Not entirely true.

>"A fisherman was attacked by a shark after he hauled it into his boat to pose for a commemorative picture.

>Angler Stephen Perkins, 52, got more than he bargained for when he hauled the fish on board his boat 'Serenity' off Lundy Island, Devon.

>As he was preparing to unhook the fish, it sank its teeth into his wrist leaving him needing re-constructive surgery. It has earned him an unlikely place in history as the first documented case of a man being bitten by a Blue Shark off British waters."

And if we include dead sharks -

>"There have, however, been several people injured by sharks on land including a landlady in Kent who was hit by a set of shark jaws which fell off the wall of her pub and a man whose arm was trapped inside the jaws of a dead shark he was transporting on ice after he stopped his van suddenly sending the carcass flying through the air, snapping its jaws shut on his arm."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3350690/Man...

I suppose that this goes to prove the GP's argument?

This is honestly one of the most hilarious counter-examples I've ever read.

>I suppose that this goes to prove the GP's argument?

Nahh, if I was doing that I'd probably have pointed out that per capita, people are twice as likely to be shot to death by a toddler in the US as by a cop in the UK.

I was merely taking the golden opportunity to be very silly about sharks.

Well, it worked, I guess?

Have you just had those waiting around for the perfect moment or did you just go out and find them?

A little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. I had a vague memory of some guy getting bitten in a boat, then added google.

The people who have toddlers and don't use high shelves with no crawl-up access, or something to shove toward the shelf to crawl up to it, should be shot and killed by toddlers.

Say hello to Darwin for me.

All very well, however really a lot of the people shot are kids, random visitors, the toddler themselves or other toddlers. Toddlers don't tend to go hunt down the legal owner to enact some sort of darwinian karma, weirdly enough.

Actually, no, study after study shows that the amount of guns in a society is strongly correlated to its homicide rate, both directly as well as indirectly (i.e. more violent police raids because they assume residents to be armed).

Taking your shark tank metaphor, some people believe it‘s simply not possible to remove guns from a society, which is untrue as well, as the recent example of Australia shows.

Heck, lots of people in Germany used to have a gun in WW2, while in 2011, German police shot a whole of 85 bullets in total. Which, incidentally, is exactly one bullet less than Texan police emptied into a single, unarmed suspect after a car chase in the same year. Well, you get what you vote for.

Switzerland has a very high gun ownership rate and yet a very low homicide rate. It turns out that it’s complex, like every other political issue.

I am neutral / undecided on the gun ownership issue but simplifying and using misleading information doesn’t help anyone.

Could it be that people there are simply more responsible/comfortable in life in many ways that US etc citizens are not?

Right, but Switzerland still has the draft, and consequently more awareness about gun safety among owners, as well as inflated gun ownership statistics because you are required to take your gun home with you. And while guns are relatively easy to buy, ammunition is much more controlled.

Switzerland also has a lot more social security than the US. I agree that it's more complex than "guns are bad", but using Switzerland as an argument for gun ownership is just glossing over the details to come up with an artificial example where gun ownership doesn't result in increased violence.

> come up with an artificial example where gun ownership doesn't result in increased violence.

Though I do not concede the use of the word "artificial" as correct in your sentence, bringing in the Swiss data point is incredibly relevant in response to a claim that "Actually, no, study after study shows that the amount of guns in a society is strongly correlated to its homicide rate, both directly as well as indirectly."

Some of the things you said are neither here nor there. You shouldn't just mention a random police shooting (note: unarmed != unjustified) or allegations of voter irresponsibility without describing how that supports your claims.

I'm not sure I follow this analogy, unless you're supporting their position?

I too found the analogy interesting. I think the idea is whether or not to "outlaw" the water where the shark swims.