Where I live (Finland) the ratio is 2:5 (2 million legal guns, 5 million people). That's the highest in EU. We also have among the highest homicide rate in EU, but these two rates are not really connected (i.e. very few of the homicides done with a gun.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...
Yes, intrinsically bad. It's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't live in a gun "bubble". Number one cause of death by gun? Suicide. Watch that YouTube clip[2] in full; it summarises my opinion quite well. The second amendment makes sense in the era of muskets, but in the present day only serves to make everyday life less safe, and police officers more Ferguson-ey.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...
Plus that in Europe, the powers-that-be have largely wanted to avoid revolutions, which means that the public's access to firearms as well as right to self-defence is restricted and police, gendarmerie and similar organisations have true monopoly on (lawful) violence. America, in turn, is a child of revolution and is revering the overthrowing of powers-that-be who were perceived as tyrants.
That's just my understanding of the history how the United States has come to this situation, not a value statement that it's how things should be.
(Just for comparison, compare to other countries colonized at the same time or earlier, like Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Honduras, Colombia, Nicaragua - they all have much higher homicide rates than the U.S.)
Not sure I understand. Switzerland has 1/2 the guns, but nowhere near 50% of the US' homicide rate. Are you saying the ability to legally carry a gun is the reason for the difference?
The states that legally allow carrying a concealed weapon without a permit (VT, AK) have some of the lowest murder rates of all states.
As for concealed carry permit states, VT and AK have murder rates remarkably consistent with geographical neighbors. You are dead wrong to claim they are somehow special.
When we arrived at the airport, my wife was detained because the silver earrings she was wearing were cast from a mold to look like empty bullet cartridges (with feathers and various doodads attached, nothing that had attracted any attention in any of a dozen high security settings). The bureaucrat who interrogated her claimed that whether she was in very serious trouble or not was entirely in his hands.
I'm no second amendment fanatic, but as an American, it was shocking to find myself in a position where some minor official could plausibly even claim to have so much power. The fact that Singaporean society is willing to make that kind of tradeoff for the sake of safety made me realize that it was not somewhere I could ever live.
The craziest part was that the Singaporeans and expats I met there did not even see it as a tradeoff. It was more like "these are the rules, if you follow them you will be so safe, whether the rules are right or just or good isn't a well-posed question". We were just having two different conversations.
What are these moral laws you speak of? Your opinions on what is right and what is wrong?
The cases you present for firearm possession is simply a case of false dichotomy. Firearm possession is not inherently immoral. The armies of the country would definitely need them to protect the country against others, especially for Singapore who is surrounded by hostile neighbours.
Citizen ownership of firearms, on the other hand, is a highly impractical thing. It is illegal to own firearms in the country and that is just how the laws of the countries were set up in the first place. I would not go as far as to say that owning them is immoral, but by intentionally breaking the laws of the country, what are you trying to imply?
Singaporean officials are also very keen on following the letter of the law, and in Singapore that letter happens to state that unauthorized possession of ammunition is a Very Big Deal.