Shoot for fun

Several years ago I passed on stock Exchange square in Trieste with a friend, a Professor of philosophy at Boston University. Suddenly, he stopped and started taking pictures of motorbikes, scooters and mopeds. He told me (and I think he was right) that there are more motorized vehicles than in the entire state of Massachusetts. Without photoproofs none of his colleagues and friends would not believe his word. The existence of a huge number of motorcycles, scooters and mopeds in Italy is as unthinkable to most Americans as the wide distribution of firearms in the U.S. is unthinkable for Italians.


According to statistics, in the U.S. there are 100 million people who own firearms, and almost 300 million weapons. In 2015 alone has sold 23 million, and in 2016 — 27 million firearms. Almost 40% of American households have at least one type of firearms. Say, and quite rightly, that President Obama and the candidate in US presidents from Democratic party Hillary Clinton, quite unwittingly, provoked the biggest boom in the sale of firearms in the history of America. In fact, both have repeatedly insisted on the need of introducing much stricter rules of sale of weapons. And “gun enthusiasts”, as a consequence, hastened to buy, quite reasonably assuming that the United States will never confiscate the already acquired weapons, unlike what happened in the last few years in Australia and in England. Both Obama and Clinton openly stated that the example of Australia and Britain “should take the review.”

Now when trump, a life member of the National rifle Association of the USA (NSA), this concern is no longer relevant, and arms sales strongly declined. Recently trump took at the White house of the President of the NRA Wayne Lapierre (Wayne LaPierre). The President thanked him for nearly 5 million votes, and this is the number of members of this organization, existing since 1871, energetically and aggressively opposed Clinton and supported the trump.

Structural basis of possession and bearing of arms is the famous Second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which States: “Because a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Note that the text used the verb “infringed” and not “abolished” or “losing”. In the original the word “arms” is capitalized (Arms). Some representatives of the democratic party sent to the Supreme court report, emphasizing that the amendment restricts this right to an organized militia, not individual citizens. The Supreme court in your response (disagreement was expressed by only one person) confirmed that it was, in fact, is about the right of every citizen. The only voice who agreed with the statement of Democrats, belonged to the late Antonin Scalia (Antonin Scalia), to the place which trump wants to appoint conservative Gorsuch Neil (Neil Gorsuch), whose candidacy has not been confirmed yet. These days during the meeting to confirm (or oppose) candidates Gorsuch Senator Democrat from California Dianne Feinstein (Dianne Feinstein), an active opponent of the individual right to own and bear arms, Gorsuch asked his opinion about this issue. Gorsuch replied that this question cannot be of opinion, because it is the right given by the Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme court.

Some Democrats proposed to abolish the amendment, others suggested that it should apply exclusively to the era of the promulgation of the Constitution (1787), is distributed on muzzle-loading weapons (incredibly).

Obama, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein and other complacent opponents weapons, insisted on new restrictions on the basis of “common sense”. Insisting on the establishment of a universal check, without any exception, the reliability of the buyer (the formula is called universal background check). In favor of the fact that it is rather a myth, and not common sense, according to some basic factors. First, for many years any person purchasing from a licensed seller at any point in the United States, be subject to control by the FBI (for this there is a special phone number), which guarantees the absence of what in Italian is called a “certificate of conviction”. In addition, for each type of weapon, the buyer must fill out a form where he swears he has no previous convictions, he is not accused of committing violent acts does not acquire the weapons for another person, not entitled to own them, and about 15 points. In case of violation of the signed oath should be very severe punishment. In California, between this check and the actual receipt of the weapon has to pass at least one a month. Indeed, the arms may be acquired via the Internet, but never deliver. Instead, it is sent to the gun shop with a Federal license, which must make all necessary steps to control before you give the goods to the buyer. It is unclear why Obama a few months ago I said on television that the United States weapons are easier to buy than the book.

There is one loophole — the sale of arms by one private person to another private person during one of the very often held exhibitions of weapons, but only in some States. Application, as demanded by opponents of the amendment, the “universal” checks would be true, in fact, only in such cases. The arguments against the extensive NSA report prepared about three years ago about prisoners who have committed crimes with a firearm. Only 0.8% of them have acquired the murder weapon at the show. Meager amount. But not only that. If the law is passed, mandating the “universal test”, given that the phone number the FBI is unavailable to individuals, they will have to face a cumbersome and costly process of obtaining a Federal license of a certified gunsmith.

The probability that when trump, in the presence of a Republican majority in the House of representatives and the Senate would have adopted such a law, is equal to zero.
Under President trump has already passed the law guaranteeing the absence of punishment for the transportation of weapons (if it is unloaded and is in a sealed package) from the state where the traveler has permission to bear arms, or state does not require such a permit (e.g., Arizona, Vermont, Kansas, and others), the state with the same law. It is now possible to cross the States between these two and having more stringent legislation. In support of this new law cited the example of a real unpleasant episodes, often with imprisonment of travellers whose flights were cancelled or redirected, and motorists carrying weapons and remaining for the night in States with restrictive legislation.

NSA lobbied for a law that guarantees the validity of the permit to carry firearms, obtained in one state in all the others (as it works with a driver’s license). The fact that such a law can be adopted, likely, unlikely, given the great differences in the laws of each state: for example, it is very restrictive, for example, in new York, new Jersey and Chicago, by contrast, to say in such States as Arizona, Texas, Florida and Alaska.
One fact (confirmed by FBI statistics), which never mention the “benefactors of mankind”, is that the number of crimes involving firearms has fallen by almost half over the last 20 years, while arms sales have tripled. NSA argues that the link between facts a causal relationship (the criminals know that the likelihood of penetration into the house where the weapons are stored, or stumble upon a potential victim with a gun was much higher). There’s other reasons: the improvement of living standards and education, increasing the number of employment opportunities for minorities, a larger and more effective police.

“Do-gooders” are trying to avoid mentioning this fact. Just as they avoid talking about the fact that Chicago ranks first in the number of murders with firearms application, despite the presence there of the strictest laws in the country.

In addition to the reticence of these data, which do not play into their hands, the stubborn supporters of strict control over guns has made a number of errors. The Deputy from the state of Colorado, intending to reduce the number contained in the charger charges up to ten, believed that the clip is used only once. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg (Michael Bloomberg), who was at that time mayor of new York, received the most votes when voting for a law banning clips containing more than seven bullets, forgot to exclude the police and the FBI. This oversight was subsequently corrected. But restrictions on ordinary citizens continue to operate.

One fact, unfortunately, is fundamental. Many of the recent episodes of shootings, which killed many innocent victims could have been avoided if decisive preventive mental health care. The perpetrators of these crimes were patients with diagnosed mental illness, but nothing was done. American complacency, protection of private life faced a seemingly insoluble dilemma: to trumpet about banning gun ownership, but avoiding any preventive action against unbalanced people. The future will show us which solution will be found.

Another important things the NSA and supporters of the Second amendment is silent, considering it frivolous and counterproductive: for hunters and gun enthusiasts to shoot one of the most important pleasures available in this life. For the Amateur (and in this sector a growing number of women) knowledge on weapons, items often created at the highest level of engineering, with a long history of costly modifications are no less valuable than, for example, stamps, porcelain or machines. Refusing to admit it openly, the stubborn supporters of the Second amendment, somewhere in the depths, implicitly defending their weekly pleasure to have sport shooting and visits to the numerous small polygons. But, you say, that is so dangerous. Yes, as motorcycles and scooters. Each country has its own rules…