Thanks for your comment.
I think the guy on TV who I was commenting on was trying to draw a distinction between rural America where in places there are zero murders vs our cities, some of which are just off the charts.
For example, most don’t know that BIG Cities are not the most dangerous. That honor goes to smaller cities like Flint, Michigan (pop. 106k). Their murder rate in 2012 was 62 which would place that city as the second most dangerous country in the world, if it were a country. Honduras is # 1 with a 90.4 rate.
I think you are correct that the U.S. is likely below the “average” worldwide taking the country as a whole. The county in Texas I operate in has not had a murder this century vs Flints total of approximately 800 for the same time period.
So, the representation that the US is below the average world wide, though correct, is misleading to someone who might think that means there “as safe” in one place in the US as they are in another place.
I mean your 800 times more likely to get killed in Flint than where I live. That’s REAL and very significant to an outsider.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing though your point is well taken and is correct, as far as it goes.
You are spot-on correct. I bring up the fact that we are 110th from the top merely to counter the propaganda “factoid” that the USA is in the top 4 countries for murder rate. It simply is not true.
If we dropped Flint, Detroit, Chicago and any other hot spot there may be, we probably would be tenth from the bottom, though I did not do the math, hence “probably”.
Outside the known trouble areas Americans are pretty safe. Wasn’t it Marion Berry, Mayor of DC, who said DC is a safe city if you discount all the murders? LOL
BTW the link I sent has some interesting charts on gun ownership vs murder rate.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Cen-Tejas!