Countries that are friendly to firearms

Status
Not open for further replies.
my daughter lived in Europe and become friends with a nice Swiss young man who had a fully auto Sig 550 as part of his reserve requirement.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that recreational use of issue guns (and ammo) is heavily regulated in Switzerland.
 
I think the bottom line is that if you pick the right state, we have other countries beat
Click to expand...

And if you don't, we have states that are more restrictive then most of, if not all of, the countries previously mentioned
 
And if you don't, we have states that are more restrictive then most of, if not all of, the countries previously mentioned
Click to expand...
Not really. Even states like New York and Illinois have fewer restrictions on ownership than Germany.
 
Illinois isn't even in the same league as New York. No registration of any type of gun here, no magazine capacity limits, no "assault weapon" ban, no permit required to buy a pistol. The FOID card isn't even as bad as some make it out to be, costs $10 and is good for 10 years. Except for Cook County it's actually a pro-gun state.
 
Not really. Even states like New York and Illinois have fewer restrictions on ownership than Germany.
Click to expand...

But not as easy as Spain, most SA countries and if you include NJ, DC and a few others, most Euro/SA countries are a lot better.......;)
 
(Notable exceptions are Thailand and the Philippines - pistols are highly regulated but ownership for self defence is possible.)
Click to expand...

A Filipino may own one handgun and one longarm for any purpose after approval for a permit. In fact, most of the larger cities have a goodly number of gun shops and gunsmiths.

A foreigner may not own a firearm; However, if married to a Philippine citizen, the foreigner may carry the firearm if it is "too heavy" for the spouse to carry. (Philippine statutes.) Not sure I would want to test that in a Philippine court of law, but I do know that bribes go a long way in deciding things in your favor.
 
Last edited:
From the posts in this thread, a common theme seems to be that you can own guns, especially handguns, only for sporting purposes and not for defense.

Aren't the primary purpose for guns self-defense and hunting? Training and competition, while fun in their own right, evolve from those primary purposes.

To allow me to have the means of self-defense and to defend my family but to require that I do not use them is not gun-friendly, I don't care if I can have a silencer or not.

I'll take the United States every time. Though the abuses of our government often exceed those of many other countries, we have the ability and power to fix ours - all we have to do is decide to do it. There are no other countries more gun-friendly than the worst of the United States.
 
See here's the thing. I don't feel the need to carry a handgun in NZ. That's not to say I wouldn't carry one if the option was available to me but I feel pretty safe here. I do carry a knife but that's because I use it at least twice a day and have carried one since I was at least 16. I'd rather be able to go into a gunshop, point at a suppressor hand over $30 and walk out. Or point at a rifle, hand over cash, show my firearms licence, have my name and address taken and walk out within 5 minutes. No background check or wait time. Hell when I get pulled up by the cops for a traffic stop, I get out of my car and walk over to them. From what I've seen/heard over in the US that is very much a no-no and likely will result in you looking down the wrong end of a pistol.

At the end of the day, I think it's a matter of perspective. Some of the stuff I understand to be illegal in the US I believe is oppressive. Some of what we are unable to do here you guys may see as a fundamental right. To each his own.
 
I'll be honest, in a country where violence and crime isn't as rampant as America, I think I could accept a country where I couldn't carry it outside the home.

Falcon, I see people from NZ competing in IPSC and 3 gun on YouTube. They've got semi automatic pistols, rifles and shotguns with "extended" magazines. I had always thought this was a no-no. Is there a higher type of licensing for these or something?
 
We lived in a large Middle Eastern country where the defacto law bans satellite antennas but everyone has at least 1, and virtually every home had a non-government issued full auto AK-47. You didn't see too many crazys running in the streets as the US national news portrays the country. The biggest gun danger in the country was fathers and male kin folks unloading a full mag into the air at wedding receptions, something they're currently trying to curb.

Those who misuse guns in any crime will have a date with the executioner within a month max.
 
From the posts in this thread, a common theme seems to be that you can own guns, especially handguns, only for sporting purposes and not for defense.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse not being able to carry concealed with not be allowed to defend yourself. Most countries I know have a law covering reasonable force and that can mean using a legally owned gun to end a real threat to one's safety or that of another.
 
Living in a low crime environment and accepting that you could not carry outside the home really isn't accepting a strong view of the RKBA.

One might not carry outside the home if you didn't feel the need but to have it forbidden isn't my view of the RKBA. I think Posner in IL expressed this viewpoint. It's a shame Wily Old Schicken-Scalia didn't expand on this in his opinion.

While I compete and enjoy it - it is irrelevant to the theoretical RKBA.

One might have to live in such a place because of economic or family circumstances but one would work against such prohibitions. That's different from being OK with it.
 
I support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, always.

I simply mean that I could move to a country that didn't allow me to carry a handgun outside the home if it weren't so dangerous as America. Some are just as violent without guns and some are less so.

I think that we have a right to keep and bear arms, but (in my understandings) there are very few countries where it's codified as a right of the foundation of that country.

I would always campaign to make the situation better for gun owners. You can't not do that. I hear people in Australia are going after evil bolt action rifles now :eek: But if somebody told me "Here is a beautiful country with no crime, accidents, or suicides where everybody is friendly and we have 100% literacy rate" I would have a hard time saying no to that country because I couldn't carry a handgun outside of the home. I would definitely campaign for increased rights but what I consider a right is more murky than someone else's definition if it's not enumerated in a founding document. I have other political beliefs that certain things should be inalienable rights that we can't seem to have recognized in America, so it's a give/take.

I'm really not planning to move anywhere, certainly not within the 3 decades or so, I just noticed that almost everybody here was American and we very rarely discuss law outside of American law so it made me curious of the circumstances in other areas.
 
Pond said:
Don't confuse not being able to carry concealed with not be allowed to defend yourself. Most countries I know have a law covering reasonable force and that can mean using a legally owned gun to end a real threat to one's safety or that of another.
Click to expand...
If you are assaulted out on the street while your handgun is safely locked up at home, it's not much good to you.

And the wonder of the Internet has made it possible for all of us here in the U.S. to read multiple news stories of people in England who have had legal firearms in their homes, have used them for self defense, and have been charged with more severe crimes than the bad guys who invaded them.

I don't think we're confused.
 
Well, I disagree - I think the ability to carry a firearm outside the home is fundamental to the firearm rights of citizens.

The country is safe - is a bogus argument. In fact, in a well secured home - you are probably safer than on the street. Thus, why not allow you to have guns kept at the registered gun club for sport?

As I said - one might live in such a place for economic or social priorities but acceptance of a basic limitation is an unacceptable and limited view of the RKBA in modern times. Of course, that is IMHO.
 
I think the ability to carry a firearm outside the home is fundamental to the firearm rights of citizens.
Click to expand...

It goes beyond "fundamental." It is the right. My right to bear arms (and the "where" is not defined, therefore cannot be restricted) shall not be infringed.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Why is it that government entities/quasi government entities/psuedo government entities are so obtuse as to not understand this?
 
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Why is it that government entities/quasi government entities/psuedo government entities are so obtuse as to not understand this?
Click to expand...

Because the government views its citizenry as potential enemies to those in power. Obviously, governments are predisposed to not wanting their citizens armed. This is the reason the Founders demanded the 2nd Amendment as a "check" to allowing the formation of a central government. The real question is why are so many citizens, who have been guaranteed the right to firearms ownership, eager to to relinquish their 2nd Amendment rights to their government?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top