So the US has famously lax gun laws, as viewed from the rest of the “western” world. But it does have some, automatic weapons for example are effectively banned (the details are complicated)
Does any country have laxer laws on the ownership of private firearms? I don’t mean state-owned firearms, so countries where conscripts are required to take their rifles home (such Switzerland and Israel, IIRC) don’t count. Likewise for countries that have gun laws but they aren’t actually enforced (along with any other laws) so weapons are widespread (e.g. Somalia or Syria)
I remember reading somewhere that the occupying powers in Iraq allowed one AK-47 per-household (presumably military full-automatic ones, not the semi-automatic variant that are legal in the US), was that actually codified in a law, or just military policy during the occupation?
Is that actually the case? I can’t find a cite, but I would have thought Somalia would have typical post-colonial Italian style gun laws (as a former Italian colony). But hasn’t had a government capable of enforcing them (or any other law) for decades.
But that definition of “permissive” is still stricter than the US. The US does NOT require a license to own private firearm (except for small number of restricted types of guns, like machine guns).
It’s not really a direct comparison. You seem to be only counting federal laws. Like with many things the laws governing guns are more often at the state level.
Only 3 states require a license for gun ownership (and I wouldn’t put money on those laws surviving the current make up of the supreme court) I’d say its perfectly accurate to say the US does not require a license to own a gun.
I’m really not sure if lax is the word I’d use. We have plenty of laws regarding firearms, who can and cannot possess them, what type are legal or illegal to own, what can be done with a firearm and what cannot be done.
Unfortunately we also have criminals in this country who quite frankly don’t give a rat’s ass about the law, gun related or not. But we thankfully also have tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of law abiding firearm owners.
Laws have never really been a problem here, those willing to break the law have always been a problem.
How is that different than anywhere else? By definition, criminals are indifferent (or worse) to the laws they break.
Are you imaging that other countries have law-abiding criminals? What would that even mean?
Again, I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here. Is it that crime is committed by criminals? That seems so trivial that you must be saying something else.
There is an area of Norway where carrying a gun is compulsory. Preferably a rifle. 7,62 mm minimum caliber. If the weapon is a handgun, it must be a 44 or higher caliber.
Can you give a cite for that. Wikipedia says "Gun ownership is restricted in Norway, unless one has officially documented a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defense, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency."
See you can’t get hung up on the language because even that is hard to compare. My state of New Jersey is recognized as having some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. You don’t need a license. You do need a firearms purchasers ID card to do just about anything gun related. It’s also legal to get a concealed carry permit but in reality it’s basically impossible to get. In 51 years of life and 21 years as a cop I’ve never met anyone who can carry legally who isn’t a cop or retired cop. Not requiring a “license” doesn’t mean there are no restrictions.
I know one. A woman, old college friend, who is a prosecutor. She prosecuted some bad guys, got lots of threats, credible enough so that she was issued a permit. As far as I know, she no longer feels the need to carry a gun, but she did for a while.