When I say assault rifle I am talking about fully automatic weapons, and those are illegal in Germany and that rightfully so. There is no reason for any civilian to own a fully automatic weapon.
A quick google query reveals that (identically to Belgium) Germany allows civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons for arms collectors.
While it's not simple to get, it's far from being illegal or impossible.
I'm going to let you guess how commonly violent crime is committed by those collectors.
Your right to own a weapon vs. my right to remain unharmed by weapons. And if we're looking at the US, their homicide rates including fire arms, and their number of mass shootings draw a very clear picture of the situation. I do not want this ever for Europe. If the Americans feel alright with this kind of culture, so be it, their nation their laws - I am not blaming Americans here, I just think many close their eyes to facts, if someone is honest and says he values his right to own fire arms more than people not getting killed by them, so be it, freedom of speech.
I personaly value lifes simply higher than your right to own weapons, particularly as the danger of ever needing them, is abysmal, at least in Germany or most of the European Union.
If you're so outraged, why don't you care this much about outlawing cigarettes or alcohol? Both of those are significantly more deadly and the latter even generates far more crime.
And yes, I (and others) in this thread have said that the cost is worth the benefit to us. We are not blind to the cost, we simply made the calculation and say the benefits outstrip the cost.
They are ineffective because they are MADE to be ineffective by the gun lobby. Besides, that is not an argument in my opinion to leave them as uneffective organisation, the police has issues as well there is no doubt that you have some bad apples there. Does that mean we abolish the police as a whole or try it to make it as uneffective as possible?
No, they are ineffective from laws which predate the gun lobby you're referring to.
Your argument about the police is utterly irrelevant. If police break the law, we throw them in prison and/or fire the guilty party. The ATF just gets away with their shenanigans and no one ever even gets fired for it. Fuck them.
Even semi-auto guns with intermediate cartridges will be hard to obtain even though they'd be legal, because you can't use them for hunting most game (caliber too small) and not really the best weapon for sport shooting either. Still possible, but not really worth the hassle for most people I guess.
You are utterly and totally wrong.
The only reason that things like an AR15 or an AK are not commonly used for hunting is because there are laws preventing their use. A common example is requiring a gun which chambers less than 3 cartridges for instance.
.223Rem (and .222Rem) is perfectly capable of killing deer reliably, and is widely used to do so in bolt action rifles.
You'll also find that the very popular .30-30 deer hunting cartridge is virtually identical ballisticly to the 7.62x39mm Kalashnikov cartridge.
As for sport & recreational shooting, these intermediate cartridges are hugely popular.
All of those shootings in my list are 5 or more dead by the firearms. Just because someone kills 5 or more people from his own family, it doesn't make it less of a mass shooting.
I suspect his point is that those "family dramas" or "crimes of passion" would occur, with or without the availability of firearms.
Hell, here in Belgium, the last two I remember were without firearms. One father took a hatchet to his entire family. And a mother lured her children into a room one by one and slit their throats.
Do you think those people would have used a firearm if they had one available? Most certainly. But the absence of firearms didn't magically cause these people to survive.
Also a note that people who debate these things never seem to mention or notice, people say that if the government regulates firearms harder, it makes it so only criminals get to own the weapons (even though we can see from many countries that highly regulate guns that people can still own them for things like hobbies and hunting), but people seem to forget that even if criminals own them, they have to get them illegally, and if they own weapons illegally and they are criminals, chances are they will sooner or later have trouble with the law and if their house gets raided, or if they get arrested, the police will confiscate all the weapons away from the criminals because they shouldn't have weapons due to the regulations, but if a government doesn't regulate the weapons as much, criminals can easily get weapons legally and those can't be be confiscated by the police unless they are evidence or something, so the criminal can come out from jail and still own and buy more weapons easily...
Virtually every country in the world has laws preventing convicted criminals from owning firearms legally. What the hell are you talking about? Of course the cops can take the guns from them if they find them.
Unarmed Populace =/= Police State
There are plenty of otherwise freedom-loving countries that have harsh gun laws.
An armed person is a citizen.
An unarmed person is a subject.
There is a difference.
It may not matter to you, but it does to many people.
Only after you altered your supreme legal charter to add that bit
. Because it wasn't there originally
So was freedom of religion, freedom of expression, etc. It's not like it was an amendment makes it any less valuable.
Also, why don't gun makers make civilian guns, in a way where they can be used for protection, hunting and sport/hobbies but not allow them to be as deadly as they actually are. An example of this made well, is the double barrel shotgun, primarily a hunting shotgun. It only allows two shots in rapid succession, then you have to open it and reload. This is enough for hunting, it only allows two shots to be fired before reloading, it allows a kind of control over how many shots you can do in a short period of time, it minimizes the damage that can be done if the weapon is used to nefarious purposes.
Why don't weapon manufacturers make and sell weapons that can only fire two or three times before reload or that only allow it physically to shoot that many shots? Two or three times is more than enough for protection, one shot warning and one or two to injure/kill the criminal if he didn't back down. Having weapons for civilian use do that, would allow some kind of control if the weapon would be used for criminal intent.
Because it's extremely easy and fast to reload such a gun quickly? Go on youtube and see for yourself? I'm perfectly able to do a mass shooting with a set of double barrel shotguns. The chances of someone rushing me are quite small.
But ok, let's say we design a firearm specifically designed to be slow to fire and hard to reload, why the fuck would gun owners want a firearm designed on purpose to be horrendously unfriendly to use?
Some people in the UK are currently campaigning to have the Olympics shoot with laser rifles instead of real rifles. Sorry, but no. That's not the same sport.
I don't want to ban weapons, I understand hobbyists and hunters, I understand farmers that live isolated and have to protect their animals, family and property from wild animals, I understand why people want a gun to defend themselves, I understand all of that. But why are people so against less lethal or less powerful weapons being legal instead of some that are really too OP for what they want them for? Why there are people so against more and better regulation?
Because we know that after each concession we make, new stricter demands will follow. And every right we give up, we will never get back.
So why compromise? We're at the losing end of every decision, so while there are enough people to continue to fight this, we will keep fighting change which restricts are freedoms.
My guess would've been that illegal weapons would be more expensive than legal ones, not less.
They are.
I've bought the equivalent of an AK for 325 euros (with 4 magazines, a bandoleer, a bayonet and rifle sling).
Most duty grade pistols (what cops would carry) are around 500-600 euros.
So yes, illegal guns tend to be more expensive than legal ones.
How do even you know all that?
I read a lot & I talk to people?
The press will write stories about this every few years. And talking to people I can verify that the price range is realistic or not.
). But I also know that civilians shouldn't be able to legally acquire powerful firearms which they can in the USA for example, or legally acquire parts to make legal weapons to become powerful firearms.
