comparing the Japanese culture without guns to America is like comparing ISIS to a methodist church
Should I bother to point out that you completely disregarded the quoted part from that article?
But tell me, which culture should we compare the US culture to? Because every other developed country in the world has gun laws and does not have the gun violence your country and culture does.
it would be exactly like ASSuming that, because they're both based on the Abrahamic religion, they're the exact same thing
you are so far off it aint even funny
As I noted, no one can compare the US to any other developed world because the US is the only country in the world that allows tens of thousands to be killed out of war time within its own borders and does, to put it bluntly, sweet fuck all about it.
I mean how many more excuses are you willing to make about it?
I'll put it this way. The US is more intent on fixing faulty medical equipment that killed just over
309 people around the US than it is to fix and address something that kills tens of thousands of people every year.
also note: thinking there are no guns in Japan is like believing there are no guns in Chicago or LA.
head to any large city and start intentionally bumping into any Tattooed man, who will likely be Yakuza... or with a 75% or greater probability anyway...
tell me there are no guns in Japan except for the cops then.
Tokyo is a good place to try this, but any large metro area with shipping and commerce is likely to have it as well.
look on Youtube for documentaries about the Yakuza and their tat's so you can target them more effectively before you go. it will likely also give you better areas to try too.
Firstly, good job on comparing the US populace to criminal gangs in Japan.
Secondly, even with their gang violence, the rate per capita does not even come close to that of the US's.
Thirdly, one is less likely to die to a gun in Japan than they are in the US.
Finally, no one is saying there are no guns in Japan. What the article clearly pointed out that their gun control measures keeps the number of gun related violence down, unlike the US where you all seem to believe that gun control measures are a fallacy to induce the populace to not have guns because you seem to believe that the Government will rise against you and you need your guns to take on a Government that has a nuclear arsenal in the unlikely event it became tyrannical...
In other words, Japan is a developed country that has much less gun deaths than the US does, like every other developed country in the world, which leaves the US to languish with war torn undeveloped nations when it comes to gun violence.
The irony in your little spiel is that gun advocates in the US keep telling people that more guns make things safer. And that is clearly not the case. The push in the US to allow guns in places like schools and universities to prevent mass shootings is based on a false premise. Research clearly shows that more guns means more mass shootings. Even taking the US and its ridiculous gun ownership and mass shootings rates out of the equation because the rates in the US are so high, that it affects the results, so they took the US out of the equation to give a clearly picture.
Other countries with high gun ownership rates still have more mass shootings than those with stricter gun control laws.
Calls to reduce the availability of guns have followed in the wake of these tragic events. But yet to be determined empirically is whether or not gun ownership is even correlated to public mass shootings. Adam Lankford, an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at University of Alabama, addresses that question with forthcoming research in the journal Violence and Victims.
In his study, Lankford combined data from the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) 2012 Active Shooter report (PDF), the FBI’s 2014 active shooter report (PDF), as well as "data gathered on incidents from other countries" in an attempt to count all public mass shootings occurring between 1966 and 2012 in which at least four victims were killed. In total, Lankford tallied 292 incidents from 171 countries.
Lankford then explored how the number of mass shootings per country were associated with each country's homicide rate, suicide rate (used a rough proxy for mental health), and firearm ownership rate. While he found no link between the number of shootings and suicide or homicide rates, he found a highly significant (p<.01) link between the number of shootings and firearm ownership rates. In countries with more guns, there were more public mass shootings. The association remained even when the United States -- a clear outlier with 90 mass public shootings -- was removed from the data set.
"Many of the nations in this study that ranked highest in firearm ownership rates also ranked highly in public mass shooters per capita," Lankford notes. "For example, the Small Arms Survey (2007) lists the United States, Yemen, Switzerland, Finland, and Serbia as the top five countries in civilian firearm ownership rates, and all five countries also ranked in the top 15 in public mass shooters per capita."
Lankford noted a number of limitations to his study. Older incidents occurring further in the past and in countries without streamlined reporting systems may have been missed. Moreover, since public mass shootings are rare, the sample size is small for the forty-six-year study period.
Lankford also made clear that he utilized the definition of public mass shooting from the NYPD's report. The attacks "must have (a) involved a firearm, (b) appeared to have struck random strangers or bystanders and not only specific targets, and (c) not occurred solely in domestic settings or have been primarily gang-related, drive-by shootings, hostage-taking incidents, or robberies."
For the most part, Lankford steered clear of speculation in his study, preferring to leave that to the political and policy arenas. "I don't want the findings or their implications to be misunderstood," he told RCS in an email.
He did however, state the natural conclusion from his findings.
"Perhaps the most obvious step the United States could take to reduce public mass shootings may also be the most politically challenging: reduce firearms availability."
Lankford noted that the approach seemed to work in Australia. After a public mass shooting in 1996 that left thirty-five people dead, the country's government passed comprehensive gun control legislation. Decades later, firearm homicide and suicide rates are way down, and there have been no more public mass shootings.
He ended his article with a plea for further research.
"Ultimately, more cross-national studies of public mass shooters could help ensure that future strategies for prevention are based on reliable scientific evidence. Some countries and cultures are clearly safer than others; it would be a shame not to learn from them."
Personally, I think it is sad that the US has to be removed from the study because its rates are so much higher than every other country that it affects the results. But that shows just how bad it is in your country. I mean, I'd be embarrassed. But instead, we have gun advocates declaring in this thread that gun owners do have a right to put other people and their families at risk of gun violence.