The point of reducing gun availability isn’t to reduce instances of violence, it’s to reduce the carnage after it. The force multiplying effect of a knife is significantly less than most guns.
If we assume people are violent and dangerous, then we should limit the damage they can do.
If thsr were true, would we not see significantly higher rats of homicide and the like when guns are more prevalent? Or even any notable change whatsoever?
Ahh, yes. Because there’s absolutely zero other differences between countries. If you had a valid point and not just bullshit, countries like Switzerland and Finland would be the murder capitals of Europe and not some of the safest, no?
If thsr were true, would we not see significantly higher rats of homicide and the like when guns are more prevalent?
To which the answer is yes, we see significantly high rates of homicide where guns are more prevalent.
If you had a valid point and not just bullshit, countries like Switzerland and Finland would be the murder capitals of Europe and not some of the safest, no?
So you’re saying we should move our gun law to be closer in line with those two countries? I agree! Let’s start by instituting Finland’s requirement for a gun license to be able to own a gun.
The U.S. has 120 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate or 6 per 100,000.
Finland has 32 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000
Germany has 20 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate of 0.8 per 100,000.
The U.S. has the most lax gun law, followed by Finland. Germany is by far the most strict of these three. I didn’t pull this information out of my ass.
The point of reducing gun availability isn’t to reduce instances of violence, it’s to reduce the carnage after it. The force multiplying effect of a knife is significantly less than most guns.
If we assume people are violent and dangerous, then we should limit the damage they can do.
If thsr were true, would we not see significantly higher rats of homicide and the like when guns are more prevalent? Or even any notable change whatsoever?
We do see that trend though. Compare the homicide rates of the U.S. with European countries.
Ahh, yes. Because there’s absolutely zero other differences between countries. If you had a valid point and not just bullshit, countries like Switzerland and Finland would be the murder capitals of Europe and not some of the safest, no?
You’re the one who asked this question:
To which the answer is yes, we see significantly high rates of homicide where guns are more prevalent.
So you’re saying we should move our gun law to be closer in line with those two countries? I agree! Let’s start by instituting Finland’s requirement for a gun license to be able to own a gun.
Yeah, except you’re literally just lieing out your ass.
The U.S. has 120 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate or 6 per 100,000.
Finland has 32 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000
Germany has 20 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate of 0.8 per 100,000.
The U.S. has the most lax gun law, followed by Finland. Germany is by far the most strict of these three. I didn’t pull this information out of my ass.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
Funny how you link datasets that basically have zero correction whatsoever when actually analyzed. Ty for proving my point
Then put in the work and show you’re correct with a dataset you trust.