Hiku said:
dirtylemons said:
Because even the most conservative estimates indicate that several times more people use firearms defensively than are murdered with them.
|
That doesn't answer the question of why many people lack compassion until it happens to them.
But on that subject, people use firearms defensively against what? Against other guns. Or the prospect of other guns.
In a country where guns are banned, a burglar for example is not expecting to encounter a gun, so they don't bring one. Because they're not there to murder anyone. They just want to steal their TV and get out.
But in a country where guns are common in homes, you bring your own gun for "safety".
And that's only talking about people with malicious intent.
In 2008, 587 people died in the US from just ACCIDENTALLY discharging a firearm.
It would take Japan around 60 years to even have that many gun related deaths. Including homicide, suicide and accidents.
Japan had 6 gun related deaths in total in 2014: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/10/03/national/strict-gun-laws-mean-japan-sees-fewer-shooting-deaths/#.Wm2bPGnwaos
And that was a bad year for them. In 2006 for example, they only had 2. One year when they had 21, it became a huge nation wide scandal.
But let's focus on the higher than usual number. If you account for population difference, they would have had 9 gun related deaths in 2014 if they had USA's population. How many did USA have that year? 33,599. That's around a 3600:1 difference with the same population. And around a third of those 33k were homicides.
That's not normal for a non-third world country.
Of course Japan is different from the US, but that's not a reason to not do anything meaningful. Creating gun free zones in certain areas like schools will do little to nothing, if gun access isn't restricted outside of those areas. It could even have the the adverse effect.
Talking about Australia or the UK is more interesting though, since they originally had more guns in circulation before their gun reform, and saw drastic decline in gun violence across the board, while non-gun related homicides didn't increase.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
A US citizen's view of "defense" and what is necessary to protect yourself is very different from how people in other countries think.
I have a friend in Japan who keeps her front door open late into the night because her cat likes to go in and out at late hours. And I have friends in the US who think the government will come for them the moment they surrender their assault rifles. Very different world.
|
People often change their views when something happen which challenges their preconceived notions. Just as many people toughen their stance on gun regulations after suffering a tragedy, others become more supportive of gun rights once they've found themselves unarmed in a dangerous situation. I wouldn't say one is inherently better than the other.
Okay, you brought up banning guns, so I'm going to take that to its logical conclusion. Right now, the U.S. is a hub for the illegal sale of firearms. If you crack down on legal firearms before you've decimated the black market for them, do you think the violence rate will rise or drop? Would you say that a spike in violence would be worth tightening regulations or outright banning firearms?
Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, so it's not just guns. And unless your solution is to transform the United States into Japan, I don't think their impressive lack of crime really helps at all.
I also think Australia and the United Kingdom, like Japan, aren't very good comparisons, because they are island nations, not directly connected to any countries with high homicide rates. Unlike the U.S., which is part of the same land as Mexico and Central and South America. These areas contain the highest murder rates in the world.
And yes, it is sensible to view countries differently for the very simple reason that they are different. Leaving your door open in the U.S. is much more likely to lead to some sort of violation than doing the same in Japan.
