Oh right, if you remove all the data that doesn’t align with your stated viewpoint, your opinions are much more well formed. This is a totally intellectually dishoneset way of making whatever point it is you’re trying to make.
It’s funny, a bunch of analysts, yet when gun are brought up people simply cannot remain rational.
It’s generally accepted to remove the outliers in such cases especially when countries like Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica were so heavily skewing the average coming in with numbers in the 60’s and 30’s per 100,000.
You could raise the cut off number to as high as 25 reducing the number of countries but the USA still comes in at roughly 2x the global average and remains more or less the same for accidental deaths.
An interesting quirk is that when you go back to the sources on the data they have a disclaimer saying that 'Accidental deaths are underreported in the USA due to ambiguous classification techniques’ which means the accidental death rate could easily be higher.
So quite clearly there is a huge problem despite some blokes trying to shrug it of as sensationalism and USA being in line with the world. Keep in mind these are just fatalities, the accidental injuries due to firearms would / could probably be much much higher and it is amusing when you read personal quotes from people saying they need it to ‘defend’ themselves. That kind of siege mentality is hilarious coming from a so called benchmark to the world. The defelction towards car wrecks is also amusing.
But I don’t really care, i’m more or less on a wind-up cause things are getting stale. This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetic.
American bravehearts being brave.
Non-Americans who are comfortable with their quasi-socialist governments (not that America isn’t headed in that direction) don’t understand the point of guns. Gun rights are protect by the US Constitution so that Americans can protect themselves against a despotic government should our Constituional Republic fall. If China invaded or the President suspended the Constitution, the American people wouldn’t be completely helpless.
I find it funny that Europeans don’t seem to get this, given WWI/WWII.
Lots of Europeans (and Canadians) get this. Gun ownership is quite high in places like Switzerland (46 per 100 ppl), France (31 per 100 ppl), Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and of course in countries like Serbia. Sure, they may not be on the level of Americans (not even Afghans or Iraqi’s are) but they own guns way over global average. So really, you’re just ignorant. Outside of the US, Western Europeans are by far the biggest owners of guns (and perhaps as high as Americans on a percentage of families with guns, as the rates above are just total guns dividend by population and many Americans have several firearms). Interestingly, they don’t have the gun violence Americans do either. That said, concealed and concealable weapons and the like, which is the big problem in most US gun violence, are generally much more heavily restricted outside the US. A 9mm probably won’t help you if a despotic regime is sending tanks to your house anyway, so I’m not sure the constitutional argument holds there (personally, I don’t oppose any gun ownership outside automatic weapons, for pre-screened owners with safety training).
Haha, if China invaded, private citizens owning pissy little guns won’t stop them (and yes, an AR-15 would be a pissy little gun in that scenario). Same goes for if the President suspended the constitution. You would be at the total mercy of the government or invading power. The Constitution was written for a very different world.
^Sure, an AR-15 won’t stop a nuclear bomb.
But if any army thinks that it’s going to go house-to-house clearing people out in West Texas, they’ve certainly got their hands full. Most households out here own firearms, and even though they’d be no match for a “real” army, the army won’t escape without licking a whole lot of wounds.
Against a full blown land invasion with armor and air support (which is what an invasion pretty much requires), households owning firearms is no contest. Sure there will be resistance, but you’re living in dreamland to think that owning small arms will be actualy resistance against an invasion or turning against the government, especially against a modern day army. In the 1700s, that would have made more sense.
If I didn’t have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around. Do you want that? Huh? Do ya!?
And yet Europeans are constantly whining about how America’s gun laws need to be more restrictive…Like theirs. Not quite as much as Canadians, though.
Your claim that concealable weapons are ineffective is undermined by Iraq. There is hardly an example of so mismatched a set of forces (the US vs. Iraq). And Iraq gave the US a run for its money because a relatively small number of rebels had weapons. Most of these were quite crude compared to a 9 mm. Unless a force intends to destroy America’s assets by leveling everything, they will be confronted with about 300 million guns and billions of bullets. It makes for quite a deterrent against foreign and domestic enemies.
On a related note, and piggying back on your school arguments, did you know that black Americans are responsible for between 38% and 66% of murders in America. How’s that daycare working out for you?
Iraq.
No.
I wonder what that stat looks like when you check how many murders are commited by people in poverty. Tell us all straight up: do you think black people are inherently violent and the root cause of American crime is black people just being black people?
Why do you think the US decided to drop the bomb on Japan instead of invading the mainland? Because they would have been literally fighting door-to-door, and the casualties would have been too numerous to count, and the war would have dragged on for years.
If people are holed up inside their dwellings, then the US has two choices - bomb the shit out of the houses/schools/hospitals (Israel-style), or go door-to-door clearing them out. The first option is murdering your own population, the second will take forever and will force a lot of military casualties.
^ The Japanese had very few privately owned guns. If someone is actually balsy enough to invade America, they probably don’t give a flying shit about your home in Midland Texas. They’ll just take it out and run the oil facilities from wherever.
You tell me. It seems that most of your complaints about America are really problems localized in black communities that skew statistics overall. The murder rate among whites is about 2.1-2.2 per 100,000 in the US. That’s not too much higher than Canada’s 1.6 rate. That includes whites in poverty, so obviously your claims about socioeconomic status don’t tell the whole story. The murder rate among Asians is the lowest.
And you evaded my question. How’s that free daycare working out?
How did Iraq work out?
^ It works out great in many countries. I agree Amrrican violence is centred around predominately black areas, but you evaded my question: Is the violence in black communities because you believe blacks are inherently violent? Or something else.
I doubt someone invading the US will have as high respect for human rights as Americans did in Iraq. And Iraq has barely more private firearms per capita than France…