EU agrees new gun rules after militant attacks

schumi

schumi

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
25,095
Reaction score
2,032
Location
Durban
BRUSSELS – The European Union agreed stricter gun rules on Tuesday but baulked at a proposal for a complete ban on the most lethal semi-automatic weapons such as the Kalashnikov.

The measure is part of an overall tightening of EU rules that govern the purchase and sale of such weapons since two Islamist gunmen shot dead 12 people in the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January 2015. Militants killed 130 people in attacks in Paris in November last year.

Proposed in 2015 but disputed by the bloc’s 28 nations, the rules restrict access to some high-calibre weapons and make it easier to track guns to avoid them being sold on the black market.

But amid opposition from Europe’s gun lobby, the European Commission’s plan to prohibit private citizens from owning weapons like the Russian-made AK-47 failed to obtain enough support from member states.
Click to expand...

More at: http://ewn.co.za/2016/12/20/eu-agrees-new-gun-rules-after-militant-attacks
 
Frigging idiots. Terrorists used already illegal and smuggled guns. Oh! Let's make them MORE illegal. That will sort the problem, out.
Bet the Berlin victims and people around the scene wished that their access to guns was tighter.
Not that the perp was able to get away...oh wait.....
Europe is as dumb as ^%$*.
No wonder the UK wants out.
 
Fscking idiots, I doubt they obtained those guns legally over the counter :rolleyes:
 
What is a high caliber weapon?
Stupid journalist once again. Educate yourselves you asswipes.
 
Glock26 said:
Frigging idiots. Terrorists used already illegal and smuggled guns. Oh! Let's make them MORE illegal. That will sort the problem, out.
Bet the Berlin victims and people around the scene wished that their access to guns was tighter.
Not that the perp was able to get away...oh wait.....
Europe is as dumb as ^%$*.
No wonder the UK wants out.
Click to expand...

There is NO valid reason for any person other than military to possess an Automatic rifle. I fully support a ban on Automatic rifles and pistols. But when you are unable to defend yourself with any fire-arm it becomes an issue. I would much rather have a semi-auto than a Full auto purely based on accuracy. 98% of civilians can't shoot for shyte with an auto rifle anyway.
 
Pitbull said:
There is NO valid reason for any person other than military to possess an Automatic rifle. I fully support a ban on Automatic rifles and pistols. But when you are unable to defend yourself with any fire-arm it becomes an issue. I would much rather have a semi-auto than a Full auto purely based on accuracy. 98% of civilians can't shoot for shyte with an auto rifle anyway.
Click to expand...

Just lack of training thats all.

Proper training in schools I.E. a shooting club and no hassles.
 
Meanwhile in California...

Gov. Jerry Brown’s approval of sweeping gun control legislation in July has triggered a run on firearms in California, with some stores reporting sales have doubled since then.Starting Jan. 1, the general public in California can no longer buy a semiautomatic rifle equipped with bullet-buttons that allow for the quick removal and replacement of ammunition magazines, under a new law signed by the governor.Guns purchased before Jan. 1 can be kept as long as the owner registers them with the state as assault weapons.

As a result, sales of the long guns have at least doubled at many California gun stores, owners report.“When Gov. Brown signed that bill, the first 30 days in July were just insane,” said Joshua Deaser, the owner of Just Guns, a store in Sacramento. “It died down for a while but now we are back with everyone trying to get what they can before the end of the year.”Terry McGuire, owner of the Get Loaded gun store in the city of Grand Terrace in San Bernardino County, said people are clamoring to buy semiautomatic rifles before midmonth, given that the state background check process takes about 10 days.

“We have people lined up out the door and around the block,” McGuire said.State officials confirm there has been a surge in gun sales.The number of semiautomatic rifles registered this year with the state has more than doubled over last year, according to the state Department of Justice.In the less than six months since the July 1 signing of the rifle ban, 257,895 semiautomatic rifles have been purchased, eclipsing the 153,931 rifle purchases reported to the state in all of 2015, the state agency said.Purchases of all firearms, including handguns, have jumped 40% over last year, to nearly 1 million this year, according to the state agency.
Click to expand...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gun-run-snap-20161218-story.html
 
Arthur said:
Reason #33874 why the Swiss didn't join the EU. Around half of households own a private firearm, and most households have a military rifle. Five years ago they rejected tighter gun control laws, as Aunty Beeb frets here. Sane people, the Swiss.
Click to expand...

But, but ... guns cause more murders! Switzerland surely should be the world record holder in murder rate then ... :crylaugh:
 
Maybe they should focus more on the threat of Islam rather than further denying a threatened public from defending themselves from the invading horde.
 
Pitbull said:
There is NO valid reason for any person other than military to possess an Automatic rifle. I fully support a ban on Automatic rifles and pistols. But when you are unable to defend yourself with any fire-arm it becomes an issue. I would much rather have a semi-auto than a Full auto purely based on accuracy. 98% of civilians can't shoot for shyte with an auto rifle anyway.
Click to expand...
Seriously...think a bit before you type. Firstly, WHERE are fully auto firearms allowed to be owned by civilians, and has even ONE of them every been the source of ANY of these attacks?
Secondly, what the hell difference does it make if a person uses a semi auto or a full auto? By your own admission, semi autos are more dangerous anyways.
Thirdly, what fully auto pistol exists that has been used in a single attack?
So what are you supporting here? I ban on something that is already banned for 99.9% of people, and has never been used in terrorist attacks where the source was once a legal full auto?
Fourth, what gives you the right to decide what reason is valid and what isn't? I think no-one has a valid reason to own ANY car that can go more than 120km/h. I think anything faster should be banned. I also think that there is no valid reason for people to own dogs like Pitts and other vicious breeds. Everyone can just make do with poodles and lapdogs. People with GSG's and such should undergo training and a permit to own them.
I think that people don't have a valid reason to spend money on anything that is not for the better of society. No luxuries...no reason for them, as they don't benefit the rest of us.
Ok..so I don't believe any of the above. But then I don't believe it is my right to decide what others should own and possess anyways. You don't get to decide what others enjoy and what is valid and what isn't.
 
Glock26 said:
Seriously...think a bit before you type. Firstly, WHERE are fully auto firearms allowed to be owned by civilians, and has even ONE of them every been the source of ANY of these attacks?
Secondly, what the hell difference does it make if a person uses a semi auto or a full auto? By your own admission, semi autos are more dangerous anyways.
Thirdly, what fully auto pistol exists that has been used in a single attack?
So what are you supporting here? I ban on something that is already banned for 99.9% of people, and has never been used in terrorist attacks where the source was once a legal full auto?
Fourth, what gives you the right to decide what reason is valid and what isn't? I think no-one has a valid reason to own ANY car that can go more than 120km/h. I think anything faster should be banned. I also think that there is no valid reason for people to own dogs like Pitts and other vicious breeds. Everyone can just make do with poodles and lapdogs. People with GSG's and such should undergo training and a permit to own them.
I think that people don't have a valid reason to spend money on anything that is not for the better of society. No luxuries...no reason for them, as they don't benefit the rest of us.
Ok..so I don't believe any of the above. But then I don't believe it is my right to decide what others should own and possess anyways. You don't get to decide what others enjoy and what is valid and what isn't.
Click to expand...

For someone with a name like Glock26... :D

This must be a joke right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X