other gun-friendly countries?


PDA






jason41987
May 24, 2012, 12:19 PM
hey everyone... im curious as to what other gun friendly countries are available on this planet.. sure this has been discussed before on other forums, possibly on here too, but many are quite old, and laws change rapidly...

so, im actually visiting a few countries in europe... czech republic, sweden, italy, switzerland, ukraine, russia, and possibly poland... and well, it just got me to thinking which countries, specifically european ones are friendly with people owning guns...

ive done some extensive research into the czech republic, and its a pretty gun friendly country... you need a license to buy guns and theyre available in different classes, but not hard to get... they allow foreigners to buy and possess guns with these licenses as well if you can prove you can legally own guns in your country of origin (this is waived for american citizens of course)....

apparently, once you have a license to buy a handgun, which again is easier to achieve than even a few US states, you can carry said handgun concealed legally......

so, does anyone have insight on any other countries?... ive heard ukraine is fairly gun friendly too... the swiss seem to be restricting them more and more to anyone whos not a member of their military/militia.. italy seems to be going downhill fast... so i was wondering what else is out there?...

im not sure if this is the appropriate section for this thread, so i wont be suprised if it gets moved

If you enjoyed reading about "other gun-friendly countries?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sam1911
May 24, 2012, 12:47 PM
Nothing quite like the freedoms we enjoy here in the USA, unfortunately.

That said, some countires at least allow some form of firearm ownership. Two that come to mind (both being mentioned by friends of mine planning to do the Ex-Pat thing on retirement) are Costa Rica and South Africa.

jason41987
May 24, 2012, 12:55 PM
i know guatemala is very gun friendly, and american friendly.. but i plan to visit a few european countries over the next couple years, and probably spend atleast a few years in one of them after i get my degree... or i might even finish my degree there since college there is nearly free.. would actually cost me less to pay for an apartment, utilities, food, and fuel plus college than it would cost me to pay for college here without those expenses included

also, do to the medical in europe, i can have higher quality eye surgery done at half the cost as well, so i may schedule PRK surgery while im there... but i thought it would be nice to find more gun friendly countries, and so far ive found, and am really starting to like the idea of czech republic, which even allows military-style semi autos with the appropriate license

does anyone know what happened to italy and when? they used to be pretty gun friendly, even allowing handguns but now you cant even carry a knife there

HGUNHNTR
May 24, 2012, 01:05 PM
Switzerland was good when I was there 2006-2007, albeit firearms are expensive. That is partially offset by the average wage earned in Suisse though, quite a bit higher than the US.

jason41987
May 24, 2012, 01:36 PM
does switzerland allow concealed carry at all? anyone know?.. and whats their stance on something like an AR-15?

i just read more into czech republic and apparently they do sell AR-15s in czech gun shops in the same configuration as they sell them here in the US.. same magazines too i believe... turns out their people really love the CZ-75s there

smalls
May 24, 2012, 01:47 PM
If I remember right, every man in Switzerland is given an automatic weapon, which they are to maintain, and expected to be proficient with. I also believe every man over 18 is "in" the armed forces.

Could be wrong, I just remember reading that somewhere.

HGUNHNTR
May 24, 2012, 02:00 PM
does switzerland allow concealed carry at all? anyone know?.. and whats their stance on something like an AR-15?



No CC that I know of. As far as AR's go, not only to they embrace them, you are also able to purchase a full auto version--and no bbl length restrictions either.

Cosmoline
May 24, 2012, 02:07 PM
There are gun friendly clubs and people in many European nations. But it's a stretch to say any of those countries are "gun friendly." In central and most of Western Europe the lawful gun culture is mostly limited to clubs and is historically club-based. When you are in, and have all your licenses, you can buy all kinds of goodies. Including lots of stuff nobody can get stateside, even with a Class 3. But carrying them around? Not so much. And I believe CCW is pretty much universally barred except for the high levels of law enforcement and spooky types.

Scandinavia has historically been pretty gun-friendly due to the deeply rooted hunting cultures, but that's been changing for the worse. From what the cousins in Sweden report, it's way, way left of center these days. Finland may be a little better, but I know it's been under EU pressure to crack down.

The UK is of course a near-total disaster, apart from some little jurisdictional safe havens like the Isle of Man which is some kind of "crown territory" or something that keeps it from Parliament's reach. It's far worse in England than the Continent from all I've heard. You can do BP and some shotgunning, but only within very narrow parameters. And the penalties are *VERY* draconian. My weekend activities, harmless though they are, would land me in prison for the rest of my natural life over there.

Not sure about the current situation in Eastern Europe.

oneounceload
May 24, 2012, 02:23 PM
czech republic, sweden, italy, switzerland, ukraine, russia,

All good, add the rest of Scandinavia, New Zealand, Dominican Republic, Canada, many of the SA countries

Of course for the best places for guns, you need to look at the war zone called the Middle East; unfortunately, law and order also seem to be missing there. Spain isn't too bad, neither is France, Cyprus, etc.

While some places are a little more free than many US states, overall, as entire countries, the US still leads the pack

AlexanderA
May 24, 2012, 03:39 PM
One thing that needs to be pointed out is that in Europe, you need to look at the gun laws, on one side of the ledger, and then the actual practice, on the other. There seems to be an inverse correlation, in that, as a general rule, the stricter the gun laws, the greater the rate of non-compliance. For example, in Greece, rifled long arms greater than .22 cal. are outlawed, yet the country is awash with AK-47's, which are used in crime on a daily basis.

Ignition Override
May 24, 2012, 05:15 PM
There must be some pressure on the Norwegian govt. after the massacre on that tiny island months ago. The mass murderer Brevik had a Mini 14.
I have no idea whether it was legal for him to have acquired it.

Who knows whether similar pressure is being exerted on govts. in other Scandinavian countries.

Bernie Lomax
May 24, 2012, 05:23 PM
I remember reading someplace that Bolivia has very permissive gun laws. You can buy anything there (even full-auto) just by signing an affidavit that you're not a criminal or mental patient. Of course, it doesn't really matter to most Bolivians since the vast majority of them are too mired in poverty to afford anything but a machete.

Panzercat
May 24, 2012, 05:58 PM
I'm pretty sure everybody and their dog has a gun in the middle east but don't quote me on that. :p

Prince Yamato
May 24, 2012, 06:55 PM
Czech Republic is probably the best. You can even get ccw. Most of the other countries are "club based". I think
Romania is actually ok to. Not that I'd really want to move to Romania...

BJ Orange
May 24, 2012, 11:53 PM
Somalia? :D

jason41987
May 25, 2012, 12:43 AM
i wouldnt be too worried about romania, i have a couple friends there, low population density too and you can buy land fairly cheap... as long fog lit by a full moon rolling towards you with the sound of howling wolves dont spark memories of stories of vampires and werewolves...

im thinking of transferring to czech republic and finish my degree, as an american citizen living there it wouldnt be hard for me to get the license to own and carry handguns, id be happy to report my experience afterwards

i was reading swiss laws and it appears there is in fact no carry law, and full auto is only allowed on their issued rifle, which after they reach 30 is converted to single fire... so i guess it would be like living in a state that was tough on CCW, but lenient on everything else...

that all being said, it seems czech republic would be the most gun friendly country in europe, switzerland being second, or perhaps finland, though i havent studied their laws yet

Texan Scott
May 25, 2012, 04:02 AM
I live in Texas... we're a pretty gun-friendly country...

mdauben
May 25, 2012, 09:58 AM
All good, add the rest of Scandinavia, New Zealand, Dominican Republic, Canada, many of the SA countries

Perhaps its just personal opinion, but I have a hard time calling any country that effectivly bans private ownership of handguns, until only recently required registration of long guns, and places strict limitations on "high cap" long guns (note, the 6-round Garand is considered a "high cap" long gun under Canadian law), to be "gun friendly". The continued hunting/sustinence culture in Canada may prevent them from being totally "gun unfriendly" to the extent many European countries are, but still...

Owen Sparks
May 25, 2012, 10:03 AM
You say "other" as if the US was gun friendly. I guess everything is relitive.

Steel Horse Rider
May 25, 2012, 11:03 AM
Grand Turk doesn't have any income or property taxes but I am not aware of their gun policies. Other than the occasional hurricane the weather is pretty good too.

oneounceload
May 25, 2012, 11:29 AM
Perhaps its just personal opinion, but I have a hard time calling any country that effectivly bans private ownership of handguns, until only recently required registration of long guns, and places strict limitations on "high cap" long guns (note, the 6-round Garand is considered a "high cap" long gun under Canadian law), to be "gun friendly". The continued hunting/sustinence culture in Canada may prevent them from being totally "gun unfriendly" to the extent many European countries are, but still...

Well, that would then include a good portion of the US, wouldn't it? IL, NY, NJ, CT, MA, DC, RI, HI, CA - that's over half this country's population

Atrox-Venator
May 25, 2012, 04:09 PM
Nothing quite like the freedoms we enjoy here in the USA, unfortunately.

That said, some countires at least allow some form of firearm ownership. Two that come to mind (both being mentioned by friends of mine planning to do the Ex-Pat thing on retirement) are Costa Rica and South Africa.

Current Costa Rican gun laws leave a lot to be desired, and more restrictive legislation is likely to pass in the near future. Firearm ownership isn’t a constitutionally protected right, but a privilege granted by the government; and as such can be outlawed at any moment.

Costa Ricans in general take pride in their country lacking a military force and like to consider themselves a “peace-loving” nation. Firearm enthusiasts are scarce, shooting ranges and gun shops are scarcer. The practice of legal hunting is declining and not well received by the majority of the population.

All firearms must be registered, and individuals are only allowed to possess up to three -usually handguns- for personal protection; more if they're intended for sporting purposes. Concealed carry is allowed if the person is over 18 years of age and has a clean background; they must also pass theoretical, practical, and psychological examinations. No open carry is permitted.

The maximum legal caliber for both handguns and rifles is: .45” (any cartridge of that average bore diameter); 12 gauge for shotguns. There are no restrictions on barrel length; SBR’s / SBS’s = OK. Forbidden are: fully-automatic firearms, sound suppressors, higher than 10-round capacity magazines for centerfire semi-automatic rifles; or any of the following types of ammunition: armor-piercing, tracer, incendiary and explosive.

From what I recall, laws equivalent to Castle Doctrine or Stand-Your-Ground don’t exist. Force-on-force confrontations must be “proportional”; so if an attacker utilizes an edged or blunt weapon, the victim shouldn’t use a firearm for protection.

Quite frankly, I don’t miss living in Costa Rica at all and I’m very proud to call the United States of America my new home.

BCRider
May 25, 2012, 04:22 PM
I live in Texas... we're a pretty gun-friendly country...

Y'all thinkin' of seceeding from the Union if they get any more uppity? :D

Mdauben, once you get out and away from the major cities the folks out there are actually very long gun friendly and it is seen as more of a daily tool than a special hunting or sporting rifle. Hence the abysmal failure of the Long Gun Registry up here to account for more than about 1/2 to maybe 2/3's of the rifles and shotguns that are in use in rural areas and the northern half of this rather large land mass. keep in mind that while we may only have around 1/10th the population of the US we have more land area. That says a lot about how long guns are seen by those that live out in the areas well away from cell phone coverage.

hang fire
May 25, 2012, 04:29 PM
Here in Arizona the state laws are very gun friendly and cannot be overridden by local ordinances.

But from what I have read, the Philippines used to be one of the best so far as firearms ownership. But having no constitutional right, the government is becoming more restrictive all the time..

Sam1911
May 25, 2012, 04:45 PM
Current Costa Rican gun laws leave a lot to be desired, and more restrictive legislation is likely to pass in the near future. Firearm ownership isn’t a constitutionally protected right, but a privilege granted by the government; and as such can be outlawed at any moment.

Thanks for the in-depth explanation of C.R.'s gun laws. You actually reinforce my point pretty firmly when I said, even countries that are considered "more gun-friendly" are not really anything like what 99% of us here on THR would consider even moderately reasonable, compared to the freedoms we are used to.

When we discuss countries outside the USA, "gun-friendly" takes a meaning closer to simply that there is some possible way for a citizen of that country to legally own a gun of some sort. A limited priviledge that is extended by the government, at the whim of that government.

jason41987
May 25, 2012, 05:04 PM
what i would consider to be gun friendly is allowing semi automatics, and allowing them to be kept in the home.. none of this "you can have them, but they must stay at a gun club" crap because thats not really you owning the gun, more like leasing one... and most countries allow bolt actions for the use of hunting

gun unfriendly would be places with compelete bans on guns, gun tolerant would be places that allow bolt actions for hunting, or guns at a range only, gun friendly would allow someone to keep guns at home, and/or own semi automatics and/or handguns... that would be my definition

Sam1911
May 25, 2012, 08:45 PM
what i would consider to be gun friendly is allowing semi automatics, and allowing them to be kept in the home..
Ok. However, if that were the limit of gun rights in a state here in the US, we would all decry that as an extremely gun-hostile state. (Even NJ, CA, HI, IL, etc. are quite liberal with their gun laws compared to that.) Hence, my point.

X-Rap
May 26, 2012, 09:44 AM
Sounds like most of these "gun friendly" countries lean strongly toward socialism and some are dictatorships, none allow guns as a right and using one in defense will probably put you in a much worse place than you could dream of in the US.
I wish this American collective of gun owners would finally assert ourselves here before its to late.

Serenity
May 26, 2012, 12:20 PM
Alaska :)

Sam Cade
May 26, 2012, 12:33 PM
does switzerland allow concealed carry at all? anyone know?


It is allowed, but only in extraordinary circumstances or as a necessity of employment.

Ranger30-06
May 26, 2012, 12:38 PM
In Switzerland, ccw isn't outlined because all of the "military" men are allowed to keep their guns on them they want to, which many do. I guess you could call it age restricted ccw...

larryh1108
May 26, 2012, 12:47 PM
Well, that would then include a good portion of the US, wouldn't it? IL, NY, NJ, CT, MA, DC, RI, HI, CA - that's over half this country's population

CT?
What am I missing?
Is there something I'm not aware of?

Wanderling
May 26, 2012, 01:03 PM
Sounds like most of these "gun friendly" countries lean strongly toward socialism and some are dictatorships, none allow guns as a right and using one in defense will probably put you in a much worse place than you could dream of in the US.
I wish this American collective of gun owners would finally assert ourselves here before its to late.
If you look at the countries with little or no gun control, actually many are dictatorships. E.g most people don't realize that under Saddam, an average Iraqi could openly buy a fully automatic AK-47. Much good it did them when they tried to revolt in '91.

The truth is, the belief that a few millions gun-wielding Joes could take down a government protected by well trained, well lead, and loyal army is outright silly and not supported by any historical precedent in the last 50 years. This was somewhat true back in the 1700s when the army and the militia had the same exact equipment and the only difference was in training. This is much more true now with all the latest military technology. In every successful revolution since WW2 either the army changed sides, by actively supporting the "people" or by staying out of the conflict altogether, or there was a foreign invasion supporting the insurgents, like in Libya.

To protect the democracy and freedom, 1A and the free election process are way more important than 2A. I fully support 2A but I am much less worried that I need to fill out a form to buy a gun, than that I don't have to show my ID when voting, or that we have the best government money can buy.

Water-Man
May 26, 2012, 01:43 PM
Wanderling,

You don't have enough confidence in what a few million gun wielding Joes can accomplish.

W-M

TurtlePhish
May 26, 2012, 01:49 PM
CT?
What am I missing?
Is there something I'm not aware of?

We have our own little slice of AWB '94 here.

Wanderling
May 26, 2012, 02:11 PM
Wanderling,

You don't have enough confidence in what a few million gun wielding Joes can accomplish.

W-M
The best they can do is win the military to their side.

During WW2 Nazis had no real problems controlling vast territories with tens of millions of people, despite the fact that there was widespread resistance with no real shortage of arms. It got pretty ugly for them every now and then, but they generally held the upper hand.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful to "Joe" - I am merely stating the fact that a 400,000 strong modern army with well train, well equipped, and loyal professional troops will win a war against a 4,000,000 strong army of poorly trained, poorly armed, and poorly led conscripts. Anytime. Except when half of these professionals join the other side - which has happened many times in the history or armed revolts. I can't think of any successful revolution where the army stayed loyal and didn't win. (American Revolution was a colonial war, the Brits weren't fighting on home soil, and more over they were fighting a huge war in Europe that took up most of their resources).

ADDED: The last phrase wasn't exactly correct... they fought all over the globe, and were trying to maintain the balance between defending British colonies, taking more of the Canada from the French, and not leaving the Britain itself wide open. At any rate, the British army was streched to it's limits in the aftermath of the Seven Years War, and they couldn't commit a large number of troops and resources to put down the revolution in the American colonies (and they almost won, nevertheless). And that's when both sides used the same equipment and the only difference was in training - no jets, no drones, no MLRS, no attack helicopters, etc. etc.

Wanderling
May 26, 2012, 03:05 PM
To add... just recently, Obama and the "mainstream" republicans together confirmed the provision of Patriot Act taking away habeas corpus. Any American can be arrested on mere suspicion of terrorism (without any proof) and kept in prison indefinitely without trial. Which is about as un-Constitutional as it gets, but who cares, right ? We still can buy (some) guns, and hey, these mainstream Republicans at least support that ! So they are pro-freedom, right ? Who cares about habeas corpus, most people don't know what it is anyway... 2A is important in its own right, but often used as a lure - hey, we support 2A, vote for us while we destroy your other basic rights without which the democratic free society can't exist. I don't like Ron Paul but he seems to be the only honest politician left in this country.

X-Rap
May 26, 2012, 05:03 PM
By assert I thought I clearly meant joining together at the voting booth and working to create a gun nirvana but since you went to the armed insurrection I will point out how we and many of the free countrys of the world have spent the last dozen or so years trying to root out a few thousand Islamic Radicals that certainly aren't the best trained force in the world.
Either way I will take my chances in America and hope to leave it a better place than I found it.

mr.trooper
May 26, 2012, 05:20 PM
This was somewhat true back in the 1700s when the army and the militia had the same exact equipment and the only difference was in training.

Not the only difference in the least - there were serious logistical and supply chain differences involved with fighting a war on your own soil, Vs. trying to supply an army isolated across an ocean via the technology of the day.


More on topic: Italy doesn't appear to be too bad on Firearms owners - rather similar to living in California, which is still lenient by global standards:
* No limits on the number of long arms
* Semi-auto long arms permitted
* 10 round magazine limit.
* Handguns can be purchased after obtaining a permit
* limit on number of handguns, but its pretty high - something like 15 handguns allowed.

Sam Cade
May 26, 2012, 10:22 PM
In Switzerland, ccw isn't outlined because all of the "military" men are allowed to keep their guns on them they want to, which many do.

That isn't even close to being correct. A swiss citizen can not, repeat, CAN NOT leave their house with a loaded firearm.

The times that possession of an unloaded firearm is legal are very narrowly defined.


Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:

The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport has to be direct, i.e.:
For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organizations,
To an army warehouse and back,
To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, i.e. gun shows.

skt239
May 26, 2012, 11:09 PM
Some countries have very strict gun laws but people are armed regardless. As a child I visited Jordan which has strict gun control and in the cities no one had them. While we were there we went into the out skirts which are inhabited by the bedouins (my father was buying my mother jewelry) and everyone there was heavily armed. It was the same in the Egyptian Sinai.

Wanderling
May 27, 2012, 12:12 PM
By assert I thought I clearly meant joining together at the voting booth and working to create a gun nirvana but since you went to the armed insurrection I will point out how we and many of the free countrys of the world have spent the last dozen or so years trying to root out a few thousand Islamic Radicals that certainly aren't the best trained force in the world.

Name one country where the Islamic insurrection prevailed in the face of determined government supported by loyal troops. Undoubtedly, Iraq under Saddam was virtually Islamist-free. May not be in 10-20 years, though.

There's a world of difference between a few radicals in deep hiding, striking here and there, and full blown revolution overthrowing the government.

Either way I will take my chances in America and hope to leave it a better place than I found it.

I'm with you here. All I was trying to say is, 1A and free / untinkered with election process are more important in making it a better place than 2A.

Ranger30-06
May 27, 2012, 12:38 PM
That isn't even close to being correct. A swiss citizen can not, repeat, CAN NOT leave their house with a loaded firearm.

The times that possession of an unloaded firearm is legal are very narrowly defined.
Well take a look around and you see quite a few photos of Swiss military age men walking around with guns on their backs...

M2
May 27, 2012, 12:40 PM
Israel.

http://www.jewishpost.com/images/news/Six-IDF-Women.jpg

jason41987
May 27, 2012, 02:44 PM
im probably going to finish off my second degree somewhere in europe.. i was thinking czech republic but ill have to do more research on the country itself... other places ive thought of studying were switzerland, russia, sweden, or italy... and i was curious about gun laws of different european countries, but ultimately its not a make or break topic and wont have much bearing on my decision as im more interested in the overall experience of spending a few years in one of these places

SimplyChad
May 27, 2012, 03:44 PM
Wanderling
Member



Join Date: November 21, 2011
Posts: 239 Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Rap
By assert I thought I clearly meant joining together at the voting booth and working to create a gun nirvana but since you went to the armed insurrection I will point out how we and many of the free countrys of the world have spent the last dozen or so years trying to root out a few thousand Islamic Radicals that certainly aren't the best trained force in the world.

Name one country where the Islamic insurrection prevailed in the face of determined government supported by loyal troops. Undoubtedly, Iraq under Saddam was virtually Islamist-free. May not be in 10-20 years, though.

There's a world of difference between a few radicals in deep hiding, striking here and there, and full blown revolution overthrowing the government.


Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Rap
Either way I will take my chances in America and hope to leave it a better place than I found it.

I'm with you here. All I was trying to say is, 1A and free / untinkered with election process are more important in making it a better place than 2A.

Does Libya count? I know we evened the odd by taking the heavy guns and airforce from the game but still

Wanderling
May 27, 2012, 10:22 PM
Does Libya count? I know we evened the odd by taking the heavy guns and airforce from the game but still
Actually, Libya, if anything, proves my point. Khaddafi was winning at first, using the airforce, then NATO imposed a no-fly zone. Rebels started gaining, then slowed down, then government troops were on the offensive and it looked like the crazy dude was winning again. So NATO started heavy bombing campaign - heavy enough that in a few weeks they actually almost ran out of ammunition and had to turn to Obama for help (and if he had any guts, he should've told them to remember all the help they gave us in Iraq, and send a few old planes and a hospital ship). So first NATO destroyed Khaddaffi's air force, then they destroyed his heavy artillery and tanks and whatever troops they could, basically reducing his army to the level of a typical rebel force, all the while providing the insurgents with material help, intelligence, money (taken from Khaddafi's frozen accounts). Finally his army generals got the message and started deserting. It was not a successful revolution, it was a large scale foreign invasion using rebels as foot troops but with NATO providing all the technological power of a modern army and lots of other assistance.

Sam Cade
May 28, 2012, 03:27 AM
Well take a look around and you see quite a few photos of Swiss military age men walking around with guns on their backs...

Unloaded rifles being transported. Anything else is illegal.

X-Rap
May 28, 2012, 09:40 AM
Unloaded rifles being transported. Anything else is illegal.

Same goes for Israel, aside from special units the rifles carried by the military in public are unloaded and while the civilians are armed as well there are big restrictions on carry and storage.
No right to own or carry, you possess at the pleasure of the state.

Sam Cade
May 28, 2012, 12:37 PM
Israel has brutally restrictive firearms laws.

If you are a reservist you are allowed ONE handgun. One. Singular.
If you are a bus driver, One Handgun.
If a jeweler/pawnbroker/moneylender, One handgun.

If you are a settler or business owner in one of the "exciting" areas you can have, guess what, ONE handgun.

--me the last time this came up

Bohemus
June 7, 2012, 04:18 AM
Jason: Let me know if you ever make it to the Czech lands. We can discuss gun-laws in a pub :-)

rodregier
June 7, 2012, 12:10 PM
Chapter and verse on Canadian firearm laws for Americans:

http://panda.com/canadaguns/

btw, the 8-rd enbloc clips for the Garand are specifically exempt from the Canadian federal capacity limit laws applicable to semi-autos. Nice rule beater.

Until another Canadian rule beater for the AR15 platform was created (10 rd .223 Rem pistol magazines), I had to choose between 8 rds of .30-06 and 5 rds of .223 Rem for a semi-auto. (Among many other options).

Now I can get legal 10-round .223 Rem magazines that will work in my AR15-pattern rifle :-)

https://shopquestar.com/shopping65/q_images/LAR%20Pistol%20Mags%20Ruling%202008-06-18.pdf

brnmuenchow
June 7, 2012, 01:04 PM
I live in Texas... we're a pretty gun-friendly country...

Gotta love it!:D

Bernie Lomax
June 7, 2012, 02:26 PM
I live in Texas... we're a pretty gun-friendly country...

Gotta love it!:D

I'm cracking open an ice cold Bud Light in both of your honors, guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apMyjOAacyA

Love that horny toad!

Odd Job
June 7, 2012, 02:48 PM
South Africa is not a great choice. Even those who had firearms licenses had to reapply for new licenses. A basic summary is:

1) You apply for a license for a particular firearm (as specified by serial number).
2) It is difficult to get multiple firearms for the same role (such as two pistols for self defense).
3) You are at the mercy of corrupt government officials and subject to long waiting times for license approvals.

SA has little going for it: unless you have a short term business or research opportunity there, it is probably best just to write it off as a new place of residence.

Zoogster
June 7, 2012, 03:49 PM
The truth is, the belief that a few millions gun-wielding Joes could take down a government protected by well trained, well lead, and loyal army is outright silly

Not true at all.
One of the biggest things it keeps alive is an attitude of self-reliance as it pertains to force that can contribute to a population with a mindset that has the will to win.
Those firearms themselves are also not all it takes, directly taking on formal organized forces in any standoff is a losing proposition as they will then coordinate and bring their greater resources to bear.
Groups of armed men clustering together will easily be taken down, especially from the air.
They also have developed equipment to tell the direction one is firing from to eliminate snipers in Iraq, something sure to be employed by modern nations in any future rebellion.
IEDs, improvised artillery, and other indirect methods are required to attack better equipped modern forces.
However firearms do help when cornered, or to assist explosives in ambushes.

A very key difference in an insurgency or civil war from say recent conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan is that the economy that provides the money to support the military is hit harder at home than when they are deployed abroad.
This means in a civil war the economy generating the tax dollars funding the well equipped forces suffers, and over time can no longer support them.
You don't see this in a war abroad because the economy is not being destroyed from within by war. So the tax revenue the military depends on is not impacted.
But when there is extensive disruption in the militaries own nation, things are different, and they have to start getting outside economic help just to stay afloat.
However at the same time some civilians start starving, and things get really ugly. All families would be seeing an impact some much worse than others before it got to the point that the government was collapsing from lack of tax dollars.
You also start getting people loyal to the insurgency joining the military, and attacking from within, seen even in Afghanistan today where they try to screen out such people with the help of capable intelligence agencies.
A few guards that turn their machineguns inwards here and there really creates havoc and destroys morale and soldiers start wondering who the next soldier to turn and kill them will be.


Beyond guns the population can make anything. The IRA was making its own mortars from basic things for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrack_buster

Various groups in the middle east launch relatively easy to build rockets fitted with warheads in mass at enemy forces on a regular basis.
These are also indirect fire weapons.




Now a civil war or insurgency is certainly not something you want to see. In fact it is a primary tool for defeating nations today by others. Just look at the strategy in Afghanistan today, training 'security forces' to battle the former government and its supporters. It is essentially outsiders using the population against themselves to defeat the enemy. A key role of special forces for quite some time, locate people not loyal to the enemy, and turn them into fighters against your enemy.Done in most modern conflicts, and quite extensive in Vietnam and other extended conflicts.

There is also very few people as noble and selfless as George Washington, that go from leading the opposition military forces, being chosen as the head of the government after victory, and then stepping down on their own or willingly without consolidating power and become a tyrant worse than what you had before. He had the backing of the military he led, and was popular with the people. So he could have stalled and consolidated power and undid pretty much any brand new framework that was not really established that he wanted to.
Many men in the same situation just become the new tyrant.

So even the most noble of revolutions is just a roll of the dice as to what will happen even if won. Sometimes you get a France situation where they guillotined many people, and kept suspecting new people of things and killing many in prior leadership positions out of paranoia.
Or the purges as done under Stalin after Lenin died and that government founded in a historic peoples' revolution took a very dark turn in a direction far different than what had been envisioned to become ultra authoritarian.

Peaceful methods are always the ideal method of change, but a well armed people are definitely a force to be reckoned with.

Zoogster
June 7, 2012, 04:10 PM
As for the OP's question, you won't find many places like the US in the world.
The United Nations works to actively put an end to any with firearm freedoms too.


A lot of well funded powerful groups, especially in Europe (with anti-gun leaders that demonstrate a lot more intelligence in their methods and statements) work towards disarmament.


A lot of places with freedoms like gun rights also attract rebels and others escaping more restrictive governments. So they become hotbeds of 'freedom fighters', 'terrorists', etc
Yemen was and is a prime example. With gun rights that make those of the US seem minimal enjoyed for a long time.
But from extensive international pressure and European groups they managed to get the government to pass some restrictions (generally ignored in most of the nation outside the capitol from my understanding) just a few years ago.
Here is an anti-gun European video that shows some of the markets and culture shortly after even the anti-gun legislation. (Notice they focus on the negatives, including the person injured in an accident something you can find in the US if you look as well. It is typical anti-gun rhetoric):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI_AGXb1-Ec

The nation is now also seen as the biggest terrorist threat. Even called a potential 'terrorist state' because what the people there want is not what most of the international leaders want running a country.
Unfortunately you won't be able to go there, because the international politics mean your life will be in danger if people know you are an American.


Letting your people have guns and a gun culture is not acceptable to our modern world government. The US takes a lot of heat over it as well and it is only because of a firmly established well funded culture that our own rights withstand international pressure. If the USA wasn't the big powerful nation it is such rights would have been reduced from international pressure as well.
Third world nations with such rights have anti-gun groups from wealthy first world nations embark on campaigns and remove such freedoms, able to easily outspend opposition by several times. While we have pro-gun groups in the US to battle such individuals, they tend to be very effective in a several pronged approach in third world nations.
They get other nation leaders to put pressure to curb the flow of firearms, and increase requirements for ownership and reduce legal types that can be owned as well.
Even our own nation has a leading role in curbing the flow of weapons to civilians that want them outside of US borders stemming from such international efforts.
Just look at how ITAR is applied or the red tape in taking a gun to another nation.
They really work to restrict 'small arms and light weapons', and keep weapons only in the hands of government on a global scale.
A percentage of wealthy citizens in many nations are tolerated, because they are not seen as much threat, in fact the wealthy with a comfortable lifestyle are the least likely to cause trouble.
This means coming from the US you may find yourself able to get special privileges some of the locals cannot in some former third world locations, as a member of a more wealthy class.
Not really gun rights, but you may benefit and still be able to have some yourself.

lloveless
June 7, 2012, 04:13 PM
Wanderling stated: "Iraq under Saddam was virtually Islamist-free." I thought Saddam was an Islamist?
ll

Odd Job
June 7, 2012, 04:16 PM
In my opinion, a person makes a grave mistake by making the availability of firearms his top priority when choosing a new country to relocate to.
Economic and political stability and basic standards of living and education are very important and cannot be compensated for by having a pistol on your hip.
If that was not the case, I would never have left South Africa and moved to the UK.

Sam1911
June 7, 2012, 06:21 PM
I thought Saddam was an Islamist?


Certainly not. He was nominally a Muslim but ran a decidedly secular country. "Islamist" means something specific and he was HATED by Islamists. He killed them by the thousands.

The folks we have seen as enemies of our country come from a HUGELY varied set of beliefs, practices, backgrounds, faiths, and ideologies -- from far to the left, far to the right, and at both extremes of the more enlightened political matrices. And we traditionally have tragically flawed understandings of who they are, who their enemies are, and why they do what they do.

Wanderling
June 9, 2012, 11:20 AM
Zoogster

Thank you for the detailed and well articulated comment.

However, I think you're proving my point, actually. :)

The guns is not what makes people win. A determined, united, spirited, well lead, massive uprising will eventually prevail even if they don't have guns to begin with. And they will prevail not by killing the soldiers, but by turning the majority of the people to their cause, including some of the current and most of the future soldiers.

Moreover, having just light arms (which is all that you can buy legally anyway, and that covers fully automatic weapons which are still light arms - heck, even RPG's are light arms) is not much better than having no arms at all. Most insurgents use explosive devices as their main means of attack, anyway. So you could argue than 2A should be primarily applied not to the guns, but to the fertilizer. :what: "The right to bear bags of fertilizer" doesn't sound that good though.

FIVETWOSEVEN
June 9, 2012, 11:42 AM
I don't mean to sound disrespectful to "Joe" - I am merely stating the fact that a 400,000 strong modern army with well train, well equipped, and loyal professional troops will win a war against a 4,000,000 strong army of poorly trained, poorly armed, and poorly led conscripts.

Reminds me of WWII, Germany V. Russia. Russia won because of sheer numbers. At a point they had more men then rifles and gave a stripper clip of ammo to some and a rifle to others. When the one with the rifle died, one without a rifle grabbed that one and continued to use it. Almost every aspect of the Russian military was inferior except for numbers.

ctrs
June 9, 2012, 12:21 PM
One thing I've noticed is that it's relatively hard to find information on international gun laws. There are 200 countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states), but it seems that only the details for a handful of them are widely available.

Anyways, these links might help:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/gun-laws-around-the-world_n_807700.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gun_politics_by_country

Wanderling
June 9, 2012, 08:33 PM
Reminds me of WWII, Germany V. Russia. Russia won because of sheer numbers. At a point they had more men then rifles and gave a stripper clip of ammo to some and a rifle to others. When the one with the rifle died, one without a rifle grabbed that one and continued to use it. Almost every aspect of the Russian military was inferior except for numbers.

This is simply not true. The real picture of war against Germany is so convoluted by propaganda on both sides, it's very hard to get a true feel of what really happened. By the way, Russian side of WW2 is one of my favorite topics, as both of my grandparents fought in it and one never came back.

For starters, the Soviets were equipped much, much, much better than Germans at the start of the war. In everything except perhaps the air force. This is a fact that both sides tried to hide - Germans because nobody was supposed to be superior in any way, Soviets because they absolutely spectacularly lost the opening part of the war and needed something to blame to hide the fact that the loss was 90% due to poor leadership at the very top. So the myth of empty-handed soldiers rushing tanks was born. I am sure many things like this indeed happened while they were desperately trying to stop German advance on Moscow, as a last-ditch effort, but the truth is, the Soviet army was very well equipped, OK trained (although not at the level of the German army), not badly led up to the regiment or perhaps division level, but unbelievably poorly led strategically.

The 1941 German advance, even though very spectacular, was in reality slowed down very significantly - the whole Barbarossa thing was a huge gamble and depended on a very tight schedule that was never met. And it was slowed down by a very stiff resistance of individual army units, that fought stubbornly while deprived of any real strategic leadership.

If you want to see the sheer numbers, look at China. They lost to the Japanese, despite the fact that they were much more numerous.

If you enjoyed reading about "other gun-friendly countries?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!