Hangtime:
"Here, we've learned that firearms is the guarantee to free will the hard way.. and won a revolution. The presence of several million guns in the population gives pause to any illegal ursurpation of power over the people, foriegn or domestic. Lastly, For us, punishing the criminal makes more sense than punishing the gun... a mere tool; in itself no more dangerous than a knife or woodchipper."
Seems to work rather differently in the old 1st world then.
NB, they all have guns, just less. And yet you seem to have more deaths, crime and people in jails. Bugger!
Then:
"Regardless, the fact remains.. criminals don't like victims capable of 'equalizing' the situation, and will move on if the prey can defend themseleves."
So, are you talking about in the streets, or at home? Now here's a thought, any home up here might actually have firearms, you'll never know.
But handguns? nope.
And does the bandit have a gun? 99%+ no.
Finally:
"I'm glad your little country is secure in it's domestic affairs.. sounds like a very beautiful and safe place. It also sounds very vulnerable. You must be very glad the United Nations and Denmark insure your national sovreginity."
A little info.
Safe place yes, but so are many other, as some parts of the USA
Vulnerable? to what?
UN and Denmark? You're joking, you must know that the US was here, but they left the patch they were on. Our independence came without a fight on our side, - the Danes were conquered by the Germans, but the Brits beat them to catch Iceland. So, TY Brits
Maybe that's what you mean by vulnerable. Vulnerable to hostile paratroopers? Well, there is the Police, the Special force (oops, armed and trained worldwide somehow) and our coastguard who actually faced a threat some years back...(funny story)
Would a lot of handguns make it safer?