It's not a discussion about the crime rates in Japan vs America. It's in the vein of "why the difference?"
A good thing MT? I dunno. It just IS, isn't it? I guess it's good if it's the prime cause of their present low crime rate.. or is it?
All I can tell you is this:
When I was a kid, pheasant hunting wasn' the sport of the masses that it is now. As a result, those of us that did, didn't really need a dog. You could walk up on them and they'd "hold" until you got real close and then fly. Obviously, many of them died.
Now pheasants basically have a new "generation" every year. For the last 30 odd years in my personal experience, those that "hold" don't live to reproduce the next Spring.
Anymore, you can't hunt them without a dog. Only a very few will "hold" until you are close, even on opening day. This is a generally observed, widespread phenomenom in the heavily hunted areas.
However, if you go to the "great beyond" that's traditionally been lightly hunted over the last 30 years, you can still find pockets of what have become known as "dumb ones" that will hold.
The hypothesis is that we have enforced a little Darwinism on them. If you fly, you die and don't reproduce. Thus, "runners" live to reproduce and pass this trait on to their offspring.
There are always exceptions to the rule, of course.
So, tell me....... would the forcible removal [swish of sword] [/swish] of people prone to violent crime from a relatively closed society over many generations produce a society with folks less disposed to violent crime?
You tell me; I don't know for sure but it's crossed my mind once or twice.
