So plans are afoot to revise the European Firearms Directive following the appalling events in Paris, both last January and in November. The bodies had hardly even been identified from the horrific wave of attacks in a concert hall and at restaurants and bars across the city before the Eurocrats were putting pen to paper once again. Officials had already looked at the case for a "rearms law review after the Charlie Hebdo magazine massacre this time last year but this latest atrocity looks like speeding the entire process up. I can fully understand the powers that be in Europe wanting to find ways to increase co-operation between member countries to put a stop to terrorist activity, but does anyone really think that outlawing semi-automatic guns will make a difference?
The attackers in Paris in November used suicide vests and black-market Kalashnikovs by all accounts, not semi-automatic rifles commonly used for hunting and deactivated guns – and yet these are the weapon groups under discussion. AK-47s and the like – which are understood to have been used in some of the attacks – have a fully automatic setting and it is pretty likely this would have been engaged by anyone intent on causing mass injury and death. And yet, these weapons are already banned in pretty much all of Europe.
If these people are prepared to commit mass murder of innocent civilians and even blow themselves up in the name of their beliefs, it is highly unlikely they will pay much heed to the European Firearms Directive – no matter how tight it may be – when considering how to source their weapons and ammunition.