Why the difference in murder rates between Europe and US?

[Brett Bellmore]

The US is larger (I seem to recall) geographically than Europe, and just a bit smaller in population. And yet in these analysis some people insist on lumping states with dramatically different gun laws and murder rates together. And the result is, murders taking place in NYC, where it's virtually impossible to legally own a gun, are blamed on guns owned in Montana, where people are armed to the teeth, and the murder rate is as low as anyone could ask.

It really is true, (I've seen the numbers done.) that if you look at the comparative murder rates between different demographic groups, (To avoid the "R" word. ) and then adjust for the demographic differences between the US and Europe, the difference in murder rates goes away. But you can't get much more politically incorrect than mentioning THAT.

Yeah, the Nordic countries have low murder rates. So does Japan. They're also lily white. There, I said it, time to duck and cover.

Now, I don't think for a moment that murder rates are genetically determined. (Slightly influenced, I'd buy, but it would take a lot of proof.) Race and ethnicity are just proxies for culture. Illegal immigrants from south of the border have brought with them a more violent culture. (Not to mention that illegal immigrants are, like, criminals.) In our inner city ghettos, we've allowed a degenerate culture of violence to arise, too, and even be exported to the country at large through gangster rap.

It's not law, it's culture, and I don't see how we're going to do much about culture, with the 1st amendment being interpreted as broadly as it is today, and with our political class being so self-doubting about American culture that they don't even believe it OUGHT to be defended. There are things that we could do, but any one of them would cause the average liberal to go scanner.

[Metallic Kitty]

We are talking about two kinds of murders: such practicised by governments and such practicised by individuals or small groups on our streets and homes. Concerning the governmental murders, Europe is the historical champion . The US is presentely on the top of statistics concerning killings on the own streets, homes, schools etc.

Both subjects mentioned above can and need to be discussed seriously. Suggest one of the subjects that you want to discuss here.

[Metallic Kitty]

1. I am not, by definition or in terms of some ideology, against laws allowing gun ownership.

2. I am surely influenced by the environment I live in. This means by the society not allowing the citizens to have own weapons.

3. I cannot find a reason for why I should own a killing device. I don't feel that I need it.

4. If people feel they need killing devices for defending themselves from other individuals in the same society I suppose that there is something very wrong in that society.

5. If you want to change the mentioned society in the better direction, you cannot do it by suppying the citizens with even more guns.

6. You are dividing the citizens into "very normal ones" and "very abnormal ones" (drug dealers etc.). You also say that most murders are taking place inside the group of the "very abnormal" and that in the rest of the society killings are taking place very seldom.

7. Why not isolate the "abnormal ones" from the "normal ones" then? Of course, you cannot do that because they belong to the same society.

In my way of thinking, I am asking myselft why in my country we don't have such delimited groups, one inside which people are killing each other and another where people live in harmony and smiling.

[Metallic Kitty]

I have understood that this is one open forum for discussion or idea exchange. I have also understood that it is not compulsary to have an opinion such as yours for having the right to participate in the discussions here.

If you cannot handle to hear another opinion than your own then close your blinds.

[Hard Ball]

What is this wonderful country ypu live in Kitty/ It would be interesting to analyze its violent ceime statistics and gun laws.

[Gary H]

Metallic Kitty:

There would not have been a United States without a constitutional right to bear arms. The states feared a strong centralized government and would never have agreed to the union without the second amendment.

Here is a book that provides you with the most fundamental reason why the ownership of arms is very important in any country. Your government may be good today, but with the advent of difficult economic times, the people may elect a government that takes a very different turn. European history will support these ideas.

Here is the book:




The link:
http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm

As you can see, it is distributed by authors belonging to an ethnic group that has experienced the downside of disarming. A group, which continues to experience much hatred in Europe.

Here is a book that will supply you with the statistical links between gun ownership in the United States and crime:



Found at:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...roduct-details

[Metallic Kitty]

Yeah Bog,
Tamara wants to have the freedom of giving away breadcrumbs from her rich dinner table to anybody and anytime she wants. She doesn't feel that she has any responsibility whatsoever to participate in any kind of general solidarity where her personal first name and surname are not exposed with capital letters.

I would want to see what Tamara would have to say if she suddenly would find herself to be one of them who need solidarity.

[leuthen]

MK,

Please explain how Americans and European define 'freedom' differently. Being European, perhaps it is a good thing that I'm finally becoming a US citizen, since it appears that I like the American definition of 'freedom' over the European definiton, if there are indeed differences.

[Tamara]

Ever spent a month sleeping on park benches?

I have. I didn't accept a dime from the government then, I won't do it now, and I refuse to in the future; I'm too stinkin' proud to accept forced "solidarity". I won't be presented with the tattered remnants of others' stolen paychecks by the government and told I should feel grateful. I don't participate in theft by proxy if I can at all help it.

"Crumbs from my rich dinner table"! That's hilarious! I am unemployed, by the way, and have been for almost a year... Living on my own private investments, not government loot.


"Responsibility for solidarity"? You have yet to explain how someone else's misfortune entitles them to my money. You have yet to explain why I should not be allowed to distribute what I earn as I see fit. Why you should be able to prevent me from helping who I want to help with my cash, and instead, seizing my cash by force and giving it to the people you think I should help.

What gives you the right to decide what I should do with my money?

[TallPine]

MK

Open your own blinds

You didn't address my primary question.

So how did the "rebels" get their weapons in gun controlled Russia to take 700 plus people hostage?

Have you noticed the advancing crime rates (including gun crimes) in England and Australia since their almost total gun ban?

I guess we are all free to look at other nations and see what we like and don't like. We do it here too.

[Metallic Kitty]

Dear Jato,
When you ask me about how I defend or protect myself I can see it from two point of views. One might be that if murderers, robbers etc. come into my flat at night or if I get jumped by a gang on the street. I can say it's quite unusual to get jumped by a gang armed with guns on the street as well as it is unusal to get attacked by armed murderes in my flat. I see no reason to be armed. I do care about my own life and I am prepared to protect myself if needed but I see not need for drastic actions.

[Zak Smith]

MK-

5. If you want to change the mentioned society in the better direction, you cannot do it by suppying the citizens with even more guns

John R. Lott and David B. Mustard, from the University of Chicago, studied crime data from all 3,054 counties in the United States from 1977 to 1994 and concluded:

"We find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000."

From "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns", Journal of Legal Studies (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997) http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html

Read that carefully- it says that when people can legally carry concealed handguns, the violent crime rate decreases with no additional accidental deaths.

3. I cannot find a reason for why I should own a killing device. I don't feel that I need it.

Feeling do not make a valid argument. That you "can't find a reson to own" a gun does mean that nobody "needs" one - just that you aren't exercising your imagination enough to see a situation in which being trained to use the firearm you have handy would be the "right answer." It's trivial - TRIVIAL - to find instances in the news where innocent people in Europe are attacked violently. The right to self-defense always exists, and those people could have used firearms - extremely effective tools - to rightously defend themselves.

In addition, a populace that is free to own arms makes for a country that is secure from tyranny and invasion.

7. Why not isolate the "abnormal ones" from the "normal ones" then? Of course, you cannot do that because they belong to the same society.

Besides some flat-out failings of our justice system, the main reasons are that: (1) you can't punish someone before they do something wrong, and (2) you have to respect the freedoms and rights of people before they are convicted of a crime - which means that some people will "get away with it", but fewer innocent men will be imprisoned.


-z

[leuthen]

Thanks for the post Tamara. Just reminded me of something for MK.

Hey MK,

My brother lived / worked in Germany in '90 just after the wall come down in Berlin. The german social system was so good that he lived under a bridge for 4 weeks while looking for work, before the great social program found him an apartment in a building that somehow survived the bombings of WWII in old east berlin.

He loved socialism so much that after 10 months of life there, he came back to America. He went to college here, working and paying for college, although as a german citizen he could have gone to school in germany for free.

Yea, socialism is great if you are a card carrying party member. Otherwise, you are hosed.

I guess taxes in germany still are not high enough, since they were not high enough back in 90.

[Zak Smith]

MK-

[...] I can see it from two point of views. One might be that if murderers, robbers etc. come into my flat at night or if I get jumped by a gang on the street. I can say it's quite unusual to get jumped by a gang armed with guns on the street as well as it is unusal to get attacked by armed murderes in my flat. I see no reason to be armed. I do care about my own life and I am prepared to protect myself if needed but I see not need for drastic actions.

You avoid the question ("How do you protect yourself?").

First, you create a false dichotomy going from "self defense" to using only two scenarios ("home invasion" or "gang on the street"). Then you say that since those two things are unlikely to happen, that you can ignore the need for self-defense in general.

Instead of answering the question, "What would you do if you were attacked?", you say, "It's unlikely that I'll be attacked."

There are many, many ways a person can be a victim. One need only watch the news or read the papers to see the variety. Yes, it is possible to reduce the risk by using other behavior such as avoiding "dangerous" places, keeping situational awareness, etc, but you can still be surprised.

So, if two large, 250lb (113 kg) guys are determined to break into your house, rob it, and rape and then kill you, what are you going to do? Say you're on the side of a lonely road in the middle of nowhere changing a tire on your car and some guy comes up and wants too mess with you?

If you or anyone else chooses to not be armed, that is their own choice, to be respected. However, when you go a step further and say:

(1) you don't think that anyone should have guns, or that
(2) that society is safer when law-abiding citizens have no guns,

then you are denying that people have a basic human right to self defense (by denying them use of effective tools), and that "society" is somehow safer when its law-abiding citizens can be easily preyed upon by criminals.

[ edited to add: ]

Of course, your position is consistent with your views on "social welfare" -- in both cases, the individual is subjugated to the State in the name of "communal welfare."

-z

[Don Gwinn]

Again, Metallic Kitty, all your glowing praise of the wonders of "your country" don't mean much when you're too ashamed of your homeland to admit which one it is. Spare us the lectures until you have the guts to put your nation under the microscope along with ours, please.

3. I cannot find a reason for why I should own a killing device. I don't feel that I need it.

Well, if your feelings tell you that it is so, then it must be. I wonder whether you (pardon me, I mean your parents) have a fire extinguisher? If so, is it because one day you got the "feeling" you should have one, or is it because it makes sense to keep one handy in case of fire?

4. If people feel they need killing devices for defending themselves from other individuals in the same society I suppose that there is something very wrong in that society.

People have "felt" or, more correctly, thought that in just about every society since before recorded history, including German societies. You are no different from them. The only difference is that you think you can hire someone else to do the dirty work of carrying and using those killing devices (unless, of course, you live in a country with no police or military?)
Demanding that the government bear arms because you don't "feel" a need is not a virtue.
Now, if your nation is so safe that you see no reason to have police or a military, THEN I'd be impressed.

5. If you want to change the mentioned society in the better direction, you cannot do it by suppying the citizens with even more guns.

You still don't get it. I am not Big Brother and do not want to be. I don't want to engineer my society and manipulate my neighbors. I want to leave them alone as much as possible, and I want them to leave me alone. By living together in peace we achieve the best society without chasing our tails trying to force every last person to do things our way. No one is talking about government supplying people with guns as part of some Master Societal Plan except you, my dear. All we want is to let everyone make their own choices.

6. You are dividing the citizens into "very normal ones" and "very abnormal ones" (drug dealers etc.). You also say that most murders are taking place inside the group of the "very abnormal" and that in the rest of the society killings are taking place very seldom.

Well, that has, after all, been proven true again and again by statistical analysis.

7. Why not isolate the "abnormal ones" from the "normal ones" then? Of course, you cannot do that because they belong to the same society.

Yup, sounding more German all the time.

In my way of thinking, I am asking myselft why in my country we don't have such delimited groups, one inside which people are killing each other and another where people live in harmony and smiling.

Since I don't know what country you're talking about, I can't answer that for you. I'd say there are two reasons:

1. I think you're probably German, which means, quite frankly, that you killed off most of your "delimited groups" a few years back. But you still have them, I hear. Groups like Turks who are basically treated as second-class citizens in Germany, for instance. They're smaller and less active than ours, but you have them. Give 'em time.

2. Your nation, whatever it is, has not developed the kind of society that most people flee toward instead of away from. Quite frankly, the United States attracts a lot of bad seeds precisely because it's such a wonderful place in spite of the best efforts of misguided adolescents.


I was out of work a couple of months ago too, by the way. I'm not anymore. I didn't take a dime of anyone else's money because that would be stealing. Stealing is wrong. I really don't understand what is so hard to grasp about that. I don't have the kind of investments Tamara is talking about, and I have a family to support, so I went out and found another job. It's not my dream job, and I'm not making the kind of money I'd like, and the hours are long and unpredictable.
I wouldn't trade it for one red cent of your "Social Solidarity Free Money" because it's real, it's honest, and it allows me to live a decent life in addition to making a living. I would rather be an honest and decent man working long hours for low pay than a lazy cheat with more free time.
Of course, it doesn't help that after I went out and found this job I immediately had to begin paying for everyone else again. . . .

[Art Eatman]

If, as I have read, the homicide rate in England is roughly 6 per 100K, and it's roughly 6 per 100K in the U.S., how is the U.S. more dangerous than England?

If I am correct in my understanding of the comparative numbers, it seems to me that the whole fundamental argument of Metallic Kitty is gone, bye-bye, sayonara...

, Art

[Don Gwinn]

MK, the following is addressed to your comments in the other thread as we continue here.

I do not doubt that you are very honest when expressing your thoughts about the subject we discuss. I have gotten lots of correspondance from American friends who are talking in the terms as you.

Thanks. You too.

If it would be a bad system it would not be supported by the citizens. The citizens should in that case elect such government which would introdice another system.

What makes you think that? Is it impossible for "the citizens" to be wrong? Is it impossible for a majority to be wrong? I don't think so. In fact, it's more common for the majority to be wrong than the other way around.

The same situation occurs in Europe. Here we have the same or a very similar kind of democracy that you have. And, the citizens here are choosing a relatively different system concerning social welfare aspects of life in the society. Interesting. I would be very grateful if i could here your opinions in this matter.

Honestly, do you even know in what country you live? Seriously. I can't give you opinions about your country's system until you tell me what it is. I really don't get why this is so difficult.

[Roybean]

Could our criminal justice system be one reason???

From a post by Flintrock.

Those that like to point out the number of people murdered with firearms in the United States as opposed to the number murdered in England fail to mention that the rape rate in the United States is 15 times higher than England's and 23 times higher than Italy's. Our robbery rate is 15 times that of England, 8 times that of France and 150 times that of Japan. Today almost 200 Americans are crime victims each hour.

Those that like to point to other countries fail to mention the constitutional rights guaranteed to all persons accused of a crime in this country versus the rights a person has in those other countries. Are you willing to give up your right to a public trial by a jury of your peers, your right to an attorney even if you can't afford to hire one, your right against unreasonable searches and seizures, your right to an appeal, and your right to due process of law just to name a few? Remember these rights were given to us by the same individuals who gave us the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

[UltimaThule]

Roybean

Do you really think that Europeans do not have these rights???

Well, I can't speak for all Europeans, but in my corner of the continent, and I'll include Germany since that country has been specifically mentioned in this thread, I would feel that my rights are at least as well protected as anywhere else in the world.

PS. Those rights were not given to you by your founding fathers or anyone else, they were recognized. Everyone have those rights, the difference is that most political regimes in the world do not recognize that fact.

[Marko Kloos]

Bingo. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were merely recognized, not granted. They are inherent to all human beings by virtue of being human. The United States is merely the first country to fully recognize the inalienable nature of these rights.

[T.Stahl]

3. I cannot find a reason for why I should own a killing device. I don't feel that I need it.

4. If people feel they need killing devices for defending themselves from other individuals in the same society I suppose that there is something very wrong in that society.

5. If you want to change the mentioned society in the better direction, you cannot do it by suppying the citizens with even more guns.

ad 3.
- When I was not even 16, I bought a knife with the intended purpose to stab three particular boys who teased and tormented my at school, if necessary. I didn't have use it, one kick to the back of one of the boys was all it took to be left alone from second his face hit the floor of the schoolbus. Do you own a knife?
- When I became 18, I received my driver's license. Since then, I drove more than 200,000km without killing someone, though, since I received my license, more than 100,000 people were killed and died on German roads. Are you planning to get a driver's license once you become of legal age?
- Two years ago I bought my first firearm and so far I've shot 5000 rounds through it. I have also shot several other firearms, from single-shot rifles in .22lr to MG3 medium machine guns and 40mm grenade launchers. I have not yet hurt or injured another person. And that is not because I would not hit what I aim for.

That guns are the ONLY "killing devices" and nothing BUT "killing devices" is a common prejudice.
If you don't feel like owning a particular kind of inanimated objects, so be it. I'm pretty sure that there are things you feel you need and which I have no use for. But would I tell you what to own and what not?

ad 4.
- I rarely leave my flat without my MultiTool and a nice folding knive on my belt. I also rarely leave my flat without paper tissues, a handkerchief and a basic 1st aid kit. Am I paranoid? A certain bicyclist does not think so.
- Should ever someone break the door of the house I'm living in, break the door to my flat AND break the door to my bedroom, should I prefer to break his (probably his, not her) skull with my 6D-cell Maglite, split his head with my Glock spade, drive one of my hiking sticks through his torso or chase him away by annoucing that I have the police on my mobile phone and a 9mm Glock in my hand? I prefer the 9mm. But if there'd be nothing else available to me, but a 1 1/2 pound glass of nougat cream, I'd defend myself using this, instead of much more efficient, but unavailable, tools.

Extreme situations can happen in all societies. But in some of them it's allowed to prepare for them.

ad 5.
- How about disarming the criminals?
- How about giving the law-abiding citizens the chance to defend themselves effectively?
- Why are crime rates in those Swiss cantons with liberal laws lower than in those with tighter regulations?

I have yet to see a high-ranking politician who addresses the problem of illegal firearms in the hands of criminals. All they do is create even tighter restrictions for the other 5% of the statistic. (Official statistics for Germany say that around 5% of all crimes (+/- a few, depending on the specific crime) involving firearms which require a permission, are committed with legally owned guns. 95% of the guns are illegally owned or banned completely.)

[T.Stahl]

Don Gwinn, she's definitely not German (or doesn't know our laws and system), because:
a) We can own guns. Well, not all we want, but a lot of them.
b) The social system she described is completely different from ours. I have to pay and don't get it for free.

I first guessed Norway, judging from the described welfare system and location ("Hell"), but I know the Norwegians can own guns (And what guns! ). How many European countries have banned guns? I guess she's from (the not so) Great Britain.

[geekWitha.45]

Japan. Dunno why, something in the wording, cadence, and social solidarity concept.

[Dave Bean]

Great Britain was also my logical guess. My profile of MK: well-educated (at least upper secondary level education or early university level). Probably a humanities/liberal arts/literature major of some sort. Somewhere in his/her late teen's or early 20's. Probably lives outside of a major population center. Parents are successful professionals (doctor or lawyer or teacher..etc..etc...) or have old money. Likes independent films.
How did I do ???? I always like to see how accurate I am without actually meeting the person or guessing just after meeting the person.

So...MK, has your opinion that other people shouldn't own guns changed ??? Will it change because of the analysis and opinions that were offered here ????

Here is something to think about. Guns are here, they will not go away if the UN passed a law tomorrow that banned all weapons around the world. If all guns were to disappear tomorrow, people will just use something else to harm other people.

There are three distinct groups in my view: military/police, criminals and citizens. Obviously, the military/police need weapons. The criminals need weapons to commit crimes...and they don't care if they break the law or not (hence the term "criminal") You have to realize that no matter how many laws are passed to make guns illegal, they will still carry guns.

I would like you to do me a favor: MK, can you tell me why I would want to have a "killing machine" ? Remember, I'm in the third group, citizen. Please, just humor me.

Dave

[orlando5]

MK,

Socialism never works. What it does is punish those who work hard and reward those who never work. Socialism by its nature is not fair. Capitalism rewards those who work hard, while socialism reward those that don’t work at all.

You got a poor guy that work 7 days a week. He save his money, invested wisely and become rich only to have share it away to a person that he doesn’t know and never work in his life. Do you call that fair? Those who work hard should be reward and not punish.

If we're going to compare the US and Europe crime rate, we should include all countries that is in Europe and not the individual states. You will then see a big difference.