If our male breast cancer rate was as out-of-wack with the rate of the same cancer in other developed countries we absolutely would have people talking about it, like we have with the “obesity” epidemic or other issues that seem correlated with being an american.

Why do you think that level of development is a relevant criteria? The homicide rate in Bangladesh is 2.37 per 100,000. The homicide rate in Puerto Rico is 18.5 per 100,000. Both have very strict gun control and the populations are virtually disarmed. Indeed, the US has always had vastly higher homicide rates than Europe, long before modern gun control.

Compared to other countries in the Americas, however, the US homicide rate doesn’t seem that high.

Sure, even if homicide rates == mass shootings, that’s still worth talking about why they are different in the Americas than developed European countries? Any major negative difference from a peer country is discussion worthy. Note I am not arguing for a specific remedy, I am arguing that this issue isn’t overblown relative to rates of male breast cancer or whatever else due to the absolute number of deaths, but because the difference in the number of deaths per capita suggests possible known solutions worth considering the trade-offs of.

I think you've missed gp's point of comparison, as well as misunderstood the logical notions of necessity and sufficiency. If the murder rate in place X is lower than in places Y and Z, both of which have (a) disarmed their people and (b) have whatever undefined things "going badly," then it is logical to assume that neither (a) nor (b) is logically necessary or sufficient for a lower murder rate. The comparison suggests that disarmament and having things "go badly," whatever that means, are not causally related to a lower murder rate.

expect that's not true because homicide rates don't exist in a vacuum. there's factors like education, poverty, drug use, gangs etc at play and you really can't compare two very big and very different countries with vastly different cultures, temperaments and conditions. its an oversimplification of the world we live in and imo it's better to admit that we don't know.

OP argued guns are responsible for high US homicide rates by attempting to rule out another salient difference, namely economic development.

But it’s wrong to assume that economic development is the only, or even a particularly salient difference. Asia has much lower homicide rates than Latin America, despite Asia being poorer and both having strict gun control. Similarly, the US had ten times the homicide rate of the UK even in 1900, long before significant British gun control.

The point is that comparisons with Europe and Asia overlook that the US is more like Latin America in many regards, as a post-colonial, post-slavery, low-social-trust immigrant society, than it is like other “developed countries.”

Put differently, people wave away comparisons between the US and Latin America (which also has strict gun control) on the assumption that high homicides there are caused by poverty. But Latin America is mostly middle income countries. Yet their homicide rates are vastly higher than poorer Asian countries. (Puerto Rico has the same GDP per capita as Spain, is an island with strict gun control, and has a homicide rate ten times higher than Spain.)

I believe the point GP was making is that policies driven by reductionist arguments aren't going to actually fix the problems they purport to.

"America: We're not the worst country in the world... yet." ;)

Mass shootings are more traumatic though as they're extremely brutal, graphic, and sudden. I'd weight the actual impact of someone I know being shot in a mass shooting far worse than someone I know dying of breast cancer. The latter won't have them leave in the morning and not come back at 5pm randomly. It also won't create a general climate of fear, distrust between people, and terrible politics. Both are tragic, but tragedies of different kind, which is why direct comparisons always seem technically correct but missing so badly the way people actually think about and experience tragedy.

> also won't create a general climate of fear, distrust between people, and terrible politics

Also why they're allowed to continue. "It's good for business."

I personally know people who were injured in a mass shooting. It sends shockwaves throughout the surrounding community in a way many crimes do not.

Not debating any of that; originally thought the comment above mine was wrong, looked at the stats, and found they were far closer than I assumed.

That document says 330 people died from mass shootings.

I was comparing males who died from breast cancer to males who died from mass shootings.

I’m also a bit confused … your stats show more males dying from breast cancer than people dying from mass shootings.

Doesn’t that support my position? Did one of us misspeak?