There's been a killing in Bangladesh. A gun was used.
Shall we examine the circumstances and facts?
Shall we examine their "gun control" laws? Per their "Arms Act":
They have licensing that must be renewed every year.
They have storage requirements, including separate storage for ammunition. Further, firearms may only be stored in one location as mandated by the license. A locker/box container is required for handguns.
They have bans based on firearms types:
Fully automatic military assault weapons; semi-automatics which can be converted to automatics, along with a few other selected models not suitable for hunting or target-shooting; short-barreled handguns; sawed-off shotguns and large capacity magazine are prohibited for use by civilians for self protection.
"[A]llowing a non-licence-holder to handle, carry, or use" a gun is a criminal offense that can result in fines or "short-term imprisonment."
And there's a longer term for infractions deemed more serious:
Any person who conceals or attempts to conceal arms, ammunition or military stores is punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with a fine, or with both. However, if an offence has been committed in respect of a pistol, revolver, rifle or shot gun, the offender may be punished with imprisonment for life or for a term which may extend to fourteen years, or with a fine.
Licensing, registration, "safe storage," no "assault weapons," no concealment... Say, that's pretty much the "wish list" our U.S. gun grabbers are after, at least until such time as Supreme Court sympathies embolden them to retest that 5-4 balance so they can go back to their original goals.
Welcome to Sarah Brady Paradise!
Except political activist has been shot to death. And the gun used belonged to a lawmaker. You know, an "Only One."
Only one who apparently wasn't obeying existing gun laws, because evidently others were being allowed to handle his licensed gun, which was not being safely locked up and stored separately from its ammunition and in its authorized place.
And in a fashion those who frequent WarOnGuns are all too familiar with, the "gun...went off."
Or maybe not...
What, that's not fair? It's not right to judge policy based on isolated incidents?
You mean the demonstrable M.O. of the anti-gunners is wrong?
Besides, when we're talking about Sarah Br...uh...Bangladesh, additional examples aren't all that hard to find.
Huh--what do you know? More "Only Ones"...
------------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: Please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends? And get more commentary on the gun rights stories of the day at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
Comments
"the 'gun...went off.' Or maybe not…"
Read: "definitely not."
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=153410
The driver now admits shooting the deceased.
Thanks--I changed the link to that one.
Statists, Collectivists, Leftists...those who would be Masters, are in every society. In America they dominate Academia, Media and Entertainment, so they are able to affect the controls of society in greater proportion than their true numbers would suggest.
Years ago I wrote that the true peril to the planet will be in place when Leftists around the world begin working in concert. We are there today.
Does anyone truly believe that the Collectivists in power today in America would use the full power of our military to defend against aggression from Leftists enemies?
No, they would not. They would seek "an end to violence" by inviting in Blue Hats...
Sam
III
Kerodin.com
"No, they would not. They would seek "an end to violence" by inviting in Blue Hats..."
That's an excellent reason for participating in and/or starting a "Blue Hat" day at your local range.
Be advised that I always get some static from my local range officials when I staple a UN logo across the bull of my 100 yard rifle targets.
The 5-4 Supreme Court "balance" is frightening. We are but a heart beat away from reversing that "balance".
The role of the Supreme Court is to impartially interpret the Constitution: to settle disputes and interpret the meaning of laws. Unfortunately, some Justices are motivated by activism and their own prejudices. Impartially goes right out the window, especially where the Second Amendment is concerned.
But, then again, maybe they just want to “advance” the U.S. up to the level of Bangladesh.
Maybe some in the U.S. want to copy Bangladesh's gun control laws, like Thomas Dodd copied Nazi Germany's gun control laws in 1968, when he helped promulgate the Gun Control Act of 1968..
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!