EU Questionaire

Discussion in 'Shooting, Hunting and Fishing' started by Beerhunter, Apr 24, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The EU have published a questionnaire on Firearms Control in the EU. A common approach to reducing the harm caused by criminal use of firearms in the EU

    At first glance one might think EU wide controls a good idea but when you read the questionnaire carefully the questions are extremely biased and appear to link the legal ownership of firearms with crime.

    I am not trying to tell anyone who wises to respond how to fill it in but unless one answers with choice 1 in each case one is agreeing that there is a problem with with the legal ownership of firearms that requires a change in the status quo.
     
  2. Wordsmith

    Wordsmith LE Book Reviewer

    The options are called Likert scales.

    Likert scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    They are usually set so that the middle option is neutral.

    The Likert scales the EU have provided will most probably result in an outcome calling for more action. Whether that is piss poor form design or whether it's intended to elicit a response calling for more legislation is anyone's guess.

    Wordsmith
     
  3. Did you read the questionnaire because I didn't spot any neutrals in the middle. They way I read them was:

    1. No EU action needed
    2. A little action needed
    3. A bit more action needed
    4. Quite a lot of action needed
    5. Lots of action needed.

    In other words unless you vote 1, you agree that at least some action is needed and your only choice is how much. Four to one is bias in my book.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. I like this bit "Many Member States have ratified the UN Firearms Protocol, which prohibits the illegal manufacturing of firearms"
    This raises a few questions:
    Those who have ratified the Protocol have agreed to prohibit an illegal activity, did they previously allow it? If so, why? Or was the illegal manufacture not actually illegal? Assuming that the illegal manufacture of firemarms really is illegal, why prohibit it? Will this actually achieve anything usefull?
    And last but not least, which cretin or board of cretins actually writes this EU rubbish?

    This is another gem:
    B.3. To what extent should the EU take action against the use of firearms for the purpose of committing terrorist acts on EU territory?

    Someone ought to tell these people that murder, attempted murder, GBH, coercion and intimidation are already illegal. These offences are all typical hallmarks of terrorism. In addition being a member of a terrorist organisation will get you loads of legal aggro. Not that terrorists are overly worried by such minor details.
     
  5. C.4. To what extent should the EU establish binding rules and standards on technical security features for firearms, to help ensure that only the rightful owner of a firearm may use it?

    Anybody care explain how that small matter might be made to work?
     
  6. Not understanding.Whats the use of strenghtening laws if criminals take no notice of them?
     
  7. Because it is a red herring....the main object is the disarming of the citizenry.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. It's bad enough when the government posts biased surveys such as this, let alone the bloody EU. I left this in the comments section - 'Very biased questions, worded carefully in favour of more legislation. The only other option (1) is worded so that you feel as if you are supporting crime when you select it. I will be selecting '1's across the survey as a protest vote against this pathetic excuse to legitimise further legislation as well as discrimination against legal owners of firearms. I would also feel strongly against being affected by any future legislation made by this un-democratic organisation designed to boost the collective egos of the European elite, the EU.' However, even though they spend god knows how much of our money on useless museums glorifying themselves, I doubt the EU will spend the money to hire someone to read comments from such lowly persons as you or I.

    And now that this evenings dose of outrage has been mulled over in my head, it's time for bed before I break something expensive
     
  9. Wordsmith

    Wordsmith LE Book Reviewer

    Cheer up - we've probably paid some consultant €1,000,000 to dream up this questionnaire and we're probably paying 12 bureaucrats a further €10,000,000 to administer it.

    I'd assess the practical value of the questionnaire as €1.

    Wordsmith
     
  10. Pray let me amend your post, as follows - 'practical value as less than 1p'. Sorry, my Japanese keyboard does not have a euro sign.

    tac
     
  11. I filled it out, but I couldn't find the "stick your ******* European superstate up your manky garlic scented ********" option!
     
    • Like Like x 4
  12. That's what the additional comments section is for!
     
  13. Quite-the very problem the USA is currently wrestling with...
     
  14. The problem that the US is trying to fix is, unfortunately, not fixable in the short term. The genie is out of the bottle and has been for along time. The anti-"Assault Weapons" lobby are, as a minimum, naive in the extreme.

    I think that every right thinking person believes that "something needs to be done" but banning certain firearms based on their cosmetics is just plain ridiculous and will not save one life.

    There are no easy answers, I wish I even had a difficult one. The US needs to admit that it has a problem (that will not be fixed by banning: large capacity magazine, pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, bipods, the colour black, etc.) and do some proper research into the causes of that problem.
     
  15. Apart from the EU seeking to increase its powers over another small group on the salami slicing system of eroding national and personal freedom these questions are interesting, inasmuch as most arms stockpiles are held by the military who also lawfully possess them. So would this be the thin edge of EU inspectors dictating how sovereign forces conduct themselves? A precursor to a unified command system?

    As far as the questionnaire itself goes, many people won't bother reading too closely and tick the middle option, which on most such forms is the neutral answer. I reckon a lot more thought went into the design than is given credit for here.
    D.1. To what extent should the EU take further action for ensuring the secure management of all arms stockpiles in the EU?

    D.2. To what extent should the EU establish common binding rules on how firearms must be stored by those who lawfully possess them?