Edit: just saw this now, and I think I understand what you mean: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41672534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41672534 So

Edit: just saw this now, and I think I understand what you mean: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41672534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41672534 Sorry, English is not my first language :-) ----------- To try to explain were I come from in this discussion: I live in one of the Nordic countries in the suburbs. From what I know two of my immediate neighbors have firearms. I suspect there are a lot more nearby because gun ownership is very common and most people don't talk about it - I only know they have guns because they sometimes go hunting.) Growing up I knew about three houses with complete, working assault rifles and emergency depots of ammo. (This was completely normal until a spectacular robbery were the robbers used stolen assault rifles early in the 2000s.) Switzerland and Austria I understand is the same. All three known as very peaceful countries. From what I read most of the absolute worst crimes against humanity has happened by the government against the citizens, not by citizens against citizens. I am aware of the risks of pervasive weapons ownership but I think of it as an insurance policy against much much worse problems. So I feel quite confident that there is a huge difference between having access to violence and using violence.