Gun Control UK Style

Problem solved
I'm kidding.

I guess it is good to openly condone this rhetoric out loud, to give the right message lest it be forgot, a sign.

The UK aren't German, we can drive our cars without a license...

In the UK you need a license for a firearm... But people are still getting shot.

 

Wait till King Mohammed the first is crowned. Then they'll get beheaded.

 

Snapshots from Thornton Heath

 

Looks like the silhouette of a Chinese Tokarev pistol.

 

TT
Russian

 

In the UK you also need a license to drive. It hasn't stopped people crashing. Booooooo!

 

Chinese copies sold and very popular for a time,
NORINCO if I remember, when I had my
Federal Firearms License, Gun Store.....
lol

Here is one.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/771996074

 

Or stopped a crashing Boar.
Oh bother......

 

Your obsession with defending the gardens in the New Forest is becoming too much!

 

Nor have such requirements done anything to prevent, or otherwise deter, motor vehicles being utilized as deadly weapons for the purpose of committing mass murder. The nation of France can attest to such. And despite that, nothing has been done about the fact that motor vehicles are still freely available, and just as deadly as before.

 

You do realise that the car isn't designed to kill don't you? I have to ask as I'm quite frankly astounded at the ignorant comments pro-gunners come out with.

 

Why does such matter? What is the ultimate, meaningful relevance of whether or not something is supposed designed with the express intent, and sole purpose of killing another person, when something that is supposedly designed for a different purpose is just as capable of killing another when utilized for such? What is the difference is something such as a crowbar is meant to be utilized in construction, when it can just as easily crush a skull if the one wielding it decides to make use of it for such purposes?

The argument presented by yourself was rendered moot from the moment the united kingdom because its campaign against long-bladed, pointed kitchen knives. Despite being designed exclusively as culinary tools for processing food, they have been repurposed by the criminal element to become deadly weapons, and now are being treated as such by not only the law itself, but also the political climate in the united kingdom.

 

You don't think the purpose matters? Wow.

A driver's license reflects the need to maintain driver standards. There is no need to reduce use. For example, older folk may simply have to renew their test to ensure standards have not deteriorated. Gun licensing should certainly focus on restricting access. Would you, for example, like a wife batterer to have access to a gun? No need to answer that mind you. I already know that you folks are prepared to ignore the fact that guns are more likely to be used against the family, than to protect them...

 

Measures have been taken to reduce the opportunity for mass killings using vehicles. Bollards placed in areas where large amounts of people gather for example.
What measures have been taken to reduce the number of mass shootings in the US?

Are guns subject to compulsory registration, training and testing ability to use a car safely, compulsory third party insurance etc?
These measures have been shown to reduce death on the roads and compensate for injuries recieved but are not even considered in regard to guns.

 

It is not the opinion of myself, but the established laws of the united states in general, individual states specifically, the united kingdom, and many other locations around the world. As far as these nations are legally concerned, it does not matter in the least what the intended purpose of a given item may be, but rather what it is used for. Legally in the united states a hammer or a crowbar, even though they are designed for the sole purpose of construction, they are still classified as bludgeons and deadly weapons, and a person carrying one can be arrested and charged for such.

In the state of New York, for example, every pocket knife found by law enforcement during a terry stop is treated as an illegal weapon if the blade can be flicked open with a movement of the wrist, even if it is nothing more than a swiss army knife. If it has a pocket clip and is visible from the outside, even if it is in a closed position and not held in the hand, it constitutes the criminal act of brandishing.

How does such address the matter of motor vehicle-related homicides? How do licensing requirements do anything to prevent such from occurring more readily?

Except for the fact that such is a myth based on the flawed study of Arthur Kellerman, who admitted that living alone, renting property rather than owning property, and engaging in illegal activities were all regarded as far more likely to lead to murder than simple firearms ownership.

 

As I said, licensing is driven by the need to maintain minimum driving standards. Death by dangerous driving is treated through criminal legislation elsewhere.

Gun licensing is completely different. For example, the direction of legal direction reverses. It is criminal activity that informs the licensing decision.

You're clearly reliant on group thought sites. Kellerman is just one of multiple studies linking gun ownership with greater victimisation rates.

 

Do these bollards prevent a motor vehicle from being plowed into a crowd of individuals utilizing a crosswalk across the street?

No measures can be taken in the united states, because mass shootings cannot be prevented from occurring. The Parkland incident is a fine example of such, as law enforcement refused to intervene despite numerous reports of felony activity being committed by Nikolas Cruz in the time leading up to the incident. The FBI refused to investigated terroristic threats he made online under his own name. And the school admitted that all of the warning signs of a potential mass shooting were present, but they chose to ignore them.

Indeed they are not, as firearms ownership is a constitutional right, while operation of a motor vehicle on a public right of way is a privilege granted by government. Constitutional rights cannot be made subject to such requirements so that they may legally be exercised. Beyond that, the above mentioned requirements apply only to operation of a motor vehicle on a public right of way, but not on private property.

The same cannot be said with regard to firearms ownership. Therefore no comparison between the two can be made.

 

Licensing for the operation of motor vehicles on a public right of way has nothing to do with matters pertaining to safety, but rather for the purpose of taxation.

This matter has already been addressed multiple times. Such studies are funded by the Joyce Foundation, while has publicly stated that it supports greater firearm-related restrictions, including outright prohibition if possible. Therefore none of these studies can be regarded as valid, when their findings were bought and paid for by one shopping for such findings from the very beginning.

 

That's not the can do attitude that got an American on the moon is it?
Do you really mean ''I don't care about children dying if reducing them means I may lose some of my toys''

 

Irrelevant and off topic. Not every problem can be solved, especially when the problem pertains to basic human behavior, and individual choice. The ability to travel to the moon does nothing to help the public understand why one can hold so little regard for human life, that murder is considered acceptable on the basis of boredom.

What was meant is what was said. There is nothing that can be done, because the matter ultimately boils down to simple human behavior, and individual choice.

 

Correct, so you are best to take measures to reduce them.

For example, the UK suffered a school massacre in 1996. So hand guns and tighter gun control came out. Then in 2010, a guy went mental with a shotgun. The shotgun was legally owned. It's now 2018 so in the last 22 years, we've had 2.

Even since then, we've had tighter controls on air guns!

How many massacres has America suffered in the last 22 years?

 

Really?
How many people could the Las Vegas shooter have killed from his hotel room without access to semi-automatic rifles and bump stocks?
If the answer is fewer then clearly something can be done to reduce mass shootings.

 

How many mass shootings were had prior to then?

None of which has anything to do with benefiting public safety. Rather the touted restrictions serve no purpose other than discouraging legal firearms ownership as much as possible, by making the entire matter so burdensome and complicated that only the most dedicated would ever bother with even applying. It has all the effectiveness of a total prohibition, without actually requiring a total prohibition being voted into law and potentially failing a court challenge if such should ever come about.

Such depends entirely on what is and is not defined as being a massacre, and how the definition is made.

 

What is missed on the part of yourself and others, deliberately or otherwise, is that Stephen Paddock was a licensed pilot, and cleared for operating aircraft. Had he chosen to go the route of utilizing aircraft loaded with explosive compounds, exponentially more individuals could have been murdered.

Beyond that matter, Stephen Paddock was quite wealthy. If semi-automatic firearms had not been as available as they were, there would have been nothing preventing him from legally acquiring a fully-automatic firearm, specifically something that was belt-fed and has a much higher rate of fire. He possessed no disqualifying record of any sort, so it would not have been that much of an obstacle for him to overcome if he was determined to commit mass murder at all costs.

 

Nope. Tax is separated from the license.

Again with your post-truthing. It really is boring how pro gunners insist on group thought sites and ignore the published research.