Overview of gun laws by nation

The term gun politics refers to the various public policy debates surrounding the freedom or restriction (gun rights versus gun control) of private ownership and usage of firearms, and to what extent such policy influences crime, capacity for self-defense, and the balance of power between the individual and the state.

Domains of Gun Politics

Main article: Domains of Gun Politics

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

International Gun Politics

National Sovereignty

Main article: Sovereignty

Nations often hold their right to defend themselves from their neighbors, or to police within their own boundaries, is 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.

Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR)

Main article: Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration

Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (known as "DDR") is the term used for peacekeeping strategies and arms control regimes focused on the restoration of civil order in war-torn regions. Such provisions need to deal with both state-based actors (governments, armies, police and paramilitary forces) and non-state-based actors (individuals, as well as public and private groups not associated with a government, including rebel and terrorist groups).

DDR can be international if the conflict has crossed international borders, or requires the intercession of external governments to help impose or keep the peace in an area. Or it can be an internal national or regional political issue for states suffering from civil wars, rebellions, insurgencies, and other conditions of strife and lawlessness. DDR regimes may include similar control strategies and mechanisms used in civil law enforcement, such as weapons amnesty or buy-back programs, but are generally applied to crises of wider scope, higher danger, and greater criticality.

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 developed strongly 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. 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 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.

Small Arms, Light Weapons (SALW)

Main article: SALW

Internationally, arms control regimes for small arms falls into the realm of Small Arms, Light Weapons provisions, known by the acronym SALW. Such global gun control policies and treaties are focused on international arms trafficking (importation and export), and in the standardization of laws, protocols and sharing of law enforcement information and best practices across nations to prevent illicit arms sales. They also focus on terrorism, arms proliferation as a humanitarian concern, disarmament in the face of extreme violence, and cases of ameliorating anarchy, civil war and international conflict. SALW provisions are generally not oriented towards imposing or enforcing domestic national or local legislation of legitimate gun ownership or sale.

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 regimes. For example, the US 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."

National Gun Politics

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

• Gun politics in Australia
• Gun politics in Brazil
• Gun politics in Canada
• Gun politics in Finland
• Gun politics in Mexico
• Gun politics in Somalia
• Gun politics in South Africa
• Gun politics in Switzerland
• Gun politics in the United Kingdom
• Gun politics in the United States

Summary of positions

Those who favor greater restrictions on firearms ownership and availability tend to believe some subset of:

• There is no fundamental right to own firearms.
• Guns represent a more effective method of killing than other varieties of weapons, and their elimination would lower rates of death and injury.
• Gun control legislation reduces violent crime.
• Most gun related deaths are a result of domestic violence, accidents, and suicides; thus, guns are more dangerous to the owners than to intended targets.
• In incidents where a hostile encounter with an armed criminal occurs, the criminal is often more experienced and skilled with his/her weapon; also, criminals may act in groups. Thus, guns are of little use as self defense for the typical owner.
• The presence of a gun serves more often to escalate the likelihood and/or severity of violence.
• Citizens have no need to own guns to protect themselves against crime because government is tasked with that obligation.
• Citizens need to protect themselves against crime, but owning firearms is not a good way to accomplish this.
• Citizens of First World countries today have no need to protect themselves against their governments if they vigilantly confront government malfeasance before violence is necessary. Moreover, even if such a need should arise, it would be hopeless to take up individual small arms against the modern military that a government would bring to bear.
• Guns, being devices designed to kill, raise the level of violence in any disagreement between people.
• Gun control, properly and judiciously applied, lessens (though cannot eradicate) the possibility that criminals will obtain firearms.
• Fewer guns means fewer deaths from homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths [1].
• Firearms represent the means of 55% of suicides [2]; gun control would reduce the number of such deaths.
• Carrying a gun in a civilized society is disturbing to the unarmed.
• Resistance to a crime of violence increases the chances the victim will be injured.
• If there were no firearms, there would be no deaths caused by firearms.

Those who favor maintaining or extending the private ownership of firearms tend to believe some subset of:

• "Free men own guns, slaves don't."[3]
• Owning firearms is a fundamental right (In the United States, for example, the Second Amendment, the second right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.")
• Police cannot be everywhere at all times: An attack would be over long before the police could respond to an emergency call and so guns provide protection that the police could not.
• Guns are great "equalizers" against stronger, and/or more numerous opponents.
• Equipping to defend against criminals or animals is a right.
• Equipping for subsistence and survival is a right, and firearms represent a legitimate means of hunting or harvesting animals for food.
• Government should not be empowered to interfere with an individual's right to own firearms as long as the individual is not harming or intimidating fellow citizens.
• Guns in the homes of the law-abiding populace reduce the occurrence of burglary and home invasion crimes.
• Family, public health and insurance actuarial death statistics demonstrate that the risk of responsibly owning a gun is negligible compared to other typical hazards, e.g., bathtubs and swimming pools, automobiles, bicycles, suffocation hazards, and ingestible poisons.
• Although government is tasked with an obligation to protect citizens collectively, government is not obligated to protect any given individual citizen without a special relationship established with that citizen prior to victimization, and thus citizens have a demonstrable need for personal protection. (In U.S. case law, courts have held that the police cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for failing to provide individual protection (Warren vs. D.C)) [4]
• An armed populace decreases the overall occurrence of violent crime; widespread ownership and discreet carry of handguns by the law-abiding advances civilization by deterring assault, bullying, mayhem, robbery, rape, and murder.
• Gun control legislation has a disproportionate effect on the freedoms of the law-abiding as criminals are willing to break the law to acquire, possess, and use guns.
• Carrying a firearm provides the means to make one's self safer and is an exercise of the inalienable human right of self defense.
• An armed populace is a deterrent to the excesses of government; the threat of violent revolution, or "coup d'état", by the people is a check and balance against an abusive totalitarian government.
• Existing gun laws are sufficient if governments are able and willing to enforce them.
• Criminals are less likely to attack a target who they think may be armed with a gun.
• The tendency to blame violence in Mexico and Canada on American gun owners represents mere political rhetoric rather than a position with an empirical basis.
• Women are particularly at risk from violence and require access to guns as a means of self defense from stronger men. Guns are an easily handled and controlled tool of equalizing force. Supporters of gun rights claim more gun control leads to higher rates of rape and sexual assault.
• "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."
• The inaccessibility of guns will not deter all criminals from violent crime; they may merely find different (and possibly messier and more painful) methods of harming others.
• If guns were illegal, criminals would still own them because they have no respect for the law now.
• If a criminal is unsure who is carrying a firearm, they will be more selective and even choose a crime that doesn't involve direct confrontation due to their fear of getting injured or killed.
• People are more likely to commit suicide with medications and poisons than with any type of firearm
• If suicidal people cannot gain access to a firearm, most will just find another method to kill themselves.
• Firearms are a necessary evil, to ban them would be like banning water because it drowns and fire because it burns.

These lists should not be construed as exhaustive; there may exist other positions not represented here.

Degrees of gun legislation

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

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

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

In Switzerland, however, every male between the ages of 20 and 42 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the national guard until age or 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 perfectly legal and easy to own a pistol in general. In the United States another area of dispute is whether any requirement that firearms be registered constitutes a violation of the Second Amendment by impairing the exercise of that explicitly protected right. There is the 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.

General discussion of arguments

Balance of power

Advocates for the right to bear arms often point to previous totalitarian regimes that passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation. Totalitarian governments such as Fascist Italy and 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 a number of countries that have had gun control in place for many years -- the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia for example -- that are not considered by most to be totalitarian governments. In addition, private ownership of firearms was very common in Iraq when Hussein was in power. [5] This, however, did not prevent Hussein from committing genocide.

There is only one country which was democratic prior to becoming totalitarian, the Weimar Republic, one of the weakest governments in Europe in the twenties and early thirties, from which the Third Reich arose. There, the Nazis actually liberalized the gun laws of the Weimar Republic with the Reichswaffengesetz in 1938, but prohibited possession of weapons by Jews shortly thereafter. [6]

Firearms-rights advocates also point to the example of Japan. During the early middle ages (13th-14th Centuries AD), 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. A number of 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, 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.

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

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

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

Both sides actively debate the relevance of self-defense in modern society. Some scholars, e.g. John Lott, claim to have discovered a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals confront citizens - that is, increases in the number or strictness of gun control laws are correlated with increases in the number or severity of violent crimes. . 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, e.g. Gary Kleck, take a slightly different tack; while criticizing Lott's theories as (paradoxically) overemphasizing the threat to the average American from armed crime, and therefore the need for armed defense, Kleck's work speaks towards similar support for firearm rights by showing that the number of Americans who report incidents where their guns averted a threat vastly outnumber those who report being the victim of a firearm-related crime. The efficacy of gun control legislation at reducing the availability of guns has been challenged by, among others, the testimony of criminals that they do not obey gun control laws, and by the lack of evidence of any efficacy of such laws in reducing violent crime. In his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not,[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, pro or con, resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information.

Thirty-nine US 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 at all 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.

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, although other studies are generally in agreement. 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 against burglaries, home invasions, etc., 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 that that associated with demographic factors known to be risks for violence, such as renting a home vs. ownership, or living alone vs. 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.

Statistics in the Public Policy Arena

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. Of particular note is that 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, 1,202 women were killed by their intimate partners, accounting for 30% of all murders of women and of that 1,202, 58% were killed by intimate partners using guns. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports

In 2002, 700 women were killed by intimates using guns compared to 175 men. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the U.S.: Intimate Homicide

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. Especially true this is in countries who 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 on mind.

Statistics

Problems with statistics

Many advocates on all sides manipulate numbers, i.e., lump gun deaths together, or segregate them according to intent. Broad categories of deaths are often broken down (by size):

1. Suicide
2. Accidental death
3. Homicide
4. Legal intervention
5. Undetermined

Some U.S. 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 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

• In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled 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 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

• 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, Ill., 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.

• 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

• After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.

• Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned.

On the other hand, 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 Massachusettes, where as 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

• Right to bear arms
• Concealed carry
• Ballistic fingerprinting
• Gun violence

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
• 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

• Interpol
• Concealed Carry Information and Firearm Laws For Individual States. Requirements To Obtain Concealed Carry Permit from Issuing States.
• 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.