Skarek, let me preface my further remarks by saying that I offer the following in good will and in the spirit that characterizes discussion on this forum.
I want you to know that I have only limited time to devote to such discussions as this. I appear on the forum frequently, but that's because I check in from time to time as I attend to my daily working tasks at the computer. For the most part, my responsibilities preclude such lengthy and detailed discussions as this. I'm sorry that's the case, but I have to be a good steward of my time.
So ... I'm not "blowing you off" (as we Americans would say) by failing to post a long response. I don't intend to ignore you, but I cannot devote much more time to this than I already have.
There's not really that much more that I could say in defining my position.
As an American:
I believe in our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
I believe that governmental regulation of that right should be strictly limited.
I further believe that the anvil against which this discussion hammers may well be a native difference of opinion about
respecting the sovereignty of nations.
Concerning the discussion at hand:
I believe that you Swedes have every right to make your own decisions concerning the existence of, possession of and use of firearms or any weapon. I believe that is your affair, and is none of the business of other countries, unless you are acting as an aggressor against them. I have no desire to intrude into your consideration of such issues, to criticize or condemn your decisions concerning them, or to try to control those decisions. I believe it is no business of mine what you Swedes do about firearms or other weapons in your nation, unless you use them to threaten other countries. It's up to Swedes to determine such things.
Because I believe so strongly that other nations should decide their own affairs,
I also believe that those nations should allow us to determine our own affairs.
So (and I mean no insult or disrespect in saying so), I'm really not all that interested in discussing what Swedes or other Europeans think of our American decisions concerning the ownership and use of firearms within the borders of our own country.
As for your specified questions:
What is worse, an innocent person sentenced or a criminal walking free?
I think both are reprehensible situations that should be avoided at all costs in any free and just society.
What are the use of a full automatic in civilian life?
The use of a full automatic in civilian life is whatever use that civilian decides to put it to within the bounds of the law that civilian is subject to.
As an American, I find the idea that I should have to justify my possession of a weapon entirely objectionable.
What does it give that a semi automatic does not?
Isn't that obvious? I'm not being flip here: A full automatic gives a faster rate of fire than does a semi-automatic.
Isn’t the guns that you wish to protect yourself against often legal or have been legal?
Perhaps. If they were, the point is moot. When I would wish to defend myself against their use,
the action of the aggressor would be illegal. I believe such a question misses the point of self defense entirely.
Do you believe that you in all situations are suitable to handle a gun and in a mental state that you can take the correct decision if to use it?
I do. I have not made any statements lightly.
In what situations is deadly force justified?
When a citizen believes that they are in danger of death or great harm.
Do you believe that a lot of shootings are based on misunderstandings or saved someone from injury?
No, I do not believe that many shootings are based on misunderstandings. No doubt the occasional one is. That does not change the main emphasis of shooting in self-defense, in which case I believe in two types of shootings: Evil shootings, and shootings that defend against evil.
As concerns the saving of lives, I know that many shootings save innocents from the predatory acts of aggressors. The mere presence of a firearm often prevents violence.
How miserably do you think I managed to fail to deliver my actual concerns about the concept guns for the sole purpose of self defence?
No problems here.
I hope that others might do more to contribute to your search for understanding, Skarek.
Again, everything I have said is offered in good will and with good faith, in an honest attempt to help you understand my convictions.
Now ... I've got a lot of work to do!
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)