Overview of gun laws by nation

Gun politics fundamentally involves the politics of two related questions: Does a government have valid authority to impose regulations on guns? And, assuming such authority, should a government regulate guns and to what extent? The answer to these questions and the nature of the politics varies and depends on the national and local political jurisdiction.

Domains

Main article: Domains of Gun Politics

Various domains of gun politics exist. These can be broken down to international, national, state, community, individual, and city group, religious and corporate domains.

International

A tower of confiscated smuggled weapons about to be set ablaze in Nairobi, Kenya

National sovereignty

Main article: Sovereignty

Nations often hold their right to defend themselves from their neighbors, or to police within their own boundaries, as a fundamental right as a sovereign state. Yet nations may lose their sovereignty by circumstances. Nations can be and have been forced to disarm by other nations, such as if they lose a war, or may have arms embargos or sanctions placed on them. Likewise, nations which violate international arms control agreements, even if claiming they are acting within the scope of national sovereignty, might find themselves faced with a range of penalties or ramifications by neighboring states.

Security sector reform

Main article: Security sector reform

At times the security sector of a country can break down, or it might not have ever been well developed in the first place. Corruption and institutionalized repression, post-conflict insecurity or weak civil government structures can all lead to problems in a state's security sector. Security sector reform (SSR) can be imposed internally within a state, or it can be imposed by external states, such as in an intervention or occupation. SSR can include factors of Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR), especially in post-conflict environments, but it is primarily directed towards state-based institutions, whereas DDR can more broadly apply to both state and non-state actors. SSR is also not solely focused on restrictions. SSR can also include provisions of broadening weapons programs, such as increased training, strengthening weapons stockpiles or upgrading equipment, or changing gun usage policies, in case a security sector is improperly positioned or currently inadequate to meet their present and projected security needs.

Enforcement

Interpol serves most often as the authorized law enforcement body having jurisdiction investigating allegations of international weapons smuggling.

National and regional police and security services also conduct their own arms control regimens. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) developed its own International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) Program "to aggressively enforce this mission and reduce the number of weapons that are illegally trafficked worldwide from the United States and used to commit acts of international terrorism, to subvert restrictions imposed by other nations on their residents, and to further organized crime and narcotics-related activities."

Legislation

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

In the United States, fully-automatic firearms are legal in most states but have requirements for registration and restriction under federal law. The National Firearms Act of 1934 required approval of the local police chief and the payment of a $200 tax for initial registration and for each transfer. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited imports of all "nonsporting" firearms and created several new categories of restricted firearms. The act also prohibited further registry of most automatic firearms. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 imposed restrictions on some semiautomatic weapons and banned manufacture of machine guns in the United States (except for government purposes). Currently, all must have been manufactured and registered before May 19, 1986; a $200 transfer tax must be paid; approval must be met in writing prior to purchase from the local sheriff or chief of police; fingerprints and a photograph must be submitted to the ATF; a criminal background and mental health check must be performed. This process can take 4 to 6 months to complete. Written permission must be given by the ATF at least 30 days in advance if one wishes to take his full-automatic firearm out of his state. (In some respects, this law is a grandfather clause, with the effect of preserving the right of those who already own fully automatic weapons to continue to own them, while making it difficult for individuals who did not already own one to obtain one legally.) Because of the static number of fully-automatic firearms on the market (fixed at 1968, 1986 levels), their collective value continues to increase. Most fully-automatic firearms for sale cost in excess of US $25,000, which is for many seeking to make a legal purchase the most prohibitive factor. Several states have decided to prohibit the sale of full-automatic firearms altogether. In most U.S. states however, semi-automatic firearms can be bought over the counter if the buyer meets basic legal requirements, and after completing the proper paperwork and a criminal background check (and in some states, a waiting period).

Internationally, many countries have a ban on fully-automatic firearms, and some countries ban nearly all kinds of firearms.

A few countries, including Switzerland, which practice universal conscription, require all male citizens to keep fully-automatic firearms at home, in case of a call-up. (During World War I and World War II, Germany seriously considered invading Switzerland but decided against it, on both occasions this resulted in the Swiss activating their armed forces, including the national militia)

In Switzerland, however, every male between the ages of 20 and 42 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation. During their national guard enrollment, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes, together with 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition, sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that each firearm is always combat-ready. In addition to these official weapons, Swiss citizens are allowed to purchase surplus-to-inventory combat rifles, and shooting is a popular sport in all the Swiss cantons. Ammunition (also MilSpec surplus) sold at rifle ranges is intended to be expended at the time of purchase, but target and sporting ammunition is widely available in gun and sporting goods stores.

Another issue is whether individuals have the right to carry a handgun concealed on their person, even if it is legal to own a handgun in general. In the United States, another area of dispute is whether any requirement that firearms be registered constitutes a violation of the Second Amendment by impairing the exercise of that explicitly protected right. There is the perception that firearms registration—by making it easier for government officers to target gun owners for harassment and confiscation—constitutes an easily exploited encroachment upon individual personal privacy and property rights.

Japan's gun control laws are strict. Handgun ownership is strictly prohibited, while ownership of long-barreled firearms such as shotguns and hunting rifles are tightly regulated. All prospective gun owners must go through a lengthy background check to determine whether or not they have a criminal record or a record of mental illness.

Arguments

International data linking gun ownership and rates of suicide involving guns

File:GunOwnershipAndSuicide.JPG

Several studies have sought to examine the potential links between rates of gun ownership and rates of gun-related suicide within various jurisdictions around the world. [2] [3] Although these studies do not offer a comprehensive account of all of the various causes of homicide and suicide (e.g. sources of depression and family conflict), they do provide relevant background data. For example, the chart at right presents an analysis by Martin Killias of the School of Forensic Sciences and Criminology, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, utilizing data from eighteen countries gathered between 1989 and 1992. Perhaps even more importantly, the same work reports a moderate correlation between overall rates of suicide and rates of gun ownership (Pearson's R = 0.476 with better than a 95% probability of being statistically significant) and shows that there is little evidence that rates of suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower. [4]

Japan is often used as an argument for the obverse not being true, in that increased ownership of firearms does not necessarily lead to increased suicide rates among the population. Japan has maintained one of the highest suicide rates in the world [5] while private firearm ownership is almost non-existent. Japan was not included in the above study.

Balance of power

Advocates for the right to bear arms often point to previous totalitarian regimes that passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation. Totalitarian governments such as Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany during World War II, as well as some Communist states such as the People's Republic of China are examples of this. Bolshevist Russia and the Soviet Union did not abolish personal gun ownership during the relatively liberal initial period from 1918 to 1929; the introduction of gun control in 1929 coincided with the beginning of the repressive Stalinist regime.

There is no direct causal relationship between gun control and totalitarianism. There are several countries that have had gun control in place for many years—the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada for example—that are not totalitarian governments. A counter-argument sometimes made to this is that in order for a population to successfully fight a "government gone bad," it would need heavy weaponry: tanks, airplanes and artillery. However, this counter-argument ignores the success that some guerrilla movements have had using only small arms and improvised explosives (MARADMIN 218/07).

The best known example of a country which was democratic prior to becoming totalitarian, the Weimar Republic, had restrictive gun laws, which the Nazis actually liberalized with the Reichswaffengesetz in 1938, though they prohibited possession of weapons by Jews shortly thereafter. [6] The gun laws of the Weimar Republic were, however, very ineffective and the constant battles waged between heavily armed radical groups are often given as one factor contributing to the NSDAP's rise to power.

Other countries that were briefly democratic before becoming (arguably) totalitarian are: countries of the former USSR (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc.) and many African countries (Zimbabwe, Angola). All have (and had) restrictive gun laws. In such countries as South Africa and Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia), the black majority was prevented from legally owning guns by the white minority, establishing white rule.

Firearms-rights advocates also point to the example of Japan. During the early Middle Ages, there was a high percentage of weapons ownership within the general populace, and this hindered the Japanese Imperial government in establishing totalitarian control within the country. Numerous edicts were issued, stating directly that weapons should be confiscated because "possession of these elements [weapons] makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising". The Japanese populace was eventually disarmed, and weapons ownership was strictly limited to the elite and their Samurai bodyguards. Peasants, without any access to arms, were at the mercy of powerful warlords, however, it's commonly accepted that the banning of such weaponry lead to the development of more discrete weapons, such as modified farming tools.

Registration of firearms in some countries has led to confiscations of formerly legal firearms and the outlawing of the ownership of firearms to various degrees. Such as the confiscation of firearms in Austrailia and California in the 1990's.

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

The Battles of Lexington and Concord, sometimes known as the Shot heard 'round the world, in the 1770s, were started in part because General Gage sought to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the populace.

Self-defense

Main article: Guns and crime

Some scholars, such as John Lott, claim to have discovered a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals confront citizens—that is, increases in the number or strictness of gun control laws are correlated with increases in the number or severity of violent crimes. Besides showing a drop in crime correlating with shall issue laws, Lott's results also show that increasing the unemployment rate is statistically associated with a drop in crime and that a small decrease in the population which is black, female, and between 40 and 49 would result in a big decrease in homicide.

Other scholars, such as Gary Kleck, take a slightly different tack; while criticizing Lott's theories as (paradoxically) overemphasizing the threat to the average American from armed crime, and therefore the need for armed defense, Kleck's work speaks towards similar support for firearm rights by showing that the number of Americans who report incidents where their guns averted a threat vastly outnumber those who report being the victim of a firearm-related crime. The efficacy of gun control legislation at reducing the availability of guns has been challenged by, among others, the testimony of criminals that they do not obey gun control laws, and by the lack of evidence of any efficacy of such laws in reducing violent crime. In his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not,[7] University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s (In his 2005 book, Freakonomics, Levitt argues that legalized abortion was the most important factor). While the debate remains hotly disputed, it is therefore not surprising that a comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any reliable statistically significant effect resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information.

Thirty-nine U.S. states have passed "shall issue" concealed carry legislation of one form or another. In these states, law-abiding citizens (usually after giving evidence of completing a training course) may carry handguns on their person for self-protection. Other states and some cities such as New York City may issue permits. Only Illinois, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia have explicit legislation restricting personal carry. Vermont and Alaska place no restrictions on lawful citizens carrying concealed weapons. Alaska retains a shall issue permit process for reciprocity where allowed.

Many people consider self defense to be a fundamental and inalienable human right and believe that firearms are an important tool in the exercise of this right. They consider the prohibition of an effective means of self defense to be unethical and to violate Constitutional guarantees. For instance, in Thomas Jefferson’s "Commonplace Book," a quote from Cesare Beccaria reads, "laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Domestic violence

Gun control advocates argue that the strongest evidence linking availability of guns to injury and mortality rates comes in studies of domestic violence, most often referring to the series of studies by Arthur Kellermann. In response to public suggestions by some advocates of firearms for home defense, that homeowners were at high risk of injury from home invasions and would be wise to acquire a firearm for purposes of protection, Kellermann investigated the circumstances surrounding all in-home homicides in three cities of about half a million population each over five years, and found that the risk of a homicide was in fact slightly higher in homes where a handgun was present, rather than lower. From the details of the homicides he concluded that the risk of a crime of passion or other domestic dispute ending in a fatal injury was much higher when a gun was readily available (essentially all the increased risk being in homes where a handgun was kept loaded and unlocked), compared to a lower rate of fatality in domestic violence not involving a firearm. This increase in mortality was large enough to overwhelm any protective effect the presence of a gun might have by deterring or defending against burglaries or home invasions, which occurred much less frequently. The increased risk averaged over all homes containing guns was similar in size to that correlated with an individual with a criminal record living in the home, but substantially less than that associated with demographic factors known to be risks for violence, such as renting a home versus ownership, or living alone versus with others.

Critics of Kellermann's work and its use by advocates of gun control point out that since it deliberately ignores crimes of violence occurring outside the home (Kellermann states at the outset that the characteristics of such homicides are much more complex and ambiguous, and would be virtually impossible to classify rigorously enough), it is more directly a study of domestic violence than of gun ownership. Kellermann does in fact include in the conclusion of his 1993 paper several paragraphs referring to the need for further study of domestic violence and its causes and prevention. Gun rights advocate Gary Kleck agrees with the basic finding, however, that contrary to a widespread perception, the overall frequency of homicide in the home by an invading stranger is much less than that of domestic violence. Kellerman's work also ignores factors such as guns being used to deter crime without killing the criminal—which, Kleck and others argue, accounts for the large majority of defensive gun uses.

Statistics

The specter of the private ownership of guns and their relationship to domestic violence casualties is a very significant variable used for political leverage in the policy debate. A frequent argument portends that a gun is "far more likely to kill or injure a family member or other person known to the gun owner than to be used in self-defense against an unknown home invader." This line of statistical reasoning is propagated on billboards and radio and television commercials in addition to its use on the floor of legislative bodies. In many cases, the use of the domestic shooting statistics are criticized by gun rights advocates as being propounded in oblique manner without proper context. That is, while many shootings occurring in the course of a heated mutual argument of passion, others occur where a partner or family member of a "romantic" or familial relationship, who is an ongoing victim of domestic physical abuse or sexual abuse uses the force of a firearm in self-defense action against the perpetrator who also happens to be known to or related to the victim. As a corollary, in such policy advertising campaigns, the comparison of "domestic" gun casualties is usually not accompanied by murder and assault prosecution numbers stemming from the shootings occurring in that context. In many of the latter cases, the victim firing in self-defense is frequently a woman or youth victim of a more physically powerful abuser. In those situations gun rights advocates argue that the firearm arguably becomes an equalizer against the lethal and disabling force frequently exercised by the abusers.

In 2002 in the U.S., 1,202 women were killed by their intimate partners, accounting for 30% of all murders of women. Of that 1,202, 58% were killed by intimate partners using guns. In 2002 in the U.S., 700 women were killed by intimates using guns compared to 175 men.

In a similar fashion, many gun control advocates point to statistics in advertising campaigns purporting that "approximately 9 or so children are killed by people discharging firearms every day across the US,"[8] and argue that this statistic is seldom accompanied by a differentiation of those children killed by individuals from unintentional discharges and stray bullets, and of those "children," under the age of majority—which is 18 in the U.S.—who are killed while acting as aggressors in street gang related mutual combat or while committing crimes, many of which are seen as arising from the War on Drugs. There is further controversy regarding courts, trials, and the resulting sentences of these mostly "young men" as adults despite them not having reached the age of consent. A significant number of gun related deaths occur through suicide.

There has been widespread agreement on both sides that the use of trigger locks and the importance of gun safety education has a mitigating effect on the occurrence of accidental discharges involving children. There is somewhat less agreement about vicarious liability case law assigning strict liability to the gun owner for those firearms casualties occurring when a careless gun owner loses proper custody and control of her or his firearm.

Armed forces' reserves and reservist training

In several countries, such as in Finland, the firearm politics and gun control is directly linked on the armed forces' reserves and reservist training. This is especially true in countries which base their armies on conscription; since every able-bodied male basically is a soldier, he is expected to be able to handle the gun reasonably and be able to practise for the time of need.

Such countries may link their gun politics rather on the type of the gun than on firearms in general. For example, Switzerland has very strict law on pistols and revolvers, but the reservists have their assault rifles and ammunition in sealed cases at home. Likewise, it is very difficult to get a licence for a pistol or revolver in Finland, but relatively easy for a rifle or shotgun. The rationale is that long firearms are awkward to use in robberies and other felonies, but they are almost exclusively used in war; therefore practising or hunting with a long firearm is both relatively safe for the general populace and especially beneficial when the situation of crisis arises.

Statistics

Problems with statistics

The use of statistics in resolving the gun debate can be very difficult in practice. Advocates on both sides are often accused of manipulating or misrepresenting the figures. While this is not always the case, the charge often gains at least the appearance of validity for many reasons, including honest disagreement about the meaning of certain statistics.

Disputes also spring up about the ability to compare statistics across large time spans, and between different cities. For instance, when gun-rights advocates assert that areas with less restrictive gun laws have lower crime rates, opponents often point out that they tend to be areas with lower population density and less poverty. On the other hand, gun-rights advocates will often try to compare cities that change their laws, and give a before and after comparison, or try to compare cities with similar demographics. Nonetheless, it's difficult to be sure all factors are accounted for, leaving the need for due diligence and room for interpretation.

Likewise, gun-rights advocates often claim that gun-control advocates lump deaths unrelated to the presence of guns into their statistics. For instance, many statistics provided by gun-control groups will include suicides in with all other forms of gun deaths . Gun-rights advocates argue the suicide would happen even without the gun. Conversely, gun-control advocates claim that gun-rights groups inappropriately removes types of crimes that are easier because of the presence of firearms, or are more deadly, such as domestic violence.

Along with the above examples of alleged misuse of statistics, each side has accused the opposition of fabricating their statistics or applying an arbitrary factor to numerical data.

Governmental sources such as law enforcement agencies are meant to avoid changing their definitions to allow patterns in statistics to be seen, even when the definition is not completely accurate.

Some statistics

The National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, reported the following statistics:

• New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

• In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.

• In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

In addition:

• Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data. [9]

• Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.

• Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

• Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C.—and each has (or, in the case of Detroit, had until 2001) a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

• UK banned private ownership of most handguns in 1997, previously held by an estimated 57,000 people—0.1% of the population. Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled, despite a massive increase in the number of police personnel. In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air weapons, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including BB guns and soft air weapons). Since 1998, the number of fatal shootings has varied between 49 and 97, and was 50 in 2005.

• Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned.

The FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report ranking of cities over 40,000 in population by violent crime rates (per 100,000 population) finds that the ten cities with the highest violent crime rates for 2003 include three cities in the very strict state of New Jersey, one in the fairly restrictive state of Massachusetts, whereas the rest have recently adopted laws that allow for the carrying of a handgun with a permit:

#	City	State
1	Saginaw	MI
2	Irvington	NJ
3	Camden	NJ
4	Alexandria	LA
5	Detroit	MI
6	East Orange	NJ
7	Atlanta	GA
8	Springfield	MA
9	Fort Myers	FL
10	Miami	FL

Of the ten states with the highest violent crime rates for 2003, seven have relatively permissive gun laws, and three are relatively strict, requiring legal affidavits stating special need before one can be issued a temporary license to carry a handgun:

#	State
1	South Carolina
2	Florida
3	Maryland
4	Tennessee
5	New Mexico
6	Delaware
7	Louisiana
8	Nevada
9	Alaska
10	California

See also

• Gun violence
• Right to bear arms
• Concealed carry
• Hoplophobia
• Ballistic fingerprinting
• Gun crime
• Gun violence in the United States
• Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition

Gun political groups

• American Hunters and Shooters Association
• Americans for Democratic Action
• Americans for Gun Safety Foundation
• Brady Campaign
• Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
• Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
• Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
• Gun Owners of America
• Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
• Law Enforcement Alliance of America
• Liberty Belles
• League of Women Voters
• Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition
• National Rifle Association of the United Kingdom
• National Rifle Association of the United States
• Pink Pistols
• Schweizerischer Schützenverein
• Second Amendment Foundation
• Second Amendment Sisters
• Sporting Shooters Association of Australia

External links

• International Crime Survey data on gun ownership in eighteen nations
• Interpol
• Concealed Carry Information and Firearm Laws For Individual States. Requirements To Obtain Concealed Carry Permit from Issuing States.
• Concealed Carry Information and Firearm Laws For California.
• First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
• State of Florida Information For Resident and Non-Resident Concealed Weapon / Firearm License.
• Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Guns and Violence Symposium
• Firearms and Violence: The National Academies Press
• Mayors Against Illegal Guns
• BBC Article on US Gun Crime
• New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's homepage; Illegal Gun Issues
• Questionnaire for the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000
• Canadian Firearms Information
• Gun Laws in Canada