Re: You want to know the ugly truth?

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.

It sure does. If we die of disease, then we cannot die of violence. So prevalence of disease always affects the ranking of causes of death, whether you like it or not - and at any level of violence. Sometimes even in ways not even changeable by public policy: vector mosquitoes cannot survive in every climate, so huge areas of the world are outright immune to malaria and yellow fever even if they did nothing. As for cancer and heart disease, they both increase with age, in every country, and I think you were making the argument about children and youths. (I said "increase with age" not "are nonexistent before 65" - I know they still happen, but are rare in the age brackets where violent crime and homicide are concentrated.)

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.

Ranking of causes of death is not the same as violence, or even homicide, rate.

That is exactly what I am trying to tell you, yet you come back to ranking of causes.

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.

Then compare THAT. The ranking is not relevant. It's relevant to decide which should be your priority in your country, but not relevant for saying your country is better or worse than the other in this or that.

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.

Ah, there we can agree.
Though I would start on how infants are not really considered human in America.
(Or, since last week, in Canada)

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.

Exactly. It's guns. It's guns too to account for US state differences.

You cling to the notion that less guns mean less crime.

Well no, it only means that less criminals end up killed during their own crimes.

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.

I really can't answer that. I really can't.

Yet most of Africa doesn't even rate on this chart.

1) There are data for most of the African countries not colored. And it's not very different from the ones already filled.

2) Again, that's homicide, not overall violent crime. With overall violent crime, the USA ranks well within the range of the rest of developed countries. (Wait, I feel a deja vu. Have I already said this before?)

Are you even reading or did you decide that since I didn't take your data at face value you don't have to read why I didn't?

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.

Fat chance you're ever gonna live in a <1 homicide rate country without a police state to provide it...

Though that wasn't really my point. My point was to prove that the link to patriarchy that you propose doesn't sustain.

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.

I didn't say I encourage them. Read my other post.

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

No matter how much you want to deny it, F*S=k has always proven true for any given place and time.