Reply to thread

Your statement goes as follows:


Tokyo has very few guns, as a result their gun-related crimes are low.


So, a remote village in the Himalayas has very few cars, therefore, they have few car-related injuries and deaths. See how it's a pointless statement?


The real comparison would be overall crime statistics; by having a low level of guns, is overall crime reduced? And can you then confirm that the presence of guns has an inverse affect on crime? In a Country with high levels of gun ownership, is overall crime increased?


We have discovered this logic does not hold, in fact, these topics were discussed earlier in this very thread.


Back
Top