From GCA '68 until it was overturned by FOPA '86.Originally Posted by Malamute
From GCA '68 until it was overturned by FOPA '86.
It's my understanding that once the Iron Curtain fell, the Czech Republic became a very pro gun area...not a revolution per se, but then again that may account for why gun rights is a big deal to our Czech friends...Shall issue concealed carry permits, Class III firearms and whatnot...if you get the license, you can have it. Just no HP ammunition (you'd think .45s would dominate there...but noooo...anyways that's a topic for another rant). As we all know Bill's feelings on all things Czech, I shall conclude this portion of the rant.
Regarding other points in this thread: I'm guessing the number of assault rifles that came from Joe's gunshop in Pima AZ might be over-exaggerated by the left and underestimated by the right. I doubt either side has access to the actual number however. I suspect somebody in the ATF might have a list of serial numbers sent over by the Mexican government, but I'd not call it data in the same sense that I don't consider the participants of a customer service survey to be representative of all customers that went through the store. It's tainted by the fact of its very existence.
It is an unfortunate fact that we in the U.S. have more mass shootings. I don't believe this is solely because guns are more available in the U.S. There are a lot of reasons. The mental health system, the poor economy, a culture that glamorizes violence, and a media that provides a level of attention to mass shooters that they usually reserve for rock stars. It is a confluence of these things and more (and possibly in addition to the looser restrictions on guns here in the U.S.) that all combine to result in a very unpleasant experience. It's not unique to the U.S. Germany has had a few more mass shootings than the U.K. and Norway has the record for the most violent mass shooting in all of history to date, even with significantly tighter gun control than the average state in the U.S. where the Czech Republic has a statistically low number of mass shootings in spite of shooting sports being the third most popular sport in the country and assault rifles being quite available (I'm sorry, I did promise to stop talking about the Czechs didn't I?)
The answer isn't more gun control however, because no amount of "more" will ever bring back the innocent civilians who are murdered by a psychopath and no amount of "more" excluding a full scale ban of firearms and execution of anybody in possession of one would work to reduce firearms availability to the point where there would still not be mass shootings.
Britain's model might you say? Tell that to the friends and families of the 13 dead people in Cumbria. Emotional argument you say? Well well well, how the tables have turned now....
Still have to do this in NJ at local shops last I checked a year or so ago, but I mainly order online.
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
Might who say?
Well, looks like Down Under can add another mass murder of kids to its post-gun control accomplishments. I'm sure the fact that these kids were bled out with a blade instead of a gun will be of great comfort to their loved ones (just like it was apparently after the Santa Barbara slayings here).
So going back to my original question - is post gun grab Australia really a safer place?
Nope. Violent crime is up in both the Anglophone countries under discussion since the mid '90s. Even if you could wish every gun on the planet into the cornfield, it wouldn't necessarily make for a less violent world.
There's no need to "Imagine A World Without Guns"; we already know what that looks like.
Like I tell everyone who tells me how bad guns are - "there used to be a world without guns - we called it the dark ages, tell me how that worked out for the common man?"
IMHO, the effects of mass shootings might be ameliorated if reasonably competent civilians are allowed to carry in target rich environments. Then, media coverage on how the rampage was quickly terminated.
There are subclasses of rampage motivations but some are definitely the suicide mission. That is to punish society or some group for wrongs done to the shooter. The rampage will be a form of reciprocal altruism. That means that by my actions and sacrifice I will prevent this outrage from occurring to others. Part of this scenario is the slaughter of innocents, the standoff or action when police arrive so I can kill myself among the dead. This is seen as a noble warrior's death (as compared to the lone suicide in your room). A quick termination of a shooting as happened in the Colorado Church incident or Dr. Lee Silverman's shooting of the attacker short circuits this portrayal and eliminates the social learning modeling and vicarous reinforcement of budding rampage shooters. The show won't go on for them.
Other rampages with political show motivations may also not want to have their political message short circuited so quickly.
There are other subtypes but that's my thought on part of the problem. In any case, being able to fight reasonably against assailants is a good thing. It also speaks to competently trained and that's always a hair puller with some of the gun population. We don't need folks arguing against carry because of screw ups like the Tacoma Mall, WalMart or Tyler courthouse. That gave ammo to the anticarry folks has vivid instances of incompetence. Note that ABC and Diane Sawyer did a rigged simulation to show carry won't help - bah.
Now, if we did totally control guns - might get a substitution of bombs for instance. Columbine was a bomb event primarily that didn't work out from analyses and I recall Chuck discussing that.
The proverbial you...not actually anyone on this forum, but I equate the argument made with the ol "if it saved just one child" or the "Well why don't you ask the families of Sandy Hook what they think about assault rifles" bit that I hear in my hometown.
NO.
https://www.facebook.com/dave.bateman.311
kimbers have more issues than time magazine.
Reply With Quote