Gun Control and Regulations

Oh, the self defense impulse is definitely there in Germany, it’s just not quite as prominent as in the US. Though that may be changing, as the number of applications for permits with self defense offered as a reason has jumped up in recent years. Like in the US concealed carry is very popular in Germany, so when people are carrying it’s not exactly noticeable.

The US has a lot of kooky other stuff going on that exacerbates the whole self defense delusion, though I’ll point out there actually are parts of the US where carrying a gun for self defense makes sense.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 10th 2018 at 5:45:35 AM

They should have sent a poet.

What does everyone think about the idea of screening people and not allowing those with a history of reported violent incidents to own or possess a firearm?

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Well, in Germany you have to pass a psychological test in order to own a weapon. I suspect that someone with anger issues wouldn't pass the test, sooooo….

De Marquis: Someone with a violent record with violent crimes, the answer would be no. The "always angry" types should be treated for a possible disorder rather than armed. I am assuming you mean the kind of off the wall and unreasonable violent outbursts that tend to mark some of these people as having issues.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Nov 10th 2018 at 8:19:26 AM

Who watches the watchmen?

x4

Correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt that what you said about Germany is too. Concealed carrying is to the best of my knowledge illegal in Germany, even hunters have to transport their guns in a safe on their way to the forest. Which makes them nex to useless for self-defence.

However sales of non-lethal self defence tools have indeed increased since Cologne 2016.

Germany doesn't actually appear to have any restrictions on open or concealed but you need a special permit to carry in the first place if you are not military, police, or a licensed guard. The guards have a few different hoops to jump through as well. It requires additional certification on top of the usual licenses. They apparently rarely issue them unless the person can prove a need for it.

Who watches the watchmen?

@De Marquis: That's simply a must. So many shootings are done by people with prior history of violence, especially domestic violence. Add red flag laws too, where a judge can order a gun to be taken from a person if they're currently showing threatening or hostile behavior.

Life is unfair...

Yeah, the weapon of paranoid Germans tend to be pepper spray. And I know nobody who carries that around either.

The psychological exam in Germany is only for people under 25 trying to acquire a permit. Older people don’t need the exam, but obviously still need to pass the background checks which would flag any mental disorders, if they’d been diagnosed or were being treated.

Defensive firearms purchases are way up in Germany, and it’s a relatively popular market for companies that sell concealed carry holsters and other similar products. It’s nothing like the US but it’s definitely there. Honestly I don’t think you could have a gun culture without some of those delusions of self defense.

They should have sent a poet.

I fear those sales are more related to right-wing paranoia and terrorism than anything else.

Probably. The increase in terror attacks in Europe is not helping.

The German law has provisions for anyone who has ever had mental health issues or there is good reason to suspect they might as well.

I would point out something even more important with Germany that is a lot harder to arrange in the US for the time being. The German's enjoy a unity and uniformity of their law across their nation. As it stands right now a lot of the laws for firearms ownership in the US is tackled at the state level with some Federal limits.

Who watches the watchmen?

Yeah on some level this better to compare US federal law to the EU as a whole, as that way you get a real picture of the varied patchwork of gun laws that one has.

I’m pretty that the EU on some level has more regulation than the US, as the European Firearm Pass exists.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Germany is a federal state, so no, we don't, not in all matters, but yes, gun legislation is something which is not decided on state level.

This is actually a good question...I have never thought about it, but considering Schengen, there has to be some sort of baseline regarding gun ownership. But then, Schengen or no Schengen, you are still forbidden to bring weapons over the border, and there are random checks.

And you are demonstrably wrong on this point. I gave the example of the National Firearms Act that successfully regulated automatic weapons. It identified specific weapon types that were determined to be too dangerous and therefore require stricter rules, and successfully removed those weapons from general circulation, all without requiring sweeping reform of gun ownership in general.

You can effectively regulate specific types of guns without having to go to a system where you have to regulate all gun owners everywhere even if they don't own that type of gun. It's been done before. There's no reason it couldn't be done again.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Wrong on most of those points.

First off, automatic fire is a notably easy feature to regulate. Rate of fire (which we were discussing in the conversation you jumped into to attack me) is not an easy feature to regulate. Hell, if you want to bring up the NFA there are plenty of features like overall length that it has completely failed to regulate.

Second off, that’s exactly one example, and not even a good one. There are plenty or other feature regulations that have failed either in part or completely, like the various AW Bs.

They should have sent a poet.

You know, you keep going on about the rate of fire. And yes, I might have brought it up first, or something like this, but the point was always that there are features in a gun which ARE easy to regulate. You keep bringing it back to the idea that someone trained could fire a gun pretty fast so it is hard to really measure this aspect. But that was never what I meant when I spoke about it. I spoke about the scenario: The trigger is pulled, how many bullets a spread by pulling the trigger exactly once and when is the magazine empty. You can regulate how many bullets a weapon should be able to shot if you press the trigger once (the best answer is "one" btw) and how many bullets are in the magazine.

Bottom line, there is no reason why a civilian should own a weapon which allows you to fire 40 are more shots just by pulling the trigger once, and yes, that is a feature you can regulate.

Edited by Swanpride on Nov 11th 2018 at 1:14:54 AM

Well, a civilian can’t own a weapon that fires 40 shots with a single trigger pull. That would be a fully automatic weapon, and those are prohibited basically everywhere, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at with that. The law already says that if you press the trigger once only one bullet can be fired.

Rate of fire for non-full auto weapons is so complex and difficult (both legally and mechanically) to regulate that there’s really no reason to, and I’m not really sure why you’re so stuck on it.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 11th 2018 at 1:33:53 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Doesn’t firing more than one shout per trigger pull require enough an automatic weapon (which are effectively banned in the US) or a multi-barrel weapon?

If that’s all we’re talking about that I’m kinda failing to understand where the lack fo regulation is. Automatic weapons are banned and multi-barrel weapons aren’t a huge problem are they?

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Mostly that there is a loop hole which allowed boom stocks to ever be a thing. The law should be worded in a way which also prohibits any equipment which would enhance a weapon to a level like this. Because otherwise, the weapons industry will just invent something else to subvert the rules which exist.

Edited by Swanpride on Nov 11th 2018 at 2:04:18 AM

Bump stocks (not boom stocks) still only fire one bullet per trigger pull, which is why they’re legal. Same with things like binary or motor triggers. That’s actually a decent example of how manufacturers get around technical regulations.

These things can be banned by name, but that’s not the same thing at all as a fire rate law. Again, I think you may want to do a little research on this topic.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 11th 2018 at 2:01:55 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Didn't they got banned in some states already? And yes, the fact that they basically subvert regulations is the point. There is a need to word them in a way that this additional equipment to enhance existing weapons is not allowed or has to pass some sort of approval board.

Avatar Source

Well, it would be kind of overkill if every single firearm part had to pass a review board. Even the very strictest countries don’t do that.

Laws always have potential loopholes, and with excessively technical subjects the possibility for loopholes is high.

Again, none of this has anything to do with an RPM law though.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 11th 2018 at 2:32:53 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Technically, the biggest gun violence problem is suicide. Not homicide or suicide. That said, until we get some better statistics done without the NRA blocking research, accidental deaths of children by firearms still outweighs deliberate homicide of children in mass shootings. Yes, they will. Which is why it's often helpful to teach them proper rules for gun safety early, so that they get used to thinking of guns like another tool, just like a knife or a drill. Even some people who have had training still make dumb mistakes like this, or I wouldn't have to sit through a training lecture when someone accidentally puts a dent in the flight deck by discharging their M-16. Those are all pretty good rules to go by. Which is why the NRA is certain to oppose them tooth and nail. With the size of the US, and the wide swaths of the country that would need to be monitored, the bureaucracy costs for this would be staggering. More probably than Trump's attempted wall. Given the USA, this would very quickly be the new way to shore up white privilege.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

The fact that we can’t even begin to start putting together an body of evidence backed research to start addressing Gun Violence as a public health issue is infinitely frustrating.

Edited by megaeliz on Nov 11th 2018 at 6:42:07 AM