Some U.S. Cities Have Higher Gun Violence Than ENTIRE Nations — Check This Map

Someone brought up the 2.5 million times per year that a firearm prevents a violent crime. That's the estimated maximum. The census bureau says it's around 800,000 violent crimes are deterred by the brandishing of, but not firing of a gun. That 800,000 only includes incidents where police are called. The 2.5 million is an estimate that supposes all incidents total, meaning it includes the deterrent of non-violent crime, like trespassing for instance, as well as including non-reported incidents and incidents where the gun is fired, but a death isn't involved.

If we use the 800,000 minimum, that's 1.52 violent crimes thwarted per minute with the mere brandishing of a firearm. That's roughly 44 violent crimes per state, per day... no one killed.

If we use the 2.5 million maximum, that's 4.75 crimes of all sorts thwarted per minute by someone possessing a firearm. That's roughly 137 crimes of all sorts per state per day... some injured but no one killed.

The sheer amount of crime kept in check by ordinary citizens who choose to arm themselves is staggering.

This leads one to two fairly self evident conclusions. The proliferation of firearm possession by the citizenry in the US seems to prevent more crime than it enables, by a considerable amount. Second, that the proliferation of firearms isn't much of a driver of violent crime. So what's the driver?

The places with the least violent crime, either with firearms or otherwise, are almost without exception some of the most homogenous. The US is one of the least ethnically and culturally homogenous nations on the planet. In some ways it's a strength, in some ways it's a burden. When it comes to the perpetration of violent crime, it's a burden. As much as it pains me to say it, "diversity" often equates to massive jumps in crime rate. People often cite how gun control in Australia worked. By most standards, at least until the last 5 years, a relatively homogenous society. People often cite Japan or Korea as good examples of effective gun control. Japan and Korea are the two most homogenous societies on the planet almost without equal. If you want to see something really revealing, then compare violent crime rates (with a firearm or otherwise) with how diverse that country is. The correlation is extremely strong.

Now lets look at the stats in the original post. First, they're fudged. Look at FBI and DOJ stats and you'll see significant discrepancies, also some made up numbers. Also note that the MAJORITY of violent crime committed with a firearm in the US is committed in metropolitan areas. The lion's share of those metropolitan areas being in states with very very strict gun laws. Strict to the point of being impractical for most citizens.

If one were to remove the homicides committed by gang violence, the US would be one of the safer countries on the planet despite the increased crime potential that comes with its massive diversity. There's also a very strong correlation between the average IQ of a place and how violent that place is, but that's a topic for another thread.

crazyewok
reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

 

American flamewar in 5 4 3 2 1

Heres a tip iv learned just let America have there silly guns and let it be. As long as they dont bring em over here.

You can throw all the stats u like at them they wont listen andwill just throw twisted stats back how the uk is some crime ridden dangrous hell hole cause we dont allow assault rifles.

No the Uk is a crime ridden hellhole because of it's extremely high violent crime rate. It's the highest in Europe isn't it?

reply to post by buster2010


Yeah, the UK has the highest violent crime rate in Europe. there has also been a resurgence of gun violence, especially in places like Luton and Brixton and so forth, despite handguns being banned and long guns being hard to own. The criminals still find a way. They also happen to be the most diverse areas of the UK as well. Like I said, diversity brings a lot of boons, but one of the busts that has to be accepted is a massively increased potential for crime.

www.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

In these countries that you listed how many of them let the people have the right to bear arms? Almost none of those countries allow the citizens that right. Had those people had that right then these numbers would be lower.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


en.wikipedia.org...

I have some free time to spare currently and I have nothing against a small debate.

reply to post by FlyersFan


US is twice the size of the total size of the European Union nations, although 200 million less people live in US. EU population is around 500 million in total from the 27 member nations.

I did not compare any statistics to full European culture - there is no such thing. Every country is just as different from the other 26 as US from Canada or Mexico. I took the statistics from the highest (most negative) rates from comparable nations (largest EU member nations).

I agree the microcultures are problem, such thing exists in many cities in Europe as well, although this has been largely solved with both: regulated firearm policy so the amount of firearms on the streets would be minimal and strong social policies.

How would harder gun laws stop law-abiding citizens from getting firearms? Should people with mental issues, especially anger management issues and certain disorders get a firearm in the first place? Shouldn´t everybody have proper gun safety training?

Sorry, but its you who obviously does'nt understand.

The US has more gun owners than anywhere in the world......

25 other countries (that have less gun owners per capita) have more gun violence than the US.

Stop and think about that a second.

Are gun laws really the problem?

25 countries have less gun owner and higher gun violence.

Number of guns is not the only factor that affects gun violence rates. In these countries, the police force is extremely weak, so people who have killed before often do not get locked up. The corruption is extreme which lets many of such people walk.The education levels are weak, while salaries are extremely low. Often the only way to survive in such countries is by crime.

That is why certain things have to be similar in order for nations to be even be compared. US can only be compared to OECD countries when it comes to crime rates, although not all of them.

Maybe you don't know that the US has the longest unfortified border than any nation in the world? Maybe you haven't heard about the things going on around the Mexican border? Do you really think stopping guns from going anywhere is going to stop criminals from getting them? If you do then you are a very naive person.

How is that working out with drugs?

Just one question, how does European Union manage to keep the illegal guns from coming in? The borders are regulated equally for every member nation, as between the member nations there are open borders. That is very comparable to US system, although I do not know whether border control is managed on federal or state level. In EU it would be like it happened on state level in comparison. Every country is in charge of borders with the non-EU nations bordering them, although the rules of border control are made at EU level (like Fed in US), as incoming illegal things to the countries would affect every EU nation, as there are open borders. In some ways we can draw parallels. In total EU nations have pretty much the same land border length with non-EU nations as US has with Mexico, Finland alone for example has to cover over 833 miles(1/3 of US-Mexican border) of border with Russia. Border control is a necessity in order for any restrictions to work, otherwise drugs (which they already do), illegal guns and other similar things get shipped in. Although I will not take much stand on this point. The main of point of the borders is very comparable when it comes to EU and US. Both have several smaller areas (nations/states) separated with open borders. If any nation in EU or state in US changes their laws towards softer, it loses every other stricter law in other nations /states within the open borders area. By open borders I mean borders without border control.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


The 2nd amendment does not include Apache helicopters, well the helicopter would be fine, but the weaponry would not. Ive posted this before, and I'll post it again. There is a recognized and legal difference between arms and ordnance, with a gray area in between covered by three categories of NFA title II classifications (Destructive Device, Machine Gun, Any Other Weapon). The difference between arms and ordnance was also well recognized back during the writing of the bill of rights.

Arms are personal weapons, man portable, be they sword or club, tire iron or frying pan, or even shotguns, handguns, and rifles.

Ordnance is anything not man portable, crew served, or of especially destructive nature. Things like heat seeking missiles, cannon, tanks, artillery, nuclear weapons, etc.

Destructive Devices are man portable personal weapons that are rather more destructive than even firearms. These include some automatic shotguns, grenade launchers, some rocket launchers, among others. With destructive devices, often the ammunition itself is considered a DD and therefore in order to obtain one you would need to go through an ATF FBI background check that takes several months not only for the weapon, but for each round of ammunition, as well as pay $200 dollars for each check (tax stamp). Costs to own are very very high.

Machine guns are defined as full automatic firearms that fire more than one bullet for a single press of the trigger. They have only been regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934, where a registry was created. In 1986 no newly manufactured machine guns, including assault rifles (fully automatic rifles), could be purchased by the citizenry. That means all assault rifles and machine guns owned in private hands in the US today were made before 1986. The same background checks apply as destructive devices, if not for the ammunition. Costs to own are very very high.

Any Other Weapons are much like the above, and are considered arms, in that they are man portable personal weapons, but don't quite fit into either category. Same background checks apply.

DP

buster2010


No the Uk is a crime ridden hellhole because of it's extremely high violent crime rate. It's the highest in Europe isn't it?

Dont know. If thats what the stats say its rubbish as I currnetly leave there and can say I feel pretty damed safe.

MINOR violent crime may be a issue due to the booze problem we have and I think drunken fights ect inflate our crime stats plus we do have a inner city gang problem with gang on gang violencebut those gangs normaly leave you alone if you leave them alone. But your highly unlikey to get mugged, raped or randomly attacked. Either way guns are not even in the equation here and haveing them or not haveing wont effcet the stats are the problems are due to other causes. Plus our reporting of violent crime is pretty rubbish as well as swearing at a police officer and other such trival things gets recored as violent crime.Slightly higher stats or not UK is far from a "crime ridden hellhole" anyway, vist us you would be suprised, dont buy everything fox news or alex jones tells you

Not saying take the US guns away, you can keep em I dont give a rats arse I dont live there (just dont whine when someone shots a school up) but just dont force your gun culture on us thank you very much.

DP

buster2010
No the Uk is a crime ridden hellhole because of it's extremely high violent crime rate. It's the highest in Europe isn't it?

It might have the highest rates from the Northern/Western Europe nations, although I doubt there is less crime in Russia or some other Eastern Europe nations , but very hard to estimate. The definitions of violent crime vary from country to country. What constitutes as violent crime in one country is not consider violent crime in other country and it is not included in the statistics.

UK has one of the widest definitons of violent crime. For example vandalism, loud quarreling at home (without physical violence), partying later at night so neighbours can not sleep, small bar fights, slaps. These do not have to have anything to do with physical injury.

In US for example only homicides, aggrevated assaults, robberies and rapes constitute as violent crime. In comparison, only 15% of sexual offences in UK, which constitute as violent crime there, are counted as violent crime in US.

I remember when these newspiece came out, I saw many triying to use these stats as argument without understanding that these are uncomparable due to violent crime definitions, many still don´t.

When one country includes speeding tickets as traffic violence and other country only counts actual accidents as traffic violence, these are uncomparable.

This makes comparison extremely tough. Homicide rates are one of the most objective of comparing different nations violent crime rates, as there is not much.

Another thing to consider with those stats is that often in those cities, most of the gun crimes are committed in very well defined neighborhoods. Outside of those, the numbers drop off considerably. Or at least that's the way it is in my city. Everyone knows where not to go.

reply to post by Cabin


Your stats are highly misleading.

There is not 94 gun owning Americans out of 100 people.

Not even close. The vast majority of gun owners have more than one. The majority of American housholds are not armed.

Nothing better to do and I like debating.

I guess I should have asked why are you still posting when you obviously do not know what you're talking about?

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha


Actually it would have been a better comparison map if the South American affiliates of the Drug cartels were listed and how they have set up shop in every city on the map. We just had a rather large element of their association busted in Austin, Tx. Drugs and (oh my non-registered) weapons were all part of the bust. www.borderlandbeat.com...

75 kilos of meth, 10 kilos of coc aine and two kilos of heroin

www.borderlandbeat.com...

Federal authorities have accused Miguel Angel Trevino Morales, believed to now be the leader of the Zetas drug operation, of setting up the horse operation that his younger brother, Jose Trevino Morales, ran from a sprawling ranch near Lexington, Okla. The operation spent millions of dollars buying horses in California, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, prosecutors said.

www.borderlandbeat.com...

But a wide-ranging Associated Press review of federal court cases and government drug-enforcement data, plus interviews with many top law enforcement officials, indicate the groups have begun deploying agents from their inner circles to the U.S. Cartel operatives are suspected of running drug-distribution networks in at least nine non-border states, often in middle-class suburbs in the Midwest, South and Northeast.

“It’s probably the most serious threat the United States has faced from organized crime,” said Jack Riley, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Chicago office.

The cartel threat looms so large that one of Mexico’s most notorious drug kingpins — a man who has never set foot in Chicago — was recently named the city’s Public Enemy No. 1, the same notorious label once assigned to Al Capone

"Cause and effect" is many times lost in statistics; if an agenda, (?) then which one to pick becomes problematic.

What I find interesting is why there are so many who want to disarm Americans when we have international drug cartels moving into American cities who are not known for their registered weapons or their concerns about life, limb, and the happiness of anyone but themselves.

Even citizens of Mexico are trying to arm themselves so at least they have some slight chance of protecting themselves.
www.borderlandbeat.com...
Ever heard of MS-13 ? plenty of them in American prisons.

Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) grew in fire power, setting aside their reliance on small caliber weapons, acquiring instead AK-47 rifles, grenades, grenade launchers and antitank projectiles, which most of the time are sold to Los Zetas or interchanged for small quantities of coc aine which they later sell in the local market.

According to the report, the weapons acquired by the MS-13 for Los Zetas are mainly purchased in Nicaragua, although they are also purchased to corrupt military men from Honduras and El Salvador, coupled with this, the report continues, MS-13 keeps an efficient and independent network of human trafficking to move gang members from and to the United States.

This network allows them to bring Central America to the United States in only 72 hours. Nowadays, the report says, their structure is merging with the smuggling networks of Los Zetas in an unprecedented alliance for both groups.

Instead let us disarm all of North America so we can be like other countries where the Cartels buy politicians, News services, and kill anyone who gets in their way.

reply to post by 727Sky


Were they all unregistered or were some of them unregistered to the US government per chance?

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


I agree this is a fairly misleading one, as it takes all the guns into account. Although it is very hard to estimate, as various pollest suggest 32-55% of households/including households of one having a firearm , although the fact is there are far more guns in the hands of people than in any other nations, especially considering the fact that illegal guns are not considered in the statistics and on the streets there is a large amount of jllegal firearms. The more firearms there are, the harder it is to track them all and the easier it is for these to vanish into the black market.

The other stats are not misleading so don´t base your judgement on just one statistics.

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

So this kinda throws the ' But we have more population' argument out the window, right?

Except that population DENSITY is the important statistic in such things.

reply to post by Cabin

The other stats are not misleading so don´t base your judgement on just one statistics.

What other data have you given?

None.

You saying that it works in Europe so it must work in America also is not any kind of evidence for your argument.

reply to post by redoubt

If the issue is not a human one, then there is no argument to begin with because, once more, without a human pulling the trigger, guns are no more dangerous than... well, that old iron skillet.

Its true what you are saying , its just that guns just make it TO easy to kill. The average person might not find it easy to walk up and kill someone with a old iron skillet. It takes strength , you have to get close to the target , close enough that they might beat you down before you can finish them. You have to deal with the breaking of the bones , the blood and the screams.

Anyone can pull a trigger , spray a few shots form a small distance and kill someone with very little risk to themselves compared to almost all other weapons.

Yes humans are violent angry people but the reason we don't go around attacking people hand to hand is mostly about risk to ourselves by way of getting caught or getting hurt. Guns significantly reduce those risks and by doing so facilitate the easier killing or wounding of people.

PhoenixOD
reply to post by redoubt

 

If the issue is not a human one, then there is no argument to begin with because, once more, without a human pulling the trigger, guns are no more dangerous than... well, that old iron skillet.

Its true what you are saying , its just that guns just make it TO easy to kill. The average person might not find it easy to walk up and kill someone with a old iron skillet. It takes strength , you have to get close to the target , close enough that they might beat you down before you can finish them. You have to deal with the breaking of the bones , the blood and the screams.

Anyone can pull a trigger , spray a few shots form a small distance and kill someone with very little risk to themselves compared to almost all other weapons.

Yes humans are violent angry people but the reason we don't go around attacking people hand to hand is mostly about risk to ourselves by way of getting caught or getting hurt. Guns significantly reduce those risks and by doing so facilitate the easier killing or wounding of people.

And absent firearms, the physically strong did what they wanted to the physically weak. Sure, firearms make killing easier--they can give an 80 year old grandmother even footing with a 20 year old thug. If you miraculously disintegrated all firearms tomorrow, the strong will continue to prey on the weak and the weak will not have any recourse but to hope the thug decides to go after someone else.

You blame the tool, but like any tool, firearms can help good people just as easily as bad people.