Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (1 Viewer)

[SlyPokerDog]

Norway has among the most guns per capita in the world.

Types of civilian-owned guns[edit]
Norway has a large population of hunters.[4] Semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles, as well as shotguns, make up the better part of the guns in civilian homes. There is a total ban on automatic firearms for civilians, unless they fall into the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime.

Handguns have some calibre restrictions. A Smith & Wesson Model 500, for example, is illegal due to its high power, but other, less powerful guns, are legal as they are used in sports shooting. Norway has a long tradition of high-end sports shooting competitions, especially rifle shooting. Each calibre must be used in some type of competition to be allowed. Also, there is a restriction on the number of weapons an owner can have for each calibre. For recreational shooters, only one gun is allowed in each calibre. For professional and semi-professional shooters, a spare gun is allowed. A recreational shooter is only allowed to own four different handguns. To obtain more, documentation on extensive involvement in sport shooting is needed.

Ownership[edit]
Gun ownership is restricted in Norway, unless one has officially documented a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defense, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that they are a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency.

There are special rules for collectors of guns. They are exempt from many parts of the regulation, but, in turn, they must meet even narrower qualifications. Collectors may purchase, but not fire without permission, all kinds of guns in their respective areas of interest, which they have defined in advance.

Ownership is regulated in paragraph 7,[1] and responsibility for issuing a gun ownership license is given to the police authority in the applicant's district.

Rifle and shotgun ownership permission can be given to "sober and responsible" persons 18 years or older. The applicant for the permission must document a need for the weapon. Three exceptions exist to this age qualification. Persons under the age of 18, but over 16 may apply for rifle or shotgun ownership licence with the consent of parents or guardian. For handguns, the ownership age is 21, but a license can be issued to those 18 or older if certain criteria are met. However, such license is valid for only 1 year and must be renewed to avoid revocation.[5] For inherited weapons, it is up to the local police chief to make a decision based on the individual facts of the case.

Obtaining a license[edit]
There are two ways of obtaining an ownership license in Norway. The most common is through the process of obtaining a hunting license, the other is through a sports shooting license.

For hunting[edit]
To obtain a hunting license, the applicant must complete a 30-hour, 9-session course and pass a written multiple choice exam. The course includes firearm theory, firearm training, wildlife theory, and environmental protection training.

Once the exam is passed, the applicant may enroll in the hunter registry and receive a hunting license. The membership must be renewed each year, through license payment. The hunting license is brought to the police station, where the applicant fills out an application for obtaining the proper firearm for his or her hunt. After evaluation, part of the application is sent back to the applicant if it was approved. Upon approval, the applicant can take the returned form to the store and purchase the firearm listed in the application.

For sports shooters[edit]
The qualification process for sporting is theoretically easier, but requires more time and practice. The applicant must enroll in a firearm safety course, lasting at least 9 hours. The course includes a written test, but is shorter than the hunting exam, as it only deals with firearm safety. Two-thirds of the course are completed on the shooting range as practice. The passing of the test results in acceptance to the approved gun club, and a license for competition. However, while the hunters can obtain their firearm almost at once, sports shooters must prove their intentions to compete by actively training or competing in the gun club. This means regular attendance (at least 15 times) at gun club training over the course of six months. The applicant must use firearms owned by the club or borrowed at the range for this period. After six months, the applicant may apply for weapon ownership. The start license and a written recommendation from the gun club president are brought to the police station, and the competition class is filled out on the application. If approved, it will be returned to the applicant as with the hunter license.

In both cases, if the application is rejected, the applicant is allowed an explanation of the reason, and an appeal.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Types of civilian-owned guns[edit]
Norway has a large population of hunters.[4] Semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles, as well as shotguns, make up the better part of the guns in civilian homes. There is a total ban on automatic firearms for civilians, unless they fall into the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime.

Handguns have some calibre restrictions. A Smith & Wesson Model 500, for example, is illegal due to its high power, but other, less powerful guns, are legal as they are used in sports shooting. Norway has a long tradition of high-end sports shooting competitions, especially rifle shooting. Each calibre must be used in some type of competition to be allowed. Also, there is a restriction on the number of weapons an owner can have for each calibre. For recreational shooters, only one gun is allowed in each calibre. For professional and semi-professional shooters, a spare gun is allowed. A recreational shooter is only allowed to own four different handguns. To obtain more, documentation on extensive involvement in sport shooting is needed.

Ownership[edit]
Gun ownership is restricted in Norway, unless one has officially documented a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defense, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that they are a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency.

There are special rules for collectors of guns. They are exempt from many parts of the regulation, but, in turn, they must meet even narrower qualifications. Collectors may purchase, but not fire without permission, all kinds of guns in their respective areas of interest, which they have defined in advance.

Ownership is regulated in paragraph 7,[1] and responsibility for issuing a gun ownership license is given to the police authority in the applicant's district.

Rifle and shotgun ownership permission can be given to "sober and responsible" persons 18 years or older. The applicant for the permission must document a need for the weapon. Three exceptions exist to this age qualification. Persons under the age of 18, but over 16 may apply for rifle or shotgun ownership licence with the consent of parents or guardian. For handguns, the ownership age is 21, but a license can be issued to those 18 or older if certain criteria are met. However, such license is valid for only 1 year and must be renewed to avoid revocation.[5] For inherited weapons, it is up to the local police chief to make a decision based on the individual facts of the case.

Obtaining a license[edit]
There are two ways of obtaining an ownership license in Norway. The most common is through the process of obtaining a hunting license, the other is through a sports shooting license.

For hunting[edit]
To obtain a hunting license, the applicant must complete a 30-hour, 9-session course and pass a written multiple choice exam. The course includes firearm theory, firearm training, wildlife theory, and environmental protection training.

Once the exam is passed, the applicant may enroll in the hunter registry and receive a hunting license. The membership must be renewed each year, through license payment. The hunting license is brought to the police station, where the applicant fills out an application for obtaining the proper firearm for his or her hunt. After evaluation, part of the application is sent back to the applicant if it was approved. Upon approval, the applicant can take the returned form to the store and purchase the firearm listed in the application.

For sports shooters[edit]
The qualification process for sporting is theoretically easier, but requires more time and practice. The applicant must enroll in a firearm safety course, lasting at least 9 hours. The course includes a written test, but is shorter than the hunting exam, as it only deals with firearm safety. Two-thirds of the course are completed on the shooting range as practice. The passing of the test results in acceptance to the approved gun club, and a license for competition. However, while the hunters can obtain their firearm almost at once, sports shooters must prove their intentions to compete by actively training or competing in the gun club. This means regular attendance (at least 15 times) at gun club training over the course of six months. The applicant must use firearms owned by the club or borrowed at the range for this period. After six months, the applicant may apply for weapon ownership. The start license and a written recommendation from the gun club president are brought to the police station, and the competition class is filled out on the application. If approved, it will be returned to the applicant as with the hunter license.

In both cases, if the application is rejected, the applicant is allowed an explanation of the reason, and an appeal.

Yep, most of which we have here, except the emphasis on training.

We can't require the training by limiting access to firearms according to the 2A, however we could offer an annual tax credit for those who complete the training and build out much better official training channels rather than relying on the NRA as we've always done in the past.

Automatic firearms are also virtually illegal here.

We could get the same effect without all of the counterproductive political theater.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it looks to me like 2013 and 2016 are even more "outliers" to other years in the decade than 2014 was. From 2009-2018, the mean is 3.357, and the standard deviation is about 0.655. 2014's 4.22 is 1.3 std dev above the mean, while the 2013 and 2016 values of 2.18 and 2.3 are 1.8 and 1.6 std devs below the mean, respectively.

Yeah, good point. The wild swings aren't the point. It's the overall trend that is more important when looking at the impact of legislation, IMO.

2014 and 2016 are already a bit suspect because there are no numbers for 2015. I'm not saying they are wrong, it's just interesting.

 

[barfo]

If a policy can't be proven to be beneficial it's a waste of time and effort, and an undue encroachment on personal freedoms.

This negatively impacts the efforts of evidence based policy by robbing it of funding and political capital.

That's a pretty high bar you are setting.

Name all the public policies that were implemented only after enough evidence was collected to convince skeptics that the value was proven?

I'm not sure I can think of any.

barfo

 

[Fairly-Hard]

Stamping around in a mud puddle to try and see the bottom. Doesn’t work real well when the water is quite so muddy! However if you leave the water still it’s very clear.
Common sense gun laws are just that. Common sense.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Stamping around in a mud puddle to try and see the bottom. Doesn’t work real well when the water is quite so muddy! However if you leave the water still it’s very clear.
Common sense gun laws are just that. Common sense.

Anybody who thinks looking at history and results of given actions is "mudding the water" is trying to sell you snake oil or is just out to steal from you.

 

[Phatguysrule]

That's a pretty high bar you are setting.

Name all the public policies that were implemented only after enough evidence was collected to convince skeptics that the value was proven?

I'm not sure I can think of any.

barfo

Vaccine requirements would be one... Federal hand washing requirements, decriminalization of drugs, education requirements, drunk driving restrictions, seat belt requirements, helmet requirements... there is a lot of good policy that is based on evidence...

I'm not advocating that we convince all skeptics of anything. Just follow the evidence. And if there isn't solid evidence (for example, I have yet to see much evidence that any country or state has drastically reduced murder rates long term via gun control) then don't waste political capital to make an unpopular law one way or the other. Find an evidence based solution.

Trying to push through unpopular legislation that we don't know will work exposes good legislation to attacks by the opposition.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

Vaccine requirements would be one... Federal hand washing requirements, decriminalization of drugs, education requirements, drunk driving restrictions, seat belt requirements, helmet requirements... there is a lot of good policy that is based on evidence...

I'm not advocating that we convince all skeptics of anything. Just follow the evidence. And if there isn't solid evidence (for example, I have yet to see much evidence that any country or state has drastically reduced murder rates long term via gun control) then don't waste political capital to make an unpopular law one way or the other. Find an evidence based solution.

Trying to push through unpopular legislation that we don't know will work exposes good legislation to attacks by the opposition.

Oh boy did you set yourself up on that one. I already know how he’s gonna answer that.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Oh boy did you set yourself up on that one. I already know how he’s gonna answer that.

Excellent.

 

[Lanny]

If a policy can't be proven to be beneficial it's a waste of time and effort, and an undue encroachment on personal freedoms.

This negatively impacts the efforts of evidence based policy by robbing it of funding and political capital.

I can't prove that if you fall out of a high flying airplane you won't die when you hit the ground but I'd bet that the fall would result in your death.

 

[Lanny]

Norway has among the most guns per capita in the world.

What Norway does that the US doesn't is encourage responsible gun ownership and education, and has far better gini coefficient by offering everybody access the healthcare, education, and a generous social safety net.

Norway doesn't hold a candle to us in gun ownership.
'
Why do so many Norwegians own guns?

• He observes that, “In Norway we’ve always had lots of guns, as we have a hunting culture. Most people in Norway respect weapons and view them sensibly. Here in the shop we’ve hardly ever had a customer come in to buy a gun on impulse, not least because so doing is illegal.”

'The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in Norway is:
2017: 1,537,000 - 1,255,000 are registered.
2011: 1,352,380
2005: 1,320,000
Norway has a total area of 385,207 square kilometers (148,729 sq mi) and had a population of 5,385,300 in November 2020.

The United States has a population of 335,390,450 as of Saturday, October 8, 2022.
There are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States between police, the military, and American civilians. Over 393 Million (Over 98%) of those guns are in civilian hands, the equivalent of 120 firearms per 100 citizens.
460,000 are registered in the United States.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I can't prove that if you fall out of a high flying airplane you won't die when you hit the ground but I'd bet that the fall would result in your death.

In order for this to be an apt comparison half of the people who experienced this fall would have to have survived.

A more apt comparison to what many of you seem to be trying to tell me is that since everybody on the ground isn't dead the fall must not kill people. While disregarding the people who were actually airborne and had to experience the fall.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Norway doesn't hold a candle to us in gun ownership.
'
Why do so many Norwegians own guns?

• He observes that, “In Norway we’ve always had lots of guns, as we have a hunting culture. Most people in Norway respect weapons and view them sensibly. Here in the shop we’ve hardly ever had a customer come in to buy a gun on impulse, not least because so doing is illegal.”

'The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in Norway is:
2017: 1,537,000 - 1,255,000 are registered.
2011: 1,352,380
2005: 1,320,000
Norway has a total area of 385,207 square kilometers (148,729 sq mi) and had a population of 5,385,300 in November 2020.

The United States has a population of 335,390,450 as of Saturday, October 8, 2022.
There are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States between police, the military, and American civilians. Over 393 Million (Over 98%) of those guns are in civilian hands, the equivalent of 120 firearms per 100 citizens.
460,000 are registered in the United States.

Yes, but the number of households per capita in Norway who own guns is similar to the US. Maybe even higher.

If the number of guns mattered Norway and Finland would have much higher violent crime and murder rates than the UK. But they are very similar.

The difference is, all 3 have better access to healthcare and education than the US, as well as more generous and logical social safety nets and vastly superior police and judicial systems.

Norway and Finland also focus much more gun safety and use education than we do.

The 2A and the Supreme Court prevent us from restricting our citizens the way these countries have done, however we also have far more resources to provide these services to improve our score on the gini index.

Which have been shown to have an outsized impact on violent crime and murder rates compared to any gun related metric.

 

[Lanny]

In order for this to be an apt comparison half of the people who experienced this fall would have to have survived.

A more apt comparison to what many of you seem to be trying to tell me is that since everybody on the ground isn't dead the fall must not kill people. While disregarding the people who were actually airborne and had to experience the fall.

Ridiculous

 

[Lanny]

Yes, but the number of households per capita in Norway who own guns is similar to the US. Maybe even higher.

If the number of guns mattered Norway and Finland would have much higher violent crime and murder rates than the UK. But they are very similar.

The difference is, all 3 have better access to healthcare and education than the US, as well as more generous and logical social safety nets and vastly superior police and judicial systems.

Norway and Finland also focus much more gun safety and use education than we do.

The 2A and the Supreme Court prevent us from restricting our citizens the way these countries have done, however we also have far more resources to provide these services to improve our score on the gini index.

Which have been shown to have an outsized impact on violent crime and murder rates compared to any gun related metric.

Your first statement is wrong. Look at the comparative populations and gun ownership.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Your first statement is wrong. Look at the comparative populations and gun ownership.

Your comparison doesn't take households into consideration. Only 44% of US households own guns, even if there are more guns than people.

The number of gun owning households is very high in Norway and Finland as well, each household just doesn't own as many guns.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Ridiculous

Like saying the number of guns dictates the amount of violent crime and murder in your country, while Finland, Norway and the other Scandinavian countries have as low or lower violent crime and murder rates than the UK and the rest of Europe with exponentially higher gun ownership rates?

Ridiculous like that?

I totally get the opposition to guns. I don't get the eagerness to ignore data which could help us solve these problems efficiently and effectively without having to fight against the Supreme Court and the US Constitution.

 

[Lanny]

Your comparison doesn't take households into consideration. Only 44% of US households own guns, even if there are more guns than people.

The number of gun owning households is very high in Norway and Finland as well, each household just doesn't own as many guns.

Now you're quibbling.

 

[Lanny]

Like saying the number of guns dictates the amount of violent crime and murder in your country, while Finland, Norway and the other Scandinavian countries have as low or lower violent crime and murder rates than the UK and the rest of Europe with exponentially higher gun ownership rates?

Ridiculous like that?

I totally get the opposition to guns. I don't get the eagerness to ignore data which could help us solve these problems efficiently and effectively without having to fight against the Supreme Court and the US Constitution.

It's not me that's ignoring the data.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Now you're quibbling.

I'm not quibbling at all. That's 44% of the population who has legal and legitimate guns under their roof. I've seen estimates that some scandinavian countries have higher rates than the US, I'm just having trouble finding the numbers right now.

None of this is a quibble for me. Increased gun control wouldn't impact me at all personally. I don't buy guns often or do anything else that would be impacted by increased gun control.

I just see an opportunity for improvement and like discussing it.

 

[Phatguysrule]

It's not me that's ignoring the data.

I've posted quite a lot of before and after numbers on gun controls impact on violent crime and murder rates.

I have yet to see anybody else post any. This is a discussion on how gun control or gun restrictions impact murder rates isn't it? How can you have that discussion honestly without looking at the before and after numbers?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Suspect info: https://heavy.com/news/austin-thompson/

Someone needs to go in there and torture this motherfucker before he dies.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Suspect info: https://heavy.com/news/austin-thompson/

Someone needs to go in there and torture this motherfucker before he dies.

We really need to invest more energy in the mental health of our youth...

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

We really need to invest more energy in the mental health of our youth...

Lock em up if they are crazy. Who knows if this guy was crazy or not. We need mental institutions to lock up fringe persons who are a threat as well as regular testing of youths to assess if they are a potential threat or not.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Lock em up if they are crazy. Who knows if this guy was crazy or not. We need mental institutions to lock up fringe persons who are a threat as well as regular testing of youths to assess if they are a potential threat or not.

I think a huge part of it is just rethinking schools and having well paid staff who want to be there (including mental professionals who know what to look for and how to structure things).

Definitely people who are threats to others should be locked up one way or another.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I think a huge part of it is just rethinking schools and having mental professionals on staff who know what to look for and how to structure things.

Definitely people who are threats to others should be locked up one way or another.

Kids have phones or tablets. Weekly assessments on their well being through a software system that can analyze and track behavior and flag any potential threats.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Kids have phones or tablets. Weekly assessments on their well being through a software system that can analyze and track behavior and flag any potential threats.

Sure, maybe make some games that kids can play that will flag them? But we have a bigger problem with mental health than most first world countries, so we need to address what's causing it.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Sure, maybe make some games that kids can play that will flag them? But we have a bigger problem with mental health than most first world countries, so we need to address what's causing it.

Yes, I believe we are too accommodating as a society if someone is fucked up in the head. Everyone is special and no one can do wrong. Leads to unchecked negative behavior and thought patterns.

We also rely on pills too much to "fix" what's wrong with people's heads.

 

[Phatguysrule]