To clear up some burgerland riddles for the fellow europ, and possibly learn something.
The "unexplainable" rate of gun death in the US is actually blacks shooting other blacks, with handguns.
A minority in both cases, which doesn't incriminate the individual in the greater sense,
but does seem to exhibit some markedly different behaviours when it comes to helping government
solve crime on the community level. Why this matters is because in the US, ghettos exist
on the principle of race. This does however not mean race is a forced decider in the matter.
The irony of which, means there are wealthy predominantly black neighbourhoods.
The US also (still) collects crime statistics based on race, and these, along with Indians (the kind from
india) doing exceptionally well, is a curious and inconvenient matter, that often boils to equally
curious arguments of muh racism. When people aren't questioning the former, but wish or don't
understand that things like the second is true.
We conclude living in a gated community is a service people pay for in the US, "unexplainably",
other than in-group preference.
People hoarding guns bring up the ownership rate per capita, and taking these guns, legally
owned as they are, isn't about to do a whole lot, other than break the constitution.
There you will find the comparison to ownership per capita, which you can round off
to one, or two in ownership or possession, since that is the effective number to attack or defend against anyone with.
Arming other people seems not the order of the day, and the usual suspects in both legal and illegal form
are already very much armed.
The US is, and has been for a while, a place that has many areas adjacent to, or in areas that are
third-world dangerous. The concept seems lost on Europeans that in other respects compare
themselves to the American of choice. Given the opportunity to be such a person, Americans
at large will flee dangerous areas, also known as lower income areas, not to be confused with in the sense of gun deaths,
comparable to ones equally poor white trash areas. Running out of people to effectively blame,
herein you have the stratification of society, and that society is America, increasingly so, at every level.
There too, talking about it has its well defined limits.
In semi-isolation, the interesting deciders in the matter of gun deaths is who can buy which guns, how they are stored,
and who has the illegal ones. To me it seems a gun cabinet that unlocks quickly with some worn NFC device or key,
like a watch, strikes a good balance of protection to urgency. Interestingly, the demographics of prior violence seem
at ease with using knifes, like in UK London, which I believe has had its share of illegally owned guns go up after a ban,
and gun bans don't actually mean the rate of even gun deaths go down, like down under.
Contrary to the image orchestrated, it doesn't matter much if a child plays with a pistol or a rifle, because
it is the playing with guns. Children aren't pulling off 500m shots with them, they generally shoot
other family members at close range. The idea that power is better at getting through walls is true,
but the image of the tactical rifle is used for no real reason. If accidentally shot, a bolt rifle
will be reloaded by the same person or child which had the intention to, or somehow gained it.
If of this inclination or predilection all along, with a plan or not, more effective guns make for worse
results. A very real issue that seems to balance on effective (and well regulated) militias, Americans finding
guns being fun to shoot and regulation generally not to their liking. Gun deaths and battles breaking
into reality is actual news, broadcast beyond newsworthiness.
The playing with total numbers is really a game of equating handgun deaths to that of higher power rifles, or sub-machineguns.
In any event, semi-automatic weapons are not used in massacres of children, least not to my knowledge.
Making a product that is for children, that can strangle them, should be illegal, and it is.
It should also be banned for being unhealthy. Because profiting off making children weaker,
and advertising to them, should be regulated. Then again society isn't paying for healthcare
collectively, so this issue is of lesser importance.
The point to make is one seems harmless, and isn't, the logic of which tries to question the one that seems to be,
giving no rhyme or reason as to _why_ that is, because it is a false dichotomy.
Also, muh children. Same as with the end-to-end encryption and how the Internet works,
which reasonable adults seem to understand.
