GUNS

[Dharmavidya]

In 2014 there were 33,599 gun deaths in the USA and in Japan, just six.

I was not able to find data for the question "How many people around the world were killed by US and/or Japanese munitions in the same period," but your guess is probably as good as mine.

There is clearly an important cultural difference here.

[Dharmavidya]

Thnk you Priti - yes, difficult. Different countries have very different attitudes.

[Priti Vaishnav]

Unfortunately, no elected President would like to take any action on banning the guns or small arms as that will be a political suicide. Every time as and when any such incident happens, it becomes talk of the town and then eventually like all other important issues, it dies too. 

[Dharmavidya]

I suppose there is, in this 'right to bear arms' a rejection of the principle that underpins the modern civic state, namely that only the state has the right to exercise lethal force. In medieval society, bearing arms was normal. People walked around with a knife or sword hanging from their belt as a matter of course. This changed with the arrival of the modern state, but not in America. 

There is a distinction to be drawn between the number of guns available and the propensity to use them. On the Wikipedia list of estimated number of guns per 100 citizens, Switzerland ranks higher than Iraq. The USA does stand out as an extreme case in both respects, with 300 million guns in circulation and a very high homicide rate.

[Karmadeva]

The USA has always fought hard to maintain its freedom around gun laws. The second amendment of the constitution is the right to bear arms. This to me seems ludicrous in a civilised society.

[Dharmavidya]

Yes, good point. Allowing one's opponent an honourable way to back down is proper and a mark of civilised behaviour.

[Carol English]

It is a cultural norm to own firearms in the US, the right to bear arms is taken as just that, a constitutional right. Aggression is socially sanctioned. When you lose your temper and you have a deadly weapon at hand it may not be a good thing: If you are a thief and you encounter a human obstacle the danger may be perceived as great enough to require murder. "Shoot first, ask questions later" may apply to the one being assailed as well. If both are able to assume that the other is not, themselves, carrying a gun, it makes the need to shoot them far less pressing then the alternative — where they must be assumed to be a potentially deadly threat.

Correlates well with your observation that people are far more likely to fight to the death when they know that capitulation will result in them being tortured and murdered anyway. Give them a way out and much bloodshed may be avoided.