"Developed world", apparently, being defined as all countries with a lower homicide rate than the USA?
Take it as a victory if you'd like. The point still stands - had both sides been equally armed with firearms the death toll would have been far lower.
Yet, ironically, you seem incapable of acknowledging that Rwanda was about a lot more than the presence or absence of firearms.
Presumably now that you've seen that machetes accounted for a shade over half of the fatalities, you're now moving the goalposts to include "clubs and spears"? And it isn't "17-20%... killed by firearms and grenades" but a firm 20.2%.
Who ever said Americans have difficulty understanding anything outside of their own frame of reference...?
In the other thread Tolls showed that "violent crime" was about 55% higher, although that may be on a wider definition used in the UK (amongst other factors). The jury seems to be out as to whether burglary is higher in the UK than the US, or vice versa, to a point where we can probably call it even. All that is balanced against the US having a homicide rate three times that of the UK. The bottom line is that you can't claim that wider access to firearms directly results in a claimed lower assault and burglary rates, yet also maintain that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the much higher homicide rate. Why - in your world - are criminals supposedly detered from assault or burglary, but not homicide?
You think it would have made much difference to the 14% of the minority population being targeted by the 85% majority? I know you're in thrall to the concept of the gun as the ultimate equaliser, but really....
With one side being outnumbered six-to-one?
You think comparing the Lincoln County War to the Rwandan Geoncide is valid?
There is? Where?
Already been there and done that.
Nessie said:
