No one has been murdered in Norway so far this year(phys.org)
phys.org
No one has been murdered in Norway so far this year
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-norway-year.html
149 comments
> There has to be a historical basis for Norway's approach. Viking law?
Late but I think it is from Judaism via Christianity. I used to read a lot in the Bible when I was young (still read but not as much) and I think there are rules about intentional vs unintended killings in the old law, more specifically there are rules about cities of refugee where someone who has killed someone unintentionally can flee to.
Viking law is more about blood revenge, at least in practice (I've read a fair bit of Snorre and other Icelandic stories as well when I was younger.)
Late but I think it is from Judaism via Christianity. I used to read a lot in the Bible when I was young (still read but not as much) and I think there are rules about intentional vs unintended killings in the old law, more specifically there are rules about cities of refugee where someone who has killed someone unintentionally can flee to.
Viking law is more about blood revenge, at least in practice (I've read a fair bit of Snorre and other Icelandic stories as well when I was younger.)
I think it is the lack of mental asylums here in US for Norway keeps the difficult cases off of the street that would best explains the disparate murder rate between two countries.
Norway has a rigorous involuntary admittance into mental asylums; US has at most strictest, 3-day VOLUNTARY admittance.
It is arguable that US mental asylums were dismantled by US Mental Health Systems Act of 1980.
In 1980 to 1993, Feds have shriveled up the states’ funds earmarked for fixed mental facilities and dedicated psychiatric hospitals of which took decades to recover in some form of private-funded psychiatry hospitals but still in no way covering all the US needs required for such care due to its “voluntary”-only approach and perhaps the lack of personal funding needed for its own mental health.
So, could that be the small price that US citizens pay for allowing freedom for some “insane” of their citizens just to roam ... freely and with unchecked access to firearms?
== Reference: ==
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1...
- https://ijmhs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13033-018-...
- https://www.reddit.com/r/Norway/comments/17tq0i/how_are_the_...
- https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210121/Researcher-explor...
Norway has a rigorous involuntary admittance into mental asylums; US has at most strictest, 3-day VOLUNTARY admittance.
It is arguable that US mental asylums were dismantled by US Mental Health Systems Act of 1980.
In 1980 to 1993, Feds have shriveled up the states’ funds earmarked for fixed mental facilities and dedicated psychiatric hospitals of which took decades to recover in some form of private-funded psychiatry hospitals but still in no way covering all the US needs required for such care due to its “voluntary”-only approach and perhaps the lack of personal funding needed for its own mental health.
So, could that be the small price that US citizens pay for allowing freedom for some “insane” of their citizens just to roam ... freely and with unchecked access to firearms?
== Reference: ==
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1...
- https://ijmhs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13033-018-...
- https://www.reddit.com/r/Norway/comments/17tq0i/how_are_the_...
- https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210121/Researcher-explor...
Meanwhile we've had >1 homicide per day in 2021 in my home city of Philadelphia.
https://controller.phila.gov/philadelphia-audits/mapping-gun...
https://controller.phila.gov/philadelphia-audits/mapping-gun...
the_70x(1)
I am not a US Citizen and have never lived in the US.
I just finnished watching HBO's "The Wire" and my reaction was Jesus! Does is this really happen?
I just finnished watching HBO's "The Wire" and my reaction was Jesus! Does is this really happen?
Yes. The Wire is shockingly true to life. I cannot think of a detail that isn't modeled after a great deal of real life events that play out, over and over, in a loop, in every major American city.
Edit: the McNulty arc in the last season probably doesn't happen particularly often. The alternative, that the murders are never found or investigated, is much more likely. I don't want to say what he does (it would be a spoiler), but yes, that was more character-driven than most of the dynamics on the show.
Edit: the McNulty arc in the last season probably doesn't happen particularly often. The alternative, that the murders are never found or investigated, is much more likely. I don't want to say what he does (it would be a spoiler), but yes, that was more character-driven than most of the dynamics on the show.
It's only in small pockets of cities, not evenly distributed among everyone there. If you aren't involved in crime or live in those high crime areas, you'll probably never experience any violence. But yeah, there are parts of Baltimore that are just like what you see on The Wire.
you probably won't get murdered, but if you live in any walkable area of baltimore for a long time it's pretty likely you'll get mugged.
source: everyone I know that's lived there more than five years.
source: everyone I know that's lived there more than five years.
This is wildly inaccurate.
Muggings are uncommon in neighborhoods like locust point,hampden, Roland park, federal hill, charles village, Patterson park, etc.
Even in "rougher" areas of the white l (station north, Remington, Barclay) Muggings are still uncommon
Muggings are uncommon in neighborhoods like locust point,hampden, Roland park, federal hill, charles village, Patterson park, etc.
Even in "rougher" areas of the white l (station north, Remington, Barclay) Muggings are still uncommon
uncommon in the sense that it probably won't happen on a particular day. but it will happen to you eventually if you walk around in the city.
doesn't happen much in roland park, LP, and hampden, but I don't really agree on the others you listed. look at the the crime map with the "robbery - street" filter if you don't believe me. it looks like a population density map. fed in particular has a surprising number of muggings (probably due to drunk idiots by the bars).
doesn't happen much in roland park, LP, and hampden, but I don't really agree on the others you listed. look at the the crime map with the "robbery - street" filter if you don't believe me. it looks like a population density map. fed in particular has a surprising number of muggings (probably due to drunk idiots by the bars).
>but it will happen to you eventually if you walk around in the city.
It absolutely will not. I've lived in those neighborhoods (A few blocks north of north ave in old goucher) and neither my wife nor I ever had issues with violent crime. Prostitution is another story.
Link to the map?
It absolutely will not. I've lived in those neighborhoods (A few blocks north of north ave in old goucher) and neither my wife nor I ever had issues with violent crime. Prostitution is another story.
Link to the map?
https://arcgisportal.baltimorepolice.org/publiccrimemap/
see for yourself. in the last three months there's been at least one street robbery in most of the neighborhoods you named. if you look at the last year, they're surprisingly evenly distributed everywhere below university/33rd. I would have agreed with you seven to ten years ago, but things have really gone downhill.
roland park is almost a suburb, very car oriented, and LP is a special case due to its geography (really its connectivity). aside from that you gotta assume anything can happen at any time in baltimore.
see for yourself. in the last three months there's been at least one street robbery in most of the neighborhoods you named. if you look at the last year, they're surprisingly evenly distributed everywhere below university/33rd. I would have agreed with you seven to ten years ago, but things have really gone downhill.
roland park is almost a suburb, very car oriented, and LP is a special case due to its geography (really its connectivity). aside from that you gotta assume anything can happen at any time in baltimore.
>in the last three months there's been at least one street robbery in most of the neighborhoods you named.
You're aware that thousands of people live in these areas right?
> I would have agreed with you seven to ten years ago, but things have really gone downhill.
Do you live in the city? The amount of development + property prices have consistently moved upwards over the last few years
You're aware that thousands of people live in these areas right?
> I would have agreed with you seven to ten years ago, but things have really gone downhill.
Do you live in the city? The amount of development + property prices have consistently moved upwards over the last few years
yes, I grew up in baltimore and have lived in/around the city most of my life. I'm very familiar with the neighborhoods we are discussing. the city is much less safe than it was ten years ago, and that is really saying something.
btw I'm not saying it can't be a great place to live or that you should be afraid every time you step outside. just don't believe no one will ever stick a gun in your face. it's a lot more likely than you seem to think.
btw I'm not saying it can't be a great place to live or that you should be afraid every time you step outside. just don't believe no one will ever stick a gun in your face. it's a lot more likely than you seem to think.
>just don't believe no one will ever stick a gun in your face
Agree, but I think you're overestimating the likelihood.
Overall thanks for taking the time and best of luck in the future
Agree, but I think you're overestimating the likelihood.
Overall thanks for taking the time and best of luck in the future
I've lived in Baltimore for almost a decade now. A large majority of the murders are targeted killings relating to the drug trade. Iirc its why Baltimore has a very high death rate among those who are shot. If you live in the more developed/safer areas it is much more comparable to a normal US city
Essentially. The creator, David Simon, spent 12 years as a reporter for the Baltimore Sun.
Yes. The mass shootings make the national news, usually, but gun violence is so endemic, especially in the poorer parts of town, it often barely makes it in the newspaper.
Philly is bad but let's compare best to best and worst to worst. What is the US state or county with lowest homicide rate? Higher than Norway probably, but by how much? What is the worst in Europe?
> What is the US state or county with lowest homicide rate?
The ones with cold winters and minimal urbanization.
The ones with cold winters and minimal urbanization.
The UK is more urban than US and has a small fraction of the murder rate.
Wyoming?
Alaska is ready and willing to prove you wrong.
Alaska gets all the people who struck out in the lower 48 so of course it's a little more spicy than it should be.
Philadelphia is a city. Pick any city in Norway and you get the same results.
US counties are quite small so it should be easy to find one that has a very low or very high murder rate.
From [0] and[1], in 2018 Norway had a murder rate of about 0.5/100k. South Dakota (the least murder-y state) had a rate of 1.4.
The worst in Europe are the Baltic states. Latvia and Lithuania would be equivalent to middle of the pack US states. Outside the Baltic states, the rest of the EU and UK would be, at worst, just nudging the bottom of the states' rankings or, at best, quite some way below.
Once you get to Turkey and the Balkan states, you are again nudging lowish US numbers. BTW the reason Liechtenstein is an outlier is because it has a population of 38k. So this suggest that one person was murdered there in 2018.
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
The worst in Europe are the Baltic states. Latvia and Lithuania would be equivalent to middle of the pack US states. Outside the Baltic states, the rest of the EU and UK would be, at worst, just nudging the bottom of the states' rankings or, at best, quite some way below.
Once you get to Turkey and the Balkan states, you are again nudging lowish US numbers. BTW the reason Liechtenstein is an outlier is because it has a population of 38k. So this suggest that one person was murdered there in 2018.
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
Irvine, California out of the 100 largest cities. Average of 0.72 homicides per 100,000 people, per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
deadbytes(5)
Looking at the other comments here, there should really be a pithy "law" like Godwin's for the act of comparing the USA to small, wealthy, homogenous countries with harsh immigration policies. I'm not saying it's bad, but boy is it common.
ok. Stick to comparing it to canada: a physically bigger country with higher immigration, slightly lower per-capita earning, more diversity, a similar rate of gun ownership, and a murder rate less than half that of the US.
Canada murders per 100,000: 1.8
US: 5.0
Canada murders per 100,000: 1.8
US: 5.0
Canada does not have a larger or more diverse population so the comparison fails on two points.
If you compare Minnesota to Canada the murder rates are very similar. So I guess the common thread is the cold weather. /s
I think it would be more informative to compare various US states by murder rate to try to find common threads, since the rate varies widely, and also because it seems more practical to make New Mexico more like Idaho than to make it more like Norway.
If you compare Minnesota to Canada the murder rates are very similar. So I guess the common thread is the cold weather. /s
I think it would be more informative to compare various US states by murder rate to try to find common threads, since the rate varies widely, and also because it seems more practical to make New Mexico more like Idaho than to make it more like Norway.
Canada actually has a denser population. Canadian cities are much more sense than average us cities, a relic of a different system of land settlement. Vancouver sits beside total wilderness, but has residential areas as dense as nyc. Canada doesn't have the neverending suburbs that are the norm in the us.
By contrast, Baltimore - which has roughly 9%-10% the population of Norway - sees as many murders each year as Norway does every seven or eight years combined. An approximate 70 fold difference, give or take.
Does Norway have open borders? I'd like to live there. No? Oh well.
Does Norway have open borders? I'd like to live there. No? Oh well.
Norway has better management.
They also have a $1T+ (trillion not billion) sovereign wealth fund (from North Sea oil), the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world amounting to $200k per person.
Yeah, that's the reason we don't kill each other. /s
You don't think funding social safety nets affects the crime rate? Of course we in the US don't lack the money to fund ours, just the political will.
> Of course we in the US don't lack the money to fund ours, just the political will.
You lack both.
You lack both.
people in baltimore don't kill each other for fun. at least, usually not. more often, it's related to their line of work.
[deleted]
We've restricted ourselves to "only" using at most 3% per year[1], which amounts to about 20% of the budget[2].
[1]: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/the-economy/economic-po...
[2]: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/prop.-1-s-gul-bok-2... (page 14, used 2019 budget for corona reasons).
[1]: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/the-economy/economic-po...
[2]: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/prop.-1-s-gul-bok-2... (page 14, used 2019 budget for corona reasons).
The US also produces (and trades in, and refines, and goes to war for) oil
[deleted]
Pretty much all the cities in the US have high black populations. The white murder rate in the US is similar to Europe
That's a rather racist statistic
>Does Norway have open borders
Norway is part of the Schengen area, yeah
Norway is part of the Schengen area, yeah
You are welcome to try.[1]
[1] https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/person/foreign/you-must-notif...
[1] https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/person/foreign/you-must-notif...
The borders are open although you will have to go into quarantine on entry.
But broadly speaking you can't live permanently here unless you have a job here or are an EU or EEA citizen.
But broadly speaking you can't live permanently here unless you have a job here or are an EU or EEA citizen.
The Svalbard archipelago is governed by Norway, and does have very open borders.
From the article:
She warns that the positive development may turn once ...society reopens. (Because leaving an abusive relationship) is the setting in which most domestic murders take place.
A lot of people seem to not know this: Leaving an abusive situation is the most dangerous time. You are most likely to be killed when you try to leave.
Abusers don't think you have any rights. They don't think you deserve any respect. They see you as their personal property and it angers them for you to try to take that away from them.
Abusers trend towards feeling like "If I can't have you, no one can have you."
Edited to remove gendered language from the article quote, among other things.
She warns that the positive development may turn once ...society reopens. (Because leaving an abusive relationship) is the setting in which most domestic murders take place.
A lot of people seem to not know this: Leaving an abusive situation is the most dangerous time. You are most likely to be killed when you try to leave.
Abusers don't think you have any rights. They don't think you deserve any respect. They see you as their personal property and it angers them for you to try to take that away from them.
Abusers trend towards feeling like "If I can't have you, no one can have you."
Edited to remove gendered language from the article quote, among other things.
Here's been some focus on this here last few years. About one in four murders are committed by a partner or ex-partner. Many of them have been in contact with the police in advance. A committee was formed to look into this and come with preventative measures[1], which recently released their conclusions[2].
[1]: https://www.nrk.no/sorlandet/har-gjennomgatt-19-drap---i-dag...
[2]: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/5f3dc96de14f443f869...
[1]: https://www.nrk.no/sorlandet/har-gjennomgatt-19-drap---i-dag...
[2]: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/5f3dc96de14f443f869...
I do wonder about the suicide rate, with this in mind. (ie accepting stuck in some situation and ending it vs trying to get out and getting murdered in the process)
I have no idea. I posted the comment as a sort of PSA a la "forewarned is forearmed." If you want to successfully leave an abusive relationship, you need to be aware of the risks and plan accordingly.
[deleted]
Singapore has had one murder in 2021 (also ~5M live there) but has a per capita murder rate 1/3rd that of Norway.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SGP/singapore/murder-h...
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SGP/singapore/murder-h...
aldri for sent å snu
"never too late to turn around"
It's only March. What's that saying about counting chickens?
I think you are (intentionally?) missing the point. Find another country of similar size with no murders for the last 3 months.
Says in the article that Norway had on average, in previous years, 4 to 8 murders in the first three months of a year.
Not an expert here. But don't scanadevians generally have one of the lowest crime rates year over year?
I don't know why the article focuses so much on "the first X months." From 2010 through 2019, Norway had 298 victims of murder,[1] so 29.8 per year, or 2.5 per month, in average. Things usually "heat up" during the summer when more people are out and about.
[1] https://www.politiet.no/globalassets/04-aktuelt-tall-og-fakt..., excluding the 2011 terror attack.
[1] https://www.politiet.no/globalassets/04-aktuelt-tall-og-fakt..., excluding the 2011 terror attack.
Relevant Onion article, "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens":
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
The Onion has published the article 17 times:(
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
The Onion has published the article 17 times:(
Switzerland has 2 million privately owned guns per 8 million inhabitants, but AFAIK their murder rate is not stellar high.
Isn't that because of forced conscription and most vets keep their rifles? So presumably they have both significant training and vetting? Meanwhile in the US anyone over the age of 18 can walk into a gun show and walk out with a high powered rifle in under an hour. People always trot out this point about Switzerland but it's such a useless comparison and I think actively harms their argument rather than helps it.
FWIW I don’t think you normally refer to forced conscripts as “vets” unless they’ve actually been in combat.
Semantics... In the US at least anyone who's spent time as a soldier, in combat or not, is generally called a "Vet." The US Veterans Affairs office for example serves all former soldiers regardless of combat experience.
Not at all semantics. In the US any kind of military service implies a decent chance of being sent to war, that’s certainly not the case in Switzerland.
Conscription in Europe is more akin to a summer camp, you really can’t compare it to military service in the US.
Conscription in Europe is more akin to a summer camp, you really can’t compare it to military service in the US.
Well, I'd sure hate if I was walking out with a low-powered rifle--I'd feel like I hadn't got my money's worth if the bullets just sorta dripped out the end of the barrel.
So if they have forced conscription, where does the vetting come in? Do they exempt, not conscript, the people who look particularly killy? Or does it come during their short military service? "19 year old Private Hans, we think you might murder someone in 20 years, we're banning you from ever owning a gun hereafter."
If Switzerland has less murder, it's because people feel less inclined to murder there. Why that is may be up for debate, but I certainly don't think a couple years of conscripted service right out of high school plays a role--or else you'd never hear about American vets killing anyone.
So if they have forced conscription, where does the vetting come in? Do they exempt, not conscript, the people who look particularly killy? Or does it come during their short military service? "19 year old Private Hans, we think you might murder someone in 20 years, we're banning you from ever owning a gun hereafter."
If Switzerland has less murder, it's because people feel less inclined to murder there. Why that is may be up for debate, but I certainly don't think a couple years of conscripted service right out of high school plays a role--or else you'd never hear about American vets killing anyone.
>So if they have forced conscription, where does the vetting come in? Do they exempt, not conscript, the people who look particularly killy?
Presumably people with mental illness or certain criminal convictions are excluded?
>Why that is may be up for debate, but I certainly don't think a couple years of conscripted service right out of high school plays a role--or else you'd never hear about American vets killing anyone.
This is likely self selecting. If everyone in Switzerland serves then their average vet is essentially their average citizen, the murder rate for an Average American is probably low. The type of people who enlist in the US are not typically "average."
Presumably people with mental illness or certain criminal convictions are excluded?
>Why that is may be up for debate, but I certainly don't think a couple years of conscripted service right out of high school plays a role--or else you'd never hear about American vets killing anyone.
This is likely self selecting. If everyone in Switzerland serves then their average vet is essentially their average citizen, the murder rate for an Average American is probably low. The type of people who enlist in the US are not typically "average."
>[Anyone] can walk into a gun show and walk out with a high powered rifle in under an hour
I don't think people who believe this have ever actually been to a gun show. Anyone who commercially sells guns is required to have an federal firearms dealer's license (FFL), not having one will get you in big legal trouble with the ATF. If you have a table with 100s of guns for sale there is a 100% chance you are an FFL gun seller in which case you are required to do background checks on all gun purchases.
I don't think people who believe this have ever actually been to a gun show. Anyone who commercially sells guns is required to have an federal firearms dealer's license (FFL), not having one will get you in big legal trouble with the ATF. If you have a table with 100s of guns for sale there is a 100% chance you are an FFL gun seller in which case you are required to do background checks on all gun purchases.
I have been to many and there are always people who are unlicensed walking the show advertising that they want to trade or sell their gun. This is literally the "Gun Show Loophole"
Nobody wants to sell guns to bad people. This loophole wouldn't exist if the people that keep calling it a loophole would settle for a solution that can't be easily co-opted into a de-facto registry. Dropping the 4473 requirement and opening the NCIS check system to anyone is a potential compromise that gets thrown out often from the "it's not a loophole it's an exemption" side but it never goes anywhere.
> a solution that can't be easily co-opted into a de-facto registry.
Yeah it's called a background check.
Yeah it's called a background check.
I can't tell if you're just ignorant or being disingenuous.
When you buy a gun from an FFL they submit your ID (SSN, name, birth-date, etc) to the NCIS system that basically checks that you answered all the questions on the 4473 truthfully. Then the seller tells them what kind of gun you're buying (long gun vs handgun) and assuming it's all clear records the specific serial numbers on the 4473 which they then file and keep for 20+yr. So there exists a record of who every professionally manufactured gun was first sold to.
Of course nobody would tolerate being subject to those record keeping requirements for private sales. But nobody wants to get the pigs knocking on their door asking who they sold a gun they recovered from a crime scene to so people want to be able to call up the NCIS system (without being a federally licensed dealer, which is an onerous process) and confirm that whoever they're about to sell a gun to in a Walmart parking lot isn't a prohibited person.
Over the years there have been numerous proposals to open up the NCIS system. They've all included requirements about recording serial numbers and retaining records and are a comically bad deal for gun owners so of course it goes nowhere.
When you buy a gun from an FFL they submit your ID (SSN, name, birth-date, etc) to the NCIS system that basically checks that you answered all the questions on the 4473 truthfully. Then the seller tells them what kind of gun you're buying (long gun vs handgun) and assuming it's all clear records the specific serial numbers on the 4473 which they then file and keep for 20+yr. So there exists a record of who every professionally manufactured gun was first sold to.
Of course nobody would tolerate being subject to those record keeping requirements for private sales. But nobody wants to get the pigs knocking on their door asking who they sold a gun they recovered from a crime scene to so people want to be able to call up the NCIS system (without being a federally licensed dealer, which is an onerous process) and confirm that whoever they're about to sell a gun to in a Walmart parking lot isn't a prohibited person.
Over the years there have been numerous proposals to open up the NCIS system. They've all included requirements about recording serial numbers and retaining records and are a comically bad deal for gun owners so of course it goes nowhere.
>Of course nobody would tolerate being subject to those record keeping requirements for private sales. But nobody wants to get the pigs knocking on their door asking who they sold a gun they recovered from a crime scene to so people want to be able to call up the NCIS system
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you aren't comfortable selling a gun to a criminal or someone with a potentially dangerous mental illness you need to do a background check there's no alternative. Maybe for your specific gripe, which I don't find compelling, you disconnect the background check from the specific gun being sold but you still need to do it.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you aren't comfortable selling a gun to a criminal or someone with a potentially dangerous mental illness you need to do a background check there's no alternative. Maybe for your specific gripe, which I don't find compelling, you disconnect the background check from the specific gun being sold but you still need to do it.
You know how I know you've never worked with infantrymen, lol? A conscripted army by definition has lax standards of vetting and lesser standards of training (you're only holding on to your investment for a couple years). Russia has conscription (or recently did), it's not a strong indicator of anything. These are regular people. There's nothing magical about getting yelled at for 90 days that makes them less likely to solve problems with violence. People always trot out this point about military service but it's such a useless comparison and I think it actually harms their argument rather than helps it.
>You know how I know you've never worked with infantrymen, lol?
Irrelevant but ok.
>A conscripted army by definition has lax standards of vetting and lesser standards of training
In Switzerland: "People determined unfit for service, where fitness is defined as "satisfying physically, intellectually and psychological requirements for military service or civil protection service and being capable of accomplishing these services without harming oneself or others", are exempted from service but pay a 3% additional annual income tax until the age of 37, unless they are affected by a disability. Almost 20% of all conscripts were found unfit for military or civilian service in 2008; the rate is generally higher in urban cantons such as Zurich and Geneva than in the rural ones"
>There's nothing magical about getting yelled at for 90 days that makes them less likely to solve problems with violence
You really think average Joe who walks into walmart and walks out with a rifle is going to be as responsible a gun owner as someone with military training? Also Basic in Switzerland is ~140 days for reference...
Irrelevant but ok.
>A conscripted army by definition has lax standards of vetting and lesser standards of training
In Switzerland: "People determined unfit for service, where fitness is defined as "satisfying physically, intellectually and psychological requirements for military service or civil protection service and being capable of accomplishing these services without harming oneself or others", are exempted from service but pay a 3% additional annual income tax until the age of 37, unless they are affected by a disability. Almost 20% of all conscripts were found unfit for military or civilian service in 2008; the rate is generally higher in urban cantons such as Zurich and Geneva than in the rural ones"
>There's nothing magical about getting yelled at for 90 days that makes them less likely to solve problems with violence
You really think average Joe who walks into walmart and walks out with a rifle is going to be as responsible a gun owner as someone with military training? Also Basic in Switzerland is ~140 days for reference...
At least in Finland people aren’t really vetted. The “determined unfit for service” thing is more of an opt-out, nobody will force it upon you unless you’re obviously disabled. You have to go to the doctor and ask to be deemed unfit, you’d have to do something crazy to have that forced upon you against your will.
I don’t think Swiss is any different.
I don’t think Swiss is any different.
>I don’t think Swiss is any different.
I literally posted a quote saying 20% of conscripts are rejected as unfit... But this is all way outside the original point I was making anyway.
I literally posted a quote saying 20% of conscripts are rejected as unfit... But this is all way outside the original point I was making anyway.
You mean 20% of conscripts choose to opt out because they don’t want to spend a year of their life in the military? :)
>> getting yelled at for 90 days that makes them less likely to solve problems with violence.
Which movie is that from? I dont remember ever being yelled at during basic. Our "staff" never felt the need to raise thier voices. If you are infantry you know to be most afraid when the training staff say nothing.
Which movie is that from? I dont remember ever being yelled at during basic. Our "staff" never felt the need to raise thier voices. If you are infantry you know to be most afraid when the training staff say nothing.
It's just a trope. Drill instructors mostly yell so there's no chance the guy at the back didn't hear them and to instill the appropriate urgency. Maybe if you screw up enough you'll get the 6" away forehead vein popping out type yelling. I wasn't describing the literal experience of boot camp. It I wanted to do that I would have said "getting rained on while jogging for 90 days".
Drill instructors shout. They never yell. They are generally some of the most calm and level-headed people i have working for me. Spend 90 days days surrounded by armed teenagers operating on little sleep and you too will be slow to anger.
Shouting vs yelling seems like a distinction without a difference or at least without a difference that's greater than the noise floor of the english language.
Does it have to do with proper gun control or better access to mental health services?
The Swiss own guns for opposite reasons that Americans do.
They own them because they trust their government or if that's too strong of a word, they are content with their ability to defend Switzerland for the government. Instead of defending themselves from the government. (But that sentiment exists too)
They own them because they trust their government or if that's too strong of a word, they are content with their ability to defend Switzerland for the government. Instead of defending themselves from the government. (But that sentiment exists too)
And you're saying that because Americans want to defend themselves from the government, that's why Americans kill each other so much? I don't see "Swiss trust their government" as a solid reason for their lower murder rate.
It's not the complete story, I'm not going to write a dissertation here. Just was aiming to show one stark contrast to show how broad the gun ownership reasoning can be, outside of American reasons.
The defense against government makes guns commonplace, availible for use in other types of violence. The link is more practical than ideological.
But this is all in the context of Switzerland, where guns are also commonplace and therefore available for use in other types of violence.
Swiss guns stay at home as items for use in extrodinary circumstances. US culture sees guns as personal defense items to be carried during daily activities. So, in practice, they are much more availible for use.
And, to be more specific, gun-ownership culture in Switzerland has nothing to do with the idea of personal self-defence as it does in the USA. Rather, it is related to hunting and target-shooting sports.
The majority of long guns in the US are pretty likely bought for hunting. There's a pretty loud home defense community, but it isn't that big.
And of course most pistols are not purchased for hunting.
And of course most pistols are not purchased for hunting.
US gun culture isnt just about defending one's self from the government. It gets darker than that. It is about retaining the ability to aggressively destroy and replace that government. Many gun nuts really do believe in revolution. Luckily they remain a minority, but they are out there.
Our murder rate isn't high because legal gun owners are out killing people. It's all gang-related.
So to answer your question: none of the above. It's demographics.
So to answer your question: none of the above. It's demographics.
The majority of these prominent mass shootings we've seen so far have been using legal guns.
mass shootings are a very small fraction of gun homicides that receive disproportionate coverage. if mass shootings stopped overnight, you would barely notice a change in the US homicide rate.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
There's a lot of unrecorded relationships, but family and intimate partners make up a pretty big chunk of the homicides in the US.
There's a lot of unrecorded relationships, but family and intimate partners make up a pretty big chunk of the homicides in the US.
That's a funny way of noting that Acquaintance, Stranger and Unknown make up nearly 80% of the homicides.
20% is more accurately described as 'big chunk' than any argument you can make for 'all gang related'.
I think there are different reasons:
- Mandatory military service makes people know how to use guns
- People have mandatory health insurance and social security, means there is no need to shoot people for money
- Less racist police, means minorities dont solve problems by themselves with violence
- high minimum wage, so nobody has to starve
- Gun owners do not use guns to defend against burglars, so burglars also dont have to use guns
- Proper handling of drug addiction (including addicts)
- better mental health because of mandatory holidays, parental leaves, and a lot of chocolate
- Prostitution is legal, so no pimping
- Mandatory military service makes people know how to use guns
- People have mandatory health insurance and social security, means there is no need to shoot people for money
- Less racist police, means minorities dont solve problems by themselves with violence
- high minimum wage, so nobody has to starve
- Gun owners do not use guns to defend against burglars, so burglars also dont have to use guns
- Proper handling of drug addiction (including addicts)
- better mental health because of mandatory holidays, parental leaves, and a lot of chocolate
- Prostitution is legal, so no pimping
> People have mandatory health insurance and social security, means there is no need to shoot people for money
Even European countries with a decent social safety net still have some drug addicts (mainly heroin) who are desperate for money to buy that expensive drug and will engage in petty crime to do so, e.g. pickpocketing, mugging, bicycle theft, theft of copper wiring, etc. (And yes, some states provide assistive infrastructure for addicts, but there are still demographics that avoid it and continue their addict to street drugs.) The fact that there is almost no shooting going on has more to do with legal and/or cultural pressures on guns than the existence of a welfare state making life OK for everyone.
Even European countries with a decent social safety net still have some drug addicts (mainly heroin) who are desperate for money to buy that expensive drug and will engage in petty crime to do so, e.g. pickpocketing, mugging, bicycle theft, theft of copper wiring, etc. (And yes, some states provide assistive infrastructure for addicts, but there are still demographics that avoid it and continue their addict to street drugs.) The fact that there is almost no shooting going on has more to do with legal and/or cultural pressures on guns than the existence of a welfare state making life OK for everyone.
There are few legal restrictions to buy a gun here. Fill out a form, send it to the police, they mail you the license, go buy some AK's.
Petty crime yes, mostly bicycle theft, and some mugging
Petty crime yes, mostly bicycle theft, and some mugging
milkrocks(3)
That's only half the rate in the US (and going down), and Switzerland also has mandatory military service, strict vetting, and gun registries. Bringing in additional data points without important context tends to muddy rather than clarify difficult issues.
Canada too has many guns and a lower murder rate than the US. The difference is that in canada and norway people dont generally carry guns during non-gun activities. When people get angry their gun isnt on thier hip but back home in a safe. in the US, a handgun in a glovebox or purse "for personal defense" is a cultural norm.
Amazing what can happen in a mono-ethnic society
‘That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either’
What do you mean by this comment?
When I see something like this, I'm always curious of the details on demographics, population density, economics, and the other data to know what's going on.
For example, the population density is 14.0/km2 (36.3/sq mi) and their ethnicity is primary Norwegian with a large part of the immigrants from other European countries.
This is very different from most places in the US. For density you'd need to look at Utah or Kansas. These two states have more ethnic diversity than Norway, it appears.
Note, I only point people to the data so we can try to start to look at why we have cases like Norway. And, this is only a start and the easy data to pull from Wikipedia. It's not meant to paint the reason for or picture.
For example, the population density is 14.0/km2 (36.3/sq mi) and their ethnicity is primary Norwegian with a large part of the immigrants from other European countries.
This is very different from most places in the US. For density you'd need to look at Utah or Kansas. These two states have more ethnic diversity than Norway, it appears.
Note, I only point people to the data so we can try to start to look at why we have cases like Norway. And, this is only a start and the easy data to pull from Wikipedia. It's not meant to paint the reason for or picture.
Norway also has zero Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants
(Note, I only point people to the data so we can try to start to look at why we have cases like Norway)
edit: to defuse the snark in my reply as it's not fitting for a HN debate - presenting cherry picked data points and saying "I'm just presenting the data" is still making an argument just through which data you have chosen. Not explicitly stating your argument just makes it weaker.
(Note, I only point people to the data so we can try to start to look at why we have cases like Norway)
edit: to defuse the snark in my reply as it's not fitting for a HN debate - presenting cherry picked data points and saying "I'm just presenting the data" is still making an argument just through which data you have chosen. Not explicitly stating your argument just makes it weaker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Norwegian_law)
I am suprised to see that Norway's definiton is actually very broad, encompassing some killings that common law nations would not call murder (negligence). I do, now, appreciate that Norwegian law draws lines between intentional murder and planned murder. Common law (british) stops at intention, planning being irrelevant as you would generally be hanged either way. There has to be a historical basis for Norway's approach. Viking law?