Your chances of being shot outside of an inner city ghetto is so small as to be negligible. You've been brainwashed by sensationalist news. Meanwhile there are places in Japan that won't allow non-Japanese to enter.

Asian standard of crime rate is very different from the US...

I used to enjoy the night hanging out with friends or having fun alone in big Chinese cities (Beijing and Shanghai), hopping on public transportation, and having food in narrow streets. Without even the slightest worry of being robbed (but pickpockets do exist). Tokyo and other Japanese cities are supposed to be better.

But during my visit to Chicago and New Haven, I was strongly advised against going out alone (without a car) at night by my landlord.

You’re comparing Beijing and Tokyo to New Haven and Chicago.

Due respect, but your landlord was an idiot. It's dark at 4:30PM in Chicago in December. You think the city just shuts down?

Honest question: is it OK if I live near UChicago (visiting) and go out alone by foot at 9-10pm?

I have done for over 20 years. Hyde Park is one of the safer neighborhoods in Chicago.

You should, as in all places, be aware of your surroundings.

I'd say the chances of most people being shot inside an inner city ghetto are also small.

But I'm going to guess those complaining about the risk of being shot dead in an American city are unwilling to say the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a factor, or that we simply have too many guns.

The correlation between gun ownership and gun-related homicides (by state) is (weakly) negative.

We are happy to talk about the statistics, they just don't tell the story you want to tell.

You're saying that in states with a higher gun ownership rate, there are few (per capita, I hope you mean) gun related homicides. Specifically comparing US states, not the US to another country.

But 100% of gun related homicide happens with a gun. I had a funny read of your comment, perhaps you think those happen with "borrowed" guns ... If they only owned those guns outright, they could benefit from your statistic.

Sure if guns didn't exist, we wouldn't have gun violence. The question is: given that we have guns, what is the right form of regulation that would lead to better public safety overall? After all, there is meaningful evidence that guns are often used (even just presenting the gun, not actually firing it) for legitimate self-defense purposes.

I said nothing about borrowed guns. To my knowledge, most of those homicides are done with stolen handguns, and are used by people involved in organized crime in the most highly gun-restricted cities in the nation.

By the way, some googling on your claim found this as a first hit.

https://www.newswise.com/politics/gun-ownership-and-homicide...

"... [A] 1-per-cent increase in the rate of ownership is associated with a 1-per-cent increase in the rate of homicide by gun, which is three times higher than the previous studies had estimated,” Chalak explained.

There are lots of studies that come down on both sides of the issue. I'll have to check that one out, but experience suggests this one will have methodological issues.

> Your chances of being shot outside of an inner city ghetto is so small as to be negligible. You've been brainwashed by sensationalist news.

So have you. Just the word ghetto shows how disconnected you are from reality (sorry) - I haven't heard it in the city for decades. Your chance of getting shot anywhere is very tiny. People live and work, every day, for their entire lives in the highest-crime neighborhoods; almost all of them never get shot. They aren't idiots or monsters; they are normal people. If it was that dangerous, they would find a way to move. You could go there right now and you'd be fine. (And still, too many people are getting shot.)