Gun Laws!

[rama0929]

With regards to kids walking the streets with AK-47s draped over their arms - I assume renodante is referring to the real thing and not toys - I have never seen it. In the 15 years in Mexico, the only people I saw with AK-47s were Army soldiers.

Could this be what you're referring to?

Kids are allowed to legally participate in machine gun shoots in the USA. In October, pumpkins and other targets are set up for kids, and Uzi's are one firearm they can play with. One 8-year old boy died by one of the fast-streaming bullets that came from his Uzi when it recoiled jumping up and backwards. He died soon after leaving the premises.

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Kids legally play with Uzi's at Machine Gun Shoot event, 1 shoots himself | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/kids-l ... z1ajcmXPxp


Or perhaps this is what renodante is thinking of: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/two_young_children_shot_with_a.php

No, he was referring to Brazil

for example, in some brazilian favelas, the police spec ops teams are literally air dropped via helicopter into the area they need to go to bring a drug dealer out. once in, they're greeted with a populace armed to the teeth with assault weaponry who are generally not afraid to shoot at them as soon as they land. special forces from other areas of the world, military special forces, train with brazilian police spec ops teams, because they have more actual combat experience than some country's military spec ops teams. it's not rare to find kids walking around favelas with ak-47's etc slung over their arms.

http://blog.travelpod.com/travel-blog-e ... /tpod.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4338652.stm

Oh and rama, the snide "passive aggressive" remark was a cute rejoinder but way off base.

Given that this isn't the first time you've been called on it, no it isn't.

What I said is absolutely true, and you know it, see. U.S. persons are told from birth that we are the best, the only true defenders of democracy, et al, etc., ad nauseam. So when we see, hear or read something that indicates that we are less than perfect, we are often incredulous.

Have you forgotten that I have experiences in other countries? We? Speak for yourself. I am certainly aware of the flaws of the US. I'd still take my chances here, than elsewhere.

[renodante]

With regards to kids walking the streets with AK-47s draped over their arms - I assume renodante is referring to the real thing and not toys - I have never seen it. In the 15 years in Mexico, the only people I saw with AK-47s were Army soldiers.

yeah. i was talking about brazil. and nothing you meantion about the u.s comes even remotely close to it, kids getting killed by accident in a controlled shooting range is a different universe from what i'm talking about. also what goes on in the border towns of mexico, cartels basically running the place. nothing similar in the u.s. but again, i concede that border areas are a special case in mexico, just pointing out that where it's really bad, the level of danger is unrivaled, there's no comparison.

for the record i'm not a USA #1 WOO HOO! kind of guy.

[Polaron]

With regards to kids walking the streets with AK-47s draped over their arms - I assume renodante is referring to the real thing and not toys - I have never seen it. In the 15 years in Mexico, the only people I saw with AK-47s were Army soldiers.

Could this be what you're referring to?

Kids are allowed to legally participate in machine gun shoots in the USA. In October, pumpkins and other targets are set up for kids, and Uzi's are one firearm they can play with. One 8-year old boy died by one of the fast-streaming bullets that came from his Uzi when it recoiled jumping up and backwards. He died soon after leaving the premises.

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Kids legally play with Uzi's at Machine Gun Shoot event, 1 shoots himself | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/kids-l ... z1ajcmXPxp


Or perhaps this is what renodante is thinking of: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/two_young_children_shot_with_a.php

No, he was referring to Brazil.

Wrong again. He was referring - without any kind of supporting evidence - to Mexico. He had to be, given that the discussion was centered on violent crime in Mexico vs the U.S. Now if he wishes to back away from that statement, it is his prerogative to do so.

Oh and rama, the snide "passive aggressive" remark was a cute rejoinder but way off base.

Given that this isn't the first time you've been called on it, no it isn't.

That is simply not true. I have never been and am not now passive aggressive, and you know that very well. I realize it might be considered a cool-sounding "sound bite," in light of the lack of facts to support a valid rebuttal to my argument, but it is disingenuous to say or imply that. If anyone has suggested such a thing in the past, it was simply a projection of that person's behavior onto me.

What I said is absolutely true, and you know it, see. U.S. persons are told from birth that we are the best, the only true defenders of democracy, et al, etc., ad nauseam. So when we see, hear or read something that indicates that we are less than perfect, we are often incredulous.

Have you forgotten that I have experiences in other countries? We? Speak for yourself. I am certainly aware of the flaws of the US. I'd still take my chances here, than elsewhere.[/quote]

Bully for you. Continuous claims of unconditional support for the U.S. and the discounting of all inconvenient truths does not change that. Neither does sniping on a personal level. Now that is what constitutes passive-aggressive behavior.

[renodante]

Wrong again. He was referring - without any kind of supporting evidence - to Mexico

i was talking about brazilian favelas in the case of kids with machine guns walking around openly and said i was talking about brazilian favelas in that case. i then used that example when talking generally about the fact that, there's nowhere in the U.S where the police have decided to just cordon off an area and only police it when they decide they want to take out some bigwig dealer.

in mexico, there are border towns that are basically run by cartels, again, name me the u.s city where the cops are 100% ineffective and the dealers/traffickers run the area.

[rama0929]

Wrong again. He was referring - without any kind of supporting evidence - to Mexico. He had to be, given that the discussion was centered on violent crime in Mexico vs the U.S. Now if he wishes to back away from that statement, it is his prerogative to do so.

for example, in some brazilian favelas, the police spec ops teams are literally air dropped via helicopter into the area they need to go to bring a drug dealer out. once in, they're greeted with a populace armed to the teeth with assault weaponry who are generally not afraid to shoot at them as soon as they land. special forces from other areas of the world, military special forces, train with brazilian police spec ops teams, because they have more actual combat experience than some country's military spec ops teams. it's not rare to find kids walking around favelas with ak-47's etc slung over their arms.

He was referring to Brazil.

I posted a couple of links, referring to Brazil.

That is simply not true. I have never been and am not now passive aggressive, and you know that very well. I realize it might be considered a cool-sounding "sound bite," in light of the lack of facts to support a valid rebuttal to my argument, but it is disingenuous to say or imply that. If anyone has suggested such a thing in the past, it was simply a projection of that person's behavior onto me.

You want to talk disingenuity? How about comparing a controlled shooting event in the US to children walking around a Brazilian favela with machine guns?

Again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4338652.stm

In the favelas, buildings are pock-marked with bullet holes and youths with military-style small arms patrol the streets at night. Incursions by police or rival factions can happen at any time.

[renodante]

You want to talk disingenuity? How about comparing a controlled shooting event in the US to children walking around a Brazilian favela with machine guns?

That one left me in complete awe as well.

[el conquistador]

Al guns should be forbidden. Guns are made to commit serious crimes.
Owning a gun and using a gun are serious crimes and criminals commiting those crimes should be punished severely.

[rama0929]

Al guns should be forbidden. Guns are made to commit serious crimes.
Owning a gun and using a gun are serious crimes and criminals commiting those crimes should be punished severely.

Grease gun


Water gun


Potato gun


Caulk gun


Ray gun

[Polaron]

Wrong again. He was referring - without any kind of supporting evidence - to Mexico

i was talking about brazilian favelas in the case of kids with machine guns walking around openly and said i was talking about brazilian favelas in that case. i then used that example when talking generally about the fact that, there's nowhere in the U.S where the police have decided to just cordon off an area and only police it when they decide they want to take out some bigwig dealer.

in mexico, there are border towns that are basically run by cartels, again, name me the u.s city where the cops are 100% ineffective and the dealers/traffickers run the area.

You may have meant Brazilian favelas, but you chimed in on a post that dealt with Mexico. See below:

They are. So what? Overall, there is a lower incidence of violence in Mexico than in the U.S. Facts are facts, denying them will not change anything.

i don't totally disagree with you, but you're missing a pretty blatant point i'm making.

you don't have kids walking around the street with ak-47's slung over their arms, openly, in the u.s ....

but i'll concede that, as large as the u.s is, and with all the guns around, statistically, it's more violent.

I appreciate your coming forward to clarify what you had wanted to say in the first place, though I do not see how using a perception of Brazil is relevant in a discussion of the rates of violent crime in Mexico vs the U.S. Everyone knows the favelas in Brazil are dangerous; just as the slums in Harlem (and many other U.S. cities) are.

Next, Mexican border towns have been mentioned as being extremely dangerous. That is true in part; certain parts of them are dangerous. However, that information is being presented as if it proves that the entire Mexican Republic is highly dangerous. Making that connection is as flawed as claiming that the entire U.S. must be exactly like Harlem and Watts.

Why don't we stick to verifiable facts and figures instead of conjecture here? The main point of all of this is that the rampant proliferation of firearms in the U.S. has not solved the problem of violent crime; the U.S. still has one of the highest per capita rates of violent crime in the world, according to accredited sources. We can bash Brazil and Mexico all we want, but that will not change the facts.

Is it not clear that the fact that so many U.S. persons crave guns is highly indicative of a warrior culture and mentality. The Gun Groupies are wont to say, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Perhaps that should be expanded to, "U.S. persons kill people."

p.s. Love your photos, rama

[renodante]

I appreciate your coming forward to clarify what you had wanted to say in the first place, though I do not see how using a perception of Brazil is relevant in a discussion of the rates of violent crime in Mexico vs the U.S. Everyone knows the favelas in Brazil are dangerous; just as the slums in Harlem (and many other U.S. cities) are.

you can refer back to the 3 or 4 times i clarified why i brought that up.

Next, Mexican border towns have been mentioned as being extremely dangerous. That is true in part; certain parts of them are dangerous. However, that information is being presented as if it proves that the entire Mexican Republic is highly dangerous.

no, because i even went out of my way to add the caveat that they don't represent all of mexico, more than once. i'll make my point one last time, regardless of overall statistics, you can't find places in the U.S where the police have totally given up and criminals basically run the entire area, in the "third world" you do find such places. that is all, i am done.

[el conquistador]

no, because i even went out of my way to add the caveat that they don't represent all of mexico, more than once. i'll make my point one last time, regardless of overall statistics, you can't find places in the U.S where the police have totally given up and criminals basically run the entire area, in the "third world" you do find such places. that is all, i am done.

In Brussels, there are areas where the police doesn't go anymore to avoid getting attacked by youths.
Often the police is called out for hoax call. They call and say there's an accident but when the police arrive they get attacked by youths with molotovcocktails and stones.
If the police goes to some areas they are also accused of provoking the youths and that's discriminating.

[Polaron]

i'll make my point one last time, regardless of overall statistics, you can't find places in the U.S where the police have totally given up and criminals basically run the entire area, in the "third world" you do find such places. that is all, i am done.

Agreed. You're done, unless you can provide some valid statistics that back up your claim. Let's not forget Ruby Ridge, where criminals ran that entire area until the first President Bush sent in the feds to clear them out.

And Euroman the Conqueror has a good point: there are areas in the first world where the police will not go, even in small cities.

Case in point: the Pueblo Gardens area of Tucson. Police absolutely will not enter that section (near South Campbell and 36th Street) after dark, and it's not because they don't like the doughnuts at the neighborhood Circle K. Why? It's because criminals and crack heads, armed to the teeth, run that area by night. This in Arizona, where people are allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a permit of any kind, or to walk around in public with a loaded gun in plain sight, on their person.

[falconagain]

Polaron is right. There is places that are very dangerous in the US where the police
does not go. When I was living in Miami I met several members of the tactic narcotics
squad (the bad boys movies are based on them). They use a lot of ammo and explosives
on a monthly basis but their raids are never reported on the TV. It is obvious that because
Miami is a tourist city they do not want to rock the boat by reporting the degree of violence
that happens on their streets specially if most of the raids only happen in poor areas and the
media is in cahoots with the cover up.

[el conquistador]

Al guns should be forbidden. Guns are made to commit serious crimes.
Owning a gun and using a gun are serious crimes and criminals commiting those crimes should be punished severely.

Water gun


Potato gun

Right Rama, especially those guns. They are just used to enoy other people.

[renodante]

Polaron is right. There is places that are very dangerous in the US where the police
does not go.

right, and that's totally the same as kids walking around the streets openly with weapons like this:

yeah, exactly the same thing....

can't find any information about Pueblo Gardens, besides them having an elementary school that got a 5 out of 10 "great schools" rating.

http://urbantitan.com/10-most-dangerous ... d-in-2011/

but anyway, i digress, the thread is about gun laws and i've veered it off course.

[rama0929]

i'll make my point one last time, regardless of overall statistics, you can't find places in the U.S where the police have totally given up and criminals basically run the entire area, in the "third world" you do find such places. that is all, i am done.

Agreed. You're done, unless you can provide some valid statistics that back up your claim. Let's not forget Ruby Ridge, where criminals ran that entire area until the first President Bush sent in the feds to clear them out.

I think you're going to have to back that claim up.

Even if true, that strengthens the point about LE not being afraid to go into an area.

And Euroman the Conqueror has a good point: there are areas in the first world where the police will not go, even in small cities.

To be fair, he has to back up his claim as well.

Case in point: the Pueblo Gardens area of Tucson. Police absolutely will not enter that section (near South Campbell and 36th Street) after dark, and it's not because they don't like the doughnuts at the neighborhood Circle K. Why? It's because criminals and crack heads, armed to the teeth, run that area by night. This in Arizona, where people are allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a permit of any kind, or to walk around in public with a loaded gun in plain sight, on their person.

Proof?

[renodante]

as an aside, what the HELL kind of gun is the kid on the far right carrying? looks like a semi automatic elephant gun with a banana clip. i want one.

[Polaron]

i'll make my point one last time, regardless of overall statistics, you can't find places in the U.S where the police have totally given up and criminals basically run the entire area, in the "third world" you do find such places. that is all, i am done.

Agreed. You're done, unless you can provide some valid statistics that back up your claim. Let's not forget Ruby Ridge, where criminals ran that entire area until the first President Bush sent in the feds to clear them out.

I think you're going to have to back that claim up.

Even if true, that strengthens the point about LE not being afraid to go into an area.

And Euroman the Conqueror has a good point: there are areas in the first world where the police will not go, even in small cities.

To be fair, he has to back up his claim as well.

Case in point: the Pueblo Gardens area of Tucson. Police absolutely will not enter that section (near South Campbell and 36th Street) after dark, and it's not because they don't like the doughnuts at the neighborhood Circle K. Why? It's because criminals and crack heads, armed to the teeth, run that area by night. This in Arizona, where people are allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a permit of any kind, or to walk around in public with a loaded gun in plain sight, on their person.

Proof?

I agree my proof is anecdotal in this case; my sister lived there for a number of years and had six vicious dogs to protect her very well-fenced property. The Circle K that was just 3 blocks from her house - on South Campbell and 36th Street - was frequently robbed, sometimes as often as twice a month.

With regards to the photo, I do love it, reno. It does not show kids walking around the streets with weapons as claimed, but it is cute. "A picture is worth a thousand words." Also, those kids do not look Mexican to me, but the photo is amusing, and I thank you for giving me a good chuckle.

[renodante]

With regards to the photo, I do love it, reno. It does not show kids walking around the streets with weapons as claimed, but it is cute

they're not mexican, they're brazilian. i've been talking about brazilians the whole time, when talking about "kids walking around openly with guns."

why am i talking about it? to counter the whole "there are places in the u.s that are just as bad" thing.

Still, life in Babylonia a year ago was much better than in the Alemao-Villa Cruizero complex where I also conducted research. Drug gang members there guarded the entrance to the favela with machine guns... At the bottom of the surfing alley where they landed stood a bunch of the older boys (drug gang members) weighted down with machine guns and belts of grenades. The boys’ surfing was testimony to the resilience of human spirit even under great hardship.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/ ... brown.aspx

walking around with belts of GRENADES. when the Pueblo Gardens Posse start guarding the borders of their neighborhoods with machine guns i'll concede it's all the same thing and the U.S is as dangerous as these third world hell holes. the photo made you chuckle? it creeps me the hell out.

but the way things seem to be going in the U.S those days me be upon us soon. when i eventually move back i may need to gear up like Mad Max or something, the way things are falling apart.

anyway, i still want that anti aircraft looking thing that kid is carrying.

[Polaron]

It sounds like renodante is saying that places are not dangerous unless there is the presence of (presumably) underage individuals openly carrying firearms.

It sounds like he is saying that being killed by teenagers with guns, grenades, potato launchers or what have you is worse than being killed by white supremacist militiamen or a gang of rednecks out to "(mess) with a black guy," as recently happened in Texas.

Oh wait! Getting killed is getting killed regardless of the method used, right?

Now can we get back to the topic, which is the relationship between excessively lax gun laws and how they have led to America's second highest rate of violent crime in the U.S.A.

[renodante]

It sounds like renodante is saying that places are not dangerous unless there is the presence of (presumably) underage individuals openly carrying firearms.

of course, renodante is saying there's nowhere in the U.S that's dangerous. you can walk around any street anywhere anytime in the u.s drunk and singing to yourself with 100 dollar bills falling out of your pockets and nothing will happen to you. he's saying there's no violent crime in the U.S ever and the U.S is the bestest place in the whole wide world and all the politicans are smart and have hearts of gold. also, all the water fountains in the U.S flow with chocolate milk.

he's DEFINITELY not saying that maybe neighborhoods where kids have grenades as part of their arsenals and the borders are guarded by kids with machine guns are prrrrroably just a little more dangerous than your most dangerous U.S city. that when a kid can confidently walk around a street with grenades and an ak-47 slung over his shoulder, it shows a breakdown of law and order unrivaled in the U.S. definitely not saying that at all.

[rama0929]

It sounds like renodante is saying that places are not dangerous unless there is the presence of (presumably) underage individuals openly carrying firearms.

It sounds like he is saying that being killed by teenagers with guns, grenades, potato launchers or what have you is worse than being killed by white supremacist militiamen or a gang of rednecks out to "(mess) with a black guy," as recently happened in Texas.

Oh wait! Getting killed is getting killed regardless of the method used, right?

Now can we get back to the topic, which is the relationship between excessively lax gun laws and how they have led to America's second highest rate of violent crime in the U.S.A.

Keep reaching like that, you're liable to pull something...

[Polaron]

It sounds like renodante is saying that places are not dangerous unless there is the presence of (presumably) underage individuals openly carrying firearms.

of course, renodante is saying there's nowhere in the U.S that's dangerous. you can walk around any street anywhere anytime in the u.s drunk and singing to yourself with 100 dollar bills falling out of your pockets and nothing will happen to you. he's saying there's no violent crime in the U.S ever and the U.S is the bestest place in the whole wide world and all the politicans are smart and have hearts of gold. also, all the water fountains in the U.S flow with chocolate milk.

he's DEFINITELY not saying that maybe neighborhoods were kids have grenades as part of their arsenals and the borders are guarded by kids with machine guns are prrrrroably just a little more dangerous than your most dangerous U.S city. that when a kid can confidently walk around a street with grenades and an ak-47 slung over his shoulder, it shows a breakdown of law and order unrivaled in the U.S. definitely not saying that at all.

All of "that," and still the U.S. has the second-highest incidence of violent crime per capita in all of America. Chile is first, followed by the U.S., Canada, Uruguay and then Mexico.

Curiously, Chile has less restrictive gun ownership laws than most other countries, except of course the U.S. and perhaps Canada.

[alan]

All of "that," and still the U.S. has the second-highest incidence of violent crime per capita in all of America. Chile is first, followed by the U.S., Canada, Uruguay and then Mexico.

Curiously, Chile has less restrictive gun ownership laws than most other countries, except of course the U.S. and perhaps Canada.

Canada has very restrictive controls on firearms, and getting more restrictive by the day... even for so-called "long guns" used for hunting.

I wonder about some of these statistics that are getting quoted in this thread. It seems that a lot has to do with what is considered to be a "violent crime". Is this based on a standard criteria across all nations mentioned? Also to be taken into account is whether or not violent crimes are reported when they occur. In countries with inefficient policing, it stands to reason many victims may not even bother to file a report.. and worse still if they are afraid of reprisals.

[Polaron]

All of "that," and still the U.S. has the second-highest incidence of violent crime per capita in all of America. Chile is first, followed by the U.S., Canada, Uruguay and then Mexico.

Curiously, Chile has less restrictive gun ownership laws than most other countries, except of course the U.S. and perhaps Canada.

Canada has very restrictive controls on firearms, and getting more restrictive by the day... even for so-called "long guns" used for hunting.

I wonder about some of these statistics that are getting quoted in this thread. It seems that a lot has to do with what is considered to be a "violent crime". Is this based on a standard criteria across all nations mentioned? Also to be taken into account is whether or not violent crimes are reported when they occur. In countries with inefficient policing, it stands to reason many victims may not even bother to file a report.. and worse still if they are afraid of reprisals.

I think you're right on all counts, Alan. For example, in the U.S. domestic violence is counted as violent crime; any time someone is assaulted with intent to cause bodily harm, that is a violent crime (I make that distinction, because pouring a glass of beverage over someone's head is considered assault, but without intent to cause bodily harm).

I'm not up to date on Canadian firearm regulations, though I assumed they were less lax than in the U.S., because, after all, what nation could possibly have gun laws that are less restrictive than those in the U.S.A.? The answer would have to be none.

Like U.S. persons, Canadian are a feisty bunch; maybe they'd rather fight than switch.

[asgoodasitgets]

I like Peruvians, they're generally easy going up to a point, then they go absolutely ballistic. But it's because of that crazy side that they are generally peaceful. They know what it means to "cross the line". You have your provocative types and angry people in any country, but anyway that's been my experience.

You know a funny thing in traffic is that nobody gives way to anybody. And if you do make the mistake of being momentarily courteous, look out, you'll never get back into the traffic - EVERYONE will take advantage and just keep coming. BUT... if you simply roll down your window and wave, and ask nicely - almost NOONE is prepared to do you the dishonour of saying no to your face. hehe. They just want to be treated nicely perhaps? I hate playing chicken on the roads. It's such a stupid game.

Guns: I don't like them personally, but I don't know anyone who has any authority to tell me morally that I can't have one. Likewise myself to others.

[mtwilson]

OK, it's been a little while since this thread has been active and I have looked through most of it (got a little tired of the are guns good or not back and forth) so now I would like to return to the original question but with a little more definition.

I have land in the Amazon and I am interested in having firearms (yes, plural) for hunting, protection of livestock and self defense in an area that still has remnants of old terrorist cells living near by, not to mention a few traficantes here and there.

Can anyone enlighten me regarding the number and types of firearms I am permitted to own and under what circumstances? Also, is finding a place to purchase them difficult? What about ammo? Is ammo difficult to purchase? Is there any limit on how much you can possess? Are there restriction on semi-automatics? Are shotguns readily available? I realize most the folks on this list may not have this kind of information, but perhaps someone could point me in the direction of a legal resource that is trustworthy or a gun dealer (legal of course) who could help me with this? I've done my due diligence with internet searches but I am coming up short.

Any help greatly appreciated.

[Jimmy111]

You cant posses any guns. You are not a citizen. Even most citizens have a difficult time to get a permit.
But it all depends on who you know.

[craig]

I realize most the folks on this list may not have this kind of information, but perhaps someone could point me in the direction of a legal resource that is trustworthy or a gun dealer (legal of course) who could help me with this?

I have talked with a gun dealer in Jesus Maria. He told me that a foreigner with a CE can get a firearms license in about 3 weeks. I do not know if any of this is true but that is what he said.

He had all sorts of guns and ammo on display. He also offers a firing range.

If you actually want guns you can go and talk to him yourself. The shop is on the corner of Luzuriaga (I think, or Mello) and Garzon. It is the unmarked black metal door next to a noodle shop.

Craig

[mtwilson]

Thanks Craig,

I know the area and I'll be back in July. I'll check it out. Much appreciated.

[mtwilson]

You cant posses any guns. You are not a citizen. Even most citizens have a difficult time to get a permit.
But it all depends on who you know.

Actually I will be a citizen in about a year and in the meantime I am certain my wife, who is a citizen, could purchase firearms for us. Thanks.

[Jimmy111]

CE isnt the same as citizen. I tried 3 years ago and if you are from the states they will require a background investigation from your state and county of residence in the states, A BATF/FBI letter that you are legally elegible to own a firearm in the states along with a Interpol investigation and a psycological investigation in Peru.
Then you have to go to DICSCAMEC and explain to them just why you want a gun in the first place.
Your wife only requires the psycological investigation unless she has also lived in the states.

Things could have changed.

But last time I heard less than 1% of firearms in Peru are registered.
Peruvians arent much into registering things.

[mtwilson]

Well I am certain I could pass all of the background stuff, but my wife isn't gonna like any kind of psych eval. She hates that stuff. Maybe this is one reason so many Peruvians simply forgo the whole registration thing

Anyway, I'll do some digging around when I get back. I really appreciate the tips. Thanks all.

[craig]

This thread makes me recall that when I was a child in Lima 50 years ago my father had guns.

We used to take them out to the finca of a Peruvian friend for target practice. I also remember going duck hunting once.

We brought the guns from the US and took them back there when we left many years later. I expect there was no more attention paid to them than would have been paid to a set of golf clubs.

I doubt very much if my father had any permits. Or that such an idea ever occured to him or to anyone else.

The world has changed so much for the worse. Mostly what has gotten so much worse are the ideas in people's heads.

[mtwilson]

That is a lovely reminiscence Craig. I have similar fond memories with my father.

Your comment makes me think of why I came to Peru in the first place. That is, to find a piece of land, live with my family in a more self sufficient way and to leave behind the highly oppressive propaganda and conformity of the US.

Sadly there are elements of the same kind of government intervention mentality in Peru, but as jimmy111 says, Peruvians don't seem to conform (or register things) all that much, so it is still possible to find a little freedom and peace if you are willing to take responsibility for yourself and your loved ones.

I prefere not to use guns for anything other that plinking at empty cans, but I want the ability to have such a tool at my disposal should predators, human or otherwise, threaten my well being. It seems to me that that is still possible in Peru, at least in some limited sense. Hope it stays that way.

I'm not sure the world has changed all that much. But as you say, the people in it sure appear to have.

[craig]

Sadly there are elements of the same kind of government intervention mentality in Peru, but as jimmy111 says, Peruvians don't seem to conform (or register things) all that much, so it is still possible to find a little freedom and peace if you are willing to take responsibility for yourself and your loved ones.

That is a conflicted subject.

I would say that almost all the worst statist aspects of US society exist (in principle) in Peru. They are the heritage of the Velasco regime, Garcia I, Fujimori etc. Furthermore, each new atrocity invented by US politicians is imported into Peru a few years later by its copy cat politicians. And all this evil is applauded by the kind of people who are the majority inhabitants of this site.

Nevertheless, it does not have such horrible results in Peru because the government is too weak and incompetent to enforce all the nonsense and the Peruvian people (unlike servile Americans) simply won't pay much attention to such things. That leaves a precarious space in Peru to live a peaceful, self-responsible life that simply no longer exists in the US.

I'm not sure the world has changed all that much. But as you say, the people in it sure appear to have.

Quite right. It is the "human (fantasy) world" that has changed not the facts of reality.

[chi chi]

I don't need a gun.

I fight with my fists...like a real man.

[mtwilson]

Nevertheless, it does not have such horrible results in Peru because the government is too weak and incompetent to enforce all the nonsense and the Peruvian people (unlike servile Americans) simply won't pay much attention to such things. That leaves a precarious space in Peru to live a peaceful, self-responsible life that simply no longer exists in the US.

More forcefully and probably more clearly stated. We are in agreement.

[roddd]

I don't need a gun.

I fight with my fists...like a real man.

you told us you used a broken bottle that's not a real man thing to do is it

[rama0929]

Nevertheless, it does not have such horrible results in Peru because the government is too weak and incompetent to enforce all the nonsense and the Peruvian people (unlike servile Americans) simply won't pay much attention to such things. That leaves a precarious space in Peru to live a peaceful, self-responsible life that simply no longer exists in the US.

More forcefully and probably more clearly stated. We are in agreement.

I know too many people that shoot to know that simply isn't the case.

I don't know where the two of you live or have lived in the US, but if you honestly think that you can't live a "peaceful, self-responsible life" in the States, I don't know what to tell you.

[rama0929]

A start;
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/peru

And
http://www.dicscamec.gob.pe/

[Jimmy111]

A start;
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/peru

And
http://www.dicscamec.gob.pe/

Rama.
In Peru, the law as written, is not the same as the law that is either procecuted or implimented.
The saying that you "get what you pay for" and you get "the best law money can buy", pertain explicity in Peru. When the Peruvians get pissed at the way a law is implimented they show their displeasure quickly.
It is not to say it is a bad thing. Generally if you have money you can get away with a lot. It is based on Roman law. Not common law as either england or the states.
In many cases in Peru, the law is much stricter in writing than it is in the states. However the "No tollerance" and "Enforcement" aspect of American law for the past 25 years or so does not exist. The police dont have the Praetorian status that US police do. In fact most Peruvians look down on Peruvian police. It is the way it should be. The police and the bureaucrats are still looked at as servants of the people instead of having the elevated status that police and bureaucrats in the states and Engand have given themselves and enjoy so much.
So as Craig said the people will not hesitate too much before they start impailing the bureaucrats on their crudely wittled sticks. Americans wont do that. Too afraid to lose their pensions......

[rama0929]

A start;
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/peru

And
http://www.dicscamec.gob.pe/

Rama.
In Peru, the law as written, is not the same as the law that is either procecuted or implimented.
The saying that you "get what you pay for" and you get "the best law money can buy", pertain explicity in Peru. When the Peruvians get pissed at the way a law is implimented they show their displeasure quickly.
It is not to say it is a bad thing. Generally if you have money you can get away with a lot. It is based on Roman law. Not common law as either england or the states.
In many cases in Peru, the law is much stricter in writing than it is in the states. However the "No tollerance" and "Enforcement" aspect of American law for the past 25 years or so does not exist. The police dont have the Praetorian status that US police do. In fact most Peruvians look down on Peruvian police. It is the way it should be. The police and the bureaucrats are still looked at as servants of the people instead of having the elevated status that police and bureaucrats in the states and Engand have given themselves and enjoy so much.
So as Craig said the people will not hesitate too much before they start impailing the bureaucrats on their crudely wittled sticks. Americans wont do that. Too afraid to lose their pensions......

I recommend you brush up on your law and your history.

Americans won't impale bureaucrats on crudely whittled sticks, because they're civilized people living in a first world country

[Jimmy111]

Im very good at history and law.
Anyhow. Americans wont do anything because they have been told their entire life not to. Someone else will do it for you. If the politicians are bad Just vote them out and change the law.
Not all Americans are like that but the vast majority are. Then there is the fear of retalliation. The people in charge will take your stuff.... Maybe even throw you in Jail. But definatly take your stuff. Americans cant live without their stuff. Then when they come to take your stuff and you resist them, they will kill you. For the officers safety of course.
It didnt used to be that way but it is now.

And if you think voting will change it, then look at this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVTXbARGXso

[mtwilson]

Americans won't impale bureaucrats on crudely whittled sticks, because they're civilized people living in a first world country

As an American from the US and as a student of history I must say this statement is woefully ignorant. No offense, but it appears you are not aware that the very foundation of the federation of the US is precisely the concept of "impaling the bureaucrats" is essential to the survival of the union. The fact that Americans are no longer willing to exert their power over the state is not "civilized", it is folly, and is why the United States is turning into the fascist police state it is today.

To say that Americans are civilized people living in a first world country in this context insinuates that Peruvians are not. This is offensive and, frankly, stupid. Governments should be afraid of their citizens, not the other way around. I doubt Peruvians would easily tolerate the excesses of the US gov'ment the way Americans do today. That is not a sign of incivility, but of virtue and maturity that few of my countryman understand any longer.

The pathology of State programming is evident in this thread. How a simple request for information about firearms for self-defense can devolve into these kinds of ridiculous statements that defend state control and regulation of freedom proves the point. It is sad that so few remember what true freedom is.

[rama0929]

Americans won't impale bureaucrats on crudely whittled sticks, because they're civilized people living in a first world country

As an American from the US and as a student of history I must say this statement is woefully ignorant.

Then you should re read my comments in this thread. While you're at it, learn what "Fascism" is.

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

[goingnowherefast]

Jimmy, you've obviously met too many travelling liberal English teachers. Anti government militias are alive, well and active in many regions of the States.

You have interesting notions of law enforcement also. I see you agree with the Peruvian model... how is that working out for you?

[Jimmy111]

Jimmy, you've obviously met too many travelling liberal English teachers.

Go spend some time reading these forums then tell me Americans won't do anything. Might be true for the liberal city slickers, but it isn't like that everywhere in the States. Nooo way Jose.

https://unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/i ... 921211a433

Hey. Im from Wyoming.
The first article of our constitution makes it clear to our government that we WILL take care of them if necessary and it is not only within our rights but proper to do so.

Article 1, Section 1. Power inherent in the people.

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness; for the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Everyone carries guns. People go to governmental meetings and open carry their gun. Some politicians come along from time to time and complain that it is threatening to them that people wear guns into THEIR office. We point out that their offices arent theirs. They are ours and of course we are threatening them.

The unofficial state motto is Molan Labe.

And you are right about the traveling english teachers and teachers in general.
They are nice people. They have been taught that being nice is important and proper. However they confuse being nice with being polite, courtious and being respectful which have different meanings.

But in the states most people are like that. Dont really understand the need for protection untill they have been victimized themselves.

You also need to take into acount that many people here in this forum, arent American.

[mtwilson]

While you're at it, learn what "Fascism" is.

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Well I suppose I should apologize for throwing around a such loaded term such as fascism in such literal minded company.

As you may or may not know, the term is hotly debated even in academic circles (wikipedia gives a pretty good treatment of the term here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism). Regardless, I use the term to refer to a more neo-fascist agenda which seems reasonable considering the way the world is changing.

My meaning was to point to the ever concentrating power of the executive and the dominant influence of corporate and financial interests in the the US which is eroding nearly all of the constitutional protections we used to assume were impervious to such shenanigans (witness the NDAA, the National Defense Resources Preparedness Order, etc.).

When the Department of Homeland (Fatherland) Security, the FDA, TSA and other domestic alphabet soup agencies start buying 750,000,000 rounds of 40 cal hollow point ammo without explanation I think it's fair to say that the Second Amendment and the entire Constitution may be in jeopardy. Regardless of what you call it, it's not good.

[Jimmy111]

I dont begrudge them the ammo purchase. It soulds like a lot but it is only 2 tractor trailers worth.
They have about 100,000 armed agents so that makes about 9000 rounds each. Yearly training will eat up half of that.
American gun owners buy about 2 billion rounds per year. I read somewhere that there is an low estimate that there are 25,000 rounds of available ammunition per person the the USA.
I would worry more if it they were buying rifle ammo.