Help with arguments for liberal laws regarding firearms

[sprithitler]

I live in Sweden and are preparing to start campaigning in earnest for the right to own and carry firearms without licensing or registration. Today the law requires a comprehensive course in hunting, shooting, firearms safety, law and so on to be eligible to get a license for hunting weapons. You must then apply for a licence for each rifle or shotgun you want to buy.
For competition shooting licences you must be a competition shooter since at least six month, be a good enough shot to have a reasonable chance to place in a regional competition, and be recommended for a license by your marksmanship club. Competition licences are generally limited in time and must be renewed through continuos membership in a marksmanship club. Every firearm (not bb-guns) is registered by the police. Getting a license for carrying or for protection is impossible.
What i need from you guys is advice on arguments for reasonable firearm laws (concealed carry, open carry, no licencing, no registration, no limit on magasine capacity, no ban on automatic weapons and so on). Arguments legally based on the second amendment is obviously not applicable here, though arguments philosophically based there are possible.
Generally speaking there is nothing in current swedish law (or previous swedish law as far as i know of) supporting me in this crusade, so we must plan this battle on human rights, basic liberty,individual freedom and reasonable trust in "bonus pater familias".

Please help.

 

[ctdonath]

Consider accumulating piles of news items amounting to "the police weren't there for the victim in time."

 

[1200 meters]

You may research the quotes of the American founders that reference their views in the pro gun arguments. These quotes were instramental in the formulation of the constitution and 2nd amendment. There are many. Blitz

 

[Matthaios]

In regards to concealed/open carry, I think your argument needs to focus on how self defense is a basic human right, and it is only fair for people to be able to defend their lives effectively. You should also mention that the average law abiding person is unlikely to break the law, and carrying a gun would make them no more likely to do so. The rest of your argument here will probably have to focus around convincing skeptics, so mentioning how beneficial concealed/open carry is in other countries like the U.S. and Israel would probably be a good idea, as it would allow you to show that 1) people really can defend themselves with guns, 2) people who defend themselves with guns are less likely to hit an innocent bystander than are police, 3) people who tend to get concealed carry permits tend to be more law abiding than the average law abiding person. I'm sure you can think of more there too! Also, you can mention the benefit to people who don't carry a gun, too, as criminals will not know who is armed and who is not armed.

With magazine capacity, all I think you need to do is demonstrate how fast a person can reload, and then mention that criminals can just have extra magazines on hand, where the average citizen probably won't be carrying extra magazines. If you do this right, you should be able to show people that limits on magazine capacity only hurt law abiding citizens.

As for help on the legal front, if you guys have laws that allow people to defend themselves from deadly harm, you have an avenue right there. After all, if people are allowed to defend themselves from people who would kill them, they should be allowed to do so with an effective tool (and as such minimize their chance of getting hurt), right?

 

[sprithitler]

Thanks for the tips, i will check them out. A problem is that in sweden (9 million inhabitants, most of them citizens) we have only about 120 murders/year, most of which are either extended suicides (man kills his family, and then himself) or friends killing friends over women or stupid things while drunk, the number of instances each year when a CCW carrier could save lives are low. This still legitimises CCW to save lives, but opponents (the same people who cries for more regulations and control in a traffic where roughly 500 people die each year) will claim that those 5-20 lives a year that could reasonably be saved by CCW are acceptable losses.
Most of the discussion regarding CCW must therefore unfortunately be made on the philosophical, individual freedom and human rights levels.

 

[mjrodney]

A favorite quote comes to mind....

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…..
The right of self defense is the first law of nature.
In most governments, it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.
Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
St. George Tucker