[Col.Hornet]

I have a strange feeling that terrorists in Europe may have another goal. Topic of gun ownership is raised every time something tragic happens and some people always try to force more restricted laws that will strike only law-obeying citizens. So it means that with every attack they are closer to completely disarm Europeans.

How would that help them? I don't think there's much likelihood even now that upon a terrorist attack, a private citizen runs home, gets their gun out of a cabinet and runs back to the scene of the attack to shoot the terrorist. I'm pretty sure that in no european country is concealed carry a thing like it is in for example the US.

Bad guy will always get a gun if he wants to. legally or not.

Really? If I turned a bad guy tomorrow, I'd have no idea where and how to get a gun illegally. It'd take quite some time to figure out, with presumably a very uncertain outcome. I might make educated guesses about where some hunting rifles could be found, but stealing those would incur its own risk of getting caught.

If I was a career criminal, part of a terrorist organization or just otherwise happened to have particularly shady acquiantances? Sure, then I probably could. But bad guys connected to a network of other bad guys from whom to acquire guns is just a subset of all bad guys (and if that's all that you meant, then fair enough).

Of course, stricter gun legislation probably doesn't make it any harder to obtain a gun illegally, which I suppose was your point. I'm just saying that it's not something anyone can just automatically accomplish (especially on short notice) if they want.

In Poland if I had a sport gun license I can carry a LOADED gun in a holster (that is a quite recent change in our law. It was changed in 01.10.2014 and I was pretty shocked when I found out. Before that you had to carry weapon and ammo separately) Actually many people complain that our law is very tough in that matter but after some studying and drilling deeper into the topic I found out that it's not true. If you are responsible person without criminal past then it's not a problem. Just follow the procedures. As for your latter point. Well. I have to agree. Legal distribution of firearms also creates some risk. But that's what the verification procedures are for and it's up to police to give permissions to proper people. But to me, the EC's ideas are a complete misunderstanding. They want to counter terrorism acts but as you mention. If somebody is a member of an organized criminal network he will get illegal weapon no matter how hard for a lawful citizens gun policy will be.

Of course I'm not agitating for uncontrolled and radical liberalization of gun laws. It could be more dangerous then tightening them. But I do not think that will do any good as well. Other people, not only hunters or sportsmen will be affected by this idiocy as well. For example historical weapons collectors and Airsoft players.

No need to make life more difficult for lawful shooters and firearms fans.

[NGTM-1R]

If somebody is a member of an organized criminal network he will get illegal weapon no matter how hard for a lawful citizens gun policy will be.

Ask the yakuza in Japan how well that works. They're actually having a major dustup right now; the dominant organized crime group in the country is in the middle of a civil war and the smaller groups are attacking them. One of the major figures in the struggle was recently beaten to death.

Not shot. In fact the largest organized crime struggle in decades in Japan has resulted in precisely zero people being shot so far.

Because it's hard for them to get guns due to Japan's extremely strict laws about acquiring and importing firearms.

The tautological statement that if you outlaw guns only criminals will have them is literally true, but its metaphorical truth is intensely debateable. In the US where laws vary by state, for example, it's been common for people who trace guns used in gang violence in LA to Arizona, or New York City to Georgia; from areas with high restrictions to areas with low ones, and no borders that would have to be surmounted in between. If the guns were not easily accessed at their points of origin, they would not be easily used elsewhere either.

[Bobboau]

@Col.Hornet
no sir. this world is no place for reasonable middle grounds, you need to pick a side and then go to it's furthest most radical, most unreasonable extreme.

[karajorma]

In the US where laws vary by state, for example, it's been common for people who trace guns used in gang violence in LA to Arizona, or New York City to Georgia; from areas with high restrictions to areas with low ones, and no borders that would have to be surmounted in between. If the guns were not easily accessed at their points of origin, they would not be easily used elsewhere either.

And that's why the EU feel the need to get involved in this. EU borders are pretty open and the countries with strict laws don't want guns coming in from the countries without.

[Col.Hornet]

If somebody is a member of an organized criminal network he will get illegal weapon no matter how hard for a lawful citizens gun policy will be.

Ask the yakuza in Japan how well that works. They're actually having a major dustup right now; the dominant organized crime group in the country is in the middle of a civil war and the smaller groups are attacking them. One of the major figures in the struggle was recently beaten to death.

Not shot. In fact the largest organized crime struggle in decades in Japan has resulted in precisely zero people being shot so far.

Because it's hard for them to get guns due to Japan's extremely strict laws about acquiring and importing firearms.

The tautological statement that if you outlaw guns only criminals will have them is literally true, but its metaphorical truth is intensely debateable. In the US where laws vary by state, for example, it's been common for people who trace guns used in gang violence in LA to Arizona, or New York City to Georgia; from areas with high restrictions to areas with low ones, and no borders that would have to be surmounted in between. If the guns were not easily accessed at their points of origin, they would not be easily used elsewhere either.

Of course. But let's consider why and how Japan was so successful on getting rid of the gun crimes. At least not Japanese by themselves in 100% It were the WWII victors who wanted their people completely disarmed so they removed all firearms from the civilian sector and army was reduced to the minimum. Add to it the fact that Japan is a complex of Islands in the middle of the ocean with pretty well organised border security. So no doubt getting permission for a gun is almost impossible, so does firearms smuggling. I doubt that an all out "gun ban" without the revision of border security policy in the first place will give us more safety. Illegal, smuggled guns are much bigger threat then firearms possessed legally.

As for buying  legal gun in one place to use it for a crime in the other. It all depends on the procedures. I don't know how the gun policy in every EU country looks like but I guess that in the vast majority they are pretty tight. Another factor is the time to go through all them. It also costs a lot of money. And let's not forget that police departments among the EU share intel between themselves so let's say that if somebody associated/ suspected of supporting terrorists groups would like to buy a gun in Poland and use it to let's say perform an attack in Germany he would have never got the permission for the gun because our police would have already been informed of the fact. Of course there is a possibility that such guy could buy a gun through another person but the costs of entire procedure are very high (higher then the price on the black market I suppose).

[NGTM-1R]

But let's consider why and how Japan was so successful on getting rid of the gun crimes. At least not Japanese by themselves in 100% It were the WWII victors who wanted their people completely disarmed so they removed all firearms from the civilian sector and army was reduced to the minimum.

Stop. You don't know a thing about Japanese history at all, and your arguments fall apart right here. This didn't happen, mainly because it wasn't necessary.

Japan's history with arms control goes back at least to the Tokugawa Shogunate, if not earlier, and the Sword Hunt that sought to prevent non-samurai from owning blades longer than the proscribed length. They've been doing gun control-like measures since before they had guns. As such they've been wildly successful in lowering the amount of violence (the current gang war is equally notable for the fact that few people are getting stabbed, again because of regulation on the ownership of knives instituted after the mass-stabbing incidents of the '70s).

For an alternate answer, we could consider the low rate of firearms crime in the UK, which has been regulating the ownership of personal firearms at least since WW1 as a response to the IRA. How would you opt to explain that?

[Bobboau]

yeah, Japan has a gun culture that is almost the polar opposite of the US's for about three times as long. There were military forces that used guns back in the day and generally considered assholes for it.

[Col.Hornet]

But let's consider why and how Japan was so successful on getting rid of the gun crimes. At least not Japanese by themselves in 100% It were the WWII victors who wanted their people completely disarmed so they removed all firearms from the civilian sector and army was reduced to the minimum.

Stop. You don't know a thing about Japanese history at all, and your arguments fall apart right here. This didn't happen, mainly because it wasn't necessary.

Japan's history with arms control goes back at least to the Tokugawa Shogunate, if not earlier, and the Sword Hunt that sought to prevent non-samurai from owning blades longer than the proscribed length. They've been doing gun control-like measures since before they had guns. As such they've been wildly successful in lowering the amount of violence (the current gang war is equally notable for the fact that few people are getting stabbed, again because of regulation on the ownership of knives instituted after the mass-stabbing incidents of the '70s).

Point taken. Thanks for explanation But still, the "core" of my thought remains correct. This country has a good conditions to prevent weapon-related violence. Combination of social attitude <forged by as you mentioned, hundreds of years of regulations. People are just used to the rules> and limited opportunities to create a black market for firearms. Can't say the same thing about Europe. Even if we raise restrictions <which will affect not only the firearms!>, the problem of illegal stuff will remain intact. Eu's current actions are just scratching the surface of the problem which is far more complicated. Desperate attempt to heal the symptoms while ignoring the source of them. The weapons purchased on black market. This trace leads further like the question from where these weapons come from and how they are transported to our countries and a lot more.

But hitting the rightful people's freedom is always easier. Maybe some politicians will feel better if they do anything, show the people that they are doing something to solve problem, no matter if it's reasonable or not. 

As for the situation in the UK. Can't answer right now. I would have to dig through the sources. That should not be a problem. I did a university cartographic project few months ago. I created a map which showed the quantity of registered firearms in EU per capita and it's relations with the crimes. I based it mostly on the data from EuroStat.