Senate Gun Control

Eh I say some guns. You can have guns without mass shootings every single day.

 

Doesn't the tracking evidence for the last 2-3 years suggest the opposite? With shootings being so frequent in the US many are not reported? Suppose it depends on how you define 'mass shooting'.

Covid may have suppressed some of this too.

 

It greatly depends on how it's defined, and the solutions vary in turn. I think that's true about gun deaths in general, there's a lot of variation in there that gets glossed over because school shootings get a lot of attention but aren't very representative.

 

I understand why some people would like to abolish all gun ownership. I have never owned a firearm myself and I have never been particularly interested in them. That said, I have always regarded guns as tools and I accept that they are essential for some professions. I think that UK gun laws are well-balanced in the sense that a hunter or farmer can purchase the appropriate firearm for their needs whilst being thoroughly checked, monitored and prevented from accumulating a large amount of guns and ammunition. I see gun ownership in the UK as a responsibility and a privilege as opposed to a right. No legislation (short of a blanket ban) will completely remove the element of risk posed by the human element. That said, I feel very safe with the legislation that we have in place.

 

Yes, semi automatic. I will agree that upholding laws that we do have would go a long way towards helping this. I’ve noticed that no one has commented on the mental health potion of this problem. I know it’s a touchy subject but perhaps in our race to not "label" or "make people feel as if they aren’t normal" that we end up with too many people whom should NOT be out and about and rather locked up? Like Adam Lanza for example? What I mean is: Normal, mentally stable people don’t commit mass murder or murder at all. I say stricter rules for people who’s homes are housing a mentally ill person. If someone is a potential danger to themselves or others then they should be locked up, not on 5 prescriptions and sent home or to school. Sorry but this has to be brought up. People get mad but the gun is a tool and it’s why people do such things that I’d like to go after.

Good post. Yes, there are people who make use of guns and really need them. I’d also argue that home defense is another key reason. Sorry but in these times, a German Shepard or half baked security system might help but a firearm is still quite useful tool for home defense. Remember, the police show up after the crime and fill out paperwork. Only you can defend yourself and your family. Now, we live in a nice area and aren’t worried about this but others may not feel that way. Have to take that into consideration.

BTW: how exactly do your gun laws or rules work at a high level? Curious.

Agree here too. Just like we have liquor stores or other specialty stores I believe it’s easier to control distribution if there are gun stores and that’s what they do. At Wally World now, I believe they sell just basic shotguns and rifles now. No more buying advanced weapons at most of them, at least I think. But still, I’m on board with getting them out of dept stores.

We get to keep the medium guns then? . Not going to happen but that’s fine if you feel that way.

Yes, they are just a tool. That’s it. Again, people get mad but no gun has ever committed a crime. It’s like saying pencils misspell words. Nah they don’t. .

We actually do have fairly stringent rules around a lot of this but enforcement is weak and there end up being too many ways around it or whatever. Too leaky. As I’ve said, I have zero issues with being checked thoroughly before any gun purchase. I SHOULD be. I’m buying what could be a dangerous "tool" if in the wrong hands. The ammunition stockpiling issue is a little trickier because in a weekend of target contests and other sporty type things I’ve blown through a lot of ammo! Especially smaller caliber like .22 or whatever. Even so, I’d probably be OK with some type of limits on per month purchases. No one "needs" 1,000 rounds right this second. If you’re entering a true sporting event then the ammo can be delivered to the event and can be used there versus ones home. Something like that.

Lastly, blanket bans are a fallacy. Why? Because none of the illegal guns out there will get turned in. The gangbangers both in cities and the Deep South bumpkins won’t hand them over. That’s a hard-left fantasy. Alls that happens is that you take them away from law abiding citizens and that’s just not feasible, IMO.

 

There's a fix to this if you actually care about it; provide full mental health care as part of providing full health care. Deal with mental health care without stigmatizing it like you want to do (and you do want to stigmatize if you are going to say something so nebulous that it would give anyone that is worried about their mental health the motivation to avoid even using the care that is provided because they fear what you will do to them). You're very deliberately setting up anyone that doesn't want to be held against their will to hide any mental health issues rather than get things taken care of before they become a problem. That would cause even more problems, not less.

Look at what happens with police, who for most of the recent years, have been more likely to kill themselves than die in the line of duty. That's a mental health crisis, and your broad solution of "locking up people for mental health issues" is just going to make it even harder to get officers in need of help to get it, because people like you make broad calls that they should get locked up for seeking help.

People that are mentally healthy kill people all the time. That's an absolutely absurd 'no true scotsman' to want to define anyone that commits murder as mentally ill because it's convenient. Killing is not coupled to sanity, and the difference between many murders and the sorts of killings that get lauded by our society is what value systems they're using. I'm not saying that all value systems are equal, just that having a different (and even immoral) value system is not proof of being mentally unstable. And the state investigation into Adam Lanza includes that "those mental health professionals who saw him did not see anything that would have predicted his future behavior", so you're basing this just off of "anyone with any mental health issue is a threat that should be locked up", and it'll be fascinating to watch you campaign for locking up somewhere over 10% of all US war veterans because you consider them all threats, it seems (a bit over 10% of veterans have PTSD alone, and that would be a mental health issue; with your broad brush you're using, they'd meet your criteria for locking them up just as much).

It can even go one further with your loose definition; there are plenty of people who will argue, using equally dumb blanket arguments, that normal, mentally stable people don't feel they need to own guns. Just like what you said, that's got no connection to actual issues of mental health, so are you okay with opening things up to statements like that.

Alright, so you want a nebulous 'potential danger' term that you've already associated with 'poor mental health' in general but no specific criterion. So anyone that someone feels is 'a potential danger' should be locked up. So, lets say I'm going to say that you don't seem quite normal and could be a potential danger. I can't prove this, but then, neither did any of your 'qualifications' really require proof, just an overly broad definition of mental illness that's not actually tied to someone's mental health. So, are you okay with being locked up for the rest of your life because I've voiced the opinion you could be dangerous? After all, you've tried to define mentally ill as anyone you think would do a particular action, and that then they should all be locked up and that is absurdly broad. So, you should be okay, in principle, if we were to have you indefinitely held with no procedure to protect your freedom because it just 'has to be brought up' and this is all vague terms.

No it isn't. You didn't want to go after the 'why'. If you did, and were going to do this absurd "all murders are from mental health issues" then the fix would be to treat mental health issues so this stuff doesn't happen. You clearly don't seem to want to do that.

 

With regards to home security, I (living in a Scottish town) probably face much different threats than my US equivalent. Because gun ownership is uncommon and illegal firearms are rare, I’m unlikely to be faced with a burglar or an assailant in possession of a firearm. There are laws that would protect me if I used appropriate force to defend myself when under threat, but self defence is not an accepted criteria for gun ownership in the UK. So, if you were applying for a shotgun certificate or a firearms license here, you would not be able to cite home defence as a reason for gun ownership.

Could you clarify what you mean by “higher level”?

I think that this is another example of the cultural divide between the UK and the USA on this issue. There was a horrific incident in Scotland in 1996, which eventually led to a UK-wide ban on handguns (I think Northern Ireland was exempt from that legislation). I remember some campaigns from gun owners at the time, but they were very much a minority voice. We have never had a situation in the UK where there has been widespread gun ownership like there is in the US. People in the UK don’t see gun ownership as being tied to their rights and freedoms, so tight restrictions did not result in people refusing to hand over their guns (although I’m sure some people were very unhappy). Removing guns from citizens of the UK is a very different proposition to removing guns from citizens of the US.

 

Gun control is a "hard left fantasy"

 

Sorry - "higher level" just meant a quick summary of your laws and no need to go into details. Thats all. . But, I guess I am asking for some details after all. Please share, I am curious about some specifics.

Understood about the defense thing and thats fine if your laws are setup that way. So just curious what they do about sporting uses like target shooting, trap & skeet, etc?

I understand the cultural divide too. Everyone has a perspective on this, like most things. Despite what some infer, most gun owners arent "gun nuts" just as people wanting stricter gun laws arent "freedom hating commies" or whatever. The vast majority of people appear to be for sensible gun legislation that allows those who have earned the right to ownership(non criminals, stable mental health, etc) be able to purchase and hold them while keeping them OUT of the hands of the wrong people. Hard to be against that idea, IMO.

 

In general terms, you can own a rifle or a shotgun in the UK.

To own a rifle, you need to obtain a firearms license issued by your local police force. You need two personal references and a background check in your application. You will receive a home visit from police officers who must be satisfied that you have a secure gun cabinet etc. If you want a rifle for purposes of hunting, you must have permission from a land owner to hunt on their land. If you want a rifle for target practice, you must be a member of an approved rifle club.

To own a shotgun, you need a shotgun certificate, also issued by your local police force. You need one personal reference and the same checks as you need for a rifle. You also need a good reason to possess the gun, as with rifles.

These licenses must be renewed every 5 years.

I’m familiar with the legislation as I was a personal reference of a friend who owns firearms for hunting purposes (he controls the deer population on a nearby estate). I’ve known him for a long time and I trust his judgement. If I had any doubts, I would not have helped him to obtain his certifications.

I don’t know much about shooting for sport, but I do know that these are controlled by approved clubs/organisations. A great deal of Scotland’s rural economy depends on visitors coming to shoot grouse/deer etc.

 

If I heard a burglar in my house I'd lock myself up with my husband and daughter in my bedroom and I'd wait until the burglar leaves. Maybe try and quietly call the police in the meantime. But actively "defend" my possessions? **** no, I'm not risking my life for some electronic gadgets and a camera (admittedly, a fancy camera). That's what insurance is for.

 

Sounds actually reasonable to me. We have similar laws in New York for concealed carry pistol permits as you do for all firearms. References, background checks, etc. They dont visit your home but I'd be OK with that. When you have nothing to hide..... right? The process takes a while too, like 6 months. They do ask what the gun is for but it is advised to NOT put self defense so everyone says "shooting sports" on the application. You get fingerprinted too and thats filed locally and federally.

But "long arms" like rifles and shotguns only require a quick check that day at the store with basic ID. I dont think thats enough quite frankly. So, I have to say: I am impressed with the extra level of security/checking you guys are doing in Scotland with guns. You are allowing people to own them freely but requiring a good amount of checking beforehand. Sounds good. Is there anything regarding mental health at all? Or does the general background checks include some of that?

Well, thats fine but what if they dont leave? I understand that its not worth having to fire a weapon at someone or risk your own life to save an iPad. I get that. But your home is the most private, personal thing you have in this world. So, not sure I can just sit by and let them have their way and then call State Farm afterwards.

 

Why wouldn't they leave? That's the whole point of burglary, get in, steal a lot of stuff, leave.

Edit: Also, "have their way"? What on earth does that mean? A house is not a person, it can't be raped. What are they going to do, piss on the carpet? Take a dump on the kitchen floor? Again, screw that, not worth risking my life over.

 

Not all entries into ones home are just to steal your TV or whatever. Home invasions always sound scary to me. But, do as you wish. All good.

 

A license can be revoked or refused if the applicant is of “unsound mind or intemperate habits”. Unsound mind covers mental health issues (depression, self-harm etc). Intemperate habits could describe a lack of self control or a pattern of volatile behaviour. Criminal convictions are also an obstacle to firearm ownership.

When I agreed to be a named reference for my friend’s application, I was interview by a police officer over the phone. I was asked how I knew him, I was asked about his history and behaviours. It was also made clear to me that I had a responsibility to contact the police immediately if I noticed any changes in his behaviour or stability.

I don’t think that there can ever be a system of checks that completely negates the dangers posed by gun ownership. Guns are incredibly dangerous things and humans are often unpredictable. That said, there are areas in which guns are very effective (arguably essential) tools. I accept that some people will want to become gun owners, but this represents a minority of our population. I am glad that I live in a country with some of the strictest gun controls in the world.

 

A related question, when this gets into people who've talked about just calling on the police in a situation; how quickly do you expect the police to arrive?

I'm asking that from the context of knowing that just because the police are called because there's some sort of threat doesn't mean that they'll actually ever show up here. So I'm wondering what expectations people have elsewhere when thinking about that.

 

Dannik - thanks for your detailed replies. This all sounds fine with me and mostly doesnt sound too strict at all IMO. Everything you posted makes sense and wouldnt "hinder" any legitmate gun owners but gives extra protections & stricter enforcement. I think you guys are onto something here!

So - Scotlands gun laws....

 

@QUIGONMIKE This is just a small point, but gun laws in Scotland apply all over the UK. So, although we do have our own legal system, the Firearms Act is a UK-wide piece of legislation and applies to England and Wales also (Northern Ireland have their own gun laws).

 

Yeah, we essentially take the approach that guns can kill people so if you want a gun we want to ensure that you're not going to kill someone and that as far as possible we know who you are.

If you want a gun you need a licence and there needs to be checks and balances in place to make sure you don't mess up as the gun and licence can be revoked if you do.

Just like a car really. Car is capable of killing people if misused, you need to learn how to use it and get a license to prove this and there are checks and balances in place which remove the car and licence if you break the trust.

Granted guns don't require you to learn how to use it but in the UK at least we expect you to be a member of a proper club AND have people of good repute confirm you are a person that would not be perceived a risk if you have a gun.


Your NRA (which you don't agree with granted) is 100% against these simple measures as is the majority of the Republican party

 

Like I said - All good on my end. No NRA for me. Im rather impressed with what Ive heard from Dannik & the gun laws over there. I thought they were much more harsh but it all sounds good and id happily play in that realm. The car analogy is actually a good one. So, I have learned something today about gun laws in other countries that too many people here are "scared" of. No. reason for that! They are good sounding to me.

 

didn't we ban gun clubs as well ? after that guy in Scotland killed those kids at a school - he was a gun club member . I could be wrong tho.

 

No, the Dunblane massacre resulted in the ban of handguns. Prior to that, gun owners could own handguns for target shooting as members of gun clubs. Following the handgun ban, rifle clubs continue to exist for target shooting. It remains legal to own a muzzle-loaded pistol for target shooting, provided that you are a member of an approved rifle club.