Turn armed with the gun license.
- Can you shoot with a gun with a gun license?
- Can you shoot with a loaded gun?
- Who can have the gun license for self-defense?
- With the carrying of weapons you are entitled to go around the city armed, perhaps with a pistol and a rifle?
Attention, better to clarify each state has its own rules.
To answer it is necessary to clarify that there are three different types of firearms but only the one for self-defense allows you to go out having a gun or other firearm in your pocket.
Those who, on the other hand, own the sporting or hunting weapons license cannot in any case turn armed and, if they do, risk the revocation of the license.
Who can have the gun license for self-defense and in which places can you turn armed?
Let us clarify this point.
Who has the gun license for self-defense can turn with a gun?
Those who are in possession of the firearms license for self-defense can legitimately leave their home armed.
This type of license, in fact, is issued by the Prefecture to those who have valid reasons to fear for their lives, forexample entrepreneurs targeted by organized crime or jewelers who have suffered frequent robberies.
The carrying of weapons for personal use shall be issued, on request, to adult nationals and may be renewed only by demonstrating the persistence of the dangerous situation.
This authorization allows you to take the gun out of your home and use it in self-defense.
On the contrary, you can never go around the city with a pistol or rifle who is in possession of the weapons license for sports or huntinguse.
In the first case the weapon can be used only in special structures where to practice shooting and volley shooting or in the second case the rifle can be used exclusively for hunting, during the opening periods of the hunting season.
Armed touring Europe
The need for laws that safeguard the right of citizens to defend themselves is one of the hot topics of the new Government.
The difficult balance between the interests of those who support the right of citizens to own weapons whether for reasons of self-defense, sporting activities or simple collecting and the fears about the consequences that this liberalization could have on society is certainly not only an Italian problem.
It is also about Europe.
In Europe, in fact, today more than ever, the countries of the continent, with their different traditions and economic interests, find themselves having to face the issue trying to harmonize their legislation with the aim of guaranteeing greater security and greater control in a world where borders are becoming increasingly porous and where the dangers, also linked to the new ways in which international terrorism is articulated, they multiply.
The experience of many European countries shows that the correlation between the spread of firearms among the population and the high number of crimes and violent deaths is not systematic.
In fact, other variables must be taken into account, such as the general level of well-being, the unemployment rate and the integration of the population.
A look at the different legislations and the effects they have on the population can help us understand what interests are at stake.
Some data and the new European directive
According to data reported by the Flemish Peace Institute, the European countries with the highest rate of gun ownership are Finland (38%), Switzerland (27%), Norway (26%) and Iceland (24%).
Other countries where weapons are quite widespread are Greece, Sweden and Portugal, as well as arms-producing countries such as Austria, Belgium, Germany and Italy.
Less widespread in Poland (4%), the Netherlands (5%) and the United Kingdom (6%).
They are generally more prevalent among the elderly population and in rural areas.
Hunting is the main reason declared by gun owners in the Union followed by professional motives (weapons owned by members of law enforcement, military, security services).
But does the large spread of weapons equal the high rate of aggression and violent deaths?
Looking at the data from the World Health Organization there is a (logical) correlation between deaths from firearms, in particular suicides, and the spread of weapons.
However, this does not necessarily mean that in these same countries there is a higher general level of violence and violent deaths than in states with more restrictive legislation.
So how do you explain the EU’s need to approve the Directive of 25 April 2017 on the control of the acquisition and possession of firearms?
The new legislation must be considered in a political framework where maximum attention and alertness to issues related to safety is maximum.
The aim of the regulatory framework is to prevent firearms from becoming the object of abuse by terrorist groups and organised crime.
The limitations imposed by the directive, among which the most discussed is perhaps the prohibition of the civilian use of the most dangerous semi-automatic firearms, which can cause numerous victims and are therefore considered a real threat to national security, have not been welcomed by all European countries which, as already mentioned, present diverse traditions and interests.
Switzerland: “armed” neutrality and the militarisation of civilians
The widespread use of firearms in Switzerland may seem at odds with the country’s “famous” neutrality.
It should be remembered, however, that although the vienna international agreements (1815) established Switzerland’s neutrality and therefore the obligation to refrain from participating in wars between other states, Swiss citizens have an obligation to uphold their neutrality.
But neutrality does not mean unarmed in the case of Switzerland, and in fact all male citizens have the obligation to perform military service.
At the end of their period of service citizens are allowed to purchase their own ordinance weapon at an advantageous rate.
About half of the weapons in circulation are in fact former service weapons also because of the patriotism widespread among the population.
Owning a weapon is seen as an act of defending one’s nation.
However, Swiss legislation is very strict in relation to the requirements that citizens who want to buy a firearm must possess.
In fact, those who have committed a violent crime, those who suffer from addiction or have violent or dangerous behavior are excluded.
In addition, you need to prove that you know how to use the weapon correctly.
The high number of weapons in circulation that in any case cannot be carried loaded by civilians who use them for hunting or for sports has led to a high rate of suicides with firearms.
Precisely in the light of this fact, the EU Directive on arms control, which Switzerland is required to apply as a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis, has rekindled the debate on the need for more stringent legislation.
The “culture of weapons”: hunting and carrying weapons for sports use in Iceland and Norway
In Iceland, about one in three people own a firearm.
Despite this figure, the crime rate is among the lowest in the world and deaths due to gunshot wounds are rare.
A long path made of medical examinations and training leads Icelandic citizens to obtain the license for the carrying of weapons and great space is also given to security measures to protect themselves and others from incorrect use of the same.
Weapons are mainly used for practical purposes such as hunting and not for self-defense.
The use of weapons to injure others is so far from Icelandic culture that not even the policemen use them daily (while they are provided for other special security corps).
Also in Norway the weapons are widespread and used mainly for hunting, the basis of Norwegian culture since always and which actively involves at least 10% of the population, and for some sports.
However, Norway is preparing to insert more restrictive measures for the possession of certain types of weapons, including semi-automatic weapons, which will be introduced in 2021 10 years after the Utoya massacre, when 69 people died at the hands of a Norwegian extremist.
The turning point of the United Kingdom
The UK has moved in the opposite direction by passing very restrictive legislation that seems to have brought benefits.
The evolution of gun legislation in the United Kingdom was deeply marked by the tragic events of March 1996 where a mass murder in a primary school led to the death of 16 children and a teacher.
From data collected by Gunpolicy.org, a portal managed by the University of Sydney that collects data on armed violence and laws governing the spread of weapons, in 2012 0.22 cases of deaths from gunshot wounds were recorded in the United Kingdom per 100 thousand inhabitants.
This relatively low figure in the same period the figure for Italy is 1.27 per 100 thousand inhabitants could however photograph a situation that is now only a memory given the wave of violent crimes that has been recorded in recent years in the country.
Restrictive legislation is therefore not enough to ensure security for citizens.
It can obviously have excellent results in reducing crimes but must be complemented by other measures aimed at improving the general well-being of the community.
Getting around armed in America
The Constitution of the United States of America and its Second Amendment protects the right to turn armed.
Literally: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment is not simply a phrase tied to a logic out of time: it represents a vital part of the formation of Americans.
Going to the shooting range with dad is an activity much loved by American teenagers, who find in this transmission of knowledge a moment of great closeness with the parent.
Even those who do not own weapons believe, by a large majority, that their free trade should remain so: Gallup polls on the subject even reveal that with the passing of the decades there has been a radical reversal, and if in the late 50s the majority of Americans were against free movement, now the majority is in favor.
To this is added a figure on the distribution of the aforementioned weapons.
About 3% of owners have 50% of weapons at home.
They are the so-called super-owners, people who after each massacre become more and more frightened, and equip themselves against a potential squeeze on the sale by increasing their arsenal.
The core of this culture is a frontier machismo in which the gun or rifle represents virility.
There is a manual written in 1972 by Jeff Cooper, author of eight other tomes on the subject (plus one on machines: it is not that in his spare time he dealt with crochet), Principles of Personal Defense, which for forty-five years has been one of the sacred texts of the aspiring Clint Eastwood (in his incarnation Callaghan).
In 10 American states you can go armed to university. The last one is Georgia
The gun legislation is very strict and if you do not want to risk the revocation of the gun license you must follow the rules carefully.
The restrictive measures affect ordinary people who just want to go hunting and use it for defense.
Those who want a weapon certainly do not go to buy it in a store.
What do you think?
On weapons, European culture is very far from American culture.
Does shooting armed without training and freely seem like a good idea?
Street Fight Mentality