firearms in Australia,european countries

[triggerhappy243]

this may be the wrong location for this subject. if it is please point me to the right one.

this is directed to shooters who currently live in Australia, and the U.K.

Are you currently allowed to own and possess firearms?

[Mike H]

this may be the wrong location for this subject. if it is please point me to the right one.

this is directed to shooters who currently live in Australia, and the U.K.

Are you currently allowed to own and possess firearms?

Yes we are allowed to own firearms in Australia.

[JeffinNZ]

I don't even need special permission to own suppressors. Just rock and fit and fire.

[joe pace]

hi yes we are but we are restricted on what we can have such as semi auto rifles.

[dromia]

Yes, although full bore semi autos are banned along with pistols other than muzzle loading.

There is also provision for historic pistols to be kept and shot on dedicated ranges.

The firearms legislation makes no sense, I am deemed a fit enough person to have nigh on 100 firearms mainly full bore rifles but I cannot own a 22 pistol.

The legislation has evolved from gutless politicians making bad laws to appease the masses with knee jerk legislation in the wake of firearms tragedies, when legal pistols were banned that low life, greed merchant Tony Bliar said that it would end handgun crime which has actually i creased since the ban as seemingly criminals didn't use legal handguns.


this may be the wrong location for this subject. if it is please point me to the right one.

this is directed to shooters who currently live in Australia, and the U.K.

Are you currently allowed to own and possess firearms?

[44man]

Shoot a creep in the UK with a shotgun after he breaks in your home swinging a machete and chances are you will go to jail.
Criminals look for sheep and go to gun free zones.

[GhostHawk]

Since when have Criminals ever obeyed the law?

If you are going to be hung for killing someone, what difference does a few years for unlawful gun possesion make?

A society where 1 in 3-4 people is armed, is a very polite society, and a law abiding one. Any idiot with a baseball bat can run amok in a country where there are no handguns that could stop you.

[BAGTIC]

I would have expected better of North Dakota. Here I would expect it to be 3 out of 4, at least. Off hand I do not know anyone who doesn't have at least one firearms and that includes 85+ year old widow ladies.

[buckwheatpaul]

triggerhappy243, One of our newest American citizen is British...but grew up in Australia....he has said that he had numerous rifles and shotguns....no pistols.....rifles and shotguns were easy to have....have to be a gun club member or rancher...I can put you in touch with him if you pm me.....Paul

[triggerhappy243]

this was more of an info verification thread than anything else. I got into a short... and i mean real short conversation with a very young democratic politician wannabe. subject of course was firearms and crimes. this guys claim the was to ban all firearms ownership and possession in the u.s. would stop all these shootings. he went on to claim that Australia and the UK, banned "ALL" firearms ownership, and also claimed that crime went down. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM? I told him that, In fact his claim was not true that Australia and UK did allow firearms ownership. He asked me to name my sources.... I told him I know of several guys living in Australia who do own firearms, do hunt and also reload. HE BLOCKED ME ON FACEBOOK.

[ascast]

triggerhappy243 - consider yourself lucky

[merlin101]

[QUOTE=triggerhappy243;3297739HE BLOCKED ME ON FACEBOOK.[/QUOTE]

Good for you, bad for the lemmings that follow him.

[Ola]

Blocked on facebook.. that is funny.. :)

Btw, can anyone name a single country that has somekind of freedom* AND total ban of firearms? In Europe there is no such a country, in Japan one can own hunting and target guns, Australia and NZ pretty much the same, South Africa, Namibia...

Is there any?

*IMO f.e. China and North Korea don't have freedom..

[LoopSoosStroop]

I'm in South Africa.

We can have most types of firearms, except of course full auto stuff.

Semi-auto are also becoming a hassle, more and more hoops to jump through.

Manual rifles/shotguns for hunting and handguns for self defense are not an issue.

[762 shooter]

Bolt actions, lever actions, single shots, revolvers, and shotguns are not dangerous like semi auto pistols and rifles.

Don't you know nuttin'

762

[Char-Gar]

I would be more interested in knowing the legal process, restrictions and limitations on the purchase and transport of firearms. I understand they can be quite the bother.

[knfmn]

I would be more interested in knowing the legal process, restrictions and limitations on the purchase and transport of firearms. I understand they can be quite the bother.
I'm curious to hear, too. I wonder if the storage limitations are any worse than the ones in place in the people's Republic of Massachusetts?

[JeffinNZ]

I would be more interested in knowing the legal process, restrictions and limitations on the purchase and transport of firearms. I understand they can be quite the bother.

I can take my licence into a store, buy a firearm and transport it home.

[LoopSoosStroop]

From what I've read New Zealand has very decent firearms laws. Not sure if they license the owner or the guns, think the former. Similar to some European countries.

In South Africa you have to apply for a license for every single gun:

To start the process you have to do a competency course for the legal aspects (lawful self-defence etc.) as well as another competency course for every type of firearm you want to license (bolt gun, handgun, shotgun etc.).

Thereafter you can buy a weapon and apply for a license. While the application is pending, the gun stays at the dealer or at the previous owner. Once your receive the license disc you can collect. It's a massive hassle, typically applications take about 10 weeks, but can take up to a year! Bureaucracy...

You must store the weapons in an approved safe, 3 mm steel walls and 6 mm door. Only you are allowed to have access to the keys. You can transport any weapon you own as long as it's covered (range bag) and you have the license disc on you.

Your first 4 guns can be licensed under "occasional" status. For any amount over that and for any semi-auto weapons you need "dedicated" status. This requires you to join a organization and provide proof that you partake in a certain minimum amount of shooting activities per year.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to get semi-auto licenses approved. The reasons are varied, but the general feeling under the shooting population is that the government is trying to limit the distribution of semi's.

[Omega]

I can take my licence into a store, buy a firearm and transport it home.
Yea, I think most of us can guess that. What I would like to know is, is there concealed or open carry (for those allowed pistols), how are weapons transported, say to go to a range or hunting? What are the prerequisites and fees for a licence for a rifle or gun if allowed etc.

All the foreign countries I have been to were in uniform and most of the people I met were also in uniform so weapons were not an issue. Aren't there some countries were you have to own a gun for defense of the country? If so, what kind do they have to be?

[LoopSoosStroop]

We are also allowed one self defense weapon, and can be included in your first four "occasional" weapons. This can only be a handgun (pistol or revolver), but I've heard of pump shotguns also being approved. You are allowed to carry this weapon (obviously not the shotgun) on you at all times, as long as it's concealed and retained in a proper holster. Glocks are immensely popular and well supported here, CZ's as well. I carry a Ruger LC9.

[Omega]

From what I've read New Zealand has very decent firearms laws. Not sure if they license the owner or the guns, think the former. Similar to some European countries.

In South Africa you have to apply for a license for every single gun:

To start the process you have to do a competency course for the legal aspects (lawful self-defence etc.) as well as another competency course for every type of firearm you want to license (bolt gun, handgun, shotgun etc.).

Thereafter you can buy a weapon and apply for a license. While the application is pending, the gun stays at the dealer or at the previous owner. Once your receive the license disc you can collect. It's a massive hassle, typically applications take about 10 weeks, but can take up to a year! Bureaucracy...

You must store the weapons in an approved safe, 3 mm steel walls and 6 mm door. Only you are allowed to have access to the keys. You can transport any weapon you own as long as it's covered (range bag) and you have the license disc on you.

Your first 4 guns can be licensed under "occasional" status. For any amount over that and for any semi-auto weapons you need "dedicated" status. This requires you to join a organization and provide proof that you partake in a certain minimum amount of shooting activities per year.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to get semi-auto licenses approved. The reasons are varied, but the general feeling under the shooting population is that the government is trying to limit the distribution of semi's.
This is some of what I was interested in, thanks. Botswana, Gaboron I think, is the closest I've gotten to your country but seen many pictures.

[Ola]

Finland

-must apply a "buying permit" for every gun. No matter if you already own 500 guns.
-one must have REASON to buy a gun: "hunting" or "sport" are OK. Self defence is not, ABSOLUTELY NOT OK. If you write that in the application, you'll probably newer get permits for any gun in the future.

-there is a difference in "reasons".
--HUNTING: need hunting license and a place to hunt. Being a member of a hunting club helps a lot.
--SPORT: Need a certificate from a "firearms instructor" that you are a active sports shooter. For pistols and revolvers you must have 1 or 2 years of experience.
One may encounter several difficulties getting that certificate: f.e there are not many "firearms instructors"* in the whole country. First you have to find one. Then, if you do not know him/her personally, he/she can also choose not to write you the certificate..
And many other difficulties. (In my case there is a instructor in my shooting club and I know him personally, so a have ZERO difficulties getting the certificates).

Then you apply. If it has been over 6 month since you applied last time, you must take "sanity test". 260 questions on computer..

Ok, you get the "buying permit". You go to a gun store and buy the gun. Then you have 30 days to go to the police station and show the police what you bought. They make sure you bought what you applied for and all the data like serial number is correct.

Then, after maybe 3 weeks, you'll get the "owners permit", this little plastic card for that gun.



*they are not real instructors. Their only job is to write these certificates. "Firearms instructor" is a legal term and this system is inside the gun law. Police says who are the instructors... a long and weird story. I can tell you more if you are interested..

[220]

Not that bad in Aus but could be better, cant own a firearm for self defence, pistols only allowed for target shooting on approved ranges, semi autos almost impossible for most to own, even pump action shotguns are restricted

safe currently contains 7 handguns, 12 rifles 3 shotguns and one combination gun so it could be worse I guess.

Edit: all legal firearms in Aus are registered, we also need to apply for a purchase permit for every purchase, could be anything from the next day to a few months for it to be processed depending on the state you live in. Purchase permits are valid for 3 months and are issued for a category.

[sthwestvictoria]

this was more of an info verification thread than anything else.

he went on to claim that Australia and the UK, banned "ALL" firearms ownership, and also claimed that crime went down. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM? .
The gunfacts website/eBook is excellent for providing hard facts and references when interacting with these people from the gun control industry:

http://www.gunfacts.info

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Shoot a creep in the UK with a shotgun after he breaks in your home swinging a machete and chances are you will go to jail.
Criminals look for sheep and go to gun free zones.

You sound well-informed enough to identify, for us, some of those people who have gone to jail. In fact it is hard to assemble statistics when armed home invasion is virtually unknown, and largely confined to the criminal classes or those who keep bizarre company. But the number of prosecutions for armed defence against burglars is extremely small, and confined to circumstances which suggest a desire for retribution.

The case often quoted is that of Tony Martin, who had at least two illegal guns after having his license revoked for shooting a hole in the car of a man seen stealing apples from his orchard. He had probably been burgled several times on his isolated farm, although it seems likely that he exaggerated, and was on the verge of clinical illness. He had actually cut away the stairs in his house, supposedly for defense, and claimed to have fired from upstairs, killing a teenaged burglar with 29 previous arrests. No suggestion that Martin was in danger was made, and forensic evidence was that he had been downstairs, presumably lying in wait, and the deceased was running away. He refused his counsel's suggestion that he claim a defense of mental impairment, which should have been an easy way out, but changed to that when he found he didn't like prison, and his nine year sentence for murder was reduced to three for manslaughter.

It doesn't seem unfair that deadly violence should only be regarded as legitimate self-defense against clear-cut danger of deadly violence. Doing it for property seems excessive, unless you're Fort Knox, and doing it for restoration of ego is barbarous. But surprised householders have always been allowed considerable leeway for misjudging the situation, to a degree less than Martin's. Indeed the government has made statements to this effect.

[Char-Gar]

We have more red tape and hoops to jump through to buy a gun in the US, than more of us like. But compared to what some of you guys have to go through, we have it very very easy. Almost like buying an ice cream cone in Texas once you have cleared the instant Federal criminal record check.

In Texas if a person breaks into your home, business or vehicle they are fair game. The law presumes that self defense is justified and absent any solid evidence to the contrary, no charges will be filed. Nor will any civil liability attach. Not much value is placed on the lives of thieves, robbers and assorted miscreants when it comes to protecting your "castle". In some peoples eyes, that makes up a rather primitive people. However in Texas parlance, they can go "piss up a rope".

God bless Texas!

[44man]

You sound well-informed enough to identify, for us, some of those people who have gone to jail. In fact it is hard to assemble statistics when armed home invasion is virtually unknown, and largely confined to the criminal classes or those who keep bizarre company. But the number of prosecutions for armed defence against burglars is extremely small, and confined to circumstances which suggest a desire for retribution.

The case often quoted is that of Tony Martin, who had at least two illegal guns after having his license revoked for shooting a hole in the car of a man seen stealing apples from his orchard. He had probably been burgled several times on his isolated farm, although it seems likely that he exaggerated, and was on the verge of clinical illness. He had actually cut away the stairs in his house, supposedly for defense, and claimed to have fired from upstairs, killing a teenaged burglar with 29 previous arrests. No suggestion that Martin was in danger was made, and forensic evidence was that he had been downstairs, presumably lying in wait, and the deceased was running away. He refused his counsel's suggestion that he claim a defense of mental impairment, which should have been an easy way out, but changed to that when he found he didn't like prison, and his nine year sentence for murder was reduced to three for manslaughter.

It doesn't seem unfair that deadly violence should only be regarded as legitimate self-defense against clear-cut danger of deadly violence. Doing it for property seems excessive, unless you're Fort Knox, and doing it for restoration of ego is barbarous. But surprised householders have always been allowed considerable leeway for misjudging the situation, to a degree less than Martin's. Indeed the government has made statements to this effect.
Not what I read about. Clearly Tony was off his rocker. So many crazies but no excuse to deny law abiding citizens from protection.
There is nothing excessive to protect what you own from a criminal. Sorry, take my lawn mower and meet your maker, I worked hard for it and it does not belong to you. How does anyone feel stealing is justified? The line between personal harm and monetary harm must be reduced. Any difference to stick me up for $1 or my $2000 mower? Why can I shoot the $1 robber but not the $2000 one? Both cause harm. House break ins are danger. Does not matter if the creep has a BB gun or a knife. or nothing but fists, Your decision is fast and deadly force can save you.
Don't give me the liberal junk that you do not need deadly force. The guy might want your candle holder but he busted in. The next guy will want your daughter. Stick your hands in your pockets and say "please."
The story I heard was a creep broke in and was shot with a shotgun. The home owner was charged. You can not protect yourself in the UK.
I shoot a lot and everyone knows it. I can go away all day and never lock a door. THAT is freedom that you will never know. To carry is to protect others as much as yourself. Open carry is greater then concealed because creeps will NOT fool around. You will never regulate thought or hate.
Sheep die once the no gun sign is put up. You turn children in schools to sheep when I want every teacher to carry. Girls in Israel go shopping with full autos hung from shoulders.
The *** that shot nine was already in trouble but was ignored and his father gave him a gun.
Now you over there face Muslims with bombs so don't tell me about guns in America.
Obumbler wants to take all guns, only thing missing is the stash above his lip.
Take guns from us will not happen. It is to protect from an out of control government first. The fear liberals have. They want to say how many sheets of toilet paper per wipe. You that keep your gov are sheep. The Japs did not invade the US because they knew we had more guns. Look back at what Hitler did to Finland. Roll over sheep.
Canada is a *** with liberals in control and the Aussies, a great people are under the thumb of liberals. You are not free but you voted, it is your fault. We have a constitution and the second amendment from smarter people then the world has ever known. Yet some want to take it apart. A liberal Supreme court that should be impeached . A president that violated the constitution. More on the dole that won't work means more votes for liberals. Snap card for steaks in the store that I can't afford. SS that I paid in all my life now called an entitlement.
Tell me stories in other countries and you brought in on yourselves.
I am only one and am out numbered but have pride.
You controlled by the Govt are sheep under the knife.

[Char-Gar]

Not what I read about. Clearly Tony was off his rocker. So many crazies but no excuse to deny law abiding citizens from protection.
There is nothing excessive to protect what you own from a criminal. Sorry, take my lawn mower and meet your maker, I worked hard for it and it does not belong to you. How does anyone feel stealing is justified? The line between personal harm and monetary harm must be reduced. Any difference to stick me up for $1 or my $2000 mower? Why can I shoot the $1 robber but not the $2000 one? Both cause harm. House break ins are danger. Does not matter if the creep has a BB gun or a knife. or nothing but fists, Your decision is fast and deadly force can save you.
Don't give me the liberal junk that you do not need deadly force. The guy might want your candle holder but he busted in. The next guy will want your daughter. Stick your hands in your pockets and say "please."
The story I heard was a creep broke in and was shot with a shotgun. The home owner was charged. You can not protect yourself in the UK.
I shoot a lot and everyone knows it. I can go away all day and never lock a door. THAT is freedom that you will never know. To carry is to protect others as much as yourself. Open carry is greater then concealed because creeps will NOT fool around. You will never regulate thought or hate.
Sheep die once the no gun sign is put up. You turn children in schools to sheep when I want every teacher to carry. Girls in Israel go shopping with full autos hung from shoulders.
The *** that shot nine was already in trouble but was ignored and his father gave him a gun.
Now you over there face Muslims with bombs so don't tell me about guns in America.
Obumbler wants to take all guns, only thing missing is the stash above his lip.
Take guns from us will not happen. It is to protect from an out of control government first. The fear liberals have. They want to say how many sheets of toilet paper per wipe. You that keep your gov are sheep. The Japs did not invade the US because they knew we had more guns. Look back at what Hitler did to Finland. Roll over sheep.
Canada is a *** with liberals in control and the Aussies, a great people are under the thumb of liberals. You are not free but you voted, it is your fault. We have a constitution and the second amendment from smarter people then the world has ever known. Yet some want to take it apart. A liberal Supreme court that should be impeached . A president that violated the constitution. More on the dole that won't work means more votes for liberals. Snap card for steaks in the store that I can't afford. SS that I paid in all my life now called an entitlement.
Tell me stories in other countries and you brought in on yourselves.
I am only one and am out numbered but have pride.
You controlled by the Govt are sheep under the knife.

With each passing year, America and Americans have less and less in common with our far and getting farther distant cousins across the pond. The relationship is so pale, I doubt that many of us would want to expend American blood and treasure to get the Huns or some other enemy off their backs as we have done in the past.

The current occupant of the White House is trying to shoe horn us into the Euro mold, but that is not likely to have long term success.

I have long noted there is a very significant difference in the attitude of a Brit and that of an American toward their government. Americans are sovereign and the government derives it's power from the consent of the people. The Brits are "subject of the Crown". The Brits have come along way backwards since they handed the Magna Carta to John on the point of a sword. I am content to allow them to continue to stew in their own juices as it were. Britian for Brits, as I have always said, but I have little or no pity nor sympathy for the situation they have placed themselves in.

[762 shooter]

Ballistics in Scotland,

I have read quite a few of your posts that are thought provoking. Some I can understand your perspective and some not. They are your beliefs and I respect that.

I was intrigued by your post above regarding the use of deadly force. You seem to have established each end of the spectrum for use or nonuse of deadly force. Are you saying that in no circumstance would protecting personal material using deadly force be appropriate? Also from your post, using deadly force to protect the material owned by the government would be accepted?

Just an interested bystander.

762

[Ballistics in Scotland]

[QUOTE=Omega;3298379]Yea, I think most of us can guess that. What I would like to know is, is there concealed or open carry (for those allowed pistols), how are weapons transported, say to go to a range or hunting? What are the prerequisites and fees for a licence for a rifle or gun if allowed etc.

All the foreign countries I have been to were in uniform and most of the people I met were also in uniform so weapons were not an issue. Aren't there some countries were you have to own a gun for defense of the country? If so, what kind do they have to be?[/ ]

South Africa is a special case, which we must hope will improve. But in the other countries under discussion, why would anybody want to carry a firearm? Unless your lifestyle is excessively colourful, a cardiac defribulator is more likely to save your life.

In the UK there are about two and a half tiers of firearms type. A firearm certificate requires considerable examination of background, reputable referees and signing over the right to consult your doctor. It covers any non-automatic rifle in centrefire calibres, and automatic in .22 rimfire, but not pistols, except for muzzle-loaders, cap and ball and, for the few eccentrics intent on small victories, cartridge pistols with a barrel length making them 60cm. or more overall. Each new firearm has to be justified by a good reason, which could be hunting or target use, and normally requires some evidence that you have the appropriate facilities. A lot of things relax for a bona fide collector. When you have that variation, rather vaguely specifying the caliber and type, you can keep it open for years if necessary, then make a straight purchase over the counter. They have to issue the certificate if you convince them that you aren't a danger to public safety or the peace.

A shotgun certificate is much easier to obtain. In this case they must grant it unless they have some reason to claim that you actually are a danger to the aforementioned. There is no requirement to state a reason, and of course some people who live in remote locations have them for defense. With this certificate you can buy smoothbore shotguns when and as you like, up to a 2in. caliber and excluding guns with magazines holding more than two cartridges or barrels under 24in. I never heard of anyone being held to have amassed too many shotguns, but if you are dealing as a business you need a registered firearm dealer license.

With both certificate types they are entered into the certificate with serial number if there is one, and you can't make the gun disappear. I think if you accidentally dropped it into deep water you would have to do some fast talking. Purchase of rifle ammunition is also entered there, and if you have hardly bought any in the five years a certificate lasts, you might have to argue for your "good reason". With both there is an obligation to keep the gun in safe custody, which in practice means normal modern household security (wooden walls are rare in our climate) and a cabinet of 2mm. steel. It's hardly impregnable, but it isn't quickly and quietly pregnable. A large scale collector, for whom many of the requirements are somewhat elastic, might be asked to install an alarm, but installing a dog worked for me.

We have a very useful exemption for antiques, which almost all my firearms are, and certainly any I am likely to acquire in the future. Any muzzle-loader, pinfire or a centrefire with a chambering on a long list of obsolete cartridges, and made up to 1939, is on a government list of firearms which can be owned free of all controls, as long as it is as a "curiosity or ornament". The phrase seems chosen to avoid demanding a serious academic interest. If you want to shoot them, you have to make your case if they're rifled, and get them entered on the appropriate certificate. I rather enjoy telling them I don't need to acquire anything, as I already have it legally, and they are very sensible about how much added danger to the public an occasional day out can cause.

The final half-category is prohibited weapons, which in practice nowadays means non-antique pistols. In many situations they aren't prohibited in the absolute sense of the word. You can own on firearm certificate but not fire a pistol of special artistic, scientific or historical significance, or a trophy of war. They can also be kept for shooting, as the political prisoners they are, in a government approved secure shooting centre.

All the above is an oversimplification, and the laws are indeed a nuisance. There have been times in the past when they have deliberately been used as a deterrent to gun ownership, and the nation is divided into local police forces which no doubt differ in attitude. But the authorities now seem to have realized that they have got about all the gun control that is going to do any good, and smoothing the path to legal gun use is more productive. A changeover from the police to a separate firearms licensing service has been mooted in the past, and although it was never implemented, many forces leave it in the hands of civilian employees.

There is still no requirement for safety training or testing, probably because there is nothing very unusual about a year passing with no fatal accidents in the shooting sports. British shooters achieved this of their own accord, before licensing existed. Some of the continental nations with mandatory training and testing appear to shoot one another hand over fist.

It is all a nuisance when we have to do all this, but it isn't a nuisance when other people have to do it, or the danger of being shot at is statistically insignificant. Professional criminals can still get guns, of course, partly because the government has more or less dismantled customs barriers in Europe. It is in the interests of the authorities to magnify gun crime, of course, but much of it involves kids with airguns, objects which might have been a real gun if recovered, or replicas modified to fire ball bearings.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

This has proven both an interesting and informative thread. Perhaps some of our fellow shooters across the various seas would like to know how it is here in the U.S., as some of you have done for your respective locations. The fact is that gun purchase and ownership laws vary from extremely easy to extremely restrictive. Among the very worst are California and New York. Fortunately for me, I live in Oregon which is currently one of the least restrictive.

Nationwide, we have in common Federal law that restricts the ownership of and requires licensing of the ownership of certain more uncommon firearms like fully automatic (machine guns) and sawed-off shotguns. That applies just about everywhere, but that aside, to purchase a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, any or all in any action (including semi-auto) here's what I must do:

Locate the gun I want to buy. Could be from an on-line auction. If so, I send payment and a copy of the Federal Firearms License (FFL) of the dealer to whom I wish to have it shipped. Or, I could just walk into a gun store and see what I want in the case or on the rack. Or, perhaps I want to buy one from a neighbor or friend, in which case both of us and the gun must appear in front of a dealer. Next, I pay for the gun (if I didn't already do so on an auction) and I fill out an ATF Form 4473 certifying that I'm not prohibited from owning a gun due to a number of restrictions like a dishonorable discharge from the military, habitual drug user, illegal alien, etc., etc. About 25 questions, check the box yes or no. Then I apply thumb prints to the back of the same form and hand it to the dealer who then phones the Oregon State Police. They ask for various identification information I wrote on the 4473, and then run a computerized criminal background check on me state and nationwide and run a check on the gun being purchased to see if it's stolen The statewide check will sometimes turn up judgments or restraining orders against the applicant, and also checks for a mental health commitment within the state. This usually takes 3 minutes or so, but if they have a backlog it might take 15-30 minutes. Assuming that everything is "cool" you are handed the gun and walk out the door. My record time on a total transaction is 5 minutes and the longest about half-an-hour.

Compared to some states this one is underpopulated with large forest areas and many hunters. That has tended to slow the growth of restrictions as, be they Republican, Democrat, or Independent voters may have hunting in common and let their politicians know that restrictions on gun ownership are not welcome. The law concerning buying a gun from a friend or neighbor, and the deal having to pass through a dealer is very recent and caused a lot of outrage. Petitions are being circulated to recall three of the legislators chiefly responsible for the law.

To re-cap, this is how simple it can be: Walk into the shop, say "I'll take that one." Fill out the form. Apply the thumbprints. Wait for the background check. Pay for the gun. Walk out the door.

I want to say that I sincerely sympathize with you fellows who live where ownership is difficult. I certainly am not one who believes that it is in any way your particular fault as an individual. I lived in California for years and annually watched the laws become more restrictive despite being a life member of both the National Rifle Assn. and the Calif. Rifle and Pistol Assn., and periodically donating money to those and other organizations that were lobbying against restrictive legislation---and which continue to do so. The problem lies with those whom are elected, and those who knowing their agenda elect them anyway. I'm surprised we haven't heard from any Canadians who are also oppressed by onerous gun laws. Once these laws are in place you only have three choices: move away, throw the liberals out of office and vote in those who will restore sanity, or.......well, I might get in trouble if I suggest the "R" word......but that is how we got our start over here.

[44man]

Strange that any person would want to be controlled by Govt mandate. Sorry, I am free and my own person. I heat with wood so I cut dead trees, now the EPA says I pollute but the west burns every year so a forest fire is not outlawed. If I fill a puddle I might break the law. Volcanoes are legal but a power plant is not. You see how stupid?
Global warming! recent earth quakes have shifted the earths pole a few degrees to let the sun hit more in some spots and cause drought but my wood stove or my car is the blame.
I hate to see junk from Kalifornia with everything I buy from car parts to a can of beans. I wish they would crack off and fall into the sea. Regulate me from natural things means control .
MD had a RAIN TAX to charge more for the water that fell. See why Md has such poor gun laws. People have turned to sheep. Give me a free steak and I will vote for you. Look at the cell phones around, I can't afford one.

[Ickisrulz]

Among the very worst are California and New York. Fortunately for me, I live in Oregon which is currently one of the least restrictive.

Actually New York and California are quite a distance apart in laws for buying guns. In NY you must have a license before you can buy a handgun. This is not the case in California. The worst states for gun owners are NY, NJ, MA, IL and HI...if internet information can be believed.

[knfmn]

This has proven both an interesting and informative thread. Perhaps some of our fellow shooters across the various seas would like to know how it is here in the U.S., as some of you have done for your respective locations. The fact is that gun purchase and ownership laws vary from extremely easy to extremely restrictive. Among the very worst are California and New York. Fortunately for me, I live in Oregon which is currently one of the least restrictive.

Nationwide, we have in common Federal law that restricts the ownership of and requires licensing of the ownership of certain more uncommon firearms like fully automatic (machine guns) and sawed-off shotguns. That applies just about everywhere, but that aside, to purchase a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, any or all in any action (including semi-auto) here's what I must do:

Locate the gun I want to buy. Could be from an on-line auction. If so, I send payment and a copy of the Federal Firearms License (FFL) of the dealer to whom I wish to have it shipped. Or, I could just walk into a gun store and see what I want in the case or on the rack. Or, perhaps I want to buy one from a neighbor or friend, in which case both of us and the gun must appear in front of a dealer. Next, I pay for the gun (if I didn't already do so on an auction) and I fill out an ATF Form 4473 certifying that I'm not prohibited from owning a gun due to a number of restrictions like a dishonorable discharge from the military, habitual drug user, illegal alien, etc., etc. About 25 questions, check the box yes or no. Then I apply thumb prints to the back of the same form and hand it to the dealer who then phones the Oregon State Police. They ask for various identification information I wrote on the 4473, and then run a computerized criminal background check on me state and nationwide and run a check on the gun being purchased to see if it's stolen The statewide check will sometimes turn up judgments or restraining orders against the applicant, and also checks for a mental health commitment within the state. This usually takes 3 minutes or so, but if they have a backlog it might take 15-30 minutes. Assuming that everything is "cool" you are handed the gun and walk out the door. My record time on a total transaction is 5 minutes and the longest about half-an-hour.

Compared to some states this one is underpopulated with large forest areas and many hunters. That has tended to slow the growth of restrictions as, be they Republican, Democrat, or Independent voters may have hunting in common and let their politicians know that restrictions on gun ownership are not welcome. The law concerning buying a gun from a friend or neighbor, and the deal having to pass through a dealer is very recent and caused a lot of outrage. Petitions are being circulated to recall three of the legislators chiefly responsible for the law.

To re-cap, this is how simple it can be: Walk into the shop, say "I'll take that one." Fill out the form. Apply the thumbprints. Wait for the background check. Pay for the gun. Walk out the door.

I want to say that I sincerely sympathize with you fellows who live where ownership is difficult. I certainly am not one who believes that it is in any way your particular fault as an individual. I lived in California for years and annually watched the laws become more restrictive despite being a life member of both the National Rifle Assn. and the Calif. Rifle and Pistol Assn., and periodically donating money to those and other organizations that were lobbying against restrictive legislation---and which continue to do so. The problem lies with those whom are elected, and those who knowing their agenda elect them anyway. I'm surprised we haven't heard from any Canadians who are also oppressed by onerous gun laws. Once these laws are in place you only have three choices: move away, throw the liberals out of office and vote in those who will restore sanity, or.......well, I might get in trouble if I suggest the "R" word......but that is how we got our start over here.

Der Gebirgsjager mentioned the extremes between extremely easy and extremely restrictive states within the US. I currently live in Massachusetts, one of the extremely restrictive states, but am from Tennessee, one of the extremely easy states.

In Tennessee, if one wishes to purchase a firearm, they do what Der Gebirgsjager mentioned when going to a firearms dealer, minus the fingerprints. Fill out the form 4473 and wait for the background check to run, which usually takes five minutes or so. If one encounters a private party who has a firearm they want to buy, they just hand that person cash, they both shake hands and walk away. No fuss, no muss. There are no limits on what one can purchase, other than the federal limits. If you want to buy a short barreled fully automatic rifle with a suppressor, you are free to do so after paying the federal taxed. Tennessee is what we refer to as a "shall-issue" state, that is licenses to carry firearms must be issued if the person isn't federally prohibited from possessing a firearm. Tennessee passed legislation recently that allows anyone who can legally own a firearm to keep a loaded handgun in their vehicle with no permit. Everything is nice and easy there and blood does not run in the streets!

Massachusetts is one of the restrictive states. To possess any sort of firearm in this state, one must go through training and get a license to be an owner. There are a couple of different levels, but basically you have a firearms owner ID, which allows one to possess shotguns and rifles that don't take detachable magazines (I'm greatly simplifying here, but that's the gist of it.) and the license to carry. The LTC doesn't necessarily actually allow you to carry firearms, despite the name. Often restrictions are placed on it, only allowing you to possess firearms outside the home when you are hunting or target shooting. What the LTC does do is allow you to purchase handguns and rifles and shotguns that take detachable magazines. The LTC is a "may-issue" permit, in that the chief of police, who makes the decisions about issuance, can decide not to issue one to you and you essentially have no recourse. There are a lot of other restrictions on firearms ownership in MA, too. You can't possess magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, unless they were manufactured before 1998. You can't have certain features on firearms manufactured after 1998, such as flash suppressors, folding or collapsing stocks or bayonet lugs. You can only purchase handguns that meet two criteria: They have to be on a public list as having passed certain safety tests and they have to be on a list maintained by the attorney general. The AG list isn't published, so some firearms that are on the public list are still illegal to sell here. It gets very complicated. Gun storage is mandatory here. All firearms have to be locked away or have a trigger lock on them when they aren't physically under your control. If you set a firearm down and walk into the next room to pour a cup of coffee, you committed a crime. All ammunition must be similarly stored.

There are extreme opposites in gun laws in our nation. I think it's fairly understandable that most gun enthusiasts do their best to move to one of the freer states, where they can enjoy their hobby without being vilified by elected officials, or at least dream of being able to do so. This is the liberal (socialist) part of our population's goal: to run freedom minded people off so that they can set up their utopias without anyone speaking against them.

[44man]

Der Gebirgsjager mentioned the extremes between extremely easy and extremely restrictive states within the US. I currently live in Massachusetts, one of the extremely restrictive states, but am from Tennessee, one of the extremely easy states.

In Tennessee, if one wishes to purchase a firearm, they do what Der Gebirgsjager mentioned when going to a firearms dealer, minus the fingerprints. Fill out the form 4473 and wait for the background check to run, which usually takes five minutes or so. If one encounters a private party who has a firearm they want to buy, they just hand that person cash, they both shake hands and walk away. No fuss, no muss. There are no limits on what one can purchase, other than the federal limits. If you want to buy a short barreled fully automatic rifle with a suppressor, you are free to do so after paying the federal taxed. Tennessee is what we refer to as a "shall-issue" state, that is licenses to carry firearms must be issued if the person isn't federally prohibited from possessing a firearm. Tennessee passed legislation recently that allows anyone who can legally own a firearm to keep a loaded handgun in their vehicle with no permit. Everything is nice and easy there and blood does not run in the streets!

Massachusetts is one of the restrictive states. To possess any sort of firearm in this state, one must go through training and get a license to be an owner. There are a couple of different levels, but basically you have a firearms owner ID, which allows one to possess shotguns and rifles that don't take detachable magazines (I'm greatly simplifying here, but that's the gist of it.) and the license to carry. The LTC doesn't necessarily actually allow you to carry firearms, despite the name. Often restrictions are placed on it, only allowing you to possess firearms outside the home when you are hunting or target shooting. What the LTC does do is allow you to purchase handguns and rifles and shotguns that take detachable magazines. The LTC is a "may-issue" permit, in that the chief of police, who makes the decisions about issuance, can decide not to issue one to you and you essentially have no recourse. There are a lot of other restrictions on firearms ownership in MA, too. You can't possess magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, unless they were manufactured before 1998. You can't have certain features on firearms manufactured after 1998, such as flash suppressors, folding or collapsing stocks or bayonet lugs. You can only purchase handguns that meet two criteria: They have to be on a public list as having passed certain safety tests and they have to be on a list maintained by the attorney general. The AG list isn't published, so some firearms that are on the public list are still illegal to sell here. It gets very complicated. Gun storage is mandatory here. All firearms have to be locked away or have a trigger lock on them when they aren't physically under your control. If you set a firearm down and walk into the next room to pour a cup of coffee, you committed a crime. All ammunition must be similarly stored.

There are extreme opposites in gun laws in our nation. I think it's fairly understandable that most gun enthusiasts do their best to move to one of the freer states, where they can enjoy their hobby without being vilified by elected officials, or at least dream of being able to do so. This is the liberal (socialist) part of our population's goal: to run freedom minded people off so that they can set up their utopias without anyone speaking against them.
Well said. Why people elect those to remove freedoms Given by God and the Constitution is stupid. But look at the security given to the liberal creeps, all with guns and cars built like tanks.
A good man should walk among every crowd without any security. The danger has always been from the left.

[Char-Gar]

Strange that any person would want to be controlled by Govt mandate. Sorry, I am free and my own person

The vast majority of people on this earth have no idea what it means to be free. They have been suckled for generations on the notion that the state is more important than they are. They are all about the common good, so they don't have any interest in personal liberty and freedom. They view free men as some kind of primitive throwback to another time, uncaring, insensitive, fearful and not well finished.

They believe we should all just trust the government, but this republic was founded on the notion and principals that no government can be trusted. I still hold to that form of thinking.

[44man]

The vast majority of people on this earth have no idea what it means to be free. They have been suckled for generations on the notion that the state is more important than they are. They are all about the common good, so they don't have any interest in personal liberty and freedom. They view free men as some kind of primitive throwback to another time, uncaring, insensitive, fearful and not well finished.

They believe we should all just trust the government, but this republic was founded on the notion and principals that no government can be trusted. I still hold to that form of thinking.
You are a true patriot and will always have my hand. I will be at your back forever.
You even went better with our country being a republic and not a democracy. Those over seas do not understand the difference. The US is a REPUBLIC governed by the people with states rights. The fed govt has limits that liberals want to do away with. Vast danger for us all.
Might be another civil war but can the feds make our troops fight the true Americans or will they join us to take back the United States. I trust our LEO's and all in uniform to uphold the Constitution. They swore to uphold. Violence has gone away but we must remove those by voting.
Both sides. All are at fault.

[Ola]

Well, we could start one or two really interesting debates here: f.e. what is freedom?

Here many say: it is freedom to live in a peaceful society without the need to carry a gun or other weapon for protection. It is freedom not to be afraid of criminals or the government.

I have to admit, I kinda agree with them. I really like the fact there is no need to be alert all the time. Of course I'm more alert and better prepared than most, but the probability there ever is a need for it, is minimal.

Being afraid of the government? I can't think a reason to be afraid of it. Because, what could they actually do to us?
Make stupid laws? At this very moment we have a new government and they are going to simplify f.e. the gun permit system and make many other changes in all kind of stupid laws made by the previous government.
Use the police? Finnish police force is so little.. Actually most people would like to have more police here.
Use the military? We are the military (900 000 reservists)!

All in all, we probably live in different reality than you live in USA. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. "We see things differently because the world we live is different".

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Actually New York and California are quite a distance apart in laws for buying guns. In NY you must have a license before you can buy a handgun. This is not the case in California. The worst states for gun owners are NY, NJ, MA, IL and HI...if internet information can be believed.

Seems to me you have to pass a safety test and be certified before you can buy? Have probably the longest waiting period of any state before you can pick it up? Laws mandating that your firearms must be locked up when not in use? Certainly true in S.F., and about to become the law in L.A. Penalties for failing to report the theft of a firearm within a certain time period? DOJ list forbidding ownership of certain firearms easily obtained in other states? Many out-of-state dealers refuse to ship to CA.? Almost impossible to obtain a CCW? Registration of all guns, long or short, via the Dealer Report of Sale (DROS) that is retained virtually forever? Some municipalities have repeatedly tried to register ammunition sales?

You see, I was both a law enforcement officer and a firearms dealer in CA before I retired and escaped the Welfare Paradise some 27 years ago......

[gpidaho]

You just got to love Idaho and it's attitude toward gun ownership. If you have a CCP you walk into the shop, pick out the gun you like and fill out the purchase paper work and the gun is yours when paid for. Your carry permit is your background check. For face to face private sales even easier. I've bought and sold guns at yard sales. We have a lot less gun crime here than the restricted states, look how well the laws work in NY. Philly and Chicago. GP

[Char-Gar]

Well, we could start one or two really interesting debates here: f.e. what is freedom?

Here many say: it is freedom to live in a peaceful society without the need to carry a gun or other weapon for protection. It is freedom not to be afraid of criminals or the government.

I have to admit, I kinda agree with them. I really like the fact there is no need to be alert all the time. Of course I'm more alert and better prepared than most, but the probability there ever is a need for it, is


minimal.

Being afraid of the government? I can't think a reason to be afraid of i

Because, what could they actually do to us?
Make stupid laws? At this very moment we have a new government and they are going to simplify f.e. the gun permit system and make many other changes in all kind of stupid laws made by the previous government.
Use the police? Finnish police force is so little.. Actually most people would like to have more police here.
Use the military? We are the military (900 000 reservists)!

All in all, we probably live in different reality than you live in USA. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. "We see things differently because the world we live is different".

When I read your post, I see that for Finns, freedom is being free from fear or something else. Americans see freedom as not "free from" but "free to". Free to live one's life according to the dictates of one's conscious and not how the government thinks it should be done. In this regard government itself, no matter how benovelent, is an oppressive force. The people that came here found the old world, it's society, it's economic system and point of view to restrictive. They came here to get away from an oppressive, repressive and restrictive government and society. In short they came here to be free from.

I do not fear our government, I distrust our government. It is made up of humans every ready to diminish our freedom for it's own purposes.

we see thing differently not because we live in different worlds, but because we are different people, at least when it comes to understanding what freedom is and experienced. I don't think Euro types understand this. Freedom as we understand it is a "new world" concept and not an "old world" concept. That is why our ancestors got the hell out of there in the first place. They found the old world to oppressive, repressive and restrictive.

[Ickisrulz]

Seems to me you have to pass a safety test and be certified before you can buy? Have probably the longest waiting period of any state before you can pick it up? Laws mandating that your firearms must be locked up when not in use? Certainly true in S.F., and about to become the law in L.A. Penalties for failing to report the theft of a firearm within a certain time period? DOJ list forbidding ownership of certain firearms easily obtained in other states? Many out-of-state dealers refuse to ship to CA.? Almost impossible to obtain a CCW? Registration of all guns, long or short, via the Dealer Report of Sale (DROS) that is retained virtually forever? Some municipalities have repeatedly tried to register ammunition sales?

You see, I was both a law enforcement officer and a firearms dealer in CA before I retired and escaped the Welfare Paradise some 27 years ago......

Yeah, CA seems pretty bad. But still not as bad as NY. I will never live in either state.

[Pilgrim]

Our politicians at the federal level routinely, with knowledge beforehand, violate the constitution. Where did all of the "presidential" authority come from (Presidential orders, etc.)? For sure it did not come from the constitution. In fact the constitution was specifically written to prevent such atrocities. Congress (both houses) have abdicated their authority to act. You seen or heard of a budget for the last X years? There hasn't been one. That is one of the primary reasons for the House of Representatives. Where is the President and all the rest of them getting the money they're spending without an approved budget? Based upon the latest Supreme Court decisions, it's pretty obvious the Justices have gone political and are not following the Constitution, at least the way it is written and was intended to be applied. I fear my government. I expect a serious shooting situation to erupt at just about any time. The "blacks" are in the process of declaring war on the "whites" and have clearly declared war on the police of any color in Baltimore, Chicago, and Louisiana, and probably in many other locals. A white cop shoots a black and the media and our federal govt. are on his/her case instantly. It makes little or no sense what the facts are. Inevitably, the facts ultimately give the cops a clear conscience. Blacks can kill pretty much at will and the media and federal govt. doesn't seem to give a damn how many are killed, black or white. The backlash cannot be long in coming. Am I a white supremacist? Hell no. I believe every man or woman has the opportunity to make their life what they will. Leave me and mine alone and I will reciprocate. Do I want this war? Again, hell no, but I'm not smart enough to figure our way out of this mess without a complete turnover of all politicians at the federal level. After that the politicians need to clean house in the regulatory agencies. Will this happen? Not a chance in hell because those on the dole outnumber the rest of us and they want the gravy train to continue. Ah nuts.....

[MT Chambers]

I feel sorry for the Finlander, most of Europe is like that, very restrictive, except for airguns, where one can buy any airgun without a permit, you don't have to be a resident even. Of course now they are building bigger and more powerful airguns every day, wonder how that will end up?

[Ola]

I feel sorry for the Finlander, most of Europe is like that, very restrictive, except for airguns, where one can buy any airgun without a permit, you don't have to be a resident even. Of course now they are building bigger and more powerful airguns every day, wonder how that will end up?

Yes it is very restrictive here. But not too restrictive: we can still buy semiauto pistols, rifles and shotguns and as many silencers we like. And a collector may buy also modern machine guns. No caliber limitations as long as the caliber fits the purpose and so on.

Air guns: in the future air guns over 6,35 mm (bigger than .25) will have a "restriction": firearm permit holders can buy them like they used to but other must apply for "air rifle license". (the purpose of the legistlation is to prevent maniacs and criminals buying high powered air guns LECALLY.)

[Ballistics in Scotland]

A society where 1 in 3-4 people is armed, is a very polite society, and a law abiding one. Any idiot with a baseball bat can run amok in a country where there are no handguns that could stop you.

Is it? There are hard statistics on America not being more law-abiding than other countries, at least as far as deadly violence is concerned, and as to politeness, try looking at the different nations' internet. Most especially if you look at "The Pit" (where this sensibly conceived information thread is not situated.) There is a far greater level of hatred and abuse of public figures, other races and those who think differently, than you would find elsewhere, and a far greater desire to inflict penalties on people who resemble criminals and terrorists. Values such as freedom of religion come under constant attack, and frequently we can see the claim, just like in the Soviet Union, that the will of the majority should be overruled by the values of right-thinking people.

These attitudes extend further up the social ladder than elsewhere, even to people who have probably been successful in other areas of life. There are also many who shift from a reasonable concern for self-defense to building their drab lives around the possibility that they will someday draw a burglar tag.

It isn't possible to ignore the resemblance. American criminals have less respect for human life because American non-criminals have less respect for human life. There are more people than yourself who would kill for your lawnmower, because you create them. Political assassination remains a lively possibility, when it has virtually vanished from western Europe within living memory. American criminals probably kill more people every two months than terrorists since 1776. What is more, I believe I detect a good many people who, if given a magic wand and the opportunity to bring both phenomena peacefully to an end in a moment, would not do it.

The argument of capital punishment has been brought up. Personally I don't believe there is a different deterrent value to the criminal mind, between a 0% chance of execution, and a 2.5% chance of a death sentence, and a 22% chance of execution after an average period of 15 years. Purely from the point of view of mortality, that makes murder safer than smoking. What does affect the chances of a criminal eliminating witnesses or arresting officers is a wide difference in sentences, chance of parole etc. laid down for those types of murder, the use of firearms or poison, etc. Execute all murderers, and the only kind of execution is the fatal kind.

[220]

Bit more in depth info for longarms in my state in Australia (NSW) some states are slightly more relaxed some slightly more strict.

You must be licenced to own, use or even handle a firearm.
To apply for a licence you must complete a safe handling course that includes a written and practical exam, there is no shooting standard, the emphasis is on safety.
You need to have a genuine reason for a licence to be issued, hunting, target shooting, work etc are all acceptable reasons. Self defense is not, genuine reasons need to be substantiated, a letter from a land owner allowing access to their land is acceptable proof, as is a hunt club or target club membership.
Minimum time for a licence to be issued after an application is one month.
Unless you are a land owner or professional shooter then Category A&B are all that is applicable
Cat A is all air rifles, all rimfire rifles other than self loading and all shotguns other than pump or self loading
Cat B is all centrefire rifles other than self loading and all muzzle loading longarms.
Firearms must be stored securely, a rifle safe is the usually standard although a hardwood locker does meet the requirements for Cat A

Once you have a licence you can apply for a permit to acquire (PTA) Turn around time on a PTA in my state can run from 1 week to 3 or 4.
Some states have introduced electronic applications that can be 1 day turn around. If it is your 1st purchase in a category then a 28 day cooling off period is added to the turn around times on PTAs.

Once you have a PTA you can go shopping, PTAs are valid for 3 months and issued for a category, for example you could walk into a gun shop with a Cat B PTA and the intent to buy a single shot 22 hornet but walk out with a 10shot bolt action 50BMG or any other pump, bolt, lever, straight pull or single shot provided it is a centre fire rifle.
Some shooters keep applying for PTAs so they always have a current one on hand if the find something they must have on sight. Nothing to stop this practice other than the $30 application fee for a PTA.

All sales must be through a firearms dealer who forwards the relevant section of the PTA to the firearms registry. This doesn't prevent private sales but all private sales must be through a dealer.
Dealers obviously charge to do a transfer between a private seller and buyer, anything from a token few dollars for a simple transfer in store that only really requires witnessing on their part to $100 or more for those that might involve sending or receiving a firearm interstate. Firearms can only be shipped between dealers.

The little rural town I live in is around 1000 people about 300 firearms licences, get into the inner suburbs of the major cities and it might drop to as low as 1 in 1000 or fewer. Keep in mind this is for licenced firearms owners, like everywhere else in the world our criminals don't abide by the local laws. There is a thriving black market for illegal guns, border protection has no idea of how many get through but when they catch as many as 150 glocks in one go then we aren't talking about a handful.
On top of this there are all the grey guns that were imported legally prior to registration but weren't surrendered in the buyback or registered. This could be in the millions but no one has any idea of the true numbers.

[SniderBoomer]

[snip]
It doesn't seem unfair that deadly violence should only be regarded as legitimate self-defense against clear-cut danger of deadly violence. Doing it for property seems excessive...

I'm a Brit and I do disagree. Assessing a clear-cut case of imminent physical danger is not easy. If you find a man in your home, how do you know he was not there to rape? Why give him the benefit of the doubt? Home invasions to rape are surprisingly common. A huge number of Burglars carry knives, and will use them. I am a retired Constable, and we frequently were issued pamphlets about who had escaped from jail, or were otherwise Wanted. A very common 'M.O.' under many of the faces of the Wanted was 'Enter private dwelling and rape'. I think the majority of people in the UK feel home invaders, would-be rapists, Burglars, should lose any right to live. Entering another's home is a line that should never be crossed. It devastates many people for the rest of their life. I think it's barbarous to tolerate this.

The world is changing very fast. We may, see ordinary people routinely attacked in the more rural areas by certain extremists who seem to be spreading like an insane super-virus. Then the issue of self-defence of the individual may become more discussed in the Press again. Indeed, InterPol have suggesting general arming of populations is the only way this is going to be stopped. Heavy words. A search for 'Interpol Armed Citizenry' is worth reading.

[WRideout]

When I was sixteen years old, I belonged to the Explorer Scouts in my home town in Southern California (tip of the hat to Lord Baden Powell, a famous Englishman). We had an amateur radio specialty, and had gone on Field Day, an annual event to practice emergency communications while mobile. About the time we were going to pack up and go home, a deranged rancher, who had just gotten out of the hospital, came and accosted us at gunpoint. His wife had driven him there, and stood by while he waved his revolver at us and spouted crazy statements about throwing us off "his" land ( it actually belonged to the Boy Scout council). During his tirade, he accidentally shot his wife in the leg. At that point he allowed one of our leaders to drive them to the hospital. The rest of us beat it out of there. The rancher was arrested but never prosecuted.

It is easy to imagine that one is safe at all times, but situations such as this can come up unexpectedly, and it was only happenstance that a greater tragedy did not occur. It still makes me shaky to think about it.

Wayne

[Ola]

Wayne: That's a fine example of the main problem we (law abiding sport shooters, hunters, collectors etc..) here have to deal with. How to keep the firearms only in the RIGHT hands?

Let me explain:
Some years ago after 2 school shootings it seemed that we have lost. Both shooters used legally owned .22LR pistol (at that point it was common to get .22LR as a first pistol permit. It was very easy to get). Both nutcases applied and got a license to buy a "less dangerous" .22.. That was bad. For some time it looked like we are going to get a total ban on semiauto pistols and all kind of ridiculous restrictions. Luckily most of those ideas were abandoned after the emotions cooled. We still have the "sanity test" but there are strong rumours it also is going away in the future. The test is not effective enough compared to the cost. Tens of thousands of law abiding people taking time of from work to go to test that have zero effect.. Luckily someone in the GOV can still make the 1+1=2.

At this moment the "firearms instructor" systems seems to do what it was designed to do. They are "on the field" checking out the people who want to buy handguns. It is quite weird system actually: they are basically doing the job that should belong to the police. Because if the instructor gives you the certificate, you can be sure to get the permit from the police. On the other hand, the 1-2 years period of mandatory shooting practice should be quite effective to reveal people that are crazy or otherwise unsuitable to own guns..

Actually, this is the reason we tolerate all these restrictions in Europe. If legally owned guns are NOT used in violence, they are not considered to be a threat by the general population -> no total bans of firearms.

In USA it is a right to own guns, here it is a privilege to own guns.

[dikman]

220, here in Sth Oz a PTA is only valid for 28 days and must have on it the serial number of the firearm being purchased i.e. you decide what you want to buy and then submit the PTA! Current waiting time is about four weeks (our Firearms Branch have a very antiquated system requiring manual handling of all paperwork :roll:).

Our Draconian controls came about because of a massacre at Pt. Arthur. Our Prime Minister of the day (John Howard) had already stated that he hated guns, so this was a golden opportunity to force his ideas about guns onto the country as a whole. I thinks it's safe to say that no firearm owners/shooters had any idea of the implications of what he was doing.

The antis like to say that because of the stringent controls there have been no more massacres since, but various studies and analysis of figures since then have demonstrated that there is little validity to that argument. New Zealand, for instance, has far less stringent controls and hasn't had any massacres either in that time frame. But, of course, the antis conveniently ignore any such data (as we all know).

Many of the sections of our National Firearms Agreement (little Johnny Howard's pride and joy) are illogical, to say the least, but since when has that bothered politicians?

[tazman]

I live in Illinois and I will be the first to admit that the USA can be a violent place.
I live in a rural area. The police are anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour away in response time. If I cannot protect my family, the police certainly can't do it. All they will accomplish is to investigate the crime. I have had property stolen several times so I know the bad guys are out there.
While I have never been robbed at gunpoint or beaten, I have prevented both from occurring by being prepared. In two different instances I was able to stop an attempted robbery/beating by simply showing the people involved that I was armed.
I will gladly give up my handguns and semi-auto long guns on the day you can prove to me that I no longer need to worry about defending myself and my family from those who would attack me.
Somehow, I don't believe that will ever happen.
There are always people who are willing to take what you have by force. There always have been and there always will be.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I'm a Brit and I do disagree. Assessing a clear-cut case of imminent physical danger is not easy. If you find a man in your home, how do you know he was not there to rape?

That is exactly the situation in which both court decisions and government statements have made it clear that the householder is allowed a wide margin of error in shooting someone who might be harmless.

No, a huge number of burglars do not carry knives, because they know how the penalities escalate dramatically if they do. An interesting quirk of law is that in Scotland killing by a third party to save a woman from rape - imminent rather than hypothetical - is considered a valid defense, but in England it isn't. Perhaps you are expected to disturb his concentration, which I imagine you often could. I expect this is another one where considerable margin for error would be accepted. But it is the way you allowed yourself to be legislated for.

I'd hesitate to believe police opinion on most issues, and notably on those which suggest a need for increased police powers. Of course armed home invasions and rape-murders do occur in the UK. But I never yet visited a police station and saw more than one or two nationwide wanted posters on the wall. I still think your chances are greater with your personal cardiac defribulator.

[Char-Gar]

Whether we realize it or not, much of this turns on American individualism vs. Euro collectivism. The talk tends to center around firearms laws as expressions of freedom. In American the emphasis is more on liberty than it is on freedom. Liberty is an individual thing. Liberty is to be set free from restrictions. Euro types with their emphasis on the collective society see freedom quite different, feeling they don't have the need to be liberated from the government. However when the Nazis rolled over much of Europe, then liberty became a much more important concern.

Much is said about more violence in America vis-a-vi Europe. It is true that America has more violence, but that is a consequence of being a society based on individual liberty. When you have people truly free, some will choose to abuse that freedom in an anti-social way.

Much of the violence is a cost that comes from our liberty. Take as a whole, that is a cost we are willing to pay. That is why we carry guns. When discussing our "right" in American, one of my Professors in Law School said at the end of a lecture; "The only rights we really have are the ones we carry on our hip". This meant that rights are just words unless they can be enforced. The last recourse to enforce our rights, is indeed what is on our hips. We cannot depend on the government to give us our rights, or enforce our rights, because it can't be trusted to do so, or so we think.

America is indeed a gun culture with some parts more so than others. But having the "right" to keep and bear arms are essential to liberty as we understand that term. Liberty, is the keystone and hallmark of what it means to be an American. This is not a part of Euro thinking. When Euros think of firearms ownership solely in terms of personal protection and the need for it, they utterly fail to understand the American character.

Bottom line is any conversation about various firearms laws around the world have little value apart from the society that writes those laws. These laws do not occur in a cultural vacuum, but in the context of who people are, how they see themselves and others, and what they consider the purpose and place of government.

Even in America, the cultures are different. Rural Americans tend to be closer to the original individual American values and culture. People in urban areas tend to be more collective and Euro in their approach to life. Firearms laws will reflect this difference even within the US.

Do not think that I am anti-Euro or anything like that. I just feel that comparisons between Euro and American laws should reflect the very different cultural presumptions between the two. Euros have the right, think anyway they wish, arms themselves, or not, for any purpose they wish and govern themselves anyway they wish. It is no business of mind. I do not see Americans in any way superior to Euros, but we are very different critters, a fact that often is overlook on threads like this.

I am a live and let live, think and let think kind of guy. However, I do get irritated when a Euro type feels free to criticize American from across an ocean because of his own cultural collective presumptions, without any true understanding of America or Americans. This is ethnocentric arrogance.

[44man]

Long ago I could buy a revolver in the mail. Sent money order for a Ruger BH .44 mag out of state and I was 18 at the time. I got the gun in the mail. Same for all the S&W 29's I bought. I bought my first .357 revolver when I was 16.
Back then there were no shootings at schools or churches. We would take guns to school so we could hunt after.
Now it is the race thing and Democrats that give those that will not work free stuff. We never feared black people back then. We played together and went to school together.
The more given to them, the more they wanted. Steal to get more free. Soon they were in gangs on the streets. Fear to walk came in. Governments start the troubles.
Give them free housing and soon the whole neighborhood is a trash pile. They do not have basic human respect for themselves. Fix a sink or toilet, paint the house and keep the yard clean. Are you nuts, Gov should do it. Then drugs and millions to be made quick.
Then laws were passed to limit guns but it only affects the law abiding so crime goes up. Store workers are at the mercy of a robber entering. Protect yourself and all others in the store and you will lose your job. Maybe go to jail. Cops shoot creeps and are raked over the coals. Now they refuse to uphold the law because the left will ruin them.
Now there is a discussion about the cop that shot the escaped murderer in the back was legal. If the creep was black, the cop would be in big trouble.
Notice the rise in crime when cops are not upheld by those they depend on. If I was a cop I would not go near a black if he was smashing the store. Cops were told to stand down as stores were trashed and burned. WHY? Top brass is black.
After the mess in Japan with the earthquake, not one single person did wrong. Look at what happened here after the hurricane.

[44man]

Many overseas were good people and in England cops carried no guns. They were respected. But that is gone now. Now they are Swat teams. They let the Muslims in and face terror like never before. Obumbler says to give them jobs. What can they do? Have sex with goats! Grow drugs!
We need to bring back the Knights Templar.
Religion has done the most damage on earth and has killed more then anything else.

[blackthorn]

We are within city limits BUT response time (assuming the 911 operator don't screw up) for police would be at least 15 to 20 minutes. No one but me will be responsible for my wife and my safety or the protection of our possessions. No one has a right to take what is mine! If you try, you do so at your peril . If you try to break into my house you may get a shouted warning (depending on how far in you are), but believe me when the eco dies you had better be running the other way or----

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6!

[dragon813gt]

look how well the laws work in NY. Philly and Chicago. GP

You need to take Philly out of that comparison. Pennsylvania is a very free state. Our firearm laws are more lax than a state like Texas. Just using it as an example. Philly has had some odd laws w/in the limits but preemption has been done away w/. It will be in court for a little bit but it's gone. For a law abiding citizen you pass a NICS check, fill out the 4473 and walk out w/ the firearm. Concealed carry permits are shall issue and in most counties you walk out w/ it in hand after the paperwork and photo. No fingerprints or training requirements. Open carry legal everywhere. Only hiccup is Philly where you need a concealed carry permit to open carry. But like I said, preemption is going away. If you can't tell I hate when PA is lumped in w/ the rest of the north east. We have our issues but firearm laws aren't part of it, as of right now.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

When I read your post, I see that for Finns, freedom is being free from fear or something else. Americans see freedom as not "free from" but "free to". Free to live one's life according to the dictates of one's conscious and not how the government thinks it should be done.

But you aren't. The western European nations have seen communist disappear from the political scene, and doctrinaire socialism not far behind, without criminalizing it, witch-hunts, dismissals from employment, pressure from the media or from neighbours... and Americans are far more vulnerable than us to pressure from the neighbours.

The British political system seems to work quite well with alternating doses of left and right wing views balancing one another up. All successful economies are mixed ones, and the people who complain most vociferously about a national health service or unemployment relief which they may never need, are often the ones who most vociferously demand a national war service which other people may never need. Communists and doctrinaire socialists have given us good service, and I believe we still have one or two of each fossilized in the House of Lords, with every imaginable honour except power. I don't want to be either, but in the UK I feel much safer from people coming after me for whatever the next fantasy will be.

I've spent much of my life living and working among American, by birth or by naturalization, who much resented being taxed by the United States government even though they had been overseas and taken no part in the US economy or governmental services for many years. There are people alive today who could have been stripped of American nationality for voting in other countries where they still had dual nationality. It is all very much like being owned, in ways quite impossible for the British.

Not many people nowadays remember that the American Frederick Russell Burnham, Lord Baden-Powell's mentor in fieldcraft, was just as important in the origins of the Boy Scout movement. I have a signed copy of Burnham's book, which is a fascinating read, but there is an interesting omission. He received the Distinguished Service Order for his work as chief of scouts to Lord Roberts in the Boer War, but he was obliged to decline the Victoria Cross, which had long since been awarded to all sorts of odd nationalities, because if he had accepted, he would have lost his American nationality. There isn't much "free to" in that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Russell_Burnham#Second_Boer_War

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Many overseas were good people and in England cops carried no guns. They were respected. But that is gone now. Now they are Swat teams. They let the Muslims in and face terror like never before. Obumbler says to give them jobs. What can they do? Have sex with goats! Grow drugs!
We need to bring back the Knights Templar.
Religion has done the most damage on earth and has killed more then anything else.

Did you ever think it might be a good idea to close down the drugs market in the United States? But you see what I mean about the levels of hatred and abuse being high in the United States.

[44man]

We are within city limits BUT response time (assuming the 911 operator don't screw up) for police would be at least 15 to 20 minutes. No one but me will be responsible for my wife and my safety or the protection of our possessions. No one has a right to take what is mine! If you try, you do so at your peril . If you try to break into my house you may get a shouted warning (depending on how far in you are), but believe me when the eco dies you had better be running the other way or----

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6!
Yes but the 12 are now libs that hate your gun. You are supposed to stand back and cower as they remove all you worked for. To open your barn and steal your huge John Deer Worth as much as your whole farm does not count. I will tell you there are places to bury creeps.
Anyone that breaks in and is shot has no record of being there. Haul the body a hundred miles and dump it because your Gov says you can't protect yourself.
Aussies have seen such a huge increase in crime it is unreal, Do not tell me about the US, Crime is higher where guns are limited.

[Ola]

Crime is higher where guns are limited.

Just a thought, maybe we should stop repeating this "fact"? Because it is not entirely true. There are enough opposite cases where guns are limited but violent crime is very low. As far as I know, on the national level it has more or less zero effect. A violent country is violent no matter is there guns or not.

[Char-Gar]

Just a thought, maybe we should stop repeating this "fact"? Because it is not entirely true. There are enough opposite cases where guns are limited but violent crime is very low. As far as I know, on the national level it has more or less zero effect. A violent country is violent no matter is there guns or not.

Here is the US there are some very good studies that how the more guns the less crime. That does not necessarily mean there is less violence, as there is negative violence (crime) and positive violence (stopping the criminal) If all violence is lumped together your statement is true. If violence is placed in categories, that is a different matter.

[Artful]

Just a thought, maybe we should stop repeating this "fact"? Because it is not entirely true. There are enough opposite cases where guns are limited but violent crime is very low. As far as I know, on the national level it has more or less zero effect. A violent country is violent no matter is there guns or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNQebj7_UX4

[Ola]

Here is the US there are some very good studies that how the more guns the less crime. That does not necessarily mean there is less violence, as there is negative violence (crime) and positive violence (stopping the criminal) If all violence is lumped together your statement is true. If violence is placed in categories, that is a different matter.

Never thought about that.. For me there is (was) only negative violence. Maybe because self defence doesn't happen here. It doesn't exist.

You see here in Finland population is 5,4 million, we have ca. 100 homicides a year and 1,6 million legally owned guns. . Legally owned guns are used maybe in 10-20 homicides a year. ( Most homicides are done by drunk men with bare hands or kitchen knife. The victim is almost always heavily drunk too.) The question stands: is there going to bee less homicides if we reduce the number of legally owned guns? Or other way around?

[Ola]

Artful: excelent video. Many valid points.

So what is the difference between metropolitan areas and rural areas? You'll probably say it is the number of guns. But could there be something else too? Maybe people living outside cities are living better live, are not desperate and that's why there is less crimes?

[Char-Gar]

Artful: excelent video. Many valid points.

So what is the difference between metropolitan areas and rural areas? You'll probably say it is the number of guns. But could there be something else too? Maybe people living outside cities are living better live, are not desperate and that's why there is less crimes?

the urban area is where the ethnic neighborhoods and the gang and drug culture thrives.

[dragon813gt]

So what is the difference between metropolitan areas and rural areas? You'll probably say it is the number of guns. But could there be something else too? Maybe people living outside cities are living better live, are not desperate and that's why there is less crimes?

The difference is the number of people. When you shove a lot of people into a small area bad things happen. It's human nature and at this point there is no way to prevent it. You can't say one is living better than the other. Plenty of people that are out of place when they leave the city and vice versa. I live outside the second poorest city in the nation, it was number one for a long time. I can tell you which ethnicity causes the most problems an what their income is. This same ethnicity while making the same amount when living in the smaller town that I do causes no problems. Not exactly a study but everyone around here sees it.

[dikman]

This seems to have drifted a bit from the original question (fairly normal for threads :lol:). At the recent quarterly meeting of the Sth Oz branch of the Sporting Shooters Assoc. of Australia, the head of the Firearms Branch pointed out that unlike the US we do not have "the right to bear arms". Ownership of firearms here is considered a privilege, not a right. (Not that it bothers the bad guys, of course). That probably sums it up.

As for self defence, if we use "extreme force" (e.g. beat an intruder with a cricket bat or some such) we could be charged with assault (it has happened!), however the police will rarely lay charges because they know that no jury will convict anyone who is defending themselves. Using a firearm is another issue, because we are required to keep all firearms securely locked away (with ammo kept locked separately) the chances of getting a gun ready in time is slim. If you kept a loaded gun "under your bed" and used it against an intruder, I can guarantee that you would be charged with having an unsecured firearm at the very least, and if convicted would lose your licence and guns!!

Unless you're a bad guy (bikie?) who can afford the best lawyers available.......

[tygar]

I can take my licence into a store, buy a firearm and transport it home.

Can you own everything? Pistols, revolvers, semis, full autos, etc & can you carry concealed & or open carry?

Can the government say you can't own firearms or come take them away without good reason?

Interested in NZ for fishing, hunting etc.
Thanks
Tom

[PAT303]

A mate of mine rung last night,he's ordered an Adler lever action shotgun,the Greens are all over it trying to get them banned because they consider the Adler a ''combat'' shotgun,they also want most types of vehicles taken off the road and destroyed to save the enviroment,only Prius type vehicles allowed,200 years ago these people would have been eaten by bears and the dumb gene stopped right their,nowdays we let them prosper. Pat

[WRideout]

I'm a Baby Boomer, born in 1952, and I have observed a distinct shift in American attitudes toward firearms in the past six decades. When I was a child in the fifties, following WWII, the country was awash in surplus firearms from all nations. I remember walking into a Sears Roebuck store and seeing literal bins of rifles; Garands, M1 carbines, Mausers, SMLE's and Arisakas stacked up like cordwood. The government model .45's were kept under the glass counter, because they were easy to pilfer. We could pick them up, work the action, shoulder them, and nobody cared. At that time, most men were veterans and a large percentage had actually been in combat. The rifles we were handling were not only weapons of war, but I dare say many had actually been used to kill people. No one seemed to care about that. The sense was that the rifle was an inanimate object with no morality of its own. It seemed that there was a general sense that owning a firearm carried with it some responsibility, and most people were in agreement with that. The weapon was a tool, and it was up to the individual using it to handle it properly.

In the years since then, the gun itself seems to have taken on a life of its own. Americans seem to have a particularly mechanistic way of solving things, translated as: if people no longer have the means to be bad, they will perforce be good. Therefore the Federal government is assiduously pursuing a science project that seeks to show that the gun itself is the problem. The National Institute of Health put out a call for research projects on the subject of violence, as follows: "NIH calls for research projects examining violenceParticular consideration to be given to firearm violence" (NIH news release Friday, September 27, 2013)

So if the problem is the evil gun, or drug, or whatever it may be, then the indivual who misuses it bears little to no responsibility, and can hardly be held accountable for his actions. This attitude has even infected no less an institution than the US Army. I was a member of the Tennessee Army National Guard, as an artillery officer, when I turned fifty years of age, and was required to have an "over fifty physical." I reported to Ft Campbell, Kentucky where I was poked, prodded, and wired up for an EKG. The Army is certainly big on preventive medicine (I am a former medic) and at the end of the process, they had the patient (me) fill out a risk questionaire. Part of it was a question about my use of handguns. Finally a sincere young lady reviewed my answers; don't smoke, Good! Should'nt drink too much alcohol, and finally the last piece of advice, "Avoid handguns." I wanted to ask her, but didn't, "Do you mean handguns in general, or the one I am issued for duty?"

Until we put the emphasis where it belongs, on the actions of the individual, and not on a piece of machinery, gun control will always be the red herring that prevents us from really understanding why massacres are happening now, when they did not thirty or forty years ago.

Wayne

[220]

I'm a Baby Boomer, born in 1952, and I have observed a distinct shift in American attitudes toward firearms in the past six decades. When I was a child in the fifties, following WWII, the country was awash in surplus firearms from all nations.


It was the same here in the late 80s there were literally 10's in not 100's of thousands 7.62x39 sks and skk imported, provided you had a firearms licence you could walk in pick one out and leave with a crate of ammo for around $100. Even in the major cities gun ownership was reasonably high, a lot of folks still had a 22 or shotgun they had purchased years ago to shoot a few rabbits or ducks on a camping trip or that the had inherited from dad or grand dad tucked away in the shed or cupboard. Might not have been fired in 10 years but they were a gun owner and as a consequence most people even in the major cities here knew someone who owned a gun.

The steel back in 96 saw most of these people surrender their firearms, the need to justify a genuine reason for ownership with permission to hunt letters from landowners or club membership, the cost of a safe and the hoops that needed to be jumped through meant a lot of casual shooters took the few dollars on offer. As a result most city dwellers no longer know a firearms owner and their opinion on firearms is formed from watching the nightly news, TV and movies.

It has taken nearly 20 years but firearms licence numbers are nearly the same as they were prior to 96 and there have been more firearms sold since 96 than were surrendered. Really all that has been achieved is to make things more difficult for owners, retailers and importers whilst creating another department that cost millions to run to administer the record keeping required.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Yes but the 12 are now libs that hate your gun. You are supposed to stand back and cower as they remove all you worked for. To open your barn and steal your huge John Deer Worth as much as your whole farm does not count. I will tell you there are places to bury creeps.
Anyone that breaks in and is shot has no record of being there. Haul the body a hundred miles and dump it because your Gov says you can't protect yourself.
Aussies have seen such a huge increase in crime it is unreal, Do not tell me about the US, Crime is higher where guns are limited.

If the above is meant to be a way of reducing lawbreaking, you might want to think about it for a couple of minutes. It is also a way of creating tractor thieves who will shoot on sight. But never mind, it will probably be on someone else's farm.

[762 shooter]

Be nice to thieves and they will be nice to you??????

762

[barrabruce]

It appears that if you are an Australian born , law abiding ,white, heterosexual male you have no rights in this country.

Now criminals have rights but we don't for some reason. :veryconfu:veryconfu

[44man]

Using a gun to commit crime in the US if you are already a felon means extra time, federal offense, but so far the Feds have NOT upheld this. Even some states plea it out.
But our war heroes now have a hard time owning a gun after carrying one. Yes, a few are mental after seeing death and losing friends. But they class all in the same boat.
Even you are in danger of losing rights if you see a doctor for a bad toe if they ask if you own a gun. NEVER answer that question.

[44man]

The internet today is the problem. Kids play violent games and are taken in too easy because it is long distance, they have no friends to play with. They do not know pain if they are hit or how they can harm a friend. Some want to be a hero, Superman to fight for a false cause.
They are like a Democrat that shuts off anything they do not agree with. I know some and there is no way to change them to use a brain and think for themselves.

[dragon813gt]

The internet today is the problem. Kids play violent games and are taken in too easy because it is long distance, they have no friends to play with. They do not know pain if they are hit or how they can harm a friend. Some want to be a hero, Superman to fight for a false cause.
They are like a Democrat that shuts off anything they do not agree with. I know some and there is no way to change them to use a brain and think for themselves.

You are placing blame on the internet and video games like liberals do firearms. I and many others grew up playing violent video games and we are perfectly normal adults. Lack of parenting is the biggest issue. But all of this is off topic. You can't place blame on something like a video game or the internet.

[Artful]

You are placing blame on the internet and video games like liberals do firearms. I and many others grew up playing violent video games and we are perfectly normal adults. Lack of parenting is the biggest issue. But all of this is off topic. You can't place blame on something like a video game or the internet.

Yep, correct answer - as I kid I had cap guns and watched thousands of bad guys and indians (of which I'm part indian!) get killed on TV westerns, followed by Spy and cop shows, I still remember when the Man from U.N.C.L.E. had his Walther P-38 turned into a Sleep Dart shooter :roll:.

The thing that did change was the parenting - went from two parents one working to one parent working and then one parent not working full time in a lot of cases today. And went from parental disciplining to trying to be friends with your child to don't seem to care about your child - I remember dating a gal who had a kid and on his door mom had a poster she made to the effect it's your room until your 18 then your out.

Values taught - Used to be Chruch every Sunday back then - now - NO god in public and Sundays are not really a matter of going to church for most of them. Work ethic was Do your best all the time and be early for your appointed time for anything (Work, Dentist, Church, etc) - Now it's do enough to get paid, show up on time mostly, I was shocked the the attrition rate for tardy on the newest generation.

Used to be work in the bean fields with the "Legal Migrant Labor" to bring in crops for money when you were a kid to let your kids become gang members and beat up and rob from the local neighborhood stores and old people.

The great society that Lyndon Johnson and others envisioned certainly doesn't seem that great to me, yet the liberal's still seem to think we just have not gone far enough.

I remember when the help the .Gov first gave was produce - Sacks of Flour, Cheese, Butter, Cooking Oil/Lard - then it became Food Stamps - Now EBT cards. And went from ashamed to take help use food stamps to demanding our free phone.

I don't get where we as a nation want the future to be.

[tazman]

Yep, correct answer - as I kid I had cap guns and watched thousands of bad guys and indians (of which I'm part indian!) get killed on TV westerns, followed by Spy and cop shows, I still remember when the Man from U.N.C.L.E. had his Walther P-38 turned into a Sleep Dart shooter :roll:.

The thing that did change was the parenting - went from two parents one working to one parent working and then one parent not working full time in a lot of cases today. And went from parental disciplining to trying to be friends with your child to don't seem to care about your child - I remember dating a gal who had a kid and on his door mom had a poster she made to the effect it's your room until your 18 then your out.

Values taught - Used to be Chruch every Sunday back then - now - NO god in public and Sundays are not really a matter of going to church for most of them. Work ethic was Do your best all the time and be early for your appointed time for anything (Work, Dentist, Church, etc) - Now it's do enough to get paid, show up on time mostly, I was shocked the the attrition rate for tardy on the newest generation.

Used to be work in the bean fields with the "Legal Migrant Labor" to bring in crops for money when you were a kid to let your kids become gang members and beat up and rob from the local neighborhood stores and old people.

The great society that Lyndon Johnson and others envisioned certainly doesn't seem that great to me, yet the liberal's still seem to think we just have not gone far enough.

I remember when the help the .Gov first gave was produce - Sacks of Flour, Cheese, Butter, Cooking Oil/Lard - then it became Food Stamps - Now EBT cards. And went from ashamed to take help use food stamps to demanding our free phone.

I don't get where we as a nation want the future to be.

I get that completely. Probably since I suspect we are near the same age. Parents are no longer are allowed to discipline their children, even if they want to do so.

With respect to the op's question, I suspect all the differences in gun ownership mostly boil down to different culture. For decades in the UK, people have accepted the fact that they can't have firearms except on limited basis. Not so much so in Australia. Things have happened a bit differently there. I don't really know enough about it to have an opinion.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Yes but the 12 are now libs that hate your gun. You are supposed to stand back and cower as they remove all you worked for. To open your barn and steal your huge John Deer Worth as much as your whole farm does not count. I will tell you there are places to bury creeps.
Anyone that breaks in and is shot has no record of being there. Haul the body a hundred miles and dump it because your Gov says you can't protect yourself.
Aussies have seen such a huge increase in crime it is unreal, Do not tell me about the US, Crime is higher where guns are limited.

While I realize the above was a rhetorical statement rather than a serious suggestion, I am sure few people steal huge tractors without having a buyer lined up. They are difficult things to park. So somebody knows, and while illicit guns and illicit tractors are dangerous things to deal in, information isn't. As in "He was talking about somebody's unguarded property just before he disappeared, and how much is it worth, officer?" Looking for his DNA in your barn is better work than patrolling the streets.

This is the reason for the falsity of the suggestion that an "honest" but psychotic school shooter etc. can always obtain guns from the underworld. Professional gangsters everywhere seem to have their sources of supply. But the amateur looking for them is likely to run into circles where information is a safer commodity to trade in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16501682

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The internet today is the problem. Kids play violent games and are taken in too easy because it is long distance, they have no friends to play with. They do not know pain if they are hit or how they can harm a friend. Some want to be a hero, Superman to fight for a false cause.
They are like a Democrat that shuts off anything they do not agree with. I know some and there is no way to change them to use a brain and think for themselves.

I think you make a very valid point here, although it began in movies and TV before there was an internet, and it is hard to tell which came first, the chicken or the egg. But when you see a chicken or an egg, you can be pretty sure that the other thing is somewhere around.

Sherlock Holmes could give you a pretty good, murder mystery with just the one murder, in the days when killing people was considered a terrible thing. Holmes and Watson never shot anybody, except an Andaman Islands pygmy who shot poison darts, and clearly wasn't a gentleman - and myth to the contrary, Holmes never said "Always carry a firearm east of Aldgate, Watson." Professor Tolkien never had hobbits killing anybody! I don't even think shooting large numbers of Indians, Japanese, aliens etc. is the main problem, because they are anonymous. But have you noticed, in reading the book and seeing the movie, how often a higher degree of interpersonal conflict, between people on the same side has to be injected to make it suitable for the movie market?

It does seem to be a much greater tendency in the US media, and certainly this is the case with the sort of fight where they take turns socking one another on the jaw, until one can't take it any more and respects the winner for it? It wouldn't do for us, and in real life I suspect it wouldn't do for you either.

Most soldiers in any modern war come home again, and the mathematics therefore suggest that the majority don't kill anybody. Of those that do, probably the majority have pushed buttons, pulled lanyards or buried things, and don't know the result. But the concept and the reality are familiar to them, and there is a worldwide phenomenon of that generation rejecting deadly violence which is much more acceptable to the next, who have never seen it.

[ryan28]

Not what I read about. Clearly Tony was off his rocker. So many crazies but no excuse to deny law abiding citizens from protection.
There is nothing excessive to protect what you own from a criminal. Sorry, take my lawn mower and meet your maker, I worked hard for it and it does not belong to you. How does anyone feel stealing is justified? The line between personal harm and monetary harm must be reduced. Any difference to stick me up for $1 or my $2000 mower? Why can I shoot the $1 robber but not the $2000 one? Both cause harm. House break ins are danger. Does not matter if the creep has a BB gun or a knife. or nothing but fists, Your decision is fast and deadly force can save you.
Don't give me the liberal junk that you do not need deadly force. The guy might want your candle holder but he busted in. The next guy will want your daughter. Stick your hands in your pockets and say "please."
The story I heard was a creep broke in and was shot with a shotgun. The home owner was charged. You can not protect yourself in the UK.
I shoot a lot and everyone knows it. I can go away all day and never lock a door. THAT is freedom that you will never know. To carry is to protect others as much as yourself. Open carry is greater then concealed because creeps will NOT fool around. You will never regulate thought or hate.
Sheep die once the no gun sign is put up. You turn children in schools to sheep when I want every teacher to carry. Girls in Israel go shopping with full autos hung from shoulders.
The *** that shot nine was already in trouble but was ignored and his father gave him a gun.
Now you over there face Muslims with bombs so don't tell me about guns in America.
Obumbler wants to take all guns, only thing missing is the stash above his lip.
Take guns from us will not happen. It is to protect from an out of control government first. The fear liberals have. They want to say how many sheets of toilet paper per wipe. You that keep your gov are sheep. The Japs did not invade the US because they knew we had more guns. Look back at what Hitler did to Finland. Roll over sheep.
Canada is a *** with liberals in control and the Aussies, a great people are under the thumb of liberals. You are not free but you voted, it is your fault. We have a constitution and the second amendment from smarter people then the world has ever known. Yet some want to take it apart. A liberal Supreme court that should be impeached . A president that violated the constitution. More on the dole that won't work means more votes for liberals. Snap card for steaks in the store that I can't afford. SS that I paid in all my life now called an entitlement.
Tell me stories in other countries and you brought in on yourselves.
I am only one and am out numbered but have pride.
You controlled by the Govt are sheep under the knife.

Canada is a "***" country? That is a mighty arrogant statement.

[tazman]

Most soldiers in any modern war come home again, and the mathematics therefore suggest that the majority don't kill anybody. Of those that do, probably the majority have pushed buttons, pulled lanyards or buried things, and don't know the result. But the concept and the reality are familiar to them, and there is a worldwide phenomenon of that generation rejecting deadly violence which is much more acceptable to the next, who have never seen it.

Your math makes a certain amount of sense. There are exceptions but I don't believe they are important. The problem lies in your assertion of an entire generation rejecting deadly violence on a worldwide scale. I don't believe that happened. At least I didn't see it in my parents generation(WWII, Korea) or in my own(Vietnam) other than a few who made a lot of noise and headlines. The vast majority of those who served were, in my experience, quite willing to pay the ultimate price or make the other guy pay it when it came to defense of family and country after the wars were over and they were home. They had not rejected deadly violence, but they only used it for a specific purpose, not wholesale.
They owned guns for all the normal reasons, hunting, self defense, target shooting, etc. They were no more or less violent than anyone else in their vicinity.

I think a lot of the attitude about guns comes from the place you live, big city or countryside. People in large cities have large police forces who can normally respond fairly quickly to a reported crime situation. In the country(in America at least) it isn't possible. The police have too much ground to cover to be at any given spot quickly. Where I live, the time between your call for police and their arrival will probably be in excess of 20-30 minutes unless an officer just happens to be nearby. By the time they get there, the crime will already have been completed and the police will only be able to make a report on who lived and died(and possibly track down the perpetrator). They will not be able to save anyone who might be in trouble. The people involved will have to work that out for themselves.
In this situation, if you are not prepared to defend yourself and your family against the bad guys, no one is going to do it for you. You are on your own. You will live or die by your own capabilities.
This is one of the reasons I own a gun and keep it where I can get it quickly if needed.