Oh, good grief. Can you say, "red herring" boys and girls? I knew you could. It makes no difference that disease doesn't kill us as much as you think it should (but we certainly have high rates of heart disease and cancer, so it's not like we're not getting taken out by diseases too.) If the violence rate is low, then it's low. If it's high, it's high. You can muddle the issue ad infinitum if you want--I can play that game too with anything you throw out. You have no honor anymore, LGs, no respect for honest debate. You throw out distractions and red herrings like ninjas throw smoke bombs. In fact, you actually prove my point. Deaths by disease are fairly evenly dispersed across Western countries with similar technology, and yet murder rates remain quite high in the US compared to other Western countries. If anything demonstrates the higher rates of murder in the US, it's when you make comparisons of deaths by other means in those countries.

When you then factor in the rates of death for different age groups, you have the whole picture. In no possible configuration should the second highest cause of death to infants (whether accidental or intentional) be guns. There are way too many things that are dangerous enough to infants without introducing guns into the picture. If guns even make the top ten there's a problem; guns and infants should never intersect in any way. Or do you suppose we should give guns to infants too . . . you know, to protect themselves? The two shouldn't even be in the same room unless absolutely necessary.

And yet not in violent crime overall, where the USA is not too different from Europe (except Scandinavia - but then Scandinavians suicide so much that it compensates in the young age ranges where Americans are more vulnerable to homicide). What does that mean? That violence escalates to deadly level more often, not that overall violence is higher.

More red herrings. Honestly, LGs, it's getting tiresome, which I suspect is the point: wear down your opponent with inconsequential nonsense till they give up. Seriously, there's no honor in this. Be honest with yourself for once and address the reality of gun violence in US, especially in the Southern US where gun worship is highest. You can't accept any reality that contradicts your viewpoint, so you just extrapolate out to the point where anything can prove anything. Again, you merely reinforce my point. If overall violence is the same here as in European countries but it's more fatal here, doesn't that tell you something about the means of violence in the US vs. Europe? Or at least the degree to which it is taken here vs. Europe? At least one of the two--guns or higher aggression levels--have to account for violence ending in fatalities more often here. Then when you look at it state by state (and region by region) it all becomes clear what's going on here: unless Southerners and Westerners (and inner cities) are just naturally more aggressive than other states and regions, then guns are clearly the culprit.

Hardly so. The USA has a much lower overall violent crime rate than anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa and probably anywhere in Central and South America bar Chile.

I don't know, I guess this one is a matter of perspective. Relatively speaking, you're right, but I consider any country that averages over 1 or 2 murders per 100,000 population as way too high. We have almost 5 per 100,000 in 2010. South Africa comes in at the very top, with a whopping 32 per 100,000. Yet most of Africa doesn't even rate on this chart ⚠️ ↗. You can't say that for anywhere in the US. Not a single state.

But if I wanted to be more obnoxious, I would point out that the uber patriarchal cultures of the Middle East and the Indosphere have murder and violent crime rates closer to Europe than to the USA, even less Latin America.

Yes, and I could then point out that with the kinds of control exerted over the people there it's really no wonder. You gripe about Westerners having little freedom, but I'll take my Internet, alcohol, entertainment, religious freedom, etc. any day of the week over that nonsense.

Well, I do believe broadly in Niven's equation.

F*S = k

You made your choice. Fair enough.

Yeah, if you think giving guns to kids means freedom, then count me out. There's freedom and there's dumbassery, and that falls in the latter category. It's one thing to take a laissez faire approach to such issues and another altogether to actively encourage them.

Yeah, I agree with F * S = k: (F)irearm * (S)ix-year-old = (k)iss your ass goodbye, kid.