Gun control tightens across Europe
From the AP:
_Finland announced plans Wednesday to impose stricter restrictions on firearms, including raising the minimum age for handgun ownership from 15 to 20. The proposal was prompted by two school massacres within a year in which lone gunmen opened fire on classmates and teachers.
_Germany, where a gunman killed at least 11 people Wednesday, raised the legal age for owning recreational firearms from 18 to 21 following a 2002 shooting in Erfurt that killed 16 people, including 12 teachers.
_Belgian lawmakers passed strict new gun control laws in 2006 in reaction to the racially motivated shooting deaths of a toddler and her black baby sitter in Antwerp.
_Swiss citizens are demanding a referendum aimed at confining army weapons to military compounds and banning private purchases of pump-action rifles and automatic weapons — following a spate of suicides and homicides.
_The Portuguese Parliament is currently discussing a government proposal to tighten gun laws, including denying bail to anyone suspected of a gun crime.
_Denmark's government said last week it will raise the penalty for illegal gun possession as part of a crackdown on gang violence that has killed three people and injured 25 in recent months.
_European Union lawmakers proposed tighter gun control across the bloc last year, including guidelines saying that only people over 18 not deemed a threat to public safety could buy and keep guns. EU members have until 2010 to adopt the measures. . . .
Labels: GunControl
posted by John Lott at 10:27 AM
5 Comments:
Does any lawmaker consider that a law will not stop an individual doing something that he or she is hell-bent on doing?
If laws were deterrents, no violence, theft, murder, rape and the like would even exist.
Laws are consequences for those who infringe on the civil liberties of another.
A "deterrent" only exists in as much as the individual who is seeking reason to subvert his boastful exclamations of infringing on another - he's looking for an out after having bullied up his talk to self or others.
All these gun laws do is then make it possible for those who are lawful to now be disarmed against those who are armed.
It's like sending a soldier into a war without any armor or equipment by which to defend the self.
A lawful citizen who is armed is inherently a "soldier of society" by the mere fact that he or she has empowered the self toward a civil freedom and right to defense of self and others.
If and when the radical Islamists decide to take over by main force, as suggested yesterday by the main mullah in the UK, the remaining infidels will regret disarming themselves.
The ones who survive, that is.
I read your post very carefully Dr. Lott, but I fail to see any mention of what Level of Protection under NIJ 0101.03 Standard guidelines that these laws provide...
Come to think of it, you have yet to tell us what level of protection that 'Gun Free Zone' signs provide either.
As a carefull consumer, I'd like to know if these laws and or signs provide protection equal to or better than Dragon Skin body armor.
I am glad that these attacks are so rare here in Europe that I do not have to hear about them every day. Laws should be forbidden, and I do hope that politicians don't allow citizens to wear these guns and kill even more persons.
Steffen Lund
Not, laws should be forbidden, but guns should be forbidden. Sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home