To the contrary. I have lived in gun free environments all around the world. Here's what I know....
-Its stupid to try to compare countries. The populations are all radically different.
-In THIS country...if you remove the violence rates in the rat party run major cities and the shitholes they have created in the majority minority communities, our gun violence rates plummet. Violence has nothing to do with the presence of firearms and everything to do with poverty and desperation.
-Countries like England always had historically low crime rates...but not 'no' and those crime rates begin climbing as population becomes less homogenized and poverty levels in specific communities increase. Even in those countries, people find creative ways to kill each other.
-Suicide rates and murder rates remain constant before and after bans.
I'll go you one better I live in a community where gun ownership is PROLIFIC. Guess what we DONT have? We dont have gun violence problems. We don't tolerate criminal behavior. We don't justify and excuse it. In the rare occasion someone does **** up...and I mean rare...we want those assholes locked away. We don't cry over race or gender and we don't make excuses for their behavior and we don't blame inanimate objects. We don't WANT those pieces of shit back in our community.
Hi Mack,
Good that you have seen the world. Surprised at your conclusion, But than again, that's why we're here of course.
It's funny you mention the UK. When you said that I started digging. I fully understand why you do not like to compare countries. Here's the thing. The homicide rate is far from stable in the UK and has been dropping for many centuries now. And while the reliability of the numbers in the long past definitely leaves something to be desired, since these numbers are what was actually documented, it is also a fact that the true numbers were even worse of course. The older the numbers the worse it was. So what numbers we're talking about?
- In around 1,300 there were an estimated 20-40 homicides per 100,000 people per year.
- In around 1,500 the rate had declined to an estimated 20 homicides per 100,000 people per year.
- In around 1,700 the rate had further declined to about 5 homicides per 100,000 people per year.
- In around 1,900 the rate had reached about 1 homicides per 100,000 people per year.
- And today this number is as low as 0.1 homicides per 100,000 people per year.
So I understand why you do not want to compare countries. The US has a homicide rate that equals that of the UK several 100 years ago. Somewhere between 1,500 and 1,700.
Ok, if you want to take into account the inaccuracy of the numbers, than we're still talking 1,700 - 1,750. That's still about 300 years ago.
One could argue that you are merely a bunch of Neanderthals, which quite frankly is enough basis to disregard any comment coming from you on the subject. Lol.
But let me cut you some slack. It's true that some countries implemented restriction and an immediate change was not apparent. You even see a rise in some countries AFTER stricter regulations have been implemented. But that gives you a slightly distorted picture of course. One that suits your narrative, but is false. If Venezuela introduced stricter gun laws, it means nothing when it is not being enforced. But let me show you 2 examples inside your country.
- After the new permit-to-purchase law was introduced in Connecticut in 1995, gun homicide was reduced by 40%.
And quite the opposite happened when in Missouri...
- When Missouri repealed the permit-to-purchase law in 2007, the homicide rate in Missouri increased by 25%.
So just for you, I am not comparing with other countries, but I am comparing with solid data from both rural areas and urban areas in your own home country? What is wrong with these numbers and how do they not support stricter gun legislation?
Joey