[Rich Miranda]

To own a weapon in Norway, one must document a use for the weapon. By far, the most common grounds for letting a civilian purchase and own a weapon is hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self defense, but the first is rare and the second reason is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership.

First off, I am proud to say that I am half Norwegian. Needless to say, here in Texas lutefisk and lefse are hard to come by

As for the above section of the law, it makes me wonder. Since the gun crime rate (and overall crime rate) is so low in Norway, self-defense is not an acceptable reason to own a weapon. OK, fine, I can understand that. If the society is civilized enough to keep from killing each other, your need for a weapon is diminished.

But here is my question: let's say the gun crime rate started to increase, perhaps significantly. Would the government respond by allowing MORE people to own a gun for self-defense (since there is increased need for self-defense purposes, OR would it go the opposite route and allow LESS gun ownership under the guise of reducing the number of handguns generally in existence?

Here in America, the answer seems to be that there are more restrictions placed on gun ownership when the crime rate is high, which obviously doesn't make sense (to me anyway, a RKBA advocate). Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but those places with greater gun control generally have higher crime rates. This is a chicken-and-egg scenario (which came first?) but it seems to me that the crime almost always came first, then the gun control showed up as a way to control the crime. But since that doesn't work, all you end up with is a crime ridden city/state with a populace unable to properly defend itself.

I would hope that Norway, being progressive and peaceful, would never have to address this scenario. It was the world's 3rd most peaceful country in 2008 (US was #97).