i'm not arguing that there isn't correlation between racial diversity and violence as i've seen it first hand throughout my life (i don't understand your point on 'forced mixing' though - when is it ever optional?), I was just showing that we have the same issue but you cannot begin to conpare our statistics to yours. Yes, Brent may be famous for its violence but that is relative - there were only 550 murders in the UK last year, only 39 of which involved a firearm. in the US in 2009, there were 13756 murders, 9203 of which involved a firearm (
source). I imagine the figures for Kent itself would be negligible, certainly if compared to a US city 'famous for its violence.' I don't doubt for a second that Brent would have a much, much higher murder rate if we allowed its citizens to own guns but our police took the maverick step of taking away their guns and, as your article shows, experienced a significant reduction in gun crime as a result (who'd have thunk it!)
(not so) interestingly, if we look at the united states statistics for murders, the majority of murders are in places that either contain extremely poor inner cities (look at new york, for example, which has the bronx with a life expectancy of fucking 33 years for a male - goddamn) or the south, such as alabama, arkansas, and tennessee.
the other places such as rhode island, hawaii, idaho, iowa and maine ALL have extremely low murder rates, similar to the uk's!
i don't want to cherrypick data, so i will admit that these places have stricter gun laws than texas (although not as strict as the UK), which does support your position to an extent. however, i will also argue that the only reason that these places CAN have stricter gun laws is because guns are not part of their culture; it'd be impossible to legislate so strictly in texas, where guns ARE the culture.
in my opinion, this shows that while guns allowance may have some effect on the murder in a place, the main factor is the history and socioeconomic status of a place.
i cherrypicked for your benefit because your second point was retarded.-- something about japan?--
except japan has obviously moved on since the meiji revolution: while they do value honor more than their life, they are extremely pacifistic now so i don't get what you're trying to say. america, on the other hand, has not moved on.
i mean, if you want to then we could talk about violence in feudal japan since you could argue their honor-based mindset is essentially the same but then you'd be proving my point.
---
anyway, it's not really racial diversity imo as opposed to having slaves and former slaves living in the same. furthermore, i dont' care about decreasing gun violence as much as decreasing violence as a whole; i don't care about getting stabbed or getting shot (assuming that both ways i die, of course).
tl;dr:
the main factor in violence is in the history of a place. it is not necessary to prohibit guns. it is unreasonable to think that we can simply decrease violence by controlling guns, it is more about changing culture and enriching places. that being said, i do think that guns should be regulated to an extent.