This year, Washington D.C. had an 17% drop in murder rate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07...), immediately following the overturn of their gun ban via the Heller decision. Which is not to say the decision is responsible for the drop, but even if the impact was negative, it was swamped by other minor factors such as the rain.
I'm more and more convinced that gun restrictions have everything to do with perceived, rather than actual safety.
Knives are substitutes for guns, but it's harder to kill 10 people with a knife than with an automatic. Which may explain why generally (always with exceptions) high gun ownership correlates with high homicides.
Killing one person with a knife is not harder than with a gun. A criminal willing to kill is going to do it with one, or the other, or both.
Just look at the UK. Violence is bad and there is a total ban on handguns and a near total ban on just about everything else (many restrictions and you need a purpose to own the gun - self defense and for "fun" are not reasons - eg. farming, deer huting, formal target shooting )
As we were reminded of today in tragic fashion, suicide bombers seem to get a pretty high body count without using a gun.
That point of view seems rather US-centric. (Apologies if I've misinterpreted what you meant.) My point was in relation to different countries, higher gun ownership correlates with higher death by gun. I was not comparing different geographic areas within the US. It's obviously a complicated question with many influencing factors, but ignoring the availability of guns does seem to fly in the face of the evidence.
Given that the US has high homicide rates, compared to other countries, then if high availability of guns in the US is not a contributing factor, then what would you saw were the relevant factors?
"suicide bombers seem to get a pretty high body count without using a gun" ?
Absolutely. Suicide bombers can probably achieve a higher murder rate than people with guns, much as people with guns can achieve a higher murder rate than people with knives, and people with knives can achieve a higher murder rate than people with clubs.
High availability of suicide bombers in a society is likely to lead to a higher homicide rate than in a society where suicide bombers are not so prevalent. High availability of guns in a society is likely to lead to a higher homicide rate than in a society where guns are not so prevalent.
So, given the discussion is about the availability of guns, I'm not sure of your point here.
Even if you walk around in public with your assault rifle, nobody becomes suspicious. Active members of the army have to show up for a mandatory shooting program every year and shooting matches are very common too, so “Rambo look-alikes” on the streets aren’t an unusual appearance in Switzerland.
Nevertheless, 40% of all homicides are commited by cut and thrust weapons and “only” 10% by guns. The latter accounts for about 70% in the US.
People inclined to do violence to others will do so regardless of the weapons available. Swimming pools are more dangerous to children than firearms in the house. My take has always been that the weakening of one amendment will allow avenues of attack on the others.