GUUUUUUUUNZ

[LesPalenik]

Germany has very restrictive laws regarding weapons. People don't just "rush" to get revolvers and small arm licenses. They wouldn't get them just so. Let alone carrying them.
Even in Switzerland, where every citizen without a "criminal record" has the right to posses weapons there are strict rules about how to store or transport them. It is not the same to own a weapon than to carry it

I would be careful when choosing the sources of information and the spreading thereof. There is a lot of rubbish around

No doubt that the German gun laws are more restrictive than in USA or in eastern Europe. However, the quoted article (from the www.thelocal.de) explicitly states that Germans rushed to obtain small arms licences, and add that the number of applications in Bavaria in the first three months of 2016 equaled that for the whole of the previous year. I haven't read anything from that publication before, but it seems to be established and respectable.

Wikipedia: The Local is a multi-regional, European, English-language digital news publisher with local editions in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Each site, while alike in appearance, has separate editorial teams, each focused on its respective market.

https://www.thelocal.de/20161215/year-after-cologne-sex-assaults-germany-frets-over-integration

[rabanito]

No doubt that the German gun laws are more restrictive than in USA or in eastern Europe. However, the quoted article (from the www.thelocal.de) explicitly states that Germans rushed to obtain small arms licences, and add that the number of applications in Bavaria in the first three months of 2016 equaled that for the whole of the previous year. I haven't read anything from that publication before, but it seems to be established and respectable.

https://www.thelocal.de/20161215/year-after-cologne-sex-assaults-germany-frets-over-integration

Thank you for the hint
Never heard before of that publication
Nevertheless they write "Meanwhile Germans rushed to obtain small arms licences, with the number of applications in Bavaria in the first three months of 2016 equaling that for the whole of the previosu year." no revolvers mentioned. Small arms are "non-lethal", blank firing guns they precise, which - if you dig a little in the same publication, ara not much more than pepper spray IMHO

Of course you write in good faith. Only that there are many "low level" publications around.

If you are interested in Germany or Switzerland (or the rest of the world) for example you can choose NZZ, FAZ, Süddeutsche Zeitung etc. Most have an English versions and ARE serious and journalistic excellent. Some have English editions, I believe

[LesPalenik]

Thank you for the hint
Never heard before of that publication
Nevertheless they write "Meanwhile Germans rushed to obtain small arms licences, with the number of applications in Bavaria in the first three months of 2016 equaling that for the whole of the previosu year." no revolvers mentioned. Small arms are "non-lethal", blank firing guns they precise, which - if you dig a little in the same publication, ara not much more than pepper spray IMHO

Of course you write in good faith. Only that there are many "low level" publications around.

If you are interested in Germany or Switzerland (or the rest of the world) for example you can choose NZZ, FAZ, Süddeutsche Zeitung etc. Most have an English versions and ARE serious and journalistic excellent. Some have English editions, I believe

Revolvers was my wording, that's how I interpreted small arms. Maybe incorrectly, but why would anybody buy a blank-firing or starting pistol for self-defense?
Thank you for the links to the other German publications. For the last few years, I've been reading daily spiegel.de which has also pretty good coverage of the world events.

EDIT: Just looked at the FAZ website, and found there a very informative article about Kingfishers, with exquisite images of these colorful birds.

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/faszination-eisvogel-wie-ein-blitz-vom-himmel-16122185.html

[rabanito]

Revolvers was my wording, that's how I interpreted small arms. Maybe incorrectly, but why would anybody buy a blank-firing or starting pistol for self-defense?
Thank you for the links to the other German publications. For the last few years, I've been reading daily spiegel.de which has also pretty good coverage of the world events.

Not your blame. Any normal person reads that and perceives as you did. Probably they do it on purpose.
That in  Cologne happened of course and many people went hysteric maybe.
But it was not a mass hysteria.
Why would people seek licenses they are not going to get, by law?
And what are you going to do with a gun that has to be in a safe with the ammunition separated from the gun, as the law prescribes?
A publication like that lives from the clicks, I presume. Sensation sells better than real life.
Just my humble opinion

[LesPalenik]

With all that new information, I was going to suggest that it would be easier to carry a pepper spray, but now I found out that in Germany it it is illegal to carry any form of pepper spray, regardless of its purpose, at demonstrations and large public gatherings.

So it looks like the only way to get a kick from pressing the nozzle on the pepper spray is to take it on a hike through some wild blueberry meadows. For the record, in Canada, the surest way to find some plump and photogenic bears is to visit the rural garbage dumps.

[Two23]

Revolvers was my wording, that's how I interpreted small arms.

"Small arms" is technically any hand held gun.  A pistol is a "small arm," as is my deer rifle or shotgun.  It differentiates from larger weapons such as artillery.


Kent in SD

[rabanito]

EDIT: Just looked at the FAZ website, and found there a very informative article about Kingfishers, with exquisite images of these colorful birds.

Agree 
I meet those birds very seldom on the riverside.
And the experienced eye sees more 
I met once a photographer with a big telephoto lens in a parking lot. I asked him what he was doing and he indicated me the owl he was taking photos of.
I'd had never noticed the bird otherwise   

[rabanito]

"Small arms" is technically any hand held gun.  A pistol is a "small arm," as is my deer rifle or shotgun.  It differentiates from larger weapons such as artillery.


Kent in SD

Whatever.
In the article we're discussing they specify later that they referred to "non-lethal" weapons.
Journalists sometime use diffuse terminology to attract attention
As stated, you don't get legally weapons in Germany just so. Therefore you don't apply for licenses you are almost sure not to get.
That was the context

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

..lTherefore you don't apply for licenses you are almost sure not to get..l

Strange logic. Then why is there an application process for something you can’t get? If you can apply, you can get. Probably not everyone, but some will get.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

German laws were created by German Shepherds for German sheeple. With the invasion of wolves, the sheeple realized the shepherds are not protecting them sufficiently anymore and decided to take matters into their own hands.

[rabanito]

Strange logic. Then why is there an application process for something you can’t get? If you can apply, you can get. Probably not everyone, but some will get.

Q.E.D.
You read rubbish and find out for yourself that what the journalist writes is trash.
With that very logic you're using

In principle you can apply for anything.
Say: You go to a restaurant and apply for shoes.
They'll say you "impossible, we don't sell shoes". And that's it.
If you read in the papers that thousands of Germans are applying in restaurants for shoes, you suspect that it's not true 


You can apply maybe but if you don't fulfill some conditions you get a NO. And in Germany this is restrictive. Unless you have a good reason, it would be NO
If you are registered as having done something legally wrong, it is NO
In some more permissive countries like Switzerland just belonging to some national groups excludes you from legally purchasing a weapon

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Say: You go to a restaurant and apply for shoes...

Only sheeple would do that. You see, wolves are smarter than that. They do not get their shoes from restaurants. They know where shoe suppliers are. Soon sheeple will find out that too.

[LesPalenik]

When googling for "murder weapons in Germany" the www.local.de came again to rescue.
Surprisingly, Germany has one of the highest rates of gun ownership worldwide, yet also one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths.

To get a gun, Germans must first obtain a firearms ownership license (Waffenbesitzkarte) - and you may need a different one for each weapon you buy - or a license to carry (Waffenschein).

Applicants for a license must be at least 18 years old and undergo what’s called a reliability check, which includes checking for criminal records, whether the person is an alcohol or drug addict, whether they have mental illness or any other attributes that might make them questionable to authorities.

They also have to pass a “specialized knowledge test” on guns and people younger than 25 applying for their first license must go through a psychiatric evaluation.

One must also prove a specific and approved need for the weapon, which is mainly limited to use by hunters, competitive marksmen, collectors and security workers - not for self-defence.

Once you have a license, you’re also limited in the number of and kinds of guns you may own, depending on what kind of license you have: Fully automatic weapons are banned for all, while semiautomatic firearms are banned for anything other than hunting or competitive shooting.

Under the reforms passed in the wake of a 2009 mass shooting, gun owners are also subject to continued monitoring by the government with officials able to ask gun owners at any time to enter their private property and check that they are properly storing their weapons.

https://www.thelocal.de/20160616/five-things-to-know-about-guns-in-germany-us-gun-control-laws

[Ivo_B]

When googling for "murder weapons in Germany" the www.local.de came again to rescue.
Surprisingly, Germany has one of the highest rates of gun ownership worldwide, yet also one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths.

https://www.thelocal.de/20160616/five-things-to-know-about-guns-in-germany-us-gun-control-laws

It’s a bit like Belgian weapon law.
Hunters have to pass difficult exams to get a hunters license hence the possibility to buy hunting weapons.

Sport shooters have to subscribe to a club and prove annually a minimum of practice in the shooting ranch. Sport shooters can only buy sport calibers. (Luckily .44 and .45 is considered as super caliber) snub style guns (4”, 2”)are not considered as sport weapons and we won’t get a license for it. Depends how good you know the local police officer responsible for arm licences.

About the question: why buying an alarm pistol for self defense: it has to see with the distance between arms and public. The public opinion is very biased against private weapons. It is not easy to officially get a gun. People’s who are interested in guns are often not willing to overcome the effort and legal stuff to obtain a licence, instead they soften the urge to own the real deal by getting a counterfeit.

It all changed end 90’s. A Winchester 30.30 was considered as hunting rifle and any +18 could buy one.
One infamous guy walked in our local gun shop and walked out with a Winchester and a box ammunition. One hour later he shot a nanny and the baby and a toddler, 200 meter away from the gun shop, because the nanny was a black woman. 😭

Weapon legislation was modified within a month and all weapons fell under police license.

It was possible to buy military rifles. Don’t forget we have famous weapon industry and lobby in Belgium (FN with the FAL, Mimimi, etc) the licence was granted by the governor, not the local police. After a raid with assault weapons, it’s not possible anymore to get military weapons and ammo.

Same with shotguns. In the 80’s, several brutal political inspired raids (some say it was the military police) with little loot but high casualties resulted in a complete prohibition of riotguns and short riot guns with pistol grips became very forbidden property.

......

When another massive shooting incident in the US shocks the US and the world, there is no understanding for the US second amendment anywhere in Europe and people’s wonder when the US politicians will finally get the balls to make work of a real weapon legislation. Personally, I don’t have an opinion on the subject, it’s US citizens business. And for same reason, buying a alarm gun looks strange for an American, it’s strange voor an European to find a revolver in a blister in Wallmarkt. Different worlds....

[amolitor]

What is interesting and, I believe, important about European gun control laws is not that they are directly particularly effective but rather the ease with which they are passed. Some lunatic does a bad thing, and the populace says more or less with one voice "well, let's pass a law prohibiting those guns" and it simply happens.

In the USA this does not simply happen, and this speaks strongly to the US attitudes towards guns.

In Belgium you have, no doubt, many sad teenagers. As we do in the USA.

The difference is that in the USA it is not uncommon for that teenager to say "You know what would make me feel better? I should get some guns, and go shoot a bunch of people at a school!" and in Belgium this is, I think, pretty rare. Not because this gun or that gun is or is not prohibited, but because the attitudes of most people in Belgium are simply different. The sad teenagers lean toward other ideas for dealing with their sadness.

Not to suggest, of course, that even in the USA sad teenagers grab a gun first. Those people are rare here as well. But they are far more common here than anywhere else.

[Ivo_B]

What is interesting and, I believe, important about European gun control laws is not that they are directly particularly effective but rather the ease with which they are passed. Some lunatic does a bad thing, and the populace says more or less with one voice "well, let's pass a law prohibiting those guns" and it simply happens.

In the USA this does not simply happen, and this speaks strongly to the US attitudes towards guns.

In Belgium you have, no doubt, many sad teenagers. As we do in the USA.

The difference is that in the USA it is not uncommon for that teenager to say "You know what would make me feel better? I should get some guns, and go shoot a bunch of people at a school!" and in Belgium this is, I think, pretty rare. Not because this gun or that gun is or is not prohibited, but because the attitudes of most people in Belgium are simply different. The sad teenagers lean toward other ideas for dealing with their sadness.

Not to suggest, of course, that even in the USA sad teenagers grab a gun first. Those people are rare here as well. But they are far more common here than anywhere else.

I’m not sure what would happen if a Belgian sad teenager can find a gun in every drawer of the house, or even have it’s own or take it out of moms purse.

[Ivo_B]

The sad teenagers lean toward other ideas for dealing with their sadness.

I could reply about how “disappointed youngsters” found connection with Isis, but this would be very over the red line of political debate, so I mute myself.

[LesPalenik]

What is interesting and, I believe, important about European gun control laws is not that they are directly particularly effective but rather the ease with which they are passed. Some lunatic does a bad thing, and the populace says more or less with one voice "well, let's pass a law prohibiting those guns" and it simply happens.

In the USA this does not simply happen, and this speaks strongly to the US attitudes towards guns.

In Belgium you have, no doubt, many sad teenagers. As we do in the USA.

The difference is that in the USA it is not uncommon for that teenager to say "You know what would make me feel better? I should get some guns, and go shoot a bunch of people at a school!" and in Belgium this is, I think, pretty rare. Not because this gun or that gun is or is not prohibited, but because the attitudes of most people in Belgium are simply different. The sad teenagers lean toward other ideas for dealing with their sadness.

Not to suggest, of course, that even in the USA sad teenagers grab a gun first. Those people are rare here as well. But they are far more common here than anywhere else.

The attitudes are indeed different in different countries.
It's worthwhile to quote another example. In Canada's north, many Inuit youths have access to and use long guns to hunt seals, hares and various birds. They don't use their guns (or extremely seldom) to kill other people. Unfortunately, their suicide rates (for both, boys and girls) are very high.
 

[Robert Roaldi]

Just to go back to the statement that gun permit applications in Germany tripled after that incident (New Year's eve, was it?). Did it go from 10 to 30 or from 100,000 to 300,000? It makes a difference to the points people are trying to make. I didn't see a specific number quoted but I could easily have missed it.

This is analogous to an advertisement stating that a digicam has a 3x zoom lens. A 10-30e (35 mm equiv) zoom range buys you a completely different camera than one with a 30-90e range. The actual number matters, the ratio alone doesn't mean much.

This kind of incomplete reporting of information is too widespread. When a politician gives a speech in which he decries that xxx millions are being spent on something and that there should be cuts, two things almost never happen. The reporting does not compare the number xxx with anything else in the budget, so it's difficult to know what it really means. Is it really a lot or is it a drop in the bucket? It just sounds like a lot. The other thing that's almost never seen in media reporting is the cost of NOT spending that money.

A good example of the latter is a recent pronouncement by the current premier of Ontario. One of his suggested cuts to health care expenses was to stop using anaesthetics during colonoscopies because it would be cheaper to not do so. I'm sure that's true, it would be cheaper. It would be cheaper to not have a police force or an army too. Or paved roads. Or air traffic control. At least within those narrow budget sectors. There may be resulting increases in costs elsewhere however. E.g., people might choose not to have colonoscopies because it would be too onerous, which would result in more colon cancers in the future. It is easy to pretend that you're saving money by not doing something, but it is an incomplete analysis at best.

Another example is a recent estimate that it will cost about $70 billion dollars to clean up orphan gas and oil wells in the province of Alberta. Past environmental legislation either allowed orphan wells to happen, or if outlawed, it was not adequately policed. I'm willing to bet that someone along the line said that keeping environmental costs down in this manner would help create jobs, or some such nonsense. But the costs didn't disappear, they were just handed off to someone else to pay.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In a historic first, I'd agree with Robert