Does Gun Ownership Increase Safety Or Decrease Safety?

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

Studies show that areas with higher gun ownership rates tend to have higher rates of gun-related deaths, including homicides and suicides.

It may be that areas with higher gun ownership have higher crime in that area.  Ownership is not a random decision and therefore you would need to examine several other factors to determine why they have higher gun ownership to start with.  It may just be that there is a lot more violent crime in their neighborhoods, which would mean, there is a lot more violence anyway. 

However, women who have a gun are much less likely to be the victim of rape.  From Just Facts:

Women who use weapons to resist sexual violence are far less likely to be raped or otherwise injured:

• A 2008 paper in the journal Crime & Delinquency examined 782 rapes recorded by the National Crime Victimization Survey during 1992 to 2004. It found that resisting attempted rape with “an object, knife, or gun reduced the odds” of being raped by 91%.[225]
• A 2014 paper in the journal Violence Against Women examined 733 rapes and 1,278 non-rape sexual assaults recorded by the National Crime Victimization Survey during 1992 to 2002. It found that none of the 26 women who resisted these attacks with a gun, knife, or other weapon were raped or injured after she used the weapon.[226]
• A 2008 paper in the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice about rape risk reduction strategies states, “The empirical data clearly have shown that forceful resistance strategies do increase avoidance of rape without increasing the risk of injury by strangers and known perpetrators.”[227]

RickeyHoltsclaw

@JulesKorngold ; Owning a firearm and being well trained and practiced in the usage of that firearm exponentially increases one's ability to self-defense against evil which is basic human inalienable right.

Joeseph

I used to live in California and I loved it  , if I lived in the US now I would carry a piece because the US is at 132 nd place in the world peace index , my country ( gun free ) ranks 2nd most peaceful country in the world along with being the 2nd  richest  only beaten into first place by Luxembourg this year.

I like the idea of being able to send kids to school without the need for armed security , gun ownership increases gun violence you cannot have it both ways.

MayCaesar

It is highly contextual and depends on the region, culture, geography... In the Russia of 90-s gun ownership (mostly illegal) was very prevalent, and the crime rates were sky high - at the same time, in Switzerland at the same time gun ownership was also very prevalent, and the crime rates were negligibly small.

It is hard for me to imagine a situation in which, all other things being equal, more armed citizenry leads to a safer society. However, perhaps, the right to own guns in itself is important and helps keep the government and criminals in check. A potential criminal would be much more likely to rob a bank in Iceland than, say, in Somalia, where he is likely to get shot on the spot.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@JulesKorngold

Bogan

There are three good examples which prove that the mere presence of guns do not cause crime.       The first is within my own country, Australia.    Australia now has very strict gun laws but 70 years ago our crime rates were extremely low, and that at a time when our firearm laws were practically non existent.      The second example is to compare the USA's homicide rate with that of Australia.     The USA's rate of homicide is 5 times more than Australia's.      This has been used for decades by anti gun campaigners to prove that guns cause crime.      But if all of the homicide victims within the USA killed by firearms were removed from the US homicide statistics entirely, the USA's homicide rate would still be twice that of Australia..    Even Barnadot could see that something other than the mere presence of firearms causes US citizens to consider homicide and violence as the best way to solve their personal problems.     Well, perhaps with a bit of coaching he could?     The third example is once again in Australia, where it is the rural areas where firearm ownership is most prevalent which has the lowest crime rates.     Some Australian country towns populated by good old boys with lots of guns have never had an armed robbery in their entire history. 

Firearm laws are a litmus paper test of how sick a society has become.     The more strict the firearm laws, the more that individuals within that society are becoming increasingly more violent. 

Guns do not cause crime.    Violent people with guns cause crime.      If the percentage of people within any society who consider extreme violence the best way for a real man (or woman) to solve their personal problems increases, then the crime rate and homicide rate within that community will increase.         Strict firearm laws can certainly help reduce that.       But that is a band aid solution which does not address the real problem.     The real problem is what is in people's minds, and that is a hard sell.         Selling that to low IQ people like jack/excon is almost impossible.    A firearm is a real object.    It's ability to do evil things is glaringly obvious.    But addressing what is within human minds that is either culturally transmitted or genetically implanted, is an abstract and complex problem beyond the mental capacities of many people like jack..        Violence in western societies will keep increasing even after tall buns are banned, because we keep failing to address the root causes of the problem.   This has already been proven in Britain where guns are now almost unobtainable by ordinary citizens yet their homicide rate continues to climb.   

The two  real reasons for increasing homicide rates is because people and governments refuse to acknowledge that some ethnicities, either by genetics or culture, are far more violent that others.      The second is, that our entertainment industries are continuing to glamourize violent criminal behaviour to our kids as the manly and heroic thing to do.     The results of decades of this anti social brainwashing of our kids is now plain to see.    The fastest growing crime statistic in the western world is now juvenile homicide,

Any fool who thinks that the images portrayed by the media has no effect upon people's minds, especially children's minds, should have no trouble approving the advertising of alcohol and cigarettes in children's magazines and comics.  

  

just_sayin

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@JulesKorngold

Rickey,  I love the sentiment of your post, but it is not true.  You can read for yourself here, rated pants on fire from Politifact:

"The United States is 3rd in murders throughout the world. If you remove Chicago, Detroit, Washington, St. Louis and New Orleans, the United States is then 189th out of 193 countries in the entire world."

Barnardot

@Joeseph ; my country ( gun free ) ranks 2nd most peaceful country in the world

Well those bastards dont even need guns since they tend to do a better job with IRDs. IRD and IRA almost one and the same dont you reckon?

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;rated pants on fire from Politifact

And yet an other of your totally dum extreme sites that wouldnt even know a fact if it bit them on the face.

Joeseph

@Barnardot

As usual poor ole Barny talks a load of bollocks thinking hes making sense..

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

@JulesKorngold

Dumbass American argument.

JulesKorngold

Fredsnephew said:

@JulesKorngold

Dumbass American argument.

Your detailed counterargument changed my mind completely.  I now support suicide with a gun.  You should try it.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ;rated pants on fire from Politifact

And yet an other of your totally dum extreme sites that wouldnt even know a fact if it bit them on the face.

Politifact is run by left leaning newspapers, so it is sometimes biased and inconsistent, and even occasionally misleading.  However, the data they cite is accurate in the article.  

Bogan

Three little girls just got murdered in Britain and not a gun in sight.     They were knifed to death by a 17 year old Rwandan who's family immigrated to Britain as "refugees" six years ago.     The problem is not the mere presence of firearms.     It is what is in people's heads.   This follows another knife attack upon a uniformed British colonel by a crazy African.         And the beheading of a British army soldier by another crazy African on a suburban street.    If your advanced society is foolish enough to import low IQ people who are genetically very violent, then you can't wonder why outrages such as this just keep happening.     Bulls should be kept out of China shops.    

Barnardot

@Bogan ;This follows another knife attack upon a uniformed British colonel by a crazy African.  

Any opportunity that a brainless nit can take he will take it for want of actually using his brain. So he resorts to standing on a soap box to preach his ugly hatred on an other completely unrelated topic. It never stops coming from dangerous hate filled nits like you does it?

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;However, the data they cite is accurate in the article.  

Come on now. What accurate data that they cite are you specifically talking about? Like the AI manipulated picture of the spunky chick with the assault rifle for example? 

I have read and checked it and there is not one peace of data in that article that is accurate in any way. You know it and once again your liering like a flat fish.

Barnardot

@Joeseph ;As usual poor ole Barny talks a load of bollocks thinking hes making sense..

Well if thats the case what bollocks are you talking about? Or are you just making it up for the fun of it as usual?

Like 2nd most peaceful country in the world. What a load of bollocks that is. What low grade cheap skate site did you find that statistic. And how many countries were on the list? Like 2 I bet. 

And number one on the list is Angola. Right?

Joeseph

@Barnardot

Every time you disagree with anyone you use the same  tired ridiculous see through tactic  as in ..... " duh ,duh that's from a cheap skate site" ......you make Rickey look like an Ace debater compared to you .
...

Bogan

Barnadot and Joseph "debating" with each other?       Hahahahaha!      Keep it up boys.      You two deserve each other.    

Barnardot

@Joeseph ;tired ridiculous see through tactic  as in ..... " duh ,duh that's from a cheap skate site"

Like derr that’s completely right because like derr it’s because I am completely right. Because time and time again you get your info from extreme websites and in this case you just made the statistic up. Like you’re refusing to say where that statistic came from and use your usual dishonest diversion tactic. Right? Yes right. 

Joeseph

@Bogan

Barnadot and Joseph "debating" with each other?       Hahahahaha!      Keep it up boys.      You two deserve each other.    

 

I'm not " debating" Barndoor I'm correcting him , the way I do with you.

Joeseph

@Barnardot

Like derr that’s completely right because like derr it’s because I am completely right. Because time and time again you get your info from extreme websites and in this case you just made the statistic up. Like you’re refusing to say where that statistic came from and use your usual dishonest diversion tactic. Right? Yes right. 

Hate to break it to you but you're an id-ot , you're never right , ever Rickey corrects you.

Here you have proved my point again with your " extreme websites" claim , the same old dance evert time.

Tell you what Doofus post up your own source that proves otherwise?  Watch Barndoor run folks ......

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ;However, the data they cite is accurate in the article.  

Come on now. What accurate data that they cite are you specifically talking about? Like the AI manipulated picture of the spunky chick with the assault rifle for example? 

I have read and checked it and there is not one peace of data in that article that is accurate in any way. You know it and once again your liering like a flat fish.

The data that Politifact referenced is here:

https://dataunodc.un.org/dp-intentional-homicide-city

You can cross reference it with the Bureau of Justice Statistics.  Since I know you don't do research or facts, you can find the reports here:

https://bjs.ojp.gov/search/results?keys=Homicides+in+large+cities#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Homicides in large cities&gsc.page=1

You're welcome!

Bogan

@just_sayin ;    "spunky" chick 

Well, whadyaknow?     Another piece of the Australian vernacular has come into the common lexicon of Americans.         Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.      Other Aussie words now in common in US usage is "bu-llsheet"., and I once read an American mention the common Aussie word "porno".       Australians love to truncafe words and put either an Ie" of an "o" on as a suffix, to make the word more easy to pronounce.          Examples, garbo (garbage collector), wino (a drunk), lino (linoleum) biffo (a punch up) and abo (an aboriginal).     One can only wonder when you yanks will copy us?    

Barnardot

@Bogan ;One can only wonder when you yanks will copy us?    

How about "Halfo" which means half brain. Is that what people call you down there?

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;You're welcome!

I'm welcome to what?

The so called data you quoted was A viral meme shared on social media following the Parkland, Fla., shooting claimed the United States has the third-highest count of murders worldwide, a ranking that would drop dramatically if five major cities were excluded.

And that says totally nothing. So if you over herd 2 old ladies talking on a bus that they herd a neighbor in the Looney Center next door say over the fence that Russia is about to drop a nuke on USA you would believe that too would you?

And because an extreme whacko site said that some one else said some thing in a meme on social media you would take that as being true do you? And some thing that was written 6 years ago and irrelevant any way.

And if some one puts a picture of a spunky chick holding an assault rife you would believe that picture would you? Even though a blind 3 year old can see how artificial the picture is.

Jesus your so freaking gullible.

brady1013

If you think about it, if everyone in America owned and carried a handgun there would be little to no violent crimes. If everyone owned a gun anyone who ever pulled a gun on someone or tried to harm anyone they would immediately be shot up. That is a pretty good incentive not to murder. Plus every violent criminal now owns a gun illegally anyway.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey Jules.

@JulesKorngold

Why use 300 words to make a counterargument, when you can do it precisely in three?

Joeseph

@brady1013

That's wonderful , arm every citizen in every country and crime rates plummet ........

Bogan

The severity of firearm laws in any state is a litmus paper test of how sick that society each.   Strong monocultural states with good social cohesion, and an entertainment industry which does not glorify violence, criminal behaviour, and the illegal use of firearms, do not need tough firearm laws.   Those states which are the opposite do need strict firearm laws.   

Barnardot

@brady1013 ;If you think about it, if everyone in America owned and carried a handgun there would be little to no violent crimes.

Well I have thought about it as well as studying the correct facts and statistics.

And the facts and statistics confirm that there are more firearms in America than people.

The facts and statistics also show that America has one of the highest rates of gun-related violence and crimes in the world.

The facts and statistics also show that if dickeheads take their own advice and actually think about it a bit more, then they would not come out with such dicke-headed statements.

RickeyHoltsclaw

Gun ownership expoentially increases safety for the trained civilian and exponentially decreases safety for the thug element in our society.

just_sayin

Since there are more defensive uses of guns for protection of life or property, gun ownership increases ones ability to protect oneself.  To repeat, from Just Facts:

Women who use weapons to resist sexual violence are far less likely to be raped or otherwise injured:

• A 2008 paper in the journal Crime & Delinquency examined 782 rapes recorded by the National Crime Victimization Survey during 1992 to 2004. It found that resisting attempted rape with “an object, knife, or gun reduced the odds” of being raped by 91%.[225]
• A 2014 paper in the journal Violence Against Women examined 733 rapes and 1,278 non-rape sexual assaults recorded by the National Crime Victimization Survey during 1992 to 2002. It found that none of the 26 women who resisted these attacks with a gun, knife, or other weapon were raped or injured after she used the weapon.[226]
• A 2008 paper in the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice about rape risk reduction strategies states, “The empirical data clearly have shown that forceful resistance strategies do increase avoidance of rape without increasing the risk of injury by strangers and known perpetrators.”[227]

Bogan

If you glamourise suicides, suicides rates will rise.
If you glamourise cigarette smoking, cigarette smoking will rise.
If you glamourise violent behaviour, especially revenge type behaviour, rates of violence, especially where revenge is concerned, will rise.
If you glamourise the misuse of firearms, firearm misuse will rise.
If you glamourise criminal behaviour, criminal behavior will rise.

I believe that free political speech is a moral absolute.    In a democratic county, every person within that country should be able to decide for themselves what proposal is right or wrong, and which politicians they support who will implement policies based upon what the majority of people want.  

But this does not mean that the entertainment media and the advertising media can just do what they want and destroy their own societies, by using the incredible power they have to control people's minds.  

Factfinder

brady1013 said:

If you think about it, if everyone in America owned and carried a handgun there would be little to no violent crimes. If everyone owned a gun anyone who ever pulled a gun on someone or tried to harm anyone they would immediately be shot up. That is a pretty good incentive not to murder. Plus every violent criminal now owns a gun illegally anyway.

I am pro 2nd amendment. But that does not mean what you posit is logical or realistic. The American wild west had a much less of a fierce reputation than what is commonly portrayed in movies and tv. And that is because though we have the right to bear arms, it doesn't mean we have the right to brandish it for reasons of intimidation and manipulation. So a majority of towns banned carrying a gun while in town. Because of what would happen if they didn't... people of malicious minds would terrorize and control towns so that's how it was combatted. People weren't safer when everybody had a gun because having one and using one were two different things.

What was taught to me as a young boy still seems true in my mind. People are safest where people do not gather as opposed to where they do. That is because of all the things and animals that can and do kill people, other people are still the most dangerous of them all by far. Like homelessness. People who generally sleep alone in a hiding spot are typically more secure in their sleep than those in group encampments.  So in some instances a gun in a situation will help for sure, but in others it harms the situation. That's why though we have a right to weapons, we do not have a right to misuse them and we also have a need to protect ourselves from that misuse. Thus laws ideally should be constructed in ways that deal with human behaviors more than the tools of choice used during criminal behaviors. But in this case where the tool happens to be enshrined in founding law and rights constitutionally then both the person and the tool in question has to be evaluated. And it must be on a personal bases as once we start changing the foundational documents that's resulted in a great nation, you'd have to wonder how long we can remain a great nation? Point being I hope you see the folly in arming everyone no matter what. 

 The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

MayCaesar

brady1013 said:

If you think about it, if everyone in America owned and carried a handgun there would be little to no violent crimes. If everyone owned a gun anyone who ever pulled a gun on someone or tried to harm anyone they would immediately be shot up. That is a pretty good incentive not to murder. Plus every violent criminal now owns a gun illegally anyway.

This is not how human psychology works, and criminals know that. Back in 1917 the Russian army was one of the strongest military powers in the world, yet a bunch of communist rebels broke into the parliament and other governmental buildings and took over - and all those well-armed Russian soldiers did nothing. Why? Could they not easily shoot up a few thugs many of whom did not even have proper military training? They could - but humans do not think like this. They are primarily concerned with their own safety. They do not think "We far overpower them, so let's go", but they think "What if I start shooting and nobody backs me up? Then I will die".

Suppose someone enters a mall and starts shooting at people. How many heroes will there be who will pull out their own guns and engage with the attacker? Almost everyone will run. Even military veterans will preferentially think, "Sure, I can probably kill this thug, but I have a wife with kids back at home, and in the unlikely scenario where I do get shot, I will have failed them".

Take a look at this data for the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_violent_crime_rate https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state Arkansas has the most liberal gun laws in the country, but has the 3rd highest violent crime rate. Connecticut has the 3rd harshest gun laws in the country, and the violent crime rate is one of the lowest. If anything, the trend appears to be that harsher gun regulations correlate with lower violent crime rates. Now, I am not claiming that there is any causation at play here. However, we certainly would not expect to see this trend if your hypothesis was correct.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Me: I am pro 2nd amendment. But that does not mean what you posit is logical or realistic.

You: This is not how human psychology works, and criminals know that.

Me:  Point being I hope you see the folly in arming everyone no matter what. 

You: However, we certainly would not expect to see this trend if your hypothesis was correct.

I just thought it was cool @MayCaesar how similar we both responded to the exact same post but from completely different perspectives from completely a different set of circumstances. Guess that's how truth prevails.   

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

We are of similar minds on this. I think that it is important to always acknowledge all implications of one's position and not twist facts to try to strengthen it. It is okay to believe in liberal gun laws while acknowledging that it might not be compatible with the goal to reduce the amount of violence. Following one's principles does not always lead to improvements across the board, but there is hope that what the principles do result in is a net positive and the tradeoff is worth it. If it is not, then the principles are suspect and need to be revised.

This is one of my main gripes with Objectivists: they make those absolutist claims often contradicting evidence, even when just a slight revision of the claims would both align with their philosophy and the evidence. For example, they claim that thieves are inevitably miserable because deep inside they believe that they cannot support themselves through productive activities, therefore are weak and useless. They refuse to even consider the possibility that there can be thieves who extract genuine pleasure from playing the system and exploiting other people's trust - at best, they will say that such a person is so mentally devious that Objectivism simply does not apply to them.

It ends up being a circular argument: "Objectivism is good for people for whom Objectivism is good". Which, needless to say, does not speak strongly in favor of widespread adoption of this ideology.

brady1013

@Barnardot While there may be more guns than people according to the statistics only aroung 30% of adults in America actually own a gun. Even a lower number carry a gun.

brady1013

@Factfinder I completely agree with you that that is completely unrealistic. The point I was attempting to make was more guns can decrease gun violence.

brady1013

@MayCaesar I see your point, however if the majority of people in America owned and carried guns then the criminal, if he was even somewhat sane would not pull a gun on a bunch of people who he knows have a high chance of having guns. Also, in your mall example if the criminal pulled a gun on someone who had a gun then I would think that person would shoot him rather than run, I would. You are right if someone who is across the store sees this happen then they will almost certainly run, but someone who was in direct danger would probably pull their own gun. So, if most people carried guns, it would not only be easier to kill a man trying to kill people but also it would deter them from doing that in the first place. 

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;Since there are more defensive uses of guns for protection of life or property, gun ownership increases ones ability to protect oneself.

This is totally scary. All the bad aces say: Derr I need a gun so I can scare people and rob them easy. And every one else says: Derr everyone a round here has a gun so I need to get a gun to defend my self.  

This is what you call escalation, which continues to spiral, and this country has to change its cowboy movie attitude. 

Barnardot

@brady1013 ;While there may be more guns than people according to the statistics only aroung 30% of adults in America actually own a gun. Even a lower number carry a gun.

Yet if you look at other countries you get next to no body owning guns let alone carrying them.

Even 30% is obseenly too high. And the number of illegal guns (that is, stolen) is where a very high percentage of violent crimes happens. An other words any hood knows very well that he has a high chance of finding one or more guns in any given house that he brakes in to. This is a problem that keeps spiraling and the 30% you mention should be 0.01%. An other words, people who need guns for their jobs like cops or security guards. 

Keeping a gun for target and sport should be banned because you know what is going to happen then. All of a sudden every one will join gun clubs.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ;Since there are more defensive uses of guns for protection of life or property, gun ownership increases ones ability to protect oneself.

This is totally scary. All the bad aces say: Derr I need a gun so I can scare people and rob them easy. And every one else says: Derr everyone a round here has a gun so I need to get a gun to defend my self.  

This is what you call escalation, which continues to spiral, and this country has to change its cowboy movie attitude. 

Most gun crimes are committed with illegal obtained guns, so any ban on guns would only remove them from law abiding citizens.  That means that a single mom in a bad neighborhood will statistically be more likely to be robbed and raped or have her children raped, because she would not be allowed to protect herself and her family.  That's what the research shows.  

Anti-constitutionalists want to claim getting rid of legal guns would make the country peaceful, but in reality it would be more like the Purge, because then only people with illegal guns would have them.  

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;Most gun crimes are committed with illegal obtained guns,

That's right. And where do these illegally obtained guns come from? From hoods who break into houses and rob the owners. Because they know that in any given street most homes are going to have at least one gun in it. And before you know it those guns have changed hands several times on the black market making them impossible to trace. Get rid of the guns and you get rid of the crime. And you also get rid of the crime of taking guns.

Joeseph

@brady1013

***The point I was attempting to make was more guns can decrease gun violence.***

Give me examples?

just_sayin

Joeseph said:

@brady1013

***The point I was attempting to make was more guns can decrease gun violence.***

Give me examples?

Yo Joe,

From Jules' AI:

Nordic Countries

Finland and Norway stand out as examples of societies with high gun ownership rates but low gun violence:

• These countries have gun ownership rates that come close to US levels, primarily for hunting rifles and shotguns rather than handguns.
• They are among the safest societies internationally with regards to gun violence.
• This is attributed to their "civilized" gun cultures, where ownership is associated with traditional values of respect and responsibility.

Rural United States

Some rural areas in the US demonstrate high gun ownership with lower crime rates:

• Rural areas account for only 10% of all homicides in the US, despite having a firearm ownership rate of 46%.
• Certain impoverished communities, like coal mining towns in Appalachia, have high gun ownership but do not see correspondingly high crime rates.

Northern New England States

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine present an interesting case:

• These states have relatively high gun ownership rates (ranking 15th, 26th, and 17th respectively in the US).
• Despite this, they maintain very low homicide rates compared to national averages.

Factors Contributing to Low Crime Rates

Several factors may explain why these communities maintain low crime rates despite high gun ownership:

1. Social cohesion: High levels of social cohesion and trust in institutions appear to mitigate potential negative effects of gun ownership.
2. Cultural attitudes: In some communities, gun ownership is tied to responsible use and cultural traditions rather than self-defense or criminal activity.
3. Socioeconomic factors: Areas with lower poverty rates and higher median incomes tend to have lower crime rates, regardless of gun ownership levels.
4. Demographics: Rural and homogeneous populations often experience lower crime rates.
5. Policing and clearance rates: Effective law enforcement and high crime clearance rates can deter criminal activity, even in areas with high gun ownership.

You're welcome.

Joeseph

@just_sayin

But that proves nothing , are you suggesting that crime rates were a lot higher prior to gun ownership in these examples?

Seriously?

Bogan

HI JS, the elephant in the room that you as a Christian person who believes that all races are equal under god refuse to even consider, is the racial factor in gun violence.      Your point number 4 (demographics) is a half truth, and a half truth is a complete lie.    Those communities with "homogenous" populations of either African black Hispanic, or Pacific Islander demographics are by far the worst places for gun violence in the USA.  ALL of your examples where gun ownership is high and homicide rates are low are either white countries or white areas.   Poverty has nothing to do with it, as your own example of "Appalachia" proves.    Poor white people are nowhere near as crazy violent as poor black or Hispanic people.  

Bogan

US homicide rate................................................................................................10 per 100,000
US rural white male homicide rate.......................................................................7 per 100,000
US rural black male homicide rate ......................................................................24 per 100,000
US inner city black male homicide rate.................................................................122 per 100,000
Washington DC black male teens homicide rate...................................................227 per 100,000