Why Is Gun Violence Worse in the US than Other Countries?

[Hellcats]

Suicide has to be included. It’s a shame on our nation ESPECIALLY the rate of suicide of our veterans.

[00Rocket28]

Some countries that are more violent are more religious and vice versa.

 

Morals may be an answer, but I don’t buy religion.

 

 

And I think these more religious countries that are more violent incorporate violence into their religions, such as female genital mutilation.

[Bert]

I think an end to the War on Drugs would bring down the US's murder rate and attempted murder rate noticeably and several nations would pass us by on that list. When your competitors infringe on your business and you cannot go to the police or the courts since your business is illegal, violence and intimidation will be the only way to protect your business.

 

Notice I said murder rate and not gun violence. Of course the nation with the highest gun owner ship would have a higher rate of violence with the use of guns than nations with minuscule gun ownership where other weapons are used for violence. Look at London, England where their gun laws make California look like Texas. Since gun confiscation, their murder rate has continued to grow and for the first time in known history, passed up New York City. Murderers are just using knives, blunt objects, etc.. I posted an article on BGP a year or two ago about London's Mayor wanting to place restrictions on common knives due to stabbings growing in occurrence so badly over there. I joked that soon only licensced carpenters will be allowed to own hammers when bludgeoning with hammers is the next growing method of murder.

[Getslow]

Look at London, England where their gun laws make California look like Texas. Since gun confiscation, their murder rate has continued to grow and for the first time in known history, passed up New York City. Murderers are just using knives, blunt objects, etc.. I posted an article on BGP a year or two ago about London's Mayor wanting to place restrictions on common knives due to stabbings growing in occurrence so badly over there. I joked that soon only licensced carpenters will be allowed to own hammers when bludgeoning with hammers is the next growing method of murder.

 

The London thing was overblown and based on selective statistics from the first few months of this year. For 2017 as a whole, London’s homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000 people while New York’s was 3.4 per the same number.

 

And I still believe, as I did when those articles started appearing, that this says more about the precipitous drop in violent crime in NYC in recent years than it does a massive rise in crime in London.

 

In 1990, NYC had over 2,000 homicides, fueled by drug-related violence. It has dropped almost every year since then. There were less than 400 homicides in NYC last year.

 

For local comparison’s sake...

 

Homicides per 100,000 people in 2017:

New York City 3.4

Lexington, KY 8.9

Louisville, KY 15.7

Chicago, IL 23.8

Cincinnati, OH 23.8

St. Louis, MO 64.6 (highest in the country among major urban areas)

[rjs4470]

The London thing was overblown and based on selective statistics from the first few months of this year. For 2017 as a whole, London’s homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000 people while New York’s was 3.4 per the same number.

 

And I still believe, as I did when those articles started appearing, that this says more about the precipitous drop in violent crime in NYC in recent years than it does a massive rise in crime in London.

 

In 1990, NYC had over 2,000 homicides, fueled by drug-related violence. It has dropped almost every year since then. There were less than 400 homicides in NYC last year.

 

For local comparison’s sake...

 

Homicides per 100,000 people in 2017:

New York City 3.4

Lexington, KY 8.9

Louisville, KY 15.7

Chicago, IL 23.8

Cincinnati, OH 23.8

St. Louis, MO 64.6 (highest in the country among major urban areas)

 

Not only is everything you mention true, but if you look at things long term, London’s murder rate is still much lower than it was in the 90’s, and aside from the two month period focused on in this article, has been steadily dropping since peaking in 2003. And literally, the difference in those two months, was that London had a handful more murders, which based on such a small time period, is pretty statistically insignificant when looking at trends over the last 2-3 decades.

[woodsrider]

Not only is everything you mention true, but if you look at things long term, London’s murder rate is still much lower than it was in the 90’s, and aside from the two month period focused on in this article, has been steadily dropping since peaking in 2003. And literally, the difference in those two months, was that London had a handful more murders, which based on such a small time period, is pretty statistically insignificant when looking at trends over the last 2-3 decades.

Actually it's dropped until 2014 when total murders went below 100. In 2015 it went back above the 100 mark and has remained around the same for the last 3 years. In 2017 there were 116 total and in 2018 in the first 4 months there were already 55, and 66 total on the year.

[silo11]

If you notice, the high murder rate happens in larger cities, and within those cities, in low income areas. If you look worldwide, the most violent countries are those countries that are poor.

 

Violent crime is a mindset, whether that mindset is survival, territorial, or just plain evil, it is still a mindset. If you take away guns, they kill with knives, if you take away knives, they will kill with a bat, etc...

 

Not sure the answer, but understanding where the problems lie is a start.

[Tones]

I could be mistaken, but I was of the understanding that in other countries, such as England, the only stats that are reported for gun related crimes (or any violent crimes) are ones in which they find somebody guilty of the crime. The United States statistics not only take into account the gun related crimes where there is a guilty party but also those where there is nobody who has been charged with the crime. If so, these statistics are difficult to measure apples to apples IMHO.

[Bert]

Back to the original question, I believe the war on drugs is a primary cause for violence in the US, gun or no gun.

[oldgrappler]

Is accessibility greater today in the US than it was 50 years ago? Is gun violence greater today than it was 50 years ago?

 

I think this is the real question. My opinion is that we are more likely to find root causes if we compare the United States to itself. What is different now in the United States than in the 1950s when more people had guns but we had less gun violence. There were shooting clubs and shooting sports at the high school, yet no mass shootings at high schools.

 

What has occurred over that time period that contributed to the increase in violence? Schools, for instance, didn't used to be violent places. Then some schools started to see an increase in violence and those school districts had to implement measures to protect the students and teachers from that violent behavior. There are school districts today that have metal detectors etc. but in the past, the worst offenses occurring at that same school were chewing gum in class and talking out of turn. What changed in those areas and what has changed in America as a whole that has made violence more commonplace than it used to be?

 

I believe that is the question that will yield answers to our current problems. Comparing the US to other countries is in many respects, comparing apples to oranges. Comparing the US to England, or Australia, or Colombia may be useful at some point, but it isn't the first comparison that should be made. How did we get to where we are today? The answer to that question will tell us the issues that need to be addressed.

[LIPTON BASH]

I tried to read every post. What is the point in this topic?

[TheDeuce]

I believe that is the question that will yield answers to our current problems. Comparing the US to other countries is in many respects, comparing apples to oranges. Comparing the US to England, or Australia, or Colombia may be useful at some point, but it isn't the first comparison that should be made. How did we get to where we are today? The answer to that question will tell us the issues that need to be addressed.

 

The comparison to other countries doesn't have to be the main or even first point of comparison. But to ignore the fact that other countries have less gun related violence, and refuse to research why that is the case is blatantly irresponsible. It's the "fingers in the ears" approach that many have when discussing gun reform. We are doing something wrong, why would we not exhaust every resource to improve on what's happening here?

[TheDeuce]

I tried to read every post. What is the point in this topic?

 

Pretty simple. Gun related violence in other countries is lower than it is here, and trying to figure out why that is the case. Hopefully learning something that we could apply in our own country.

[75center]

We have greater freedoms than other countries. Unfortunately freedom always comes at a cost.

[UKMustangFan]

We have greater freedoms than other countries. Unfortunately freedom always comes at a cost.

 

What specific freedoms do we have that "allow" these types of things to occur that other nations like Japan, Australia, England, etc, don't have?