Research Katrina gun confiscations. Research Connecticut gun registration and possible confiscations. Research New York registration and confiscation. Research California gun confiscation bill. Clearly, gun rights are a continuos battle ground.
Hence I said that the nuber is very high and even the homicide rate. Canada: 1.3 Portugal: 1.2 United Kindom: 1.0 France: 1.0 Italy: 0.9 Germany: 0.8 Spain: 0.8 Sweden: 0.7 Switzerland: 0.6 Japan: 0.3 USA: 4.7 Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate That is the homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants. Indeed some European countries like Albania, Estonia, Belarus, Moldavia etc. have a higher homicide rate, but I do expect that people in the US want to compete in these areas with western Europe and Japan...
Since we do not have gun violence in Europe ... or at least not to the amount that America has ... alcohol gets blamed way more than guns, because it is the cause of repeated accidents. The laws for DUI are quite stricked in Austria.
For me personally it is a trust issue. I do not turst people to handle weapons the right way. Maybe 99% do, but the 1% who does not, can cause so much pain and suffering. So I choose to live in a country where gun control is a big priority. However, I do understand that it is a freedom in the US. The question is in my mind not why guns are legal, (or legal to the extent that they are) but why the debate about gun control is so much filled with extreme views - whether from the left or the right.
The extreme views are there because this is literally a life or death issue. I have been shot at in the past. If I didn't have the ability to shoot back, I wouldn't be here. It wouldn't matter if the weapons involved were guns, arrows, or rocks. Guns are the prevalent weapon in our era. As long as people choose to attack me, I need equal or superior force to respond to the attack.
These 1% that you speak of....you say you don't trust them to handle their firearms the right way. Where are they when they don't handle them the right way? Are they in public where you may encounter them? Or are they at home where you are not there? In America, even open carry folks cannot "handle" their firearms. There is a specific way they must carry, and it doesn't include holding their gun. Accidents from people who are legally open carrying are awfully rare.
I do know and realize that. I don't trust people who have any psychological problem and are therefore on medication. I don't trust regular folks to do the right thing when they're in an argument and are drunk. There is a million people on day to day bases who I can think of, for some reason or another shouldn't carry weapons. But this topic is not about my views. I live in Austria and people don't carry weapons on day to day bases unless they are police officers. Because even the police basically never has to use their guns either, I can be pretty much 100% certain that it's impossible to meet anybody at any given time to carry more than a kitchen-knife, so I don't feel the need to be armed myself. But let me say it again: This topic is not meant to be about my views, but about me understanding the discussion in the USA and why it's so polarized (or appear to be so polarized). Why people feel the need to carry their rifles to go shopping as seen in pictures of the "Open Carry Movement". The legality in the US is not an issue, or at least not for me. Americans have the right to carry guns, and they have a gun culture. Unfortunately the number deaths regarding that issue are very high, and the question from my European perspective tends to be: Why frighten people or children with rifles as I imagine the Open Carry Movement does at times? And why is the debate about gun control so polarized?
I've explained why the discussion is polarized from my perspective. If/when I'm attacked, I have the need and the right to counter attack. Those guys in TX who were open carrying rifles were trying to demonstrate how silly the laws in TX were, where it was legal to carry long arms but not pistols. It was a political statement, and it worked. I think the OC law goes into effect in TX on 1 Jan., 2016. That clown in Georgia was just making a mess in showing that the intent of good laws can be misinterpreted. It's a little ironic that you live in Austria, where Glocks are made.
The people in America that you are referring to either drunk or in an argument, are not carrying legally. People with licenses to carry do not have the problems you are talking about. In America, if you have a license to carry, it is revoked for any type of crime that you commit. If you do the research, you will find that it is quite rare for carry licenses to be revoked. In fact people who legally carry are 13 times less likely to be involved in any type of crime. Stats show that you are more likely to be shot by police that those that legally carry. The pubic needs to understand the difference between those that legally carry, and those that are carrying illegally. Open carry movement has an agenda to make the sight of firearms a normal occurrence. It is legal. They want to bring awareness to the 2A and show people that not all who carry guns are criminals. They carry in accordance with the law and they are not holding the firearm with their hands. They hope to desensitize people about the sight of firearms. If the public sees legal firearms everyday, maybe they won't be so alarmed. That is the open carry movements objective. About the gun debate being polarizing... its pretty simple really. In America, our founding fathers created a document that limits what the government can and cannot do. The 2A uses the words "shall not be infringed". However, our government is trying to side step this and some in congress are on record saying they would like to ban all guns. In the meantime they do whatever they can to limit who can and cannot own guns. It is a clear infringement on a right that we have in this country. Anyone who believes our government should not be able to overstep its restrictions, should be appalled at our legislators, both state and federal.
The very small percentage (its much less than 1%) who misuse a firearm are criminals who intend to commit a crime despite the law, and many will commit that crime with or without a firearm. Also, there are far more defensive uses of a firearm than criminal uses (the vast majority of defensive uses merely require the display of a firearm for the criminal to stop, actually firing the weapon is very rare). In the US, the extremists are the gun banners. The norm in America is to own a firearm, people are comfortable with firearms, and know how to use firearms safely (accidental shootings are rare). Every state now has concealed carry of a firearm, many have open carry. Where I live, about 1 in 5 adults has a permit to carry a concealed firearm yet our crime rate is far lower than the US national average (which is lower than almost all Western nations), even our homicide rate (about 0.6 last year) is lower than many European and Western nations. And gun rights is not a left-right issue in the US. If you go on a wildly far left political forum like the democratundergound, the gun rights section of the forum is as pro-gun as this forum or a Tea Party forum. Its only the communist "progressives" which want gun bans, unfortunately they control the Democrat party and have infiltrated the Republican party.
I would imagine that this has to be a rather extreme view on the matter. The polls I've read about imply that a little over 50% of the US population is for some gun legislation, but I don't know if you can find any where near as many Americans for gun prohibition - especially in Congress where the NRA has quite some influence. An assault weapons ban is quite different that totally abolishing (or revoking or whatever it's called) the second amendment. I would imagine that even people in the NRA believe that citizens shouldn't have access to mini-guns, rocket launchers and nukes... So I really don't think that the debate either way is between making all weaponry legal or making all weaponry illegal. Can you think of any "communist progressives" who clearly politic for abolishing the second amendment in Congress? Because all I heard so far was gun control in which some additions to existing laws ought to be corrected or extended.
That would depend on which state is in question. In the state of California, for example, single shot rifles are considered to be "assault weapons" depending on their caliber, rather than what features are attached. The only side of the argument that presents such nonsense as if it were valid, is the side seeking greater restrictions on firearms ownership. They attempt to coerce cooperation out of others by introducing hyperbolic standards that no sane individual would support. There is significant discussion about attempt at outlawing as many firearms as possible, under whatever means possible.
After Sandy Hook, Senator Diane Feinstein proposed an "assault weapons" ban and she and her banner cohorts spoke of "assault rifles" and "military grade" weapons and pointed to the AR-15. But her legislation went far beyond banning the AR-15 and included many semi-auto centerfire rifles, many semi-auto shotguns, some pump action shotguns. It was a sweeping gun ban, but the banners hoped they could sell it on the back of the AR-15 and hide behind dead children (and that's not a smear, banners rely on emotion to pass their legislation, and in Sandy Hook they thought their day had come because nothing is more emotional than a bunch of dead children). And banners are incremental. Feinstein said she would not touch "hunters rifles", but once they banned "assault weapons" they would focus on hunters. After Sandy Hook when banners thought their ban was a done deal, some jumped the gun and started calling hunting rifles "sniper rifles" which needed to be banned. Polls are incredibly misleading, you can get the answer you want by simple changes in wording or the order of the questions. If you ask "Should there be laws that prevent murderers from getting a gun?" you will have a very high rate of support for that question. If you ask "Should rifles be banned?" you will get a very low rate of support. Banners always bring up "nukes" (or chemical/biological weapons) and the 2nd Amendment as if that's a real argument for limiting peoples right to self-defense. Setting aside the fact that such weapons are far beyond the ability of many nations to own, operate, and maintain, most people in the world don't want anyone or any nation to own such weapons because of the risk. But there is a world of difference between a nuclear weapon and a tank, rocket launcher, mini-gun. The gap between nukes and everything else is so wide there is not even a continuum between nuclear weapons and the rest of the conventional arsenal. By the way, people can and do own mini-guns (machine guns), tanks, even cannon in the lower calibers. As I wrote, its an incremental process. Banners always have "additions", they are not going to stop with a simple "common sense" measure. We had 40 years of banner activity to learn that lesson. [video=youtube;ffI-tWh37UY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY[/video]
In America you are about 4 times more likely to be killed with a knife than by an "assault weapon". You are 2 times more likely to be beaten to death by someone's bare hands than an "assault weapon". Police cannot protect you here, and are more of a danger in many cases. We have many laws already regarding acquisition and usage of firearms, and they get through that legal system in often glaring ways. Our prisons are revolving doors. Our systems are broken badly, and instead of focusing on the real issues facing our society, everyone wants to look for a quick fix to the problem by banning guns. They think no guns, ergo no gun violence. The best example of why this will not work is the drug trade. Drugs are illegal, yet anyone with a $10 bill can get drugs whenever they want. In fact it can be argued that making drugs illegal INCREASED violence here. Long story short, it is a complicated issue, but most of our law-makers and politicians are simpleton figure heads that vote whichever way they are paid to. Look up Senator Leeland Yee (from California no less) who was one of the biggest anti-gun legislators in the state. I won't ruin the fun for you on what he was arrested for.
