The common refrain among gun control advocates following a high profile shooting event is that more gun laws need to be enacted in order to “do something” and make them “feel safe.” Europe already has some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, and France especially is remarkably strict. Nevertheless the perpetrators of the Friday the 13th Paris terrorist attacks purchased their illegal weapons in Europe from an illegal arms dealer, transported them illegally into France, and then illegally murdered scores of people. The gun dealer in question has now been arrested, and we finally know the origin of the firearms used that night . . .
From Russia Today:
According to documents submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office by investigators, the Paris attackers allegedly ordered four Kalashnikovs over the internet from a dealer in Germany in early November, Bild-Zeitung reported.
The order included two AK-47 assault rifles made in China in addition to two Zastava M70 assault rifles of Yugoslav production. The four weapons were reportedly sold on 7 November 2015 to a Paris-based buyer, allegedly of Arab descent.
Gun control advocates laugh and mock gun owners when we tell them that banning firearms means that only criminals will have guns. Not only were the Paris guns readily available for those willing to go outside the law, but the German dealer had apparently made a pretty good business of selling illegal guns in Europe.
Given how easy it is for criminals to obtain firearms even under the strictest gun control laws possible, might it be time to analyze whether the pendulum has swung too far? At a certain point, does increased restrictions on firearms actually make people less safe by removing their ability to defend themselves instead of actually removing firearms from the hands of criminals?