Side story on the recent gun spree

[Fuchs]

(Paintball) toys look so indistinguishable from the real thing that an increasing number of crims are using them. A cop shooting a thus 'armed' crim is in kakstreet.

No, they don't. That other kind of gun which fires half gram pellets does. I forgot how they're being called.

Paintball/Gotcha weapons usually have a prominent gravity feeder device on top.

[carl]

Fuchs and Kiwigrunt:

I think you guys are speaking of what are known as airsoft guns here in the US.

http://www.hobbytron.com/ElectricAirsoftRifles.html

Many are made to look exactly like the real thing. They shoot, I believe little plastic pellets or BBs.

The only time I ever ran into them as an officer was when hoods would buy them in order to frighten other people without the danger of being charged with felon in possession of a gun.

They are basically adult toys that people use to shoot up (dent at best) tin cans in the basement.

Kiwigrunt:

Whatever controls you put on weapons will only be complied with by law abiding people. Hoods would not bother getting licensed.

[jmm99]

At what point in the weapons control spectrum will law abiding people resist and refuse to comply by:

1. Non-violent resistence ala Gene Sharp, which could get quite confrontational; or

2. Selective violence in support of a larger poltical effort; or

3. Confrontation with military forces if those forces are ordered to quell the "insurrection".

In the US, resistence has been via the courts and the ballot box.

Is there any history in other countries where weapons control programs (including confiscation by whatever name) have been resisted in any of the three escalating ways described above ?

AUS and NZ seem to have accepted the gun controls without substantial adverse struggle. Has that also been the case in Europe ? - my knowledge of response to gun control there is frankly minimal.

Regards

Mike

[Kiwigrunt]

I have pondered over that question a bit myself. I don’t know of any examples. It would depend on a lot of variables. In the US the most prolific variable would be the second amendment. I don’t think anything like it exists anywhere else. As such, I don’t think that the sense of right and entitlement associated with it exists as strongly anywhere else. In NZ, owning guns is really more of a privilege than an absolute right.

For what it’s worth, the gun laws in NZ are still among the more lenient in the world (I’m pretty sure the next massacre here will put an end to that). This is starkly contrasted by Aus where they are among the most draconian. (Ausies come here to play with SLRs.)

I should think that in democratic (Western) countries, the democratic discourse and system are now so entrenched that significant resistance outside of courts is unlikely….but for that tipping point…

It is also a matter of conditioning and mindset. When I first got my licence I did not apply for any endorsements. As much as I was interested in evil guns, I was happy to just play with bolt actions. I then got one of those thumbhole FALs with a 7 shot bullet box. When the police attempted to close that loophole, I was forced to either get rid of it, or apply for the appropriate endorsement along with a higher level of storage security. Needless to say, I chose the latter. My mindset is now conditioned to that….uhmmmm….right. Had I stayed in Holland (22 years ago) I would probably never even have considered a licence. I know full well that I need to enjoy my guns while I still can. It is not a matter of if; it is a matter of when.

Given the very strong conditioning and rights mindset in the US, I should think that a radical approach to control like that in Aus will ruffle some feathers and invite reactions beyond just the legal variety. If the US govt was to have intentions of going anywhere near that far, then they would have to implement changes in stages, proportionate to the extent to which people are ‘willing’ to have their conditioning affected at any given time. But, even if this round of control is not a planned first stage, it will become one by default. NY may already be an example of that.

In NZ, I doubt we would even see much of Mike’s point 1, even with sudden radical control.
In the US, I would not be surprised to see some of point 2, but I can’t see how it would support a larger political effort.
I deem point 3 very unlikely both here and in the US. We like to think that we are right and in our right and all of that, but no one in their right mind will want to go that far. We have it too good and there is far too much to lose. And think about it, what law abiding citizen wants to shoot at our soldiers or police (even if delusional enough to think they stand a chance)? After all, they are us and we are them. Also, to stand even the slightest chance, large numbers are necessary. I think our democratic mindsets and comfort levels preclude us from uniting to an extent required for any form of armed revolution. All of that said; there may still be some individual nutcases willing to give it a go. They will lose more that their guns.

[davidbfpo]

At what point in the weapons control spectrum will law abiding people resist and refuse to comply by:

1. Non-violent resistence ala Gene Sharp, which could get quite confrontational; or
2. Selective violence in support of a larger poltical effort; or
3. Confrontation with military forces if those forces are ordered to quell the "insurrection".

In the US, resistence has been via the courts and the ballot box.

Is there any history in other countries where weapons control programs (including confiscation by whatever name) have been resisted in any of the three escalating ways described above ? AUS and NZ seem to have accepted the gun controls without substantial adverse struggle. Has that also been the case in Europe ? - my knowledge of response to gun control there is frankly minimal.

Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.

In recent UK experience legislation to implement further weapons control has come after massacres, Dumblane in 1996 with sixteen dead children and one adult teacher (at a school) and the 1997 Firearms Act:

which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom.

and Hungerford in 1987, with seventeen killed in the streets of a small town, and the 1988 Firearms Act:

banned the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges (in magazine plus the breech).

Links for Dunblane:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre and Hungerford:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

Which came first is a moot point, public concern and revulsion or a political response "to show control". My recollection is that the legislation was largely unopposed in parliament and public opinion was so in favour extra-parliamentary opposition could easily be ignored.

Actual implementation was easy, as all the weapons legally held were registered with the police and so the vast majority were surrendered. Needless to say not all, as this curious incident shows:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-20994897

It is noteworthy that the Cumbria incident in 2010, with twelve dead shot in a rural area, by a man with a legally held shotgun and bolt action rifle, led to no further weapons control:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

There is a substantial minority here who see that weapons control has disarmed the rural population and reflects the views of an urban elite whon have pursued other laws, notably around "field sports". See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countryside_Alliance

Has weapons control been effective in the UK? For legally held, declared weapons I'd say yes. Much of that success comes from the simple fact gun ownership is so small, farmers, enthusiasts and rural dwellers. As for illegal firearms that is quite different, I'd say no. The complicated array of legislation is a hindrance and pro-active LE investigations are rare. Anecdote suggests obtaining ammunition is the problem, not having a gun.

[Firn]

@jmm99: Here we have the fastest gun in Biathlon, the Austrian Simon Eder:



The stock is of course shaped one the shooter according to his will and purse. His rifle can easily very naturally on his open hand which forms a very stable support down to the elbow resting on the hip bone. A center-fire rifle which a stable magazine of the right lenght and width ( 5 rounds of a slight staggered 308 is fine to me) can be held in a similar way, especially if it is a bit front-heavy.

Being left-eyed dominant I shot on targets mostly with my left, but while hunting I use my right for the action. Still sometimes I switch as it makes shooting from 1 to 3 o'clock much easier from a stand or behind some cover.

---

@davidbfpo:

In quite some areas of northern Italy a considerable quantity of old bolt-action carabines were hidden in the last days of WWI and especially during WWII with the dispersal of many Italian regiments in 1943, the partisan war and the German retreat. Those, in addition of 'civil' weapons of older date were mostly simply not registered and quite a few were used for poaching in the lean years after the war.

If you talk at the right occasions to the right people, who know whom they can trust, one might get a lot of sometimes very similar stories of the weapons of now usually dead people. Keep in mind that the Italian law allows you to keep 'discovered' weapons if they are no 'military' ( think automatic) weapons if you follow the due legal process. (The irony is of course rather obvious, considering that most are infact rifles used during the last big war). The law enforcements and the courts usually don't bother the person in question too much. This mostly relative lax approach has certainly helped to make a good amount of those old firearms legal - and registered. The lack of interest or the silence of others has likely made sure that a good deal of them remain hidden, with many already rendered useless by rust.

P.S: At least in my region I know of no murder comitted by such a weapon.

[jmm99]

David,

I don't quite understand the logic of this:

Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.

Who, in their right mind, would employ any of the three resistence methodologies before a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control ? Even Gene Sharp's non-violent resistence methods often are illegal or involve some illegal acts. Hence, even they are a last resort.

When legislative and executive decisions are pending (as is now ongoing in the US), resort to political and legal methods (ballot box, lobbying, civil court actions, etc.) are the acceptable methods. Then, it depends ...

I'd not be surprised that little or no resistence has been offered against gun control measures adopted in European countries, or in the UK and its colonies. As I understand the history there, Kiwigrunt's comment is quite valid:

... owning guns is really more of a privilege than an absolute right.

The American experiences (and its pieces of paper) are quite different.

As an example, I'd suggest Lexington-Concord (April 19, 1775), which was an attempted seizure of illegal weapons by soldiers of the lawfully-constituted civil authority. From the British Documents:

Orders from General Thomas Gage to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot, Boston, April 18, 1775

Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.

One can find in Massachusetts of that time (even before shots were fired at Lexington) examples of:

1. Non-violent resistence.

2. Selective violence in support of a larger political effort.

3. Confrontation with military forces.

Those methods were just as unlawful then as now. The American patriots were well aware that, if one commits sedition and treason, one had best win - or be prepared to suffer the consequences of losing, including the loss of one's own life.

So, American experiences and ideology (as framed by the Second Amendment) may be unique - as any country has some unique aspects that are material to insurgency and counter-insurgency.

Regards

Mike

PS: Examples of point 2 ("selective violence") are easily found in the era of Reconstruction, Redemption and Restoration (1866-1906). The major efforts by all sides in that complex struggle were political and legal ("lawfare" with some vengence). However, violence was strewn throughout the period - in aid of the political and legal efforts which were the primary focus.

That violence often centered on who was to possess and use firearms. In McDonald v Chicago, Justice Thomes (pp. 67-122) did a bangup job in presenting this history of selective violence and its materiality to the Second Amendment; e.g.:

Take, for example, the Hamburg Massacre of 1876. There, a white citizen militia sought out and murdered a troop of black militiamen for no other reason than that they had dared to conduct a celebratory Fourth of July parade through their mostly black town. The white militia commander, “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman, later described this massacre with pride: “[T]he leading white men of Edgefield” had decided “to seize the first opportunity that the negroes might offer them to provoke a riot and teach the negroes a lesson by having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable.” S. Kantrowitz, Ben Tillman & the Reconstruction of White Supremacy 67 (2000) (ellipsis, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). None of the perpetrators of the Hamburg murders was ever brought to justice.[22]

[22]Tillman went on to a long career as South Carolina’s Governor and, later, United States Senator. Tillman’s contributions to campaign finance law have been discussed in our recent cases on that subject. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (slip. op., at 2, 42, 56, 87) (discussing at length the Tillman Act of 1907, 34 Stat. 864). His contributions to the culture of terrorism that grew in the wake of Cruikshank had an even more dramatic and tragic effect.

McDonald, p.119.

The selective violence in 1775 Massachusetts was on a lesser scale than such scenes as the Hamburg Massacre of 1876. It was more intimidation and assaults on civilian and military agents of the lawfully-constituted civil authority.

[slapout9]

Link to a recent blog over at Fabius Maximus on the regulation of gun ownership(probably better defined as possession since ownership was never revoked) in the Wild West.



http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/24/...ld-west-48208/