Just a side note, because you’re from Norway, that may be surprising to some. The US is #1 with 1.01 guns per capita, and Norway is #9 with .31 guns per capita.
In any case, i don’t think the number of guns per capita explains the difference in gun crime rates between the two.
Sweden had a total of 360 shootings and 62 firearm homicides last year. In a country with 10 million people. That's roughly the size of North Carolina where they have an average of 1,300 shootings and ~530 firearm homicides. Their gun control seems to be pretty effective!
Come and try the UK for a bit. People do not have guns.
If you like, take the time to go through the data and understand why it does not actually fit the reality of the situation here. Don't expect other people to disprove shit data.
The data seems to suggest that the number of deaths and mass shootings sort of tracks with the number of guns, and that Finland isn't particularly better off "per gun".
> More than 60 people died in shootings last year in Sweden, the highest figure on record.
This may be a lot of people for Sweden (~0.5 death per ~100K people); it's not a lot of people in the general sense. Per [1], 19,000 people died from gun homicides in the US in the same year (5 per 100K people). Not exactly a sign that Sweden's system is failing relative to the US.
In USA there are 120.5 guns/100 people AND 3.4 gun murders/100000 people
In Canada there are 34.7 guns/100 people AND 0.6 gun murders/100000 people
In France there are 19.6 guns/100 people AND 0.4 gun murders/100000 people
In Germany there are 19.6 guns/100 people AND 0.1 gun murders/100000 people
In Italy there are 14.4 guns/100 people AND 0.3 gun murders/100000 people
In England+Wales there are 4.6 guns/100 people AND 0 gun murders/100000 people
Sources: Small Arms Survey, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.·Ownership rates are for 2017. Murder rates for the U.S., Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and Spain are from 2016; otherwise, the latest available rates are used.
Any citation on fewer handguns, fewer deaths? Violent crime actually increased in the UK after they banned guns despite near simultaneous expansion of police funding.
These issues aren’t as simple as you might imply. The demographics of Sweden are different than those of Chicago or Matamoros. Conroe, Texas has very high gun ownership and very low violent crime. New York has very low gun ownership and relatively low violent crime.
Cancer death rates are higher in the UK compared to the US despite “universal” healthcare in the UK.
It’s naïve to draw simplistic cause-effect conclusions and it’s intellectually dishonest to suggest that policies that work in Lisbon would work at a similar level of success in Los Angeles.
To be clear, I am all for decriminalization of drugs, however suggesting that policies will have similar effects in different regions or countries is to ignore the thousands of other variables at play.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...
reply