Japan Gun Control Laws Didn't Stop Shooting

"doesn't explain the vastly lower murder rates in other first world countries, like every country in Europe and in Japan"

Neither does gun control. Finland and Switzerland have high rates of firearm ownership, and disproportionately low murder rates compared to the US. Russia has a disproportionately high murder rate compared to the US, despite stringent gun control. So does Taiwan.

Statistical data doesn't point one way or the other. Gun control doesn't share a direct correlation to the murder rate throughout Europe or Asia.

If you wish to ignore this for argument's sake, let's assume there was an inversely proportional correlation between gun control and the murder rate. Correlation does not prove cause. Is the murder rate a direct result of gun control measures? Or are gun control and the murder rate both the results of a nation's collective attitude toward violence? Or is the low murder rate actually causing gun control, because with a low crime rate people feel safe without owning guns for self defense? Or any other number of factors?

I really think the deciding factor causing high murder rates is the attitude of the people. Other lesser factors might be such things as more effective policing (perhaps so effective Americans would not tolerate it).

Guns do factor in to some extent. I lean to the idea that most murders would still happen because under a ban, because:

1. Guns would be available, because existing guns are so plentiful.
2. Guns would be available, because they would be stolen from police.
3. Guns would be available, because they would be manufactured illegally.
4. Guns would be available, because they would be imported illegally.
4. You don't need a gun to kill somebody.

And actually I think the murder rate would increase as a result because contemplated murders that are today stopped or deterred would actually be consummated.
 
"Could it be that it's a lot easier to kill with a gun, so less "determination" is needed?"

Sure. And think how much determination would be needed if criminals with or without guns were facing people they knew were unarmed.
 
What other methods of mass destruction and killing are there? Bombs/explosives/fires, chemicals (airborne and ingested poison), mass transit system.....


If someone wants to kill someone else, and they're pretty darn mad, I would say they're determined enough to do what it takes to kill them, no matter what it takes. From driving a truck through their house or using a mass method of destruction.
 
Crime rates

Yellowfin I agree. 25 years ago I wrote an Hons thesis on this topic. To compare stats you need to go to the borough level, you cannot compare country to country.

When you do this you note that most of the US gun crime rate is a ghetto phenomenon and crime rates in 'good' neighbourhoods compare with those in Australia, New Zealand, Canada or the UK- or did 25 years ago when I looked into it (OK maybe US was a bit higher but not a lot).

Unfortunately you start mentioning this and the politically correct come out of the wood work and stifle debate as the bulk of the crime rate is occuring amongst the black community and if you mention this you are immediately a Nazi or racist.

This is I think why the community as a whole gets so worked up about shootings at Universities etc. This type of crime is 'not supposed' to happen in middle class white neighbourhoods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top