Icelandic police recently shot dead a man who refused to stop firing at them with a shotgun in Reykjavik — and then they apologized. It was the first time anyone in the country was killed by police gunfire.
“The police regret this incident and wishes to extend its condolences to the man’s family,” said national police Chief Haraldur Johannessen.
The man’s motives are unknown at this point, but this much is clear: Iceland is a weird place. The population of Iceland is 325,000, while the number of registered firearms is 90,000. When you consider Iceland also has children, this suggests more than a third of the population is armed. So why don’t Iceland’s police have to shoot people?
St. Louis happens to have about the same population as Iceland. Last year, the city’s police chief ordered a study of incidents in which officers shot at suspects. As reported by the St. Louis Post Dispatch, that happened 98 times in the 2008-11 period, and 12 of the people shot at died.
I don’t think you can say the difference is because a lot of Iceland is rural — all but about 25,000 of the population are urban dwellers. And the National Rifle Association will be pleased to hear it can’t all be accounted for by gun ownership: True, the United States has almost 90 guns per 100 people, compared with 30 per 100 in Iceland, but if gun ownership were the key difference you would expect a much narrower differential in police shootings.
One factor might be the fact only SWAT teams of the kind called in for the incident are allowed to carry guns; the rest of the police don’t. So the average officer — let alone a neighbourhood watch character such as Florida’s George Zimmerman — can’t shoot anyone because they aren’t armed. And one reason they don’t need to be armed is the homicide rate in Iceland is so low — on average, fewer than 0.3 per 100,000 people, compared with five per 100,000 in the U.S. In 2009, according to the Global Study on Homicide, just one person was murdered in Iceland.
In an article for the BBC, Andrew Clark, a law student from Suffolk University Law School in Boston, described his decision to write his thesis on Iceland’s low violent crime rate after visiting the country’s capital in 2012. He found Icelanders happily pick up strangers in their cars and leave their babies unattended in the street. To a Londoner, New Yorker or Bostonian, that’s unheard of. He concluded the biggest reason for Iceland’s low violent-crime rate was social equality. Rich and poor go to the same schools, while 1.1 per cent say they are upper class, 1.5 per cent lower class — and the rest in between. So there’s less resentment and anger.
Another point might be that although there are a lot of guns in Iceland (Icelanders like to hunt), buying one requires stringent checks, including a medical exam and a written test. That may prevent people from buying and using guns in a fit of anger. It might also explain why very few of Iceland’s very few homicides involve firearms.
There are other possible factors, of course. For example, Icelanders have very low rates of drug abuse. It isn’t clear why, but as soon as there was a sniff of a problem in 1973, the government established special police units and courts to tackle it. I’m guessing they had very little else to do.
» Marc Champion is a Bloomberg View editorial board member. This article also ran in the Winnipeg Free Press.
Republished from the Brandon Sun print edition December 6, 2013