If you look at homicide rates, London's is ~half of e.g. New York's, but the countries are really, really different in a lot of ways. It would make more sense to compare the U.S. to the European Union than to the U.K. Compare the U.K. to Massachusetts or something. The U.K. doesn't have a long land border with a violent, half-ruled-by-gangs developing country, doesn't have large rural areas, etc.
The available evidence suggests that magically removing guns from the U.S. overnight would make a dent in homicide rates, but not by all that much (I would estimate ~20%, charitably). Americans murder much more than average not because they have access to guns, but access to guns does make them a little more effective at murdering.
An aside, but it's always interesting to me that people are specifically interested in instances where a lot of people die together. I mean, who cares?
> An aside, but it's always interesting to me that people are specifically interested in instances where a lot of people die together. I mean, who cares?
The friends and families of those victims probably care.
I can’t say I’d be too happy if my daughter died at school from a completely preventable school shooting.
...right, my point is it's confusing that people seem to care more when a bunch of people are killed all at once. Is 30 people killed all together somehow more than 30x as tragic as 30 independent one-offs spaced throughout a year?
I suppose it highlights how one person in a bad mood can kill 30 innocent people, instead of needing e.g. 15-30 homicidal maniacs to do the same thing. It's not that confusing when you think about it.
I'm not sure about exact ratios, but in general society appears to agree that collective harm is worse. For example, the UK had 'Pals battalions' in WW1, and stopped when they realised that you could end up with whole villages losing all their young men in a single day. The damage to society from this tactic was too high, even if the camaraderie was short term better and the recruitment statistics were aided. If you wanted to learn more about why society cares more about collective death, I'd advise you start by researching topics like Pals battalions, on which plenty of research has no doubt been done.
Oh cmon that’s just human nature. We care a lot more about one of events like natural disasters than say automotive deaths - this isn’t a special insight.
Also, the victims of mass shootings (children at schools, attendees at festivals, etc) are the definition of innocent. That’s part of the reason.
The US made Mexico what it is and is entirely responsible for that.
If the US didn't want Mexico to turn into a 'half-ruled-by-gangs developing country' they shouldn't have let the CIA go full hog there and in Latin/Central America.
And that's the thing, so much of the violence and shit that America is facing today is a direct result of blowback from things the US did.
Imagine how much gun crime America wouldn't have if it didn't blow trillions of dollars on some dumb wars in the middle east.
Imagine how much gun crime America wouldn't have if it toss a bunch of their young men into an agent orange meat grinder in South East Asia.
I mean, you might be right about Mexico! I don't know the details. The fact of the matter is that Mexico is the way it is, and that has effects on violence in the U.S.
You seem concerned with blame (normative statement), but I'm just making a descriptive statement (how it actually is right now).
As for foreign wars increasing violence domestically in the U.S., I don't buy that. Most of the murdering in the U.S. is some cultural thing to do with young black and brown men that we haven't figured out yet (because it's essentially impossible to talk about it, much less do research on it).
Ah yeah, knifes are a sticking point. London's laws are 3 inch or smaller non-locking knifes are legal. Over that, you gotta have a valid reason. Having just bought it is a valid reason, as is being a sushi chef. But the general public is no longer allowed to just carry a knife within London city limits for no reason.
Being a sushi chef on the way to work might be a good reason to have a fixed bladed knife but being a sushi chef stopping off at the pub on the way home from work would not be.
It's also worth noting that that is just for posession.
Anything used as an offensive weapon, be it a < 3" friction folding knife or a ballpoint pen or can of hairspray, is covered by a different law.
> being a sushi chef stopping off at the pub on the way home from work would not be.
How does that make sense? Why shouldn't a sushi chef be able to go straight from work to meet up at bar with friends without being being guilty, until proven innocent (this is the UK not eh US) of being a potential murderer?
You're not "guilty, until proven innocent" of being a potential murderer.
In that scenario you'd be guilty of carrying a fixed bladed knife without a good reason.
You don't have a good reason to have a sushi knife on you in a pub because you could have just gone straight home or left it at work. That it might be inconvenient or take extra time isn't going to be seen as an excuse.
You might be the nicest person in the world but by incompetently bringing a big sharp knife into a pub someone else with less scruples might be able to make use of it.
Anything you do with that knife, that you just happened to have on you and definitely didn't bring to intimidate people, in a pub where you're clearly not at work as a sushi chef, would be covered by completely different laws.