Is the U.S. violent?

[Sukerkin]

Guns in America, are the reason why we are not a British colony and we are a Nation of our own. I know this may tick some people off, but it is a reality. JMO on all of it.

Well, that, the fact that America was not worth the expense of keeping (how things change ) and the French Army and Navy, to be fair.

Mind you, they still used guns so I guess you're bang on target {yeah, firearms based pun attack !}.

 

[Grenadier]

I think you failed to address the comparison between the U.S and the U.K. All these stats you show are based in the U.S

Here are your exact words:

There's is absolutely more violent crimes in the US than there is in the UK and that's because of the accessibility to firearms.

You asserted that the US is violent because of the accessibility to firearms.

Yet, the statistics shown, prove that in the US, there are low crime areas, and high crime areas, and that your assertion that guns cause crime falls flat on its face.

Even in gun-rich areas of the United States, where lawful gun ownership is at a very high rate, you have violent crime rates that are very low. Please read the above example again, regarding Arlington, Virginia, versus Washington DC. For that matter, you can look at Kennesaw, Georgia, where firearms ownership is mandatory. I'm still waiting to see any surges in violent crimes in that town.

The level of violence in different localities, regardless of the continent, are going to be dependent on the culture, and not the presence, or forbiddance, of an inanimate object, plain and simple. The lawful ownership of firearms by the civilian populace isn't a factor when you look the level of violence in an area.

 

[Grenadier]

Using statistics to prove you're right and we're wrong is meaningless.

Unless someone claims that guns are the sole reason why the US was more "violent" than the UK. The above assertion by mozzandherb falls to pieces very quickly, when you compare apples to apples.

It comes down to a cultural issue, not an issue over inanimate objects.

 

[Hagakure]

Here are your exact words:

[/color][/i]

You asserted that the US is violent because of the accessibility to firearms.

Yet, the statistics shown, prove that in the US, there are low crime areas, and high crime areas, and that your assertion that guns cause crime falls flat on its face.

Even in gun-rich areas of the United States, where lawful gun ownership is at a very high rate, you have violent crime rates that are very low. Please read the above example again, regarding Arlington, Virginia, versus Washington DC. For that matter, you can look at Kennesaw, Georgia, where firearms ownership is mandatory. I'm still waiting to see any surges in violent crimes in that town.

The level of violence in different localities, regardless of the continent, are going to be dependent on the culture, and not the presence, or forbiddance, of an inanimate object, plain and simple. The lawful ownership of firearms by the civilian populace isn't a factor when you look the level of violence in an area.

Agreed, but is gun ownership not ingrained within the culture of the United States, within your own constitution no less? Which, by your own words above inherently links violence to the culture? Just a thought? :idunno:

I ascertain that high levels of crime/violence will occur anywhere and EVERYwhere. Wherever humanity exists, violence and crime will also exist. I also believe that population density plays a big part, and this boils down to opportunity. Opportunity to commit crime against others, violence, or otherwise.

 

[Grenadier]

Agreed, but is gun ownership not ingrained within the culture of the United States, within your own constitution no less? Which, by your own words above inherently links violence to the culture? Just a thought? :idunno:

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms has no bearing on the culture.

If you think of it this way, the people who lawfully own firearms, are going to be the least likely to commit violent crimes, since they have passed a NICS ATF 4473 background check, and have jumped through whatever additional hoops the specific state, or even locality, requires. Thus, they have relatively clean records, have no felonies or violent misdemeanors, are not convicted of being habitual drunkards or illegal drug users, are not under restraining orders for domestic violence, etc.

These people aren't the types that become gangbangers. Instead, you have people who enjoy sport shooting such as IPSC, IDPA, USPSA, as well as rifle matches, skeet shooting, etc. You also have people who enjoy the sport of hunting. Most importantly, you also have people who enjoy having the ability to stop the bad guy without putting themselves in excessive jeopardy. After all, God may have created man, but Sam Colt (and the multitude of innovative firearms designers) made all men equal!

The problem that I have with people who assert that guns cause crime, is that they are looking at the wrong group of people, and somehow believe that punishing the law-abiding folks will affect the ability of criminals to commit crimes.

In other words, they're barking up the wrong tree.

I ascertain that high levels of crime/violence will occur anywhere and EVERYwhere. Wherever humanity exists, violence and crime will also exist.

No arguments here.

 

[searcher]

If you think guns cause violence to go up read the following:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

 

[mozzandherb]

If you think guns cause violence to go up read the following:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

It's much different living in a small town. I don't think a law like that would work in any metropolitan area.

 

[donald]

I would imagine a large portion of violent crime is never reported. All you have to do is look around some of our cities, and neighborhoods to see the sad facts first hand. A whole generation of our citizens has been raised being taught thelaw of the jungle is the way to live.

Sad...
Joshua 1:9

 

[Guardian]

To answer the initial question posed. Yes the U.S. is violent, is it to violent, probably so, it's the way our society is made up, it's the way we've allowed it to become.

So my answer is yes, short, sweet and simple.

 

[Archangel M]

If you are really interested in this topic read this:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_violent_crime_increasing

 

[Sukerkin]

That is a very interesting article, Angel. Thanks for linking to it.

Even transplanting it to the context of my own society, some of the points it raised about the perception of violence gave me something to think about :tup:.

 

[Deaf Smith]

If you are really interested in this topic read this:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_violent_crime_increasing

Imprisonment reduces the number of crimes prisoners commit while they are behind bars. A panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences in the mid-1980s estimated that if this were the only effect of incarceration, doubling the prison population would reduce crime by about 10 percent.

This is true. Rather ovious, but true. As long as they are in the slammer they cannot repet their crimes. And they have found once they reach an older age they tend to mellow and not enguage in crime (that is, they grow old.)

Imprisonment is also likely to increase the number of crimes prisoners commit after being released, both because it exposes them to a lot more violence while they are in prison and because a prison record makes it harder to integrate oneself into society after release.

This is also true. I know of one many who did go to prison and I went and visited. He had several teath broken out from fights. That's prison in any country and it's not a nice place.

Locking up convicts deters others from engaging in violence. The magnitude of this effect is controversial. Most conservatives think deterrence is very effective. Most liberals think it ineffective. Criminologists have not been able to resolve this controversy.

Only if it's the gang leaders. Many people are followers and they normaly would not get into crime except for a leader who presuaded them to join and prove themselves.

Deaf

 

[Hand Sword]

I would imagine a large portion of violent crime is never reported. All you have to do is look around some of our cities, and neighborhoods to see the sad facts first hand. A whole generation of our citizens has been raised being taught thelaw of the jungle is the way to live.

Sad...
Joshua 1:9

That would be very true. It's referred to as the dark figure of crime and is the mojrity of crimes a good 85-90% of the overall total.


Overall, without getting into it with anyone and just going with the question, I would say yes we are. It's all over our culture music, videos, movies, tv etc.... It's marketed heavily and glamorized.

 

[jarrod]

Well, that, the fact that America was not worth the expense of keeping (how things change ) and the French Army and Navy, to be fair.

Mind you, they still used guns so I guess you're bang on target {yeah, firearms based pun attack !}.

don't forget government sanctioned piracy! privateer harassment of british supply shipping was a pretty significant factor too.

jf

 

[Josh Oakley]

It's the course our ancestors chose, yes.

Guess what, though, there are other routes to that path, and history shows it.

Two examples: India, and Canada

 

[sgtmac_46]

I know we are worried about Mexico, and we think crime is high here but...

The British Home Office and the British Crime Survey for 2005/2006.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0506.html

Shows in excel that 2,420,000 violent crimes in the time frame of Sept. (2005) to Sept. (2006). Now the population of U.K. for about that time period is of 60,609,153, July 2006 est from the CIA factbook:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

That gives a rate of 3992.8 per 100,000 inhabitants.

In the U.S. using 2005 data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Uniform Crime Report for 2005:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

We see the crime rate for 2005 per 100,000 inhabitants was 469.2.

But then the U.K. paper, the SUN, says in an article: 600 kids mugged each day! That's 113,000 additional crimes! Yes additional as you see, the U.K. crime report above does NOT include criminal offences on under-16 year olds!!!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article7826.ece

So, when we worry about crime here in the USA, remember that many 'advanced' societies today have far far more (and lots lots more gun control.)

What we don't want to be is like Mexico and U.K. That is, no way for citizens to defend themselves and laws restricting them when defending themselves.

Deaf

You'll find that, when trying to comparing crime rates between countries, the FIRST thing you come up with is wildly different methodologies of gathering and analyzing data.

In the US, for example, we consider a crime as what it was reported......so if a Rape was reported, it's a rape for Uniform Crime Report statistical purposes.......even if it turns out to be bogus.

 

[Sukerkin]

Thank you for that information, Mac; I for one certainly didn't know that that was how the statistics were compiled in the States.

 

[Josh Oakley]

At the risk of sounding brash, so what if the US is violent? I didn't get into martial arts to be a Zen master. I got into martial arts because my parents were tired of me coming home battered from the most recent butt-whooping.

I stayed with martial arts as a kid because I moved a lot and it saved me from many an aforementioned butt-whooping.

Now, as an adult, I have many many reasons I still do martial arts, but my primary purpose is to save others from getting the butt-whoopings they don't need to experience.

It's not the only reason, but it's smack-dab on the top of the list. Many other instructors I know do it for many of the same reasons. But in reality, it keeps American martial arts from being a useless anacronism. Many martial arts today (not all, mind you) have been stress-tested in realm situations.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a lot of this nonsense go away, it's part of why I do what I do.



And I know this is a non-sequitor, but it's not like the US violence is as bad as Rawanda, or the Brazillian dead squads. Or Iraq in the time of Hussein.

 

[Deaf Smith]

And I know this is a non-sequitor, but it's not like the US violence is as bad as Rawanda, or the Brazillian dead squads. Or Iraq in the time of Hussein.

Or Mexico.... Or Russia.... And who knows what is happening in North Korea!

And don't forget most of the Middle East countries allow 'honor killings'. Legal murder it is. Not to mention countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh.

The world is a violent place.

Deaf

 

[sgtmac_46]

Thank you for that information, Mac; I for one certainly didn't know that that was how the statistics were compiled in the States.

Yeah, in the US it stays what it was reported as. The UCR doesn't follow it through the system to what it is subsequently adjudicated as. So the most severe allegation remains the statistics.

That method of dealing of data tends to inflate the crime rate, as it doesn't adjust for lessor crimes, or false reports of crime.