Mass Stabbing

In the latest available homicide stats I could find for England and the U.S. the overall per capita homicide rate in England is less than 1/4 the rate in the U.S. (1.2 per 100,000 population vs. 5.0 per 100k) and the death by knife rate in the U.K. - with all of its gun restrictions that lead people to other forms of weaponry, including knives - is STILL lower than the comparable U.S. rate (0.4 per 100k vs. 0.6/100k).

How much you want to be bet the UK takes action against knives LONG before its homicide by knife rate increases six-fold, as it needs to do to match the U.S.'s firearm death rate?

• The homicide by knife rate in the U.S. was 0.6 per 100k, or less than one-seventh the rate by firearms (4.46 per 100k). That's not a culture problem; that's a weapons problem.
• The per capita homicide rate for firearms in the U.S. is more than double the per capita rate for ALL OTHER MEANS OF HOMICIDE COMBINED. That's a weapons problem, not a culture problem.
• In Great Britain, the per capita rate for homicide by firearms is about half the rate for knives (0.23 per 100k vs. 0.4 per 100k). In the US. the firearms rate is more than seven times higher than the knife rate. If that's a culture problem, it's that we're a gun culture and Great Britain (and much of the rest of the world) is not.
• The bottom line is that in our gun culture, the total number of people murdered per 100k of population is MUCH higher than in the "knife culture" of Great Britain. Do you contend that were there no guns in the US (please play along) due to our culture, our homicide rate would STILL be many times that of Great Britain's? that there would be as many people murdered without guns as there currently are with them? If that's not what you contend, then it seems to me that you accept the existence of a weapons problem of some magnitude.

The per capita homicide rate for methods other than firearms IS higher in the U.S. than in the U.K. but it's only marginally higher (e.g. 0.6 per 100k vs 0.4 per 100k for knives). The OVERALL homicide is not just 50% higher in the U.S. than the U.K. It's almost 350% higher in the U.S. than the U.K. the lion's share of that difference due to the difference in homicide rates for firearms in the two countries. So as to homicide rates my question is, in the absence of guns, do you contend that the overall homicide rate in the U.S. would REMAIN in the area of 350% higher than in the U.K.? Essentially, that an additional 12,000 people would be murdered each year by knives, strangulation, poisonings, etc since they wouldn't be killed by guns.