# How many countries completely prohibit civilian firearm ownership? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150 "2009-12-13T22:55:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150/41 "2009-12-16T18:19:34Z")
Back to the OP’s question, how about the Vatican? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150/42 "2009-12-17T00:13:59Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Right, but this is not to take away from the fact that gun laws in countries like the UK is different in both spirit and letter of the law, with just one critical difference being that you are not entitled to a licence: you can be refused a gun licence for no given reason. That’s not quite true. You can be refused a gun licence for not meeting various clearly stated requirements (eg not being a member of a shooting club, not being of good character (ie convicted criminal or someone who is “known to the police”), not being able to provide secure storage facilities etc). They can’t just look at someone when they come in to lodge the application and say “That’s an awful cologne. No licence for you!” And even if they did, there are still avenues of appeal available. > [@](#): > > Similarly, it’s wrong to say drink-driving is banned. After all, you can drink-drive legally on a private road… No you can’t. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150/43 "2009-12-17T01:32:03Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > That’s not quite true. You can be refused a gun licence for not meeting various clearly stated requirements (eg not being a member of a shooting club, not being of good character (ie convicted criminal or someone who is “known to the police”), not being able to provide secure storage facilities etc). They can’t just look at someone when they come in to lodge the application and say “That’s an awful cologne. No licence for you!” At least in the US states where may-issue is still the law, that’s exactly what they can do. If the presumption is “fewer public guns are always better”, then the default becomes that the authorities never issue a license unless they believe there’s an overriding reason for that particular person to have a gun. As for “known to the police”, I can give you an example from my home state of Minnesota. One of the reasons by statute that one can be denied a carry permit is being listed in the state database as a known gang member. And how does one end up in that database? By some anonymous police officer entering your name into the database. Currently the state is being sued to allow people to appeal their inclusion in the database. For the time being, you can be denied a carry permit for not much more than having a police officer say “he had a shifty-eyed look about him…” ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150/44 "2009-12-17T01:38:55Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > As for “known to the police”, I can give you an example from my home state of Minnesota. One of the reasons by statute that one can be denied a carry permit is being listed in the state database as a known gang member. And how does one end up in that database? By some anonymous police officer entering your name into the database. Currently the state is being sued to allow people to appeal their inclusion in the database. For the time being, you can be denied a carry permit for not much more than having a police officer say “he had a shifty-eyed look about him…” You’re talking about Concealed Carry though, which is an entirely different kettle of fish to being allowed to own a gun in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150/45 "2009-12-17T10:08:29Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Similarly, it’s wrong to say drink-driving is banned. After all, you can drink-drive legally on a private road… Is that the case in the U.K.? It’s certainly not the case in Canada - it’s [a criminal offence to operate a motor vehicle while impaired, or with a BAC over .08.](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-6.html#codese:253) The offence isn’t tied in any way to being on a public road. ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150/46 "2009-12-17T11:02:26Z")
In the UK, the law specifically states that an offence is committed when “on a road or other public place”. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150/47 "2009-12-17T13:58:31Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > No you can’t. 😕 I was confused too, by your response, but I see that I forgot to say _in the UK_. To be honest, it wasn’t a very good example of a simple point I was trying to make, so let’s just draw a line under it. [QUOTE=Kal] In the UK, the law specifically states that an offence is committed when “on a road or other public place”. [/QUOTE] It’s a funny choice of words, isn’t it (it implies that a road is necessarily a public place)? But later on, it defines “road” as being a public highway. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150/48 "2009-12-17T14:21:33Z")
> [@Kal](#): > > In the UK, the law specifically states that an offence is committed when “on a road or other public place”. “Public place” means anywhere the public have access, not only publicly-owned places. That could include a private road, depending whether or not it is publicly accessible. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150/49 "2009-12-18T04:35:52Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > The situation in Canada - which would probably best mirror the US environment, but with government control: > > To own a gun you would need and FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate). As **Spoons** has pointed out, your terminology is out of date. FACs were replaced in the _Firearms Act_ of 1995 by possession licences. The difference is that you could let an FAC expire once you had acquired a firearm, since it was only needed to acquire firearms, not for your ongoing possession of a firearm. Now, you must have a current possession licence at all times when you have a firearm. > [@md2000](#): > > IIRC, along with the long gun registry came several interesting restrictions. Everyone in the house needs training or something like it. There is nothing in the _Firearms Act_ requiring other residents in the house to take firearms safety. > [@md2000](#): > > After an episode in Ottawa where some underage teens were firing out the window of their car randomly, you need an FAC to buy ammunition too. (What bureacratic Bozo overlooked that in the original law?) This is incorrect. [Section 25](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/F-11.6/20091217/page-4.html?rp2=HOME&rp3=SI&rp4=all&rp5=firearms&rp9=cs&rp10=L&rp13=50#codese:25) of the _Firearms Act_ has had this requirement in it right from the start. > [@md2000](#): > > Stupidity in action - members of the military, even gun instructors, must take the FAC course because there is no recognition for the military training. Sort of like the TSA screening Colin Powell going through the airport… This is incorrect. [Section 3(2)](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/F-11.6/20091217/page-2.html?rp2=HOME&rp3=SI&rp4=all&rp5=firearms&rp9=cs&rp10=L&rp13=50#codese:3) of the _Firearms Act_ clearly exempts the military from the Act’s requirements: > [@](#): > > \*\*Binding on Her Majesty > > 3.\*\* (1) This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province. > > **Canadian Forces** > > (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), this Act does not apply in respect of the Canadian Forces. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150/50 "2009-12-18T09:19:12Z")
curious about the china claims. I have personally witnessed on multiple occaisions Tibetans with hunting rifles. It was clearly above board. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150/51 "2009-12-18T11:23:02Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > curious about the china claims. I have personally witnessed on multiple occaisions Tibetans with hunting rifles. It was clearly above board. I’m mainly going off what I can find on Wikipedia wrt to Chinese firearms laws, but Tibet is _slightly_ different to The Rest of China in some respects from what I understand, which might account for some of it. Similarly, it’s still possible to own guns in Hong Kong, which is technically part of China but also not, depending how you look at it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-countries-completely-prohibit-civilian-firearm-ownership/521150.md?page=2)