German Police Used Only 85 Bullets Against People in 2011

[spin]

3. Germany has a long history of gun control ...

Gun politics in Germany

History of firearms restrictions in Germany

Restrictions imposed by the treaty of Versailles

In 1919 and 1920, to stabilize the country and in part to comply with the Treaty of Versailles, the German Weimar government passed very strict gun ownership restrictions. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles stated, "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[1]

In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[2] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

***snip***

The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

***snip***

Current laws

After 1945, the Allied Forces commanded the complete disarming of Germany. Even German police officers were initially not allowed to carry firearms. Private ownership of firearms was not allowed until after 1956. The legal status returned essentially to that of the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928. The regulation of the matter was thoroughly revised in 1972, when the new restrictive Federal Weapons Act (Bundeswaffengesetz) became effective, partly as a reaction to the terror of the Red Army Faction.[8] It was developed in the Federal Weapons Act of 2002 and by amendments in 2008 and 2009. These laws were the result of a chain of school shootings in Erfurt, Emsdetten and Winnenden. They led to a public debate, in which blame was attributed to various elements of youth culture and society, including violent computer games, television programs, rock music and private gun ownership.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

Obviously if we had a similar history of strong gun control we would have far fewer than 300,000,000 firearms in civilian hands Amazingly while tragic, only 11,015 homicides resulted from firearms in 2010. (source: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html).

In 2005 there were approximately 12,252 murders by firearms 80% of which are caused by felons/career criminals/gang member activities. (source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_deaths_are_in_the_US_every_year#ixzz1uZFbduca)

1993 was the peak year for homicides committed by firearms and the total that year was 17,075.



Nonfatal injuries caused by firearms used in crime have also fallen significantly. In 1994 there were 1.3 million victims but in 2005 the number had fallen to 477,040.



(source: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/)

Interestingly 1993 was one of the early years in which "shall issue" concealed carry laws were sweeping across our nation state by state.



In the last decade the sale of firearms has skyrocketed yet the violent crime rate has dropped to levels last seen in the late 60s.


(source: http://nssf.org/newsroom/releases/show.cfm?PR=011812.cfm&path=2012)

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).[1]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Now obviously because of the many factors that can influence the violent crime rate, it is impossible to conclude that more firearms in the hands of civilians and laws that allow licensed citizens to carry firearms in public have resulted in the decrease in the violent crime rate. However if you consider only just these two factors, it is obvious that more firearms and more people legally carrying firearms does not equal more crime.

A fair question might be, "Would violent crime increase if draconian gun laws were passed that forbid legal concealed carry and greatly limited the ownership of some firearms or certain types of firearms such as handguns or semi-auto firearms?"

I could also point out that while it is fun to compare crime rates from nation to nation, it is foolish because of the cultural and demographic differences between nations.

Germany is the size of Montana with a population of 82,217,800 people which would be the same as the population of our three largest states (California,Texas and New York) combined. Germany also has far different drug laws than does the United States which has a failed war on drugs that results in a high rate of violence involving drug gangs fighting for turf.

Drug policy

***snip***

Germany

Compared with other EU countries the drug policy of Germany is considered to be rather progressive but still stricter than for example the Netherlands. In 1994 the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that drug addiction was not a crime, as was the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. In 2000 the German narcotic law ("BtmG&quot was changed to allow for supervised drug-injection rooms. In 2002, a pilot study was started in seven German cities to evaluate the effects of heroin-assisted treatment on addicts, compared to methadone-assisted treatment. The positive results of the study led to the inclusion of heroin-assisted treatment into the services of the mandatory health insurance in 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy#Germany

While I believe that allowing civilians to own firearms as is legal in most states in our nation can definitely result in tragedy, overall honest and responsible citizens rarely misuse their weapons.

I also believe that admitting that our war on drugs is a total failure and legalizing some drugs such a marijuana might also result in far less violent crime, I realize that currently it is very difficult to convince those we elect to agree. Even our President who admits he used drugs in his youth seems to favor continuing our efforts to combat drug use.

Still I feel that people like me who favor changing our policies on drugs have a far better chance of actually succeeding than those who wish to implement truly draconian gun laws in the U.S. that would be similar to those in many European nations.

I am realistic enough to also understand that many legalizing drugs would not solve all problems and people would get high and do foolish things that would injure or kill others. The United Sates with what would be far more reasonable drug laws would not be a utopia.

Are you willing to admit that if your idea of implementing firearm law similar to that in Germany were successful, despite the overwhelming odds of passing such legislation at this time, it might not be as successful at reducing violent crime as you wish?

Of course the major hurdles to your idea is that:

1) Many Americans would simply refuse obey the law and would vote during the following elections to throw every politician that supported draconian gun laws out of office. (Remember that there are an estimated 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation that have a considerable amount of money invested in their hobby and who strongly support the Second Amendment and believe that it allows honest citizens to own firearms with certain reasonable restrictions.)

2) Criminals who by nature do not obey laws would not turn in their firearms and would hope that your draconian gun laws would disarm many citizens as that would allow then to use their illegal weapons with far less fear of confronting an armed victim.

3) An attempt to confiscate firearms in order to achieve the level of firearm ownership in Germany would result in confrontations between the authorities and armed citizens would would refuse to give up their weapons and would be willing to fight. While this might involve only a small percentage of gun owners, it could lead to far more violence and fatalities than we have today. It might also lead to an armed rebellion in some areas of our nation that even if it failed would result in considerable disruption and needless death and injury of both police and those who once were honest and productive members of our society.

4) In the history of our nation firearms have been used to resist oppression. For example:

Deacons for Defense and Justice

On July 10, 1964, a group of African American men in Jonesboro, Louisiana led by Earnest “Chilly Willy” Thomas and Frederick Douglas Kirkpatrick founded the group known as The Deacons for Defense and Justice to protect members of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) against Ku Klux Klan violence. Most of the “Deacons” were veterans of World War II and the Korean War. The Jonesboro chapter organized its first affiliate chapter in nearby Bogalusa, Louisiana led by Charles Sims, A.Z. Young and Robert Hicks. Eventually they organized a third chapter in Louisiana. The Deacons tense confrontation with the Klan in Bogalusa was crucial in forcing the federal government to intervene on behalf of the local African American community. The national attention they garnered also persuaded state and national officials to initiate efforts to neutralize the Klan in that area of the Deep South.

The Deacons emerged as one of the first visible self-defense forces in the South and as such represented a new face of the civil rights movement. Traditional civil rights organizations remained silent on them or repudiated their activities. They were effective however in providing protection for local African Americans who sought to register to vote and for white and black civil rights workers in the area. The Deacons, for example, provided security for the 1966 March Against Fear from Memphis to Jackson, Mississippi. Moreover their presence in Southeastern Louisiana meant that the Klan would no longer be able to intimidate and terrorize local African Americans without challenge.

The strategy and methods that the Deacons employed attracted the attention and concern of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which authorized an investigation into the group’s activities. The investigation stalled, however, when more influential black power organizations such as US and the Black Panther Party emerged after the 1965 Watts Riot. With public attention, and the attention of the FBI focused elsewhere, the Deacons lost most of their notoriety and slowly declined in influence. By 1968 they were all but extinct. In 2003 the activities of the Deacons was the subject of a 2003, “Deacons for Defense.”
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/deacons-defense-and-justice

It is my opinion that people who are on both sides of this issue would be wise to work together to improve existing firearms law. Unfortunately today our politicians don't solve problems. Both major political parties fight like school yard children in a playground or like two opposing football teams in the Super Bowl. It seems that the majority of the people we elect are mainly interested in gaining reelection and are not willing to compromise in order to improve life in our nation.