I own a gun!

[Klimax]

I see we have here USA(pro-guns),German(strict gun-control) and UK(strict guncontrol)

I am going to include another country which is lttle bit more frendlier(not by much) to guns.It is for now second hand as I myself don¨t have time for proper acqusition of licence.

Guns are divided into several categorie designated A-D.
A guns are forbidden.Only Police and Army may have them.Or somebody with exception issued by police.(automatic(even pistols and revolvers) and heavy guns and such.)
B guns for which one needs licence.(semiautomatic)
C-D no licence required (usually non-lethal guns)

There is separate gun licence(permission to have) and gun activity licence(permission for usage or activity associated with guns-like repairs or trading).

Each gun has to be registred.It is crime to have unregistred/unlicensed gun.
To get licence you need to do test and practical test.If expire of licence is near you just need to apply for extension.No test required.
If licence would expire,you are required to put all weapon (B) to police storage until licence is renewed.

Self defence is quite limited and there is always risk that you will be judged for inappropriate use of force with prison time.

Generally guns are not viewed as neccessity and majority of people are not armed.Those who just like guns (and have them) are viewed as bit crazy.

 

[GreNME]

The Illuminati?

The New World Order?

The Communists?

Stop me when I'm getting close...

The Islamonazifascists?

The Libtards™, of course.

I know a guy. He has a garden in his backyard. He says he never has to worry about moles in his backyard because he keeps a magnet that's in the shape of a rectangular eraser in the middle of his garden. He says he realized one day that he'd not had a problem with moles in a very long time, and discovered the small magnet on the ground. From that point on, he's been convinced that the magnet keeps out moles. He's even recommended it to others, though I don't know how their luck has been. All I know is that he doesn't have a problem with moles, and he attributes it to the magnet he keeps in his garden.

Pretty weird, huh?

 

[Rolfe]

Okay, great! Here's some more data for you. I live in a rural area with deer, elk, bear, and, wait for it, mountain lions capable of taking large dogs (everyone I met has a story of losing one to a lion), small children, and very occasionally, an adult (usually an adult doing trail running, a popular activity).

So, for instance, can you imagine trying to ax an elk to death? They run up to 1000 lbs. Or how about an injured bear? [....]

That's exactly why the post of mine you quoted was agreeing with you.

Didn't you notice?

Rolfe.

 

[3point14]

Okay, great! Here's some more data for you. I live in a rural area with deer, elk, bear, and, wait for it, mountain lions capable of taking large dogs (everyone I met has a story of losing one to a lion), small children, and very occasionally, an adult (usually an adult doing trail running, a popular activity).

So, for instance, can you imagine trying to ax an elk to death? They run up to 1000 lbs. Or how about an injured bear? "Hold still, bear-y, just 3 or so more swings, it won't be that excruiating". Or imagine standing on your deck watching a mountain lion readying its spring towards your child, with nothing to stop it (they just sneer if you scream at them). Or walking out to your pasture and finding your beloved horse with it's intestines ripped out from coyotes. Or being so far from civilization for all intents and purposes you have no police force or animal control. Or being entirely capable of killing and slaughtering your own pigs. etc.

My front 'lawn' (native grass) is being torn apart by ground squirrels and the like. People with horse pastures have bigger problems - prairie dog holes, which can break a horse's leg. You are the vet, and this is a serious question: which is more humane, a .22LR to the head, or death by poison?

Now let's talk about our booming deer and elk population. We are starting to be overrun, to the point that even the Rocky Mountain National Park, one of the exemplars of wildlife protection (you have to keep your dog in the car there to avoid scaring wildlife) is talking about culling them. Despite my mention of the mountain lions above, we have largely wiped out the natural predators of these large animals. The result, I'm sure you know better than I do. Mass starvations, disease sweeping through entire herds, wildlife straying onto the road, not only getting horrifically killed, but injuring or killing the car occupants. (Elk and moose are tall enough that you hit their legs. Their body flips up over the hood and slams through the windshield and into the front seat passengers. My father was a fire chief for a few decades, and had a lot of responses to accidents like this). Sure, we could have a government system of culling, or, we could have hunting. Even with hunting, though, culling is a real possibility around here.

I assume you've traveled here. It's not England, settled since the Anglo-Saxons. Yes, the large majority of our population is in high density settled areas, but some of us are still literally battling carnivores, being overrun by wildlife. Out here, in the west, and up in rural New England, where I grew up, guns are primarily tools, and fun a distant second (you might go out once a year and plink some cans to make sure your sights are aligned - who has money for ammunition when you are dirt poor rural folk?)

I grew up in NH. I don't remember a shooting when I grew up (there may have been). I do remember a few stabbings, I remember a daughter setting her family's house on fire with her parents inside. Most people had guns. (edit: to be fair, now I think about it, I do remember a few hunting accidents - 2 or 3 during my 20 years there).

I fully understand another person could write a 'rebuttal', telling about growing up in the inner city, being afraid to walk near a window for fear of being hit by a stray bullet, etc. That testimony would be as entirely true as mine, and just as worthy of being taken into consideration.

My statement is not 'X, therefore guns'. It's more along the lines of "the heart of the NRA comes from areas like I described." Bird hunters. Farmers. People who want protection against large carnivores. Hunters. Weekend target shooters. People who have had a positive relationship with guns their entire lives. People who have passed down rifles from father, to son, to son. Father's who dream of the first day they bring their child to the blind with them. People who have humanely dispatched livestock, dogs stroking out. People who have scared coyotes away from their sheep with a shot fired into the ground. People who have never had a shooting in their neck of the woods for as long as they remember, but everyone has a story of arms being ripped off in farm equipment, broken necks due to being thrown from a horse, domestic violence turned bad, bar fights, etc. People who are at best perplexed, at worst openly scornful at attempts to control firearms, the least dangerous, and by some measures the most useful (when you need one, you really need one) tool they could own.

For guns to go away in the US, you are going to have to give those people a different way of life, a different way of thinking about guns. I'm not convinced it's a desirable goal, but if it is, that's the demographic that is going to fight it to their last breath.

I don't like guns. I'm pretty anti gun. Here in the UK I see no reason for them to be owned by the public outside of sports shooting. Keep the gun (and more importantly the ammo) locked up at the club.

The above is the most cogent and convincing argument (I'm sorry, I don't like 'because I want one') I have ever heard for gun ownership. It's made me think, damnit. Thanks.

 

[Smiledriver]

@ the OP

Reason for owning a gun is not the issue, right to own a gun is. The U.S. holds that the citizenry should never be disarmed. Freemen are responsible for their own defense.

 

[gumboot]

I see we have here USA(pro-guns),German(strict gun-control) and UK(strict guncontrol)

I am going to include another country which is lttle bit more frendlier(not by much) to guns.It is for now second hand as I myself don¨t have time for proper acqusition of licence.

Guns are divided into several categorie designated A-D.
A guns are forbidden.Only Police and Army may have them.Or somebody with exception issued by police.(automatic(even pistols and revolvers) and heavy guns and such.)
B guns for which one needs licence.(semiautomatic)
C-D no licence required (usually non-lethal guns)

There is separate gun licence(permission to have) and gun activity licence(permission for usage or activity associated with guns-like repairs or trading).

Each gun has to be registred.It is crime to have unregistred/unlicensed gun.
To get licence you need to do test and practical test.If expire of licence is near you just need to apply for extension.No test required.
If licence would expire,you are required to put all weapon (B) to police storage until licence is renewed.

Self defence is quite limited and there is always risk that you will be judged for inappropriate use of force with prison time.

Generally guns are not viewed as neccessity and majority of people are not armed.Those who just like guns (and have them) are viewed as bit crazy.

Which country are you referring to?

To add another; New Zealand:

New Zealand requires all owners and users of a firearm to be licensed, which requires:

* Must be over 16
* Must attend a safety lecture given by a volunteer from the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council
* Must pass a written test based on the material in the Arms Code, a booklet put out by the police about New Zealand's gun laws and recommended safety practices.
* Must have a police officer inspect the security at the applicant's home (a gun rack, safe, strongroom or "receptacle of stout construction" is required)
* Must undergo an interview with a police officer
* Must provide the details of two referees, one a relative and one not, to vouch for the applicant
* Must pay $123.75

This gives the person an A endorsement, allowing them to own and use Class A firearms. There are a total of five endorsements, and gaining additional endorsements requires additional conditions to be met. All firearms other than Class A must be registered. Class A constitutes "other", thus it is easier to establish by explaining the other classes. All firearms must be stored unloaded and locked in a secure place.

Class B
Pistols - defined as firearms short than 30in.

B Endorsement - Sporting pistols

* Applicant must be a current member of a pistol club, a financial member of Pistol New Zealand and have attended at least 12 club shoots in the last 6 months before they can apply
* Applicant must be sponsored by their club
* The endorsement holder must attend at least 12 club shoots in a financial year
* Normally limited to no more than 12 pistols registered to their licence
* Pistols must be of an approved sporting type i.e. barrel length of more than 10cm (3.9 in)
* Pistols can only be carried to and from the range in a locked container with ammunition in a separate container or to a gunsmith
* Pistols may only be shot on a Police approved pistol club range.

Class C
Restricted Weapons include machine guns, selective-fire assault rifles, grenades and rocket launchers. This category also includes some non-firearm weapons such as pepper spray.

C Endorsement - Restricted Weapons

This is a catch all, if the firearm does not fall into the A B or E categories it's a C class. Pistols can also be held on the C endorsement instead of the B. Common special reasons include:

* Collecting (must provide evidence in the form of books, club membership, collection of A type firearms), Museum curator, Family heirlooms and Theatrical.
* C category firearms must be stored in an inoperable condition
* Can never be used with live ammunition, but blanks are allowed for movie making and re-enacting
* Can only be taken to an approved display venue, re-enactment event or to a other collector for sale.

Class E
Military-Style Semi-Automatics (MSSAs) include semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have one or more of the following components:
* A folding or telescopic butt
* A bayonet lug
* A free-standing "military-style" pistol grip
* A flash suppressor
* A magazine that holds (or looks like it could hold) more than 15 rounds of .22 rimfire ammunition or 7 rounds of any other calibre.

The E class was created after the Aramoana Massacre and its very rarely issued - NZ law limits the total number of E Endorsements that are allowed to be issued to a little less than 9,000. All people with MSSAs at the time of the law changes were given the opportunity to accquire an E Endorsement or to modify their weapons back to an A endorsement. The rare reasons for getting an E Endorsement now include pest control, for collection, and for sport shooting.

Use of firearms, even in crime, is fairly rare in New Zealand and even our police are not normally armed.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Libtards™, of course.

I know a guy. He has a garden in his backyard. He says he never has to worry about moles in his backyard because he keeps a magnet that's in the shape of a rectangular eraser in the middle of his garden. He says he realized one day that he'd not had a problem with moles in a very long time, and discovered the small magnet on the ground. From that point on, he's been convinced that the magnet keeps out moles. He's even recommended it to others, though I don't know how their luck has been. All I know is that he doesn't have a problem with moles, and he attributes it to the magnet he keeps in his garden.

Pretty weird, huh?

 

[GreNME]

Which caliber would you like?

 

[Klimax]

Which country are you referring to?

Czech Republic.
And of course I di not list even majority.(Or would somebody want larger portion of law written down here?)

To add another; New Zealand:

New Zealand requires all owners and users of a firearm to be licensed, which requires:


This gives the person an A endorsement, allowing them to own and use Class A firearms. There are a total of five endorsements, and gaining additional endorsements requires additional conditions to be met. All firearms other than Class A must be registered. Class A constitutes "other", thus it is easier to establish by explaining the other classes. All firearms must be stored unloaded and locked in a secure place.

Class B
Pistols - defined as firearms short than 30in.



Class C
Restricted Weapons include machine guns, selective-fire assault rifles, grenades and rocket launchers. This category also includes some non-firearm weapons such as pepper spray.



Class E
Military-Style Semi-Automatics (MSSAs) include semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have one or more of the following components:
* A folding or telescopic butt
* A bayonet lug
* A free-standing "military-style" pistol grip
* A flash suppressor
* A magazine that holds (or looks like it could hold) more than 15 rounds of .22 rimfire ammunition or 7 rounds of any other calibre.

The E class was created after the Aramoana Massacre and its very rarely issued - NZ law limits the total number of E Endorsements that are allowed to be issued to a little less than 9,000. All people with MSSAs at the time of the law changes were given the opportunity to accquire an E Endorsement or to modify their weapons back to an A endorsement. The rare reasons for getting an E Endorsement now include pest control, for collection, and for sport shooting.

Use of firearms, even in crime, is fairly rare in New Zealand and even our police are not normally armed.

Interesting.NZ classes C and part of E are under class A in CR.And there are AFAIK nearly no permits issued for it outside police/army.
Shotguns and semi-automatics(if I understood term correctly) are with semiautomatic pistols in B. A appears to cover C and D.(and I think that pepper spray as well)

Secured storage of weapons are mandated as well.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't like guns. I'm pretty anti gun. Here in the UK I see no reason for them to be owned by the public outside of sports shooting. Keep the gun (and more importantly the ammo) locked up at the club.

The above is the most cogent and convincing argument (I'm sorry, I don't like 'because I want one') I have ever heard for gun ownership. It's made me think, damnit. Thanks.

I've done post mortem examinations on injured wild animals that were shot by an SSPCA officer. Sadly, usually badgers caught in illegal snares, but road accident victims would be in the same category. Frankly, if was a blessing the SSPCA guy had the gun with him at the time.

Round here, the chances of a random member of the public finding an injured wild animal with help not fairly easily and quickly on call, are pretty remote. The people who are likely to find such casualties (farmers, gamekeepers) already have the guns. And a cop or an animal welfare official will turn up pretty pronto to a phone call.

As an argument for the entire British public going around with a pistol in their pocket, it's a non-starter. However, I do see that the situation may be different in very rural parts of the USA, where it may not be easy to get that sort of help very quickly, if at all.

Nobody is disputing that some people need to own and carry guns. Farmers, gamekeepers, pest controllers, animal welfare officials and so on. The possible need for euthanasia of injured roadkill to be available to the general public in very rural areas is definitely another reasonable requirement. Still not much of an argument for urban citizens (or even those in "civilised" rural areas) going round armed to the teeth.

Rolfe.

 

[Drudgewire]

However, I do see that the situation may be different in very rural parts of the USA, where it may not be easy to get that sort of help very quickly, if at all.

Since I travel a bit, there's lots of opportunities to be in rural areas of the country.

That's why I'm glad I'm licensed to carry in 30 states now (yay non-resident New Hampshire CWP and their stringent "send us $20 and a copy of your state's license" qualification process).

 

[Rolfe]

Is there any training on how to kill an animal humanely and safely with a gun? I do know that with horses the intuitive place to shoot simply breaks the poor beast's jaw and doesn't touch its brain. And even if you aim right, the skull is hard enough that there is a real risk of a fatal ricochet hitting a bystander.

I've never actually held a gun in my life, but they give vets this theoretical training anyway.

Rolfe.

 

[Drudgewire]

Is there any training on how to kill an animal humanely and safely with a gun? I do know that with horses the intuitive place to shoot simply breaks the poor beast's jaw and doesn't touch its brain. And even if you aim right, the skull is hard enough that there is a real risk of a fatal ricochet hitting a bystander.

I've never actually held a gun in my life, but they give vets this theoretical training anyway.

Rolfe.

Either through the forehead down the spine (suggested method for larger animals), or base of the neck upwards to the brain are the recommended methods. I'd prefer the second option because it's into a softer part of the body so less risk of ricochet (I don't carry a shotgun. Handguns makes ricochot possibility unlikely but still a possibility), plus less liklihood of the animal biting the person.

And of course if you see an animal on the side of the road, do not shoot it if it's still on asphalt. Even though the possibility of the bullet somehow ricocheting back towards the road is very small, it still exists.

 

[Rolfe]

Either through the forehead down the spine (suggested method for larger animals), or base of the neck upwards to the brain are the recommended methods. I'd prefer the second option because it's into a softer part of the body so less risk of ricochet (I don't carry a shotgun. Handguns makes ricochot possibility unlikely but still a possibility), plus less liklihood of the animal biting the person.

And of course if you see an animal on the side of the road, do not shoot it if it's still on asphalt. Even though the possibility of the bullet somehow ricocheting back towards the road is very small, it still exists.

Give the gentleman a coconut. With the proviso that "through the forehead" means mentally drawing a cross with the lines ending at eyes and ears, and shooting where they cross (horses, that is). Too many people think "right between the eyes" is the way to go, but it isn't.

Going in at the very back of the skull is good in some species.

Euthanasia of biggish animals is a very good reason for having a gun.

Rolfe.

 

[Euromutt]

Sport Shooting: Yes, but there is no need to keep those guns at home, is there?

Guns need cleaning after being fired, and speaking for myself, I prefer to do my gun cleaning in a comfortable environment without being rushed (say, because the range closes in fifteen minutes) so I can do a thorough job. My garage provides a much more congenial environment than the range. Also, with my guns stored in the safe at home, I have the option of going to different ranges, rather than being forced to always go to whichever one my guns are stored at.

but when guns make you so much saver, im sure the USA have alot less Burglary cases than countrys with less gun owners. or not?

The US has lot fewer "hot" burglaries, that is, residential burglaries that occur while the occupants are home. In the US, it's about 15% of residential burglaries, in the UK and the Netherlands, it's over 40%.

Okay, apart from the police, how many times does private gun-ownership prevent a crime in contrast to private gun-ownership leading to a crime then?

It's hard to answer that question precisely as phrased because all the data is not readily available. Not all violent crimes involving guns get reported, nor do all defensive gun uses (DGUs) by private citizens.

The best estimates are that the number of violent crimes (threats, robberies, physical assaults, sexual assaults, and homicides) involving use of a firearm in the US annually is probably something in the order of 300,000-400,000, possibly running up to a million by a few estimates. However, a large majority of these crimes are committed by people who acquired and/or possessed the firearm in violation of federal, state, and/or local law. That said, though, the bulk of those guns did enter the private sector from legal sources (e.g. they were legally purchased from a federally licensed dealer, and then stolen and fenced, or otherwise illegally transferred from a legal owner to an illegal one), as opposed to being smuggled into the country or illicitly manufactured. That said, just because American criminals currently acquire their guns domestically because they can, there's no reason to assume that at least some of them couldn't get their hands on smuggled guns if domestic sources were to dry up. Certainly, western European organized crime has no trouble acquiring firearms when they want them.

It's impossible to say with certainty how many crimes are thwarted by armed private citizens, because you can never say for certain whether a particular event didn't happen because it was prevented, or because it wouldn't have happened in the first place, but various criminological studies indicate that the number of DGUs by private citizens may range from 700,000-800,000, through 1.5 million up to 2.5 million (possibly, bit not probably, even more). If it seems implausible that there could (taking the extreme estimates) be as many as 8 DGUs to every violent gun crime, do bear in mind that violent crime does not require use of a firearm. Also, the DGU figures do include responses to crimes that might or might not have turned into violent crimes, specifically "hot" burglaries. The problem being that when an intruder breaks into a residence, the only way to know for certain that he intended--or was least prepared--to inflict violence on the occupants (making it a "home invasion," as opposed to only being after their material goods, which would be straight burglary) is when the occupants require the services of medical personnel afterwards.

So off the cuff, the ratio of DGUs to violent gun crimes seems to potentially range from 2:1 (assuming the lower end or the higher end of estimates for both) to 8:1 (assuming the higher end for DGUs and the lower end for violent crimes). Either way, the evidence indicates that the availability of firearms to private citizens prevents more crimes than it facilitates.

It deserves noting that this sort of comparison rarely works out well for the jurisdictions with tighter gun controls, because regardless of the absolute numbers or the rates per capita, in any jurisdiction where private ownership is tightly regulated, the ratio of DGUs to criminal uses of guns is going to swing heavily in favor of the criminal uses. If you look at the Netherlands, the amount of violent crime involving firearms is comparatively low, but DGUs (at least, by law-abiding private citizens, as opposed to some mobster defending himself against a gang hit) are practically non-existent (not in the least place because it's actually against the law to use even a legally owned firearm in self-defense).

 

[Rolfe]

The US has lot fewer "hot" burglaries, that is, residential burglaries that occur while the occupants are home. In the US, it's about 15% of residential burglaries, in the UK and the Netherlands, it's over 40%.

Could you provide a reference for that? I find that "over 40%" figure rather implausible on the face of it.

Rolfe.

 

[Euromutt]

Could you provide a reference for that? I find that "over 40%" figure rather implausible on the face of it.

Rolfe.

Kleck, Gary. 1991. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America Hawthorne, NY.

The American figure was from Dept. of Justice statistics; I believe the British one came from British Crime Survey statistics, but I may be mistaken.

There was actually another survey done in 1982 (cited in Residential Burglary: A Comparison of the United States, Canada, England and Wales by Pat Mayhew) that found that 59% of residential burglaries were "hot."

Frustratingly, the Home Office Statistical Bulletin Crime in England and Wales 2007-2008 does not list the percentage of domestic burglaries that are "hot."

If you're wondering why a burglar would hit a house when the occupants are likely to be home, reasons include that any burglar alarms will be turned off, and if the occupants are home, their wallets, purses, handbags etc. will be too.

 

[Piggy]

Hi, Euromutt! Long time no vidi.

We've had a small spike in home invasions, most of them aggravated, around here lately. It's disturbing.

For some reason, you just see more stupid violence right now.

Over in the next town, a 16 yo gang member pointed a gun at police behind the local theater while running away! They caught him and gave him 20 years.

It just seems that crimes which normally would not involve violence are now turning violent. Burglaries become shootings or beatings, even tho the victims were compliant, stuff like that.

Kinda scary.

 

[Rolfe]

If you're wondering why a burglar would hit a house when the occupants are likely to be home, reasons include that any burglar alarms will be turned off, and if the occupants are home, their wallets, purses, handbags etc. will be too.

Well, I'm mainly wondering why this surprisingly high percentage of burglaries in occupied homes isn't reflected in newspaper reports. Despite the fact that occupied-home burglary would seem likely to be a better headline-grabber than empty-home burglary.

I recall one very serious and nasty case of what you guys would call a "home invasion" happening in the south of England, which was widely reported in the press. But that's it.

Hmmm. What I have heard of, and often, is the scam where one of a pair of crooks knocks at the door of a single elderly person and spins some sort of line about needing her to turn the taps on to test the water, or even just keeps her talking on some pretext. This distraction is used by the other member of the gang to allow him to get into the house and ransack the likely hiding places for cash or valuables.

It's quite possible that the prevalence of this scam is skewing the statistics your report was using.

Rolfe.

 

[Drudgewire]

It just seems that crimes which normally would not involve violence are now turning violent. Burglaries become shootings or beatings, even tho the victims were compliant, stuff like that.

Kinda scary.

There just doesn't seem to a value on life anymore. Someone goes into to commit a burglary, encounters someone, and decides "no witnesses" is a better solution than a couple of years in jail. Of course drugs play a role in this.

Even in the seemingly innocuous "scam" situation Rolfe mentioned above, it can turn violent quickly. I was watching a "First 48" episode a couple of nights back where a guy was doing the door to door thing, and wound up strangling an 84 year-old man in a nice neighborhood. When he was caught and asked why he did it, he couldn't give a better answer than "I do crack, I'm a worthless human being."

I'm not one of the paranoid types who thinks there are killers around every corner waiting to take me out, but I'm not a fantasist who thinks it only happens in the movies either. I fully expect (and hope) to never need to use my gun outside of a range...

...but I'm very prepared if things don't work out that way.


PS: I'm not a big fan of the Kleck study. Confirmation bias seems to exist in pretty much every gun study on either side of the issue, and it's why we never get a real picture of anything. I almost prefer the anti-gun study done specifically to counter it, which found "only" a couple of hundred thousand instances of a gun being used for self-defense yearly instead of the 1.5 million Kleck claims. Having to admit to a couple of hundred thousand justified instances of gun use by people that tried to skew numbers as much as they could is some powerful stuff to me.

Guns need cleaning after being fired, and speaking for myself, I prefer to do my gun cleaning in a comfortable environment without being rushed (say, because the range closes in fifteen minutes) so I can do a thorough job. My garage provides a much more congenial environment than the range. Also, with my guns stored in the safe at home, I have the option of going to different ranges, rather than being forced to always go to whichever one my guns are stored at.

Got back from the range last night and was using a new kit to clean my .22. As much fun as shooting is, I almost enjoy the post-trip cleaning even more.