Non-US Gun regulations.

[malletin]

In Denmark the only people allowed to carry guns is hunters provided they have a hunting license of course, law enforcement( Military Police, PET and of course the ordinary police forces ) the military ( air force, army and the navy ) Hell even the Home guard is allowed to take their M96 with them home for maintenance purposes ( though thats without ammunition ), im not even certain if the rest of the military get to take their service weapons with them home then they are on leave or what not. All together i am fairly happy with how the weapon regulations are in Denmark though of course organized criminal groups like Hell's angels and such will get their weapons one way or another.

[Cattaclysmic]

In Denmark the only people allowed to carry guns is hunters provided they have a hunting license of course, law enforcement( Military Police, PET and of course the ordinary police forces ) the military ( air force, army and the navy ) Hell even the Home guard is allowed to take their M96 with them home for maintenance purposes ( though thats without ammunition ), im not even certain if the rest of the military get to take their service weapons with them home then they are on leave or what not. All together i am fairly happy with how the weapon regulations are in Denmark though of course organized criminal groups like Hell's angels and such will get their weapons one way or another.

Giving our National Intelligence department the nickname PET was a mistake...

Edit: Well im not terribly worried about the Hells Angels either. They usually dont have anything on them which could incriminate them in something because the police is always after them.

[Wookeh]

In Denmark the only people allowed to carry guns is hunters provided they have a hunting license of course, law enforcement( Military Police, PET and of course the ordinary police forces ) the military ( air force, army and the navy ) Hell even the Home guard is allowed to take their M96 with them home for maintenance purposes ( though thats without ammunition ), im not even certain if the rest of the military get to take their service weapons with them home then they are on leave or what not. All together i am fairly happy with how the weapon regulations are in Denmark though of course organized criminal groups like Hell's angels and such will get their weapons one way or another.

The Hells Angels stories from Denmark is what made me dislike them. The innocents that got killed and not to mention the fact that Denmark... had (?) these weapon depots everywhere incase people needed to get a hold of them in case of a war / defense situation. Pretty handy and everyone seemed to have the respect for it until the Hells Angels decided to fuck with it and steal weapons to kill innocents including a little child.

[Endus]

I have taken a gun safety course and am well versed in how to use it. But it doesnt do you any good if your ammo is locked in a safe in an other room and someone breaks in. \

You don't need to lock the ammunition in a separate room. You just don't store the weapon loaded and unsecured. Stop attacking straw men. Having a loaded, unsecured weapon in your house endangers everyone in it, including yourself.

[Vyxn]

Almost total ban here aswell.

In Sweden, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2008: 138

Sweden is 4th in Europe for violent crimes per capita UK is number 1 both higher then the US
why is it that the countries that have banned guns have a higher violent crime rate then the ones who haven't

[Endus]

Sweden is 4th in Europe for violent crimes per capita UK is number 1 both higher then the US
why is it that the countries that have banned guns have a higher violent crime rate then the ones who haven't

You need to be sure you're actually comparing the same numbers. Most "violent crime" numbers I've seen from the US only include aggravated assaults or worse, where other nations include a wider range, which necessarily increases the per capita.

If you provide links to the two numbers you're basing that on, I could probably point out the shenanigans. Using the FBI's data for the US for 2010, for instance, the rate per 100,000 citizens was 403.6. This includes murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. "Aggravated assault" requires the use of a weapon and/or serious bodily harm; so punching a guy out wouldn't qualify as "violent crime" according to the US statistics.

The numbers people are quoting from the UK include all types of assaults, not just the aggravated assaults. Half of all the "violent crimes" recorded in the lastest 2009/2010 data, for instance (49%, to be precise) involve no injury at all (Source, the Home Office's report, bottom of page 50)


In short; they're two completely different numbers, and you can't say "The UK is like 4-5 times as violent as the US" by using them. Not if you actually read the studies, rather than just snagged the numbers flagged as "violent crime" without reading what each study meant by "violent crime".

For random people posting on forums, that's probably just a case of you not reading the reports themselves. In the case of the reporters using those numbers in this manner, though, it's explicitly a deliberate attempt to mislead their audience as to the reality of the situation, to further the goals of those who fund them or their own political goals. They know better, or at least, they should.

[Cattaclysmic]

You need to be sure you're actually comparing the same numbers. Most "violent crime" numbers I've seen from the US only include aggravated assaults or worse, where other nations include a wider range, which necessarily increases the per capita.

If you provide links to the two numbers you're basing that on, I could probably point out the shenanigans. Using the FBI's data for the US for 2010, for instance, the rate per 100,000 citizens was 403.6. This includes murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. "Aggravated assault" requires the use of a weapon and/or serious bodily harm; so punching a guy out wouldn't qualify as "violent crime" according to the US statistics.

The numbers people are quoting from the UK include all types of assaults, not just the aggravated assaults. Half of all the "violent crimes" recorded in the lastest 2009/2010 data, for instance (49%, to be precise) involve no injury at all (Source, the Home Office's report, bottom of page 50)


In short; they're two completely different numbers, and you can't say "The UK is like 4-5 times as violent as the US" by using them. Not if you actually read the studies, rather than just snagged the numbers flagged as "violent crime" without reading what each study meant by "violent crime".

For random people posting on forums, that's probably just a case of you not reading the reports themselves. In the case of the reporters using those numbers in this manner, though, it's explicitly a deliberate attempt to mislead their audience as to the reality of the situation, to further the goals of those who fund them or their own political goals. They know better, or at least, they should.

Not to mention that just because there is violence doesnt mean there is death to follow in the UK

[Jackmoves]

Sweden is 4th in Europe for violent crimes per capita UK is number 1 both higher then the US
why is it that the countries that have banned guns have a higher violent crime rate then the ones who haven't

There is no ban, there are also only 2500 hospitalizations per year here on average, 100 people die per year on average(murder, manslaughter etc including gun related killings). A bitch slap is a violant crime and is recorded in the data.

[Splatter]

New Zealand here, With the right licence and background info you can have anything ranging from hunting rifles, handguns and military style semi automatics (no automatics unless you are a collector and then the weapon must be disabled permanently) Not sure on our firearms crime/death rate.

You have to have a lot of background checks, police interview you and multiple people you know/are related to and secure storage before you can get a basic hunting rifle or shotgun. Pistols are harder to get and MSSA's ever harder again (both have huge resrictions on ownership and use). You are also subject to random spot checks on weapon storage and security.

The only thing I dislike about our firearms laws is the complete lack of legislation around the storage and security of ammunition. i.e. there is none. Ammo should be stored as securely as the firearms imho.

[malletin]

The Hells Angels stories from Denmark is what made me dislike them. The innocents that got killed and not to mention the fact that Denmark... had (?) these weapon depots everywhere incase people needed to get a hold of them in case of a war / defense situation. Pretty handy and everyone seemed to have the respect for it until the Hells Angels decided to fuck with it and steal weapons to kill innocents including a little child.

yeah in the aftermath of WW2 the National guard/ Home guard was founded and weapon caches scattered across Denmark to help the civilians fight back in case of another war or occupation, 'course that didn't last as mentioned with Hells angels breaking into the depots and seizing the weapons.

[capitano666]

Italy here.

Everyone is allowed to own up to a certain amount (3 or 5, I can't remember) of guns, limited to handguns and hunting rifles, anything else is classified as "war weapon" and forbidden, including exotic bullets. You can have more guns if they are registered as part of a collection, in that case you can't have bullets for them (unless you have another weapon outside the collection which uses the same ammo).
Every gun must be registered and can't be "carried" (it can be "transported" disassembled and without ammo in a locked case).
The only exception are muzzle-loading single-shot firearms, which can be sold without registering them (but still can only be "transported").
Every purchase of bullets and black powder is tracked, you can't build your own bullets.

Hunters need a special license to fire their rifles and it can only be done in certain areas, in certain seasons and with hunting weapons only. Everyone else can only shoot his weapon inside shooting ranges, to do so you must have at least a 1 year subscription to that range which includes a mandatory course on gun safety, and no criminal record.
There is no such thing as "concealed carry", the only people who can receive a carry permit are those who belong to armed forces (police/army) or citizens who can prove without doubt to be at serious risk (the permit is rarely issued), also in this case you shouldn't have any criminal record and you may be required a mental health check.

You are allowed to build your own enclosed shooting range in your property, but it must pass a strict test to see that it's safe and far away from houses so that you won't disturb other people.

You are allowed to shoot someone in your house if you can prove he was posing a serious and imminent threat to your or someone else's life, even so you should try to avoid hitting vital parts.



------That's what I know, I may have remembered something wrong but it should be mostly correct.
I was thinking about buying a muzzle-loading firearm ^_^

[Vyxn]

In the dark days following the British Expeditionary Force's evacuation from Dunkirk in 1940, Great Britain was a nation virtually disarmed. And not just by the need to abandon equipment on France's beaches to save British "Tommies" to fight another day, but by the policies of its own government. The days of devotion to civilian markmanship, "volunteer rifle clubs" and the idea that there should be "a rifle in every cottage," as proposed by the Prime Minister Marquis of Salisbury in 1900, had given way to restrictive gun control laws that required subjects to demonstrate "good reason" to merely obtain a handgun or rifle. So with Hitler's legions poised to cross the English Channel, the British people were defended by an ill-equipped and defeated army and a "Home Guard" armed with little more than sporting shotguns and pikes.
Help for the beleaguered nation came from both the American government and from the American people, the latter through the "American Committee for Defense of British Homes." In late 1940, the committee sent an urgent appeal -- which, of course, appeared in American Rifleman -- for Americans to send "Pistols - Rifles - Revolvers - Shotguns - Binoculars" because "British civilians, faced with the threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." Thousands of arms were collected and sent to England, one of which was a .30-'06 Model 1903 target rifle owned by Major John W. Hession. Hession was one of the pre-eminent highpower rifle target shooters of his day, and he used that rifle to win Olympic gold at Bisley Camp in England in 1908. The rifle, unlike the majority sent, was returned and can now be viewed int he national Firearms Museum.

The U.S. Government responded to Britain's peril as well with passage of the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941. Almost immediately, quantities of "U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M1" were on their way across the Atlantic, and those guns are the subject of an article by noted M1 Garand historian Scott Duff starting on p. 42. The "British Garands" have an interesting history but the importance of arming the British at that time is made clear by the fact that the rapidly growing U.S. Army itself did not have sufficient numbers of the then-new M1 Garands. Winston Churchill wrote in Their Finest Hour: "When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all ports to receive their cargoes. The Home Guard in every county, in every village, sat up through the night to receive them. ... By the end of July we were an armed nation ... ."

Now, sadly, Britain is again a disarmed nation, where even Olympic athletes wanting to represent their country cannot own a handgun and where an act of self-defense can land a subject in jail. As with virtually all rifles and handguns, those likely few remaining guns sent to England in its time of desperate need have been confiscated and destroyed. Despite the very near enslavement of England being so close a mere six decades ago, the lesson of the false promises of gun control and personal disarmament were not learned.