, , , ,

I have been challenged to explain Iceland and it’s low crime rate to America.

First Iceland is not densely populated but a vast majority of citizens own guns. Their kids grow up with them and learn to respect them from their parents. So let’s compare Iceland.

First the to get a state similar we’d have to choose northern Vermont. Sparely populated with limited urban experience. Limited drug availability and a self relent population. Northern Vermont has an effective rate of .003 or effectively like Iceland 0.

There the US compared to Iceland.

Like any comparison the closest you can come is to replicate the population, culture, climate, and other factors when comparing apples to apples. You always want the best comparison you can get.

The point remains even the UN found “The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,” that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

That report is broken down here: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

“Although the reason is thus obscured, the undeniable result is that violent crime, and homicide in particular, has plum‐ meted in the United States over the past 15 years.34 The fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when com‐ pared with the rest of the world. In 18 of the 25 countries sur‐ veyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.35 This contrast should induce thoughtful people to wonder what happened in those nations, and to question policies based on the notion that introducing increas‐ ingly more restrictive firearm ownership laws reduces violent crime. Perhaps the United States is doing something right in promoting firearms for law‐abiding responsible adults. Or per‐ haps the United States’ success in lowering its violent crime rate relates to increasing its prison population or its death sen‐ tences.36 Further research is required to identify more precisely which elements of the United States’ approach are the most important, or whether all three elements acting in concert were necessary to reduce violent crimes.”

There is plenty of evidence to suggest violent crime and even suicide rates are NOT a result of gun ownership. So we can get off the “Gun bad” idea and maybe move on to more meaningful discussions about how to really reduce crime and violence.

Do I have all the answers? Nope. Neither do you. But trampling on the rights of those who obey the laws and making the claim it’s for public safety simply doesn’t wash.