I'm assuming you got the gun ownership by country figures from wikipedia, or from the same source that the wiki used.

It's a misleading stat, total guns owned by private persons. So if one american owns 100 guns, and 99 finns own one gun, the US has the higher rate. The Yemeni gun owners are almost certainly a tiny fraction of the populace.

If memory serves, in Bowling For Columbine, Moore asserts that more Canadians own guns per captia, because like the Finns, they like to hunt and live in rural environements.

If memory serves, in Bowling For Columbine, Moore asserts that more Canadians own guns per captia, because like the Finns, they like to hunt and live in rural environements.

One thing that I've noticed in discussions about gun ownership is that in the US, self-defense (from other people) is often a serious talking point. It doesn't really appear in debates elsewhere.

htra0497:

One thing that I've noticed in discussions about gun ownership is that in the US, self-defense (from other people) is often a serious talking point. It doesn't really appear in debates elsewhere.

That was also true of the U.S. as late as the 1950s.

The world-wide gun-control movement did not gain force until the early 1980s. Europe then still had a very low crime rate, so nobody thought twice when the governments decreed that there was no need to own guns for self-defense. It was only long after the people had been mostly disarmed and raised to believe that self-defense was uncivilized that the crime rate began to explode. Sportsmen who might have argued in favor of self-defense were intimidated lest the police use such advocacy as evidence that the speaker was unfit and untrustworthy to own a gun. Also, given the higher tax rate and the greater dependency on social services even among the lower-middle class (e.g. for subsidized housing), people were reluctant to speak out in any way that might attract the resentment of a local bureaucratic decision-maker.

In the U.S., the crime rate had already exploded in the 1960s in various urban areas -- and everywhere else beginning in the 1970s. Before the gun control movement really got organized, a significant subset of the population had begun to rely on guns to fill in where police protection fell short. These were often friends of rural cops who assured them that they weren't the type of people who against whom the concealed-weapon statutes were meant to be enforced. (In 1973 a middle-aged cop advised me, "Better to risk being tried by twelve than carried by six.")

These Americans became the core of the resistance to gun control beginning in the 1980s. And people who really were just sportsmen were learning from the European and Common Market countries just how futile was the defense that it wasn't fair to punish law-abiding sportsmen for the actions of criminals. I remember as late as 1994 hearing NRA spokesmen defend the "rights of sportsmen" -- and I thought "Boy, that sure is a pathetic argument!" It was only when the NRA began arguing the right of people to forcibly reject the demands of violent criminals (and when I learned of the deceptions practiced by those arguing that keeping a gun for self-defense was self-defeating) that I joined up.

By the time "moderate" gun control activists insisted that they did not oppose the ownership of handguns for target-shooting -- they only opposed ownership for the sake of defense because that's why we have police -- American gun owners already knew better than to take the bait.

"Also, given the higher tax rate and the greater dependency on social services even among the lower-middle class (e.g. for subsidized housing), people were reluctant to speak out in any way that might attract the resentment of a local bureaucratic decision-maker." Thanks for the interesting read. But I am curious about the quoted part: are you refering to Eastern Europe during the times of the Iron Curtain, or what? Living in western Europe, I have never noticed any reluctances to speak out about political issues - including such topics as gun-control (you go from "sportsmen", to say that people in general were opressed). Moreover, I can assure you that our social systems are regulated by law - hence they do not demand our silence in return for their favors.

"Canadians own guns per captia, because like the Finns, they like to hunt and live in rural environements."

First, Michael Moore is not an unbiased source for information.

Second, 40% of the American population live in "rural environments." That would be about 120 million people. They, probably, "like to hunt and live in rural environments." However, I don't understand what this has to do with anything.

htra0497:

"US, self-defense (from other people) is often a serious talking point. It doesn't really appear in debates elsewhere."

Perhaps because personal defense is outlawed in countries outside of the USA, such as it is in England, and therefore not even a consideration.

EuGuy:

"Also, given the higher tax rate and the greater dependency on social services even among the lower-middle class (e.g. for subsidized housing), people were reluctant to speak out in any way that might attract the resentment of a local bureaucratic decision-maker." Thanks for the interesting read. But I am curious about the quoted part: are you referring to Eastern Europe during the times of the Iron Curtain, or what? Living in western Europe, I have never noticed any reluctance to speak out about political issues - including such topics as gun-control (you go from "sportsmen", to say that people in general were oppressed). Moreover, I can assure you that our social systems are regulated by law - hence they do not demand our silence in return for their favors.

No, I am indeed talking about western Europe today. If you have never noticed any reluctance to speak out about political issues, then you haven't been looking. I can give you several examples. A Jew at an French university who speaks out pro-Israel will have tons of hostility heaped upon his head. A Christian minister in Norway who condemns homosexuality can lose his license to preach in a state-supported church. People who criticize racial or national minorities in England may have to defend himself in criminal court for it.

As for your assurances that your social systems are well-regulated by law -- and hence do not demand silence in return for their favors, well, obviously no bureaucratic functionary will _admit_ to doing that. But if one apartment in counsel housing is available and there are five applicants, and the decision makers decide not to consider the applicant whose politics they don't like -- there is no remedy. That is, not unless the political victim can provide proof -- which he cannot unless the power abusers are foolish enough to _admit_ their guilt.

More to the point, if you advocate that people should be allowed to shoot burglars, and then the police chief thereafter denies your application for a shotgun license on the grounds that he therefore does consider you to be of good character -- there is darn little you can do to overturn his decision. Now I suppose you'll argue that the police chief is thereby making the correct decision, but that is besides the point. The wise man who desires the renewal of his shotgun licence will hold his tongue and refrain from advocating armed self-defense.

_That_ is why self-defense is not raised as an issue in European gun-control debates.

I suppose your examples of European limits to free speech are good and true. But I do not think that they say more than the obvious: all over the world, even in the most democratic societies - including the U.S.A. - there are limits to free speech.

Naturally, people who dare speak out about hot topics are sometimes - or often - met by hostile reactions. But this is on the other hand a common human reaction, why I do not think it can be used as a measure of a culture's quality of free speech - unless, of course, the climate is extremely negative towards free speech in general. Thus, I think it takes much more than your few examples to show and prove that free speech is not what it is rumoured to be in western Europe.

"That is, not unless the political victim can provide proof -- which he cannot unless the power abusers are foolish enough to _admit_ their guilt."

If no objective organ - like a court of law - can prove power abuse, then I assume it is completely left to speculation/personal opinion whether power abuse has occurred or not. I do nevertheless think that bureaucrats sometimes abuse their position and stray outside their rules for how to conduct business to, for instance, revenge a critic. But I am sure this is a widespread phenomenon, why I fail to see how this sets western Europe apart.

"The wise man who desires the renewal of his shotgun licence will hold his tongue and refrain from advocating armed self-defense."

Maybe so - but I do not understand the connection with free speech? It can naturally be assumed it pays for the individual to lie the most times in cases of conflicting interests, as long as the liar does not get caught. But I do not understand how it can be used as a measure of the altitude for free speech in a society, unless the larger population regularly has to lie to its officials to avoid oppression. Fortunately, that is not how I (generally) comprehend the living conditions in most of western Europe.

I think that this whole discussion is a load of #@% bla bla bla!!! Ovbiously, the man was not right emotionally and was reaching out for help to post videos like that and begging for attention to be noticed who knows how long that went on? Also the cops that brought the guy in and questioned him than let him go to kill 10 people? why, wasn't a phsycologist in the room questioning him as well. they could have prevented this insident. Look people guns don't kill, people kill people, if not a gun a knife, if not a knife, a fork, a spoon, my hands, my foot, my pencil, my tweezers, and maybe my nail filer!!! It is our very human nature and we will always have something in our possession that can be used as a weapon. I have a gun for protection to protect my family from harm in my own house I am teaching my wife how to shoot and when i have kids I will teach them as well with gun safety. if we illegalize guns just like in the 20's with the prohabition against alchohol crime will sky rocket 3 fold. I believe aven more people would have illegal guns than ever. I do believe that it should be licensed. WHEN I CALL THE POLICE AND THEY SHOW UP BEFORE I CAN GET A PIZZA AT MY DOOR THAN I WILL HAND OVER MY GUN!!! PLEASE MISTER KILLER LETS TAKE A TIME OUT UNTIL THE COPS ARIVE, YEAH RIGHT!! WORTHLESS discussion all this babling on? EUguy tell me honestly what would you do if a burglar came into your house and had your family and you in harms way and threatened to kill you with no time to call the police and even if you did? what would you do? My point exactly! did you know that in rual neighborhoods of lower class in NYC cops take a good half hour to an hour to show up to your door? Tell me what do you do? you break in my house you'll be hearing the cocking of my shotgun very near betting they wont come in.

" I think that this whole discussion is a load of #@% bla bla bla!!!"

Can it be that you don't understand it?

"Also the cops that brought the guy in and questioned him than let him go to kill 10 people? why, wasn't a phsycologist in the room questioning him as well. "

Now you are talking - don't we all wonder?

"Look people guns don't kill, people kill people, if not a gun a knife, if not a knife, a fork, a spoon, my hands, my foot, my pencil, my tweezers, and maybe my nail filer!!"

I call that insubstantial propaganda. Send in a deranged individual into a school auditorium armed with...to chose between your suggested weapons...a "nail filer". I take it almost for granted, that compared with facing a perpetrator with a high-tech weapon, it would relatively speaking be practically a joy for the people in the said place to instead confront the evil file-swinger. I agree that people kill people, but people rarely kill as swiftly and as many people, as when they have possession of firearms (admit it, you already know that, didn't you?).

"EUguy tell me honestly what would you do if a burglar came into your house and had your family and you in harms way and threatened to kill you with no time to call the police and even if you did? what would you do? My point exactly!"

Of course, you are right. But I consider that too being insubstantial propaganda - it has no real value if you critically view the wider meaning of it. For instance, I bet you don't live as consequently as you preach (?). If you would, and if you live in a metropolitan area, I would assume you always walk around wearing an extremely thick, full body rubber suit - or any other kind of thick armour - to protect you from accidentally being hit by cars. That is, if take your own logic seriously. After all, it can happen, and it does happen frequently - right? So why not protect yourself against that, too (my point exactly!)?

So, it is a matter of both risk evaluation, and how one reacts to different kinds of threats (not always logically). Important in this case, is also that this was about Finland and firearms - a nation that together with a large part of western Europe, is generally a 'low-crime' area when it comes to serious, violent crime - and especially crimes commited with firearms. So whether our little talk here really is "#@% bla bla bla!!!" - I assume that the topics that we debate here following what happened in Finland, deserves to be understood within that special geographical/cultural context.

Most countries before World War Two have not had any laws against ownership of firearms. Germany early on disarmed their population in the late 1930's when a certain person rose to power. I have traveled around Europe and the Orient and I think I saw more handguns for sale in France then any other country. I also think there are more unregistered handguns in Japan, England and other countries that the authorities know they are powerless to control ownership. Australia recently banned ownership of firearms and their crime rate jumped by 600%. Buying a pistol in New York City is probably easier then buying illegal drugs and everyone knows how sucessful the ATF and DEA have been. I am in the opinion make everything legal, Tax it and call the results as a thinning of the herd. Look how much money the English made by selling Opium in China but these facts are shoved under the rug

EuGuy:

I do nevertheless think that bureaucrats sometimes abuse their position and stray outside their rules for how to conduct business to, for instance, revenge a critic. But I am (not?) sure this is a widespread phenomenon, why I fail to see how this sets western Europe apart. "The wise man who desires the renewal of his shotgun licence will hold his tongue and refrain from advocating armed self-defense." Maybe so - but I do not understand the connection with free speech?

I never said there was a connection with free speech. EUGuy was the one who interpreted it as such, and suggested that, because it's not a bureaucrat's job to punish people with unpopular opinions, therefore Europeans need have no fear of that. I consider his position to be naive.

As an analogy, I'm sure that in America someone maintaining a license to run a day-care facility would hesitate to advocate loosening the restrictions on child-pornography, and might thereby invite hostile scrutiny of his business by the government.

My point was merely that fear of retribution by bureaucrats (e.g. a police inspector refusing to renew your firearms certificate) is the main reason European gun owners do not raise the issue of armed self-defense in the European gun control debate. The police inspectors would suspect that the gun owner might be willing to use his own firearm in self-defense, and therefore cancel his license and confiscate the weapon.

That's not a free-speech issue; it's a consequence of European self-defense law. If you're carrying a walking cane and police ask you whether you would use it in self-defense against a mugger -- and you answer yes -- then you can be charged with the crime of "carrying an offensive weapon." To be legal, you have go about with the notion that you will accept any assault against your body or property rather than hitting back with the cane. True, you might be _forgiven_ for doing so if you argue, after the fact, that it was sheer terror that drove you to behave so badly, but the act of armed self-defense itself is simply not legal there, and anyone who advocates it is treated by bureaucrats as someone advocating a terrible crime.

When Tony Martin came up for parole after his conviction for shooting two burglars, he was denied on the grounds that he admitted no remorse. The government argued, "We feel he is still a danger to burglars, and it is our duty to protect burglars even as they are committing their crimes."

_That_ is why the debate is different in Europe. People who would advocate armed self-defense against crime would be treated no differently than someone advocating racial violence.

" I never said there was a connection with free speech."

You painted a picture of an oppressive European society in which people in general were afraid of speaking out because of malevolent bureaucracies, thus creating self censorship. I think that falls well within the topic of free speech, as far as the claimed oppressive climate can be assumed would be a severe hindrance for free speech.

Furthermore, i object to being called naive only because I do not share your idea (a very unsubstantiated one, as I think I managed to point out in my earlier posting) that European bureaucrats in general would be punishing people for having unpopular opinions. If that was the rule, I am sure I would have experienced it first hand numerous of times. Which I have not.

"My point was merely that fear of retribution by bureaucrats (e.g. a police inspector refusing to renew your firearms certificate) is the main reason European gun owners do not raise the issue of armed self-defense in the European gun control debate."

First, I think it is wise to separate what is suitable for a private citizen to say to an official when applying for a firearm license - and what is usually said and for what reasons in the larger gun control debate in the political institutions and the media. The latter debate will most likely strongly contribute to set the limits for what the authorities will comprehend as balanced or less acceptable motivations from individuals who applies for firearm licenses. Where I live in Europe - in Sweden - the idea of private citizen having firearms for the purpose of self defence is so very far beyond the mainstream opinions that this is most likely the reason for why such opinions are rarely heard in the debate; most people do not think this needs to be debated. That may also be the simple explanation by which one can understand the debates also in the rest of Europe. Generally, culturally dictated, armed protection is left to the police, and for the rest of it I suppose the gun control debate contains mostly of settled opinions that leaves little room (or interest) for dissent.

Otherwise, I suppose you are right in your small example. It probably does not pays for the individual to speak about purposes like self defence, if applying for a firearm license in this part of the world.

"That's not a free-speech issue; it's a consequence of European self-defense law. If you're carrying a walking cane and police ask you whether you would use it in self-defense against a mugger -- and you answer yes -- then you can be charged with the crime of "carrying an offensive weapon." To be legal, you have go about with the notion that you will accept any assault against your body or property rather than hitting back with the cane."

The fact that Europe contains of almost fifty nations with their own sovereign laws may explain why I have no knowledge of an European self-defence law (source?). What you may find in Europe, are cultural similarities in many of nations that speaks pretty much the same language, revealing much of the same mindsets, about topics like self defence. As far as I know - and I am now again speaking about what I am familiar with: Swedish conditions - I can walk around where I live with for instance a sprint baton in my pocket without fear of being arrested. The limit here are set at knives - they are considerer "offensive weapons" and are not allowed in public places unless the carrier can certify they are not intended as weapons (being a carpenter is a valid reason). So I must assume canes would be well within the allowed range. I really wonder to which European country you refer that example???

"
_That_ is why the debate is different in Europe. People who would advocate armed self-defense against crime would be treated no differently than someone advocating racial violence. "

If you voice strong opinions that goes contrary to culture and habit, you will most likely create a stir, yes. But I am sure most people will without difficulty understand the very large differences between the two positions you mention; I have that much confidence in my fellow Europeans. A proponent of the first idea would probably be regarded as somewhat extreme in most European countries, but it would at least be an idea that people in general would be familiar with; most of us has heard it before. The other idea would, in most camps, countries and cultures, only label the proponent as a stir-crazy thug: voicing such ideas would for certain be illegal where I live.

"That's not a free-speech issue; it's a consequence of European self-defense law. If you're carrying a walking cane and police ask you whether you would use it in self-defense against a mugger -- and you answer yes -- then you can be charged with the crime of "carrying an offensive weapon." To be legal, you have go about with the notion that you will accept any assault against your body or property rather than hitting back with the cane."

As far as I know - and I am now again speaking about what I am familiar with: Swedish conditions - I can walk around where I live with for instance a sprint baton in my pocket without fear of being arrested. The limit here are set at knives - they are considerer "offensive weapons" and are not allowed in public places unless the carrier can certify they are not intended as weapons (being a carpenter is a valid reason). So I must assume canes would be well within the allowed range. I really wonder to which European country you refer that example???

What if the knife is for both purposes? What if you are a carpenter _and_ you want to defend yourself using the tools of your trade?

Different countries vary, I must admit, but my description is pretty accurate for England. If you are carrying a screwdriver the police can demand evidence that you need to carry a screwdriver for your work. Even if you do need a screwdriver for your work, they may ask you, "Would you use it for self-defense?" If you say yes then you can be arrested for carrying it. The term "offensive weapon" is there interpereted to include anything that is carried with the intent of harming a violent criminal attacker.

Where I live in Europe - in Sweden - the idea of private citizen having firearms for the purpose of self defence is so very far beyond the mainstream opinions that this is most likely the reason for why such opinions are rarely heard in the debate; most people do not think this needs to be debated. ... Generally, culturally dictated, armed protection is left to the police, and for the rest of it I suppose the gun control debate contains mostly of settled opinions that leaves little room (or interest) for dissent.

Little interest in dissent is a cultural issue; little room for dissent is one of free speech (or intimidation). With respect to the question of armed self-defense, I suspect that in Europe there are aspects of both.

Culturally, before WWI carrying a pocket pistol (a "Browning") for protection from muggers was quite popular among those Europeans who could afford them. The reservation of force to the police represents the growing post-WWI rejection of Revolution-of-1848 notions of individual liberty and self-government in favor of a variety of more statist, collectivist models (e.g. International Socialism, National Socialism, Labor/Democratic Socialism).

In America, people still have the old notion of a right to "Freedom from Unwarranted Search and Seizure" and a sense that government violates this right indirectly if they protect rapists and armed robbers from harm at the hands of their intended victims (sort of like the way a man is partly guilty of rape even if all he does is help hold down the victim's sharp fingernailed hands down while another man rapes her).

In most of Europe, in contrast, it is felt that the government has the authority to take anything (or everything) you own (provided this is the decision of 51% of Parlianment). So _of_course_ they can demand that you submit to robbery, treating your victimization as really none of your own personal business but merely an instance of the criminal's disobedience to the government (which government might _choose_ to investigate and punish).