Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:  >	Observations from a naive norwegian:  Yup, you said it.  I admire such honesty. ;-)  >	1) Guns are made to KILL people, not to shoot target or to  >	have something more macho than stamps to collect.....  Fire an Anschutz .22, then come back and talk to us.  You're letting ignorance and possibly fear cloud your thinking.  Either that, or this is sour grapes because we beat you in the Olympic shooting events. Funny, you'd think biathalon would be a natural sport for the norse. ;-)  >	2) It IS more easy to kill/injure someone with a gun than >	with a knife or a bat (as in baseball).  Precisely.  That makes them the best method of defense for the citizenry. Not everybody has the time to train with a gladius, you know, but for some reason those who prey on others seem to have more free time.  To extend this a bit further, you need only a certain level of competence to beat another with a range weapon.  Getting in their face with a weapon and winning is much more difficult, and requires more training time the average citizen just does not have.  I've spent a few years practicing with a sword.  I can take the common person armed with one (though self-defense isn't the reason I own one).  My kid sister would have an even chance of beating me, gun vs. gun, with only a month of training.  That makes firearms much better, in our eyes.  >	3) It's not very wise to compare two completely different >	countries like USA and, let's say, Island on issues like >	crime and violence.  Excellent point.  Perhaps you aren't so naive after all?  >	4) Yes, the problem is  people committing crimes, not the tools >	beeing used, but 1) should be taken into concideration.  Taken into consideration in what respect?  Though quite wrong, let's make it a blanket statement for weapons in general.  This has been taken into consideration.  We call use of them aggrivated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to kill, attempted murder, and a whole host of others, and tack on extra prison time.  >	We have a very strict gun-legislation in Norway, but until recently >	it was possible for enyone over 18 years to buy a shotgun. >	Shotguns are used mainly for hunting in Norway(...), but because it >	was so easy to accuire one, it was THE most used gun in crimes.  In Norway I suspect it was about the only weapon available.  You conquered your land (among others) a full millenia before we were thought of, and shortly thereafter weapons weren't quite so common.  I suspect that a few world wars made a difference too, since in times of emergency weapons tend to be turned in or donated to needy causes.  I'm curious, though, were the weapons used in the crimes bought shortly before the crime, or were they aquired by other means?  Any requirements other than just registering the shotgun?  >	And -unbelievable- the use of guns in crime fell..... >	There are now a new law against wearing long knives in public, >	and why should it be allowed ??  "Come on down to honest Erik's Used Swords!  Here's a slightly-used short sword, *THE* battlefield supremacy weapon of the eleventh century!  Only $39.95 with trade-in.  Easy financing!"  Sorry, I couldn't resist.  You guys still slicing each other with long knives, or is this really not a problem?  >	What I, as an scandinavian, have problems to understand is that  >	you (Americans) have a more liberal view on guns and violence >	than on nudity and sex. >	Try showing a bare breast on tv insted of violence and murder...  I'm all for that.  What gets me is that scandanavians (and yes, I'm only a couple generations off the longship) used to be some of the most feared warriors on the planet a mere millenia ago, yet now seem to spend their time sitting in spas and doing a bit of topless sunbathing. Maybe you had a bit more time, and a more homogeneous culture, to become civilized with?  >	Yes, I know a little American history, but is it a civil/human >	right to have an assault gun in your home and/or an handgun >	in your car??  Yes.  We're too damned violent, partially I believe because we are not a homogeneous culture and don't identify ourselves as "Americans" first and foremost.  I'm rather proud of my Norwegian and Danish heritage, whereas I suspect you couldn't care less about that 2% Welsh blood in your veins thanks to a raid in Ireland back in 1055?  The time scale and the homogeneous culture are important.  Equally important is a basic philosophical difference in personal versus collective good. In America, the individual is more important than the masses.  Personal liberties are prized above all.  This is, sadly, changing of late, but I trust you notice how this call for freedom makes laws that restrict individuals for little collective benefit hateful to Americans.  I'd hazard a guess that, were America less interested in freedom and personal liberty and more interested in collective good we never would have sent our armed forces anywhere.  One poor effect of this culture we have is that we're looking out for ourselves and it is quite easy to identify with only a small segment of the population.  My grandmother tells of being discriminated against back in Denmark because she spoke "low Dane," whereas others spoke "high Dane."  It was shortly after World War II, as I remember, that "low Dane" was abolished so there was one common dialect.  We cannot fathom such a minor thing being a problem, because we have even more obvious means of identifying an "outsider."  >			The bad english is not my fault, it's probably >			the keyboard-software or the quality of the >			subtext on tv......  Take heart, yours is better than 90% of what gets posted by native speakers. Any helpful hints for our educational system?  People have this annoying tendency to drop out of school and sell drugs over here.  [ ;-) And what kind of name is Thomas Parsli?  Here, you can use my great grandfather's before he changed it: Christian Aarskog.  That's a great one for getting mispronounced.  I think that's why he changed it. I don't think he needs it anymore ;-) ]