• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Gun freedom index / Worldwide gun laws / Gun freedom ranking

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wumpus

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
16
Location
The Bahamas
Hi THR Members,

The first draft of the Gun Freedom Index, which we believe is the first of its kind, is nearly complete. We're looking for feedback before it goes live:
www.freeexistence.org/data/2009/2009_gunlaw_data.xls

If you have recently lived in any of the countries listed, please give the corresponding spreadsheet row a look. If you come across something that looks like a mistake, please let me know! (Likewise, if you've got a better link to cite for the relevant gun laws, please say so.)

It would be really helpful if you could help fill in the gaps for countries with names highlighted in red, for which there is presently insufficient data to generate a score for ranking.

Also, if you are fluent in French, Spanish, Portuguese, or Russian, it would be great if you could skim through the documents referenced in the spreadsheet (most of the outstanding translation needs are French at this point) and post one or two sentences summarizing the laws relevant to the index; alternatively, definitely let me know if the document contained no relevant information).

To give some background on this project, the ultimate purpose of the Gun Freedom Index is incorporation into the Freedom Meta-Index, which currently lacks gun data, and which can be seen here:
www.freeexistence.org/freedom.shtml
The Freedom Meta-Index is a tool to help rank countries in terms of freedom (and through the use of the preferential weights in the pulldown menus, ranking them in terms of the freedoms you care most about).

Feel free to post comments, corrections, or new data as replies to this thread. Alternatively, you can email them to [email protected].

Thanks in advance for helping to improve the quality of this gun resource!
 
Last edited:
There seems to be a lot of information in there, but the only place I am familiar with, California, USA, the information is wrong!
United States – California 4.5 CCW permit required, “may issue” (not widely issued).
Click to expand...
Depends on which county you live in. Some are effectively "shall issue" others are "may issue" and others are, effectively "no issue."
Some semi-automatic rifles, and all pistols must be registered.
Click to expand...
There is no gun registration requirement for California.
No open carry.
Click to expand...
Again, wrong. Loaded Open Carry is legal in counties with less than 200,000 population in unincorporated areas with no shooting restrictions. Unloaded Open Carry is not illegal but is subject to 12031e weapons checks not to mention being hassled for doing so in many jurisdictions.
 
This can never actually be complete because many parts of the world are not like the first world where the rule of law is respected or followed outside of major city limits.

In fact some of the places that regionally have the greatest freedoms technically do not from a legal standpoint if you ask the government.
At the heart of any government, only what the people believe is what actually is. If the people believe in the rule of law, or certain laws, then they exist. If the locals, the local LEO or what passes as LEO, tribal members, clans etc do not, then it does not.

For example the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where US soldiers are now has had its own customs for generations. What is technically Pakistan's laws do not apply. They can buy guns at a local shop, build them in local stores by hand, and sell them on the street corner.

There is many entire regions of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and even to some extent South America that are similar.

Some places the government just says it exists, but outside the Capital city it has limited reach. They may occasionally send troops to impose thier will outside of the city, but if the local people resist thier rules, there really is not a lot they can do. If the majority of your official population does not listen to your laws, you cannot lock them all up, and if you try to go into thier areas and start you get an insurgency, especially if they are armed.


Yemen for example has one of the greatest firearm freedoms in the world. Yet a few years ago (July 2007), through pressure and funding from European and United States antis the government officially outlawed many of those freedoms. Yet outside the Capital the culture of firearm freedoms is so strong the law is almost entirely ignored, expected to be ignored, and people that do not ignore it are the strange ones, not the reverse.

Gun Control is about Control. Business leaders, governments etc usually try to restrict the weapons of people other than those armed on thier behalf (like thier soldiers/LEO/security forces.
For example even places like Dubai and the business leaders there work to disarm areas of the region, while most of those trying to do so have very extensive private security forces and armaments.
If only people at your status level have arms or control of people with arms, then only people at your status level have power and control.
Gun Control is about control.

But my point is if you research all the laws of every nation in the world, you will end up with a very unrealistic and untruthful database. The guns laws of Washington DC apply in every region of the United States, still at this point (though places like Montana have recently sought to change this.) That is not the case in many nations.
Consider in some states medical marijuana for example. It is illegal at the federal level. Is a crime, yet in some places it is widespread, with many storefronts and businesses.
So if someone looked up the laws of the US, technically that production and sale is federally outlawed and serious felonies (illegal manufacture and sales of "narcotic" drugs.)
Yet it is widespread. In some parts of California entire counties are known for mass producing it, and stores line the streets selling or "dispensing" it in violation of federal law (and in compliance with local laws).
In many regions of some nations firearms are the same way.
If a state, the local police, and the citizens do not believe a law, even if it is the law of the nation, then it is only enforced when the federal government sends out its soldiers (federal LEO) to do so, and only on a limited portion of the population ignoring the law in general.
So if a region, tribal area etc does not believe in the law, even if it is the official law, you would find in traveling to those locations that gun laws for all practical purposes are not what you read on some national website, or what the capitol of that nation says they are.
 
Last edited:
There are some typos. I'm not sure if that is the type of mistake you are asking to be informed of or not. I didn't read every one, but I'm sure you'll just need to proof read it to catch all of them.

Example:

(Samoa)
Handguns, rifles, and shotguns are illegal. However, machine guns, short barreled rifle or shotguns, and suppressors are illegal.
Click to expand...

I think you meant 'legal' there.
 
Some inaccuracies I'm sure, only one I know for SURE is that full autos ARE legal in CT, just not "select fire", which probably would work our score out to be the same anyways...but...meh...

Very nice all around though, pretty neet to go through, and I'm sure as time goes on and it's refined it'll get better still.
 
Zoogster,

The following FAQ was written for the Drug Freedom Index, but addresses some of the same issues you bring up:
http://www.freeexistence.org/drugindex.html

In summary, scores only change a little based onlax or no enforcement, because the government can at any time begin enforcing previously-unenforced laws. The point is to assess the government through the laws it has on the books, moreso than the culture or level of societal acceptance of guns of the target nation. (This is why the United States only has a 1.5 out of 10.0 in the Drug Freedom Index -- because it has a death penalty on the books, even though it's never been enforced.) However, it is true that in taking this approach, we sacrifice some regional accuracy for the sake of conservatism -- more specifically, you can traffic large amounts of drugs and are pretty certain to avoid the death penalty -- but the US government should still get dinged in the rankings for having a death penalty for a victimless crime). This type of approach consistent with most legal analysis research, wherein the goal is to keep the reader out of jail by avoiding the bleeding edge of assuming a certain legal interpretation or assuming lack of enforcement capacity or motivation to enforce. This is different in that it's not a comprehensive compendium of the laws, only a rough read on the laws with the lowest possible resolution that still allows for scoring, and thus relative ranking against other governments, within a score point or so of error.
 
New Jersey is substantially incorrect

Permit required for any firearm.
Semi-auto ban,
Some ammo banned.
No open carry.

An FID is required for the PURCHASE or OWNERSHIP of a new (to the purchaser) firearm not the ownership of existing firearms.

There is no such thing as a semi auto ban.

Some ammunition (HP) is not usuable outside of the places you are allowed to shoot, that restriction also includes all other types of ammunition so is Effectively an urban myth. A prosecuter CAN use this as a charge enhancer.
 
Depends on which county you live in. Some are effectively "shall issue" others are "may issue" and others are, effectively "no issue."
Click to expand...

The information isn't really wrong. California state law is "may issue".

That some counties do and some don't doesn't change the fact that it's "may issue" by legal definition.

That's pretty nit picky.
 
In summary, scores only change a little based onlax or no enforcement, because the government can at any time begin enforcing previously-unenforced laws. The point is to assess the government through the laws it has on the books, moreso than the culture or level of societal acceptance of guns of the target nation.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand the logic as it applies to firearm laws, but it still paints a very narrow picture.
If a single major city, the Capitol of a nation, declares guns illegal or highly restricted, but 90% of the nation residing outside of that city enforces none of those laws or even socially mandates they be broken, then it is silly.

The United Nations, and most international bodies support extreme restrictions or prohibitions on firearm rights. As is to be expected, they after all want to be in control, remain in control, and are represented by governments that wish to retain control.
Arms play a major component in control, so governments around the world agree on restricting them to the largest extent possible outside the hands of soldiers and LEO loyal to them.

There is even circumstances where the actual government of the people differs from the internationally recognized government the UN, and various economically powerful entities and organizations choose to recognize.
An example would be Somalia, where for many years they had an official government (Islamic Courts.) But it was not the government the UN wanted in power, and so the nation officially had a very different internationally recognized government, one that controlled very little of the nation. (But it would be thier laws cited at the international level.)
That was the case until late 2006, and into 2007 when the government in power of most of the nation was attacked by forces backed by the international community. Including the US who sent in forces such as gunships to attack the Islamic government, or Islamic Courts Union, and help the government they wanted in power gain territory. (While Ethiopian forces and others were similarly backed in destroying the ICU.)

So for example the internationally recognized laws of Somalia, and laws put out by the government that the world chose to recognize was entirely different from the laws of the actual government that had power in most of the nation. The laws people on the ground would actually be held to in most of the nation.

Somalia is just an example, but there is similar situations where who is officially recognized to be in control, or promoted as the leadership has only limited or minimal control, sometimes less than another government, group, or large tribe in the nation which is not internationally recognized. So what laws are reality?
That depends if you are sitting at home in another nation, back one government or another (which have different conflicting laws both technically in place) or are actually there on the ground as a citizen or visitor.

In some places were firearms are officially prohibited or restricted at the national level, people and groups are actually expected to have them and provide for thier own security. Far more likely to be victimized for failing to provide arms for thier protection than to be arrested by the distant government that controls the Capitol city.

So yes the discretionary nature of things that can be in place is highly confusing, and it certainly does not smell like freedom. But in many regions, some with far greater firearm liberties than the United States, that is the situation.
In fact some regions that promote firearm freedoms are as great or greater than the governments that officially oppose them. They are simply divided by international borders, borders very different from the cultural and ideological borders of the locals.

For the sake of recognition I will reference the Tribal areas of Pakistan again, a current conflict area. Technically the same culture is both in that region of Pakistan, and across the border in Afghanistan. It is the same people, but officially they are two separate nations with different laws. But the locals themselves will enforce very similar laws on both sides of the border sharing a culture and ideology, which can be very different than the laws of the respective Capitols.
(A less ideal example now because there is an international force that creates constant changes in the legal situation at the local levels there.)
There is similar situations in other areas, like various portions of Asia. You can have cultures larger than surrounding nations which are cut into pieces by official borders, but within thier own culture support and enforce very different laws.
The official international borders often do not define the actual borders of laws, cultures and customs you will be held to. Unless of course the national level troops, (or an international body of troops supporting them,) just happen to be in the area enforcing them. While breaking a law of the local culture even when those troops are not around will always result in swift punishment by local enforcement. Sometimes for breaking a law that is not even a law according the the official government many miles away
 
Last edited:
TexasRifleman said
The information isn't really wrong. California state law is "may issue".

That some counties do and some don't doesn't change the fact that it's "may issue" by legal definition.

That's pretty nit picky.
Click to expand...
I am aware of California law. What I was objecting to was the (not widely issued) addendum. In fact it is widely used in the "shall issue" counties. The total number of permits in California, in spite of the counties less likely to issue, is still on a par with most "shall issue" states and way ahead of most "may issue" states. :)
 
I LOLed at how incorrect the NJ portion is. If they can't get the USA laws right, god knows how innacurate the rest of the table is.
 
Actually, the US state law data was taken straight from http://wapedia.mobi (more specifically, http://wapedia.mobi/en/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)?t=24.#31 in the case of New Jersey) and in some cases, http://opencarry.org. If one or both are low-quality sources, it only affects the US state data (not really the focus of the index anyway, since individual US states don't show up in the master Freedom Meta-Index). I will be happy to make corrections, especially if presented with citations to the relevant state laws (certainly preferable to simply adding more anecdotal data which is prone to error, and thus avoided whenever possible).
 
Thanks everallm!

The new New Jersey listing is as follows:
A gun-specific permit is required to buy a pistol. A firearms purchase identification card is required to buy rifles or shotguns. CCW permit required to carry, “may issue”. Some semi-automatic rifles and all automatic weapons are illegal without a special license which may be issued by a Superior Court judge. Suppressors and sawed-off shotguns are illegal. (See: http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/#?st=NJ) (Note that http://wapedia.mobi/en/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state) appears inaccurate) (3.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 = 5.0)

The original listing was scored at 3.5, so this correction falls within the +/- 1.5 error range.
 
DocCas said:
There seems to be a lot of information in there, but the only place I am familiar with, California, USA, the information is wrong!Depends on which county you live in. Some are effectively "shall issue" others are "may issue" and others are, effectively "no issue."There is no gun registration requirement for California.Again, wrong. Loaded Open Carry is legal in counties with less than 200,000 population in unincorporated areas with no shooting restrictions. Unloaded Open Carry is not illegal but is subject to 12031e weapons checks not to mention being hassled for doing so in many jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
DocCas,

Thank you for the clarification on pistol ownership and carrying. Re: there not being any registration, http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/#?st=CA indicates that "It is unlawful to possess an 'assault weapon' or a .50 caliber BMG rife unless it is properly registered with the state." Is this information outdated?
 
FYI, all US-state-specific data has been flagged for checking against the http://www.nraila.org/ state law summaries, as these seem to be the most authoritative on the subject. No need to post any further corrections to the existing US state data unless NRA-ILA also has it wrong on their site (since those errors will get propagated into the new summaries otherwise).

Thanks for all the feedback and assistance thus far!
 
Thank you for the clarification on pistol ownership and carrying. Re: there not being any registration, http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/#?st=CA indicates that "It is unlawful to possess an 'assault weapon' or a .50 caliber BMG rife unless it is properly registered with the state." Is this information outdated?
Click to expand...

All .50 BMG and legal "assault weapons" had a one time registration period to "grandfather" those are legally held. Each time a new "assault weapon" was added to the list, it was given a brief window for registration before it became a major felony to own. New ones cannot be purchased and registered.
Some semi-automatic rifles, and all pistols must be registered.
Click to expand...
There is no gun registration requirement for California.
Click to expand...


Unknown to many people there is in fact registration of all purchased or transferred handguns in the state of California.
That information is correct. The reason many people, such as DocCas are not aware of it is because it is done automatically at the time of purchase, and is done for free unknown to the purchaser.


California has a gun registration requirement for handguns. All handguns purchased or transferred go through an FFL, and they are put into a database.
Anyone who moves to California with handguns must fill out a form and pay a fee for every handgun to register them with the state.
State officials and police then have access to that database. Police can look up if someone at an address or in a car has such guns registered to them on thier car computers.

If at any point someone becomes prohibited at the federal or state levels (numerous petty offenses at the state level can disqualify someone) the database red flags them for confiscation, and a visit by a special task force.
Sometimes that visit is quick other times it takes a certain number of years. But they eventually get around to it.

Any handgun purchased or transferred in CA since 1991 has been automatically registered.
Since there is no private sales outside of an FFL in California, that includes all transfers.

Those which were not automatically registered prior to 1991 are still legal to remain unregistered, as well as those of visitors. However if they make any minor mistakes in transport or things that are a misdemeanor for anyone else, they become a felony simply because they are not registered.
Transport the handgun in a container, but the lock pops open or you forgot to latch it? Felony if unregistered, misdemeanor if registered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
2011 Gun Freedom scores by country
Replies
1
Views
577
wumpus
W
W
  • Locked
Gun rights scores by country
Replies
18
Views
1K
oneounceload
O
I
  • Locked
Doing Freedom magazine
Replies
2
Views
453
Ian
I
2
  • Locked
Government is not the only destroyer of freedom
Replies
4
Views
397
Wildalaska
W
A
  • Locked
Freedom
Replies
18
Views
704
JShirley
JShirley
Back
Top