Whats the Law in your country

[JamesH]

Sticking to administrative once-off costs only:

$160 to apply for license
$20 for license card
$180

Annual costs

$80 for membership to National body
$170 for club membership
$250

Sorry, just doesn't look too bad to me.

[mika]

Sticking to administrative once-off costs only:
...$180

Annual costs
...$250

Sorry, just doesn't look too bad to me.

At least here in Finland, the administrative costs and bureaucracy are per gun. So every time you change your gun or get a new one, it's another hundred or so euros. Which most of the time does absolutely nothing towards gun safety.

Actually, I support more control than some of the writers here, but I think it should be directed towards the people owning guns, not that much the guns themselves. I do understand the wish to keep clearly irresponsible people out of this hobby and sport, just to ensure its future. But as long as the guns are registered so you can be kept accountable for them, I don't see reason to impose more bureaucracy than the registration to each transaction, buying or selling a gun. It's about us, not our guns, except if they end up in wrong hands. So after a person is authorized, buying and selling guns should be simple. Much like it is with other dangerous items, like cars. Get a driver's license, buy a Toyota or a Ferrari and drive away. Or get both, and maybe a van as well, as best suits your needs. Just take care you don't lose your license by doing stupid things with your cars.

Mika

[Richard H]

I don't think the cost in itself is the full barrier, but it's a small part of it.

I think it's the cost for no visible return, the hassle, and they seem to attach a stigma that everyone who wants a gun is criminal or potential criminal. Plus not all clubs are all that welcoming to be truthful. Some people in some clubs seem more interested in keeping it exclusive than encouraging more participation, then yes there are those that are great. It really only takes one loud mouth miserable curmudgeon rule enforcer with no people skills to chase off a new member (even if you have 100's of great guys)

Let's take golf I doubt people would be so keen if they had to outlay cash for a license to golf, buy clubs, go getnthe clubs inspected and join a club but not really be allowed to play for a year.

[trevorw]

Sticking to administrative once-off costs only:

$160 to apply for license
$20 for license card
$180

Annual costs

$80 for membership to National body
$170 for club membership
$250

Sorry, just doesn't look too bad to me.

[trevorw]

Sticking to administrative once-off costs only:
Sorry, just doesn't look too bad to me.

I wasn't arguing about the initial costs .

My main impetus for the post was the over zealous laws in this country IMO which have only hindered the hobby shootist

[orionshooter]

Sticking to administrative once-off costs only:

$160 to apply for license
$20 for license card
$180

Annual costs

$80 for membership to National body
$170 for club membership
$250

Sorry, just doesn't look too bad to me.

I think James' comments underscores philosophical perspectives which are as wide apart as the ocean that separates our two continents.

In his country, he is grateful for the PRIVILEGE of owning a firearm. In my country, the law of the land provides this as a RIGHT.

[Sparks]

In his country, he is grateful for the PRIVILEGE of owning a firearm. In my country, the law of the land provides this as a RIGHT.

Yes, but over here, that's as important a point as whether or not [insert z-list celebrity name here] is wearing [insert cheap fashion name #1 here] or [insert cheap fashion name #2 here] this season.

[orionshooter]

[/quote]Yes, but over here, that's as important a point as whether or not [insert z-list celebrity name here] is wearing [insert cheap fashion name #1 here] or [insert cheap fashion name #2 here] this season.[/quote]


And it shows.

[orionshooter]

Yes, but over here, that's as important a point as whether or not [insert z-list celebrity name here] is wearing [insert cheap fashion name #1 here] or [insert cheap fashion name #2 here] this season.

And it shows.

[mika]

Yes, but over here, that's as important a point as whether or not [insert z-list celebrity name here] is wearing [insert cheap fashion name #1 here] or [insert cheap fashion name #2 here] this season.

And it shows.

In most countries, shooters and gun owners are a minority. A democracy does not ensure freedom for minorities unless freedom itself is an important part of the ideology of the majorities. Also, there are different aspects of freedom, and those aspects have been implemented in different ways in different countries. Gun ownership is just one aspect, which obviously is important for this crowd.

It's also not obvious that just the right to own and bear arms is enough to ensure reasonable gun laws as seen by the owners. At least the Americans remember the Assault Weapons Ban. That set all kinds of weird restrictions on the external appearance of the guns, as well as functionalities. Many countries (like mine) with much stricter gun laws had, at least at that time, much less regulation on the guns themselves than the US law did. But let's see, the US seems to be able to deregulate things, while here it seems to be more of a unidirectional slippery slope. One thing our lawmakers got right is that silencers are just gun parts that you can own as long as you have a gun permit.

I think the biggest problem regarding the gun laws here is that reasonable discussion is not possible. It's always a heated argument and it's very difficult for anyone in the politics to even present opinions that diverge significantly from the status quo and be taken seriously. To even suggest legalizing self defense with a gun is out of question, you would be taken as seriously as if you were suggesting that no driver's license would be required for driving. It's so far outside the box. Here it seems to be extremely easy to regulate, but very difficult to deregulate anything.

Mika

[JamesH]

I think James' comments underscores philosophical perspectives which are as wide apart as the ocean that separates our two continents.

In his country, he is grateful for the PRIVILEGE of owning a firearm. In my country, the law of the land provides this as a RIGHT.

No, I'm grateful that scumbags don't get free and easy access to firearms.

The 'democracy' argument is feeble, do you think if a tyrannical govt took hold your collection of pop-guns would be worth anything?

As we've seen in various other countries recently, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc, you need a minimum of an RPG or 20mm AA cannon to have the slightest hope against a state military

Do you have the right to own an RPG or 20mm AA cannon?
No?

You've been conned into believing your 2nd amendment 'right to own tinker toys' means anything at all. You have no more guaranteed democracy than any other country, you're more deluded - that is all.

[orionshooter]

I think James' comments underscores philosophical perspectives which are as wide apart as the ocean that separates our two continents.

In his country, he is grateful for PRIVILEGE of owning a firearm. In my country, the law of the land provides this as a RIGHT.

No, I'm grateful that scumbags don't get free and easy access to firearms.

The 'democracy' argument is feeble, do you think if a tyrannical govt took hold your collection of pop-guns would be worth anything?

As we've seen in various other countries recently, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc, you need a minimum of an RPG or 20mm AA cannon to have the slightest hope against a state military

Do you have the right to own an RPG or 20mm AA cannon?
No?

You've been conned into believing your 2nd amendment 'right to own tinker toys' means anything at all. You have no more guaranteed democracy than any other country, you're more deluded - that is all.

I never implied either country was right or wrong......better or worse - just that we have different perspective James. The tone of your beligerent response suggests the precise lack of civility your country seems to demand as a condition of firearm ownership.

Americans who exercise their rights are neither scumbags or deluded because they choose to exercise their rights.

[j-team]

James, I think that maybe your patriotism has blinkered you to the fact that Australia has some of the most restrictive gun laws out there. You can't even own an air pistol without going through the whole licensing thing!

I've been there to shoot many times (about 15 times from 1988-2006), and it gets worse each time. Seriously, Australian customs even want to count how many air gun pellets in a tin at the border the last time I was there!

[Spencer]

...Australia has some of the most restrictive gun laws out there...

in comparison with those countries where there is NO private ownership?

Transiting through USA airports can be interesting(!) - ask the AUS shooters coming back from the World Masters in Canada who waited up to 6 months for pistols to get back.
Getting your unused ammo and any empty c/f cases out of India can be interesting.

Like the thread about the police and firearms in the car, at point of entry or departure often it is the attitude and knowledge (or lack thereof) of the individual Customs Officer.

[j-team]

in comparison with those countries where there is NO private ownership?

Such as?

I'll start the list, you can finish it.

1. North Korea

[BenEnglishTX]

in comparison with those countries where there is NO private ownership?

Such as?

I'm not sure, j-team, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your point is that there is almost no country on earth where the civilian ownership of firearms is entirely forbidden.

There are a number of places where firearms are theoretically illegal but so common that the authorities treat them with the same gravity as driving 50 in a 45 zone.

There are a few places where you walk into a gun shop, drop down your large stack of bills, and walk out with the perfectly legal machine gun of your choice, no questions asked.

And most places fall somewhere in between.

It is these variations in the law and how they impact us formal target shooters that I believe the OP was asking about.

While issues of patriotism and gun control and the varying definitions of basic human rights held by forum members make for great, fun discussions...they tend to stray quite far afield from the reason the thread was started. I'm very tempted, for example, to write a book-length response to any number of posts I've seen here but I've refrained from doing so because I'd like to see this discussion remain unlocked and productive.

Perhaps I might interject something personal?

I once asked on a general travel forum about the procedures for arrival in Prague when I'm carrying a couple of pistols with me. The jumping to conclusions and hurled invective were astounding and immediate. I'd hope that more useful communication will remain the norm on this forum.

So here's my personal request for information - I live in the U.S. and hope, over the next few years, to shoot pistol matches in Finland, France, the Czech Republic, Brazil, Australia, and South Africa.

If we have any correspondents in those places, I'd love to hear from you. What's it like for you and what (if you know) is required for me to bring in a couple of cartridge pistols and a revolver for competition?

Ben

ps - Yes, I realize a couple of those countries have already been covered.

[peterz]

I think Japan is a no go for fire arms. Not sure about AP & AR.

[BenEnglishTX]

I think Japan is a no go for fire arms.

Not exactly. There are shotgunners in Japan, subject to strict licensing. Rifles are rare because they may not be transferred. People holding rifle licenses are allowed to keep what they had in 1971 when they were grandfathered in but upon their death, the rifles must be surrendered to authorities. Theoretically, if you've maintained a shotgun license for 10 years, you can still get a rifle license. It's rare, but it happens.

Handguns are another theoretical no-go. Weatherby found this out the hard way back in the late 1970s/early 1980s (I don't remember, exactly) when they just started making their silhouette pistols alongside the rifles upon which they were based in their Japanese facility. That's why first-gen Weatherby pistols are so rare and so expensive; only a few got out of Japan before the authorities came down on them, hard. Technically, you can get a pistol license if you're a member of an elite, international shooting team already. I suppose that means that if you make the Japanese Olympic shooting team for Air Pistol, you can get a license for a 50M or RF pistol. In practical terms, the point is moot since most team members are at least technically police or military personnel and covered by other exceptions.

Certainly, where there's a will, there's a way. Despite handguns being a theoretical no-go, this lead:

Top ranked Tomoyuki Matsuda of Japan won the gold medal in the Men’s 50m Pistol event at the International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) World Cup Munich.

can be found in this press release.

This whole situation strikes me as strange since the Japanese love guns. They have some of the most amazing airsoft shops that sell perfect replicas of every exotic weapon imaginable. In addition, Hawaiian and Filipino entrepreneurs do a brisk business setting up shooting sessions for Japanese tourists.

A mildly outdated article covering the Japanese situation, authored by a "you decide how objective he is" source, can be found here

[peterz]

The Japanese antipathy to firearms goes so far that enriched bomb-grade uranium and plutonium were not, at least in the 1990s, protected by armed guards.

Now that's taking your chances!

[Guest]

I think James' comments underscores philosophical perspectives which are as wide apart as the ocean that separates our two continents.

In his country, he is grateful for the PRIVILEGE of owning a firearm. In my country, the law of the land provides this as a RIGHT.

No, I'm grateful that scumbags don't get free and easy access to firearms.

The 'democracy' argument is feeble, do you think if a tyrannical govt took hold your collection of pop-guns would be worth anything?

As we've seen in various other countries recently, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc, you need a minimum of an RPG or 20mm AA cannon to have the slightest hope against a state military

Do you have the right to own an RPG or 20mm AA cannon?
No?

You've been conned into believing your 2nd amendment 'right to own tinker toys' means anything at all. You have no more guaranteed democracy than any other country, you're more deluded - that is all.

James, I think it's safe to say you haven't actually been to these countries, or at least, not recently. Your knowledge of asymmetric warfare, what a determined force with small arms and good planning is capable of, and what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan (two places I know about) is woefully lacking.

History has shown that in guerrilla warfare, having the biggest, bestest toys does not determine the winner...not by a long shot.