We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Is that in absolute number, or in rate per 100000?
If rate, does that include all countries? W
What is the justification for exclusion/&-or/comparing the US with undeveloped places.
Why those 4 cities? In saying they have the "toughest" law, does that include city law only or wider jurisdiction such as state?
Does it matter that guns are small and easily transported on land without detection from one jurisdiction to the next.
Are we conflating categories where the laws in question are for a municipality but the statistics are for a wider metropolitan statistical area?
as Douglas mentions, it all depends on how you massage the numbers.
In absolute numbers, it may well be. But then the US is among the most populous countries in the world as well, and has rather effective law enforcement compared to many others.
And of course many things considered murder under US law might not be under the law of other countries, which might have different definitions of "murder", "manslaughter", etc., classing much more under the "lesser" charges.
And of course many countries will for external consumption massage their data so as to look good, especially countries with excessively high crime rates.
Why do we believe North America’s biggest cities are dangerous when they are, in fact, among the safest places in the world? In large part, because it was once true: For most of the 20th century (and a good part of the 19th), our big cities really were dangerous. Murders, muggings, armed robberies and sexual assaults were big-city phenomena, and the way to escape physical danger was to move away. Today, the opposite is true.
But a good try on News Junkie's part, just the same.
Doc, I'm surprised you lend credence to a report from a country that has a rodent for a national animal. Where 90% of the residents live in 10% of the land area. Where 50% of the citizens are forced to speak a foreign language. Where there are ten months of Winter and two months of bad sledding. Where a panel of experts and nine out of ten doctors agree that the metric system is safer than the imperial. Where speed limit signs on one of their two highways are posted in furlongs per fortnight. The only good I found in that country was the beer and the back bacon. Oh, and the girls have round heels, eh?
A more accurate way of phrasing it would be to compare the white murder rate and the black murder rate with murder rates in Europe. Which reminds me of Milton Friedman's reply to someone pointing out that Scandinavian countries have a lower poverty rate than the US does. Friedman's reply: similarly, US descendants of Scandinavian immigrants have a lower poverty rate than the US poverty rate.
As others have pointed out, the US is more towards the middle than towards the top when it comes to murder rate.
This reminds me of the discussion regarding overall death rates, where the US tends to fare poorly. According to various sources I've seen, the US includes all live births in its mortality rates, while other countries exclude babies under the age of 24, 48 or 168 hours. Comparing apples to apples is hard enough from one month to another, let alone apples to grapefruit to Ossa Bucco (whatever that is). At some level these stats are likely true, and with another frame of reference, suspect.
And, Snopes does some good research but they tend to have a more leftward orientation on things than I think the average Maggie reader steers. I have a bias...Snopes seems also to have one.
Actually, it's not far off - depending on how one calculates the rates (adult vs. total population/year vs. decade/metro area vs. city boundrys/etc.), and a bit of juggling makes it work.
BTW, if "juggling" numbers makes you queasy, realize that's exactly how large scale data sets are derived - the larger the set, the lower the accuracy, but that doesn't stop our betters... er, policymakers.
This seems to be a bit more accurate and makes the same devastating point: