Overview of gun laws by nation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sceptre (talk | contribs) at 21:39, 8 January 2006 (Popups-assisted reversion to revision 34408573). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:39, 8 January 2006 by Sceptre (talk | contribs) (Popups-assisted reversion to revision 34408573)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The phrase Gun politics refers to the views of different people within a particular country as to what degree of freedom or restriction (more gun rights or more gun control) should be enforced upon the private ownership and usage of firearms, and to what extent ownership influences crime and the balance of power between the individual and the State.

Specific locales

This article discusses these policies in a general sense. For more specific discussion of policy in specific locales, see:

Summary of Positions

Those who favor greater restrictions on firearm ownership and availability believe all, or some subset of:

There is no fundamental right to own firearms
Gun control legislation will reduce violent crime
Guns are more dangerous to the owners than to intended targets because most gun related deaths are a result of domestic violence, accidents, and suicides
Guns are of little use as self defense for the typical owner because in incidents where a hostile encounter with an armed criminal occurs, the criminal is usually more experienced and skilled with his/her weapon, also criminals may act in groups
Even against unarmed criminals, the presence of a gun serves more often to escalate the likelihood and/or severity of violence
Citizens need to protect themselves against crime, but owning firearms is not a good way accomplish this
Citizens of First World countries today have no need to protect themselves against their governments if they are vigilant and confront government wrongdoing before violence is necessary, or that even if such a need should arise, it would be hopeless to take up individual small arms against the modern military technology that a government could bring to bear.
Guns, being devices implicitly designed to kill, raise the level of violence in any disagreement between people.

Those who favor maintaining or extending the private ownership of firearms believe all, or some subset of:

Owning firearms is a fundamental right
Government should not be empowered to interfere with an individual's right to own firearms as long as the individual is not harming or intimidating fellow citizens
Guns in the hands of the law-abiding populace decrease crime
Citizens have a right to self-protection
An armed populace decreases the overall risk of violent crime; widespread ownership by the law-abiding is a deterrent to criminal intent
Law-abiding citizens have a responsibility to provide their own protection because governments cannot be held civilly or criminally responsible for failing to provide such protection
Carrying a firearm makes one more safe, not less safe; for the same reason that police forces carry firearms, criminals do not expect an armed victim.
An armed populace is a deterrent to excesses of government; the threat of violent revolution by the people keeps government's power in check
Existing gun control laws are sufficient if only government would enforce them

These two lists are obviously not exhaustive. There may be other positions that are not represented here.

Degrees of gun control

There are many areas of debate into exactly what kinds of firearms should be allowed to be privately owned, if any, and how and where they may be used.

In the United States, full-automatic weapons are legal, but have extremely restrictive requirements. They must have been manufactured and registered before May 19, 1986; a $200 transfer tax must be paid; approval must be met in writing prior to purchase from the local sheriff or chief of police; fingerprints and a photograph must be submitted to the ATF; a criminal background check must be performed; and a waiting period of approximately 6 months applies. Written permission must be given by the ATF at least 30 days in advance if one wishes to take his full-automatic firearm out of his state. Due to the static number of full-automatic firearms on the market (fixed at 1986 levels), their collective value continues to increase. Most full-automatic firearms for sale cost in excess of $8,000USD, which is for many seeking to make a legal purchase the most prohibitive factor. Several states have decided to prohibit the sale of full-automatic firearms altogether. In most US states however, one can buy semi-automatic firearms over the counter if the buyer meets basic legal requirements, and after completing the proper paperwork and a criminal background check (and often a waiting period).

Internationally, many countries have an outright ban on full-automatic weapons, and some countries ban nearly all kinds of firearms.

In Switzerland, however, every male between the ages of 20 and 42 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the national guard until age or debility ends his service obligation. During their national guard enrollment, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes, together with a specified quantity of government-issued ammunition, sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that each reservist is always combat-ready. In addition to these official weapons, Swiss citizens commonly purchase surplus-to-inventory combat rifles, and shooting is a popular sport in all the Swiss cantons. Ammunition (also MilSpec surplus) sold at rifle ranges is supposed to be expended at the time of purchase.

The case in Switzerland demonstrates that the widespread possession and use of military-grade small arms is wholly compatible with one of the lowest murder rates in the world. Gun control advocates point out, however, that the degree of training Swiss receive in gun care and use, and the fact that the owners of these guns are known to the government, in and of itself constitutes a kind of gun control.

Another issue is whether individuals have the right to carry a handgun concealed on their person, even if it is perfectly legal and easy to own a pistol in general. In the United States another area of dispute is whether any requirement that firearms be registered constitutes a violation of the Second Amendment by impairing the exercise of that explicitly protected right. There is the reasonable perception that firearms registration - by making it easier for government officers to target gun owners for harassment and confiscation - constitutes an easily exploited encroachment upon the personal privacy and the property rights of the private citizen. Gun control advocates excuse the intrusive imposition of a registration requirement by arguing that it is merely a reasonable precaution similar to the registration of privately-owned motor vehicles—the primary counterpoint being vehicle ownership's lack of explicit Constitutional protection.

General discussion of arguments

Balance of power

Advocates for the right to bear arms often point to previous totalitarian regimes that passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation. Totalitarian governments such as Fascist Italy during World War II, as well as Communist regimes such as the former U.S.S.R. and the People's Republic of China are some examples of this.

There may or may not be a directly causal relationship between gun control and totalitarianism. A number of countries have had gun control in place for many years, without becoming totalitarian regimes. The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Japan, for example, are not considered to be totalitarian regimes.

On the other hand, totalitarian nations often were democratic prior to becoming totalitarian. The Weimar Republic, for instance, constituted one of the weakest governments in Europe in the twenties and early thirties; yet it was from the Weimar Republic that the Third Reich arose.

Interestingly, the Nazis deregulated the sale of rifles with the Reichswaffengesetz in 1938. However, this is a difficult example to characterize, particularly considering later developments.

Firearms-rights advocates also point to the fact that Japan had a long history of weapons ownership that was strictly limited to only the elite and their Samurai bodyguards. Peasants, without any access to arms, were at the mercy of powerful warlords.

Registration of firearms in some countries has led to confiscations of formerly legal firearms and the outlawing of the ownership of firearms to various degrees.

Some oppose registration of guns or licensing of gun owners because if captured, the associated records would provide military invaders with the locations and identities of gun owners, simplifying elimination of law-abiding (i.e. patriotic) resistance fighters. Location and capture of such records is a standard doctrine taught to military intelligence officers; and was widely practiced by German and Soviet troops during World War II.

Self-defense

Main article: Guns and crime

Both sides actively debate the relevance of self-defense in modern society. Some scholars, e.g. John Lott, claim to have discovered a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals confront citizens - that is, increases in the number or strictness of gun control laws are correlated with increases in the number or severity of violent crimes. Other scholars, e.g. Gary Kleck, take a slightly different tack; while criticizing Lott's theories as (paradoxically) overemphasizing the threat to the average American from armed crime, and therefore the need for armed defense, Kleck's work speaks towards similar support for firearm rights by showing that the number of Americans who report incidents where their guns averted a threat vastly outnumber those who report being the victim of a firearm-related crime. The efficacy of gun control legislation at reducing the availability of guns has been challenged by, among others, the testimony of criminals that they do not obey gun control laws, and by the lack of evidence of any efficacy of such laws in reducing violent crime. In his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues that available data indicates that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s (Levitt argues that the decline was due to increased police, a larger prison population, the decline of the crack epidemic, and an increased number of abortions since Roe v. Wade). While the debate remains hotly disputed, it is therefore not surprising that a comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any reliable statistically significant effect, pro or con, resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information.

Irrespective of the statistical arguments, 38 US states have passed concealed carry legislation of one form or another. In these states, law-abiding citizens (usually after giving evidence of completing a training course) may carry handguns on their person for self-protection. Indeed, only 4 states have explicit legislation restricting personal carry in this way, while 2 others (Vermont, and Alaska) place no restrictions at all on lawful citizens carrying concealed weapons.

Domestic violence

The strongest evidence linking availability of guns to injury and mortality rates comes in studies of domestic violence, the most well known being the series of studies by Arthur Kellermann, although other slightly different studies have similar results. In response to suggestions that homeowners were at risk from home invasions and would be wise to acquire a firearm for purposes of protection, Kellermann tabulated domestic homicide figures in three cities over several years, and found that the risk of a homicide was in fact higher in homes where a gun was present; his study led to the conclusion that the risk of a crime of passion or other domestic dispute ending in homicide when a gun was available was large enough to overwhelm any protective effect the presence of a gun might have against burglaries, home invasions, etc. In confirmation of this conclusion is his little-remarked upon finding that almost all the risk was limited to homes where a handgun was kept both loaded and unlocked, and therefore available for immediate use; apparently, the amount of time and effort required even to just remove a loaded gun from a locked cabinet was sufficient to allow tempers to cool enough to prevent a shooting.

Although Kellermann's papers themselves do not make any recommendations, they were immediately held up as support by the advocates of gun control, and decried as bad science by opponents of gun control. See Arthur Kellermann for the alleged flaws in the study. In fact, the findings are essentially what would be predicted a priori; the presence of any object with some degree of risk, no matter how small, will always increase the total risk. For instance, the presence of a swimming pool in the home can only increase the risk of death because it adds the risk of death by drowning; ownership of an automobile can only increase the risk of death because it adds the risk of death in an automobile crash, etc. The only way this type of study could have found a reduction in risk of homicide from the presence of a gun in the home would have been if the rate of homicidal home invasions was much greater than the rate of domestic violence; however, although domestic violence is actually not well studied, it is universally agreed that it is much more common than home invasion type crimes. In fact, Kellermann also tabulated the change in risk of homicide associated with other, purely defensive, means of protection, e.g. alarm systems, deadbolts, security doors, barred windows, etc., and in each case was able to demonstrate a very small decrease in risk of homicide, which would suggest that the effect of the presence of a firearm on the risk of death by home invasion would be of similar magnitude, much smaller than the additional risk of domestic violence related homicide which was seen.

More thoughtful critics of the work and its connection with calls for gun control point out that Kellermann's work does not address the overall question of the total risk or benefit of firearm ownership because it does not address any events occurring outside the house; and due to this limitation, assert that his result is really more of an indictment of domestic violence than of gun ownership. Even Kellermann himself includes in his paper several paragraphs referring to the need for further study of domestic violence and its causes and prevention. They argue that the vast majority of households which possess a gun are not at any risk for any form of domestic violence, making any increased risk from gun ownership related to this behavior totally irrelevant to most gunowners; and that restriction of the rights of the great majority for the protection of a few who might harm themselves is in keeping with neither the general tenor of United States law, nor the Second Amendment in particular. (However, the risk of domestic violence related homicide found in Kellermann's study cut across all subpopulations including both demographic variables such as race as well as others which might be considered more directly relevant, such as a history of violence, drug or alcohol abuse, or criminal record. Perhaps it is obvious to those in a relationship whether there is risk of domestic violence or not, but the data in the study was not able to make such a distinction. In this respect, the calls for further study of predictors related to domestic violence become even more important). Furthermore, they argue that it is not the government's place to prevent adult citizens of sound mind from indulging in anything risky; and that people are freely permitted to assume much greater risks, such as the aforementioned swimming pools and automobiles, skiing, etc. if they wish. However, Kellermann's paper begins by pointing out that people who would not otherwise own firearms for recreational or other purposes are being urged to acquire firearms specifically for protection of the home, and in this narrow context, his results demonstrate quite clearly that this is an erroneous strategy; whether prospective gun owners choose to follow this advice or not is their decision to make.

In the final measure, perhaps the most useful contribution of the Kellermann studies is to quantify the degree of risk for domestic homicide associated with gun ownership, in the context of the degree of risk posed by some of the other variables he included. Interestingly, the greatest risks are associated with factors such as renting a dwelling rather than owning, and/or living alone; these are not in themselves causes of homicide, obviously, but represent measurable results of deeper factors, e.g. lower socioeconomic strata, lack of roots in the community and personal connections, and general mental and emotional instability. In comparison, the risk associated with gun ownership was significantly lower. It was, however, statistically indistinguishable from the degree of risk posed by any member of the family having a criminal record, which most people would consider to be significant. This adds somewhat to the clarity of the picture of what factors go into domestic homicide, and should induce further studies of the subject.