Ultimately the effect is minimal because the health care system in the US is fucking atrocious. Most people can't afford it, so if you have a fatal disease and you're poor (which chances are high that you will be if you live here) then you probably can't afford the treatment. Take me: I have exactly zero taxable income and still cannot get medical insurance, not even TennCare (There's a waiting list a zillion miles long for it and I think it's first come, first serve; besides that I'm still a "carpetbagger" to many of these people since I came from Michigan, never mind that I grew up here. Idiots.) My grandma, who does have Medicaid, is currently going through the last stages of cancer and will be gone in a matter of weeks if not days. They caught it far too late. It's a common story. It was the same with my paternal grandfather, who died from lung cancer.

Americans have horrendous eating and life habits--too much fat, carbs and cholesterol, not enough exercise, a lot of smoking and drinking. We're #13 out of all countries for heart disease ⚠️ ↗. We're #9 for cancer ⚠️ ↗. We're #1 for diabetes among Western countries. I don't think there's a significant difference between deaths by disease in the US and most of the rest of the world, even if the diseases that kill them are different.

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.

It doesn't have to be the same for the point to be valid, especially since I put it in context with other important data. The points you introduce do not have as significant an effect on the stats you claim.

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.

Of course it's relevant. Again, you can temper any stats by introducing any number of contingent stats into it ad infinitum, but ultimately you still have to look at the numbers as is and deal with them directly.

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.

Oh, come on. Do you even really believe that? Source this claim, please. If any region should have a high number or criminals being taken out before they can kill, it's the South, where gun ownership is the highest. And yet that's not what the trends show. The fact is, most murders are committed by people who should never have had access to guns in the first place, but it's nowhere near difficult to obtain a gun here, no matter who you are or what kind of criminal record you have. J's stepfather was barred from owning guns and yet he had them. J's mom was killed by a .22 rifle (combined with slitting her throat), one of the most common caliber of rifles around. She lingered until he got her to Mississippi; it was a shot to the head that finally killed her.

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

Alright, I'll take your word for it.

Fat chance you're ever gonna live in a [less than] 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.

How so? Without the strict tribal and governmental codes controlling the people, you don't think the homicide rates would be much higher? Patriarchal rule can be useful for controlling others, but at what price? My point was that you're constantly griping about lack of freedom here, and yet you frequently idealize Islamic cultures, which are nothing if not highly restrictive. Balance, man!

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

Well, you and Baldur were talking about giving guns to kids. How else am I supposed to interpret that?