Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, we need one anyway.

17 (21.8%)

No, we should take that elsewhere and keep this thread as-is.

27 (34.6%)

I don't care, let's see what happens.

34 (43.6%)

Total Members Voted: 75

[Loud Whispers]

Only problem, none of those weapons used were obtained legally.

Also the two comparisons cannot be made. British customs are considerably stricter and a lot harder to break through than the European continent, awash with russian and german weapons. In comparison we had a recent terrorist attack where the terrorist only had a handgun and was caught by border security before he killed anyone, and another attack where they both used machetes and when one tried firing his handgun it exploded.
But what works for us will not work for the Schengen area, who are full retard on the borders issue, and that's not even taking into account the very geographical limits of smuggling. I suppose Iceland and Norway could also pull off our 2+2=5 tier surveillance state.
Point goes, smugglers either have to make it past the airport security, make it past mail customs, the border customs at Calais and Dover or try getting past the Coast Guard. It definitely can be done and is done and we do have usually around 5-10% of all our murders carried out with firearms. Mostly the disarmed populace is about control, as police can control a disarmed populace a lot easier (though the London riots showed the gaps in the police arsenal, which have since been filled with the acquisition of German waterwerfers) and also adds extra obstacles for terrorists who plan on carrying out a larger scale attack. Worst we've had is 7/7/05 where there were just under 60 casualties and 700 injuries from multiple suicide bombings which was made using homemade explosives which the gov has gotten considerably more raid savvy about.

[Frumple]

However, restricting that even further because "they look like automatic firearms!" is a absolutely stupid and pointless action, done for political points rather than for any benefit to the people.

*coughs* I'll not argue about the rest of it, but the "looks like" argument actually is a decent one for gun control. Part of what stringent gun laws does is make sure there are very clear signalers for when someone is doing or carrying something illegal -- the more clear that is, the more effective that portion of the controls are. If you actually do have something that is mistakable (and, for stuff like this, "at a distance" is a fairly good measure) for whatever's been identified as particularly dangerous, that is something that could be desirable to fix. It probably is just panicked PR stuff, and wouldn't have prevented what happened (basically nothing that's been proposed by anyone major would have ) but still. The visual similarity is a fair reason to restrict. Gun laws aren't just about restricting gun ownership, they're also about giving police very clear points (generally, when firearms or certain forms of them are being carried or transported) for when they should be investigating something. Something that gives police a reason to relax in the face of targeted weapons (in the case given, visual similarity to legal ones) can be a pretty valid issue.

... though this really isn't exactly the thread for that line of discussion, now that I pay more attention to what thread I'm in. So I'll drop that there and back out.

[Nick K]

I don't know about terrorism, but our system of massively restricting firearms here in the UK has been working pretty well for keeping gun deaths down.

It's a shame the terrorists used the illegal, smuggled automatic firearms, rather than the legal semi-auto and bolt action (+straight pull, etc) rifles and shotguns legal here, then, isn't it?

Not in this case, I know. I wasn't talking about Paris. My point was that tightening firearms law in the EU might not have stopped this particular attack, but it could  still save lives in the future. There have been lots of massacres carried out in the past with legally-obtained weapons, not to mention murders and accidental deaths. I'm not an expert, but I was under the impression that the evidence supported gun control as a way of reducing violent deaths.

Certainly, there's no reason for civilians to own automatic firearms. I'm a British gun owner; I'd like to think I know a little about what I'm talking about.
The only legal semi-auto guns in the UK are shotguns and .22 lr calibre rifles. However, restricting that even further because "they look like automatic firearms!" is a absolutely stupid and pointless action, done for political points rather than for any benefit to the people.

"because they look like automatic firearms" is something the petition says and isn't from the actual amendment. It looks like it's inspired from the current directive where category B's sub-categories are:

Category B - Firearms subject to authorization

1. Semi-automatic or repeating short firearms.

2. Single-shot short firearms with centre-fire percussion.

3. Single-shot short firearms with rimfire percussion whose overall length is less than 28 cm.

4. Semi-automatic long firearms whose magazine and chamber can together hold more than three rounds.

5. Semi-automatic long firearms whose magazine and chamber cannot together hold more than three rounds, where the loading device is removable or where it is not certain that the weapon cannot be converted, with ordinary tools, into a weapon whose magazine and chamber can together hold more than three rounds.

6. Repeating and semi-automatic long firearms with smooth-bore barrels not exceeding 60 cm in length.

7. Semi-automatic firearms for civilian use which resemble weapons with automatic mechanisms.

The amendment itself gives its reasoning as:

Semi-automatic weapons represent a high share of today's hunting and sport-shooting
weapons. However, the evaluation study concludes that some semi-automatic arms can be
easily converted to automatic arms, and the existing Directive does not provide any technical
criteria to prevent such conversion. However, even in the absence of conversion to category
'A', certain semi-automatic firearms can be very dangerous when their capacity regarding the
number of rounds is high. The proposal bans the semi-automatic weapons which are included
in the current category 'B7'

Well, I'm not a gun expert. It seems that this is trying to say that the B7 category are ones which could be converted to be automatic and/or which have a high capacity. If other sub-categories under 'B' are equally dangerous, then maybe they should be banned too.

[Starver]

(Is this is going to turn into a Gun Thread?  Please don't let it turn into a Gun Thread.  But while I'm addressing that...)

When there's so few legal weapons, there's little¹ chance of an otherwise legal weapon being used accidentally/illegally or being lost to criminals so that they (without their own 'legal' weapons) get to use them for crime, and the police don't feel the need to carry guns (outside of specialist units), so petty criminals don't tend feel the need to carry guns (when a knife will 'do'), and so Joe Public doesn't tend to feel the need to get a gun (legally or illegally), thus keeping the whole thing very calm... relatively.

In a country with many, many, many legal weapons, babies can shoot their parents, children can shoot each other, genuinely well-intentioned people can shoot people they think are a threat to them (which may be logical, given the chance of said 'threat' having a gun themselves), criminals can use guns they got whilst not criminal, or stole from others, or bought from others who really aren't concerned about who buys their guns, or get from people who do care because it means more profit to themselves.  And police know that people have guns so are more likely to shoot first in all kinds of situations.

Or so it works in some countries.  One is held to believe that Switzerland is far from that, etc, but you can prove anything with statistics, if you try hard enough.  (Except for the truth.)


But it's why I appreciate the UK approach to Gun Control, but know that you couldn't just shut down other gun-heavy countries the same way, overnight.  (Not without some pretty ingenious manner of ensuring all the heretofor legal guns get decommissioned rather than 'accidentally' find themselves in a suddenly inflated black market.)  What you want over there is a Militia Control, because it's only in a well-regulated militia that you're supposed to be bearing arms, anyway...  (Yeah, I know the Supreme Court said otherwise, but it's been wrong before.)

You know, someone was shot in the UK, the other day.  Roughly equivalent to 20% the population of the whole United States and we can say someone was shot the other day.  There were probably others (gang-on-gang), that never made the news.  I'd say that over any given period we learn about more than five times the number of deaths-by-shooting from the United States than we hear about such things in the UK.  And that's from abroad.  In a country where shooting deaths are an accepted way of life.  Vs. 'local' (certainly on a continental scale) in a country where shootings are exceptions, not the rule...   (A few weeks ago some probably gang-related shooting injuries were reported.  The partner and child of someone who might or might not have been/still be in a gang were shot, but not killed, on their doorstep.  That made news.)

And I see it said (consider this a fakeedit) that the Netherlands frequency for gun crime news is "once every few weeks", even with their disadvantage, as stated...

There will be AK47s in the UK, you know.  But even the criminals involved in their movement will consider them serious business, not just an 'upgrade'.  Our terrorists use home-made bombs, vehicles, blades.  *touch wood*, they're going to find it harder to 'just get some AK47s' without some red flag going up.  Either within the security/customs services or within the current home-grown criminal networks, who probably aren't that sympathetic towards any ethnic group that hasn't already been assimilated as thoroughly as the Huguenots.  Never say never, and I'd rather not eat my words, but I have faith (in a secular way) in that kind of organised crime that they'd never stand for any of that funny business.

Two people died in a steelworks explosion.  And we hardly have any steelworks anymore!  (Less than we have legal guns, certainly.  Probably also less steelworkers than legal gun-owners, certainly if you include farmers and shotguns, but I'd really have to double-check that.)  All the mentioned deaths are tragedies, of course.


And the main tragedy is that this is a thread about Paris.  I shouldn't be listening to your agenda nor pointing out my own impressions regarding guns.  Terrorists-are-gonna-terror.  Without access to guns they'd be doing more with homemade bombs, no doubt.  Let's talk about the commonalities between these situations, not start going all Constitutional...

(And another 6 new replies.)

¹ Not 'no', because it happens...  rarely.

[smjjames]

EEP, A new ISIS video warns of an attack on NYC. Could be a bluff though.

(I know I could post in the AmeriPol thread, but this is more relevant)

IF it does happen, hopefully Obama holds back the fervor and not overreact, which is what ISIS wants.

[LordBucket]

Best way to stop gun related violence is to strictly control gun posession.

What works in one country might not work in another. The US being the obvious example. We have a culture of gun ownership going back hundreds of years. We have more guns than people. It's number 2 in the bill of rights.

Not only would it be illegal, attempting to eliminate guns in the US would very probably end poorly.  I know people who, the only reason they don't own guns is that they are legal. These are not inbred rednecks. These are people who live in the suburbs with $80,000/yr jobs. Rational being, so long as guns remain legal, things are probably still ok. But the moment they become illegal, that's the prompt meaning it's time to buy one or five.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
 -- Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States

If you want to have gun control in the UK or Japan, or wherever, go for it. But in the US, it's probably a bad idea. I'm not sure it's even a realistic option. I've known people in the US who make their own ammunition in their garage. People who own lathes to rifle their own barrels. Guns are very old, very simple, very well known technology, and even if you eliminate manufacturers there are a lot people who would simply build their own. Now try fast forwarding 5-10 years and imagining every 10th or 20th person with a metal-capable 3d printer capable.

Everyone remember the Liberator? Add 5-10 years to 3d printing technology. How do you plan to stop anyone who wants a gun from having a gun?

And at some point, chemically propelled chunks of metal are going to be the least of our concerns. Look at where drones are going. Look at where genetic engineering is going. If you're worried about guys with guns, what happens when anyone with a couple thousand dollars can buy an army of drones to drop a couple hundred pounds of thermite on a crowd, or release biological agents?

"Gun" control is going to be irrelevant before long. The ability of any random person to cause death and destruction is likely to increase with or without chemically launched bits of metal.

I don't think the "keep it away from people" mindset has much of a future. Imagine trying to ban computer viruses. It would be pointless. It's too easy to make them. That's likely to be the case for weapons of medium scale destruction in the near future too.

[Strife26]

The liberator is a very cool concept, but it's well within many people's skill sets to make much better equipment than that.


And yeah, a serious gun grab would be the kind of thing that'd strongly justify armed resistance, at least in my mind.

[ggamer]

I appreciate Obama's current plan to work with the Middle East and get them to fight ISIL, but that support will not come from Iraq or Saudi Arabia.
Actually, forget that, the KSA actually has done a good bit in trying to arm and train the moderate Syrian rebels, it's just that I suspect more than a few popular figures in the KSA might be bullshitting when 2500 trained militants from Saudi soil have joined ISIL. Al-Abadi has certainly been doing a lot better than el presidente Al-Maliki, but I have a feeling he's more content to hold onto what he has now and let Russia do the heavy lifting than actually trying to restore stability to the country.

Basically, I don't think we'll be able to look for help anywhere besides Kurdistan (which is going to piss the Turks right the hell off), but I also don't think we'll solve shit by putting boots on the ground. Once more I must say that I have no idea what the solution to the problem is, only that the solutions we have now suck balls.

[Neonivek]

It helps that the Liberator is a garbage gun.

[Sheb]

(Is this is going to turn into a Gun Thread?  Please don't let it turn into a Gun Thread.  But while I'm addressing that...)

Then why do you post a wall of text about gun control? 

[Erkki]

Sorry for starting this... I am all but a gun nut and do not own a pistol or semi-auto rifle myself but I can see this law/directive make several million weapons illegal overnight and destroy at least as many peoples hobbies. Even severe national security in countries like Estonia. Heck, even several olympic sports would probably become illegal within EU. Whats the point in restricting semi-autos that look like autos any way? Its not legal to openly carry a gun anywhere any way. What reason is there but to potentially restrict all possession for the sake of it?

Without escalating things further and  replying to the many pros and cons risen here, I'll stick to pointing out that limiting gun legal gun possession in a situation where it is already ridiculously quicker, easier and cheaper to get a fully automatic weapon illegally than even an internal magazine bolt-action without stripper clip rails or even a fracking black powder gun legally does not help combating terrorism and only limits personal freedom. And makes people even more willing to use black market to get tools they dont even plan to use in a crime.

In Finland, the legally owned, so called "long"  rifles of any kind(from single-shot .22 LRs to semi-auto .308s) are used in less than 1 crime annually. That is compared to about 15 killed with all firearms(usually illegal pistols here too, well over 50%) or for the sake of scale, 250 killed in traffic alone. When guns are involved, almost every time both the shooter and the victim are heavily drunk any way and often related to each other. I can provide sources for everything.

Its like banning all red cars because they look like they driven faster and surely must be used in speeding and driving over people more often than others even if there is actual data that they in fact arent. All it does is make things even easier for the bad guys and terrorists who want to hurt us all.

[Neonivek]

Its like banning all red cars because they look like they driven faster and surely must be used in speeding and driving over people more often than others even if there is actual data that they in fact arent. All it does is make things even easier for the bad guys and terrorists who want to hurt us all.

That! has already happened. Insurance companies would attach bigger costs to certain colors of cars.

[misko27]

Today, Wikipedia has informed me of a place with C+ gun laws: Pakistan. And what a wonderful place that is.

I think people are underestimating the capacity of governments to remove guns and other weaponry. We've been somewhat coddled by this notion of rights, liberty, and opposition to tyrannical governments to forget that, assuming the government is actually coming for you guns, it doesn't just imply that armed uprising is necessary, it implies the government is tyrannical enough to do so, and will thus treat your armed rebellion with extreme prejudice. You can resist, sure, but having guns does not necessarily imply *winning* an armed uprising. And if you fail, and the government successfully suppresses the uprising - and there is no law of politics or government that requires that the rebels win - then that is that: the government will take the guns anyway. Besides, urban environments are generally less well-armed, so it's just a matter of suppressing the rural and near-rural population, which is a lot easier in this era of large cities. For examples of success, see China and the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos. Tokugawa Japan was also totally successful in demilitarizing their peasantry, if you want historical examples.

I'm not arguing that gun seizure would ever be 100% successful, or that it would be a good idea (it's certainly not), but people drastically overestimate their capacity to resist such events. Armed Uprising isn't a magical thing that solves your problems because you have guns. Most uprisings fail, after all. That's assuming that there would even be any, which is probable in certain sections of the US, but not certain anywhere else. I doubt people will exercise their right to die for their right to bear arms, if it became clear that you could only exercise the latter by invoking the former. People tend to confuse "this is a thing that would be difficult, painful, and undemocratic to do" with "this is an impossible thing".

Given sufficient resources, totalitarian motivations, and disregard for human life, a whole horrible universe of things is possible.

Also, boki, where in Serbia? I was there only once (and only in Sarajevo), but I liked it. It's rightful EU clay!

what. no. republika srpska at most, but NATO went and decided that that wasn't part of serbia, and made their decision known with bombing.

I don't think you should visit Serbia if you are going to make comments like that. Or anywhere in the balkans actually. Someone might take offense.

[Erkki]

I dont think there will be uprising anywhere. What will happen instead is people want to keep their toys regardless and we see Belgium Vol. 2 but in much bigger scale. Every pistol not a muzzle-loaded blackpowder one and good part of the other guns become illegal, and they will "disappear". Because semi-auto weapon that looks like it could be auto, semi-auto that can be made into auto and semi-auto with "high capacity"(you can fit 30+ round magazine onto basically anything) means in practice every single semi auto in EU if they will. Within EU, thats going to be several million if not over ten million illegal weapons.

How does that help fighting terrorism, or even gun violence?

That said I'm personally okay, pro even, when it comes to stricter gun control and its monitoring when it comes to pistols and other weapons that can be easily concealed. Those are the ones both legally acquirable and used in crimes.

[Sheb]

TBH, knowing the Commission, I seriously doubt they created this in reaction to the Paris attack, more likely, it's a proposal they had in the pipeline for a long time, and just slapped a reference to terrorism on top. Doesn't really seems much of an issue apart from the semi-auto ban. Hopefully the Parliament will shoot that part down.

Erkki, what is that Belgium Vol. 2 thing?

Also, to all the Americans here, please keep your 2nd amendment debate away from this thread. Gun control in the US context has been debated to death and has no place in this thread. Get. Out.