Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Replace "gun related homicide" with "homicide"
Japan: 0.5 homicides per 100,000 people.
United States: 5.9 homicides per 100,000 people.
It's currently 4.2/100k in the US, but you're also comparing two different countries with different cultures and base levels of crime and extraneous factors which would likely exist regardless of gun laws.
Compare what happens within a country when it enacts a strong gun control measure, and you'll get a better idea of the ineffectiveness of such laws. The Brady Bill here in the US had absolutely no statistically relevant effect on crime at all, much less gun related crime. In Australia, after their infamous forced buy back program, most crime rates have increased relatively speaking, especially crimes committed against the most vulnerable (sexual assaults on women, and robberies against the elderly).
These are more significant because the question isn't "What if the US magically changed into Japan?", but "what if the US adopted <some gun control measure>?". The social and geographical realities of the US don't change if we pass such laws. So we should ask just what those laws will change. And the answer tends to be that things will either get worse or stay about the same by enacting stronger gun control laws.
Quote:
Never mind that you'd also have a really hard time perpetuating a mass murder with a knife or a bat.
Irrelevant to the point I was making, but since mass murder has been committed with a knife, the point is doubly moot. You know what makes it even harder to commit mass murder? If there's someone with a firearm in the area around to try to stop you. Think about it. If you were planning on killing a bunch of people and you want to be able to kill as many people as possible, which of these would you prefer:
1. You are armed with an assortment of legal firearms of your choice (shotguns, handguns, and semi-automatic rifles), and no one within a quarter mile has any sort of firearm.
2. You are armed with an assortment of bladed or blunt weapons of your choice, and no one within a quarter mile has any sort of firearm.
3. You are armed with an assortment of legal firearms of your choice (shotguns, handguns, and semi-automatic rifles), but there are 2 random people in the crowd who are armed with concealed handguns.
4. You are armed with an assortment of bladed or blunt weapons of your choice, but there are 2 random people in the crowd who are armed with concealed handguns.
It might just kinda be in that order, wouldn't it? You'd prefer to use firearms in locations where no one else has them. Then you'd prefer to use any other weapon as long as you knew no one else had a firearm. The last place you'd want to go, regardless of what weapons you had available was somewhere where someone else might be armed. The problem with our current laws, is that we actually create the ideal choice for mass murderers and we put our kids in them every time we send them to school.
Insane, isn't it?