> No, it absolutely certainly does not, unless that's the only way you could die. That's really, really basic statistics. You're right, but all other stats reg

> No, it absolutely certainly does not, unless that's the only way you could die. That's really, really basic statistics. You're right, but all other stats regarding mortality are worse for US than my country, so... Homicides rates in particular are many times worse not just some % worse, that's why I mostly complain about them. But we also have longer life expectations, better food, better healthcare, etc. etc. if that's of some interest. we have much worse salaries on average though... but less inequality overall. > so I'll have to make some assumptions here. 366 deaths in seven years means ~50 deaths per year If that was the only way people died. It's basic statistics. But in reality it's 50 more deaths, completely avoidable, every other developed country avoided them. It's like saying that in USA infant mortality rate is "only" 5.7 every 1,000 newborns, while Estonia, many times poorer than US, has only 1.9 x 1,000. In absolute numbers and as deaths per year rate is negligible, but on a human level it's a complete nightmare! and an healthcare disaster, especially for the country with the highest spending per capita on the Planet for healthcare. I think a positive example is deaths in space flights. Only 15 austronauts died during spaceflight, the odds of something going wrong and killing everybody in space are gigantic, but the space programs managed to keep the fatalities low by applying rigorous security checks. The fatality rate is around 3%, it's very high in absolute, it's quite low if we consider the kinds of risks involved. It's a matter of willingness, if in USA so many people die every year for reasons that other similar countries have mostly solved or reduced drastically, IMO means that there is no political will to keep'em down. > which has ~330 million people, that means an approximately one in a million chance of getting killed in a mass shooting per year. still a lot worse then everywhere else in the werstern World. And you don't really count deaths like that, 10 young students killed by another armed student destroy the fabric of entire communities forever. Because it's not 50 deaths a year, it's 366 people that shouldn't have died that way in a developed country. It's 366 families than won't see their kids grow old, without any logical reason. You are counting on luck, but I personally don't trust luck. it's a risk I would never take. For no reason. > But a one in a million chance of dying would not stop me from wanting to live in a country if I otherwise so desired. except that that's 1 in a million MORE, that adds up to, for example, the 1 in 13 thousands chances of being shot dead that you have in Los Angeles, that your kids have, in Rome the chances are 1 in 200 hundred thousand (assuming all other stats are similar, even though they are not and Los Angeles lags behind in all of them) If you understand basic statistics, as I imagine you do, it's pretty clear what a responsible parent would chose, given the choice. It's not only about how many people die every year, having lost someone for a 1 in a hundred million event, it's the mentality that also scares me: considering the chances of death kinda like a gamble is what makes me think I would never go back living in the USA, even more so after having enjoyed the peace and tranquillity of European life for a long long time. It's easy to discard the benefits if you don't factor them into the equation.