> Any thoughts on this?
From that:
> Rationalization #1: violence is part of human nature.
>
> If that were the case, the rates of violence between the United States and comparable countries would be, well, comparable. Heck, violence rates all over the world would be roughly at the same rate. There is nothing “natural” about violence. There is nothing genetic about it. It is not universal. To state that violence is universal and part of human nature fails to explain the scatterplot above.
This is what gets lost in all the noise. The U.S. is more violent, but it doesn't follow that it's because of firearms, full stop. The complications get lost in the noise of gun control and people running on their own steam about the love affair with guns etc.
Like I said in another post, the U.S. has always been more violent and it takes more than guns to explain that. Historians are only beginning to look at the data.