jonnygothispen wrote:Gun laws are based on the people's values. In Japan, they value peace. It's a matter of choice, isn't it? Maybe we should change our values and attitudes about guns.
Banning guns in Chicago makes as much sense as banning water in an ocean. You'd have to pull the drain on the ocean (a nationwide ban) before such a ban would be effective, and I think it'd take a decade or so for the results to show up.
Japan/US - gun laws are irrelevant. What's relevant starts with this - Japan has a conviction rate on homicides close to 100%, and a closure rate (a suspect is identified and referred for charges) of over 90%. This is much, much higher than the US. Japan does not have jury trials, and can hold suspects up to 10 days without being charged, questioning them the entire time. Japan has never, ever in its entire history allowed free ownership of guns. You're quite right about the relevance of culture, but US culture is just more violent than others. Japan has more suicide. That's just the way it is.
You are totally misrepresenting the point on Chicago. It was suggested that a blanket ban on possession of guns would reduce homicides and violent crime. Chicago has (had) such a ban. It does not matter that guns are freely available in other jurisdictions; anyone possessing a gun in public in Chicago was subject to arrest. Yet, that law did not serve to reduce homicides and violence. A Chicago resident could legally buy all the guns they want downstate, but carrying one of them openly in Chicago would have got them thrown in jail. That law was a failure in reducing homicides and violent crime. Gun laws don't make a difference.