It is not really worth it to go on with this. One can have horrible mass killings by any number of means. From stabbings, to a crock pot at a Boston Marathon, to a pick up truck diving into crowds of grandmas and children, to explosives in the basement in a school in Michigan, to hi-jacked planes into twin towers, to guns in the hands of mentally damaged, to polluting of our planet and not cleaning up after ourselves, to medical mistakes. Knives, baseball bats, fists... Guns in this country also save lives but it is not publicized. It does not fit the agenda. Multi Millions of guns are owned by multi millions of Americans and not used to kill people, but held for defense and sport. Millions! It is the reason we were not invaded by the Japanese during WWII. Millions of people with many millions of guns not being used because we are not wasteful killers--only ready. Black Guns Matter, Latino Gun Safety groups, Women Carrying...even minorities are, and are getting, ready to protect themselves because they know police can't be everywhere or at you home in an instant. As well as other reasons. In a college statistics class, I learned that you can set up numbers to say anything you want, for and against any argument. Chicago has had the most anti gun laws and the most shootings of any city in the United States. I called the Green bay tv news broadcaster after they did a peice on a guy holed up in a cabin with a gun out west. When the police could not get him out they set the whole place on fire. But it was 4th of July and in Chicago there had been 104 shootings!!!! Just hours away from that broadcasting studio! I said, how could you report on that one guy across the country with all those shootings in our back yard?!!! His answer? We just report the items we are given. ????
He is just entertaining himself. He HAS done research and we could do the same. It is just not worth it for now.
4 per 100K in gun deaths, 12 per 100K in gun-related deaths, and 120 per 100K in gun ownership, all outliers! Are the reasons for the two first numbers found elsewhere? Maybe's it's a race problem? Probably not: the per capita gun-related deaths for whites in the states is also 12 per 100K. Maybe's it crime rate overall? Probably not, too: the U.S. is middling for that, 56 out of 137 countries. I'm going to ignore that personal insult for now. All I'm saying is that the one who makes the claim must prove it. You made a claim, so you need to prove it. That's what I'm asking you to do.
The firearms-related suicide rate is eight times higher in the U.S. than in other affluent countries, but the homicide-related rate is 25 times higher.
Why would you specify affluent countries? Could it be because these statistics are available on agenda-driven sites, but more difficult to determine otherwise? I don't see why income levels would matter when it comes to murder. Without that qualifier, the United States is #89, according to the World Atlas for 2020. For that matter, murders will occur regardless of gun laws. Also, do your statistics consider the differences in the way that some countries categorize the killing of another person. Germany, for example, considers most killings to be manslaughter, with murder used to describe only the most egregious or severe cases. Deaths due to politics are not considered murder in some countries, while they are in the United States. Killings that would be legal (or have another classification) in some countries are deemed murder in others, and so on, keeping in mind that statistics can be used to argue any side of any issue, particularly when comparing fruit to vegetables.
Yes, I think I already told him that, I learned in statistics class, you can get numbers to say anything you want to prove an argument. He is just entertaining himself. Thank you.
Years ago, while I was the director of a volunteer ambulance company, a larger, paid EMS service in the same county was trying to absorb the volunteer services. Fortunately, I had someone on the inside who would send me a copy of this other company's PR releases before they were sent to the newspaper. Some months, he would use one formula to calculate his company's response times, which were included in his press release. For example, he might discount the top and the bottom ten percent of his company's actual response times one month, then use the top and bottom five percent another month, depending on which calculation would give him the best response times. So, I would calculate our response times after determining a formula that would give us a better response time, and the newspaper would usually print our response times side by side with his, and we beat him every time. "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts -- for support rather than illumination." -- Andrew Lang “There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.” -- Benjamin Disraeli “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” -- Mark Twain “If your experiment needs a statistician, you need a better experiment.” -- Ernest Rutherford “99 percent of all statistics only tell 49 percent of the story.” -- Ron DeLegge II "98.4% of the statistics used in forum discussions are made up by the person using them." -- Ken Anderson
To answer your first question, so that we can avoid "comparing fruits to vegetables." In this case, though, the U.S. is an outlier in gun-related deaths for whites per capita, gun-related deaths on average per capita, gun-related homicides per capita, gun-related suicides per capita, gun-related violence per capita, and gun ownership per capita, across rich and poor countries.
I always encounter that online: can't counter with other data sets, then just post anecdotes and maxims.
But you're just parroting leftist talking points and posting stuff from leftist government publications. We get that you're a believer in whatever the current government and other leftist agenda groups want you to believe but, so far, I haven't found any of it to be persuasive. People believe a whole lot of things, and I haven't made it my mission to dissuade them from their beliefs.