It's the top of the developed world gun-deaths list.
Australia is a country.
It's a developed country.
The topic is about Australia.
The question is about gun deaths.
Eoin asked the question.
A question is like an answer only backwards.

Trinadad and Tobago is considered a developed nation and it has a murder rate of 37+/ 100,000, more than three times that of the USA.

chimera wrote on Dec 7^th, 2024 at 9:24pm:

All very interesting but the US, as is so often claimed, is not the worst of the developed countries .

chimera wrote on Dec 8^th, 2024 at 8:31am:

Far from the worst or best.

chimera wrote on Dec 8^th, 2024 at 7:17pm:

‘’Why some sources differ on what constitutes a "developed country"

The term "developed country" is often used to describe countries with developed economies or developed markets, which can lead to scenarios in which a given country is considered developed in one sense by one institution, but not in another sense by another institution. For example, the United Nations classifies Turkey as a developed country thanks to its 2021 HDI of 0.838 (Turkey is also a member of the G20, a group composed of countries with the largest economies in the world).

However, organizations including Dow Jones and the Financial Times Stock Exchange Group (FTSE) classify Turkey as an emerging market rather than a developed market. Similarly, the CIA World Factbook follows the World Bank classification system, in which Turkey is classified as an upper-middle income country, which corresponds to a developing economy, rather than a high-income country, which would classify as developed.’’
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/developed-countries
The US is not at the top and anyway, as I’ve said, what has wealth GDP or how many backyard swimming pools got to do with what is essentially a moral issue ?

But here’s another one, Bahamas 29/100,000, again more than twice the US rathttps://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/BHS/bahamas/murder-homicide...

chimera wrote on Dec 9^th, 2024 at 6:50am:

And do you think that all Asian countries report the truth?

The US, unfortunately for some, doesn’t have the highest murder rate for guns in the world, developed or not  and a high percentage of their gun deaths are suicide, which is a perfectly legal activity.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 6:23pm:


[Sir Fada declined to reply to my #128, which I concluded with:

]

So I think we need to go back to basics,  to understand the "right to self defence" against "unlawful" attack.   

Is the right to self-defence a "basic" right, when we all have basic rights to life and liberty?

I explained why the 2nd needs to be repealed (in #128) in the US, for the sake of a less gun-death-prone US;
so let's see if we can come to a clearer understanding of "the right to self-defence "against unlawful attack".


I begin by observing the existance of the two fundamental "rights" to life and liberty , which are generally accepted without debate, hence "fundamental". 

The question is: why does a "right to self defence" against unlawful attack need to be posited at all, if we all have rights to life and liberty. 

ie why would anyone want to mount an "unlawful attack"?...which is why I suggested in an earlier post we need to consider the CAUSES of crime, in any system of law.

......

Implications of the right to self defence of nations.

FD considers the UNUDHR to be a failure because it doesn't defend everyone's fundamental rights to life and liberty.

But the reason it's a failure, is the competing interests of individuals (and nations)  which  are held to be higher than the UNIVERSAL rights set out in the UNUDHR.

Indeed, competing interests is why national sovereignty, which asserts  the right to wage "legal war" (to settle disputes between nations)  is held to be higher than international law designed to prevent war between nations.

If we want to create a more propsperous and peaceful world, we must temper the "right to self-defence" with  awareness of the CAUSES of crime - to reduce (as far as possible)  "unlawful" attacks on individuals by other individuals,  and to eliminate "unlawful" war by rule of international law - rather than by an insane system of "legal war" in the age of MAD. 

So we see the contradiction in Sir Fada's  use of the term "unlawful attack": is there any attack by an individual (or nation) on another individual which  could be considered "lawful"? 

......

And re CAUSES:

Did the UN have the legal right to confiscate half of the Palestine Mandate land, to create a new state for Jews, which  resulted in a 7 decade long war even up to  the current ongoing genocide of innocent women  and children  (and men), while  Israel claims the right to "self defence"? 

Who was the  party whose right to possess their land was violated by the UN's  adoption of UN res 181, initially? i


 
     

Here’s a prime example from WA.

‘’Boulder home invasion: Two injured in machete-wielding home invasion gone wrong’’
Seems that the.home owner fought back with the result that the home invader later died in hospital.
Police are making inquiries; what’s to enquire about?
A crim died as a result of an unlawful attack that he launched against a home occupier .who defended himself and his family..
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/boulder-home-invasion-two-injured-in-mach...