PULVERDAMPF

Dear Sir,

The EESC has been consulted by the Council and the European Parliament to give its opinion on the Commission proposal "amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons".
The EESC is currently in the process of examining this proposal in view of preparing a draft Opinion which will be submitted for adoption at the meeting of the Section for the Single Market Production and Consumption on 13 April and to the Plenary session of the EESC on 27-28 April 2016.
All documents produced so far at the EESC on this topic are internal working documents.
As a consultative body of the EU representing organized civil society, the EESC is open to all contributions made to him.

The secretariat
of the Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption

Dear Sir,

Unfortunately your email did not provide any answers to my questions.

>All documents produced so far at the EESC on this topic are internal working documents.
>As a consultative body of the EU representing organized civil society, the EESC is open to all contributions made to him.
Thank you for your openness to incorporate contributions.
We’re happy to keep monitoring the status of this document and to provide comments on any mistakes and data misinterpretations.
We’re also happy to assist you by sharing the document in the public domain so that more people can contribute to the increase of its quality (as on your web page only very few people would see it).
For the start, below find my previous email converted to the form of document review contribution, please.


> 2.5 Stakeholders' views were taken into account. Member States and NGOs agreed that the proposed directive would help to prevent the diversion of firearms to the illegal market.
If the document states that the stakeholders‘ view were taken into the account, it shall list the stakeholders, especially NGOs.
Otherwise there’s a place for suspicion that the stakeholders were selectively chosen to represent certain view.
My recommendation is to include the complete list of stakeholders as an Appendix to the document and to reference it in point 2.5


>3.1 Recent tragic events have precipitated the debate on the sale and use of weapons. Public security is increasingly under threat from terrorism and there is a pressing need to take
>decisive action to counter the ease with which people can get hold of firearms, which continue to fall into the hands of radical groups, criminal organisations and disturbed individuals
>whose motives are incomprehensible, who then use these firearms to perpetrate barbaric crimes.
As no legally privately owned firearms felt to the hands of radical groups and were then used in terrorist events, this point shall be taken out.

>3.2 Nor can we ignore the firearm-related fatalities and serious casualties resulting every year from the mishandling or storage of weapons.
The document shall include the statistical background. Otherwise it is an empty claim which will be easily challenged.

>3.4 Nevertheless, the EESC believes that, in view of the ongoing security concerns, legislation on this issue needs to be more ambitious. The Commission should not simply
> draft legislation as an immediate response to recent acts of terrorism, but when doing so should also seek to resolve security issues relating to legal firearms.
The document shall elaborate on security issues related to legal firearms, without mixing them up with illegal firearms or other weapons.

>3.5 In fact, legally obtained weapons have been used to commit over 63 000 homicides in the European Union over the last 10 years .
>There are EU countries where over 40% of crimes involve the use of a weapon, and in most EU Member States this figure stands at over 20%. These figures do not include suicides or accidents.
This point is a serious misinterpretation.
My personal opinion is that it’s there by purpose to suit certain ideology. I’ll be glad if you prove me wrong by correcting it.
To explain:
- weapon: is *any device* used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems
- firearm: A firearm is a portable gun, being a barrelled weapon that launches one or more projectiles
The directive is about legal firearms. Point 3.5 speaks about weapons. For example, if the car is used to ram people, it’s a weapon. Will directive ban cars?
Therefore the statistics about weapons shall be replaced by statistics about legal firearms or the point shall be taken out completely.


>3.6 Australia provides an excellent example of weapons control. Following an incident where a man entered a cafe and killed 35 people and wounded 23 others with two weapons, Australia embarked upon one of the most substantial overhauls on record of its laws on the use and possession of weapons. This led to a
>visible reduction in firearm-related deaths. It banned certain types of weapons, introduced a requirement to provide a genuine reason for possessing a weapon (which could not be purely for self-defence) and financed a national buyback programme. This initiative led to the surrender of 700 000 weapons and a drastic fall
>in firearm-related homicides.
This point does not correlate with publicly available statistical data.
It shall be taken out or the source of your data shall be included and the word „drastic“ shall be quantified.


>3.8 Like Australia, following random shootings which resulted in 15 fatalities and a further 15 wounded, the United Kingdom also banned the use of certain types of weapons, introduced mandatory registration for owners and funded a buyback programme.
> Although the outcomes were not as visible as in Australia, these
>measures likewise led to a fall in firearm-related crimes.
Again, can you provide statistical data which show this, please. Be so kind to include all homicides, as that is the relevant metric.


>4.1 This initiative shows due regard for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. A directive is the appropriate instrument to use here, since there is no other way to amend the rules in force.
The initiative fails for the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. It aims at serious limitation of rights of large groups of citizens while it addresses very small level of crime (again, do not mix legal vs. illegal firearms and do not mix firearms vs. weapons, please).
Therefor this point shall be dropped.

Best regards,

Incite hat geschrieben:Video ist online
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/e ... ITTEE-LIBE

d-s hat geschrieben:Next round with EESC.

TV: European politicians want to strengthen the limitations for ownership of firearms, ..., ... . Is it a step forward?
Jaroslav Štefec: It's a step, but it's a step towards the hell as the ownership of firearms is natural part of democracy. It's one of key parts of democracy.
.....
In bad situation, when police is not around, people need to be able to protect themselves and their families.
....