>Can you explain why the homicide rate in the US in areas where guns are not restricted is half then those areas where guns are restsricted??
>
>I can. When citizens are allowed to protect themselves, the crime rate drops. Simple, easy to verify unfabricated, true facts.

...based on internal statistics of a single country. Don't even try to extrapolate that as an universal rule that would apply to humankind in general. It's the way Americans behave in the USA, it's the whole social contract based on the whole history of the wars against American Americans, land grab etc etc, when defending one's property was pretty much equal to defending one's life. And let's not forget the role of Hollywood and TV, which both gave much more space to John Wayne and types of Dirty Harry than to mediators, negotiators and... well, the normal life isn't necessarily exciting and doesn't sell the content. But that's where the behavioral patterns are passed to generations. Americans are people with guns, by their own definition.

And as I said before in this thread, having things done differently in one area or some areas of the USA will just prove that partial solutions can't work. There's no way you can conduct an isolated social experiment - isolation is impossible. There are no insular bubbles - there are only connected vessels. Whatever you do in one place, it interacts with what's done in the rest of the country. People come and go, people talk, there's always some who will understand the experiment as an opportunity for whatever they want to do.

[update] just to make it clear: this means that you can say "let's introduce so-and-so law in one state/city/county/street and then let's conclude what would happen to the country", but you can likewise say you're a dog, still doesn't mean you have a tail. You can't conclude what would happen to the country - you have no idea; you can only see what happens when you introduce such a law in one place and do zilch elsewhere.