How would one go about comparing the number/rate of violent deaths in the US to rates in countries experiencing significant civil unrest. Say Afghanistan or Iraq. Or any other - dare I say - “less civilized” nations.
For example, this cite presents the US as the 84th most safe country. But I’m not sure that that solely reflects violent crime, as opposed to - say - safe food/water and access to medical care.
I’m not pushing an agenda. Just curious. I would imagine, for example, that Iraq is a more dangerous place for Joe average Iraqi than the US is for an average American. But I have no idea how I would begin to make such a comparison.
Not sure how much difference does it make if I am shot/bombed/runover by a terrorist/psycho/criminal, than by the military or an opposing militia?
I was inspired to ask this question by the GD thread about what other countries are doing about gun violence. Just got me wondering if there is something about American culture that, in addition to making us highly value gun ownership, contributes to our tolerance of personal violence for enforcing interests and resolving disputes.
OK according to this site some 12,400 so far this year in Iraq, compared to just over 400 as described in a thread elsewhere here. Saw an estimate of over 1600 for Afghanistan thru June. Combined w/ just 315 offered here. So I guess my idea is a complete nonstarter.
I remember a few years ago there was a bunch of articles from left leaning websites that claimed America was so violent that if it were a third world country it could apply for United Nations peacekeeping assistance, it may have even been on John Oliver or the Daily Show.
If you limit the definition of “US violence” to mass shootings you’re making a lopsided comparison.
From my POV I don’t much care whether I’m shot by a psycho in a mass shooting or by some junkie wanting my wallet outside the Quickie Mart late at night.
I’m not going to dig up total murder numbers for the US for the year. But it’s a good deal larger than 300 some.
I also question the applicability of “average”. One thing we know about murder from many threads is that the prevalence varies massively by SES and location. What’s the average experience for a resident of inner city Detroit is very different from the average experience in Snooty McSnootFace’s gated country club community or Bubba PickEmUp’s rural small town.
As a representative half-remembered statistic, IIRC black on black murder is about 10x as prevalent as white on white. The black guy in the all black neighborhood is looking at a very different situation than is the white guy in the all-white neighborhood or almost all-white county.
As a matter of math, you *can *average those two experiences. As a matter of social reality hoping to drive social policy, it’s real misleading to do so.
I am VERY skeptical of the report in the OP (“Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2017”), I can’t see their methods and their numbers don’t match any other stats I’ve read.
The UNODC report is more accurate IMO, its where the Wikipedia figures come from:
While Iraq and Afghanistan have significantly higher murder rates than the US, not by that much, as in 1.5x or 2x not orders of magnitude (as war deaths are not considered crime). The really high crime rates are South/Central Latin America where you have the drug trade funding quite insane murder rates.
Saying region or group X in the US has the same murder rate as country Y is a completely meaningless statement. Any trait in human society will vary greatly across a society, and will usually occur in clusters.