That doesn't follow. There are no comparable states with a comparable history, demography, economy, and culture.
It's possible that gun ownership deters crime, but that something else unique to the U.S. is causing more crime than gun ownership is countering.
The only thing you could possibly do is to compare parts of the US to each other, and in that case you'll find that locations with stricter gun laws have more gun violence.
You could conclude that gun laws cause gun violence, but that would be stupid because many times gun laws exist because of gun violence. What's the difference between my conclusion and yours?
Concluding that guns cause violence without real hard evidence and subsequently banning them is like using the unproven gateway drug theory to justify locking up people for smoking pot.
> There are no comparable states with a comparable history, demography, economy, and culture.
To be fair, Canada and Australia are pretty comparable on all counts. The main thing that distinguishes the US from them is scale, and scale has qualitative consequences, among which are the incidence and effects of criminal activity.
As a poster above said, much of the gun-related violence in the US is connected with criminal gangs, particularly those involved in drugs. And the scale of the drug market in the US, combined with the aggressiveness employed by state and federal governments in fighting the 'drug war', accounts for a substantial portion of the gun violence that occurs here.
It's worth noting that despite stereotypes, Canada does have a high rate of gun ownership - ranked 13 in the world, compared to the US, ranked first [1] - and the level of violence there isn't proportional.
Good points, I agree that the drug war alone is responsible for a large percent of gun violence.
Also our massively larger per capita prison population probably has something to do with it. I doubt people are coming out of prison less violent.
Just a glance at the link you provided, I can't see a link between high gun ownership and murder rate at all.
>Canada and Australia are pretty comparable on all counts.
--comparable history, demography, economy, and culture.
Ignoring the economy, and population size.
Neither one had to deal with slavery on the scale America did.
Neither fought a war for independence or a civil war (the effect of the Civil War and the * massive* death toll can't be discounted. Not to mention the huge increase in gun ownership after the war).
The demographics of both are completely different.
Australians of European descent make up 93% of Australia, according to wikipedia.
As for Canada, they have more asians, who in the US commit less crimes and make more money than average. And they have significantly fewer blacks and hispanics, who in the US commit far more crimes and make less money than average.
Ah, yes, the U.S. exceptionalism. No other country like it! No one else could have an invasive dominant culture, a disadvantaged minority group, large prosperity divides, and a God-given fear of groups of other people (you call it "government").
Oh well. It's no water off my back if you guys are fine with answering my original question with "nothing" and continuing shooting each other up as price of freedom.
It sounds like the prevalence of gun violence in the US has been significantly overstated in whatever news you have been reading. Taking guns away from communities where violence is rare will not solve the problems with those in which violence is common.
As for US exceptionalism, you left out all the pent up emotional and cultural baggage held by some communities that makes them significantly more violent among themselves than the vast majority.
>There are no comparable states with a comparable history, demography, economy, and culture.
American exceptionalism refers to the primarily used meaning of exceptional as "unusually good." I never remotely said that.
America is different, not better. I'd also argue that you can't compare Germany to Spain. Does that mean I think Germany is better?
You also didn't answer my argument. Can you point to another country with comparable history, demography, economy, and culture that has passed a gun ban. Or should I just go ahead and hand over my gun, based on your unsupported fears?
It's possible that gun ownership deters crime, but that something else unique to the U.S. is causing more crime than gun ownership is countering.
The only thing you could possibly do is to compare parts of the US to each other, and in that case you'll find that locations with stricter gun laws have more gun violence.
You could conclude that gun laws cause gun violence, but that would be stupid because many times gun laws exist because of gun violence. What's the difference between my conclusion and yours?
Concluding that guns cause violence without real hard evidence and subsequently banning them is like using the unproven gateway drug theory to justify locking up people for smoking pot.