In hitherto unprecedented moves, top leaders in Europe are beginning to speak out and act against the strict gun-control laws being imposed within the European Union.
Noted Danish psychologist Nikolai Sennels tells us why:
“The battlefield has moved mainly to Europe. Thousands of terrorists have sneaked over the EU’s open borders amidst the flood of refugees. In addition, many who already have European passports are still sympathetic to the Koran and the Sunna, which uphold spreading Islam through violence.
“Europe has got a whole new generation of jihadists: 80% of young Turks in the Netherlands see ‘nothing wrong’ with ‘leading a jihad against non-Muslims.’ 27% of all young people in France and 14% of all young people in Britain are sympathetic to the jihadist tactics of the Islamic State. This very likely includes a large percentage of the Muslim youth in both countries.
“75% of Muslims in Europe also believe that the Koran—a book which espouses violence against non-Muslims in hundreds of different passages—should be interpreted literally.”
Predictably, the implications have prompted a backlash against the strict gun control regime being imposed by the leadership of the European Union.
In Italy, the Chamber of Deputies this year passed a self-defense bill allowing citizens to use firearms against intruders entering their homes. To further reinforce the government’s commitment, in the event that any act of self-defense can be justified, legislators have included provisions that will make costs of the proceedings and lawyers’ fees a responsibility of the State. The bill is now awaiting approval by the Italian Senate.
In the Czech Republic, the Lower Parliament recently passed legislation that would enshrine Czech citizens’ right to bear arms, in their country’s constitution.
Last year, Czech President Miloš Zeman declared that “The only solution to terrorism is to deport all immigrants”. In the meantime, he said, “People should arm themselves, and be prepared to defend themselves and others.” He stressed that “Czech citizens have the right to acquire, own and carry firearms and ammunition.”
Although not a part of the EU, Switzerland’s Lieutenant-General André Blattmann, head of the Swiss Armed Forces, has warned that society in Western Europe is on the verge of breaking down, owing to the rise of “chaotic violence caused by economic dislocation, mass immigration, and terrorism.”
While many Swiss households are already armed with modern infantry rifles belonging to trained reservists, he admonished Swiss citizens not already armed as part of the Swiss Reserve to arm themselves, in preparation for the impending collapse.
Lieutenant-General Blattmann’s words carry significant weight in a country in which citizens’ referenda have condemned the establishment of new mosques and the use of burqas, to mitigate the rising tide of Islamization and immigration.
Echoing the sentiments expressed by his Swiss counterpart, Norway’s new Army Chief Odin Johannessen declared “We must be prepared to fight.”
According to an account published in Speisa, the Norwegian Army Chief believes “European countries can no longer expect to live in peace and security, without defending themselves.”
“I think we must be prepared to fight—with words, actions, and if necessary, with weapons—to preserve the country and the values we have in common,” Johannessen reportedly said in a recent speech to the Oslo Military Society.
“The Ukraine crisis and the terror in Paris show that Europe can no longer expect to live in peace and security, without having to defend its interests and values,” the new Army Chief concluded.
Like Switzerland, Norway stands outside the EU, but is feeling the same pressure caused by problems of illegal migration and rising crime, which other countries in Europe are struggling to cope with.
In Denmark, Associate Professor Søren Hviid Pedersen from the University of Southern Denmark lectured that it was time that citizens regained the right to defend themselves with firearms. He reasoned that since “the State has lost its monopoly on violence, and the solution is an armed populace.”
He continued by explaining that an essential contract between the state and its citizens had already been broken. Whereas citizens previously waived the right to defend themselves on the condition that the State guaranteed their safety, such an arrangement could no longer be deemed to exist. He pointed out that, with the increasing flow of firearms to the local underworld, the criminal use of guns and the resulting threat to the Danish population’s safety was even higher than it was during World War II.
Associate Professor Pedersen pointed out that the Islamic State has already issued a call for Jihadists “to attack Westerners in their homes”, a statement that naturally raises grave concern in communities throughout the European Union.
He cited the Chief of Interpol saying that “There are only two ways in which to effectively combat and stop terrorist attacks against civilians: either the police guard all places where there are many people, or we let people arm themselves.”
Germany and Austria
For its part, the German AFD Party and the Austrian SFÖ are already agitating for more liberal provisions in their respective Arms Acts. Hopefully, it will only be a matter of time before parties in Denmark and other European countries follow their lead.
Citing the Israeli Example
Proponents of arming Europe’s citizenry invariably cite the example of Israel, in which ordinary people have long been obliged to arm themselves as protection against terrorist attacks, especially when out and about in the streets. As a direct result of this policy, a terrorist in Israel can only hope to kill one or two people at the most, before he is gunned down by an armed Israeli civilian.
Proponents of liberalized firearms laws point out that as a result of this country’s highly proactive gun policies, Israel also continues to enjoy fewer firearms-related deaths than countries such as France, Austria, and Finland. The number of annual firearms-related deaths in Israel is .02 per 100,000 people, which is three times lower than comparable figures in Denmark.