Gun Control

[Lanfear]

Hey look the grave dancers are out again. Kids murdered, ban guns, dance around, blame the NRA.

Why would people not express outrage at this kind of thing happening over and over again while US lawmakers, whose "donations" from the NRA are a matter of record, do absolutely nothing about it? Every time this kind of event occurs, it just further illustrates the point that the gun situation is out of control in the US, and those in power are happy to simply sit on their hands and allow gun-related fatalities to rise ad nauseum.

I think you may mean semi-automatic sport rifles like the AR-15 (which yes was even advertised by Colt in the 1960's and 70's for sale as a sport rifle) which are owned all over the world and those countries don't have the same issues.

Most countries also have a very different approach to gun ownership than the US. Things like restrictions on who can own what type of gun, mandatory registration of guns, restrictions on how guns can be stored on private property in order to minimise risk of theft, etc. Though let's be honest, it's become abundantly clear over the past decade that semi-automatic rifles shooting intermediate cartridges are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. Nothing else available on the civilian market really compares if you're going for a large number of fatalities. That's why so many countries restrict ownership of these weapons to occupational shooters.

Sure it will. My safe will be opened in 5 to 15 minutes by any competent burglar.

Doubtful. Breaking into a house and breaking into a safe are orders of magnitude apart from one another in terms of difficulty. One tends to have multiple points of ingress which can be breached by pretty much anyone at all, the other has a single point of ingress which is impossible for most people to breach and difficult for the rest. Gun safes by necessity have high burglary ratings where I live, I can't imagine it's much different where you are.

Yes, I'm totally going to take your random politically inspired news article over the fact that I know a teacher near the West Bank.

Conversely, why would anyone believe a random anecdote over an article in an Israeli publication?

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think what we have to learn out of this is, that the US has more in common with the Westbank and Somalia, when it comes to weapons, than let us say, Germany or France.

In my opinion it is kinda telling how often such places, which can be considered critical areas, are often used as 'positive' examples in defending US gun culture. Obviously, gun regulations regardless how sensible do not work here and are a flawed attempt, I mean com on the US is not Germany, right ... ?

 

[mithrap]

Sure it will. My safe will be opened in 5 to 15 minutes by any competent burglar.
That merely tells me you don't know your own country as well as you think you do.
There's over 30 guns per 100 inhabitants in France, and it's really not only hunting & self-defense weapons.
IPSC, three gun and other practical shooting disciplines are quite popular in your country.


Oh, you sweet summer child...
Seung-Hui Cho did far "better" than most rifle armed mass shooters and he was armed with the most basic as fuck 9x19mm duty pistol and a .22LR pistol. It's about understanding its strengths & weaknesses, and applying it correctly.
In close quarters, pistols may even be better because they're easier to protect someone from grabbing them when entering a room or making a turn.

Good points. As said, I don't have a dog in the fight, I'm just curious (curious, not judgmental) about why a civilian would want to buy military equipment.

Just for France though, some clarification. We are a complicated country when it comes to administrative stuff. Which is why our category A firearms include most semi-auto and auto rifles, true, but also every single tank, jet fighter, chopper, and their attached miniguns. Yeah, in the eyes of the law, they are literally the same thing, so it makes things very confusing when it comes to know how many weapons we actually have.
Then, we have the mess with category D firearms, which count every single thing you can imagine, including the shitloads of pellet guns we make for our fairs and carnivals every single year. Gas sprays and electrical sticks also fall under the category D, so depending on who you ask, they can or cannot be taken into accounts when it comes to know how many firearms we have (I know, it's dumb as hell, but this is the Frankia Administratum we are talking about).

Then, the number of category C rifles can sound pretty huge, but then again, we have 500 000 farms and about 40 hunters for each and every single one of our 35 000 towns. That, and as said, the fact that plenty of stuff that aren't firearms are still considered as such.

We have plenty of weapons, on paper. In reality, most french guys will never see a weapon, except in the hands of a hunter or a soldier, or in a shooting range.

 

[TheGM]

They should ban guns because of the following reasons.
1:Boo hoo hoo hoo
2:Boo hoo hoo hoo . . . hoo hoo hoo.
2: FINK OV DA CHILDRENS!
4: Boo hoo.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Oh look, we found the counterpart to MutantScalper.

 

[GonZo_626]

Why would people not express outrage at this kind of thing happening over and over again while US lawmakers, whose "donations" from the NRA are a matter of record, do absolutely nothing about it? Every time this kind of event occurs, it just further illustrates the point that the gun situation is absolutely out of control in the US, and those in power are happy to simply sit on their hands and allow gun-related injuries and fatalities to continue ad nauseum.

​

Express outrage yes, have a sensible discussion yes, hell go look at some of my past posts in this thread and you will see I am not necessarily against effective means of gun control, but having lots of emotion around the argument will just lead to bad laws that help no one and stop nothing. ​

Most countries also have a very different approach to gun ownership than the US. Things like restrictions on who can own what type of gun, mandatory registration of guns, restrictions on how guns can be stored on private property in order to minimise risk of theft, etc. Though let's be honest, it's become abundantly clear over the past decade that semi-automatic rifles shooting intermediate cartridges are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. Nothing else available on the civilian market really compares if you're going for a large number of fatalities. That's why so many countries restrict ownership of these weapons to occupational shooters.

Well I come from a country (Canada) that restricts some (sometimes for strange reasons like what was in Terminator 2 that scared them). But locked up at home I have an AR-15 and a 1911. And like I said earlier and in past posts banning a firearm that is functionally no different from any other semi-auto will accomplish nothing and the reason it is used is because it is the No. 1 selling firearm in the US, just on probability alone it would come up the most, and also be the most difficult to ban as the US would not be able to afford a buy back at this point most likely, and a forcible confiscation would lead to a civil war there.

Doubtful. Breaking into a house and breaking into a safe are orders of magnitude apart from one another in terms of difficulty. One tends to have multiple points of ingress which can be breached by pretty much anyone at all, the other has a single point of ingress which is impossible for most people to breach and difficult for the rest. Gun safes by necessity have high burglary ratings where I live, I can't imagine it's much different where you are.

Actually breaking into most gun safes would be no harder then the a house as although the front door on them is strong the walls a relatively weak. Or there is the instance in Australia where they just wrapped a chain around it, pulled it out the wall of the house using the very safe a the battering ram, and opening it at a later time. But I do agree safe storage is important and could help mitigate some of the problems in the US.

A real discussion about this would not come from bad evidence. The AR-15 is functionally no different then many semi-auto hunting rifles, and the ergonomic parts on it do nothing to increase the fire rate or lethality of it. Terms like assault weapon are made up, an assault rifle is full-auto, and heavily regulated in the US. And as for a large number of fatalities, I would think a mag fed, semi auto shotgun could be much more lethal in a indoor space. Did you know the AR-15 for the most part is useless hunting as the round it fires is not as great at killing as say a 300 win mag, .308, 7mm, etc.... The military has used the intermediate cartridge for so long due to penetration of armour, and the rounds being lighter to allow a solider to easily carry the 1000 rounds in there ruck, not because it is more lethal. They are actually looking at switching back to the 7.62x51mm (.308) or something similar as most armours nowadays can easily stop the 5.56x45mm (.223).

Licensing is where I think the US should go, makes it easier to do background checks, makes it easier to see who illegally obtained their firearm (no license), and would be a benefit for most US shooters as no more pesky wait periods. Commit a crime loose your license. I have actually read that the NRA would somewhat support licensing depending on what conditions there were as they have blocked it in the past when they try to add some stupid conditions like you cannot supervise one of your children using one of your firearms. So no longer will you be able to take you kids hunting with you and such.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

You know, when it comes to school shootings, you're right, it's not about the guns. It's about mental health and the mental health care reform that it'd ensue to prevent further cases- Ohh. Alright, better have Old Davey the janitor be packing heat instead.

 

[Lanfear]

Well I come from a country (Canada) that restricts some (sometimes for strange reasons like what was in Terminator 2 that scared them). But locked up at home I have an AR-15 and a 1911. And like I said earlier and in past posts banning a firearm that is functionally no different from any other semi-auto will accomplish nothing and the reason it is used is because it is the No. 1 selling firearm in the US, just on probability alone it would come up the most, and also be the most difficult to ban as the US would not be able to afford a buy back at this point most likely, and a forcible confiscation would lead to a civil war there.​

AR-15s are relatively light, intuitive to operate, easy to shoot, they can hold large magazines, they fire an intermediate cartridge which is very effective at inflicting fatal wounds on man-sized targets, and they fire them rapidly. All of those things make them (and any equivalent firearm platform) an enormous public risk should they find their way into the hands of a mass shooter, much moreso than a manual-action firearm or even a handgun.

In Australia all semi-automatic centerfire rifles are restricted to category D license holders (meaning occupational shooters), which is a restriction I agree with. I have a difficult time coming up with practical reasons for why allowing people to own weapons in this class might justify the potential risk that increasing the number of them in general circulation presents to the public. Culling dangerous pest animals in large numbers is about it, and people doing that would generally have access to a category D license regardless.

What you say about a buyback is true, and one of the reasons I despair of the situation in the US. There are simply so many firearms in circulation there, they've let it get so far out of control, that any proper solution would by necessity be extremely costly and extremely contentious.​

Actually breaking into most gun safes would be no harder then the a house as although the front door on them is strong the walls a relatively weak.

Firearm storage in Australia is subject to police inspection to determine whether the safe is secure enough, but in any case you would be hard-pressed to find a gun safe that's easier to break open than a window.

A real discussion about this would not come from bad evidence. The AR-15 is functionally no different then many semi-auto hunting rifles, and the ergonomic parts on it do nothing to increase the fire rate or lethality of it. Terms like assault weapon are made up, an assault rifle is full-auto, and heavily regulated in the US. And as for a large number of fatalities, I would think a mag fed, semi auto shotgun could be much more lethal in a indoor space. Did you know the AR-15 for the most part is useless hunting as the round it fires is not as great at killing as say a 300 win mag, .308, 7mm, etc.... The military has used the intermediate cartridge for so long due to penetration of armour, and the rounds being lighter to allow a solider to easily carry the 1000 rounds in there ruck, not because it is more lethal. They are actually looking at switching back to the 7.62x51mm (.308) or something similar as most armours nowadays can easily stop the 5.56x45mm (.223).

Part of why I believe there is no good reason for these guns to be generally available is precisely because they aren't particularly suitable for e.g. hunting - intermediate cartridges are designed primarily for use against man-sized targets. I would never have used .223 Rem for hunting - it's too heavy a cartridge for small game and too light a cartridge for most larger game. What's that leave for recreational shooters to do with these guns? Shoot targets? I simply don't see how it's worth the risk.

Also, semi-automatic shotguns with large (>5 cartridge) magazines are subject to the exact same restrictions here as semi-automatic rifles, for the same reason.

Licensing is where I think the US should go, makes it easier to do background checks, makes it easier to see who illegally obtained their firearm (no license), and would be a benefit for most US shooters as no more pesky wait periods. Commit a crime loose your license. I have actually read that the NRA would somewhat support licensing depending on what conditions there were as they have blocked it in the past when they try to add some stupid conditions like you cannot supervise one of your children using one of your firearms. So no longer will you be able to take you kids hunting with you and such.

A gun license shouldn't cover someone's children anyway; it'd undermine the licensing process. When I took up shooting in my teens I had to obtain a minor's license and complete a safety course on gun use. It made sense to me then and still does now.

 

[GonZo_626]

AR-15s are relatively light, intuitive to operate, easy to shoot, they can hold large magazines, they fire an intermediate cartridge which is very effective at inflicting fatal wounds on man-sized targets, and they fire them rapidly. All of those things make them (and any equivalent firearm platform) an enormous public risk should they find their way into the hands of a mass shooter, much moreso than a manual-action firearm or even a handgun.

In Australia all semi-automatic centerfire rifles are restricted to category D license holders (meaning occupational shooters), which is a restriction I agree with. I have a difficult time coming up with practical reasons for why allowing people to own weapons in this class might justify the potential risk that increasing the number of them in general circulation presents to the public. Culling dangerous pest animals in large numbers is about it, and people doing that would generally have access to a category D license regardless.​

Yes but here in Canada where we did not institute draconian gun laws like Australia and are still allowed semi-auto rifles and handguns we do not have the same problems as the US. So to say banning the action would result is less deaths is not true. Even in the US the rate of violent crime is falling and has been since the 70's. Much like the rest of the Western world except in a few outlier years in places in Australia directly following the 2 years after your huge gun ban. Also Australia now has more firearms per capita then it did before the buy back. Less guns does not automatically equal less death and banning specific firearms does not equal less deaths. Even Australia has had quite a few mass killings but they tend to use arson. Just like banning guns did not drop the suicide rate but just the suicide with firearms, hanging took its place I think.​

Firearm storage in Australia is subject to police inspection to determine whether the safe is secure enough, but in any case you would be hard-pressed to find a gun safe that's easier to break open than a window.

While I agree most windows (there are some nice clear coatings that make breaking windows hard like 10kg hammer bounce off hard) would be easier, that does not make a safe hard to someone determined and I could do it with the tools found in my garage in about 5 min for a $2000 safe

Part of why I believe there is no good reason for these guns to be generally available is precisely because they aren't particularly suitable for e.g. hunting - intermediate cartridges are designed primarily for use against man-sized targets. I would never have used .223 Rem for hunting - it's too heavy a cartridge for small game and too light a cartridge for most larger game. What's that leave for recreational shooters to do with these guns? Shoot targets? I simply don't see how it's worth the risk.

Also, semi-automatic shotguns with large (>5 cartridge) magazines are subject to the exact same restrictions here as semi-automatic rifles, for the same reason.

​

​

The military adopted the .223, it is actual a varmint control round and excellent against things like hogs, or coyotes (trust me I have a nice bolt-action in the same caliber for coyotes and foxes). We have magazine limits in Canada for semi-auto's, but pull a pin and that 5 round mag has become 20, 30, 100, etc. And as far as the recreational sports:



​

A gun license shouldn't cover someone's children anyway; it'd undermine the licensing process. When I took up shooting in my teens I had to obtain a minor's license and complete a safety course on gun use. It made sense to me then and still does now.

It does not completely cover a child in Canada either, but they do not need a minors license here (but they can get one and buy ammo with one), we do a hunters training course, but a guardian is allowed to supervise their child using one of the guardians firearms. The last time I saw about the US going for licensing no one but the license holder could shoot the firearm, so no taking some friends to the range, children hunting, gopher (groundhog) shooting with a .22 and such, this is what the NRA opposed and in my opinion for good reason.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Licensing is where I think the US should go, makes it easier to do background checks, makes it easier to see who illegally obtained their firearm (no license), and would be a benefit for most US shooters as no more pesky wait periods. Commit a crime loose your license.

Block-Chained credentials.

 

[TheGM]

Yes but here in Canada

How does Canada deal with Crazy people? can a family member ship one off to a state run mental facility? You could do this in the states until Regan shut them down in the 80's.

Licensing is where I think the US should go, makes it easier to do background checks, makes it easier to see who illegally obtained their firearm (no license), and would be a benefit for most US shooters as no more pesky wait periods. Commit a crime loose your license. I have actually read that the NRA would somewhat support licensing depending on what conditions there were as they have blocked it in the past when they try to add some stupid conditions like you cannot supervise one of your children using one of your firearms. So no longer will you be able to take you kids hunting with you and such.

My state has licensing for gun owners. you can't even buy ammunition without one.

 

[GonZo_626]

How does Canada deal with Crazy people? can a family member ship one off to a state run mental facility? You could do this in the states until Regan shut them down in the 80's.

My state has licensing for gun owners. you can't even buy ammunition without one.

Well healthcare is handled differently here...... also unlike the FBI we don't screw up investigations so much. Your license can be revoked if your Doctor or a family member does not think you should have it anymore. You need references and spousal signoff to obtain. Under a certain age no restricted ownership (handguns and a few long rifle semi's like the AR (for some reason) or anything semi with less then 18.5" barrel without the break) Our system is not perfect and could be relaxed some in my opinion as mag limits are useless and such, but hey I get a license to drive, why not to shoot.

And yes we cannot buy ammo without showing our license.

 

[Lanfear]

Yes but here in Canada where we did not institute draconian gun laws like Australia and are still allowed semi-auto rifles and handguns we do not have the same problems as the US.​

You also have fewer than one third the guns per capita that the US has, and you have more or less the same range of gun laws that every other country uses to mitigate the risks of private firearm ownership. You might think restricting semi-automatic centerfires is draconian (I'm sure there are people who would even argue that restricting fully automatic weapons is draconian), but it's really just another element of risk mitigation vs public need.

Even in the US the rate of violent crime is falling and has been since the 70's.

Violent crime figures aren't relevant to the effectiveness of gun control. Gun laws don't exist to directly affect the frequency of violent crime, they exist to reduce frequency of gun-related crime, and thereby to reduce the overall lethality of violent incidents.

Gun-related deaths in the US are not falling, they've been rising for the past three years.

Also Australia now has more firearms per capita then it did before the buy back.

Present per capita gun ownership in Australia is actually around 80% of what it was before the 1996 buyback. Most of the increase in guns per capita here over the past decade has been focused on a relatively small number of private gun owners stockpiling ridiculous numbers of guns, something I sincerely wish the law would come down harder on.

Less guns does not automatically equal less death and banning specific firearms does not equal less deaths.

Fewer guns in circulation equals fewer firearm-related deaths. Shootings have high fatality rates compared to other violent incidents. It's not a tenuous connection. Claiming that a ban on specific firearms doesn't reduce firearm-related deaths leads to some rather absurd conclusions - why then would pretty much every country in the world restrict private ownership of military-grade weapons? Some types of firearms simply pose a greater public risk than others, to debate that would be pointless.

Even Australia has had quite a few mass killings but they tend to use arson. Just like banning guns did not drop the suicide rate but just the suicide with firearms, hanging took its place I think.

Again, the point of gun laws is not to stop all homicides or suicides from occurring, it's simply to control a major vector by which they occur. Committing suicide with a gun is a lot quicker, simpler and less likely to fail than trying to hang yourself. That alone is enough to give many people pause.​

While I agree most windows (there are some nice clear coatings that make breaking windows hard like 10kg hammer bounce off hard) would be easier, that does not make a safe hard to someone determined and I could do it with the tools found in my garage in about 5 min for a $2000 safe

I'm pretty dubious of this claim every time I hear it. Are your gun safes made out of balsawood or something? There is no way I would've been able to simply bash my gun safe open.

The military adopted the .223, it is actual a varmint control round and excellent against things like hogs, or coyotes (trust me I have a nice bolt-action in the same caliber for coyotes and foxes). We have magazine limits in Canada for semi-auto's, but pull a pin and that 5 round mag has become 20, 30, 100, etc.

.223 would be appropriate for foxes, that's true. But I don't know why you would need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt those. I can certainly imagine situations in which whatever a person is hunting might pose enough of a threat to warrant carrying a semi-automatic (like a herd of feral pigs), but I think at this stage you're beginning to stretch the boundaries of what a responsible amateur hunter would be attempting in the first place. You may as well begin selling your kills to a butcher and register as an income-earning hunter so that you can apply for a cat D.

It does not completely cover a child in Canada either, but they do not need a minors license here (but they can get one and buy ammo with one), we do a hunters training course, but a guardian is allowed to supervise their child using one of the guardians firearms. The last time I saw about the US going for licensing no one but the license holder could shoot the firearm, so no taking some friends to the range, children hunting, gopher (groundhog) shooting with a .22 and such, this is what the NRA opposed and in my opinion for good reason.

I don't agree, I think it's wise to make kids aware of the responsibilities involved in shooting before letting them handle a gun at all. I think a large part of the gun problem in the US is cultural, in that gun ownership is seen as a right much moreso than as a responsibility; educating kids would go a long way to changing that.

Ranges here are permitted to have special licenses that enable unlicensed visitors to use the range's own guns, I assume it's similar in most countries with gun licensing.​

 

[MutantScalper]

Btw this guy was a MAGA-hat wearing right-wing extreme terrorist. Why aren't we blaming that ideology and droning the headquarters of right-wing organisations, like the one he supported?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Because we have a brain and don't make the same mistakes like others, where we reduce a killer to only one characteristic, like his religion, skin colour, or culture.

People are the sum of their parts, some aspects are more important than others, as your political views probably influence you more than the type of coffee you prefer, but at the end of the day blaming it on Trumps ideology solely would be as stupid like blaming every devoted muslim for the actions of radicals.

We're leftists MutantScalper, let us not behave like right wingers, mkay?

While I agree most windows (there are some nice clear coatings that make breaking windows hard like 10kg hammer bounce off hard) would be easier, that does not make a safe hard to someone determined and I could do it with the tools found in my garage in about 5 min for a $2000 safe

Fair enough.

Now all you have to do, is to figure out how to get that garage into the weapon owners home for profit!

 

[SuAside]

Doubtful. Breaking into a house and breaking into a safe are orders of magnitude apart from one another in terms of difficulty. One tends to have multiple points of ingress which can be breached by pretty much anyone at all, the other has a single point of ingress which is impossible for most people to breach and difficult for the rest. Gun safes by necessity have high burglary ratings where I live, I can't imagine it's much different where you are.

The average european gun safe can be opened without powertools. You merely need a pry bar.
The safes are sheet metal with some reinforcement at critical spots, but sometimes not even that.
Real heavy duty safes tend to be too heavy for most people to properly put in their house. (and putting a heavy duty safe in your garage is about as safe as putting a cheapo safe on your second floor)

Conversely, why would anyone believe a random anecdote over an article in an Israeli publication?

I'm not asking you to believe anything. This thread is 71 pages now and before this one there were many others. If I felt the need to prove everything people challenge me (or other gun owners) about in this thread, it would be a full time job.
I don't care anymore. I've tried it before, but it just doesn't work. Every proof can be read multiple ways or simply brushed aside if it doesn't fit a person's narrative.
In the end this is about philosophy and morality.

 

[Crni Vuk]

But what is fact is that Europe has much less gun viollence compared to the US, even if you look at it directly comparing deaths per capita from Britain, Germany, France etc.
Now, there are multiple reasons for that, but there can be no dispute about this - in my opinion, less guns in circulation means less viollent gun crimes. I mean there has been long research on that and the numbers are out there. Restrictions do help to improve the situation.

And I would argue that you're in most EU nations safer than in the United States. But that's just how I feel about it.

 

[SuAside]

But what is fact is that Europe has much less gun viollence compared to the US, even if you look at it directly comparing deaths per capita from Britain, Germany, France etc.

Sure, but there's also examples of countries with far stricter gun laws with much higher gun crime. This discussion is about more than statistics.

Now, there are multiple reasons for that, but there can be no dispute about this - in my opinion, less guns in circulation means less violent gun crimes.

You're taking a shortcut there. I'd agree with less unregulated guns in circulation means less violent gun crime, yes.

I mean there has been long research on that and the numbers are out there. Restrictions do help to improve the situation.

Again, you're falling into the trap of blind extrapolation. There is literally no research that is fully applicable to the USA because none such situation has ever existed where there were so many guns in circulation and which would then be more strictly regulated. We have general ideas about that will happen, but that entirely depends on the level of regulation.
What increased regulation in Belgium has done twice, is feed the black market full of guns. A fuckton of guns disappeared rather than go through the registration process. It's likely that such regulation may be net positive in the very long term, but it's highly likely that it will cause more gun crime in the short term.

Increasing regulation (registration, licensing, etc) also endangers what a lot of people view as the reason why the second amendment exists. I assume that's a price you are willing to pay, but it's not our choice to make as foreigners.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Damn skippy.

Have we found out what psych meds this kid was on yet? At what point do we hold the parents liable for not securing their firearms from their over-pharmaceuticalized children?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Sure, but there's also examples of countries with far stricter gun laws with much higher gun crime.

Which one? Just curious, as it would surprise me if we're talking about a democracy here.

I'd agree with less unregulated guns in circulation means less violent gun crime, yes.

That's all I am trying to say.

Again, you're falling into the trap of blind extrapolation. There is literally no research that is fully applicable to the USA because none such situation has ever existed where there were so many guns in circulation and which would then be more strictly regulated. We have general ideas about that will happen, but that entirely depends on the level of regulation.

That wasn't my point though. All I am saying is, less guns in circulation equalls less gun viollence. And there is, in my opinion, a lot of evidence to back that one up. Germany, France, Britain, Australia, Sweden, Norway and many more. All have less gun related deaths per capita compared to the US. That's me merely stating the facts. What ever if that is applicable to the United States or not, is an entirely different discussion. But one can accept those simply as the situation as it is, without being pro or anti gun.

Who knows what the situation will be in 2068 and if the people in the US will have more stricter gun laws. Societies change. That's simply how it goes.