vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
I thought that was the whole point of the arument. I was also under the impression that it's crime rates weren't all that much higher than countries that are not the US, like England. You also proceed tot say that culture plays into it, and I agree, however I would venture to claim that the culture has been more affected by the fact that there are just so many guns around, not the other way around.
|
That kinds shows a complete lack of understanding how powerful culture is.
There are short tempered people in this world who are short tempered because they're lineage can be traced back a few hundred years to scottish ancestors in a certain part of scotland that they didn't even know they had. See... well outliers again... and "Cultures of Honour."
Japan has .86 homicides & homicide attempts per 1,000 people.
The UK has 1.28 homides (Not counting attempts) per 1,000 people.
Not sure exactly what the rate of success in homicides is...
but it'd have to be pretty high for them to be that near each other.
The aforementioned Israel is at 2.1 counting both Homicides and attempted homicides.
Which is equal to New Zealand. Which i'd guess is pretty restrictive on the gunlaws.
Japan's crime rates are extremely low compaired to just about anyone. Which is good considering how harshly titled the justice system is AGAINST the accused.
The UK is actually a GREAT example though.
UK and Wales gun crime? Below average for the EU.
Northern Ireland and Scotland? Above average.
Same strict gun laws.
Scotland and N. Irelands homicide rates are also 50% higher then England & Wales.
This despite Scotland actually being the most liberal part of the UK.
Why? Culture. Long past culture.
|
So then we should definitely allow these culturally short-tempered people to carry guns around? I have to question just how that can sound like a good idea to anyone.
|
Because the data backs it up when done within culture and when doing before and after studies. (something you'd agree are the most valid studies, correct?)
For example. Florida's homicde rate used to be 36% above the national average. After passing concealed carry laws it dropped to 4% below national average.
In Texas, when concealed carry laws passed, murder droped 50% faster then the national average.
The most valid studies tend to point to concealed carry laws reducing homicide and rape, not increase it... and some increases in violent crime in the areas AROUND places that inact concealed carry. (Criminals acting out of town one would guess.)
The rest tend to indicate there is no relationship at all. None i'm aware of actually suggest concealed carry makes things WORSE.
It's essentially a case of removing laws on concealed carry = no effect.... or better.
When the statistical arguement is between a position is no effect or a positive effect. Why should anyone be against the position? Worst case scenario... nothing really changes.
Aside from which, have you ever met someone with a short temper. How much they control their temper is largely related to how much they expect people will tolerate it... and what negative impact that they will happen.
