I do believe you are correct (I remember the same thing). People use what they have, but being dead from a knife is still dead. I find the rate of various crimes important as opposed to the tools used. Tools can be substituted.
Tools generally only have partial substitutes. (From memory only...) Suicides decreased in the UK when catalytic converters became required on cars: other means of suicide remain available, but most are harder for the potential suicide than sitting in a car with a pipe from the exhaust through the window.
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.
What you are saying is that massacres are easier with guns.
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 )
I believe "high gun ownership correlates with high homicides" to be false. Maybe for a specific demographic or area, but in the middle of the country it just isn't so. I used to work the social work circuit in data collections and research; and the prejudices of the people doing the study show in their interpretation of the raw data and the conclusions they reach.
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.
Yeah, I'm a little US-centric because I know the local stats better. For the most part, I blame relative economic class and family problems (e.g. abuse). I find blaming an object to mask the real problems in our lives. It's like blaming the engine when you run out of gas.
