
: >: Rate := per capita rate.  The UK is more dangerous.
: >: Though you may be less likely to be killed by a handgun, the average
: >: individual citizen in the UK is twice as likely to be killed
: >: by whatever means as the average Swiss.  Would you feel any better
: >: about being killed by means other than a handgun? I wouldn't.
: 
: >What an absurd argument.  Switzerland is one-fifth the size of the
: >UK with one-eigth as many people therefore at any given point on
: >Swiss soil you are more likely to be crow bait.  More importantly,
: >you are 4x as likely to be killed by the next stranger approaching
: >you on a Swiss street than in the UK.

: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
: latter.  Simple enuff?

For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:

			handgun homicides/population
			----------------------------
	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000

... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
Your choice.