Why do you doubt that it’s true?
Because Switzerland has mandatory training. I suspect that it isn’t made all that difficult to carry a weapon to a mandatory training session.
Not that it’s important really, the point is there are nations with a large number of firearms that are far less violent than America. So firearm availability doesn’t seem to correlate strongly to violence. If anything, I suspect what correlation there is would be the reverse as violent societies would have members that would seek out firearms.
Thank you. I wasn’t clear…but will blame my cat for helping me type and confuse people. what i was trying to say is that people don’t react instantly to any sort of unexpected stimulas. and i meant to type 7 seconds, but didn’t react to cat help in time to edit it.
You have to be able to transport your firearm to your training, don’t you?
It’s hard to compare countries when it comes to firearm related deaths. There are many reasons: statistics are recorded differently, the demographics are different, poverty rates are different, culture is different…
You can try to compare states or cities in the US. Despite having restrictions on carrying weapons, Los Angeles sports some pretty high homicide rates. Similarly, like another poster mentioned, central states like North Dakota have low rates despite large amounts of gun ownership. But there are still some demographic and cultural differences between LA and North Dakota.
It’s a statistician’s nightmare to find data that can control for all of these. What you can do is try and compare statistics in the same location before and after laws were changed. I can list a few examples off the top of my head. Florida was the pioneer on so called “shall issue” concealed carry licenses. Their homicide rate has dropped. In Texas, a similar thing happened. However, homicides don’t cover the entire story of firearms ownership and use. Do you know an accurate number for how many times a firearm has stopped a crime without being fired? Not everyone reports to the police after chasing off a would-be mugger with his firearm. But it still may have saved someone’s life. So the statistics don’t really represent the argument here. What does it mean? Gun ownership in the US has skyrocketed in the last few years and the average US homicide rate is dropping. Does it mean anything?
It probably has nothing to do with gun ownership. But the truth is the statistics are harder to gather on the subject than many here make it seem. Yet you are so quick to condemn the people that go through the trouble of buying firearms through legal means. Here in California, I can’t get a permit to carry yet gang members do so daily. Even worse, magazine bans do nothing to stop criminals. I can’t own a high-capacity magazine, yet the most commonly used firearms in crimes are revolvers with no more than 6 rounds available before reloading becomes necessary.
Violence is a problem in America, but gun control is only treating a symptom.