This may devolve into a GD, but since the question is technically factual I’m starting it here.
In many debates about firearms, libertarianism, etc. the example of Somalia is often trotted out as what an “armed society” actually looks like. A chaos of Hobbesian savagery where guns enable the war of all against all. But is this factually correct? In another thread I opined that the armed chaos is due to a tiny minority, with few ordinary people actually possessing firearms; but I don’t have any hard figures either way. The only example I know of where it is the norm for virtually every adult male to possess a gun are the tribal societies of Pakistan. Not the most shining example but not the worst either. So does anyone know of some reliable figures for just how widespread gun ownership is in troubled regions like this?
There have been similar debates here before, and there doesn’t seem to be much correlation one way or the other between high rates of civilian gun ownership and political violence. Check out the chart linked in this wikipedia page.
Countries like Japan, South Korea, and England have very low rates of civilian firearm ownership. But so do countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Mali.
Countries like Switzerland, Finland, and Sweden have relatively high rates of civilian firearm ownership. But so do countries like Yemen, Iraq, and Serbia.
I don’t think anyone claimed countries with many guns are necessarily violent. Even Moore in Bowling for Columbine points out that Canada has many guns without America’s violence.
In another thread I saw a claim that Somalia probably had lowish gun ownership. I don’t have reliable sources, but a little Googling raises doubt. One site shows “The rate of private gun ownership in Somalia is 9.13 firearms per 100 people.” Of course, due to multiple ownerships, that doesn’t mean 9.13 persons are armed and, anyway, that rate seems relatively low.