Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hordini wrote:
You do know that a lot of gun crime (probably the majority) is done with stolen guns or guns bought on the black market, and usually by people who wouldn't be able to buy a gun at a gun store, right? Most people who buy guns legally at gun stores aren't the people you need to worry about committing crimes.

In Britain we are forced to keep our guns in locked cabinets, which reduces the ease at which they can be stolen. I think also if people were liable for weapons they had sold then there would be far less of a black market too. It's a complex issue that would need a lot of different courses of action working in concert. Education, legislation and enforcement all working together.

dæl wrote:

Hordini wrote:
You do know that a lot of gun crime (probably the majority) is done with stolen guns or guns bought on the black market, and usually by people who wouldn't be able to buy a gun at a gun store, right? Most people who buy guns legally at gun stores aren't the people you need to worry about committing crimes.

In Britain we are forced to keep our guns in locked cabinets, which reduces the ease at which they can be stolen. I think also if people were liable for weapons they had sold then there would be far less of a black market too. It's a complex issue that would need a lot of different courses of action working in concert. Education, legislation and enforcement all working together.

Yes, but the problem is the black market supply already exists. Almost anything you do now in terms of legislation and gun control is only going to affect law-abiding gun owners, who are not the problem.

Hordini wrote:

dæl wrote:

Hordini wrote:
You do know that a lot of gun crime (probably the majority) is done with stolen guns or guns bought on the black market, and usually by people who wouldn't be able to buy a gun at a gun store, right? Most people who buy guns legally at gun stores aren't the people you need to worry about committing crimes.

In Britain we are forced to keep our guns in locked cabinets, which reduces the ease at which they can be stolen. I think also if people were liable for weapons they had sold then there would be far less of a black market too. It's a complex issue that would need a lot of different courses of action working in concert. Education, legislation and enforcement all working together.

Yes, but the problem is the black market supply already exists. Almost anything you do now in terms of legislation and gun control is only going to affect law-abiding gun owners, who are not the problem.

This.
All gun control does is take away from the law abiding citizens. Criminals will still always have access to guns no matter how many laws you put in place to try and stop them.

I will try to find the place where my brother posted the data, but he did some research on gun safety & gun crime between the USA and Germany. I think he found that even using the statistics of the Brady Campaign (very anti-gun group) results in Germany having more of a gun problem than the US.

I will try to catch him online tomorrow and post a link to the info.

But the argument that all gun control just affects law abiding citizens means you should have no gun control, and it seems would be far worse. In Britain we have very little gun crime, this is probably due to our very strict gun laws. Sweden as mentioned has a massive amount of firearms in civilian hands but also has little gun crime, this is down to education, and I would wager much less inequality than elsewhere.

@ d-usa That would be awesome if you could do that. I take it that Germany has gun control?

d-usa wrote:I will try to find the place where my brother posted the data, but he did some research on gun safety & gun crime between the USA and Germany. I think he found that even using the statistics of the Brady Campaign (very anti-gun group) results in Germany having more of a gun problem than the US.

I will try to catch him online tomorrow and post a link to the info.

That would be very surprising to me, but please do post it. I'd be very interested to check out the information.

dæl wrote:But the argument that all gun control just affects law abiding citizens means you should have no gun control, and it seems would be far worse. In Britain we have very little gun crime, this is probably due to our very strict gun laws. Sweden as mentioned has a massive amount of firearms in civilian hands but also has little gun crime, this is down to education, and I would wager much less inequality than elsewhere.

@ d-usa That would be awesome if you could do that. I take it that Germany has gun control?

It does, very hard to get guns there unless you are a gun club I think.

Of course they had a school shooting and standoff last week.

I will catch him tomorrow and see if he can give me the data or a link to it.

German laws look very strict on the subject.

The Weapons Act of 2002 increased the age requirements for licensed hunters and competition shooters. It also introduced the requirement of a psychological evaluation for persons under the age of 25 to fulfil the requirement of personal adequacy for large-bore firearms.

The first amendment became effective on April 1, 2008. The intention of that amendment was to ban certain kinds of weapons like airsoft-guns, tasers, so-called Anscheinswaffen (dummy-guns) and knives with blades longer than 12 cm from public places. They may still be carried in sealed wrappings and for professional or ceremonial purposes. Their use on private premises and in non-public places like gun clubs is not restricted.

The second amendment became effective on July 17, 2009. It introduced routine verifications of safe firearms storage by local firearms control offices at the homes of licensees. It also tightened the conditions for continuous necessity. A constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) was launched against the law, alleging a violation of the inviolability of the home, guaranteed by Art. 13 of the German constitution.

A firearms ownership license (Waffenbesitzkarte) must be obtained before a weapon can be purchased. Owners of multiple firearms need separate ownership licenses for every single firearm they own. It entitles owners to purchase firearms and handle them on their own property and any private property with property owner consent. On public premises, a licensed firearm must be transported unloaded and in a stable, fully enclosing, locked container. A weapons ownership license does not entitle the owner to shoot the weapon or carry it on public premises without the prescribed container. Owners must obtain mandatory insurance and a means to securely store the weapon on their premises (a weapons locker). Blanket ownership licenses are issued to arms dealers, firearms experts and – with limitations – to collectors. Today, there are ca. four million legal private gun owners.

A number of criteria must be met before a firearms ownership license is issued:
age of consent (18 years for rimfire calibers/21 years for higher calibers)
trustworthiness
personal adequacy
expert knowledge and
necessity

So they use the type of psychological assessment I advocated earlier in the thread, albeit only for those under 25. I wonder why they didn't feel it necessary for over 25s.

if people can't afford to pay for the licenses perhaps they shouldn't have a gun

Only rich people are trustworthy, after all.

A terrorist cell could rob one of Americas many poorly secured gunshops and arm themselves with enough guns and ammunition to kill a medium sized town.

I'd wager that being a lot less likely to accomplish anything versus the idea of a bunch of derkas running a load of guns, explosives and ammunition over the southern border (Which is, of course, airtight.) ....bonus points if the origin point of the weapons in question was us.gov to one of our incorruptible friends in the mexican government or military..

nut jobs would find it significantly harder to mow down innocent people

You mean like that guy over in germany who just built a flamethrower and took it to a school?

The reason Sweden has little gun violence is because of the mentality around guns there, not the guns themselves.

You have officially won this thread. You want to see people NOT shoot each other? Figure out why they -want- to kill each other and put fix it. ....But that takes effort, and doesn't make people "feel" like something is being done RIGHT NOW.

I mean gun licenses based on extensive psychological examination, this removes not only criminals but potential problems as well, I don't think it's a good idea to have extremists and psychopaths roaming round with assault rifles.

Why would you want a GUN comrade? That's crazy! You cannot have one of those, you will put your eye out. NEXT! Why would you want a GUN comrade? That's crazy! You can not have one of THOSE. You'll put your eye out! NEXT!....

I can be labelled an extremist for quoting the people who MADE this country, and psychology in the US is diagnosis-happy to the point of being a joke. Your solution might work in a country that IS NOT the united states, but here...heh...I think all you'd make is a bunch of people fighting mad. Go ahead, tell a bunch of veterans who just got back from a few tours in the middle east that they can't own a neutered version of the service rifle they carried because they have PTSD or Depression. See what happens.

SOFDC wrote:

if people can't afford to pay for the licenses perhaps they shouldn't have a gun

Only rich people are trustworthy, after all.

That wasn't my intended meaning, but who is more likely to hold up a petrol station? Someone comfortably well off or someone who can't scrape together the extra 100 bucks for a licence?

The reason Sweden has little gun violence is because of the mentality around guns there, not the guns themselves.

You have officially won this thread. You want to see people NOT shoot each other? Figure out why they -want- to kill each other and put fix it. ....But that takes effort, and doesn't make people "feel" like something is being done RIGHT NOW.

I personally believe that inequality has a large bearing on why sweden has so few social problems compared to the rest of the world.

I mean gun licenses based on extensive psychological examination, this removes not only criminals but potential problems as well, I don't think it's a good idea to have extremists and psychopaths roaming round with assault rifles.

Why would you want a GUN comrade? That's crazy! You cannot have one of those, you will put your eye out. NEXT! Why would you want a GUN comrade? That's crazy! You can not have one of THOSE. You'll put your eye out! NEXT!....

I can be labelled an extremist for quoting the people who MADE this country, and psychology in the US is diagnosis-happy to the point of being a joke. Your solution might work in a country that IS NOT the united states, but here...heh...I think all you'd make is a bunch of people fighting mad. Go ahead, tell a bunch of veterans who just got back from a few tours in the middle east that they can't own a neutered version of the service rifle they carried because they have PTSD or Depression. See what happens.

You only need look at the ADHD epidemic to see that psychology feels the need to justify it's own existence a bit too much, but I think if we could do basic tests for empathy and such that might weed out a few crazies.

People with depression are, I'd imagine, only really a danger to themselves, but PTSD? I don't think they should be allowed firearms at all. Just seems likely to could go a bit too wrong if you ask me.

Really I don't know enough about American culture to offer truely comprehensive solutions to such a complex issue, I don't think anyone who hasn't lived there for many years would. But as an outsider looking in, and as a concerned member of a country that seems to be becoming similar, it seems violent crime is a real problem, and readily available firearms probably contribute to this, although imho inequality probably contributes a lot more.

Someone comfortably well off or someone who can't scrape together the extra 100 bucks for a licence?

This is like saying "If everyone had to get 100+ USD licenses to buy a computer, we could combat internet piracy!"...Who is getting the real hit here? It ain't pirates. Regulation for the sake of regulation is not a thing to aspire to. I get your meaning, but a better solution for all involved could be found elsewhere.

but I think if we could do basic tests for empathy and such that might weed out a few crazies.

But that isn't what was SAID. A "basic test for empathy" is not "Extensive psychological evaluation". One implies making sure that a subject isn't a frothing at the mouth lunatic out to eat babies, the other implies a desire to weed out applicants as much as possible.

PTSD? I don't think they should be allowed firearms at all. Just seems likely to could go a bit too wrong if you ask me.

And there`s another major catch. You said it yourself, the US psych field trying to justify itself too much resulting in the very possible (arbitrary) alienation of a whole lot of soldiers, police, etc? Kind of a bad idea dontcha think? (In other words: Revolutions have started over things like this, in which a lot of people die...I'm wagering a lot more than the odd vet hallucinating VC and rice paddies.)

As for depression being a DQ, where there HAVE been some noise made here and there about..Very bad idea IMO. If nothing else, it will keep the people who DO have guns, or want to get them in the future (or a job where this will be a factor..) will avoid treatment at all costs...that is bad. Right now in the US, you are only barred from ownership if you have been involuntarily committed. You are not penalized for going on your own and seeking treatment, which is a good thing.

and readily available firearms probably contribute to this

And therein lies one of the biggest disconnects in the cultures when talking about it. To us, if the presence of available firearms effects crime (not going to debate that at the moment) its merely changing what it looks like. You won't find many people here who will actually think that two gangs at war won't just as readily start hacking each other (and anyone in the way) to death with machetes and axes if guns were to magically go away. Or that some psycho with a chemistry book and a head full of mad won't be making pipe bombs and incendiaries to murder his classmates/co-workers. Or that the spouse who catches their partner in bed with someone else and flips <censored> to the point of COMMITTING MURDER won't take a tire iron to someones head. On and on and on.

Shot to death, stabbed/hacked to death, blown up, burned...all equally dead. Question is, what's at your disposal to keep you from getting that way?

I remember reading once that it was easier to kill with a gun as it is somewhat disconnected from he violence involved in other methods. But still, in the UK we currently have a lot of teenagers stabbing one another so your point is valid.

It's good that if you seek treatment for conditions then you are still allowed all the benefits of society, but with certain conditions you should not be allowed to own a firearm, paranoid schizophrenics, people with personality disorders, and, as mentioned, PTSD sufferers, there is just too great a chance they may become disconnected with reality and end up committing some sort of atrocity. You could possibly, if they show a full recovery (I don't even know if thats possible but for arguments sake lets say it is) then allow them a life of normality, but with regular checks on their health. I'm pretty libertarian, people can act how they please as long as they aren't hurting anyone else, but guns give a capacity to hurt many, but then so do sharp objects (or even blunt ones) and we can't legislate for them. So maybe the answer is education, far more than legislation. But even so, people with serious mental illness probably shouldn't be allowed guns, of that I'm sure.

So the shooter turned himself into police overnight and Toronto Police will be releasing more info at a press conference at 2pm.
Just another gang-hit the idiots think are best sorted out in the most crowded places, full of innocent victims they can find.

And north american gun control is a joke... How many legally owned & registered guns are involved in crimes as compared to the non-registered & illegally obtained kind?!

At least our government did the right thing and canned the non-sensical long-gun registry and the billion odd dollars of wasted spending it cost... I mean, seriously! All those long barrelled hunting rifles out there were causing massive waves of gun voilence across our cities! How in their right mind would use such a piddly and easily concealed weapon like a hand gun or semi-auto?!

d-usa wrote:I will try to find the place where my brother posted the data, but he did some research on gun safety & gun crime between the USA and Germany. I think he found that even using the statistics of the Brady Campaign (very anti-gun group) results in Germany having more of a gun problem than the US.

As a former German, this would surprise me a lot. Involvement of firearms in crimes is extremely rare, to the point that there is currently a lot of media attention on the origin of that one pistol that was used by the neo-nazi "terror cell" to murder a number of foreigners throughout the past couple years. Violent crimes usually involve knifes or blunt objects like baseball bats.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_firearms.xls

Germans are very fond of their "Schützenverein" (marksmen clubs), however, which is where I suppose the majority of firearms in possession of the civilian population can be found. The owners of these guns have to undergo the aforementioned tests, but unfortunately this does not preclude incidents like the school shooting mentioned earlier in this thread, where the weapons and ammunition used to commit the slaughter were quite simply not adequately secured.
Still, in general, firearms were never perceived to be much of a problem in Germany, specifically because it is extremely rare that one is used in a crime. Having the average thug on the street own one would be almost unthinkable.

It's even more extreme in Ireland, where I am now. Not even the cops around here have guns. They have to call in a specialized support unit if they'd ever face a criminal that is so dangerous that he might need to be shot.
From all I've seen in the past years, it works just as well. Even better than in Germany, where the police occasionally shoots an unarmed guy and the media is left wondering if it was necessary or not. There have been a few rather controversial cases.

Well, looks like I got my recollection of his story wrong. So nothing to see here...

@Lynata the Liechtenstein homicide stats are quite interesting, 100% of homicides carried out with firearms one year, only one homicide though. Cheers for providing the info, shows that gun controls can contribute to less gun crime, seems intuitive but then you can never really know with sociological matters.