Opinions on gun laws in your country

[Mantis]

The problem with gun laws is that they have no effect on crime or criminals. Criminals already ignore laws against activities such as theft, robbery, rape and murder so it's nothing for them to ignore laws against them having firearms or specific types of firearms. Gun laws, especially draconians laws, have been shown to be completely ineffective and serve only to ensure unarmed victims.

What's more, most firearms legislation is representative of knee-jerk reactions to tragic events. Knee jerk legislation is never well written, thought out of effective. Take Canada's gun laws. In order to obtain or posess a firearm, you need to have a firearems license. Licensing requires a police background check and I have no problem with that component of the law. Once you are licensed, you can purchase and possess any firearms you want that are within the class that you hold a license for.

Firearms are classified into three groups in Canada:

Non-restricted: Most rifles and shotguns are non-restricted including semi-autos. Rifles that have a barrel less than 18.5" in length, shotguns that have an overall length less than 26" are bumped up to the restricted category. Some firearms such as the AR-15 which should be non-restricted because they meet every requirement of that classification are deemed by law to be restricted (ARs) or prohibited (AKs, FN FALs). Non restricted firearms have relaxed transportation and storage requirements and they may be fired anywhere that it is safe to do so (farmer's back field, etc.) and used for hunting.

Restricted: this includes all handguns, short barreled rifles, firearms classified as restricted by law. They can only be discharged on an approved range. They require an ATT (authorization to transport) in order to be taken from your residence to the range and back.

Prohibited: This incliudes all full auto firearms, .25 and .32 calibre handguns, hanguns with a barrel less than 410mm in length. Converted automatics are prohibted, also, any firearm deemed by law to be prohibited falls into this category. You cannot apply for and receive a license for prohibited firearms as you can with non-restricted and restricted. Only if you owned a registered firarm that was later reclassified as restricted are you grandfathered into the restricted class allowing you to keep the firearm.

For now, all firearms are registered in a central database, however, the registration requirement for non-restricted firearms will be repealed by the new majority Conservative government this fall. The registry has proven to be an ineffective boondoggle with cost overruns of around 2000%. Once that has been done, non-restricted firearms will no longer be registered altough your license will still be verified when you purchase one.

Some other components of our laws....suppressors are prohibited devices. Pistols are limited to 10 rds, magazines made for centerfire rifles and shotguns must be modified to hold no more than 5 rounds or they are prohibited devices. There is no restriction of magazine limits for rimfire rifles. Also, a magazine built for a pistol that holds 10 rounds may be legally used in a rifle into which it fits - the restriction is based on what the magazine is built for.

 

[orbekler]

I'm a bit off topic, but...

...My personal opinion - bullsh*t. The law doesn't concern the real criminals, those who are ready to kill. Those people have their own sources and will probably obtain a firearm illegally. The result is that nobody has handguns, and those who do, aren't scared by the law. And if you ever mess up with one of those you don't have anything to protect yourself with...

That's exactly what I think of the matter...

...A state letting its citizens arm themselves like that is basically admitting it's weakness and inability to cope with crime...

And what if having a government NOT admitting it's weakness and UNABLE to cope with crime like in Italy?

...As crazy as it sounds, having a populace that is armed to the teeth makes it much harder to stamp out revolts, meaning the people can overthrow the government if need be. ...

Basically, is what most governments fear most: it's much easier to suppress a thrown stone revolt, than a gun revolt.

You would be right at home with Franco Frattini, currently the Italian foreign minister, who when in Brussels stated that "the freedom not to be blown up outweighs your freedom to find information on the internet". He's one of the great advocates of internet censorship....

I don't think he was very concerned with terrorism, I think he was really worried about "finding information on the internet" of all (their) business and privileges, in which italian politicians are probably the most fraudolent and specialized in europe. Just very recently appeared a blog of an insider of italian parliament revealing many politician tricks and frauds to steal money from this poor blood drained country.

 

[T.Neo]

Firearms don't belong in a civilised society, period.

Oh I just love it when people make comments like that. :dry:

It is just such a sensible comment. It is almost as sensible as this image:

If firearms are banned, of course only criminals have them - that's the very definition of what happens when you ban something.

But why are you banning them? Because you just don't like the idea of firearms in society? Then don't buy a firearm, or have anything to do with firearms.

But it is not a good enough reason to call on banning something. Sorry.

A state letting its citizens arm themselves like that is basically admitting it's weakness and inability to cope with crime.

Is that a bad thing? Because, in our real world, there are a lot of states that can't handle crime (I live in one, by the way).

And I am not even suggesting, that firearms are nearly any solution for solving crime, or crimes, or even a viable way for most citizens to defend themselves.

I am just suggesting that citizens- should be able to own firearms... providing that certain limitations and requisite factors are met.

I imagine for most people, the freedom not to be shot at would slightly outweigh the freedom to carry around lethal weapons.

Because everyone who owns a gun goes on murderous rampages. :dry:

By the way, millions of people own lethal weapons. They're called automobiles. And billions of people own lethal weapons- you know, the ones used to prepare food, or cut paper- they're called knives and scissors. And a whole lot of people have access to all sorts of nasty chemicals that see use in our civilisation, that are lethal as well.

Ok, so none of these things are actually designed as weapons for killing people. But the cold hard truth is that they can all be used quite well to kill people, if someone is intent enough on killing someone.

Let's say you've solved societal crime. Now there is very low incentive to perform violent acts to survive, or attempt to survive, economically, for example. You are left with emotional crime (I hate person X, therefore I shall kill them) or psychiatric crime (the voices in my head told me to rob a bank, etc).

Do you think, that in an idyllic state where guns are illegal, a murderer is really going to care, that he just has to obtain a weapon illegally, or find another kind of weapon, to kill you?

You will never end murders by making guns illegal. In fact, the only way to ensure a zero murder rate, is to put all humans on the planet into an engineered coma (including yourself, to prevent the possibility of going insane and murdering everyone).

The ideal state, is one that is mature enough for its citizens to own guns, not one that makes guns illegal. Moaning about guns, just happens often because it is an easy target.

Dealing with the very real and very problematic actual causes of criminal acts, is so much harder, hence very few, if any, people aggressively try to draw attention to it.

If only people could come to their senses, it might make the world just a slightly better place...

That isn't something to be praised.

Why? Is it bad? Is the worst fear of a country, that its ego is hurt?

 

[Urwumpe]

I quite support the gun laws in my country, but I think that there are traditional loop holes in them, that should be fixed. Especially about the many rifle clubs, that go a bit out of hand. It is still possible with reasonable effort to get a license for a rifle or pistol. Even without requiring one for work. But it also means that you have to be responsible for your gun and be member of a shooting club. You also can have not any number of guns and ammunition at home, which is also sensible.

The problems with guns here mostly arise, when the gun laws are violated, either by massive criminal energy (and then, no laws are helping anyway, and such people are dangerous even with just a dog) or by negligence.

You can't use a gun for much else than for shooting, so why should you need one? This isn't the Brazil here, where dozens of heavily armed robbers raid the housing complexes or richer citizens. Also, the USA are not really a good example how lax gun laws make a place safer. There not only the worst criminals have guns, but also the many small criminals and the many lawful citizens that have a short fuse on their last day as innocent hardworking member of the society. It is just a matter of statistics then, how often something bad will happen. And the results are much different if both enemies in a marriage have automatic weapons, or just use hands, feet, teeth and fingernails for showing how much they love each other.

Just as reminder: Nuclear weapons are banned for citizens in all countries of the world. I still yet have to see criminals getting one. It will happen one day, sure, but it will be so rarely, that it makes little sense to have everybody have the right to install Minuteman III silos in their garden.

 

[T.Neo]

It will happen one day, sure, but it will be so rarely, that it makes little sense to have everybody have the right to install Minuteman III silos in their garden.

Sadly I fear my garden is not large enough for a Minuteman launch silo. :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Sadly I fear my garden is not large enough for a Minuteman launch silo. :lol:

I could fit 6 into the garden of my parents, should I be social and "protect" you as well, because I am more capable of "protecting" myself with Minutemen and could also "protect" others.

 

[Ghostrider]

You can't use a gun for much else than for shooting, so why should you need one?

Well, er... For shooting for instance?

That, and stopping that criminal mastermind downstairs from stealing a nuclear weapon.:lol:

By the way, what's the name of that small town in France where a city law forbids all citizens, residents and passerbys from "owning and/or using a nuclear weapon on municipal grounds"?

 

[Urwumpe]

By the way, what's the name of that small town in France where a city law forbids all citizens, residents and passerbys from "owning and/or using a nuclear weapon on municipal grounds"?

Not sure, but you get 5 years in prison if you detonate a nuclear bomb over German terrain.

 

[Quick_Nick]

In Texas, guns are everywhere. Gun shows, guns for hunting, shooting targets, and self defense. I think the concealed gun permits work just like in Tennessee. (earlier post)
If you break into someone's home, you're getting shot. The problem is worried older people who accidentally shoot family who come in at night.
And there's obviously a HUGE number of guns going to drug cartels, but they would find weapons anyways. I imagine it even makes self defense necessary at the border. My grandfather sold his house in Mexico; the woman he sold it to was recently kidnapped.

 

[FADEC]

I think each person should have the right to have a gun on ones own property. But that attitude is not quite German anyway. So I don't have to tell what I think about German gun laws.

A nice firearm surely would be one of the first things which would change its position from a store to my home in case I would emigrate to the USA.

 

[T.Neo]

The problem is worried older people who accidentally shoot family who come in at night.

That is indeed an issue, and highlights a requirement for competency in gun ownership. Of course, you will never totally eliminate the chance of such an accident... but I would much rather walk into the house of a competent gun owner, than an incompetent one (though obviously not secretly and at night, that is just impolite :shifty: ).

On the other hand, it isn't really right to use lethal force against a person who is not a lethal threat (that's how the law goes here, not sure how it goes elsewhere).


In places like the US, I'm sure it is different... but here in SA, where the term "home invasion" really is justified, it would likely pay off to assume a lethal threat- one popular form of crime is home invading people at night or the early hours of the morning, with firearms- sometimes with fully automatic ones.

But again, an incompetent gun user in a home invasion scenario... is likely worse off than the person who lets the home invaders tie them up and steal everything valuable in the house...

 

[Pyromaniac605]

On the other hand, it isn't really right to use lethal force against a person who is not a lethal threat (that's how the law goes here, not sure how it goes elsewhere).

I'm not sure, but I think it's similar here, I think for Justified Self-defense to apply the person attacking you must have been carrying a deadly weapon and intended on using it on you. How you could tell if they really were going to use it or just bluffing... who knows...?

 

[Ghostrider]

How you could tell if they really were going to use it or just bluffing... who knows...?

Well, anyone points a deadly weapon at you, he has it coming.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

:hesaid:
I can't remember the exact wording here in Tennessee, but to paraphrase, it goes something along the lines of imminent threat to self or a second person. So if goon points gun at wife or kid (other family member, neighbor, etc), he still runs the risk of death by lead poisoning. This is all situational though, there has to be a clear shot without danger to anyone but the goon.
By far the best weapon for home defense is a pump shotgun (just my opinion).
Distinctive sound those shotguns...

The problem with a goon and a knife is, if it's thrown or dropped, then there is no longer a credible threat. That's yet to be tested in court though. If a dude is slinging those throwing stars (shurikens?) whose to say he's "empty handed". Problem then may be that you aren't supposed to shoot to disarm/wound or maim. Gotta shoot to kill.

another paraphrase; Aim with the eye, shoot with the mind, kill with the heart.
I take that to mean, be (very) sure of the target (and beyond), and intend to end it.

 

[xlns]

Meanwhile, in Croatia ...

Here, to get a firearm (automatic rifles are banned), you need submit to a medical exam that includes a psychiatric tests. Also, permit may be decline due to certain criminal convictions. These strict conditions were imposed to reduce piles of guns, ammunition and explosives left after the war, so police is quite busy enforcing those laws - legalizing existing and collecting unwanted weapons. Personally, I am satisfied with how things are and really don't see a point in allowing assault rifles to be possessed by anyone - IMHO, Jarvita has a point on that one.

I think a state that lets it's citizens arm itself is ultimately putting more power into the hands of the people. As crazy as it sounds, having a populace that is armed to the teeth makes it much harder to stamp out revolts, meaning the people can overthrow the government if need be. Sounds like I'm a nut when I read that, but its true :lol:.

Not wanting to be condescending and judgmental on US society, but arguments like those, guns are needed to defend my family or resist tyrannic government stand in sharp contrast against the fact that in US criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense and also that US has one of most stable governments in the world. Ok, one could argue that government is stable just because you would need the 82nd airborne to take down certain parts of DC , but then I could point out a number of nations that aren't armed and have stable govs.

 

[Tommy]

I imagine for most people, the freedom not to be shot at would slightly outweigh the freedom to carry around lethal weapons. And personal liberties should always end where social liberties begin.

What about MY freedom to defend myself against an armed (probably illegally) attacker? Or my freedom to provide my own food. Or defend myself from wolves and bears (quite common where I live - had a bear in the back yard two nights ago - and it killed the neighbors dog).

The people who are going to shoot at you are criminals - or insane - and will own guns or swords or whatever in spite of ANY law you pass.

:hesaid:

By far the best weapon for home defense is a pump shotgun (just my opinion).
Distinctive sound those shotguns...

I agree, and you should use lightweight "birdshot" rather than buckshot. This will provide the least chance of penetrating walls and killing/injuring innocent bystanders - or your wife or kids, etc. When I lived in the city I kept my handgun loaded with "snake charmers" - essentially a shotgun shell designed for use in handguns.

If firearms are banned, of course only criminals have them - that's the very definition of what happens when you ban something.

So it's "civilized" to prevent innocent citizens from being able to defend themselves against the criminals who DO have guns?

The problem can't be tackled by letting everyone arm themselves - that amounts to the state saying "we can't do our duty to protect you, we cede authority". A state letting its citizens arm themselves like that is basically admitting it's weakness and inability to cope with crime. That isn't something to be praised.

This is reality. NO country in the world has a policeman on every corner, or can assign one to "bodyguard" every citizen. I am a former law enforcement official, and I can say with absolute certainty that NO Police force can eliminate crime. The goal is to reduce it, but that's a far cry from eliminating it.

Here in Wisconsin concealed carry has been a big issue lately - the state just passed a law allowing it. As much as I despise Scott Walker, I actually sent him a letter thanking him for his actions in this matter. There were two proposals, and one of them was "constitutional carry", where ANY adult (except felons or insane) could carry a concealed firearm without a permit or training of any kind. Walker promised to veto "constitutional carry" (which is what I thanked him for), so the second proposal (which requires a permit and training, but is "shall issue" unless reason to deny is shown) was passed instead. I'm a bit disappointed with some of the areas you can carry a gun, such as sporting venues and bars (as long as you don't drink - like that will happen) - but individual businesses (bars, arenas, etc) have the option of banning guns from their premises, and I expect most will do so.

The "in case of revolution" is no longer really valid. There is little chance that an armed revolution (using legally obtained firearms) could succeed against todays high tech military. However, private ownership of firearms DOES still have an effect. The ability to "stand off" the police for a short period, until the media is informed and present, is an essential deterrent against abuse of power. It makes the government need to have a demonstrable legitimate reason to use force against it's citizens, rather than being able to run rough-shod over the population with few the wiser.

 

[fsci123]

I am a proud and happy citizen and i think that our gun laws are pretty good. I think people should be able to get a gun and just have to pass a simple test and do a background check. Some people including my mother says that people shouldn't have 30 AK47s in a box and say they are going hunting. I personally have enough money to buy 3 Ak47s and i hope to do so.

My opinion: Guns arent the problem people are.

 

[T.Neo]

This is reality. NO country in the world has a policeman on every corner, or can assign one to "bodyguard" every citizen. I am a former law enforcement official, and I can say with absolute certainty that NO Police force can eliminate crime. The goal is to reduce it, but that's a far cry from eliminating it.

This. I fail to see how a police force is an intrinsic sorrowful failure if it can't, y'know... do the impossible.

There were two proposals, and one of them was "constitutional carry", where ANY adult (except felons or insane)

How do you define "insane"?

The "in case of revolution" is no longer really valid. There is little chance that an armed revolution (using legally obtained firearms) could succeed against todays high tech military. However, private ownership of firearms DOES still have an effect. The ability to "stand off" the police for a short period, until the media is informed and present, is an essential deterrent against abuse of power. It makes the government need to have a demonstrable legitimate reason to use force against it's citizens, rather than being able to run rough-shod over the population with few the wiser.

Indeed. And there is no reason to suggest that a requirement for that is not valid. No police force or government is perfect or infallible- even in the developed world.

 

[Relayer91]

I'm perfectly happy with the gun laws in the UK, as a former competitive shooter, instructor and coach. You need a valid reason to own a weapon - self defence is not a reason in itself. For example, if you wanted to get a firearms permit for target shooting, you'd have to be a member of a target shooting club and have your application sponsored by that club.
Owning a firearm just 'because I want one' isn't a valid reason. And I suppose you could argue "I own a car because I want one, and more people are killed in traffic accidents than shooting incidents." Sure, but cars are primarily for transport. They are not weapons. The primary purpose of a firearm is to kill, and that's a scary amount of power to have simply 'because I want it'.

For example, I no longer do target shooting, and I'm no longer involved with it in any way. So I have no right to possess such a permit. So I don't.

I still think that there's not enough training given to people here when handling firearms - you need only look at the case of that 18 year old gamekeeper who had an ND and blew his girlfriend's head off because he was cleaning his shotgun with a cartridge in the chamber. I cannot fathom the level of idiocy required in order to do that. It's simply beyond me. It goes against every ounce of training I've ever received and that I've ever taught others. At least he then did the decent thing and blew his own head off for his utter stupidity.

 

[Turbinator]

On the topic of Airsoft, they are legal to buy and to import in Canada as long as the lower receiver is clear. All parts can be metal, except the lower receiver, as it has to be see trough. Many high quality airsoft manufacturers have Canadian versions of their guns in a very dark, yet still transparent colour for the lower.

Like this:

However, after buying the gun you can mod it however you wish. I play full MilSim airsoft, and everyone mods their guns by installing a new one or painting over. Gas operated airsoft guns are perfectly legal to own but illegal to import, talk about catch 22, yet still, many people own gas operated guns.

I personally own a silenced M4, an AK-47, MP-7, and a Beretta M9

In order:

MilSim in action:
(these games can run anywhere from 5 hours to 3 days)