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.
Yes, but it is so heavily regulated that it's almost not worth it. So exceptions confirm the rule.
For example, you have to be a weapon collector, you have to show proof that you're buying historical weapons and that you're
really collecting them, which means you can only buy them if you already have a historical collection, and if the weapon is really a historical weapon from existing stocks, so you can't just walk into the next gun store and get an M249 or full automatic G36. You really have to show that you've been a weapon collector for years. And we are probably talking about a hand full of people here, like the unicorns among weapon owners. Think about it, how likely it would be that another weapon collector will sell you his MP40 so you can complete your collection of WW2 small arms. The people owning fully automatic weapons in Germany, are probably not even statistically relevant.
The other exception is if you're some kind of expert, like someone who's working for one of the major weapon manufacturers or as advicor or what ever - again only a handfull of people. And they can't buy every fully automatic weapon either, they have to show proof why they need it.
Besides, doesn't that speak against your point of "Strict weapon laws mean no weapons at all!" if you can get even automatic weapons?
Fully automatic weapons fall under the so called '
Gesetz über die Kontrolle von Kriegswaffen', which pretty much means that it is a law about weapons meant for warefare. And that law is extremly strict.
The point I wanted to make is, a normal civilian can't simply get a weapon licence and walk in to the next gun show to get him self a machine gun for example. Regardless if he's a weapon collector, hunter or what ever.
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.
Who said I approve of cigarettes or alcohol? However, I have yet to see a chainsmoker or a drunk killing 59 people and wounding some 500+ in one go. I am pretty sure a drunk driver can do quite some damage though, which yeah is one of the reasons why you're forbidden to drive while intoxicated and if you do you will lose your driving licence and have to prove that you've learned your lesson, go figure ... cars in some US states are harder regulated than weapons. Not sure if there is even a law that says you can't fire your weapon while intoxicated ...
But do we really want to debate strawmans here?
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.
Thanks for your honesty, I really mean it ... other people in this topic still have this step in front of them, being honest to themself.
However, when we look at the arguments what you basically say is that a minority is kinda imposing their will on the majority, since the people that do argue against resonable weapon laws and regulations are a minority but they dominate the legislative process.
And this shows one major difference between the US and most European States where the weapon industry plays a much smaller role in politics here and where their 'advertising' is much less effective.
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.
Yeah right, that's why there is BLM I guess
. Not that the situation is much better here, if police officers make mistakes. The instances where they faced some jail time can be counted with your fingers ... at least our cops are not that trigger happy, probably due to the fact that there are so few guns in circulation, which means at least one problem cops don't have to worry so much about.
Again, the fact that the ATF is so laughably ineffective has also something to do with the weapon industry in the United States. There can be no doubts about it. They do write their own laws. Fuck, they don't have to, the senators do it for them willingly. Hell, they move their asses the moment a muslim farts in their direction all in panick mode, but they can't get their act together to banning bumper stocks.
However ignoring the ATF for a moment, you do hopefully see the usefullness of a system, where you can track down weapons in a crime scene effectively, or not?
I suspect his point is that those "family dramas" or "crimes of passion" would occur, with or without the availability of firearms.
No doubts about that, but killing 29 people in a church due to your hate for your mother or what ever, is a bit more difficult with just a knive.
Again, the idea of stricter gun laws isn't to prevent all crime - which is impossible, but at least to prevent SOME of them.
So was freedom of religion, freedom of expression, etc. It's not like it was an amendment makes it any less valuable.
You forgot to mention slavery ... oh wait
.
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?
For the same reason why there are speed limits I guess. Safety I assume.
