US toddler kills himself with mother's gun

[Hermit]

If you look at where the gun violence occurs, and in what context, you'll see why. Most of the gun homicides in the US are drug-trafficking related, and secondarily gang violence related. The average American going through their daily life doesn't see or encounter guns.

No need to repeat yourself. Try replying to my response instead.

[Seth]

The average American-on-the-street is as free of gun violence as anywhere else in the Western world.

Actually, no. On a per population basis fewer holdups of shops with the use of firearms occur in Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand and so on than in the USA, and no, the difference is not made up by would-be robbers using cricket bats, frying pans, knives or other weapons.

Actually it is. In fact, the UK's violent crime rate is substantially higher than that of the vast majority of the US, excepting only a relatively small number of densely populated urban areas, most of which happen also to be "gun free zones."

Add to that the number of road rages that involve the brandishing or actual use of guns, customer disaffection with shopkeepers and domestic disputes that end up the same, I think you'll need to be extraordinarily selective with your choice of data points to defend your extremely curious assertion.

Not really. The difference is easily explained by the way in which you frame your statement. It has to do with your biased focus on guns and your ignoring of other forms of weapons and criminal violence.

You're more likely to be beaten and robbed in Glasgow or London than you are anywhere in the US, including New York City or Detroit.

Our gun-crime problem is really quite specific. The vast majority is perpetrated by minority gang members against other minority gang members in urban areas, and the number of accidental gun deaths, as in the OP, are rare and getting more rare all the time, mostly thanks to the educational efforts of the NRA.

[Hermit]

The average American-on-the-street is as free of gun violence as anywhere else in the Western world.

Actually, no. On a per population basis fewer holdups of shops with the use of firearms occur in Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand and so on than in the USA, and no, the difference is not made up by would-be robbers using cricket bats, frying pans, knives or other weapons.

Actually it is. In fact, the UK's violent crime rate is substantially higher than that of the vast majority of the US

You have misread the situation again. Why am I not surprised?

As for general crime rates, we had that discussion before. I don't feel like repeating the list of reasons why you are wrong.

[laklak]

If you look at where the gun violence occurs, and in what context, you'll see why. Most of the gun homicides in the US are drug-trafficking related, and secondarily gang violence related. The average American going through their daily life doesn't see or encounter guns.

In which case, the average American clearly doesn't need one.

Probably not. But what does "need" have to do with it? Fuck need.

[Forty Two]

If you look at where the gun violence occurs, and in what context, you'll see why. Most of the gun homicides in the US are drug-trafficking related, and secondarily gang violence related. The average American going through their daily life doesn't see or encounter guns.

In which case, the average American clearly doesn't need one.

Not an accurate statement. Many gun owners in the US have guns for hunting. We have vast areas in the US where deer roam in huge numbers, among other animals that are hunted. The hunters take the animals and eat the meat, and use the rest of the carcasses for other purposes. It's not morally different than the raising of cattle - the only difference is that deer are far more "free range" than the cattle, which are corralled and otherwise prevented from moving about fully.

Also, other folks have guns in their homes, for home defense.

That doesn't mean that Americans leave their houses in fear of anything, or expecting to meet gun toting bad guys on the street or in front of the clock tower at high noon.

[Forty Two]

If you look at where the gun violence occurs, and in what context, you'll see why. Most of the gun homicides in the US are drug-trafficking related, and secondarily gang violence related. The average American going through their daily life doesn't see or encounter guns.

No need to repeat yourself. Try replying to my response instead.

My post did reply to your response, directly. You appear to have missed the idea I was trying to convey. I'll take the blame for that, and assume I did not clearly narrate.

The point I was trying to make is that a small population of folks, engaged in significant criminal activity such as drug trafficking and gang-related violent crime, are responsible for the vast majority of homicides with guns. The average American, not traveling in those circles, has a very small chance of being killed by a gun.

Take New Hampshire, for example. It is a state with probably the most open gun possession laws in the nation, and yet they have as low a gun homicide rate as almost any western European country. The firearm homicide rate in New Hampshire is 0.53 per 100,000. Now, about 1 in 3 New Hampshirians have guns, yet they have western european levels of gun homicide. The reason has everything to do with the lack of drug trafficking and gang-related criminal activity in the State.

What's wrong with New Hampshirians having guns?

[Hermit]

If you look at where the gun violence occurs, and in what context, you'll see why. Most of the gun homicides in the US are drug-trafficking related, and secondarily gang violence related. The average American going through their daily life doesn't see or encounter guns.

No need to repeat yourself. Try replying to my response instead.

My post did reply to your response, directly.

Not to this one you didn't:

On a per population basis fewer holdups of shops with the use of firearms occur in Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand and so on than in the USA, and no, the difference is not made up by would-be robbers using cricket bats, frying pans, knives or other weapons.

Add to that the number of road rages that involve the brandishing or actual use of guns, customer disaffection with shopkeepers and domestic disputes that end up the same, I think you'll need to be extraordinarily selective with your choice of data points to defend your extremely curious assertion.

[Forty Two]

Of course there are fewer crimes with guns in a country that allows private ownership of guns on a widespread basis, as compared to a country that has effectively eliminated most private ownership. That's a given (like saying that a community with swimming pools will have more swimming pool related injuries and deaths than a community without swimming pools). You simply can't injure someone with a gun if you don't have a gun. That's axiomatic. So, I'm not disputing that.

I think, though, it's an unfair comparison to take Canada or Australia -- tiny populations -- and compare them to the whole of the US, which is quite diverse. What I'm saying is that you can have 1 in 3 New Hampshirians with guns, but have virtually no gun homicides per 100,000. But, you can go to Chicago and have very high levels. If you examined the US by geographic area, you will find certain areas with very high gun homicide rates, and then the vast swaths of the country with European level gun homicide rates. The drug traffick/gang sections ruin it for the rest of us.

[Hermit]

Of course there are fewer crimes with guns in a country that allows private ownership of guns on a widespread basis, as compared to a country that has effectively eliminated most private ownership.

That is not what you started off with. You said

The average American-on-the-street is as free of gun violence as anywhere else in the Western world.

and that is manifestly bullshit compared to Australia, New Zealand and Europe. Also while those countries have fewer privately owned firearms per capita, they are not "effectively eliminated". Some examples (Guns/100 population) Australia 15, New Zealand 22.6, Sweden 31.6, Switzerland 45.7.

it's an unfair comparison to take Canada or Australia -- tiny populations -- and compare them to the whole of the US, which is quite diverse.

Oh, fuck off already. Firstly, I started my post with "On a per population basis", so population size doesn't enter into it, and secondly you know nothing about the diversity in Australia. And yes, a great number of murders here is due to gang warfare. Your situation is not at all exceptional.

I look forward to the day when you'll stop speaking out of your arse.

[Seth]

Of course there are fewer crimes with guns in a country that allows private ownership of guns on a widespread basis, as compared to a country that has effectively eliminated most private ownership.

That is not what you started off with. You said

The average American-on-the-street is as free of gun violence as anywhere else in the Western world.

and that is manifestly bullshit compared to Australia, New Zealand and Europe. Also while those countries have fewer privately owned firearms per capita, they are not "effectively eliminated". Some examples (Guns/100 population) Australia 15, New Zealand 22.6, Sweden 31.6, Switzerland 45.7.

His statement is generally true. It depends on how you define "average American-on-the-street." Applying overall gun crime statistics to all 300 million US citizens is misusing the statistics. Gun crime is actually quite focused both in location and in population identity segment, so for the vast majority of US citizens, their risks of encountering gun violence is as low as yours. Certain population segments living in certain areas however face a much, much higher risk of gun violence. Interestingly, if one closely studies this fact one finds that the highest risk of gun crime exists in those geographical areas where the lawful private ownership and/or carrying of firearms is the most heavily restricted or prohibited (Chicago, Detroit, NYC, LA, etc.) and where concealed carry is authorized, the risk of gun crime is the lowest (most of non-high-density-urban America).

It's inappropriate to ignore the demographic facts that apply to gun violence just as it's inappropriate to ignore the demographic facts of criminal acts and criminal violence in general.

In short, it's at least as safe, and often more safe to walk around in Denver at night than it is to walk around in London, Brisbane or Christchurch.

it's an unfair comparison to take Canada or Australia -- tiny populations -- and compare them to the whole of the US, which is quite diverse.

Oh, fuck off already. Firstly, I started my post with "On a per population basis", so population size doesn't enter into it, and secondly you know nothing about the diversity in Australia. And yes, a great number of murders here is due to gang warfare. Your situation is not at all exceptional.

I look forward to the day when you'll stop speaking out of your arse.

I look forward in vain hope to the day that you quit replying out of yours.