Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Which Countries Other Than the U.S. Allow Private Ownership of Guns?

rated by 0 users
This post has 10 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 173
Points 3,810
Brutus Posted: Wed, Oct 19 2011 10:40 PM

I was listening to Neil Boortz today, and he was mentioning to an entrepreneuer that there are 9 countries in the world who have more economic freedom than the U.S. This made me think: which countries other than the U.S. allow private ownership of guns and other weapons?

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Oct 19 2011 11:30 PM

With a sufficiently narrow definition of "private" and "allow", I think most countries in the world. I don't think the state provides all bodyguard and armored car services even in countries like Germany with insanely strict gun laws.

The phrase I prefer to "private gun ownership" is "popular gun ownership" because that's what we're really debating. The wealthy in every country have private, armed bodyguards. Banks in every country have private, armored transports. And many countries with weak central governments (e.g. Afghanistan) have widespread gun ownership irrespective of whatever laws the government might concoct.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
John James replied on Wed, Oct 19 2011 11:39 PM

 

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,010
Points 17,405

Switzerland totally disproves the claim that Europe is less gun-deathy than the US because of gun control. That's why the prohibitionists conveniently forget to mention it.

"They all look upon progressing material improvement as upon a self-acting process." - Ludwig von Mises
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Thu, Oct 20 2011 11:56 AM

They do require military training, but I am not sure that it is what would keep them from killing each other.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

You could easily make the argument that would make it more likely.  Just pretend you're a leftist.  It's easy, watch:

"Oh so you not only want everyone to have a gun, you want them to be trained killers?  You want them to be taught and indoctrinated in the ways of war?  THAT'S what's going to help everyone be safe?!  By giving everyone guns and teaching them how to be most efficient at killing each other?!!!"

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

Not that this is on topic, but it reminded me of an interesting story. The NRA actually wrote the first gun control law and, ironically, it was aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of leftists, specifically the Black Panthers.

Oh how the times have changed.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 173
Points 3,810
Brutus replied on Sat, Oct 22 2011 8:09 PM

Clayton:

With a sufficiently narrow definition of "private" and "allow", I think most countries in the world. I don't think the state provides all bodyguard and armored car services even in countries like Germany with insanely strict gun laws.

The phrase I prefer to "private gun ownership" is "popular gun ownership" because that's what we're really debating. The wealthy in every country have private, armed bodyguards. Banks in every country have private, armored transports. And many countries with weak central governments (e.g. Afghanistan) have widespread gun ownership irrespective of whatever laws the government might concoct.

Clayton -

You're very annoying to redirect what I asked. You know exactly what I was asking, and you pull this relativist switcharoo with the terminology. I'm surprised you actually used words for fear of denoting some absolutist principles. Semantics exist, but so does meaning. Private ownership means exactly what it implies.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sat, Oct 22 2011 8:16 PM

You're very annoying to redirect what I asked. You know exactly what I was asking, and you pull this relativist switcharoo with the terminology. I'm surprised you actually used words for fear of denoting some absolutist principles. Semantics exist, but so does meaning. Private ownership means exactly what it implies.

Save the ad hominem, I was just pointing out that, as far as I know, most or all countries have private gun ownership, just not in the '2nd amendment' sense of supposedly government-guaranteed popular gun ownership.

The reason I point out the distinction is that it is the crux of the hypocrisy of most gun control advocates - they are not actually opposed to all private gun ownership, they're just opposed to popular gun ownership. I don't think the average patron of moveon.org stays up at night worrying about whether Brinks or La Garda employees are carrying guns or whether Rupert Murdoch's bodyguard is carrying a full-auto Uzi in his concealed fast-bag. So, if you're a large corporation that moves cash or other valuables around, gun ownership is just fine with the moveon.org types. If you're an ultra-wealthy tycoon and you have an entourage of bodyguards armed to the teeth, that's also just fine with the moveon.org types. But if you own a small business (say, a 7-11) or you're a middle-class homeowner who can't afford a bodyguard service, then the average patron of moveon.org would prefer to see you helpless in the event of a robbery or burglary than to allow you to arm yourself just like Brinks, La Garda and Rupert Murdoch can.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 173
Points 3,810
Brutus replied on Sat, Oct 22 2011 8:35 PM

Clayton:

You're very annoying to redirect what I asked. You know exactly what I was asking, and you pull this relativist switcharoo with the terminology. I'm surprised you actually used words for fear of denoting some absolutist principles. Semantics exist, but so does meaning. Private ownership means exactly what it implies.

Save the ad hominem, I was just pointing out that, as far as I know, most or all countries have private gun ownership, just not in the '2nd amendment' sense of supposedly government-guaranteed popular gun ownership.

The reason I point out the distinction is that it is the crux of the hypocrisy of most gun control advocates - they are not actually opposed to all private gun ownership, they're just opposed to popular gun ownership. I don't think the average patron of moveon.org stays up at night worrying about whether Brinks or La Garda employees are carrying guns or whether Rupert Murdoch's bodyguard is carrying a full-auto Uzi in his concealed fast-bag. So, if you're a large corporation that moves cash or other valuables around, gun ownership is just fine with the moveon.org types. If you're an ultra-wealthy tycoon and you have an entourage of bodyguards armed to the teeth, that's also just fine with the moveon.org types. But if you own a small business (say, a 7-11) or you're a middle-class homeowner who can't afford a bodyguard service, then the average patron of moveon.org would prefer to see you helpless in the event of a robbery or burglary than to allow you to arm yourself just like Brinks, La Garda and Rupert Murdoch can.

Clayton -

Yet your ad hominem accusation is nothing short of a red herring. Getting to the issue...I take it from the bit of research I've done that Switzerland is a decent country for private gun ownership.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 206
Points 3,855

John James:
You could easily make the argument that would make it more likely.  Just pretend you're a leftist.  It's easy, watch:

"Oh so you not only want everyone to have a gun, you want them to be trained killers?  You want them to be taught and indoctrinated in the ways of war?  THAT'S what's going to help everyone be safe?!  By giving everyone guns and teaching them how to be most efficient at killing each other?!!!"

Ha!  I love it!  The trouble with the leftist argument is that that is exactly what has kept Switzerland free and safe for centuries.  They are all trained killers, and good for them.  It actually brought a tear of joy to my eye when the video above mentioned that ammo was provided by their government.  Now this is one subsidy I can support.

Sound banking and ass-kicking:  legacy of the Knights Templar!

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (11 items) | RSS