The 10.2 number for the United States is, in fact, correct. There are approximately 30,000 firearm deaths for the total population. That works out to about 10.2 per 100,000.

What the measure is exactly what it says: the firearms related deaths.

HOWEVER your argument is “oh, let’s IGNORE anything except homicides” – in other words you are throwing out MANY firearms related deaths because you want to make the numbers look different.

That’s not called science. That’s called propaganda.

NOWHERE does the OP say “firearm related murder rate”.

So, what did we learn from your exercise? You want to throw out firearm related deaths because they make firearms look bad. You want to recalculate the numbers. Then you come up with a phony-baloney calculation that assumes that all firearms in the US are fully functional.

You know, I understand statistics. I work with numbers daily. Mortality and morbidity is done the way it is done for a reason.

I’m sure you think you are terribly clever by using homicide figures instead of total deaths, but that is, as I said, purely propaganda. That is not how public health is done. it doesn’t throw out deaths because they are inconvenient or don’t fit a narrative.

The OP was correct and Chris is totally incorrect. If you wish to buy into propaganda or swamp land, then trust his numbers. But they have nothing to do with reality.

Also people in US must have gun as you said. I ever have thug neighborhood, cant image if they have gun why I shouldn’t have it. It’s also horrible anyway. It’s better for me that normally people have no gun (I’m not in US). But if I live there, I’m sure I’ll have it as you Mrs.Tiger

You must only says that 10.4%-3.8%=UK 6.6% more that US (If you prior calculation for 10.4 and 3.8 is correct and it can be use this way).

How do you get 274%?
10.4/3.8 then %? (*100)

Percent ratio of ratio, ouch. You can increase this ratio, you know?
UK is 6.6% difference from US, US is 3.8-3.8=0% difference from US

So UK is 6.6*100/0 = 100 times of ‘infinity’ value of ratio from US.
lol Just a kidding

Don’t just divide the number by no means to makes it more and more. You may say some correct but you usually makes over stat. More stat difference may looking good in first glance.. but many people can see through it and think: Wow, is it real.. Nah, I don’t think it’s real stat.. this’s not credible. Sorry, it may seem annoying to you. But as I said, topic’s owner way of using data is better that using it like this. Although some comment says it’s not calculated, ..’just presented the data as it appeared and even included a very
objective summary to keep others from jumping to conclusions themselves.

I am an American gun owner and carrier and I don’t like it when
people present data to support their opinions one way or the other.’..
But I think another way around: it’s better to give uncalculated correct data. That means you can jumping to conclusions themselves even though he’s already conclude it. If not so.. why have back hand around from the same data as this??

Use normal stat don’t tend to bias by calculate whatever that have no meaning.

OK, you still can use ratio if you proper think about people who have gun (Because you’re thinking about ‘irresponsibility’ of what? of ‘people’ not of ‘gun’ itself) Assume USA for who have guns usual have 2 guns (I think in fact it’s more if you really use average value): irresponsibility=
3.3 / (88.8/2) = 0.037*2 = 0.074 compare to Canada 2.13 / 30.8 = 0.069 Also, you cant compare to other country that huge difference because I just think to take side with your point so I assume 1 people have only 2 guns.

In fact, forget about above calculation. That just describe that if you want to scale irresponsibility you must base on people, not gun.

But the point is more gun=more fire-arm related death rate is still real. You seen the number? Gun amount increase->fire-arm related deaths rate increase just that! You dont have to make more ratio by do math.
1. If you divide like that. It just mean ‘rate is not exponential’. But it’s still increase trend. For more understanding:
If 10 people not eat any food 5 days they’ll die 6.
If 10 people not eat any food 7 days they’ll die 7.
Is not mean if you don’t eat any food 7 days is have die people less than 5 days. Just that increment rate decreased. It’s still means INCREASE Rate, not DECREASE.
0. It’s already rate. (It’s already calculated in the right manner)
(#0 here because it’s most important)

PS. I’m not against people should have gun or not. I just says that your logic is wrong.