Okay, so we both can agree that a butcher knife would cause major damage when striking a target. When I ask about rate of fire, my intention is to compare a single butcher knife being wielded in a stationary position versus a ranged-munitions-device, the munitions device would have a higher instance of opportunity to maim or damage a target - but I'm afraid I'm veering us off course.
fewer murders regardless of means.
As for this statement, what you mean to say is that even with more guns in the UK, there were still less murders overall? When did the UK start enacting stricter gun control measures? Could you source it, please?
It is a safe bet none of Japan's gun murders were with a legal gun.
Okay, let's make that safe bet, but that compares to this
mother jones article (again, I hesitate to use any news source versus a statistical data source, so I am assuming their chart/reporting is correct - so, disclaimer noted.) which states 49 killers involved in mass shootings since 1982 obtained their guns legally.
Guns were used in fewer murders in 1950 even though the federal laws, and many state laws were laxer (the south had stricter laws than CA or IL at the time) than now. In 1965 guns were used in 58 percent of murders compared to 70 percent on average today.
Can you provide your source?
They don't throw away the key for ripping off a pizza like California does either.
How many of Japan's prisons are privately-owned as well? Certainly (my assumption) the incarceration rate doesn't help the overall Culture [subsection: stigma] as it pertains to economic and educational opportunities.