• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wrong door shootings.

Thermal said:
I think Vixen noted something similar upthread. Lots of gun ownership in her country, but they don't have these problems. I think there really is something to that line of thinking.
Click to expand...

Israel. Lots of guns. Barely any mass shootings.

Same with Switzerland.
 
Hercules56 said:
You cant commit a massacre with a machete?
Click to expand...

It's tricky. In 1996 a schizo attacked the softest of soft targets, an infants school in Wolverhampton, while the children were having an outdoor teddy bear picnic. 4 staff and 3 children were injured.

I'd suggest that had he had a gun the outcome might have been very different.

Or were you being deeply ironic? I could have missed that.
 
Thermal said:
I guess we are just looking at it differently. As noted by jeremyp, virtually all "licenses" are granted, making it more of a final rubber stamp. If you were denying half of applications, that would indicate the "licensing" stage had some agency.
Click to expand...
I apologise. If I gave the impression that I thought it was rubber stamping, I'm sorry. It isn't.

The checks are pretty stringent and everybody knows they are stringent.

To my eye, licensing means to demonstrate functional competency, like a driver's license. You have to take a test to show that you know what you are doing with the equipment. This has nothing to do with whether you use this equipment for good or bad. Your use of "licensing" is what we in the States would call a registration.
Click to expand...
Again that might be my fault. The literature on the government website doesn't talk about licensing, it calls it a firearms certificate. It's just proof that you've passed the background checks. That said, we do call things licences sometimes, even if you don't have to demonstrate any kind of competence. The TV Licence is the most common example. You only need a permanent address and the fee in order to get one. You don't have to demonstrate competence in using a TV.
What makes the difference in the UK, as Darat noted, is that guns have essentially been denied across the board. You have to demonstrate that you are a legitimate exception to the ban to get a "license". The broad public ban is what is doing all the legwork, not the rubber stamping for what is basically a farmer's exemption (and sport marksman clubs, etc)
Click to expand...
Guns are not denied across the board, although certain broad categories are completely banned e.g. modern hand guns.

Again, what I'm arguing is that your "licensing"/provisional exemption is not what is weeding out the bad apples. The terms of the ban are weeding them.
Click to expand...

You can't say it's the gun controls, not the licence. The licence is an integral part of the gun controls. If it weren't for the licensing process, anybody who wanted to get a shotgun could get one. All they would have to do is say they go clay pigeon shooting and they have a legitimate reason. It's the licensing process that uncovers whether they are lying about their shooting hobby.


ETA: in my US State of New Jersey, you can technically acquire a permit to concealed carry. In practice, all permits are rejected. Like literally almost 100%. I recall reading somewhere that less than a dozen are approved annually in a state of 7 million, and those were approved when it was proven that the person's life was in demonstrable imminent danger.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that it is a half measure. The policy makes it effectively illegal to concealed carry a firearm, but it is quite hard to do anything about it if somebody is in breach of the policy because it is quite possible they might be carrying the gun legally. In the UK, if you have a gun on your person and you are a civilian and the gun is not secured for transport, it's practically a guaranteed prison sentence, if you survive your encounter with the armed response unit.
 
Last edited:
Nessie said:
I suspect Europe is also full of sociopaths, but because they find it hard to get a gun, they can't shoot people.
Click to expand...

I've seen the argument used a couple of times and I find it somewhat odd. People say "the USA is different, our society is more violent" either to justify people being allowed to have guns to defend themselves or to explain away the high homicide rate.

If you've got a room full of murderous bastards, you don't toss in a crate of guns.
 
Thermal said:
The 11 second qualifying time is a great analogy. The ban shuts the door to the majority, leaving only a few that qualify (show an acceptable reason for ownership, in this case). For instance, if you lived in a city and were not part of any marksman club, what would be an acceptable reason to grant a licence?
Click to expand...

It is not a ban, when 3/4 of a million people who have applied have been granted and millions more could get a gun if they wanted one.

The common reasons to grant are sports shooting (target, clays) game (grouse, deer) vermin control (rabbits, foxes), population control (deer again) and humane killing.

Licences are also granted for collections (museums displaying firearms will have a nominated licence holder), historic weapons (I did a licence for a WWII luger taken from a surrendered senior Nazi), research and development of weapons (secret stuff that even now I cannot discuss) and for film and TV work (the companies rent weapons off approved weaponry experts).

Shotgun only licences do not legally need to provide a reason, but they are asked and always give one.

A few people, including a distant relative of mine, have guns for self-defence reasons, many of whom are in Northern Ireland.

It does not matter where you live, what matters is that you have permission to shoot over suitable land for one of those reasons, or you qualify for a collection etc.

Well, we'd need a dramatic overhaul in thinking on this side of the pond to entertain such a broad denial.
Click to expand...

It is default approval, so long you meet the criteria, which is not that difficult for anyone who is not a criminal or nutter and can provide one of the many reasons to possess.

What we have in NJ approaches what you have, in terms of no carry and owner registration, complete with fingerprinting and one permit per handgun, etc, and I think it works well. Needs to be yet stricter, but as it is, the NRA considers Jersey to be "a gun owner's Hell".
Click to expand...

It is false to describe the UK system as really restrictive and a de facto ban. So long as you are a decent person and you have a reason, you WILL be granted a licence.
 
Hercules56 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

8 dead. Weapon? Knife.
Click to expand...

Las Vegas Strip massacre (Las Vegas, NV, 2017) 58 dead, 546 injured, weapon: guns

Orlando nightclub massacre (Orlando, Florida, 2016) 46, 53, guns

Virginia Tech massacre (Blacksburg, Virginia, 2007) 32, 23, guns

Sandy Hook Elementary massacre (Newtown, Connecticut, 2012) 27, 2, guns

Texas First Baptist Church massacre (Sutherland Springs, TX, 2017) 26, 20, guns

Luby's massacre (Killeen, Texas, 1991), 24, 20, guns

San Ysidro McDonald's massacre (San Ysidro, California, 1984), 22, 19, guns

A couple of non US ones:

Hungerford, Massacre, (Hungerford, England) 17, 15, guns

Dunblane Massacre (Dunblane, Scotland) 18, 15, guns

Do you want to carry on with this line of argument? Because I suspect, you are going to run out of examples before I do.
 
jeremyp said:
Las Vegas Strip massacre (Las Vegas, NV, 2017) 58 dead, 546 injured, weapon: guns

Orlando nightclub massacre (Orlando, Florida, 2016) 46, 53, guns

Virginia Tech massacre (Blacksburg, Virginia, 2007) 32, 23, guns

Sandy Hook Elementary massacre (Newtown, Connecticut, 2012) 27, 2, guns

Texas First Baptist Church massacre (Sutherland Springs, TX, 2017) 26, 20, guns

Luby's massacre (Killeen, Texas, 1991), 24, 20, guns

San Ysidro McDonald's massacre (San Ysidro, California, 1984), 22, 19, guns

A couple of non US ones:

Hungerford, Massacre, (Hungerford, England) 17, 15, guns

Dunblane Massacre (Dunblane, Scotland) 18, 15, guns

Do you want to carry on with this line of argument? Because I suspect, you are going to run out of examples before I do.
Click to expand...

The fact has been established that massacres have been committed without guns and one does not need a gun to commit a massacre. What you do need is a sociopathic population.
 
Hercules56 said:
The fact has been established that massacres have been committed without guns and one does not need a gun to commit a massacre.
Click to expand...
It's also been established that guns make it much easier to have a massacre and make the butcher's bill worse.

What you do need is a sociopathic population.
Click to expand...

If you've got a sociopathic population, why the **** are you letting them have guns?
 
jeremyp said:
I apologise. If I gave the impression that I thought it was rubber stamping, I'm sorry. It isn't.

The checks are pretty stringent and everybody knows they are stringent.


Again that might be my fault. The literature on the government website doesn't talk about licensing, it calls it a firearms certificate. It's just proof that you've passed the background checks. That said, we do call things licences sometimes, even if you don't have to demonstrate any kind of competence. The TV Licence is the most common example. You only need a permanent address and the fee in order to get one. You don't have to demonstrate competence in using a TV
Click to expand...

Which is why we should make the distinction clear here. I think we should have actual licensing, including a demonstrated competency test. We should also have registration of both owners and individual firearms.

Guns are not denied across the board, although certain broad categories are completely banned e.g. modern hand guns.
Click to expand...

Again, kind of a perspective thing. Can a Brit simply buy a gun? No. He has to demonstrate a legitimate need for ownership, which appears to be pretty restricted. The UK standard (to an American eye) is you cannot have a gun, but certain exceptions will be made.

The example I used earlier was a city dweller who was not in any sort of formal shooting club. Would he be generally granted a license (assuming he passes the background checks et al)? If generally no, then ownership is de facto generally denied.

You can't say it's the gun controls, not the licence. The licence is an integral part of the gun controls. If it weren't for the licensing process, anybody who wanted to get a shotgun could get one. All they would have to do is say they go clay pigeon shooting and they have a legitimate reason. It's the licensing process that uncovers whether they are lying about their shooting hobby.
Click to expand...

Again, the licensing provides for the exceptions. The ban provides the rule and the effective denial.

The problem with that is that it is a half measure. The policy makes it effectively illegal to concealed carry a firearm, but it is quite hard to do anything about it if somebody is in breach of the policy because it is quite possible they might be carrying the gun legally. In the UK, if you have a gun on your person and you are a civilian and the gun is not secured for transport, it's practically a guaranteed prison sentence, if you survive your encounter with the armed response unit.
Click to expand...

What? No. There's nothing halfway about it. If you are caught in Jersey with a handgun, and you cannot present a valid NJ CCW on the spot (which no one can), you are doing 3 years in the State Pen without question, also assuming you are not killed on the spot by our famed trigger happy law enforcement community. No need for special forces to arrive. A regular beat cop will send you to meet your maker without blinking an eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom