Under his leadership the Italian Parliament overrode the judges to emphasize that private citizens do indeed have the right to use force in self-defense against criminals.

See: <link> (BBC).

Really, when you think about it, a law requiring people to submit to the demands of violent criminals are die is pretty outrageous, especially when violent crime has become a realistic possibility and not a mere hypothetical concept.

You've taken a very biased slant on this, presumably to bolster some Wild West gun loving fantasy that you entertain back home on your ranch in the US. But this is Italy, and what they've actually allowed with these laws is the creation of armed militias who now patrol in quasi-fascist uniforms and are largely concerned with harassing foreign immigrants generally, and Roma gypsies specifically.

<link>

The Northern League who pushed for this are generally known as a far right grouping. That immigrants from former Eastern European countries that have now joined the EU have been making their way – perfectly legally I might add – in to the north of the country should give you some idea of the NL's agenda in arguing for these laws. Given the none too distant history of fascism in Italy, and fascist European governments' predilection for persecuting the Roma, amongst other minorities, this is something to worry about rather than to applaud.

Italians have a right to protect themselves against criminals even if those criminals happen to be immigrants or gypsies.

ProudInfidel:

Italians have a right to protect themselves against criminals even if those criminals happen to be immigrants or gypsies.

Read: "The right to the same culture of violence, guns and gun deaths we enjoy here".

ProudInfidel:

Italians have a right to protect themselves against criminals even if those criminals happen to be immigrants or gypsies.

True. What they don't have is the right to harass and oppress anyone they don't like the look of.

Do you know anything about the history of fascism in Italy, and in Europe generally? Or are you blindly applying your views on your 'right to bear arms' in the US to a country with completely different politics and traditions?

ProudInfidel, Gypsies are Italians. As for "immigrants," Italy joined the EU. If Italians don't want people from other EU countries within their borders, then they can just leave the EU --which of course would prevent Italians from seeking work in other EU countries and of course force Italy to give up the Euro and go back to it's former unstable currency.

It's a crime to burn people houses and beat Gypsies or anyone you presume to be one. Do you want those laws changed?

As for the fight against crime, let me see the present Italian govt. take on the Mafia! (with which it is suspected to be associated)

C-tips, you beat me to the response. Thanks for the facts and your insight.

I'm afraid though that so called "proud infidel" couldn't find Italy on a map, let alone have any inkling of its history....

C-Tips:

<link>

The Northern League who pushed for this are generally known as a far right grouping. That immigrants from former Eastern European countries that have now joined the EU have been making their way – perfectly legally I might add – in to the north of the country should give you some idea of the NL's agenda in arguing for these laws. Given the none too distant history of fascism in Italy, and fascist European governments' predilection for persecuting the Roma, amongst other minorities, this is something to worry about rather than to applaud.

The collectivist mindset of Europeans continues to surprise me. It seems that most of the political battles there are about what sort of collectivism to have -- fascism versus communism, national socialism versus international socialism (but pressured by the post-War American occupation not to go beyond Democratic Socialism)..

Sometimes we Americans take our individualism for granted. It would never occur to me that private citizens would feel they need to join a club and put on uniforms in order to protect themselves. The individualistic approach has many advantages; for example, it is less likely to deteriorate into a mob mentality. The average person just wants to get through the day and not be robbed, and isn't interested in shooting someone merely for being a Gypsy -- at least that's what I would have expected. Indeed, I would expect a decrease in hostility towards immigrants once people were confident of their authority and ability as individuals to shoot those immigrants who actually are criminals.

Nonetheless, when ordering modern European politics by degree of decreasing evil, I would put the German/Austrian Nazis first, then the Hungarian/Rumanian Nazis, then the Communists, and only after that the Italian fascists (followed by the Spanish fascists). Europe has seen a lot worse than Mussalini.

fsilber:

Indeed, I would expect a decrease in hostility towards immigrants once people were confident of their authority and ability as individuals to shoot those immigrants who actually are criminals.

And there it is - every specious wrong-headed argument in favor of gun ownership, distilled to its essence:

"As long as I and everybody who thinks like me is armed and can shoot everybody who doesn't, the world will be a peaceful place".

mikestand:

fsilber:

Indeed, I would expect a decrease in hostility towards immigrants once people were confident of their authority and ability as individuals to shoot those immigrants who actually are criminals.

And there it is - every specious wrong-headed argument in favor of gun ownership, distilled to its essence:

"As long as I and everybody who thinks like me is armed and can shoot everybody who doesn't, the world will be a peaceful place".

I guess the difference between me and politically-correct liberals like you is that I do not conflate criminality with not thinking like me.

fsilber:

I guess the difference between me and politically-correct liberals like you is that I do not conflate criminality with not thinking like me.

Perhaps not. But the use of a phrase like "politically correct liberals like you" illustrates the gulf you place between yourself and those who don't think like you do. You may not consider it criminality to have a different opinion, but plenty of gun nuts do. Witness the armed protestors at Obama rallies, and the famous sign "We're not armed - yet"...

Which is not even to mention the cases of frontier justice and "shoot first and ask questions later" in which opinions never come up. The fact remains that you and your kind seek a monoply of force to "pacify" the rest of us. You may be surprised to find yourself on the wrong side of somebody else's pacification someday...

mikestand:

fsilber:

I guess the difference between me and politically-correct liberals like you is that I do not conflate criminality with not thinking like me.

Perhaps not. But the use of a phrase like "politically correct liberals like you" illustrates the gulf you place between yourself and those who don't think like you do. You may not consider it criminality to have a different opinion, but plenty of gun nuts do.

I haven't met any, and I've been around quite a few.

mikestand:

Witness the armed protestors at Obama rallies, and the famous sign "We're not armed - yet"...

I don't think there were all that many armed protesters at Obama rallies. I actually find myself perplexed at their behavior; Obama may have taken noxious stances on the gun issue as a Congressman, but that may have been because he represented a wicked district. As President I think he's been quite reasonable so far (a pleasant surprise).

mikestand:

Which is not even to mention the cases of frontier justice and "shoot first and ask questions later" in which opinions never come up. The fact remains that you and your kind seek a monoply of force to "pacify" the rest of us. You may be surprised to find yourself on the wrong side of somebody else's pacification someday...

Frontier justice is what tamed the Wild West the first time (it started becoming wild again in the 1960s). But actually, I believe the immigrants in Italy also should be allowed to carry weapons. Those who are peaceful need to protect themselves from racists or other bad people. This way, people who prefer to avoid conflict will have the best chance of survival (because they'll get in gun fights less frequently), and those who pursue conflict will have the highest death rates (often due to fighting between one another, but also by being shot by their intended victims) -- thereby improving society in the long run.

fsilber:

But actually, I believe the immigrants in Italy also should be allowed to carry weapons.

No great suprise there.

fsilber:

Those who are peaceful need to protect themselves from racists or other bad people. This way, people who prefer to avoid conflict will have the best chance of survival (because they'll get in gun fights less frequently), and those who pursue conflict will have the highest death rates (often due to fighting between one another, but also by being shot by their intended victims) -- thereby improving society in the long run.

It all sounds so rational. But I'm afraid no rationale will make the proposition "more guns = a safer world" true.

Why is the cry "He's got a gun!" an urban nightmare, no matter who it's applied to? Why do people scatter, dive for cover? Guns don't just shoot bullets, they attract bullets as well.

"Sometimes we Americans take our individualism for granted. It would never occur to me that private citizens would feel they need to join a club and put on uniforms in order to protect themselves. The individualistic approach has many advantages; for example, it is less likely to deteriorate into a mob mentality. The average person just wants to get through the day and not be robbed, and isn't interested in shooting someone merely for being a Gypsy -- at least that's what I would have expected. Indeed, I would expect a decrease in hostility towards immigrants once people were confident of their authority and ability as individuals to shoot those immigrants who actually are criminals."

Perhaps if you think of these Italian militias as the Klan with fancy uniforms it might help you realize that Americans aren't really all that different. Your crowing about individualism in a society that's so heavily divided in terms of "us and them" (red/blue, coastal/mid-west, black/white) seems misplaced. And how does the extraordinary popularity (compared to Europe) of organized religion in the States fit with your ideas of greater individualism?

Kati: Gypsies originally are from india and on thru to romania, not italian at all

immigration is a huge problem in europe on the whole, france england, italy

have great influxes and they are from africa, afganistan & iraq.