Austria to tighten gun laws after recent school shooting. Applying for a gun license will require taking a serious psychological test. There will be a "cooling off phase" after ordering a weapon.
reuters.com
The thing is, this is mostly reactionary politics. They do this because it's easy and they can say "see we did something, gib vote".
Instead phsychological care is being reduced, which would be way more valuable in the long term.
I am not saying gun laws are bad, just that they don't pose that much of a problem in Austria if it weren't for psychological issues. Not to speak about alcohol, unrelated to the shooting but ffs thats an issue nobody touches because "culture"-_-. I just mention this because regulating this properly and/or providing psychogical care for alcohol problems, or even aknowledging that it IS a problem, would go way further in preventing harm and accidents.
Not as interesting of an issue of course, no outrageous headlines to be made that don't negatively impact politicians..
Isn't Austria's military service age lower than 21?
They can just join military and access guns there
I bet the kid was American /s
I'm glad to see a country do more than ask pointlessly, "what else can we do?"
Look, everyone! A rational response!
What? You were expecting thoughts and prayers?
No the guns weren't as fetishized. On the other hand in the first half of the 20th century large bits of Europe had been occupied by the Germans twice. The idea that you wanted to be armed in case of a foreign invasion happening was a lot stronger, and more well founded, than the wettest dream of a 2nd amendement lover. Lots of people had been in the armed resistance and a lot of those who had not wished they had had the opportunity.
Wait what? Rapid policy change in response to gun violence?
Good job Australia Austria!
Austria lol. Mozart, not kangaroos.
Schwarzenegger, not Satan.
Beethoven being born in Germany and Hitler being born in Austria was one of those trivia facts I learned as a 12 year old — or thereabouts; I forget how old I was — that made me question everything. I was obviously, by definition, uneducated at that age but I had just sort of lumped “classical music=Vienna” and “Hitler=Germany.”
It’s obviously an odd fact to blow a kid’s mind and there were many more such moments to come but, for some reason, that factoid was a very effective one on my journey to realizing I didn’t know shit. (A journey I’m still on, even on things I have a degree in or worked on. Nothing teaches you how much you don’t know like learning enough to realize you haven’t even scratched the surface.)
Whoops, thanks!
Australia also had a pretty strong reaction when it happened there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
America currently going: “la la la la la” while turning its back to the problem.
Austria? well then, gday mate! let's put another shrimp on the barbie!
It was Austria. Autocorrect?
Sorry, other replies didn't load initially.
Wow kneejerk pseudo-science enshrined into law because one person out of 10,000,000 used a gun to kill someone. Do you think if he had used a car instead you'd see a similar response? why or why not?
Probably the most goddamn idiotic take I've fucking seen. And what makes this even funnier is your smug attitude.
Cars are tools for transportation that, unfortunately, sometimes result in death.
Firearms (specifically handguns and AR-type long guns) are machines specifically designed to kill humans. That's it.
If you can't understand the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
i started to respond but there are so many things wrong with your inane hypothetical i quit a couple paragraphs in. just fucking light up some neurons
Ooh, ooh! Pick me! It’s because transportation is infinitely more societally useful than punching imprecise holes in things in one of the most dangerous ways accessible to most individuals! There are lots of reasons to ban or limit the use of cars in various public places, but those types of attacks are a reason to install and use bollards.
Fortunately you (unless you are Austrian) have no voice in the matter.
You're totally right, and this is supported the data! The USA has the least restrictive gun laws of any major developed country but has similar rates of gun violence as all other developed...oh wait, never mind, the USA has by far the highest gun violence rates of any major developed nation.
Our per capita rate of gun violence is comparable to countries like Somalia, Iraq, and Haiti.
And also, car deaths is a huge issue too, and we should restrict car ownership and encourage mass transit and related infrastructure. Making more of our cities pedestrian-only locations protected by bollards, would also make people even safer from both accidental and intentional car deaths.
It's also way better for the environment and thus, people's long term health, leading to even higher life spans and better happiness.
Oh, Austria!!
I always confuse Austria with Baluchistan!
Cars are much safer than they used to be, so why get trucks and SUV instead as these are exempt from a number of car safety requirements (like crumple zones) in the US. They have a likelihood of causing fatal unjuries when they collide with other cars and pedestrians that is 8 times higher than the average sedan, according to a UK study. Due to their size, weight and bad visibility for obstacles close by, they are also much more likely to crash into stuff.
I mean, I would love North America as a whole not need to rely on cars as much as we do now. This involves building walkable neighborhoods and investment in public transit. But the car lobby is not going to let that happen. Same with the gun lobby in the US.
It can be done. Europe as a whole was on its way to become as car centric as the US back in the 1960's. People seriously revolted against that, most strongly in the Netherlands which is why it has such nice bike infrastructure.
We got gun laws because after WW2 Europe was full of guns, they were everywhere and it was untenable. So we got our shit together and did something about it.
I'll toss this on the mountain of proactive things other countries are doing that the U.S. isn't.
The main issue I have with laws like these is... once the person who "needed to cool off" has the gun all they need is to get hot-headed again and this time there isn't a cool-off period for them to access it.
The psychology "test" is all fine and good, but a test doesn't tell you what an actual licensed psychologist can. Way too easy for someone to just lie on a test if they know what the "right" answers are. A lot more difficult to hide dangerous personality traits in front of another human being. Step it up one more notch to requiring a psychological evaluation.
The "Test" will probably be in line with a psych eval like we already have for our military, which will be enough for cases like this, because he was unfit to serve.
he was still able to get a gun licence, because in austria you are only blocked from getting a gun licence (for 15 years IIRC) if you refuse to serve in the military on ethical grounds and do civil service instead, and the data from the military evaluation is kept secret because of privacy laws.
I mean I guess it's a better system then just being able to walk into a random store and just buy a gun. In my country we have a pretty strict gun control you need have not committed any crimes and be able to get a document from the government saying so, you'll also need the following;
Firearms are either considered a part of sport (hence the clubs) of for hunting which has their own subset of rules. You can never have any full automatic firearms, those are considered for military use only.
Would any psychologist risk their entire career and criminal liability to grant anyone a pass to obtain a firearms license? For what is ultimately a hobby?
I think an evaluation is just unreasonable considering how overworked mental health professionals are. I would genuinely hate it if someone who wants to get better and work out some issues can't because there is better money in talking to the gun nuts.
Nah. I am a firm believer in chains of liability. Kid shoots up a school? Whose gun was that? Dad? Dad is now liable for a pretty major charge. Oh? He didn't keep it locked up in a safe? Who sold Dad that gun? Herman? He better have ALL his paperwork in order and he better have followed every single required step to make sure Dad knows how to store a gun properly and has a gun safe and so forth. He didn't? What distributor did he buy that gun from? And so forth.
Obviously US biased, but we put more effort into making sure someone buying a car has insurance than we do making sure someone buying a gun even understands why keeping "one in the chamber" is one of the dumbest things you can do.
So pass that on. Because if that guy who wants a people killer gives bad vibes? That isn't just your license mister gun store man, that is potentially your freedom if he goes after the woman who turned him down for coffee. And if you are a gun company and you sell to sketchy stores that "lose shipments" all the time? You might not be a company the first time a serial number is run. Suddenly EVERYONE starts caring about actually doing due diligence.
And obviously that model is incredibly prone to racism and bias. But that also matters a lot less if the guy who will sell a gun to any white man with a swastika on his neck goes to prison after the first murder.
The issue I can see with that model is that, depending on how exactly it is implemented, it might end up spilling into places that involve people who were doing nothing unreasonable. For example, suppose a criminal makes a pipe gun, or a 3-d printed one, and uses that in a crime. If we're always looking down the chain, do we also hold responsible whoever sold them the pipes, or the printer, or other machining tools? The easy enough answer is to except steps that don't usually have to do with firearms I suppose (where the people involved would not generally have reason to expect the purchaser is using what they buy for those purposes), but in taking that obvious step, one would create a situation where acquiring guns through less traceable and safe means becomes easier than the ways that can be tracked, which is rarely a good thing if you want rules to actually be followed.
Personally, I think that, rather than the guns themselves, the focus of gun control measures should be on the ammunition they fire. It doesn't last as long as a gun potentially can, and is disposable, meaning that the large number of guns already in circulation poses less of an issue, and is harder to manufacture at home due to the requirement for explosive chemicals. Further, most "legitimate" civilian uses for a gun either don't require all that much of it (like hunting), or can be done in a centralized location that can monitor use (like sport target shooting at a professionally run shooting range).
What I would do, is put a very restrictive limit on how much ammunition a given person may purchase in a given year, and only allow exceptions to that limit if the person can provide proof that an equivalent amount of their existing allotment has been fired, returns old ammunition for exchange, or purchases the extra at a licensed range that as a condition of the license must monitor patrons and ensure those bullets are either fired or refunded before the shooter leaves.
Right it's a law that is on the liberal -> fascist pipeline. They don't want to ban guns (why not?) they just want to make sure that only certain people can have them based on subjective evaluation. How is this good for anyone? It does nothing to prevent things like this in the future. I guess it makes low-information voters feel good?
Yeah, American thoughts and prayers system works better, not.
"serious psychology test"
Until someone from a different political party comes in and turns it into a "political party loyalty test"
That would take a majority vote, not only a single party change. Our system here in austria isn't perfect (like most of the world), but it is not the broken mess the US have.
Regardless, i'd say the move to stronger regulation is welcome here. The shooter had his guns legally, even tho he was deemed unfit for military service, which screams "regulatory hole to fix ASAP"
looks like there is broad support for making sure that whoever wants a gun to be stable enough to handle them without shooting up a school.
Not going to prevent a thing, all for show.
I live in a country with rather restrictive gun laws. That stuff works great! I never have to worry about getting shot.