Intresting note:
Nordic countries (Finland, Norway) and Swizerland rank very high in gun ownership among OECD countries. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Gun-own...
Nordic countries (Finland, Norway) and Swizerland rank very high in gun ownership among OECD countries. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Gun-own...
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland’s murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.
and
the study also shows that Russia’s murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
source: http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterp...
This was exactly the purpose of the text in the second amendment when they talk about having a "well regulated militia":
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
source: http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/
Essentially this meant every citizen should be properly armed should they be called into duty for defending the country. Sure, a lot has changed since then, but most gun owners I know still take this wording very seriously and believe it is their duty to defend against government tyranny.
I don't see how you get from point A ("well-regulated" means keeping in proper working order) to point B (the purpose of the militia was to defend against government tyranny).
One of the motivating purposes of the Constitutional Convention was to respond to the failure of the state militias to put down armed rebellions against the government. Whether or not the second amendment guarantees the right to own personal firearms, the idea that the framers intended those firearms be used against the government is ludicrous. The most reasonable conclusion from the primary materials is that those well-regulated militias exist to put down those who would take up arms against the government!
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
But he was most certainly a firebrand, and you do have a point about motivations for our current Constitution if this book is to be believed: http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/13777.html (it's new (2003) and sounds revisionist, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect, just that as with anything historically political like it it has to be checked, see e.g. Arming America).
Needless to say, like the Revolutionary War smoothbore musket (not necessarily as useful for hunting as a slow to load back then rifle), today's "assault weapons" are the arms particularly suited for that duty.
The wildlife in the Nordic area is very rarely dangerous. In the whole of Norway (60% more land area than the UK) there are a couple of dozen wolves and about 140 bears. The commonest large animal is elk and that is what the Norwegian hunting rifles are for.
You are more likely to be bitten by an adder than attacked by a large mammal and even then fatalities are rare.
As for the sparse population that is an example of averages being very misleading. Where there are any substantial numbers of people the population density is similar to the average for the UK while the mountains and high plains are almost not populated at all.
I write as a long term resident of Norway.
:-)
LOL no. We have lots of guns because we hunt.