Gun Legality 🗣🔫


  1. I’m from Germany (so different rules and laws)
  2. Not a common funny/tongue in cheek bb comment.

To be honest, this is an interesting situation to figure out for me.

I personally think that private gun ownership is OK, give there are reasonable but strict regulations.
I despise the manouver of Remington. To purposefully hinder or even block a judical process, this by itself is moraly so corrupt it should be prosecuted and punished in itself.

That said, some thought to the case itself. Because the shady manouver should anyway looked on in context.

By all citizism of US gun politics, is it realy OK to sue the manufacturer of an item here? It’s not even the shop who sold the weapon to the purpetrator and may readonay be seen as partianly responsible as he gave the gun to the killer.

To me it’s like someone drove a car in a group of people but somehow we now sue the car manufacturer.

I’m not sure this is the right way to go. I understand that this is a move to raise awareness and change the stance of the gun industry to take responsibility.

But the consequences of spreading “responsibility” from the actually involved persons/parties to everyone that is part of the topic, can lead to a system/society were any item deemed dangerous in any way, from guns to cars to chemicals to even knowledge(?!) and that is missused by one, will be regulated, forbidden, inaccessible for everyone.

I remember my youth when a lot of kids build “bombs” from common chemicals, this and the terrorist bomb scar led to a paranoid rush for control, that I can’t do “elephants toothpaste” with the science class of my daugthers school, because peroxide is basically not available anymore to private people. Theoretically you could but it’s to risky in the consequences and to much of paperwork that effectively nobody does it.
And now some even talk about banning and prosecuting science videos where people learn how to synthesize certain stuff. Because “evil internet” and “they are responsible that others can blow sfuff up”.

To be honest, I have no idea where and how to draw a line. “Common sense” doesn’t work anymore.

Sorry for the rant :wink:


I think that this lawsuit is asking the very question about where to draw the line. The lawsuit is about AR-15 assault rifles, which are the same as military assault rifles except that they do not feature a fully automatic function. Is it okay to sell such weapons to anyone? What about rocket launchers? Nuclear weapons? The court is being asked to determine whether or not the company acted irresponsibly in marketing such weapons. The court will decide where to draw the line.


The lawsuit is about Remington’s irresponsible marketing practises, for a product that (unlike a car) is purpose-designed to kill or wound large mammals.

I’m not sure why this concept is so difficult to grasp, but since a lot of people are committed to the bloody ridiculous false equivalency between a rifle and a car, let’s humour it with a theoretical situation.

Suppose a 10-year-old takes a joyride in his mom’s used car. He plows into a crowd of people, killing over a dozen. The car manufacturer, per industry practise, has spent decades promoting the concept that its product is a wonderful way for any American (children not explicitly excepted – they’re sometimes shown behind the wheel) to exercise their freedom in this expansive and scenic country.

Are the families of the victims wrong for suing the manufacturer on the basis of that marketing?

By the way, the real-life car industry slaps all kinds of disclaimers about professional drivers and closed courses on its current ads showing exciting and liberating off-road and high-speed uses for its products. Guess why.


I own a similar rifle. I use it for precision shooting in a sports club (as said it works a bit different here)

I choose this model because it’s reliable and modular and therefore changing most of it is cheap and easy to do(makers, right to repair thinking)

1 Like

Are those types of weapons available to anyone and everyone in Germany?

1 Like

As I said regulation!
These guns are available, I own a AR15 style rifle for precision sports shooting in a club.

To get such a gun here for sports you have to(simplified)

  1. Be member if a registered club for at least a year and do training in a regular basis with a gaun you get borrowed at a registered range. You lroove this by mai taining a 'traini g book that gets stamped and signed (can’t just shoot in the woods)
  2. Afterwards your club and the nationaly registered assosiation it belongs to, have to support your need for an own gun (this has to match the disciplines you have been training, no large caliber rifle for a. 22 pistol shooter)
  3. You have to take part on a (minimum) 2 day course about gun law, technicalities, balistics etc.
    afterwards you have to pass a test on this topics from a certified testing authority. (Usually you have to learn this shit for weeks beforehand, as the two days are not enough to lass the test).
  4. You have to buy a gunsafe passing regulations for your desired gun.
  5. You request kind of like a copy of your criminal record at ykmour townhall.
  6. You give a the paperwork for all the above (including pictures of the safe actually being set up with a picture of it’s serial number matching the one on the bill, so you don’t fake the buy or return it) to your regional police department together with the actual request for the gun allowance.
  7. They can do a backgroudcheck on you with the german equivalent of the FBI, national secret service.
  8. Up to here it took you around 18months, elaborate invest in time, effort and money.
  9. If you pass and all is processed you get the genral allowance and there is one slot for exactly that one gun type you need in there, from here on you are in a state gun registration system and every cop can see it from his car system.
  10. You go to the store or webshop and buy the gun, your allowance needs to be there and the entry will be stamped and singed by the shop owner adding the guns serial. (He later also enters al tbis in the cederal registration system)
  11. You go back to the regional police with the allowance, the confirm everything and only now a SEPERATE allowance to buy ammunition for THIS gun is given.
  12. The state is allowed to check and without cause if you are storing and maintaining the guns correctly, so they can show up at your house and ask you to show them the safe and the guns!
  13. Correctly also means “unaccessible to anybody without allowance” this is why key operated safes are basically nowhere, because if your family can get to the key they can get to the guns. Biometrics or code that only you know is the thing.
  14. The allowance is ‘purpose’ based, so for a sport shooter, no carrying, no transporting loaded around. Just unloaded in a closed (better locked) container/bag from your home to a range, ammunition in a seperate bag/container.
  15. You get caught violating any of these lager rules or even other misdemeanors that show you are unreliable can (and mist likely) will lead to all guns confiscated.

This is possible for everyone, so technically everyone can get a gun, YES. But as it is a serious thing yku have tk go through a this a d there are hurdles for the wrong PEOPLE everywhere!

This must be about people, not objects!

Due to the modularity of ghe gun you can adjust it to your need, repair and extenx yourself.
So the weapon type is simply more usable under “right to repair” and “makers” perspective, if I need a cheek support I’m not forced to buy from the rifle manufacturer or go to an expensive gubsmith just to drill a few precision holes.


No. They fall under the category of “war weapons” and as such are strictly controlled objects. Lack of widespread access to these weapons means that mass shootings are far less common in Germany than they are in the U.S.

My guess is that they’re also not marketed in the same way Remington marketed its products to Americans.


Because Germany has so many requirements (wow!), I think that it’s safe to say that the manufacturer is not so irresponsible to sell such weapons in Germany.

Meanwhile, America does not have such regulations. Given the lack of regulations in America, I think that it might be said that the manufacturer is irresponsible to offer such weapons, and that is what the court is being asked to decide.

In America, sometimes we have to resort to lawsuits when regulations are not sufficient. I know how weird that must sound, but the lawsuit is trying to accomplish what regulations will not.


But have you noticed that cigarette advertising isn’t really a thing anymore and alcohol advertising has to be done in a specific, careful way? That’s what I’m talking about.

As for offering what the law allows, given their influence on writing those very same laws, I think that what you have said is all the more reason why a lawsuit is really the only recourse. It is not uncommon for product liability to step up when regulations lack teeth.


I still see some of both. But I don’t partake in media that really caters to that demographic. Though I see way more video booze ads that anything else. They may have some restrictions, but their ads always show everyone drinking and having a good time dancing and what not. With a reminder to “drink responsibly”. Yeah yeah, sure buddy. I will remember that at 2am.

I imagine 90%+ of BB hasn’t seen a gun ad in the wild either. If one has problem with specific marketing, then I guess one would need to articulate what that marketing is, what specifically is wrong with it, and then suggest what restrictions they want. Should we add a “shoot responsibly” disclaimer at the bottom.

FWIW, I find some firearms ads annoying and turn me off. But I can say that about all advertising.

If the car manufacturer spent significant time, energy, and money on ensuring they they didn’t have to adhere to ANY safety regulation that would be considered a bare minimum in their or other industries, then yes, they should be partially liable for any mishap that came from the use of their woefully unsafe vehicles.


… and folding in @Jesse13927 post re AR-15 rifles…

… should attack tank manufacturers be selling attack tanks to citizens to drive around in?


Uh - car manufactures HAVE spent time and money fighting safety laws, because it adds to the cost of vehicles. They have largely lost that battle, to a degree. But they could always do more to make cars safer. Such as adding breathalyzers to each car to prevent someone drunk from driving. That woulds potentially save 10,000 people a year in the US.

But safety isn’t the issue here. Guns “safety”, as in their ability to reliably and safely function and not blow up in one’s hands, is the highest it has ever been. There are ASTM standards new firearms meet to make sure they are drop safe, for example. This isn’t 100 years ago where dropping a gun on the pavement could cause them to go off. Or parts that fail resulting in a run away trigger or to fire when the user doesn’t intend for them to.

There are SAAMI standards to make sure ammunition is loaded to specific parameters (case dimensions, bullet weight and dimension, and maximum pressures) and are safe to shoot in barrels marked for that specific round.

There are occasionally bad batches of parts or design errors that require recalls, but they are the exception. Same with ammunition. When there is a catastrophic failure it usually is due to improperly loaded ammunition.

The “problem” with guns is mostly their intentional misuse.

ETA - I moved this post after seeing the topic was split. I did not realize that it was split at the time of writing. Sorry.

IMO, it is an attempt for the victims of a horrible crime to “do something”. I honestly don’t know how much a legal standing they have in their grievance. They claim that Remington/Bushmaster’s marketing lead to a horrible mass shooting. I have never seen any advertising suggesting one should kill your mom, steal her guns, and shoot up a school. But I guess that will be for the courts to decide.

You can’t even blame the store, as the perpetrator of the crime didn’t buy his gun, he stole it.

In the past gun manufactures have had some protections against civil lawsuits, but the courts allowed this to move forward.

Thanks for the overview. I find other countries laws on how they handle things interesting. Previous to this, I have seen The Sling Shot Guy, Jorerg’s, video about German gun laws. He also talked about things like certain types of sling shots being illegal (due to them being used in protests)as well as ninja stars (evidently Germany was worried about ninjas at one point.)

If you are so inclined, PM me the specifications on what that looks like. I am curious. Is it a full on National Match type set up?

The manufacturer is producing what is legal under the current laws. They can’t offer certain weapon types as they are illegal, or certain configurations that have more regulation with going through the proper process (NFA items).

One could argue that alcohol and cigarettes are irresponsible to offer the public, as both directly lead to chronic health issues and various social ills. Granted cigarettes were sued at one point for their lies to health benefits or ignoring harmful effects of their product, but they are still allowed to be sold.

1 Like

That’s the point. The manufacturers have blocked every effort to implement or require safety measures to reduce or prevent intentional misuse. Including buying patent rights to such safety features in order not to bring them to market but to prevent others from bringing them to market.


Can you please tell me what safety features you’re referring to that would prevent intentional misuse? I don’t remember seeing anything about a patent being bought up to prevent someone from making something. But maybe I just missed it.

A New Jersey Law That's Kept Smart Guns Off Shelves Nationwide : All Tech Considered : NPR.


In my state, all it takes to buy an AR-15 pattern rifle, is to have the money to pay for it, be over 18, and pass the national background check.

In my state, all rifles and pistols must be openly carried unless you have a CWP. My state is a shall-issue state, meaning all you have to do to get a CWP is go to a police station, fill out the form, and as long as you pass the same national background check they do for buying a rifle, you must be issued the CWP. There are no required safety courses.

This is a blue state by the way.


“Let’s build a weapon specifically designed to help a single shooter kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Then when someone uses it to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time, we’ll call it ‘intentional misuse’”


Mmm I am not sure if that is what he was referring to or not.

Smart Gun Technology is a lot like self driving cars technology - probably in the future, but no where near ready for prime time. There are people working on both, but both are underestimating the time it will take to make them safe and reliable.

At any rate, I don’t know of anyone buying up smart gun patents, nor somehow blocking private companies from manufacturing it.

If someone learns to box or a martial art, and then goes around attacking people, beating the shit out of them, are they misusing the skill they learned, or applying it as it was designed to be used?