Want to be like Europe and socialist gun control mentality may want to rethink that gun control is working.
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/if-gun-control-works-in-europe-where-do-terrorists-get-their-weapons/
how terrorists in Europe manage to get so many weapons when there are strict gun control laws.
…how did the misfired terrorist acquire his intended implements of destruction in supposedly gun-phobic Europe? Could it be that firearms aren’t quite so unavailable as right-thinking policy-peddlers assure us on their way to insisting that Americans should be disarmed in (supposed) likewise fashion? It’s a question that was also raised in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack by terrorists wielding AK-style rifles, pistols, and submachine guns. Observers were puzzled because France’s gun laws are relatively restrictive, and the terrorists clearly hadn’t bothered to navigate the byzantine red tape to acquire their weapons. So, where did they come from? In both cases, the answer is the same. Black markets thrive where legal availability is restricted or forbidden. …Europe has, by and large, more restrictive firearms laws than most American states. But those laws haven’t had much effect on the actual availability of guns, since they’ve been met by defiance and helped breed a brisk underground trade. And they’re certainly no barrier to small numbers of terrorists who have dedicated themselves to harming others and see the law as no hurdle to achieving that goal. The main impact then of restrictive gun laws may be to strip law-abiding people of means with which they might defend themselves while leaving criminals and terrorists well-armed.
Many of America’s safest states have lots of guns and few restrictions.
Vermont has some of the loosest gun laws in America. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives it an “F.” The state requires no background checks for private gun sales, permits the sale and possession of “assault weapons,” and allows concealed guns to be carried in public—without a license. … In 2013, it had the third-lowest homicide rate in the country—less than one-sixth that of Louisiana. Utah, which also got an “F” on its laws from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, had the fourth-lowest homicide rate. These places refute the belief that loose gun rules and high ownership are bound to produce frenzies of carnage.
https://reason.com/archives/2015/09/01/europes-restrictive-gun-laws-disarm-vict
Yes, Europe has, by and large, more restrictive firearms laws than most American states. But those laws haven't had much effect on the actual availability of guns, since they've been met by defiance and helped breed a brisk underground trade. And they're certainly no barrier to small numbers of terrorists who have dedicated themselves to harming others and see the law as no hurdle to achieving that goal.
The main impact then of restrictive gun laws may be to strip law-abiding people of means with which they might defend themselves while leaving criminals and terrorists well-armed. That leaves intended victims in the difficult position of deciding whether to put their heads down and charge a homicidal fanatic holding an assault rifle. When successful, that makes for heroic headlines. But it's a hell of a risky tactic on which to rest your fate.
Reality check of the future:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/21/guns-mace-krav-maga-israelis-embrace-self-defense-amid-stabbing-wave/?intcmp=hpbt2#
