the United States (the Federation) then we expect the people of the United States to revolt against this and this Government So that the ideal of the Federation continues to exist.
    For this reason, it is sensitive to the laying on of arms possession, although this is a completely different world for us in another political order.

    Because in our culture firearms are associated with danger and power (police/Army) We look differently at firearms as Americans.
    From our perspective it is easy to recall that the problem in America is simply possession of firearms, solve this and the problem disappears.
    In The United States, they know from experience that an idiot who wants harm can also rebuild a van into a bomb and blow up a government building.And using an airplane as a weapon has also happened.
    The problem of impulsive behavior disappears, but this has little influence on massive shootings that are organized in advance (multiple firearms and ammunition = someone had a plan).
    If the rules on firearms become stricter, this will affect firearms accidents and shootings in the domestic sphere rather than crime and massive shootings.

    For the Netherlands, the relatively strict requirements for firearms are positive.
    The country is small and there is no need for private firearms, where we can consider hunting as an exception.And this is very sensitive when I think of the recent protests surrounding the Oostvaardersplassen (I ride there daily on the train to my work).
    But there is too little comparison between the Netherlands and the United States to be able to draw a quick conclusion.

    I think the main reason that there are relatively fewer incidents in the Netherlands as in the US is more lies in the welfare state that the Netherlands is (people have it relatively well), the easy access to mental health care, and a much less Strongly polarized society as in the US.

    First.In The Netherlands You possess firearms, provided you have the right papers. The principle we use in the Netherlands (and the rest of Europe) is: “If you can reasonably demonstrate that you need one (or more), you can possess them.For the rest, we prefer to keep weapons far away from the crooks, criminals and possessions. “

    Behind that “proving reasonable utility” is of course a bureaucratic circus that is very overcompassionate to anyone who actually has a reasonable benefit.

    Free, uncontrolled firearms possession is something that is not reserved for Dutchmen, and we should not want as a government and as a society, either.

    After all, to be responsible weapon-owner you will need to be able to demonstrate that sense of responsibility.The Dutchman is naturally rather anarchistically set up, and accepts no authority other than the own (think of the phenomenon “Silence coup茅”), so there are all sorts of moments and points of scrutiny raised to ensure that legal Owners are responsible.

    Do you still want to own a free weapon in the Netherlands?Will we first start with fireworks sales all year round, and then we can then look at selling pepper spray before we talk about gun ownership. You will see that everyone is already in the first step.

    For the record: we have in the Netherlands a law of weapons and ammunition that does not prohibit possession of weapons in all circumstances.There is thus legal weapon possession possible.

    The possession of weapons is in the Netherlands or heavily regulated.

    I deliberately accented the word “possession” because the law specifically says what acts are forbidden.For category I weapons is, for example, the main rule: “It is forbidden to manufacture, transform, repair, transfer, hold, carry, carry, transmit, transmitor make a weapon of category I .

    But… For category II weapons:

    1. It is forbidden to have a weapon or ammunition of categories II and III available.
    2. The first paragraph shall not apply to persons who are holders of: a. A leave referred to in article 28, first paragraph , of the law, to the extent that this leave reaches; or. .. “

    Well, if you want to know what exactly is allowed, check the law above all.He does not read really easy for a layman, but click: act Weapons and ammunition and then scroll to articles 2 and 3.

    The tendency has been over the last 100 years to bring different regulations together and make everything stricter.Sometimes there was social unease in advance (read: Call for stricter based on the fear of more crime).

    The question that you are now asking, for me, is the following: If you would widen the current law of arms, that would mean an increase in…?

    My answer is: No.After all, we are still able to regulate in addition to “possession”, other actions so that we can adequately protect our society.

    Consider the following: in Switzerland and Finland, it is quite easy to have a firearm, but it seems that it is necessary to regulate so well that even with incidents (Finland) it has not yet led to stricter regulations.

    Check: The 10 most weapons-rich countries containing Sweden and Finland in the top 5.

    The second question: Is the behavior “typical American”?, implies that crime, violence and mass shootings in the US are excessively due to legal weapon possession.READ: Americans specifically encounter a negative effect of legal weapon possession. I find this much deficient through the bend.

    You could also argue: by taking away the source of crime, you are deprivering the need to seize weapons.For example, if drugsgerelateerse crime is so often the basis for shooting incidents, that (rightly) raises the question of whether decriminalisation does not work better. For example, if you are severely punished or given life for a long time, it does not matter what the gravity of an offence is, but it also asks the victim’s supporters to secure themselves so well.

    Those mechanisms that I outlined above (and there are many more) are not reserved for the US. In that country, unfortunately, this is what we are doing.Short and good: typical American? No.

    It is a hypothetical question for which relatively few analogical points are to be found.In Most countries there is an evolution towards a more restrictive arms law. In most countries in which weapons laws have been tightened, you also see a decrease in shootindincidents.

    You have hot heads both in the US and in the Netherlands.A hot head without a weapon is an annoying male. A hot head with weapon a mass murderer. It’s a little bit simplistic, but anger isn’t “typically American”.

    Moreover, there is the effect that if one party has a firearm, the other party needs a firearm and that conflicts between different parties (gangs, police,…) are fought with firearms.

    So there is little data, but I think it is reasonable to say that the number of firearms incidents would indeed increase, in favour of incidents that were normally fought with less deadly weapons.

    N.B. firearms are in certain cases legal in the Netherlands, but the law is much stricter than in the US.

    No, I don’t think that’s typically American.

    I think that the number of violent crimes would increase considerably when people in the Netherlands would drive a gun in their car, or have a rifle in the house.There is a lot of dissatisfaction in the Netherlands nowadays.

    America has the image of a country of cowboys and guns, but the Dutch would behave as well as the same behavior.. I am convinced.

    Perhaps by a difference in culture something milder, slightly less violent.But it wouldn’t care much.

    I had to think of shootings at schools in America, where frustrated boys went through the ribbon at school.That would also happen more often in the Netherlands.

    Heavily armed schoolchild (16) arrested after shooting at school Roermond

    Possession of weapons in the Netherlands is legal.The law that is provided for is only very restrictive. Therefore, it is not interesting for most people to buy a weapon legally.

    • Would one now widen the law, making it easier to buy a legal firearm would be more civilians with a firearm.
    • However, the Netherlands does not have a firearm culture.

    So We don’t have to expect American States.

  • Criminals are already coming to their arms.
  • For them, it will be a little simpler to come to weapons. I do not think the criminalisation will increase. Rather decline because criminals no longer need criminal activity to get to a weapon……… (by Denkertje)
    That is of course nonsense, because a legal wpaen is registered, and a criminal has no interest in a registered weapon.

  • More violence?
  • Because there are more weapons in circulation, there is no need for more violence. One is not violently by owning a weapon alone. There are, however, enough conflicts even without firearms. So there is a great chance that in a normal conflict a firearm suddenly pops up because one or both parties have such a thing.
    In addition, some idiot may suddenly be walking around with his legal weapon.What again evokes aggression, whereby the wearer of the weapon is eventually shot with his own weapon. Criminals will have it on such weapons.

  • Mass shootings?
  • We mean:

    • A person who, with a weapon, shoots several other people as we often see in America?

    Probably not often, but it can occur so slightly more. I have the idea that again that is something typically American. There is a rather need to resolve problems of violence.

  • Groups with firearms that have each other?
  • Small chance. I honestly do not know.I think this seems especially psychological.

    Had very strict rules attached to it and an expensive price tag, I think it would be windfall, and even save lives.

    Here with us in Belgium it is permissible if certain conditions are fulfilled.A permit must be applied to the police (and of course it can only be awarded from a certain age).

    I think that it should be allowed for whoever wants it, and to be able to cope with it in a sensible way.

    For example, a responsible family father who wants to be able to feel safe and to be able to protect his relatives and learn to shoot his wife.

    If good agreements are made, and only one firearm per family is allowed, and the possessor is obliged to store the firearm in a certain type of vault (so that a child or young person cannot do so), and preferably placed in a Secluded space where children cannot enter or be admitted.

    For example, it is possible to make the making available of firearms through a trader, and to designate the local police as the sole official provider for the distribution and sale of bullets (so that the population can deal sparingly with it, and not The least and slightest is going to shoot or threaten to shoot).

    They could plan it in such a way that an owner of a firearm can only buy a load of bullets as many times as possible, and no more than is needed.

    In this way there is still a certain control possible.

    They can of course also encourage the people to make more use of the opportunity to follow self-defence lessons instead of falling back on the use of a firearm.

    The province/municipality/city of each area within the country could agree with numerous training providers to offer a discount to those interested who would like to have more control over their lives by following lessons and May fall back in case of distress (to save their lives, during a carjacking or homejacking or whatever).

    They could also put alternatives on the market to make it easier for citizens to create a sense of security on the streets, at work or at home.

    Caution is required anyway, but I think that a human being should be given the opportunity to choose.

    Since owning a firearm here in the West is not particularly established, I do not think we should worry so much.

    In a country such as Mexico (or another Latin American country) where crime is common, I would not feel safe at all.

    Excessive fear is good for nothing.A little fear is, of course, healthy, because in this sense you realise that it can be dangerous somewhere.

    First, arms possession in the Netherlands under strict conditions is legal (member of an association, it must have a hobbiepurpose, etc).This gives a preselection of weapon possession obv of social control and self selection (people who want something else often do not have the patience that it takes to be allowed to keep weapons at home).

    Without all these controls, you can, like in the US, buy a weapon in many places without any screening (especially weapon shows are notoriously).Because of this it is so easy that people who do not actually need to be able to buy a weapon, such as people on the Terrorist watchlist, No-fly list, people who have been convicted of violent crimes, domestic violence or people with untreated Suicidality or schizophrenia.

    The fact Dar there are so many weapons in the US, makes quarrels easier to expire with a murder, suicide attempts more strokes and toddlers shoot people down.

    It just makes it easier to get a deadly outcome to things that end with us with a sudhi.

    I do not believe that Americans are very special.They are going to be laconic with weapons, but are not so different that it could not happen in the Netherlands. Even though there are also countries like Switzerland. They have a high suicide number, but massacres are at the European average.

    The US is also dealing with a major difference in prosperity and a failed ‘ War on Drugs ‘, which has mainly caused greater violent eruptions.Gangs as they have, we do not have in Europe. We have Mafia, who run into suit and buy politicians to while they are dealing and people act. Gangs shoot everyone who doesn’t agree with them.

    Leave a Reply