I question the reliability of the metrics, especially at the state-level where records keeping, analysis, and justice procedures are disjoint. I would find it hard to believe that we have both the highest prisoners per capita and the highest violent people per capita.

Why is this hard to believe? Even with more ready access to guns, Americans stab, beat, and bludgeon more people to death that most countries entire murder rate. The US is a violent country even without counting the guns.

Don't take this to absurdisms. I take it you're not American? The stereotypes about us are no more true than the stereotypes about your country.

I believe GP's claim is factually accurate. The USA has the 4th highest homicide rate in the OECD, after Mexico, Turkey, and Estonia [1]. Roughly 2/3 of US homicides are using firearms [2]. After reducing the US homicide rate by a factor of 3, the US would still be 13th (out of 34) on the OECD list, between Portugal and France.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-homicide-rates-chart-201... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_S...

Which figures are you using to consider their statement absurd? I suppose the 'most' countries part is only true if you restrict it to the usually considered rich countries or 'developed' countries, but that seems like a reasonable restriction to make given the context.

I did a quick calculation based on probably obsolete numbers, but I got a homicide rate of around 4.8 per 100000 of which 2.7 are with guns, leaving 2.1 without which is still higher than most European countries. (check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... )

The comment I was replying to was:

>Americans stab, beat, and bludgeon more people to death that most countries entire murder rate. The US is a violent country even without counting the guns.

Which is still not backed up. However, I am surprised to see the stats on the murder rate and gun violence all the same.

"violent" is not the total subset of "dangerous".