they outlawed swords in 1860, the primitive matchlocks had long gone out of use. in any case those matchlocks were superior to swords on the battlefield. how do you think they displaced the sword in the first place? one on one had nothing to do with it! in any case the outlawing of swords had nothing to do with crime, it had everything to do with breaking the power of the samurai nobility! politics, politics!
Not in Japan, who didn't catch up with the Western world in technology until the 1900's. They used the same primitive guns for over 100 years, never innovating.
My point is, guns were not very practical for personal self defense back then. Guns prevailed on the battlefield more because of logistics, training someone to use a gun is far cheaper and faster than training someone to use a bow/sword effectively. And thus they had a far easier time raising a large gun toting army than a sword toting army.
And I didn't say outlawing swords was due to eliminating crime, rather I pointed that as an example that even though something may have heavy cultural significance (i.e. the gun to some people in the US and of course the Sword to the Samurai) it's not impossible thing to change.
and as to Africa, we are back to the difference between blaming the implements and the people! it's always the people. Africa has genocide because Africans want to kill their neighbors and no other reason!
So then why aren't you blaming the British for abusing their weapons rather than blaming the difference in armaments?