Why is America such a violent place?
- Thread starter Konstantin
- Start date
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Actually, if you leave only the top three or four metroplex areas out of the equation, namely L.A., Atlanta, Detroit, and D.C., the violent crime rate in the United States is comparable to that of Canada.
It is an open secret that the worst crime cities/metros in the United States are invariably places that are overwhelimingly liberal-leaning, with all the attendant policies and feel-good laws.
Alas, the liberal lords of the cities are never short on explanations why crime in their gun-free utopias is much higher than in your average American city. For example, you'll hear from D.C. and NYC that gun crime is sky high because of all the guns coming up from Virginia....failing to explain why Virginia, awash in guns as it apparently is, has a much lower violent crime rate per 100,000 than the D.C. metroplex.
Ben Swenson
New member
To play the advocate for a secular personification of evil ...
What happens if you leave the largest cities out of the crime statistics from other countries too?
Anyone ever run those numbers?
kidcoltoutlaw
New member
you could say
the poor in the country know how to act the poor in the big cities do not,thanks,keith
the poor in the country know how to act the poor in the big cities do not,thanks,keith
Fred Hansen
New member
Seen any Michael Moore movies lately?
Michigander
New member
Why is America such a violent place?
Why not?
Why not?
MeekAndMild
New member
America is not a violent place. Amarican news avoids telling the sheeple how good they have it.
http://allafrica.com/conflict/
http://allafrica.com/civilwar/
http://allafrica.com/stories/200405210781.html
http://allafrica.com/conflict/
http://allafrica.com/civilwar/
http://allafrica.com/stories/200405210781.html
Roadkill Coyote
New member
Non-Documentary
Vibe-"I noticed he got another award in CAnnes..for another Non-Documentary."
So I suppose the questions are,
Vibe-"I noticed he got another award in CAnnes..for another Non-Documentary."
So I suppose the questions are,
- Would you call it a Propagandamentary, or a Docuganda piece?
- Do they call the award a "Leni"?
Speaking of avoiding certain neighborhoods, here's a map of the murder hot spots for Richmond. It covers 2000-2003. JT
www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satel...1&path=!news!special!generic4&s=1058750351796
www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satel...1&path=!news!special!generic4&s=1058750351796
kidcoltoutlaw
New member
thanks for the
richmond map,thanks,keith
richmond map,thanks,keith
Apparently, not anymore. A person also used to have a sponsor, so they they wouldn't become a "burden on society." That seems not to be the case anymore. Legal (and at least here in Kali) illegal immigrants get food stamps, SSI (supplemental security income), health care on the taxpayers.
Someone else made the point that crime rates vary hugely depending on the area, and on demographics. For instance, where I grew up, in a rural state with a small, homogenous population, crime (especially violent crime) was very low. Murders were rare.
Now, the town I currently live in (California) has a lot of car theft, shoplifting and such, but violent crime is very rare. However, just a few miles away in Oakland, and a few other more densely populated areas, violent crime is much, much higher. Demographics seems to have a lot to do with it.
CarbineCaleb
New member
Why violence in America?
I haven't read such statistics recently, however, not so many years ago, I recall we were number two in the world in violent crime, behind Columbia. There is no doubt that this is a violent country - I consider it the worst problem of the US relative to other developed countries.
It's also true that violent crime (if one looks at long terms trend, not last year vs the year before) has been steeply escalating, as it has in Europe.
If you'd ask me, I'd say that there are many factors, among them the following:
1. Families today frequently sleep in the same house, but don't interact a great deal as they did in days past; divorce rates are higher - less guidance and less stability at home.
2. Movie and television violence as well as violent computer games model and stimulate violent behavior - individuals who gorge on these things invariably say it doesn't affect them, but countless studies show they do. Those factors today are nothing like they were when I grew up - the difference is staggering. Unfortunately, these things are also major exports to Europe.
3. The US has always been capitalist, and has never been a uniform society, but the emphasis on money and material things is much higher, and the gap between rich and poor is much greater than it was a couple of decades ago. In Europe, I expect the first effects, however, the gap between rich and poor is certainly smaller, due to the socioeconomic system there.
4. The general stress level of society today is much higher than in decades past.
I haven't read such statistics recently, however, not so many years ago, I recall we were number two in the world in violent crime, behind Columbia. There is no doubt that this is a violent country - I consider it the worst problem of the US relative to other developed countries.
It's also true that violent crime (if one looks at long terms trend, not last year vs the year before) has been steeply escalating, as it has in Europe.
If you'd ask me, I'd say that there are many factors, among them the following:
1. Families today frequently sleep in the same house, but don't interact a great deal as they did in days past; divorce rates are higher - less guidance and less stability at home.
2. Movie and television violence as well as violent computer games model and stimulate violent behavior - individuals who gorge on these things invariably say it doesn't affect them, but countless studies show they do. Those factors today are nothing like they were when I grew up - the difference is staggering. Unfortunately, these things are also major exports to Europe.
3. The US has always been capitalist, and has never been a uniform society, but the emphasis on money and material things is much higher, and the gap between rich and poor is much greater than it was a couple of decades ago. In Europe, I expect the first effects, however, the gap between rich and poor is certainly smaller, due to the socioeconomic system there.
4. The general stress level of society today is much higher than in decades past.
Originally posted by CarbineCaleb:
I'd say that with the growth of the middle class in the US, that this assertion is incorrect. Even in Europe, Australia, the Far East, South America and most places in Africa, the size of the middle class has grown and is still growing. Is there some economic benefit to a uniform society? Other than the implication that uniformity may spawn a classlessness? Well, good luck on that. Take a look at Japan. The dictionary definition of a uniform society, if there ever was one. There exists the largest economic gap between the average guy/gal and the rich. In Japan, the rich are the super-rich, and then there's everyone else. So much for a uniform society and its benefits to reducing the gap between the rich and the poor.
Also posted by CarbineCaleb:
Also posted by CarbineCaleb:
I'd say that with the growth of the middle class in the US, that this assertion is incorrect. Even in Europe, Australia, the Far East, South America and most places in Africa, the size of the middle class has grown and is still growing. Is there some economic benefit to a uniform society? Other than the implication that uniformity may spawn a classlessness? Well, good luck on that. Take a look at Japan. The dictionary definition of a uniform society, if there ever was one. There exists the largest economic gap between the average guy/gal and the rich. In Japan, the rich are the super-rich, and then there's everyone else. So much for a uniform society and its benefits to reducing the gap between the rich and the poor.
Also posted by CarbineCaleb:
Could that be due to the willingness of the central planning committee in these European Governments to redefine rich at will? The gap between the rich and the poor is an argument used by socialist planners globally. The point is are you stuck in the food chain? A rich vs poor gap is only meaningful in a society that is static. A capitalist society is dynamic. You are not permanently assigned the status of poor. It is up to you to do something about your economic station in life. I know this to be true from personal experience.
Also posted by CarbineCaleb:
Okay, where does this come from? We are not settling a continent nor are we establishing what we consider civilization from sea-to-sea. We have more day-to-day conveniences than our fathers and theirs. Life is easy. So what is this about?
Konstantin:
The U.S. is not nearly as violent a nation as depicted by mass media, which functions on the following basis: IF IT BLEEDS, IT LEADS, which translates as follows. The more blood and gore that any "news" segment contains, the greater import media givesmit, whether or not the attention and coverage are deserved.
Additionally, you need to consider the following. Gun ownership amongst "ordinary people" in the U.S. gun ownership is very so much more common than it is in Europe, Switzerland excepted. I will not argue the "rights and or wrongs" of this situation, I merely state the facts.
Mass media tends to be anti gun, I cannot say why, though if interested, you might read through some of the commentaries published by Professor William Tonso, Univ. of Indiania, under the general heading of Information Gatekeepers. Then there is a recently published book entitled Arrogance, as I recall, by Bernard Goldberg. There are, of course, numerous other sources, I merely mention the two above refered to.
Let me know what you discover, should you opt to do some digging for yourself. Additionally, as has been mentioned by other responders, the U.S. is a much less homogenious nation than are the countries of Europe, a fact that likely makes a large difference.
The foregoing aside, If one looks at history, one would hardly come to the conclusion that Europeans are all that peaceful, or so it appears to me.
The U.S. is not nearly as violent a nation as depicted by mass media, which functions on the following basis: IF IT BLEEDS, IT LEADS, which translates as follows. The more blood and gore that any "news" segment contains, the greater import media givesmit, whether or not the attention and coverage are deserved.
Additionally, you need to consider the following. Gun ownership amongst "ordinary people" in the U.S. gun ownership is very so much more common than it is in Europe, Switzerland excepted. I will not argue the "rights and or wrongs" of this situation, I merely state the facts.
Mass media tends to be anti gun, I cannot say why, though if interested, you might read through some of the commentaries published by Professor William Tonso, Univ. of Indiania, under the general heading of Information Gatekeepers. Then there is a recently published book entitled Arrogance, as I recall, by Bernard Goldberg. There are, of course, numerous other sources, I merely mention the two above refered to.
Let me know what you discover, should you opt to do some digging for yourself. Additionally, as has been mentioned by other responders, the U.S. is a much less homogenious nation than are the countries of Europe, a fact that likely makes a large difference.
The foregoing aside, If one looks at history, one would hardly come to the conclusion that Europeans are all that peaceful, or so it appears to me.