well everyone should be armed of course, and have gone through firearms safety training, but it's not just about the sheer number of guns it's also about their capacities but most importantly it's training that matters.

I definitely don't think that in order to provide security everyone needs an AR-15 or an AK-47 which is how some people over here think. Today in America the AR-pattern rifle (the semi-automatic civilian version of the familiar full-auto-capable M-16 or M-4) is the most popular model of rifle, with millions sold in the past decade. Virtually all of them produced in the past decade have abandoned the old M-16’s signature “carrying handle” rear iron sight for a standardized sight mounting rail, meaning that virtually every AR sold today can be easily equipped with an efficient optical sight. Firing the high-velocity 5.56×45 mm cartridge and mounted with a four-power tactical sight, a typical AR rifle can shoot two-inch groups at one hundred yards when fired from a steady bench rest. That translates to shooting eight- to ten-inch groups at four hundred yards.

Four hundred yards is a long walk. Pace it off on a straight road, and observe how tiny somebody appears at that distance. Yet a typical AR rifle, like those currently owned by millions of American citizens, can hit a man-sized target at that range very easily, given a stable firing platform and a moderate level of shooting ability.

But what a lot of people don't realize is there are a far greater number of scoped bolt-action hunting rifles in private hands in the United States. Keep this number in mind: based on deer stamps sold, approximately twenty million Americans venture into the woods every fall armed with such rifles, fully intending to shoot and kill a two-hundred-pound mammal. Millions of these scoped bolt-action deer rifles are quite capable of hitting a man-sized target at ranges out to and even beyond a thousand yards, or nearly three-fifths of a mile. In that context, the 500-yard effective range of the average semi-auto AR-pattern rifle is not at all remarkable.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that you don't have to break the bank to arm your society in an effective way. Your country will be doing just fine if most people simply have a bolt action scoped hunting rifle but what they really need is firearms training.

The US doesn't fit your recommendation, as most of the population hasn't had firearms safety training. Why do you think it will be able to handle types of civilian disturbances you mentioned earlier, when not everyone is so trained?

Earlier you said "in Europe nobody has a choice but to rely solely on the government to stabilize the situation after a major emergency because they don't have the firearms they would need to restore peace on their own."

Therefore, which scenarios do you think the US, with its armed citizenry, will be able to handle more successfully than the equivalent in most European areas? If more Finns per capita have had more training than Americans, wouldn't that be a safer country still? How is a policy maker supposed to figure out what level of gun ownership and training is optimal?