I'm talking about the fact that a person whose ostensible role in society is enforcing laws and ensuring public safety told a psychologically stressed out person facing death threats to take an action that increases their risk of death by suicide by 3x.
This is not a criticism of responsible gun ownership. This is a criticism of the idea that "owning more guns will solve public safety problems," which is demonstrably false.
Did you also remove "a single demographic" from these other nations gun violence statistics?
If you remove the poorest segment of the US population form all statistics, I'm sure the US is going to look a lot better in many ways compared to the full population of other nations.
They were called out separately, and distinctly in their own sentences and one of them had a specific statistic. That is not conflation.
Usually this group shows up in stats as "gang related crime" or something like that.
Basically it's all the violence that lawful businesses don't need to use to settle business disputes because they can use the courts and threat of state violence to settle their disputes instead whereas the drug industry needs to bring it in-house.
Isn't that a bit disingenuous?
I'd imagine you'd see similar improvement in other countries stats, if you remove the poorest and the drug gangs.
I do not understand this "the proposed solution is either a panacea of don't bother" attitude to major problems in society. The whole point of guns is to make it extremely easy and simple to apply lethal force instantly from a distance onto multiple targets and without any chance of defense. Don't you think that taking that away from practically all attackers improves everyone's chances of surviving an attack?
Gun ownership, self defense, and most importantly, the maintenance of real armed power in the population at large discourages a worse outcome, than the loss of any particular life.
Like, I imagine that my country would the greenest & cleanest in the world, if we would get to disregard all factory and car emissions, from our stats.
And I'd be rightly downvoted for making that claim.
It is disingenuous to conflate "gun violence" with suicide.
>In the event that someone does break in, gun owners are more likely to die than non-gun owners.
I've never heard of this statistic and I suspect that the relevant literature is an interpretation based on questionable assumptions. Do you have a source?
>We are so, so far away from a sane, functioning public safety system in this country it can be depressing.
Allowing responsible gun ownership is neither insane nor an indication of dysfunction. In fact if you remove a single demographic from gun violence statistics, the US becomes one of the top 5 or so safest nations, in spite of the highest rate of gun ownership in the world.