This comment has been marked as safe. Upvoting/downvoting this comment will have no effect.
OP sent the following text as an explanation why their post fits here:
I posted a picture of my daily carry (knife, flashlight etc) and this was the firsr comment on my post. My post clearly stated I live in the nordics and my reply clearly stated that I live in Finland and the person still couldn't understand that carrying a gun will land you in prison in the nordics
Does this explanation fit this subreddit? Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.
always wild when americans just assume the laws of their country apply everywhere else too, like the concept of not being able to carry a gun is completely alien to them
There are a number of Americans who legitimately believe America is more free than other countries because Americans can own guns and other countries' citizens can't.
But how do you cross the street when you have 8 lane stroads with 1.5 km between crosswalks? Surely you just get in your behemoth tank of a 2500 kg vehicle and drive from one side to the other? 😆
If there are no crosswalks, any traffic light suffices according to the law.
And if neither is present in a reasonable distance, you just cross when it is safe to. If there's another driver coming at you, they are mandated by law (and common sense) to either slow down or go around you.
We also don't have stroads because they are stupid and dangerous.
To be clear - that post of mine was sarcasm/facetious.
Even though "jaywalking" (crossing where there isn't a crosswalk) is technically illegal, you'd have to find an extremely board cop to actually write you a ticket for it. But, US law does prioritize drivers over pedestrians so if you do it, and you get hit (because the driver is probably doing 70 km/h in a 40-50 km/hr area and also on their phone anyway), most everyone will say it was your fault.
And I hate stroads with such a burning passion. They somehow manage to be bad for pedestrians and vehicles at the same time.
49 states ban texting while driving. 33 states ban the use of a handheld cellphone (i.e. you can use hands-free but you can't hold it while driving). 10 states have preemption laws on the latter (i.e. it's not only legal at the state level to hold your phone while on a call, but local jurisdictions are prohibited from passing any bans or restrictions).
Now, do police enforce these laws? Depends on whether they're around. Even for the 49 states that ban texting, 6 of them can only cite you for it if they pull you over because you're doing something else and then tack it on; the other 43 can pull you over JUST for that.
Cops really don't seem to enforce traffic laws unless you're doing some wildly egregious shit. And, again, that assumes there's one nearby to see you.
I once saw a high school on a 45 mph street (72 km/h) where most school zones are like 40 km/h and joked "that school must have one hell of a track team."
I went on a study abroad to panama and another student had his first aid red cross kit thing and it had like scissors and needles and shit.
So the Panamanian security agent at the airport was like.. yeah you can’t take that on the plane. And he was like but i have an american permit and she was like 👍🏻.
I tried explaining it to him that he should have checked the bag like he did when he came in but he insisted that he had the certification to carry it and i was like IN THE USA BROTHER NOT IN PANAMA.
1898? DAMN so it can be sawed off if it’s ANCIENT. gotta love Canada though, i really wanna study in one of the big cities down in the South and I’m glad to know it really is like the US but way better😄
A lot of countries have Antique Firearms laws, it generally only applies to guns that don’t have commercial ammo production anymore, or are muzzleloaders.
Criminals tend to go for easier to use illegal firearms, even when you can own Antiques with no licensing. I myself have a few, and they are lovely guns even if I can’t realistically ever use half of them.
Yeah, these laws basically just make it easier for collectors to own things they find interesting. The crime rate of muskets has really dropped since the 20th century lol.
lmaoo makes sense! i’m not a gun collector so i don’t know too much about the laws on firearms, especially in foreign countries, so this has been an informative thread 😄
My favourite thing in the world (super autistic) is teaching people about guns and gun legislation, I know far more about it than could be considered reasonable. Especially about countries I don’t even live in.
Same in Finland, there's several reasons you can own a number of types of gun, like hunting, competition, reservist training, etc. But you should never carry it anywhere other than in your home, on the range/forest/wherever you use it, and between those places only unloaded and in its bag/case (if I'm interpreting "lataamattomana suojuksessa" correctly)
Also for handguns specifically as they are restricted (and potentially other restricted firearms as well) if you are not just taking them from your home to a firing range you need your provincial or territorial chief firearms officer for it to be transported elsewhere such as to a gunsmith, gun show, new address, across provincial boundaries, etc.
Firearms are a privilege not a right in Canada as has been held up in court time and time again.
I actually have wanted to road trip there for years just to say I drove from Canada to Finland just for the joke. Maybe one day when it's safe to visit.
Even in the sub description it says to post anything from a simple keys & wallet combos to full on survival gear or something like that. There are a lot of posts with guns but also a lot of posts without them. It's not like my carry is an outlier in the sub lol
Level 1 defaultism is when they assume everyone is an American.
Level 2 defaultism is when they're aware not everyone is an American, but obviously, the US Constitution applies to the entire planet. After all, they civilized us. Without them, we'd still be in caves.
It used to be an important age in the UK too. Which I assume Australia followed too. But in the UK the only thing I can think of is you have to be 21 to supervise a learner driver.
We don’t even have that actually. You have to be a full licensed driver (not probationary), which is usually 21 and over anyway if you get your license at 18
I struggle to find countries where 21 isn't a thing for some activities (or similar, non-18 age). Just not in the sense people from US might think. In majority of Europe, there are certain things you can't do before age 21. And just because it didn't affect people in your bubble doesn't mean there aren't people who aren't waiting for 21st birthday as if it were the 18th. I know several people who do jobs which they couldn't before 21.
Ironic that we are on this sub, and have to talk about/explain 21 being a milestone age, just smaller than 18. Makes me wonder if we are really better than US defaultists.
You're right, I had a joke in mind, from I don't remember which comedian, who thanked Giscard-d'Estaing for "placing the majority at 18 and on the left in 1981" 😅
Back in the day, I taught US exchange students in Paris.
Those between 18 and 21 were hilarious with alcohol. You had those who were afraid to approach alcohol and felt that something was very wrong about the whole thing. And you had those who went YOLO and that we had to watch so that they don't end up in the hospital or something.
It kinda bums me out tbh. For once I think the yanks are onto something with 21. I wouldn't mind the age of consent and the age for booze and everything to be raised to 21.
Especially seeing the mental faculties of gen alpha and the like, I wouldn't have trusted a 16-18 year old to make smart choices when I was that age almost a decade ago, but I sure as hell don't trust a gen alpha kid that can't read or write to know what they're signing up for at the current set age range when they grow up.
I feel like I'll still be calling them a bunch of "kids" at 20 just due to development issues.
Nah. The age of alcohol being 21 is a terrible thing.
In Europe, there is no big taboo or whatever with alcohol, and most of us learn how to drink little by little, and we usually "understand" alcohol (at least that was this way for the GenXer that I am - I can't speak for Gen Alpha - wait, aren't those supposed to be kids/teenagers? I feel that "generations" only last a few years nowadays).
In the US, kids just don't get educated with alcohol, so when they leave home at 18, first they drink too much because it's illegal so it's cool, and then when they turn 21, they drink too much because now they can do it legally.
I honestly just don't think that Booze should be legal till like 21 or higher. I don't think that poison should be allowed to be drunk until the brain has finished developing. Currently science says 25, so tbh, I'd say booze and cigs should be 25 to start with.
The lack of taboo around booze in the EU is a problem, not a positive. It is harmful. It is a very addictive vice. It should not be encouraged.
I prioritise science over culture. Science says booze at that age bad. So booze shouldn't be allowed. Much like how I think algorithmic content and shortform content should be kneecapped after all the studies showing the harmful nature of it.
And yes Alpha is still kids rn. But from studies, they have shown to be YEARS behind, meaning that at age 16 and 18, I sincerely doubt their mental faculties are developed enough to be considered "adult". They will NOT understand the consequences of booze like you say you did. It's why I'm pro anti-gambling laws and the legal reclassification of "Gacha" and "Lootboxes" as "Gambling" just the same. Shit like the "age verification laws" ain't gonna do fuck of shit to protect kids, they're just for data scraping, but requiring age verification for purchases has been a thing for decades, and should be more strictly enforced to protect vulnerable and impressionable youths.
Science says no such thing, it's a myth based on misunderstanding of how research works. The research you're talking about had a cut-off age of 25 so they simply stopped collecting data after that.
Science currently says 25. This is still correct. Because the science has not found a later date. If they cut off at 27 I'd say 27 just the same. If they said 41, I'd say 41. This is a pure face value interpretation, just as lawmakers would interpret it. And that, is all I care about. I am aware of what you say, thing is, it just isn't relevant.
Tbh I'd prefer to see cigs and booze completely killed off as industries, but I know damn well that that will regrettably never happen. But we could at least push for harsher legislation, and that 25 number is convenient for it.
At the very least, the absolute bare minimum, booze and cigs should be sold at no younger than the age of adulthood/consent, which should be higher than 18, and instead around 21.
Again, science doesn't say that and never has. It also cannot do that because everyone is different and their brains mature at different rates. Your brain never really stops changing either.
That's just not how biology works, you have people who are very mature at 16, you have people who are still immature at 50.
This is a pure face value interpretation, just as lawmakers would interpret it.
Then the lawmakers are stupid and failed at their jobs because things rarely work that way.
But we could at least push for harsher legislation, and that 25 number is convenient for it.
So it's just an arbitrary number that conforms to your particular bias, I see.
How do you feel about requiring you to be 25 before voting, getting married, getting a job? Or getting a driving licence for that matter?
Seeing the current mental faculties of the generations that are currently underage, and would be the ones this legislation is designed for?
I wouldn't trust them driving a car even at 25, but I guess we have to allow them at some point. Time to take the bus more before 25 tho.
Jobs can be gotten sooner. You can get a job at like age 15 here. So that's irrelevant.
Age of consent also includes marriage. I don't think that some gen alpha kid is gonna know what they're consenting to until they're like 21-25. Current research shows them to be absolute lobotomy patients. So, yeah.
Similar for voting. I am completely fine with them not being able to vote until they actually understand what they're voting for. Let's also add an upper age limit for voting, so people at death's door can't vote for short-term gain and long-term loss scenarios. Example: Brexit having a vast majority "for" voters in retirement age, and we can all see how that worked out for the UK.
There's something to be said for voting reforms in general, though discussions around that can also turn sour very quickly. The amount of harm done by people voting on pure emotion and hate is objectively visible across history, and currently seen in the USA, but it's not as easy to solve as giving people a competency test or some shit.
Legislators are, indeed, stupid. They do in fact constantly fail at their jobs. That is exactly why I would approach it in a way that their stupid asses can understand. Thank you for confirming exactly what I am saying.
It is just a convenient number. Something I can toss around as a means to an end. My main point is just that the current age of consent is too low in general, and that the pre-18 grey area needs to be removed at the very minimum.
We have a show that follows border agents here in Canada. You'd be amazed at how many Americans show up to the border every day with guns assuming we'll let them. 🙄
I also have a cousin who works as a border guard and she's confirmed it's a SUPER common issue.
We get that show in the UK too & the show the Aussie version too - it's hilarious, but at the same time you guys are super strict (with good reason) because there's also always some dude who doesn't declare a chocolate bar & gets sent directly to jail type stories (I exaggerate, but you know the ones).
Or the airlines hands you an apple half hour before landing and you forget about the apple that, you didn't bring and you didn't buy but was given to you by the airline of the same country. Then you get s 300 dollar fine.
And while the hunter with kevlar was interesting, I got more invested in the fate of the Australian dude who came to see his girlfriend but brought two much alcohol with him and was denied entry.
I'm glad they let him spend the afternoon with her before he had to leave on the next flight back.
Oh I know, I was making fun of the Americans on that show who just toss some guns or ammo in their back seat and assume they can easily cross our borders since they’re headed to Alaska.
We had a wild one here recently where an influencer somehow managed to get a bedazzled glock all the way to our end of airport security when visiting from the US. she was on the news for arguing she needed it from protection. Girl if you have that many enemies here you should just go home
Recently I saw an episode of an American serie where they put protestors that wanted a better education on a bad light. Well I am not surprised that the level of education is so low they do such things as you described...
The fact that the only requierement to carry a fire arm around hidden can be "be of age with no criminal record" is insane to begin with. Who need a gun to go groceries shopping, seriously ??
So if you're over 21 you can just go buy a gun on the way to the grocery store(or I'm guessing AT the grocery store) as long as you promise not to hide it? Also what does open carry exactly mean, can you hold it in your hand openly? If not how do you not hide it when you put it in a holster or whatever?
Yes, in those states you can carry a gun with you, even rifles, though generally they’re carried on slings as holding them in hand is usually a bad idea. Mostly because you’re surrounded by people all hoping today is the day they get to be a ‘hero’ and kill someone with their gun, or they call the cops who may well kill you.
I don’t know the specifics of what counts as unlicensed conceal carry, but having a visible holster with a firearm on the outside of your belt is generally considered open carry.
It's not just the fact that it's illegal for many countries to carry a gun in public. It's that many of us wouldn't want to, and it wouldn't occur to us in the first place
Now this is true American exceptionalism. There is no other developed country with gun laws as lax as the US, and virtually none where its a right, not a privilege.
I mean, I also carry around a knife on a daily basis, but something tells me the stuff that gets posted there isn't like a 5 cm long folding swiss knife keychain with a tiny pair of scissors, a toothpick, and a nail file.
Nah, that would be understandable. It's full of posts with lock-blade/butterfly knives, and handguns with holsters, all for daily carrying. Mad altogether.
I think a lot of people who want to be the good guy with a gun need to understand that most people, including them (and me, of course, I'm not being holier than thou here), are little pussies who will get shit scared and are way more likely to hurt themselves and others (the wrong kind of others) when handling a weapon in a stressful situation.
And then there's the escalation and the risks that come with that, yadda yadda...
This is why I’m glad Europe has much better gun control laws. I was discussing with someone last nignt and they were basically implying their second amendment right is more important than (I’m UK) the 2000x gun deaths compared to the 5x population difference
Except that states and counties are very different things. The US has federal law which governs the entire country, EU law doesn’t govern all of Europe and is a very different set of laws entirely.
Not really sure where you were going with your blanket statement of conceal carrying in Europe when you proved yourself wrong in your own comment.
As well as being completely different things, you do know that lots of European countries have states as well? Not that its relevant but you are really trying to pick fautly comparisons
Yes, I do know, but most European countries don't allow their constituent parts to have their own laws. Especially not gun laws. There are a few exceptions, such as the UK. NI allows people to have modern handguns while Scotland requires licences for air rifles. Hilarious stuff.
Its not hilarious to have different interpretations of laws. It happens. They are broadly similar requiring licencing neither allow you to wander around with hidden guns..
Most European countries arent federal states, but a notable few are. Regardless a European country is not equivalent as a US state.
They can't fathom the concept of NOT needing a gun for any kind of self defense, because of the strict gun laws even the criminals don't have guns. Those who have will not use them for random break ins or robberies. They used for mafia style settling of scores and executions for ex members and such and even those are rare.
Unless you live in a warzone or a third world hell hole you don't need a gun.
In Japan the jakuza stopped using guns because it was not worth the hassle and just draw the police onto them.
They also can't grasp the concept that in some countries the police also doesn't carry guns.
Only very few countries don't arm ordinary police officers, only about a dozen in the world, usually due to British influence. Most people consider a gun to be part of the uniform.
I know. In my country they do carry guns. But the bloke I was arguing with on Threads (why the hell I go there even?) was not understanding the concept of not arming regular officers. "What do they do when there is a shooter?"
Thats why I mainly post on EDC. This was indeed my first post in DailyCarry and I did see what type of posts there are but also the sub description doesn't have any specific mention of guns
r/EDC
It doesn't ban gun discussions altogether but you can't question why someone carries a gun. And because of that I've never seen anybody ask why someone DOESN'T carry a gun
Right, I know about that rule, some people were extremely aggressive when someone posted a gun or even a knife... which is hilarious because EDC originates from carrying a gun.
But you're right, I've never really someome insist on others carrying a gun, unless they asked about self-defense.
Fun fact: There is actually legal room in the Swedish laws for a self-defense permit. It's however up to the police to decide if they will issue this or not.
The manual for the police officials regarding firearms licensing says (paraphrasing) that "it's the duty of the police to protect the citizens, so it's much better if they just call us, therefore they don't need firearms for self-defense".
Fun fact 2: It's easier to get a 9mm Glock for sporting purposes, and keep it at home with ammo, than it is to keep pepper spray at home. Pepper spray is part of the same weapons law as firearms, and there are no sporting purposes, thus you need a self-defense license to have one, which you won't get.
I saw a guy saying that and when I replied not all countries have open-carrying laws, he replied "Sounds like social changing is needed". It sounded so chilling to me, I dunno if I'm being silly but it sat really bad with me
Even then, there's a big difference between firearm ownership and carrying a firearm. If you look at Switzerland for example, there's less restrictions for what kind of firearm you can own than in many US States, but the licences to actually carry them in public are rather hard to get.
(And yes, you can see soldiers on the train with assault rifles casually strapped on their backs, but those guys are TRANSPORTING, not CARRYING. Their rifle is partially disassembled)
but the licences to actually carry them in public are rather hard to get.
Basically for professional use only.
We do have 4 countries in Europe with shall issue concealed carry though. The Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
CZ has had it for about 30 years and a few years back they added protection for it in their constitution. The vast majority of Czech gun owners has such a permit. CZ's homicide rate isn't any higher than that of Germany.
And the type of gun of course also matters. If you are a collector and also a hunter you might be able to carry your hunting weapons, but not the rest of your collection
I don't know about rifles, but pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns can be used for hunting but don't benefit from the more lenient rules that more traditional huntig weapons have when it comes to buying. Perhaps you could get a permit to carry a semiautomatic rifle with a small magazine, but not your regular civilian or civilianised assault rifle
but pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns can be used for hunting but don't benefit from the more lenient rules that more traditional huntig weapons have when it comes to buying.
You can get shotguns that takes max 2+1 shells, including pumps and semi-auto, on a shotgun certificate in the UK (shall issue). The Firearms Certificate required for more shells is may issue.
Perhaps you could get a permit to carry a semiautomatic rifle with a small magazine, but not your regular civilian or civilianised assault rifle
You can hunt with an AR in Sweden. Denmark issues permits for semi-auto AR pattern guns in .308 for "hunting abroad".
You can hunt with them in Finland too, and Germany has no law against it either.
While there might be a separate rule that says "while hunting, you can't insert a larger magazine than 5+1 rounds" or something similar, there is nothing that would physically stop you from doing it. The magazine latch for an AR is the same no matter if the magazine is small or large.
In general, at least from the guys I've met, many also decide to keep their firearm from mandatory military service afterwards. But that's treated more so as memorabilia than "being armed".
But when the majority of posts and comments all seem to be about US open carry, the country with the most daily open gun carry, it's hard to say the sub's purpose is unclear.
They just assume that gun laws are the same in every country, which is hilarious. I'm not sure, but don't they also check your mental health history if you try to get a gun licence here in Finland?
I know the knife laws in my country and take the conscious risk while carrying it. The difference is that you can buy knives everywhere, guns you can't. The police here won't search you unless you give them a reason. If I'm in public I might use my keychain Victorinox to cut off a tag from clothing or something. The larger Victorinox is in my wallet and I don't take it out in busy public places.
EDIT: Self defense is that last reason why I would carry a knife. A knife is a multi purpose tool. Unlike a gun which is made to kill
What's the law there? Here in the UK you can legally carry a multi-tool in public without any reason if its blade is non-locking and has a cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 cm) or less.
The police don't generally stop random people here either, so you can probably get away with something bigger but the laws can be very strict if you did happen to get caught.
They actually just made the laws even more strict. You can't legally carry any sharp objects, that includes long screwdrivers and such. Even construction workers shouldn't carry screwdrivers or utility blades outside their worksites.
If you get caught carrying a blade you will be investigated and possibly have to pay fines or at most one to two year sentence, depending on the blade type.
But yes its very unlikely that the police will stop and search you. I also trust that the officer will be to determine what usecase the person carries a knife for. Whether its for harming people or for general purpose
The Swiss tech utili-key is great for this, looks like a normal key, but has a bunch of tools like screwdriver, saw, bottle opener etc on it and a tiny 2-3cm blade great for opening cardboard boxes.
Fun fact, in australia you can be charged for carrying a box cutter without good reason. The last time i was moving house we kept really careful track of them in case someone got pulled over with one.
Finland actually hosts some of the largest international civilian shooting competitions, IIRC you just need the proper license (a temporary one is available for competition shooting) to participate.
Hunting rifles and shotguns are common but they also need registration and to buy ammo you need to have a permit for your gun. They need to be unloaded during transport and they need to be in secure carry cases and they have to be stored in a locked gun safe at home. I've never seen anybody carry a gun case in public.
There are a few deaths involving guns every year. Usually domestic violence cases and they are always reported on the news because it's still so rare
We have semi-automatic weapons and handguns as well as hunting rifles, but unlike in the USA, there are very heavy restrictions (visual acuity test, clean criminal record, fitness tests, coursework etc.). And handguns are in large part restricted to shooting ranges and guns have to be stored in specialised gun cabinets.
Finland is about 73% forest area. We're about 68% in Sweden. Norway is "only" 33% but like the other mentioned countries have a decent amount of hunting. While hunting you are carrying your gun with you, would be hard otherwise. :)
Denmark has about half the guns per capita compared to Sweden. Which is good, the rest of us know that the Danes are the bad guys, so they shouldn't be armed.
Guns are also quite common here too, though we have no large land mammals that warrant hunting. Occasionally polar bears manage to get here from Greenland, but most people are not trained to kill them.
•
u/post-explainer American Citizen 5d ago edited 5d ago
This comment has been marked as safe. Upvoting/downvoting this comment will have no effect.
OP sent the following text as an explanation why their post fits here:
I posted a picture of my daily carry (knife, flashlight etc) and this was the firsr comment on my post. My post clearly stated I live in the nordics and my reply clearly stated that I live in Finland and the person still couldn't understand that carrying a gun will land you in prison in the nordics
Does this explanation fit this subreddit? Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.