d-s hat geschrieben:Obviously, I do not expect to get the response.Dear Mr. Moosch,
I write you as European citizen whom you’re supposed to serve.
I have several questions about your working document on Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons.
Please note that I copy this email to Slovak representatives in European Parliament and few other stakeholders as I believe that they shall be informed about your work.
Also please note that as you are a public servant I reserve the right to publish both these questions and your answers.Can you publish the list of Member States and the list of NGOs which agreed with the proposed directive, 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.
The aim of this request is to make sure that the selection of NGOs included all parts of the spectra, including sport shooters organizations and hunters.
Also, as citizens, we have the right to know the positions of respective country representatives.Can you provide the list of terrorist events in which legally privately owned firearms felt into the hands of radical groups and were then used in terrorist events, please?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.Can you provide the statistical data and their source about firearms related facilities caused by mishandling ow firearms, please, especially in comparison to other common activities?3.2 Nor can we ignore the firearm-related fatalities and serious casualties resulting every year from the mishandling or storage of weapons.
(Also, would you be so kind to not mix weapons – i.e. knife – with firearms as the proposed directive is about firearms and not weapons?)Can you list the security issues related to legal firearms and back it up with statistical data and the source of the data, please?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.Can you explain how you reached this conclusion, please? Was it a mistake (in such case the person who prepared it is not qualified for the work he or she is doing) or was it intentional misinterpretation (in other words cheating)?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.
Because when I check the source you list (UN agency), the number 63.000 covers weapons, not firearms. That means knives, stones, whatever what a person can hold. According to the data you use as a source, only several percent of this number were legal firearms.Can you provide the statistical data this conclusion is based on? Because the publicaly available data actually shows increase in homicide rate after the firearms ban. Therefore I assume that you have some other source of the data and I believe it shall be published.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.Again, can you provide statistical data which show this, please. Be so kind to include all homicides, as that is the relevant metric.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.Can you explain how was the proportionality evaluated?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.
Because statistics show that crime with legally owned firearms is actually very small, much smaller than crime with various other objects, e.g. cars, knives, etc.
Therefore I would like to understand the methodology behind evaluation of proportionality.
Please feel free to use statistical instruments and terminlogy if it helps you to answer the questions.
I work as specialist for U.N. in the area of nuclear weapons disarmement and I will understand statistical terminology.
Thank you for your answers,
With best regards,
Very good!
... Wenn ich dann auf 3000€ sitzen bleibe wärs halt bitter wenn man sie wirklich abgegeben muss...