4 ms·

> Of course, in all but Iceland, citizens in these countries generally don’t have access to guns. As a Kiwi I'm surprised to hear that. Perhaps the author is

by rodgerd 10y ago

> Of course, in all but Iceland, citizens in these countries generally don’t have access to guns. As a Kiwi I'm surprised to hear that. Perhaps the author is speaking of some parallel New Zealand, but in the one I inhabit it's not especially hard to own a shotgun or rifle: get a license, buy your firearm. Pistols, high-capacity semi-automatic rifles, automatic weapons are very hard or impossible to own, but guns themselves are not uncommon.

Daviey 10y ago
In the UK, it can take >6 months for the police to issue a firearm certificate. Not because of any lengthy checks.. but because they are inefficient and have large backlogs. But.. City of London averages 3-4 days... https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2015/10/timetogetshotguncertificate.jpg https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/up...
- tudorw 10y ago
  interesting treatment in London, shooting 'clay pigeons' for sport is a past-time of the monied in these parts, I wonder if the fast track city licences are mostly for bankers weekend jollies?
  - evgen 10y ago
    Got it in one :) A noob investment banker who is going shooting in the country with a well-heeled client is the motivator, and you also need to understand that the "City of London" is not the London that you are thinking of. The former is a weird holdover from ancient times that is centuries older than the city of London that you visit on vacation. It has its own special laws, and for a long time it had its own police force.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      Well, quite a lot of tourists do visit City because of things like St Pauls and Museum of London. To put it differently: City is one of 33 regions of London (the other 32 are boroughs; City is not a borough), and one of the very smallest. > and for a long time it had its own police force It still does: https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/ https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/
- rodgerd 10y ago
  > but because they are inefficient and have large backlogs. This seems to be true of many things. When I worked in the UK I never ended up with the national health number that you're supposed to get, because I was based in the Black Country and there's essentially an infinite backlog (as in, at my address they were no longer taking applications). A friend applied from the address of his workplace near the City, and had one within a few weeks.
lb1lf 10y ago
Much the same in Norway. Getting a licence for a handgun is pretty hard; maintaining it even more so; under no circumstances can a civilian carry a handgun in public. However, everybody and his dog owns a shotgun or a rifle to go hunting; it's just so that we mostly use them for hunting rather than for self defense or committing crimes...
bitserf 10y ago
Well, you can still pick up an AR-15 online in NZ if you have a valid firearms license, difference is the police are going to know you have one, and will do a background check as well as have an interview with you.
- draker 10y ago
  >will do a background check In the US if you buy a firearm online from a retailer or distributor it is required that it be shipped to a Federal Firearm Licensee, who will perform a NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) check prior to the transfer. Though not required, many private sellers will only ship firearms to an FFL so that the transfer is documented (in what is called a "bound book") and the private seller knows the buyer can legally purchase the firearm.
  - rodgerd 10y ago
    New Zealand does not have gun show or private sale exemptions, and the firearms license always required. If you lose it, you can kiss your firearms goodbye.
    - jpindar 10y ago
      The US does not have a gun show exception. All dealers must do the same background check and paperwork that they do in stores, and the dealers will also do this for any individual buyer & seller who ask. Some private sellers (a minority, in my experience) don't insist on having a dealer do the transfer, but that has nothing to do with where the sake takes place.
tyfon 10y ago
We have access to guns, the difference is that to own one (at least in Norway) you have to have a purpose for it and "protection" is not one of them. If you look at the statistics, Norway and Sweden are number 10 and 9 respectively when it comes to the number of guns pr person. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c...) To own a pistol for instance, you need to be an active member of a gun club for 6 months before buying one, and then you need to keep it at the gun club for 6 months before bringing it home. At home you are only allowed to store it in a locked cabinet without ammo and the only time you are allowed to transport it is to and from the gun range. In the US you have the expectation that a gun will provide "protection", i.e. you can buy a gun with the purpose of harming others. I think this is the biggest difference.
- throwanem 10y ago
  It's a remarkable stretch to conceptualize self-defense as "[a] purpose of harming others", especially in light of the fact that most in the US who obtain firearms for that purpose don't bother with the formalities around doing so lawfully.
PaulKeeble 10y ago
In the UK we have had guns progressively removed with successive laws slowly disarming the public such that now the only easy thing to get is an air rifle or air pistol. But what is interesting is you can see in the crime and homicide stats how much impact these individual laws have had and how much the homicide rate with guns has changed over 70 years or so. The shorter answer is that disarming hasn't change the homicide rate with guns at all. That has remained steady and inline with violent crime and crime in general, the amount the populace is armed didn't have any impact. We are told it has but the statistics alas don't lie and we have stats for this going back quite a way. There should be clear and present dips after gun control laws or changes in trajectory but they just aren't there.

by rodgerd 10y ago

Daviey 10y ago

In the UK, it can take >6 months for the police to issue a firearm certificate. Not because of any lengthy checks.. but because they are inefficient and have large backlogs. But.. City of London averages 3-4 days... https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2015/10/timetogetshotguncertificate.jpg https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/up...

tudorw 10y ago
interesting treatment in London, shooting 'clay pigeons' for sport is a past-time of the monied in these parts, I wonder if the fast track city licences are mostly for bankers weekend jollies?
- evgen 10y ago
  Got it in one :) A noob investment banker who is going shooting in the country with a well-heeled client is the motivator, and you also need to understand that the "City of London" is not the London that you are thinking of. The former is a weird holdover from ancient times that is centuries older than the city of London that you visit on vacation. It has its own special laws, and for a long time it had its own police force.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Well, quite a lot of tourists do visit City because of things like St Pauls and Museum of London. To put it differently: City is one of 33 regions of London (the other 32 are boroughs; City is not a borough), and one of the very smallest. > and for a long time it had its own police force It still does: https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/ https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/
rodgerd 10y ago
> but because they are inefficient and have large backlogs. This seems to be true of many things. When I worked in the UK I never ended up with the national health number that you're supposed to get, because I was based in the Black Country and there's essentially an infinite backlog (as in, at my address they were no longer taking applications). A friend applied from the address of his workplace near the City, and had one within a few weeks.

lb1lf 10y ago

Much the same in Norway. Getting a licence for a handgun is pretty hard; maintaining it even more so; under no circumstances can a civilian carry a handgun in public. However, everybody and his dog owns a shotgun or a rifle to go hunting; it's just so that we mostly use them for hunting rather than for self defense or committing crimes...

bitserf 10y ago

Well, you can still pick up an AR-15 online in NZ if you have a valid firearms license, difference is the police are going to know you have one, and will do a background check as well as have an interview with you.

draker 10y ago
>will do a background check In the US if you buy a firearm online from a retailer or distributor it is required that it be shipped to a Federal Firearm Licensee, who will perform a NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) check prior to the transfer. Though not required, many private sellers will only ship firearms to an FFL so that the transfer is documented (in what is called a "bound book") and the private seller knows the buyer can legally purchase the firearm.
- rodgerd 10y ago
  New Zealand does not have gun show or private sale exemptions, and the firearms license always required. If you lose it, you can kiss your firearms goodbye.
  - jpindar 10y ago
    The US does not have a gun show exception. All dealers must do the same background check and paperwork that they do in stores, and the dealers will also do this for any individual buyer & seller who ask. Some private sellers (a minority, in my experience) don't insist on having a dealer do the transfer, but that has nothing to do with where the sake takes place.

tyfon 10y ago

We have access to guns, the difference is that to own one (at least in Norway) you have to have a purpose for it and "protection" is not one of them. If you look at the statistics, Norway and Sweden are number 10 and 9 respectively when it comes to the number of guns pr person. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c...) To own a pistol for instance, you need to be an active member of a gun club for 6 months before buying one, and then you need to keep it at the gun club for 6 months before bringing it home. At home you are only allowed to store it in a locked cabinet without ammo and the only time you are allowed to transport it is to and from the gun range. In the US you have the expectation that a gun will provide "protection", i.e. you can buy a gun with the purpose of harming others. I think this is the biggest difference.

throwanem 10y ago
It's a remarkable stretch to conceptualize self-defense as "[a] purpose of harming others", especially in light of the fact that most in the US who obtain firearms for that purpose don't bother with the formalities around doing so lawfully.

PaulKeeble 10y ago

In the UK we have had guns progressively removed with successive laws slowly disarming the public such that now the only easy thing to get is an air rifle or air pistol. But what is interesting is you can see in the crime and homicide stats how much impact these individual laws have had and how much the homicide rate with guns has changed over 70 years or so. The shorter answer is that disarming hasn't change the homicide rate with guns at all. That has remained steady and inline with violent crime and crime in general, the amount the populace is armed didn't have any impact. We are told it has but the statistics alas don't lie and we have stats for this going back quite a way. There should be clear and present dips after gun control laws or changes in trajectory but they just aren't there.