Rubbish. Those stats provide evidence to the exact opposite!
Every single country you named in your 'top ten' (USA, Estonia, Phillipines, Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala, Thailand, Colombia, South Africa) have shitloads of guns.
So does Switzerland and it is
>100 x safer than South Africa.
Irrelevant.
The number of guns in these countries is not the issue.
I suggest you go back to what _Pie_eyed_ wrote.
He said that the American right to own firearms (being unique in the world as he perceives it) is the reason that they are "second to none" re. gun violence. When in reality they are nothing of the sort.
I don't think _Pie_eyed_ should feel cheated. If you're reading this please post your thoughts on how I responded to what you wrote. I don't know how I can be considered even slightly unreasonable in my posting.
This point you have made is worthless.
The issue is legal access to weapons.
Go easy on the "rubbish" please. My reasearch had no flaws whatsoever; a poster made a claim that was entirely incorrect and I provided the data that proved this.
How the hell can I get "rubbish" called on me for that?
Any chance of an apology?
I didn't even call "rubbish" on you when you were 100% wrong earlier in this thread. I didn't even call "rubbish" on _Pie_eyed_ when he posted something that was categorically incorrect.
I dO conceed gun oWnership needs to be considered with other (social) factors.
A harmonious developed society with good social justice, good public health and low rates of unemployment and a a good social security net lowers the rates of gun crime (and violent crime) considerably.
Compare Washintons slums and ghettoes to Vermonts 'slums' (do they have any?) and see a bigger difference.
That's precisely my point.
The correlation is with the cultural and economic conditions of a region and their people's willingness to commit murder; not with the gun laws.
Thus the reason why soft gun laws are not the issue: they don't cause high murder rates nor do strict laws cause the rate to fall when they are introduced.
No but angry, lonely, dispossesed, or mentally unstable people with few options are more prone to desperate measures - including killing people.
And arming them with state of the art weapons is stupid.
When did I advocate this?
Please respond to things that I actually write.
FWIW In
Bowling for Columbine it shows the mentally ill of Michigan (IIRC) aren't allowed to keep guns and I'd assume that law would be everywhere.
So I don't know what point you are trying to make.
They stop doing it with ****ing guns, thats for sure.
All things being equal, Less guns in a society = Less gun violence.
Live on an island with no guns, and no one gets shot.
So what?
Why do those who lose their lives to bullets deserve more sympathy? Aren't all murdered people equally affected?
How can we know how many homicides that took place with guns would not have happened without them? Is it 100%, or 50% or 0.01%? We can't possibly have any real idea.
These 'stats' do not help your case (again).
See what you are doing with statistics here? 'More than a third of all US homicdes dont involve guns?'
That means two thirds (%66) of all homicides in the USA involve guns. Thats twice as many homicides involve guns in the USA than dont.
See above.
You are just guessing about the effect of gun availability on the murder rate. Who cares if somebody dies from a gun when they would just as easily been killed some other way?
If >33% of US murders don't involve guns it clearly shows that the people are clearly very often willing to use other means for homicide.
Even
without guns there are twice as many murders in the US than in Denmark. Again the issue of murder is clearly not correlated to gun availability; there is something within American society that is not there in the same level as it is in other nations.