So it is potentially interesting how some countries have relatively high gun ownership and relatively low gun related violent crimes- but we do have to be careful when doing these types of analyses. There are limitations in official data, that is to say, numerous studies of countries where crime rates are disproportionately low have indicated through various means including self reported citizen data that certain types of crime may be under reported, and due to legal and cultural differences what is considered criminal behavior may simply differ to a point that certain acts while frowned upon may not be strictly criminal or be handled extrajudicially. It is unlikely in this case that gun crimes are under reported or unreported, but it is worth mentioning.
Another thing to keep in mind is that when we study other countries to attempt to take lessons away, often times answers are more in history and culture. this presents two issues.
The first issue is that certain solutions may rely on cultural context. As an example, in the United States there is a statistical correlation between large trees and crime. That is to say, homes where there are many large trees in the neighborhood are less likely to be burglarized and general blue collar crime tends to be lower. There is debate as to wether the presence of trees of this type somehow has a psychological effect or if places where crime rates tend to be lower or preventative enforcement are higher tend to be places with trees. In Japan, blue street lights were shown to reduce certain street crime. In places where the lights were row Ed with blue, crime rates fell. This is less ambiguous as there is a before and after data in short a period, but it also doesn’t eliminate other possible reasons including that it may simply be the act of changing the lights introduced an unfamiliar element or signaled that their areas were one’s attention was paid to. It is possible,
and there is data to support, that the blue lighting has a psychological effect. That said, the effect and perception of color D’s or other subconscious ways that crime can be deterred or moods altered to mitigate crime often rely on cultural context. Studies have shown that the perceptions of colors and smells and other things can change with cultural context. So some things are fairly portable or universal, in general for example criminals tend to be less drawn to well lit areas than poorly lit ones. We can speculate many reasons and wether there is a psychological element of associating shadowy places with “shadowy deeds” but it is often simply practical that poorly lit areas tend to both be less trafficked and harder to see- making many crimes easier to pull off unseen. That said, not everything holds over various cultures and places.
The second issue is that culture and history are not easily transplanted. That is to say that in a place where certain crimes tend to be higher or lower due to cultural Ms historical factors, you can’t easily take generations or more of historical context and belief and impart them. Meaning that where cultural changes are key to a reason, they are at best a long term solution but often not practical as often where there is vast difference in attitudes there are fundamental differences in cultures that would essentially require an erasure of existing culture to create the conditions where those attitudes prevail. Not an easy task and the ethics get fuzzy.
When performing a practical analysis, examining a scenario where your desired variables are met and trying to replicate those conditions can have value, but especially when the answer is cultural, it may be better to ask instead of “why don’t these people have this issue?” Ask “why do we have this issue?” Of course the answer to that is complex and there are many reasons for gun violence. Mental illness is a huge one, and arguably the aggression and unhappiness often inherent to American society along with a lack of values beyond perhaps some vague desire for individual freedom. We have an abundance of that, but we have an abundance of people dissatisfied or lost in all their choices. Without purpose, choices are somewhat meaningless. There is an existential component to American violence. It seems a good place to start is with a general and comprehensive prioritization of mental health.
Obviously better programs and support for those with severe mental conditions, but an overall shift towards encouraging mental health- not just helping “crazy people” but average people- prioritizing a state of well being and purpose in the general population. Aspirations aren’t inherently bad, but the social aspirations we have created are often above what people can meet, and often times those who reach them find themselves as bored and unsatisfied as otherwise, just more comfortable and with more distractions. So an element of National mental health is certainly in providing a certain standard of living for people regardless of their ability to meet social expectations, but focusing more on people and less on status or economic productivity might help.
Ultimately there is a lot to unpack, but it is interesting and potentially helpful to examine and compare against other nations when we have issues or short comings, that said we do need to remember that people and cultures and circumstances differ and there are few if any “one size fits all” for humans. It’s also important that we not pick a “magic ticket” that we pen as the sole cause of complex social issues. Usually there are many contributing factors to such issues and we can’t simply “fix” one thing and make them go away.
Switzerland's extremely high rate of gun ownership is largely due to the Swiss militia system. Switzerland doesn't have an army it is an army. Ex military personnel (almost all man and quite a few women) get sent home with their personal equipment INCLUDING guns but NOT ammunition. So yeah, lots of guns but no ammo: who would have guessed that this results in low gun violence. Seriously, one really shouldn't use Switzerland as an example when trying to make a point about gun violence.
Are you deliberately trying to miss my point? Of course gun violence or violence at all is not okay. But one shouldn't use a country like Switzerland as an example. That's like having a debate about mammals and base your argument on the platypus; because while technically being a mammal, it's an anomaly. The same goes for Switzerland. Simplified: almost everybody armed + professional training + gun control - ammunition = low rate of gun violence. Or even simpler: the number of guns per person is absolutely irrelevant when there is no legal access to ammunition for all those guns.
Another thing to keep in mind is that when we study other countries to attempt to take lessons away, often times answers are more in history and culture. this presents two issues.