They also ban fully automatic guns and severely restrict the acquisition of other types of weapons.
Fully automatic weapons are heavily restricted here. Can you think of one ever being used in a crime? I can’t.
Compulsory liability insurance is required for anyone who is licensed to carry firearms.
Do you think that would change anything? Do you think the criminals would say, Oh Crap! I can’t afford the liability insurance. Do you think that would have stopped the Kansas City shooting?
German gun laws restricts the acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon.
That wouldn’t have stopped the Kansas City shooting either. They didn’t legally own the firearms.
There have been a few instances, but as far as I know, they were not legal weapons. The LA Bank shooting is an example. That is the only one I can think of.
Stolen from police officers? Because German gun laws restrict acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon, then it’s likely such laws would not have stopped the Kansas City shooting. Police officers have a need for a weapon.
Stolen from John Smith, some random dude with no need to have a gun? Then, because German gun laws restrict acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon, then it’s likely such laws would have stopped the Kansas City shooting. The gun(s) wouldn’t have been available to steal in the first place.
I do not see a credible need other than for a concealed weapon. Otherwise, it appears fairly open to buying a firearm. The requirements are similar to ours, Age, criminal record, mental health, no drug abuse, background check with only the addition of proof of competency.
Yeah, I don’t see a credible need requirement either, according to that website. So, we’ll go with proof of expertise instead.
Even so, your site mentions that publicly carrying firearms is generally prohibited and concealed carry is generally reserved for specific professions.
So, if the Kansas City shooter acquired the gun by stealing them, then it’s going to matter where they were stolen from.
If they were stolen from John Smith in public, then again, German gun control laws are far more likely to have stopped the Kansas City shooting because the legally acquired gun wouldn’t have been in the public in the first place.
If they were stolen from John Smith at home, then, the website you linked has safe storage requirements that suggest it would take a lot for the shooter to find and combine everything before going on the rampage. Again, German gun control laws would have likely stopped the shooting.
And while this is a fun exercise in the logical application of law, it’s all for nothing because German gun laws are largely unconstitutional. For Americans, guns are an individual right, not a privilege. In law, rights require duties from others. If someone has a right to something, then others have the duty of respecting that right. A right to guns is the duty to endure a higher probability of being murdered in a firearm related incident than other developed nations.
I will say I have no qualms about this for concealed carry. I have training through law enforcement, military and professional training I have paid for.
It makes me uncomfortable that someone with zero experience can buy a gun, walk out of the store, load it and put in their purse or pocket.
Fully automatic weapons are heavily restricted here. Can you think of one ever being used in a crime? I can’t.
Do you think that would change anything? Do you think the criminals would say, Oh Crap! I can’t afford the liability insurance. Do you think that would have stopped the Kansas City shooting?
That wouldn’t have stopped the Kansas City shooting either. They didn’t legally own the firearms.
If anything, you’ve pointed out that gun control works.
There have been a few instances, but as far as I know, they were not legal weapons. The LA Bank shooting is an example. That is the only one I can think of.
You almost understood.
It matters how they acquired the firearm. Do we know how that came to be?
I’ve only seen articles identify them as stolen
Stolen from who though?
Stolen from police officers? Because German gun laws restrict acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon, then it’s likely such laws would not have stopped the Kansas City shooting. Police officers have a need for a weapon.
Stolen from John Smith, some random dude with no need to have a gun? Then, because German gun laws restrict acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon, then it’s likely such laws would have stopped the Kansas City shooting. The gun(s) wouldn’t have been available to steal in the first place.
https://germanyexpat.de/gun-laws-in-germany/
I do not see a credible need other than for a concealed weapon. Otherwise, it appears fairly open to buying a firearm. The requirements are similar to ours, Age, criminal record, mental health, no drug abuse, background check with only the addition of proof of competency.
Yeah, I don’t see a credible need requirement either, according to that website. So, we’ll go with proof of expertise instead.
Even so, your site mentions that publicly carrying firearms is generally prohibited and concealed carry is generally reserved for specific professions.
So, if the Kansas City shooter acquired the gun by stealing them, then it’s going to matter where they were stolen from.
If they were stolen from John Smith in public, then again, German gun control laws are far more likely to have stopped the Kansas City shooting because the legally acquired gun wouldn’t have been in the public in the first place.
If they were stolen from John Smith at home, then, the website you linked has safe storage requirements that suggest it would take a lot for the shooter to find and combine everything before going on the rampage. Again, German gun control laws would have likely stopped the shooting.
And while this is a fun exercise in the logical application of law, it’s all for nothing because German gun laws are largely unconstitutional. For Americans, guns are an individual right, not a privilege. In law, rights require duties from others. If someone has a right to something, then others have the duty of respecting that right. A right to guns is the duty to endure a higher probability of being murdered in a firearm related incident than other developed nations.
I will say I have no qualms about this for concealed carry. I have training through law enforcement, military and professional training I have paid for.
It makes me uncomfortable that someone with zero experience can buy a gun, walk out of the store, load it and put in their purse or pocket.
Switzerland has a high rate of firearm ownership. Their firearm deaths are still low.
Removed by mod