The firearms provided to the Icelandic Coastguard late last year are still in the country. The shipment of the guns to Iceland from the Norwegian military caused heated debate and criticism in Iceland and the Coastguard eventually relented and said the weapons would be sent back to Norway “at the first possible convenience”…. That statement was released in November, but Vísir has now found out from the Coastguard that the weapons remain in Iceland…. “It was planned to transport the weapons in a Norwegian military transporter plane which was due here in mid-May,” the news website was told. “Now it has been confirmed that the plane will not have a stopover here and so the coastguard is searching for other ways to transport the weapons to Norway.”…. The weapons were commissioned by the Icelandic Coastguard, but were due to be distributed to police forces around the country. That is where the controversy arose, with people asking whether the Icelandic police really need more guns.
While doing some research to plan for our honeymoon in Iceland and Norway in September, I came across the website for the Embassy of Iceland, which, as you might imagine, is rather unique, much like the country it represents.
To the American ammosexual community, I’d submit that this is what a common sense approach to guns looks like. Not “More guns will only make everyone safer,” but “Why do we need these guns to begin with?” Someone in the Icelandic Coast Guard thought it would be a great idea to import arms from Norway. The idea was to distribute them to police throughout out the country. Evidently the person responsible forgot to take into account the truth that most Icelanders see no reason for yet more weapons to be introduced into their heretofore peaceful country. What in this country wouldn’t have elicited so much as a yawn in acknowledgment became a major controversy, with Icelanders wondering why their police would need machine guns and Glocks when they’ve historically been unarmed. Would more firepower make Iceland safer? Do MOR GUNZ!!! accomplish anything except to increase the likelihood of gun-related deaths? In the opinions of Icelanders, the answer seems clear: MOR GUNZ!!! isn’t the answer…regardless of what the question might be.
In fact, Iceland is one of five countries which don’t arm its police force. This seems to work surprisingly well- especially when you consider that 1/3 of Icelanders are themselves armed and there’s no standing army. Despite Iceland being the 15th-most heavily armed population in the world, there’s relatively little violence. So why would anyone believe arming the local constabulary would have a salutary effect on a problem that doesn’t even exist?
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that beer was banned until 1989? Or that Iceland boasts the highest per capita consumption of Coca Cola in the world? Or perhaps it’s the water?
When police shot a man in Iceland in 2013, it was the first time cops had used their firearms and killed a person in the history of this country, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Granted, Iceland is a tiny country with only 300,000 inhabitants….
Are Icelanders simply more peaceful than Americans? “Iceland’s low crime rates are rooted in the country’s small, homogenous, egalitarian and tightly knit society,” sociologist Oddsson said….
Wright also thinks that the powerful standing of women in Iceland’s politics, as well as within the police force, has helped to maintain low crime rates — something the U.S. should learn from. Both Oddsson and Wright agree that low inequality and a strong welfare system have also contributed to Iceland’s success in sustaining its unarmed police.
“[L]ow inequality and a strong welfare system have also contributed to Iceland’s success in sustaining its unarmed police.” Perhaps there’s a lesson in that for Republicans committed to policies that foster income inequality AND dismatle the social safety net. Hmm…desperate people who feel they’re being treated unfairly might resort to violent protest? Whodathunkit?
Ah, but I digress….
My purpose isn’t to brag on Iceland for their vastly superior common sense gun policies…though that’s certainly tempting. In many ways, it’s an apples-and-oranges comparison, so drawing broad conclusions is problematical at best and silly at worst. Iceland is a small, homogeneous country that doesn’t lend itself to violence in the way the U.S.- a large, diverse country with a long and storied history of armed conflict- does.
No, what I’m suggesting is that a society not armed to the teeth is possible. A society not prone to defaulting to violence to settle disputes is certainly possible. Cultural differences aside, being an American doesn’t have to mean believing that the solution to our problems is MOR GUNZ!!! Problems are resolved and solutions aren’t negotiated via the barrel of a gun. Bloodshed and the potential for mayhem don’t make American a safer place; it just means being surrounded by an ever-increasing degree of lethality. Now that Texas allows concealed weapons on college campuses, the mind fairly boggles at the possibilities. Arming day care workers? Baristas? Fast food workers? Are we in the process of seeing American turned into a free-fire zone simply because politicians don’t have the balls to stand up to ammosexuals?
Could we ever manage American society in the way Iceland manages theirs? That seems unlikely…but Iceland’s example should be taken as indication of the truth that there are other ways to address societal ills that don’t involve high-powered weaponry. MOR GUNZ!!! solves little…save for perhaps population control. Violence doesn’t have to be the default response. Unfortunately for the majority of American who favor common sense gun control, responding to threats, whether real or perceived, with weapons drawn seems to be the American way.
We really should be better than this.
