1. How many weapons per capita is enough.
2. Whether a person should be restricted from owning a firearm by the government or not.
I believe 1:1 is a good ratio as a minimum and allows for non-functioning arms and users. I would agree to disagree on this.
I don't trust you or the government to make that decision for me. I don't trust me to make that decision for others, unless they are in front of me doing something blatantly stupid. No person should be barred from gun ownership for any reason because that is such a slippery slope that is so easy to abuse. There is some danger from erratic individuals that way, but not nearly the danger that a government taking people's weapons poses.
I’m not so sure we are in disagreement about your point one. My argument is simply that it is not possible for 100% of the population to be armed, and I mean not physically or mentally or practically possible, so a 1 in 2 ratio means that just about everyone who could be carrying firearms probably is doing. The rights of whether they do or not are another matter, and depend totally on the laws of the land in question - I’m not sure what the exact situation is in Finland.
As far as how many is enough - I would think that depends to a certain extent on the perceived level of threat. If people feel insecure they tend to buy guns. If they feel safe then they don’t buy as many. This is not unusual - nations do the same thing. In times of war they increase their military, in times of peace they demobilise.
I see where you are coming from in point two, but consider. The government is of the people, by the people for the people (apologies if I’ve gotten that the wrong way round!) Your government IS you, or at least its supposed to be. Therefore, in the USA, the State places the burden for making these kinds of moral decisions in YOUR hands, whether you like it or not. And lets face it, that’s better than letting someone else do it.
It therefore follows that you DO have to make that decision as to whether someone should be restricted from owning a firearm. Now I understand the logic of the slippery slope, but I don’t think that neccesarily applies. After all, you have a right to freedom of movement, but if you break the law the State can limit that, by putting you in Gaol. The State can also disenfranchise you, because you lose the vote when you are in prison. If you drive a vehicle recklessly, they can fine you, or confiscate your licence. Yet no one ever argues that those things are the first stage on a “slippery slope” (probably because they have widespread if grudging support!)
A lot is made about the “right” to own guns, but gun ownership is also a responsibility (the two concepts of rights and responsibility usually do go together, something that liberals never quite seem to be able to grasp). I personally have no problems with someone who handles weapons in an irresponsible way being punished for doing so, up to and including losing the right to own or use one (at least temporarily). I understand people will differ on what qualifies as “responsible”, but I’m talking general principles here.
And on a purely tactical level, consider this. The biggest problem gun-owners have in the US, or anywhere else for that matter, is that they all get tarred with the same brush whenever some idiot goes on a mad shooting spree. The anti-gun lobby uses every such instance to pressure for more controls. But, if laws are in place to punish individuals who misuse weapons in any way, there is automatically a “disconnect” between them and the vast majority, who are only interested in hunting, or defending their homes and families and livelihoods. In other words, the emphasis is placed upon the individual, rather than the concept of owning and using firearms itself.