Back to the OP’s question, how about the Vatican?
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.
No you can’t. 
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…”
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.
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. The offence isn’t tied in any way to being on a public road.
In the UK, the law specifically states that an offence is committed when “on a road or other public place”.
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.
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.
“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.
As Spoons has pointed out, your terminology is out of date.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.
There is nothing in the Firearms Act requiring other residents in the house to take firearms safety.
This is incorrect. Section 25 of the Firearms Act has had this requirement in it right from the start.
This is incorrect. Section 3(2) of the Firearms Act clearly exempts the military from the Act’s requirements:
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.