4 ms·

How to Buy a Gun in 15 Countries

18 points by electic 9y ago

vonzeppelin 9y ago
I guess we could repeal a part of the Bill of Rights.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ascorbic 9y ago
  Well regulated
  - vonzeppelin 9y ago
    A well regulated militia
    - refurb 9y ago
      "The right of the people...shall not be infringed"
    - flushot 9y ago
      "It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia..." "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms." - Justice Scalia DC vs. Heller https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    As in "regular" - practiced, and uniform. It's hard to argue that a militia is "well regulated" when arms aren't generally available.
- jbob2000 9y ago
  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.
  - refurb 9y ago
    For all the complaints on HN about losing our rights, the Constitution is the only thing stopping it.
  - pathseeker 9y ago
    >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 9y ago
      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.)
- throwaway2016a 9y ago
  Edit: Can't delete anymore because someone replied but I don't want to be part of this debate at this time so I am redacting this post.
  - refurb 9y ago
    You should read some more, particularly DC v. Heller. Supreme Court ruled 2nd amendment protects and individual right. Also, the ideal of "reinterpreting" a right is terrible. They do that to the 2nd amendment and they can do it to the first. Change the Constitution if you want to take away the right.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - yongjik 9y ago
      They already reinterpret constitution all the time. Founding fathers didn't have megaphones, and they simply stated that congress shall not restrict "free speech". Somehow the government had no problem making laws to restrict free speech, when the speech was delivered to a 130 dB speaker system blaring in a residential district at 2 am. (IANAL, I don't know the specific laws, but I'll be very surprised if that's not illegal.) I blame the lack of National Megaphone Association.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
joelrunyon 9y ago
Now do Switzerland.
- briffle 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
- _nalply 9y ago
  More than twenty years ago I once went with a friend shooting around in the woods. That was extremely dangerous and stupid of us. I surely do hope that this is made more difficult for young people of today in Switzerland.
  - pathseeker 9y ago
    >More than twenty years ago I once went with a friend shooting around in the woods. That was extremely dangerous and stupid of us. Why, did you and your friend not understand basic gun safety? Shooting in the woods is very safe with some simple training.
    - _nalply 9y ago
      Have you been to Switzerland? It's densely populated.
refurb 9y ago
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 9y ago
  And Switzerland, Norway, Finland...
kissmyDang 9y ago
SO you think the problem is people getting guns LEGALLY? THAT'S what you think the problem is? So all those murders in Chicago, Baltimore, et al are from legal gun owners? And all this because the current laws FAILED to be ENFORCED - so now lets get more laws and restrictions? are you serious? please explain this position. I am genuinely curious.
mnm1 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
  - donw 9y ago
    You do know that one of the deadliest mass shootings in US history -- Virginia Tech -- was done entirely with handguns, right? Against soft targets at close range (within about 25 meters), it doesn't matter if you have a rifle or a handgun. Mass shooters tend go for the AR-15 because it's common, popular, and because it looks intimidating. It is no more deadly for their purposes than any other commonly available firearm.
    - grolimpio 9y ago
      My comment was misleading. I didn't know about the Virginia Tech mass shooting details, but I did know that the latest mass shooting in Brazil was done with a couple of handguns. And you've made a very good point actually, comments like the one I've made don't help and I apologize for that. My concern was more about using countries like Brazil as an argument for discussing gun policies in a completely different country. It isn't uncommon having NRA lobbyist going there for misleading the population and trying to convince people that relaxing the gun policies in Brazil will "solve most of their problems". This is totally irresponsible and given the number of uneducated people we have, which will basically believe whatever a lobbyist from a well-known developed country says, it can actually cause more damage than good. A policy that isn't a big deal in the USA, can be a disaster in Brazil. By simply comparing crime rates between developed and undeveloped countries doesn't help anyone, anywhere.

18 points by electic 9y ago

vonzeppelin 9y ago

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

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ascorbic 9y ago
Well regulated
- vonzeppelin 9y ago
  A well regulated militia
  - refurb 9y ago
    "The right of the people...shall not be infringed"
  - flushot 9y ago
    "It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia..." "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms." - Justice Scalia DC vs. Heller https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  As in "regular" - practiced, and uniform. It's hard to argue that a militia is "well regulated" when arms aren't generally available.
jbob2000 9y ago
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.
- refurb 9y ago
  For all the complaints on HN about losing our rights, the Constitution is the only thing stopping it.
- pathseeker 9y ago
  >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 9y ago
    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.)
throwaway2016a 9y ago
Edit: Can't delete anymore because someone replied but I don't want to be part of this debate at this time so I am redacting this post.
- refurb 9y ago
  You should read some more, particularly DC v. Heller. Supreme Court ruled 2nd amendment protects and individual right. Also, the ideal of "reinterpreting" a right is terrible. They do that to the 2nd amendment and they can do it to the first. Change the Constitution if you want to take away the right.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - yongjik 9y ago
    They already reinterpret constitution all the time. Founding fathers didn't have megaphones, and they simply stated that congress shall not restrict "free speech". Somehow the government had no problem making laws to restrict free speech, when the speech was delivered to a 130 dB speaker system blaring in a residential district at 2 am. (IANAL, I don't know the specific laws, but I'll be very surprised if that's not illegal.) I blame the lack of National Megaphone Association.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

joelrunyon 9y ago

Now do Switzerland.

briffle 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
_nalply 9y ago
More than twenty years ago I once went with a friend shooting around in the woods. That was extremely dangerous and stupid of us. I surely do hope that this is made more difficult for young people of today in Switzerland.
- pathseeker 9y ago
  >More than twenty years ago I once went with a friend shooting around in the woods. That was extremely dangerous and stupid of us. Why, did you and your friend not understand basic gun safety? Shooting in the woods is very safe with some simple training.
  - _nalply 9y ago
    Have you been to Switzerland? It's densely populated.

refurb 9y ago

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 9y ago
And Switzerland, Norway, Finland...

kissmyDang 9y ago

SO you think the problem is people getting guns LEGALLY? THAT'S what you think the problem is? So all those murders in Chicago, Baltimore, et al are from legal gun owners? And all this because the current laws FAILED to be ENFORCED - so now lets get more laws and restrictions? are you serious? please explain this position. I am genuinely curious.

mnm1 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.
- donw 9y ago
  You do know that one of the deadliest mass shootings in US history -- Virginia Tech -- was done entirely with handguns, right? Against soft targets at close range (within about 25 meters), it doesn't matter if you have a rifle or a handgun. Mass shooters tend go for the AR-15 because it's common, popular, and because it looks intimidating. It is no more deadly for their purposes than any other commonly available firearm.
  - grolimpio 9y ago
    My comment was misleading. I didn't know about the Virginia Tech mass shooting details, but I did know that the latest mass shooting in Brazil was done with a couple of handguns. And you've made a very good point actually, comments like the one I've made don't help and I apologize for that. My concern was more about using countries like Brazil as an argument for discussing gun policies in a completely different country. It isn't uncommon having NRA lobbyist going there for misleading the population and trying to convince people that relaxing the gun policies in Brazil will "solve most of their problems". This is totally irresponsible and given the number of uneducated people we have, which will basically believe whatever a lobbyist from a well-known developed country says, it can actually cause more damage than good. A policy that isn't a big deal in the USA, can be a disaster in Brazil. By simply comparing crime rates between developed and undeveloped countries doesn't help anyone, anywhere.