What are convincing reasons against gun control?
Possible alternative reasons for the high casualty rate in the United States
I think it's fair that I want to share with you my personal beliefs about guns with the United States:
- I am currently not a gun owner. I don't need a gun. I have no interest in owning weapons. I have no plans to buy a gun in my immediate future.
- Personally, I think I should never be entrusted with a firearm, but I am not against ownership if my circumstances change.
- I am unable to tell my fellow citizens how to handle weapons or not. I ask my fellow citizens not to impose their feelings on me on this matter.
- While I don't own any firearms at all, I believe I should know what my rights are in terms of the constitution and applicable laws.
- I am open to gun control measures if they can be shown to work with the Constitution and control an obvious loophole OR prevent an obvious scenario from getting out of that loophole.
- I believe in the right to self-defense with firearms as a valid excuse for property. I believe the founders wanted citizens to be armed and ready to fight their new government if necessary, as they had just done. I don't think the current United States administration is far enough away that this should be happening anytime soon.
So there are a couple of things that affect these numbers, and a lot of studies are discarded that can confuse the problem. Some comparison statistics are not provided, others show completely different things, and so on and so forth.
To answer your question, I would first like to point out that some of the numbers you have used are incorrect:
The murder rate in the United States is 4.88 per 100,000 people. Compare this to the UK (0.92), Germany (0.85), Spain (0.66) or Japan (0.31).
These numbers are the total homicides per capita for their countries. Criminal murder by firearms are 3.60 (USA), 0.06 (Great Britain), 0.07 (Germany), 0.15 (Spain) and 0.0 (Japan). With that in mind, since the US is still primarily gun crimes, the premise that more guns = more criminal murder looks more impressive is the predominant problem.
However, this does not prove the problem. We have to prove that these numbers are directly related to the number of weapons in each country. These numbers are reported as "per 100 inhabitants" but can easily be converted to per capita (100,000) by multiplying the number by 1,000:
The United States has 101.5 guns per capita (aka More Guns Per Capita Than PEOPLE Per Capita!). The comparative figures are 6.6 (UK), 30.3 (Germany), 10.4 (Spain), 0.6 (Japan). These figures only include legal firearms and illegal firearms in civilian traffic. And then we take another step.
To prove that more guns mean more criminal murder, we need to multiply the total number of guns by 1000 (Making it Per Capita) and then divide the death from criminal murder by the total number of guns. Europe and Japan come out as follows:
UK: 9.09 x e-6
Germany: 2.31 x e-6
Spain: 1.44 x e-5
US: 3.54 e-5
(Source: List of countries by firearm-related deaths)
Yes, the United States has more firearms homicides than the four countries you showed us ... but with a homicide rate per gun, we're seeing some fun numbers. Great Britain and Germany are 10 times lower ... BUT ... look who has the higher number of murders per weapon: Great Britain ... which, despite Germany's less gun-related murder than Germany (0.07 and 0, 06) Almost five times as many firearms as there is in the UK Similarly, Spain has less than half the murders per gun than the United States, although the United States literally has more firearms than the people (ten times as many as Spain). Heck, at these numbers, if you wanted to round the UK down to 1.00 x e-5, nobody would really blink in any other statistic. The United States has a homicide rate per gun that is three times that of the United Kingdom, despite having 15 times more guns.
I'll leave this part blank because I have to swap computers, but I'll name some of the reasons the numbers come out so strange. The TL; DR: This section is basically going to have cultural elements in the game.
EDIT: Additional discussion:
Okay, such a long weekend aside, but there are other issues that are likely to be dragged. When we look at the overall death rate from guns (including criminal homicides, suicide, accidental death, and unknown causes), we find that the rate of individual incidents per capita compared to guns per capita in the US is only slightly worse than in Japan ( Japan). 1.04 x e-4 versus 1.00 x e-4). This is because, while Japan has fewer weapons available for civilian use than the United States, the weapons they have are being used for suicide at a rate close to that of the United States by the total incident per weapon tier. In the United States, Canada, and Europe, the rule of thumb is that gun-related suicide rates are much higher almost everywhere than gun-related murder. While there are a number of countries with a higher total number of gun-related incidents than the United States (10.6 per 100,000), the United States has the highest incidence rate of countries where suicides make a greater contribution than homicides to total incidents perform as murders. For example, Brazil has an overall incident rate of around 21.2 per 100,000, of which the number of gun-related homicides makes no other contribution to incidents (19.99 per 100,000).
In these situations, factors from a cultural point of view contribute. Brazil is a predominantly Catholic and Christian country, and the religion has strong taboos against suicide (The Bible says a thing or two about killing, but apparently it's a different horse.) Meanwhile, Japan has a strong cultural taboo to cause trouble for other people, which is reflected in their very, very low homicide rate in general (the family of criminals also pays for their prison time ... if the family can't pay, the criminal becomes doing this manual labor during his stay). They also don't have a cultural suicide taboo (until recently).
Another undisclosed factor in the statistics is that in the United States, approximately 88-93% of the total reported weapons are legally owned (that is, they legally bought and paid for the weapons). These statistics vary as the illegal owners are unknown and are being prosecuted beyond law enforcement suspicions. This leaves approximately 12,180 illegal firearms per 100,000, and it is estimated that 80% of all gun-related crimes are committed with these weapons (2.88 murders out of 3.60 per 100,000). I will not compare these crime figures with the other nations because I do not have the data on legal and illegal firearms in the other countries. It's important to note that if you cut the four cities with the highest homicide rate per capita (St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, and New Orleans), you can cut the overall homicide rate significantly in the US. The United States' inter-coastal area is typically not densely populated, and these tend to be the areas with the highest level of gun ownership.
Now the next question is that of these countries. I believe the United States is the only one that allows firearms for self-defense and those numbers are hard to keep track of. Gun self-defense incidents are estimated at 65,000 to 2.5 million incidents per year (the vast majority will never pull the trigger on the firearm used in such a mansion). The reason for this long gap is that the two studies used different criteria, with the lower levels being explicit incidents with guns drawn by the victim, while the larger number includes examples of the criminal's potential to be deterred from crime because of the potential of an armed victim . This arming effect is one of the reasons why in the US only 10-12% of all break-ins are "hot" or are committed while the victim is at home (unlike the UK, where hot break-ins account for 80% of the break-in rate). . And even then, you don't have to own a gun to be privately owned in the US. All you need is a bumper sticker to be stuck on your car in your driveway to make a criminal think twice about breaking and entering.
Remember, this attitude dates back to the founding of the country. The first battle of the Revolutionary War was because the British wanted to disarm their citizens who lived on the edge of the then known civilization (they had already done this in Boston, which angered Bostonians, but not as much as the people who actually did it used their weapons for food and defense). The second change does not exist because the United States government would, but because the previous government did. In Europe, Switzerland is the only country near the United States in this fear, although they have never seen their own government in this light (what with direct democracy and all that), but when every other country has a border Germany divides, is attacked. You are starting to worry about fighting a tyrannical government.
I know I threw out a lot of numbers and what did you get, but it's meant to show that numbers aren't the only determining factor in the game. There are many cultural factors as well, and the United States tends to have a population with many voices from many different parts of the world. It's not as simple as that one thing.
- How is Malaysia politically
- Is emotional distancing permanent
- Boiling water kills bacteria in your home
- The economy in Malaysia is really bad right now
- Why do you want to join sales
- Net Promoter Scores Are Important
- What's the best life hack ever
- What do you think about chemical engineering
- Is ClickFunnels better than Builderall
- Why can't I just die forever
- Did Hitler play chess
- What is leadership 1
- Where did you do your military service
- What are your Bitcoin predictions for 2020
- Are the Indians working in Singapore happy?
- What's the messiest salad to eat
- Snapchat can be used for business purposes
- Why do universities use MOOCs
- Dark matter can possibly be two-dimensional
- What project ideas for industrial engineering
- What are your useless talents
- How do you score bread
- Can I stop taking multivitamins right away?
- Why don't people understand things