Austria to tighten gun laws after recent school shooting. Applying for a gun license will require taking a serious psychological test. There will be a "cooling off phase" after ordering a weapon.
-
The main issue I have with laws like these is... once the person who "needed to cool off" has the gun all they need is to get hot-headed again and this time there isn't a cool-off period for them to access it.
The psychology "test" is all fine and good, but a test doesn't tell you what an actual licensed psychologist can. Way too easy for someone to just lie on a test if they know what the "right" answers are. A lot more difficult to hide dangerous personality traits in front of another human being. Step it up one more notch to requiring a psychological evaluation.
I mean I guess it's a better system then just being able to walk into a random store and just buy a gun.
In my country we have a pretty strict gun control you need have not committed any crimes and be able to get a document from the government saying so, you'll also need the following;- be part of a gun club, which itself has a cool down period of several months and they can refuse you for whatever reason they see fit
- have a minimum amount of shooting days per year
- have to participate in the yearly contest for one of the different disciplines possible at the club
- have to be a continuous member of previously mentioned club at least one year before you can even apply for your first licence
- your first licence can only be in a single .22 weapon, this weapons will be registered to you as a person and your place of residence
- your gun and ammo needs to be in separate safe's, also the gun may not be stored in a loaded state
- after you have the weapon you will be checked at random and you need to be able to show the weapon at the visiting police officer immediately, or if you cannot show it at the local police station within a few days after the visit. if they visit they will check if your safe('s) are properly mounted to wall/floor
- have to extend your licence yearly
- if you fail the checks or violate any laws you will lose your license and you will need to either store your weapon(s) at a registered location or sell them, evidence of both will need to be shared with the police. you can apply for a new licence after one year of probation
- the maximum amount of weapons you can have registered at any time is 5
Firearms are either considered a part of sport (hence the clubs) of for hunting which has their own subset of rules. You can never have any full automatic firearms, those are considered for military use only.
-
It can be done. Europe as a whole was on its way to become as car centric as the US back in the 1960's. People seriously revolted against that, most strongly in the Netherlands which is why it has such nice bike infrastructure.
We got gun laws because after WW2 Europe was full of guns, they were everywhere and it was untenable. So we got our shit together and did something about it.
That's good information. It does sound like the backlash happened before large scale car friendly infrastructure got too ingrained. That's likely an easier pivot earlier on. And curious if guns were as fetishized culturally as it is in the US?
I still think industry financial interests are still the biggest roadblock to any meaningful change. In the US especially, where profit comes before well being, almost all of the time.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No the guns weren't as fetishized. On the other hand in the first half of the 20th century large bits of Europe had been occupied by the Germans twice. The idea that you wanted to be armed in case of a foreign invasion happening was a lot stronger, and more well founded, than the wettest dream of a 2nd amendement lover. Lots of people had been in the armed resistance and a lot of those who had not wished they had had the opportunity.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I bet the kid was American /s
I'm glad to see a country do more than ask pointlessly, "what else can we do?"
-
Should we every single person this planet access to nuclear weapons? Mutually Assured Destruction has kept us save from nuclear war thus far. Clearly this applies not just on the state but on the individual level as well.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]
In which we equate Nuclear weapons with individual arms. It's the mental equivalent of assuming Communism means you have to share your tooth brush. -
This post did not contain any content.
The thing is, this is mostly reactionary politics. They do this because it's easy and they can say "see we did something, gib vote".
Instead phsychological care is being reduced, which would be way more valuable in the long term.
I am not saying gun laws are bad, just that they don't pose that much of a problem in Austria if it weren't for psychological issues. Not to speak about alcohol, unrelated to the shooting but ffs thats an issue nobody touches because "culture"-_-. I just mention this because regulating this properly and/or providing psychogical care for alcohol problems, or even aknowledging that it IS a problem, would go way further in preventing harm and accidents.
Not as interesting of an issue of course, no outrageous headlines to be made that don't negatively impact politicians..
-
In which we equate Nuclear weapons with individual arms. It's the mental equivalent of assuming Communism means you have to share your tooth brush.My point is there is clearly a limit to how many people a weapon can kill before no sane person would allow people to possess it.
Apparently, for you this number is greater than 61 deaths per weapon, seeing as this is the number of people killed in the Las Vegas Mass Shooting.
So, which is it? 100? 1000? 1 million? When is a weapon too dangerous to be available commonplace in your opinion?
-
My point is there is clearly a limit to how many people a weapon can kill before no sane person would allow people to possess it.
Apparently, for you this number is greater than 61 deaths per weapon, seeing as this is the number of people killed in the Las Vegas Mass Shooting.
So, which is it? 100? 1000? 1 million? When is a weapon too dangerous to be available commonplace in your opinion?
No one except liberals attempts to classify individual arms based on some inconsistent and dubious concepts of "magnitude of lethality" that is related to the prowess of a user wielding such a weapon.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Isn't Austria's military service age lower than 21?
They can just join military and access guns there -
No one except liberals attempts to classify individual arms based on some inconsistent and dubious concepts of "magnitude of lethality" that is related to the prowess of a user wielding such a weapon.
Literally every single government on this planet classifies and restricts weapons based on potential of danger/lethality.
Anything from knife types/blade lengths to gun caliber is regulated everywhere. The same applies to chemicals with which explosives/poisons can be manufactured. You can't order them in any country without filling out forms.
It's literally the most basic type of risk assessment possible and by far the most effective way to reduce harm.
