Yes,
free your hands, put guns in the garbage.

Should they be banned? Of course not. They serve a purpose of protecting the citizenry from a corrupt and potentially violent government. If we have a right to resist a tyrannical government, then we have a right to overthrow it. It's hard to imagine overthrowing such a government without violence as we've seen numerous times in history. One could then argue whether or not this suggests that a citizen-run militia should be allowed to have guns or all citizens. This opinion was of the former by the Supreme Court until only the last 20 years. But as for completely banning guns, I think that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason.

Here's a fun fact: North Koreans believe that they're the happiest people in the world. Or their children do, and the adults did until very recently. In any case, whether people are happy about where they live tends to have more to do with how well off they think they are rather than how well off they really are. If Scandinavians think they're better off than the rest of the world, is that because they really are? Or because, contrary to appearances, the average Scandinavian is actually no better informed about the rest of the world than the average American? From what I've seen, an awful lot of Europeans tend to think of the whole of the US as being like what they see in violent Hollywood films and on the Jerry Springer show; given the number is silly stereotypes they take seriously, it's no wonder they believe their countries are so much better.

And additionally, people from countries with socialist systems tend to have great difficulty understanding how a modern country can work without the government doing everything for them; it encourages over-reliance on the state. This is probably the reason why Russia went to shit after the USSR fell: without the state that they've always depended on, people didn't have a clue what to do. So naturally, people from such countries will judge whether or not a country is "good" depending on how "big" the government is.

No, it wasn't.

If corruption hasn't been found in Scandinavian governments, it's because the people aren't looking hard enough. They should be more paranoid about their politicians.

Here's a fun fact: North Koreans believe that they're the happiest people in the world. Or their children do, and the adults did until very recently. In any case, whether people are happy about where they live tends to have more to do with how well off they think they are rather than how well off they really are. If Scandinavians think they're better off than the rest of the world, is that because they really are? Or because, contrary to appearances, the average Scandinavian is actually no better informed about the rest of the world than the average American? 

Wow, well first of all scandinavians aren't brainwashed borderline servents to a dictator. Secondly, when did I say or how do "scandinavians think they're better off than the rest of the world". I said from what I've heard from scandinavians it's a lovely place to live - all of these people now living in england with the exception of one- so they do have a point of comparison.

My point is that with the governments running Sweden, Norway, Finland and iceland, the countries are very successful and is a great place to live, statistics say it, the people say it, the tourists say it. You have yet to present a convincing contradictory argument to this, if this isn't what you're arguing agaisn't, then let's just stop. I wouldn't consider myself a socialist but at least I can accept the fact that socialist systems do work in some cases, why can't you? 

Never said there wasn't any corruption in scandinivia, there is. Just not a lot according to the statistics:

I dislike Scandinavia being used as a poster boy for socialism for multiple reasons.

1) Most of Sweden's largest and richest companies were founded before the socialist party ever existed. Ikea and Volvo (perhaps Sweden's two most famous brands) certainly were, and Sweden was unregulated capitalism, back then.

2) Scandinavia is an extremely resource-rich region, with small, indigenous populations who have a (stereotypically) strong work ethic. What part of the world wouldn't do well with these circumstances?

3) Scandinavia is an extremely "safe" region. Very little war, or natural disasters have plagued the countries. They are also surrounded by extremely affluent and friendly neighbours with great trade policies between them.

What region or country wouldn't do well with the above circumstances? Capitalistic or socialistic? It's a shame that no other region in the world has similar circumstances, but with a far more capitalistic society. I'd argue that the capitalistic version would probably be far better off than Scandinavia.

The vast majority of my (surprisingly many) conversations with Scandinavians are what make me believe this. Unless I'm getting a very unrepresentative sample, the "we're number one" attitude seems to be more common there than anywhere else in the Western world besides Canada.

And they may not be brainwashed to worship a dictator, but they may well be influenced by living in small countries that have done little to influence the course of world history and feel the need to develop a superiority complex to counter their inferiority complex.

Why have they emigrated, if their home country is so great? Doesn't make any sense to me!

Anyway, if their point of comparison is England, of all places, of course they'll think their home country is great. It's a pretty bad comparison. Even Poles are going home in droves because they realised they were better off back home.

What statistics? This is what the socialist-biased Human Development Index has to say about quality of life:

The US ranks ahead of all of them except Norway. And Norway is the Western world's only oil-state.

From what I can see, it looks like the key to having a happy country isn't having socialism, it's having a shitload of oil in your back yard.

As for what the tourists say: since when did tourists ever get an accurate picture of the countries they visit? Do you think they visited the slums in Malmo? No, they visited the nice places.

I love how you've just tried to twist it so that you're now the sensible centrist who accepts facts he doesn't like and I'm some rabid extremist.

Please try to be more intellectually honest when you argue and stop arguing to moderation. And stop assuming that your claim is a given and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is refusing to "accept the facts".

Note how it says "corruption perceptions index". All that tells us is how people view their politicians, not whether they're actually more corrupt. Something like that is nigh-on impossible to measure.

This guy gets it!

A Scandinavian country could be governed by a retarded chimp and he'd still make a good job of it. They have so many advantages that they should be top of the world without even trying. Indeed, I'd say that they're underperforming, when you take into account all the advantages they have.

Hell, if people are going to use places like Norway and Sweden as poster-children for socialism, I'm gonna use Zimbabwe as my poster child for capitalism. See what a mess they're in? Their socialist policies are obviously to blame!

I'm from England and can give you the main reason why people here move to other countries and that's the high cost of life here the country itself is perfectly fine but becoming more and more geared to the well off and rich.

During Hurricane Katrina, they did. They forced disarmament of everyone they could. If National Guard didn't comply, they hired mercanaries to do it (Blackwater).

I think you'd be surprised what the government can coerce the military to do.

Mmm, I hadn't considered the likes of Blackwater. However, I do think there is a difference between forcing disarmament and shooting/killing American citizens. Maybe I just have too much optimism.

I just believe there's a difference between the American military, who have pledged allegiance to the constitution and who's generals/etc are not power-hungry tyannical-wannabees, and the military's of, say, Syria who pledge allegiance to the dictators and who enjoy positions of extreme power.