Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation/Archive 7

Argentina RENAR is now ANMaC & regulation on gun amunition
The Argentina section, needs to be updated, the most important change needed, is the governement entity that regulated guns has been changed (name and some regulation laws had changed extending the reach to any "state controled" material (guns, ammo, bulltproff vests/bulletprof contraptions like a bulletprof window -you need a permit to have/own/wear, just like guns do-), explosives, chemicals or materials used to make explosives and amunition, chemical weapons, electric defence weapons, etc,..) that now regulate guns the "National Weapons Registry" (Registro Nacional de Armas) known as "RENAR", is since October 19, 2015, "National Agency for Controlled Materials" (Agencia Nacional de Materiales Controlados) known "ANMaC" Law Number 27.192 at infoleg website Law at ANMaC (ex-RENAR) website

all variants of firearems permits, (use, carry, possesion). require you to prove that you have a lawful source of income.

firearms ammunition has regulations/restrictions to purchase not only on kind but also in amount over time, its controled and registered on the ANMaC. bulletprof items are also regulated (you even need a "Legitimate possession permit for bulletprof vest" to obtain it you are required to have "Legitimate User of Firearms" permit, if you dont have the autorization to use firearms, you cant buy/sell have/use bulletprof vest)

also there is a wrong statement about handguns, pistols and revolver caliber restrictions are diferent. current version of the article states that not-fully automatic handguns up to .32 are civil use, that is not true, thats only for pistols, for simgle, and double action revolver the "civil use" is up to .25 (6,35mm) above that is "weapon of war/civil conditional use" same as non-fully automatic pistol above .32

there is also a third type of handgun clsification in argentina besides revolver and pistols, and is called "pistolones" on spanish (are handguns/pistols that use shotgun shells and can be single or double-barreled) are single shot up to caliber .36 are civil use, above that, are forbidden (because will be a shotgun with barrel shorter than 380mm) ANMaC/RENAR website handguns regulation on spanish ANMaC/RENAR website "shoulderguns" regulation on spanish

i hope someone with better technical and legal english skills can modify the article to reflect all this. --WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Philippines
The sentence in the Philippines section, "The presence of a gun culture in the Philippines can be traced to the long-term effects of American influence." as well as the phrase in the previous sentence, "due to its active gun culture", were added in two nearly-simultaneous edits by an IP user on 2016-02-10. The second sentence in particular at the very least violates WP:V, and perhaps also WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I am adding a citation-needed template to it, and recommend deletion of the sentence. Dfavro (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, I did find a reference in the article to the influence of American media in the Philippines, but it was not cited on that sentence or anywhere in that paragraph, rather as part of a separate paragraph with a similar statement that better reflects the contents of reference; so I merged the two sentences, rather than using the citation-needed template. Dfavro (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good. Thanks for fixing it. (I moved this thread to the end, as that's Wikipedia custom.) Felsic2 (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

July 2017 copyedit
Sorry this took me a while. I've done my first pass of the article, and here are my initial notes: I'll take a little break then give the article at least one more pass. If you have any questions or comments, please post them here. I don't mind changing things back if there are issues. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I expanded the lead and tried to put most of the general links for terminology up there, hoping the following sections wouldn't have to repeat too much of that.
 * My biggest issue with the article was its length, more that 15,000 words, which is above the 10,000-word maximum recommended by WP:LENGTH. Lenience is usually shown toward list-like articles, but I think it's important in an overview article like this to stay on topic.  Considering that comprehensive coverage of this topic should include 150+ countries, I feel we should be aiming for a 100–200 word maximum per country – if not moving entirely to a list or table format.  With these matters in mind, I removed (or commented-out) some extraneous material:
 * mentions of regulated weapons other than firearms/small arms, such as air guns, explosives, crossbows, nunchucks, swords, tasers and pepper spray
 * historical background of gun control in a country, such as the Japanese suppression of firearms during the occupation of Taiwan
 * some statistics (case-by-case basis) which are not part of the law itself, such as crime, death or gun-ownership statistics
 * trivia, such as citizens owning handguns without a permit on Crete, excessive detail on challenges to concealed carry laws in US.
 * For article consistency, I will probably change licence → license and defence → defense unless part of a proper noun. Probably also target shooting → sport shooting and pistol → handgun.
 * In some cases there was effort by some well-meaning editors to reflect on the effect of the gun laws; I feel that's beyond the scope of this overview. This should just report what the laws are like now; there isn't a lot of room to debate whether they are good or effective laws.
 * Israel: I was confused how the section has a list of persons eligible for firearm licenses, but then later seems to suggest there are a lot of other people who are also eligible. It could use a lot of simplification, but I'm unsure how the two groups differ.
 * Austria: mentions handgun ammo but neglects handguns.
 * Argentina: mentions civil use and conditional civil use but does not state the difference.
 * Apparently the copyedit has removed an up-to-date and detailed description of Romanian gun laws in favour of an outdated and misleading one. I have taken the liberty to restore and further update the old one, despite the extra wordiness, in hopes someone else will be able to properly condense the information (which comes directly from the law). The information is not contained in any of the categories you mentioned and is directly in line with the topic. 178.138.96.90 (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

European Union?
Why does the European Union have an entry in an article called 'overview of gun laws by nation'? The EU is not a nation, and whilst I can appreciate that EU-level regulations might affect gun law in the member states, it's no different to other treaty organisations imposing regulation, such as the UN.

To be clear, there is a strong political thread amongst some people that would love to see the EU become a nation, but in 2017 it absolutely is not one. On that basis I can't see how it belongs in this article, unless the title were to be changed. JulesVerne (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Because the EU has issued several regulations on firearms law, such as 91/EEC/477, which *supersede* the law of all EU member states. In the specific area of firearms law, the EU has primacy. However, the EU specifically wrote that regulation in such a manner as to have it provide a minimum standard for firearms law that had to apply in all member states, but which could be exceeded by any member state who wished to do so; for example, the ban on pistol ownership in mainland UK isn't in the EU regulation, but was added on by the UK, and that is specifically provided for in the regulation. MarkDennehy (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Russia
There is a section-wide "citation needed" tag on the entry for Russia. I don't have time to update the section, but I happened to find a pretty good article on Russian gun laws, from the US Library of Congress. Here's the raw link for anyone interested in following up on that: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/russia.php Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 15:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

North Korea
The article says:
 * North Korea strictly prohibits the use, ownership, manufacture, or distribution of firearms by any citizen not serving in the military or special sectors of the government "executing official duties". Anyone in violation of firearms laws are subject to "stern consequences".

This is what the relevant part of the source says:
 * Under the regulations, guns are allowed only for its "primary purposes" including executing official duties such as keeping guard and training. Institutions, businesses, groups and the public are prohibited from possessing or transacting firearms according to the law, which also banned lending, smuggling, destroying and self-producing firearms. Those who violate the rules, resulting in "stern consequences," are subject to administrative and criminal liabilities, the North says in the law.

The translation is not good and the information is limited. Given that the act reportedly has 42 articles, it appears likely that there is more to it than this report says. However, the text does not say that civilians are banned from using guns (unless that is what "possessing" means). Executing official duties is only given as an example of primary purposes. What are the others? It also doesn't appear to say that violators are subject to stern consequences. Moreover, I don't think we should place too much weight on one report, particularly one that is badly written. I will simplify the article's text.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Shall-issue?
The second sentence of the lead finishes with the words "... several other countries like Canada and the Czech Republic, despite theoretically being restrictive, are shall-issue countries." This is the first usage of "shall-issue". The term is not linked or defined until later in the lead. I suspect it's a common term in the USA where no doubt a lot of those with an interest in this article are from, but it isn't where I live. In fact, despite a strong interest in my own country's gun laws over many years, I had no idea what it mean until a few weeks ago. I will move the link to the first usage, but I would love to see a more globally understood term be used at that first usage. Any suggestions? HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Shall-issue goes to Right-to-carry law. So how about "right-to-carry"? That's easier to understand for us un-Americans.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like some globally understood, plain English please, not jargon invented by gun enthusiasts. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I said "easier", not "easy"!!! I don't think anywhere outside the USA has elaborate jargon about firearms. What about "accept the right to own guns in practice"?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "Right to carry" is not that useful either - "carry" has specific meaning in Irish and UK firearms law and it relates to carriage (usually from the storage location to the point of use in a case), not the meaning it has in the US (where it would refer to being in possession of the firearm during the daily course of events without a specific destination in mind, as opposed to the going-from-A-to-B aspect we see here). MarkDennehy (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Belgium?
Nothing? Why? RTShadow (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Permissive and Restrictive List
I find the top of this page humorous. The source is unworthy and not even relevant to the topic. Many countries listed with permissive firearm laws have strict firearm laws, while others not even mentioned have far more lax laws related to guns. Someone needs to work on this page, urgently. The2016 (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Out of line and untidy
The article is in desperate need of reform. It doesn't accurately address most gun laws around the world, some countries are incorrectly marked and outdated information is used. It's frustrating. The2016 (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi @The2016. The NFA was formulated by Australasian Police Ministers' Council (APMC) in 1996. This agreement is not law (as you have stated), however this agreement encourages all Australian States and Territories to enact laws consistent with this agreement. All states and territories complied with the NFA and passed laws in this regard. I also agree with you that this article is using terminology that is not universally understood due to these definitions being jargonistic and particular to individual nations laws. I welcome discussion to help improve this article. CamV8 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Gday @The2016, If you would like to discuss I am happy to help find sources. This article does need improvement throughout. Just because the rest of the article needs work doesn't mean wp:rs doesn't apply. CamV8 (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

2017 JAMA study
An IP editor has been repeatedly attempting to remove the 2017 JAMA Internal Medicine study, stating it is "outdated" or "irrelevant". I personally don't think a 2 year old study is likely to be outdated, barring some new study that conclusively changes the results, and it is certainly not irrelevant to an article on gun laws, but I would be interested to hear from other editors. Pinging as potentially interested editors. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have left a note on the IP editor's Talk page pointing out what you have said above, and suggesting he comes to this talk page to present his case. Let's see what happens. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The content is the most uptodate, from a major journal, is a review article, and is completely on topic. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

We have a 2016 review that comes to similar conclusions "Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26905895

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Lower rates of intimate partner homicides is not the same as lower rates of homicides in general, or lower rates of gun homicides. Domestic homicides are merely a subset of homicides, most homicides are not intimate partner homicides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abatementyogin (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Study reported by NCJRS
A rather odd summary of a 2001 report by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service was recently added and removed. The source, NCJRS document 191355, reports on: I found the source quite interesting and therefore likely to be relevant, if not to this article, then perhaps to a related one. The conclusions of the abstract are as follows (public domain, so no copyright issues):

It would be a shame to lose a useful source simply because it was poorly summarised when originally added to this article, so I'm placing this here for future reference or reuse here or elsewhere. --RexxS (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My removal of that edit still seems OK to me. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 16:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. There was no criticism of your revert intended, as the edit was near incomprehensible and probably missed most of the salient points in the source. --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How was it an "odd summary?" The study found no significant correlations between gun ownership and overall homicide rates, total firearm homicide rates (involving both sexes), and male firearm homicides. The only significant correlation was with female gun homicide rates Abatementyogin (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't what the edit I removed said, is it? Diff -Roxy, the dog . wooF 22:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It literally did. The study found that gun ownership by nation was only associated with female firearm homicides. There were no significant correlations with male firearm homicide, firearm homicide rates in general (including both sexes), or overall homicide rates. The great majority of homicides worldwide involve male victims. Furthermore the study cited by found that stricter gun laws was significantly associated with a lower rate of intimate partner firearm homicides. This is not the same as firearm homicides in general because, again, the majority of murders gun or non-gun related are not domestic ones. It is wrongly generalized to lower firearm homicide rates in general.Abatementyogin (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "The study found that gun ownership by nation was only associated with female firearm homicides". No, the study found that the presence of guns in the home (not the same thing as gun ownership by nation) had strong correlations with three outcomes: (1) suicide committed with a gun; (2) rates of gun-related homicide that involved female victims; and (3) gun-related assault. You should also consider the fact that domestic homicides constitute half of all homicides of females. --RexxS (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The study was comparing the percentage of households that own firearms across 21 nations using survey data from the ICVS. Read it yourself: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279542116_Guns_Violent_Crime_and_Suicide_in_21_Countries As I already stated the great majority of homicide victims are male. Hence why the percentage of household firearm ownership by nation did not correlate with overall homicide, male gun homicide or total gun homicide rates (again including both sexes.) The study finds more negative effects for homicides than positive.Abatementyogin (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It literally didn't. Diff. I find this to be bordering on WP:CIR -Roxy, the dog . wooF 06:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Click on the link and download the full text yourself. It reports the percentage of gun ownership by household per country. The data was gathered from the ICVS. It is NOT case-control study as RexxS was suggesting. Furthermore as I clearly stated, the only significant association was with female homicide rates, your link to my edit clearly states that. Abatementyogin (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggested nothing of the sort. It's clearly a meta-analysis of a broad range of data collected from multiple countries. Do you read English or French? The document you refer to contains the same wording on pages 2 and 3 (in French and English) as I quoted above. Here is the key sentence again: That's three very strong correlations with the presence of firearms in the home, not "The study found that gun ownership by nation was only associated with female firearm homicides" as you'd like us to believe. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Suicide is not homicide, are you dense? The only correlation for HOMICIDE was with female firearm homicides. Gun ownership had no significant correlations with overall homicide, gun homicides (total involving both sexes), and male gun homicides. I never mentioned anything about suicides, complete red herring.Abatementyogin (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Click on the link and download the full text yourself. It reports the percentage of gun ownership by household per country. The data was gathered from the ICVS. It is NOT case-control study as RexxS was suggesting. Furthermore as I clearly stated, the only significant association was with female homicide rates, your link to my edit clearly states that. Abatementyogin (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggested nothing of the sort. It's clearly a meta-analysis of a broad range of data collected from multiple countries. Do you read English or French? The document you refer to contains the same wording on pages 2 and 3 (in French and English) as I quoted above. Here is the key sentence again: That's three very strong correlations with the presence of firearms in the home, not "The study found that gun ownership by nation was only associated with female firearm homicides" as you'd like us to believe. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Suicide is not homicide, are you dense? The only correlation for HOMICIDE was with female firearm homicides. Gun ownership had no significant correlations with overall homicide, gun homicides (total involving both sexes), and male gun homicides. I never mentioned anything about suicides, complete red herring.Abatementyogin (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It is 2001 study with the most recent data set used being 1996. Violent crime rates went through sharp decline through the entire Western world since 1990s, including US where homicide rate halved.

I'd say it is fair to conclude that this study is obsolete and either should not be mentioned, or should be mentioned with added information that it is clearly too old. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then you'll have no problem citing reliable sources that show the study's finding are no longer valid or make the point that it's too old. What are they? --RexxS (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then you'll have no problem citing reliable sources that show the study's finding are no longer valid or make the point that it's too old. What are they? --RexxS (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Joules
, joules are a measure of energy.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am a scientist, I know what joules are! It needs clarification in that particular section given no mention is made as to what it means in the context of weapons. Laypeople don't know what this means; I for one have no idea what it's referring to. The paragraph mentions a weapon's "energy level" without previous explanation. I am copy editing the entire article and would love to improve this. Thanks, PK650 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to be patronising.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem at all! How can we improve that part? PK650 (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Permissive list
Dividing countries into just permissive and restrictive is oversimplified. Some countries listed as "restrictive" ban guns altogether while some require shall-issue permit. Countries listed as 'permissive' also fall into different categories. I would replace sentence in introduction with more detailed description divide like in table and map (permitless/shall-issue/may-issue/no-issue). Borysk5 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, "permissive"/"restrictive" is much too black and white; your idea would be much better. Another qualification is that many countries limit the caliber (diameter of projectile) of firearm that civilians can own (0.5") in the US, .38 in some countries, .22 in in other countries. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * With such a criteria, how would you class the EU law which classifies firearms as Category A — Prohibited firearms; Category B — Firearms subject to authorization; and Category C — Firearms and weapons subject to declaration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.209.235 (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the Swedish K(M-45) really legal in Sweden?
I've heard that the license for the M-45 is no longer being issued. The comparison section says that the Swedish K is still availible to civilians, but I think it's more complicated than that since a submachinegun license in Sweden must be hard to get. Can anyone provide a citation to clarify this? https://www.thelocal.se/20110725/35156

Graylandertagger (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Russia - why "may issue"?
Why on the overview map Russian gun policy is marked as "may issue"? Gun permits are issued to everybody who meets the conditions required by Federal Law #150 "On weapons". In Russia there are no such policy that the state may deny your gun permit request without any reason - all denial reasons are clarified in Article 13 of the aforementioned law. All such cases are just a law violation from the side of local authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.4.242.24 (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, Russian gun legislation doesn't distinguish open and concealed carry, like in the US. There are carry and transporting distinguished. You may transport guns everywhere, the gun must be unloaded an packed in the case (as a case can serve everything - there are no such requirements for it in the legislation). The carry is restricted - you may carry long-barrel weapons at a hunting or sport objects, as for LTL's - you may carry it everywhere, except of places distinguished in Article 6 of the aforementioned law.

As a basis of gun ownership in Russia there are two legal acts - Federal Law #150 and Government Decree #814.
 * You're right. I changed the table and added some source on acceptance rate. Borysk5 (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

May issue and shall issue issue
The concept of shall-issue and may-issue may be a colloquial or idiomatic term. It could be better defined, for instance:
 * making clearer why it is named shall-issue and may-issue, which might not always be obvious;
 * making clearer if it is American English, British English or both.


 * It's definitely not Australian English. I doubt if it's British English. And this Australian really struggles to know what the terms mean. They probably should be avoided completely in this global article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. I'm thinking currently thinking about more making map in different way without these terms. Borysk5 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Map
I think about adding category to map - shall-issue in practice with countries that accept more than 90% of firearm license applications. Placing New Zealand into may-issue while they accept 99% of licenses seems a bit misleading. Borysk5 (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

After some thinking I decided to base map on whether countries require good reason to own firearms (essentially different than declaration "I want to own a gun"). Gunpolicy.org has some nice table about it with some countries having more complicated situation but it's probably better than this shall, may-issue Americanized terms. Borysk5 (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I will also write here bigger changes I will made. Firstly, since virtually every country requires background checks for firearm sales "Free of checks" column in table doesnt seem very useful with only few countries having something other than "no" and usually those are some marginal exceptions like 19th century firearms. US can have note about checks in "Long guns" and "Handguns" columns. Borysk5 (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Cuba
Everything written on Cuba is a lie and it should be rectified that it is one thing what they say to the world and another thing what is actually happening inside Cuba. No one has guns in Cuba not even hunting or BB guns. Only police with high ranks. This needs to be edited. Source : lived there. Jenniferf98 (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Untitled
needs to be updated since ANA is no longer the legal government, mashallah :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.176.44 (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Vocabulary and terminology
The introduction of this article is rather confusing:
 * It deals with guns and firearms without defining them while definition is subject to vary from country to country, from state to state and from nation to nation.
 * It stands that there would be no categorization of arms in some countries, while the simple fact of having various definitions makes different kinds (categories) or arms which could make difficult international comparison.
 * It use the concept of shall-issue and may-issue as a colloquial idiomatic term without defining why it is named shall-issue and may-issue, which might not always be obvious.

It is not sensible to rely on US-centric definitions without saying so - other jurisdictions (UK and most of the EU for that matter) consider guns to include air-rifles and airpistols, and licence accordingly, though with a much lower bar than for higher energy devices. Also in most of the world almost any licence is 'may issue' as the whole point of a licence application is that it is reviewed and may be declined by the registration authority, in some countries without giving any reason, and in others the reason for refusal must be given. (to avoid the possibility of unfair discrimination) The only place on the planet with a constitutional 'right to bear arms' is North America... as reflected in their superlative number of gunshot deaths per capita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.207.29.2 (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Vocabulary and terminology of guns and small arms proposal
The Proposal is the following:

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Msh8171.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC) ==AFGHANISTAN

Ukraine
I think Ukraine should change the color of the maps and the description of the right to arms should also be changed. On February 23, a new law on access to weapons was adopted there. Adijos08 (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

US right framing, going into gun control debate
"although there was a lack of clear federal court rulings defining the right in relation to militia service until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it protects any individual's right to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes" This seems off. The Cruikshank decision had no militia context, and it was ruled a pre-existing right protected by the Constitution. State courts did rule on the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, but these are excluded. "Clear" is weasel words that allows an author to exclude decisions that don't fit the narrative ("Cruikshank wasn't clear"). It seems this is injecting the gun control debate into an article that's only meant to describe the state of the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuilaBird (talk • contribs) 16:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan
The section for Taiwan is grossly incorrect. Theres essentially no legal civilian weapons ownership, and the for licensing system for self defense guns is essentially only for active duty servicemembers. One of its sources is inaccessible now, too. 112.78.79.122 (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

North Carolina
Recently, the North Carolina state legislature overrode Gov. Roy Cooper's veto. Effective immediately, one no longer needs a permit to purchase a firearm.

Will someone please change the color on the map from green to blue?

Pine (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source? - Roxy the dog 08:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookup/2023/Sb41
 * Here's the official North Carolina webpage, containing both the full text as well as its status.
 * Pine (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe you meant blue to green. It's already blue. Probably best to contact the most recent image author, User:MrThunderbolt1000T. I believe by wikilinking to his username there, it should ping him. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The map addresses the requirement to obtain a permit before carrying a concealed handgun. It has nothing to do with handgun purchase permits or handgun purchase laws. North Carolina still requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun as of April 10, 2023. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't mean either of the two maps in the "Americas" section. I'm talking about the (lower) map in the "Comparison" section.
 * It depicts South Sudan, Yemen, and 38 states in blue, as well as 12 states (including North Carolina) in green. Somebody, though, really ought to change it to blue.


 * Here's a link to the source article.


 * https://apnews.com/article/pistol-permit-veto-override-north-carolina-b9d0ee55bf658ca72043bd3f706b128f#:~:text=RALEIGH%2C%20N.C.,veto%20%E2%80%94%20a%20first%20since%202018


 * Pine (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Borysk5 (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Armenia
The map for Armenia is correct. Citizens can indeed own handguns with a permit, and have been able to since independence from the USSR.

Reference: https://evnreport.com/law-society/armenias-new-gun-law-risks-and-advantages/] ArmenianSniper (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Portugal
The source cited for the regulations in the comparison graph is severely outdated, and now longer the law of the land. The following is the current legislation regulating firearms in Portugal : https://dre.pt/dre/detalhe/lei/50-2019-123436957

Automatic firearms are not unconditionally prohibited from civilian ownership, and a license to own them alongside other class A weapons may be granted to collectors, as stated in article 4;

'Sem prejuízo do disposto no número anterior, mediante autorização especial do diretor nacional da PSP, podem ser autorizadas a venda, a aquisição, a cedência, a detenção, a utilização, a importação, a exportação e a transferência de armas, munições e acessórios da classe A destinados a colecionadores, museus públicos ou privados, coleções visitáveis, investigação científica ou industrial e utilizações em realizações teatrais, cinematográficas ou outros espetáculos de natureza artística, de reconhecido interesse cultural e histórico, com exceção de bens e tecnologias militares cuja autorização é da competência do membro do Governo responsável pela área da defesa nacional.'

Centerfire rifles with a magazine capacity of over 10 and pistols with a magazine capacity over 20 may also be authorized for sport shooters. 213.194.147.250 (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Gun politics in Indonesia" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_Indonesia&redirect=no Gun politics in Indonesia] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Paul_012 (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)