Very incorrect. As I sad in my earlier post the '68 GCA only banned import of small handguns that lacked specific features such as adjustable sights and “target grips.” There have never been a federal law that banned low quality guns though it’s been tried several times. Even modern high quality guns are affected by the law. The Walther PPK cannot be imported so Walther "invented the PPK/S, a PPK slide and barrel with the slightly longer PP frame which made it big enough to import. The PPK sold now is made in the US. The Walther P22 is wildly popular but could be imported if it didn’t have adjustable sights.
The GCA had the practical effect of drying up supplies of many cheap import handguns but it never made it illegal to manufacture the same thing here or sell them imported or domestic. Some folks say the unitended consequence of the GCA was to force criminals to use better guns.
It’s probably foolish of me to try to explain the pheonmenon of everyday, ordinary people with ordinary jobs applying for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in the US to someone outside America, but as a new handgun shooter, and a Canadian, I think I may have enough of a foot in your camp and in the American gun culture camp to perhaps try to bridge the gap.
Please note that I will be speaking of ordinary people here, not the fringe survivalist who stashes an arsenal in the woods. Also, it is not my intention to try to justify this practice, only to try to offer some insights to help non-Americans, particularly citizens of the Commonwealth, to help you understand it a bit better.
Mods, if I tray too far beyond the bounds of this forum, please feel free to act accordingly.
Firstly, if one were to contemplate what could motivate an Aussie, or most Canucks outside of Alberta, to want to carry a concealed handgun everywhere, one would indeed be horrified at the level of crime risk and social degradation required to motivate such a choice.
It would be incorrect, however, to assume that such circumstances prevail in the environments where most Americans who chose to carry live & work.
There is a big cultural difference at play here, that can be easy to miss because of the common language. I will try to be succinct. A great many Americans place a huge emphasis on individual self-reliance, self sufficiency, and the freedom to do as one sees fit free from governmental cohersion; to be fair, they also place a great deal of importance on individual responsibility for ones’ actions, and responsibility for the well-being of their immediate family. This leads them to see government, and its agents, as a necessary evil to be controlled and minimized. This has greatly influenced their constitution, the scope of governmental powers, the role of government in people’s lives, etc. in ways in which the world is reasonably familiar. To risk a gross oversimplification, it is a cultural effect of the pioneer circumstances in which so many early Americans had to live, with absolutely no external support, for so many years.
Canadians, and I suspect, Australians too, prefer to rely on a combination of government action and a common agreement to collectively respect some social rules, to ensure “peace, order and good government”. It is a common belief in Canada that it is the role of the police to protect us, and our loved ones from the violent criminal elements of society.
The protection of self and loved ones from immediate violent harm, from the American perspective, is seen as one’s personal responsibility, as too important to leave to an agent of the government; these individuals see the role of police to be catching criminals after they commit crimes, not to act as a bodyguard for each and every citizen.
Since one of the main reasons many early settlers emigrated to America was to avoid persecution of many forms from overly intrusive governments, one of the values that emerged in the American phsyche was that a man’s home was his “Castle”, in which Government inrtusion was to be severely curtailed and limited. This has had an effect on laws that regulate the level of violence permissible in self-defence. In many states, there is no “duty to flee” before using deadly force for self-defence in one is one’s home, as opposed to on the street. This facilitates the use of deadly force means, such as firearms, for home defence.
Finally, although crime rates in most of the US (excluding some high crime areas) can be said to be comparable to rates in other first world countries such as Canada & Australia, there is a higher probability that the crimes that do occur will feature a firearm. This does make the possibility of arming one’s self more attractive. Especially so because a responsible CCW permit holder can have a distinct advantage over a gun weilding criminal due to the possibility for the citizen to receive training, and practice regularly. Firing a handgun accurately, consistently, and quickly, in a stressful situation, is vastly more difficult than is commonly thought. I can attest to that personally, well, except for the “stressful situation” part.
Incidentally, as a Canadian for whom the concept of armed citizens was an alien one, I can say that I have been greatly impressed by how seriously most CCW holders with whom I have corresponded take the responsibility they assume when they begin to carry, and how much more calmly they then approach the irritations of daily interactions with fellow citizens.
So to try summarise, many Americans are choosing to arm themselves as they go about their daily business not because they live in urban combat zones, but rather because they see it as their own personal responsability, rather than the authorities’, to protect themselves and their family.
I hope this helps. American Dopers, feel free to correct me.
Jeff Cooper was once asked about the .25 auto cartridge. His response was:
Buy one if you must, but never load it. If you load it, you might shoot someone. And if you shoot someone with it, he might get very angry and do you violence.
(The .25 auto is a terrificly underpowered cartridge, about equivilant to a .22 short.)
This is very close, but off slightly. The concept of “natural law” comes in to play here. Of course, “natural law” is a huge topic, but for purposes of our discussion it involves this: that people are granted rights by their Creator (or, if you prefer, “Nature”) that government cannot interfere with. Note, for example, that the American Bill of Rights is almost exclusively a list of things that government cannot do. Why? Because those things interfere with rights that we were granted by $Deity.
Anyway, one of these “inalienable rights” is the right to defend oneself. Thus, in the absence of government - such as the case would be in your own home, late at night - you have the right given to you by God - not the US government - to defend yourself. If goverment was there - if you had your own police officer (acting as an agent of the state) sitting downstairs waiting for someone to break in your house - it would then be unlawful for you to then shoot someone (provided that the officer was not incapacitated and could act (as the state) to stop a crime from happening in the first place.
The same applies to freedom of speech. The right to speak your mind is not something the government can either give or take away. It’s yours. Courts have ruled that this is not an unlimited right (i.e. you can’t shout “fire!” in a crowded theate when there is no fire), but courts have been historically quite reluctant to grant government censorship rights in FoS cases.
It’s a subtle difference, but one that comes into play more often that you’d think. It’s not so much a “personal responsibility” - in the same sense that it’s a “personal responsibility” to be on time to work or educate your children. Rather, it’s your right as a human being to defend yourself, and if government cannot do it, knock yourself out, then.
Plus, “natural law” explains much in the way of the American “screw the government!” attitude in general.
On second thought, you might want to just read John Locke’sTwo Treatises of Government instead. Locke’s work had a huge impact on the formation of American government; you might even remember that one of Locke’s phrases - “life, liberty and porperty” was lifted by Thomas Jefferson when he was writing the American Declaration of Independence (as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
Anyway, Locke can explain the concept much better than I can. I can’t think of an English-speaking country that incorporated Locke’s ideas as much as America did.
For some weird reason my grandmother saved the .25 with which a tenant had killed himself and my mother inherited it. It was the cheesiest little nickle-plated toy you ever saw, with a spur trigger and a light pull. I assume the fellow’s death was accidental because that little bastard was deadly.
I called one day and asked where Dad was. Mom answered, “Oh, in Canada getting some ammunition for that little gun. He can’t get it down here.”
I wasn’t surprised. Man, that was a nasty, dangerous thing. Now that Dad’s dead (natural causes–he never managed to shoot himself) I wonder if Mom still has it.
Really? I’ve put something like 1300 rounds of Wolf 9mm Para through my Ruger P95 with maybe… 5 jams, and 2 of those were due to other people limp-wristing it. (for those of you who don’t know, if you don’t hold an automatic pistol firmly, it may not cycle correctly)
My dad’s Bulgarian Mak has had about 3 boxes of Wolf 9mm Makarov through it, with no problems.
BTW, is your Bulgarian Mak particularly sweet to shoot? My Dad’s is crazy accurate, doesn’t hardly kick, and is pretty easy to strip. Only complaint I have is that the grips are kind of chinchy and cut my hands.
Your link didn’t work but I think I know what you mean. Like this? http://usgi1911.tripod.com/liberator/ “Since it takes 10 seconds to load and fire the FP-45, it was the only pistol in history that took less time to manufacture than fire!”
Sweet! I’d love one of them. That might be just a little TOO nasty to be a SNS. It’s got more in common with zip guns.
