Wrong door shootings.

[bruto]

I am stunned at the level of gun violence in the USA. There is high ownership of guns here in Finland yet the idea of someone getting shot for turning in someone's driveway or ringing the door bell seemsis preposterous to me.

please excuse the modification, but...

 

[autumn1971]

Agreed. Universal background checks should be on the books 20 years ago.

At least a dozen times I’ve heard casual conversations where someone talks about selling a gun to someone because the buyer has a felony, so can’t just go to a store.

Happens in rural communities every day.
There is no way to prosecute the seller, and no way to know who has that gun now.

 

[crescent]

There are 2 million privately owned guns in Switzerland, population 8.5 million.

Which again - on a per capita basis, is far, far, very very far below the U.S. rate of gun ownership.

 

[Beerina]

Are there significant numbers of such shootings? Are they going up or down?

 

[Nessie]

....
Again, kind of a perspective thing. Can a Brit simply buy a gun? No. He has to demonstrate a legitimate need for ownership...

Not for a shotgun. Though, people get asked anyway.

which appears to be pretty restricted.

Sport, hunting, vermin control, humane killing, population control, collections, historical, business use and even self-defence. How is that restricted?

The UK standard (to an American eye) is you cannot have a gun, but certain exceptions will be made.

The actual standard is you can have a gun, it is just that most British are not fussed about firearms and by choice, do not bother with them.

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.

Sorry, that is wrong. A city dweller can use any of the reasons I listed. What is not uncommon, is for a city dweller to have a licence and a gun, but the gun is stored where they shoot, so a gun club, farm, grouse estate, clay pigeon club etc.

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

The reality is that the UK operates a system that entitles millions to own a gun and will grant to anyone who meets the requirements, which is not a ban with exemptions. You think it is a ban with exemptions, because the vast majority do not take up their entitlement, by choice.

 

[Nessie]

"Having a legitimate reason" is exactly what the general denial hinges on. You cannot have a gun, unless you fit into a fairly narrow set of exceptions.

How about you list those supposedly narrow set of exceptions and then come up with a normal use of a gun that is not covered.

Again, I'm asking about a garden variety city dude. No country club membership where he is winging pheasants or whatever you want to call it. Just some guy who wants to own a gun. Granted or denied? If denied, you have a general denial in place, carved in stone, for which an acceptable exception would have to be presented to override.

Nessie mentioned that a shotgun can be gotten with no reason given...

So, no reason, shotgun, granted. No reason, other firearm, denied.

What's wrong with providing a reason? It's part of the assessment of suitability process, which keeps us very safe.

 

[jimbob]

My point is we will not be a nation free of murder if we get rid of guns. Regardless of the fact that we simply cannot make this country gun-free.

If only there was a name for such a fallacy.

Oh...

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

You won't get no murders with better gun control, but you will get fewer murders. That's an improvement, right?

Similarly, you can't get rid of all the guns (even here in the UK there are still quite a lot of people who have guns) but if you can cut down the number of people who have them, you will have fewer murders. That's got to be good, right?

Right?

Also, a six year old with a machete would be very unlikely to kill a teacher, but they could do that with a gun

 

[gnome]

The US needs to stop the absolute insanity of letting people sell guns to each other with just the wink and nudge of “i think he is legally allowed. Eh? Eh?”

"I can help you choose the right weapon. Is it for hunting, home defense, or 'other'?"

 

[Thermal]

Not for a shotgun. Though, people get asked anyway.

I addressed that in a later post.

Sport, hunting, vermin control, humane killing, population control, collections, historical, business use and even self-defence. How is that restricted?

Is that a serious question? I am saying over and over, the average city dweller who is not part of some Country Club. Say, an accountant or a barrista or elevator technician.

Are you telling me that a professional phone sanitizer can claim he needs a gun for vermin control, population control, humane killing, business use, or self defense? And how the hell could you be a collector if you don't have the ******* license yet??? I mean come on.

I get you prefer to see it as not a denial. But the fact is, it is full flat out denial with the farmer/sporting club exemption, and a few obscure professions. A schoolteacher in London who does not have the financial luxury of club membership is flat denied, full stop. I'm not saying you couldn't create an acceptable exemption for yourself with some work and expense. I'm saying the UK says "no gun for you" unless you can check off some boxes the average non-rural person cannot check off without ample financial means, free time, and transportation.

The actual standard is you can have a gun, it is just that most British are not fussed about firearms and by choice, do not bother with them.

Agreed on the general lack of interest. Disagreed, of course, on the claim that you generally can have a gun, unless you meet standards that many don't meet. Can the average minimum wage worker in a city afford memberships to these country fowling clubs?

Sorry, that is wrong. A city dweller can use any of the reasons I listed. What is not uncommon, is for a city dweller to have a licence and a gun, but the gun is stored where they shoot, so a gun club, farm, grouse estate, clay pigeon club etc.

Again with the grouse estate memberships and farms. Seems only the well-off and the rural rustic generally have firearms?

The reality is that the UK operates a system that entitles millions to own a gun and will grant to anyone who meets the requirements, which is not a ban with exemptions. You think it is a ban with exemptions, because the vast majority do not take up their entitlement, by choice.

No, I think it's a ban because it is de facto banned in every sense of the word "banned" with some exceptions for club members (which I also gather are not always a given to be admitted into)and the handful of professional animal killers and farmers. And the collectors without collections.

 

[Thermal]

How about you list those supposedly narrow set of exceptions and then come up with a normal use of a gun that is not covered.

How about these: "I like guns and would like to own one". Or "I've decided to start a collection". Is the applicant getting approved, or is he flat denied?

So, no reason, shotgun, granted. No reason, other firearm, denied.

What's wrong with providing a reason? It's part of the assessment of suitability process, which keeps us very safe.

Do you have to give a reason for applying for a driver's license? No, because it is not otherwise flat denied.

 

[Garrison]

Have you ever applied for a job at assassin.com?

So you probably think you are joking:

FBI: Rent-a-Hitman site nabbed Air National Guardsman who was “excited” to kill

 

[JoeMorgue]

2 cheerleaders were shot in a Texas supermarket parking lot after one opened the door to the wrong vehicle. A suspect is under arrest

Now in the spirit of full fairness this one is a little (a LITTLE is said) more borderline then the other cases being discussed. And unknown person opening a car door and entering your vehicle is something that it's somewhat understandable for a person to perceive as a direct threat.

But when your "carjacker" immediately starts backing away and apologizing for getting in the wrong car, it's is not unreasonable to expect someone to acknowledge that.

ETA: Forgot link: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/us/texas-cheerleaders-woodlands-elite-shooting/index.html

 

[Nessie]

I addressed that in a later post.

Is that a serious question? I am saying over and over, the average city dweller who is not part of some Country Club. Say, an accountant or a barrista or elevator technician.

Are you telling me that a professional phone sanitizer can claim he needs a gun for vermin control, population control, humane killing, business use, or self defense? And how the hell could you be a collector if you don't have the ******* license yet??? I mean come on.

A city dwelling professional phone sanitiser will be granted a firearm certificate for

- vermin control at the farm he has got permission to shoot at. Just because he has to travel there does not matter.
- deer population control on the estate or woodland he has permission to shoot at. Again, it does not matter he may have to travel a long way to get there. He may just store his gun there anyway.
- humane killing, possibly, if he has a second job and can be called upon to do that. The police and vets have people who can put animals down for them. Race courses sadly need them, as exampled by the recent Grand National.
- business use, he could have a side line in trading guns or to supply them for films and TV.
- self defence, that one is highly unlikely, as it tends to be reserved for police, military and secret services.

He can also collect guns, shoot clays and target shoot.

I get you prefer to see it as not a denial. But the fact is, it is full flat out denial with the farmer/sporting club exemption, and a few obscure professions. A schoolteacher in London who does not have the financial luxury of club membership is flat denied, full stop. I'm not saying you couldn't create an acceptable exemption for yourself with some work and expense. I'm saying the UK says "no gun for you" unless you can check off some boxes the average non-rural person cannot check off without ample financial means, free time, and transportation.

A school teacher in London, whose family or friend has some land that they will give permission to shoot over, will get a gun.

Agreed on the general lack of interest. Disagreed, of course, on the claim that you generally can have a gun, unless you meet standards that many don't meet. Can the average minimum wage worker in a city afford memberships to these country fowling clubs?

You have not understood permission. An average wage person just needs permission to shoot somewhere there is suitable land. Lots of farmers use city dwellers who like to shoot, as their free pest controllers. The city dweller gets free shooting, the farmer free pest control.

Again with the grouse estate memberships and farms. Seems only the well-off and the rural rustic generally have firearms?

Nope. It is easy to get a second hand shotgun for under £100 and plenty of places will let people shoot for free, such as farms and the nearest clay pigeon shoot to me will charge £25 for a session.

No, I think it's a ban because it is de facto banned in every sense of the word "banned" with some exceptions for club members (which I also gather are not always a given to be admitted into)and the handful of professional animal killers and farmers. And the collectors without collections.

You think it is a ban, because you do not know it works here and you have made numerous assumptions that are wrong.

The reasons why people will get permission are far greater than you thought. The cost is way less than you thought. The restrictions are not as great as you thought.

 

[Thermal]

So you probably think you are joking:

FBI: Rent-a-Hitman site nabbed Air National Guardsman who was “excited” to kill

Even when typing in the address of the website, auto complete suggests "rentahitman.com joke" (and now the site offers discounts to...I kid you not...Air National Guardsmen). This guy is a special kind of stupid.

 

[Nessie]

How about these: "I like guns and would like to own one". Or "I've decided to start a collection". Is the applicant getting approved, or is he flat denied?

The former is a grant after the applicant answers the question, what would you like that gun for? The latter a grant.

Do you have to give a reason for applying for a driver's license? No, because it is not otherwise flat denied.

You don't need a reason to own a shotgun. The reasons to own a firearm are very wide, far wider than you thought.

 

[Thermal]

A city dwelling professional phone sanitiser will be granted a firearm certificate for

- vermin control at the farm he has got permission to shoot at. Just because he has to travel there does not matter.
- deer population control on the estate or woodland he has permission to shoot at. Again, it does not matter he may have to travel a long way to get there. He may just store his gun there anyway.
- humane killing, possibly, if he has a second job and can be called upon to do that. The police and vets have people who can put animals down for them. Race courses sadly need them, as exampled by the recent Grand National.
- business use, he could have a side line in trading guns or to supply them for films and TV.
- self defence, that one is highly unlikely, as it tends to be reserved for police, military and secret services.

He can also collect guns, shoot clays and target shoot.



A school teacher in London, whose family or friend has some land that they will give permission to shoot over, will get a gun.



You have not understood permission. An average wage person just needs permission to shoot somewhere there is suitable land. Lots of farmers use city dwellers who like to shoot, as their free pest controllers. The city dweller gets free shooting, the farmer free pest control.



Nope. It is easy to get a second hand shotgun for under £100 and plenty of places will let people shoot for free, such as farms and the nearest clay pigeon shoot to me will charge £25 for a session.



You think it is a ban, because you do not know it works here and you have made numerous assumptions that are wrong.

The reasons why people will get permission are far greater than you thought. The cost is way less than you thought. The restrictions are not as great as you thought.

That you had to convolute the scenario.to make it work "well maybe he has a second job as vermin control", etc) confirms my point.

I don't intend to argue this further, just meant to point out what it looks like from the outside. It seems odd to say "we don't deny firearms ownership" then go on to describe how the mechanics of the ban are kept in place, while denying that it's a ban.

 

[Thermal]

The former is a grant after the applicant answers the question, what would you like that gun for? The latter a grant.

Wait the latter is a grant? Anyone who says they just intend to start a collection bypasses all the other accrptable reasons?

You don't need a reason to own a shotgun. The reasons to own a firearm are very wide, far wider than you thought.

I've owned guns, most commonly 12 ga shotguns (the only legal hunting firearm in Jersey, aside from a short muzzleloader season), for most of my adult life.

 

[Steve]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/33-dead-130-injured-china-knife-wielding-spree-n41966

33 dead in China. Weapon? Machete.

Excellent. You found one. I repeat, one.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Excellent. You found one. I repeat, one.

He knows. It's a bit. We're going to spend 5 pages now explaining to him why one mass murder and one mass murder A DAY isn't the same thing while he goes "Durrr... hurr... durr explain it again I still don't get it."

 

[Nessie]

That you had to convolute the scenario.to make it work "well maybe he has a second job as vermin control", etc) confirms my point.

You gave me an example of someone with a job, and I gave you a common scenario of a city dweller who shoots vermin on a farm for free.

I don't intend to argue this further, just meant to point out what it looks like from the outside. It seems odd to say "we don't deny firearms ownership" then go on to describe how the mechanics of the ban are kept in place, while denying that it's a ban.

It is not a ban, it is a right, with conditions. Granting certificates is by a will grant system with common sense conditions, for a wide variety of reasons and it can be done cheaply and easily.

You did not realise that and you are reluctant to accept your mistakes.