
How to Buy a Gun in 15 Countries - electic
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/02/world/international-gun-laws.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=g-artboard%20g-artboard-v4&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
======
refurb
They left out the Czech republic! Concealed carry for all!

 _A gun in the Czech Republic is available to anybody subject to acquiring a
shall issue firearms license first. Gun licenses may be obtained in a way very
similar to a driving license – by passing a gun proficiency exam, medical
examination and having a clean criminal record. Unlike in most other European
countries, the Czech gun legislation also permits a citizen to carry a
concealed weapon for self-defense – 240,000 out of some 300,000 legal gun
owners have concealed carry permit. The vast majority of Czech gun owners
possess their firearms for protection, with hunting and sport shooting being
less common._

Also made me chuckle a bit when they talk about Mexico and Brazil. How many
people who own guns actually do so legally?

~~~
donw
And Switzerland, Norway, Finland...

------
vonzeppelin
I guess we could repeal a part of the Bill of Rights.

~~~
jbob2000
I hate this counter argument. It's cheap, low effort, and dishonest. "Oh gee,
look at that, this piece of paper says I can own a killing machine, pack it up
boys".

Constitutions can change; it was changed to get rid of slavery. It's not some
kind of immortal document handed down by god.

~~~
pathseeker
>Constitutions can change; it was changed to get rid of slavery.

Not the same thing. The constitution didn't grant slavery, it just didn't
restrict it. The amendment to stop slavery had no impact on the constitution
that existed before-hand.

The bill of rights has never been changed.

~~~
wahern
The Bill of Rights only restricted the Federal government, until 1897 when
SCOTUS began the process of so-called incorporation. It's non-sensical to try
to use it as a template for individual rights because that wasn't its primary
design. It obviously reflected such notions, but only indirectly and
distantly. The Bill of Rights very clearly changed because it's now applied in
ways that were not only unforeseen, but presumed to have been impossible given
how the Founders understood and _designed_ separation of powers.

That's why debate about the meaning of the _text_ of the Bill of Rights often
borders on the absurd. The 2nd Amendment was _never_ about the individual
right to own personal firearms because the Federal government never had the
_power_ to regulate personal gun ownership until the re-interpretation of its
Commerce Clause powers in the 1930s. (Well, in the case of guns sooner with
the passage of Prohibition.) But the Federal government did have the very
controversial power to control state militias as part of its enhanced
(relative to Articles of Confederation) national defense powers, which is why
the 2nd Amendment talks about militias and "arms" (i.e. military weapons--see
Samuel Johnson's dictionary from the 18th century).

The whole original meaning debate about the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous; for
this and a million other reasons--like the fact that conservatives like Scalia
and Thomas relied on incorporation doctrines that they previously had
despised. That said, the courts have spoken and as a matter of _law_ it
creates a personal right. Which is fine by me because the one thing this whole
debate should make abundantly clear to people is that we have courts and
judges for a reason--people will always disagree about the meaning of a
written law; at the end of the day you _need_ a court to, effectively, lay
down the law and decide exactly what it means in real situations, and that's
the only law that counts. Whether they read the text wrong or right is in a
very real sense irrelevant, as long they adhere to consistent principles of
justice that are substantially divorced from the politics du jour. It'd be a
stretch to say that the recent 2nd Amendment decisions were apolitical or
entirely consistent with the conservative justices' legal jurisprudence, but
it's not beyond the pale. For someone like me who defends liberal notions like
substantive due process, it's hard to complain about the judicial overreach
regarding the 2nd Amendment. (What irks me isn't the outcome, but the
intellectually hypocritical--nay, dishonest--way the conservative justices got
there.)

------
mnm1
So NYT is against gun control now? Because that's the argument here. Some of
those countries clearly have a laundry list of things you'd need to do to get
a gun yet have violence that far surpasses anything seen in the US. I'm
talking about large zones and cities that are not under government control in
Mexico and Brazil and the large amounts of violence in South Africa. Not only
that, but they explicitly admit--in the text--that gun laws are ineffective in
at least Russia. I agree: gun laws are ineffective in Russia, in the US, and
elsewhere. I just didn't think the NYT would be my main backing source.

~~~
grolimpio
I don't think so, what they are trying to show is quite the opposite, mass
shooting in Brazil is rare, and that's manly because individuals that are
likely to commit this kind of crime wouldn't easily get a gun like an AR-15,
access to this kind of guns without a tough background check is insane even
for countries like Brazil. General crimes (non mass shooting) involving
handguns are common though, because it's easy for criminals to get illegal
handguns. The latest is not fault of gun control policies, but a very
corrupted system.

~~~
masonic

      mass shooting in Brazil is rare
    

Murder rate in Brazil is 440% of US rate.

Violent crime intentional homicide rate is 600% of US rate.

etc.

[http://www.nationmaster.com/country-
info/compare/Brazil/Unit...](http://www.nationmaster.com/country-
info/compare/Brazil/United-States/Crime)

    
    
      General crimes (non mass shooting) involving handguns are common though
    

It's far easier to a mass public shooting with handguns than with long guns.

~~~
grolimpio
Yes, murder rate in Brazil is far higher than any other developed country, and
this is not related to firearms selling policy. Trying to link firearms
selling policy to the crime level in Brazil is misleading and irresponsible,
as the issues are further down and start with inequality and lack of proper
education.

Violent crimes over there (Brazil) and homicide rates are quite high, not only
because innocent people are killed every day, but also because of the war
between drug gangs/cartels, so we're also talking about criminals killing each
other.

And sorry, I gave the impression that only long guns were used to mass
shooting, if anyone look at the history of mass shooting in Brazil, they will
see that handguns were used on the latest big one.

------
joelrunyon
Now do Switzerland.

~~~
briffle
I can't tell you how many friends and family (I'm in the US) have posted
nonsense about swiss gun laws all over social media. They drastically changed
about 20 years ago or so. (and a few other major changes 7 or 8 years ago) But
they like to talk all over social media about how anyone in Switzerland can
walk down the street with a fully automatic rifle..

~~~
joelrunyon
I never said any of that.

But they have a pretty high ownership rate and are always left out of the
discussion when it doesn't fit the narrative.

Process for actually getting a gun in Switzerland -
[https://www.ch.ch/en/acquiring-firearm/](https://www.ch.ch/en/acquiring-
firearm/)

No one's arguing about full automatic rifles. There's very few places where
fully automatic rifles are actually legal.

