Covered Compliance or United Unawareness? European Handgun Production

The horrific events that occurred in Uvalde, Texas on the 24th of May, shocked us all. To see the faces of young children, lose their lives to senseless acts of violence has, unfortunately, become commonplace. Though these recurring mass shootings are an indicator of a plethora of complicated issues in the United States, ranging from mental health, bullying, and a lack of background checks, there is an often-overlooked element at play, the European gun industry.

A topic which, has largely remained outside of mainstream public discourse.

I was scrolling on Instagram, reading posts and watching videos about the horrific events unfolding in Uvalde, when a friend of mine reposted a very interesting infographic. The data represented in this post depicted what EU member states exported handguns, a range of firearms which are smaller in size than assault rifles, and include models such as Glocks, pistols and revolvers. After doing some research, because fact-checking in this day and age should be common practice, I became more aware of how integral the weapon industry is to European economies.

Some European countries are amongst the global top 10 in the manufacturing and distribution of firearms. In 2006, around 65% of firearms sold in the United States were produced in Europe, and over time, this number has only increased. Providing the European economy with up to 400 million euros a year, it is not difficult to see why this is a popular industry on our continent. Though it is well known that the weapon industry is a lucrative business, it is unlikely often considered that Europe exports weapons which are not intended for organised warfare.

Moreover, some of the major European-based firearm production companies are amongst the major donors of the National Rifle Association (NRA), which is lobbying for greater freedom in gun possession and trade in US legislation.

Amongst the most prominent exports of firearms to the US are Germany, Italy, Croatia and Austria to name a few, which have extensive systems in place to regulate the use of firearms in their own countries. This is not to say that these countries willingly supply people with radical ideas with the license to kill, as most firearms are used in these European countries for hunting purposes or recreational use under supervision.

It could well be that the manufacturers expect the American industry to only sell firearms for these purposes and only when the client has a license, but at the same time, the amount of coverage of school shootings receives a lot of attention in European news coverage. Some European member states export up to one million firearms a year, contributing to a growing number of firearm purchases in the US.

Though providing the U.S. with weapons also helps to secure European interests, i.e., our allies would be well equipped should there be a war, the export regulations surrounding firearms lack a collective control policy, in this article’s opinion.

Overall, the circulation of firearms is restricted by EU laws, if the purpose of these weapons falls under the categories of collectors, dealers, brokers or museums. Such cases fall under transfer control law, whilst there are current laws in place that state the export of “recreational firearms”, used for the likes of hunting and target shooting, should be flexible, to avoid “unnecessary impediments.”

However, these types of firearms are amongst those most used during school shootings and retaining such flexible legislation on products linked to such events, deserves to be talked about.

Gun violence would not simply end if Europe stopped exporting weaponry to the United States, but simultaneously, it would not help to work towards a resolution either. Ultimately, structural and systemic overhauls are needed, and public opinion on legislation needs to be changed if we want to stop reading headlines about yet another group of lives lost at the hands of gun violence.

There seems to be a dichotomy between Europe’s norms and values, and the products which we export, that have the potential to be used in situations like Uvalde.

Why is it that we impose such strict laws on the use of firearms at home, but then export the same products to a country which does not practice the same restraints? Though it is likely that if European countries were to stop the export of firearms, individuals who plan to commit acts of terrorism will get their hands on a weapon one way or the other, this does not account for the error in logic.

The first step of working toward a resolution is to recognise the fault, but there certainly appears to be a lack of attention regarding this matter. Europe needs to have a conversation about its role in the weapons industry and what values it wants to adhere to, for it is a contradictory situation in which we find ourselves.