One fact about murders that has exceptionally low variance is the likelihood of personally knowing the person that murders you. This is 90%, in almost all circumstances and areas.
Means, the gun, is only one part of the equation and has been noted generally the smallest. Motive is far more important when attempting to put murder rates into context.
I wouldn't be surprised if the murder rate of my town of 100k people is about on par with a British or German town of 100k people, since we don't have any gang presence here.
The same is true in other countries. Berlin has a murder rate vastly higher than the countryside, and let's not mention Frankfurt. However even the crime cesspool that is Berlin has a murder rate comparable to or lower than the "low crime" areas in the US.
Everytime I see this line of reasoning I'm utterly shocked at the lack of understanding.
What you said applies equally across any other country too. So France's 1.2 is an average of the entire country.
Yes, half of any country is below the average!
States in the US have significantly more difference than the regions in France (or whatever they are called). It is probably more accurate to compare the US to the EU and France to an individual state.
Czech republic, the only shall issue European country is at 0.9.
De Gaul, who had been out of power since 1946 when he resigned, understood that he could unify the country behind him, and "proposed" himself as a mr fixit. He obtained the support of the various generals he still knew from WW II, got himself elected by the French, and lead the country for another 10 years (during which he ended up getting out of Algeria)
He was always very sensitive of having the confidence of the French, and at several occasions made it clear that he would go if such-and-such vote would not work out. He resigned in 1969 after losing a referendum on some subject.
He was an extraordinary man, and must have been a serious PITA for the allies. If you want to read more, I recommend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(book)
If anything, rumours to the effect that Republican senators/representatives are only still publicly supporting Trump because they fear armed Trump supporters, could (iff true) be a relevant example.
Then Charles De Gaulle came out of retirement and promised to write a new constitution, and since he was widely respected by both the military and the general public, everything settled down. Of course, this technique only works if you have Charles De Gaulle.
On the one hand, things like social media make “blowing off steam in private with your mates” basically indistinguishable from what used to be “going out of your way to send a letter to someone to harass or threaten them”. I don’t think that’s a reduction, so much as the system not accounting for the changes wrought by tech (see also: Robin Hood Airport trial).
On the other: while I expect anyone known to more than 1000 people to have other people sounding off about them — and while I expect anyone known to 100k Americans to have indistinguishable-from-plausible threats from gun owners who gained those guns despite specific delusional mental states that ought to have excluded them from gun ownership — Jan 6th had more than just that: it had the extra level of demonstrating that there were a lot of people who were not merely performatively angry FirstnameBunchOfNumbers internet accounts but real people with the means and motivation to travel to DC and to force their way into the Capitol building and private offices therein, to bring Molotovs and pipe bombs with them to DC, to not merely chant “hang Mike Pence” but to do so when someone had set up a gallows (or vice versa, timeline unclear for me).
The murder rate in the town (37k residents) I live in (in the south) is effectively zero. I wouldn't doubt that all of my neighbors around me (most of us are originally from a northern state) have guns and we've managed not to kill each other.
Do you think the French revolution didn't require violence?