POLL: Why is the murder rate in the United States almost 5 times that of the United Kingdom?
What is the primary reason the murder rate in the United States is almost 5 times that of the United Kingdom?
Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/3848/the-us-murder-rate-compared-to-other-countries/
Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/3848/the-us-murder-rate-compared-to-other-countries/
Comments (131)
I have no idea of the answer
Also, is the murder rate uniform over the US? It's a humongous country.
Quoting RolandTyme
The murder rate in Canada is only slightly higher than in the United Kingdom.
Quoting RolandTyme
San Diego, El Paso, San Jose, Austin, Virginia Beach, and New York City don't have a significantly higher murder rate than London (the highest of these, New York, has almost double that of London). But Detroit, and New Orleans, have about 22 times the murder rate of London, and Baltimore 31.
Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/london-murder-rate_uk_5d05f0b8e4b0dc17ef0b1f25
Gang activity and access to guns, it's not just the US, all high countries with high homicide rates have these two problems. Unless there's civil unrest like in Iraq or South Africa.
The question then is why is the murder rate where I reside is as low as Sweden's, but not too far from me, it's very different, despite the fact that we live in the same country under the same laws? I'm not the first to point out that there are two Americas, but it's probably like 5 or 6 or maybe more.
Don't misread anything I've said here to be some fucked up comment about violence being caused by race. It's not. My comments relate to class and the causes of the classist system.
Quoting tim wood
You don't think the difference in distribution of wealth significantly contributes to the difference in murder rates?
Quoting Hanover
The gun laws are the same, or essentially the same, throughout the United States?
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
I assume Detroit, New Orleans and Baltimore are some of the poorest areas in the United States?
If so, I am tempted to say the stark difference in murder rate is largely due to wealth inequality.
They are essentially the same throughout, some with more stringent rules than others, but all limited by the same Constitution as to how they may be regulated.. In my comment, though, I wasn't even leaving my specific jurisdiction. The murder rate among those I associate with (or have associated with) is zero. There are those within my state and my county that have had drastically different experiences though. I really can't recall seeing anyone openly carrying a firearm in a public place ever (other than a police officer). I do know that in certain more rural communities that may occur, but not so much around me.
And it's not that I live in walled community or among the rich and famous. I live in middle class suburban Atlanta.
Has nothing to do with gun laws, guns are inanimate. Gun wielders kill people, and specifically gun wielders with the premeditated idea of either killing people, or the potential of killing people, with very few exceptions. Abuse, ostracism, drug addiction, gang participation, poverty, and the mentality distinguished by regarding other humans as subjects without rights is what is leading to murder, not guns. Murderers are using many different means by which to murder. That's because they're murderers, they don't care about laws, or obtaining weapons legally.
Quoting RolandTyme
The homicide rate is not at all uniform in 2017, varying from Louisiana, with 653 homicides--a rate of 12.4 per 100,000, to New Hampshire, with 17 homicides for a rate of 1 per 100,000. Very crudely, the SE quarter of the US has much higher homicide rates than the NW quarter of the US.
Most, but not all, murders are committed with guns, but knives and blunt objects are also effective methods.
It may surprise some, but a majority of Americans do not own guns.
Fewer people own more guns, and far fewer use them to kill people. In 2020 there were 20,480 homicides in the US--a solid effort, one has to say, but in decades past the the rate of murder was higher--another sign of declining US productivity. People in Chicago, though, know how to get things done. In 2021 there were 849 homicides (any method). Chicago has a great web site for tracking murder and assault -- HEY JACKASS!. Sadly, other cities lack this one service.
lol
Why not look at attempted murder rates? I'm sure all countries are more or less the same on that score. Access to lethal weapons means the fatality rates are higher, exactly what the data in the OP reflects.
Quoting Hanover
I'd say - the stats for Atlanta show 20.2 murders per 100,000 people (more than 12 times that of London). Guns were used in 82% of the homicides.
Quoting Hanover
Not schmoozing with The Real Housewives of Atlanta? Even we on the other side of the Atlantic watch them. :lol:
And yet no one I know has ever known a person who was murdered, much less who was shot. What do you make of that? 55 years in this crime ridden city, and never even been pickpocketed.
Quoting Agent Smith
Good idea. I might struggle to find the figures, but worth a go.
Quoting Bitter Crank
On the contrary, 40% of households with guns is surprisingly high to me. From American movies, I would guess guns are rampant in the South, but uncommon in California and middle class area.
I tend to doubt that "wealth distribution" has anything to do with it. Not all poor people are murderers, are they?
I suspect culture may be a more important factor. For example, in some Muslim countries, there is a tradition of "honor killings". It's just like in street-gang culture, if someone "disrespects" you, then you shoot, stab, or acid them in order to restore your "respect" or "honor". And in some cases the wealthy are more violent than the poor because they tend to be more likely to get away with it.
I would also guess that, in general, Americans tend to be more prone to acting on impulse or emotion than the British. This tendency seems to increase on a geographic scale from north (say, Canada) to south (Central and South America).
And the same tends to apply to Europe. North Europeans, e.g. Scandinavians, tend to be less impulsive and emotional than South Europeans, e.g. Spaniards or Italians.
Possession of guns may or may not induce people to use them, but I think you would need to have the cultural and psychological predisposition before you pick up a gun or some other weapon.
:fire:
:up:
The larger problem is handguns, which are very portable and pretty much concealable. You can even buy plastic guns over the internet which are not picked up on metal scanners.
My view is that there are far too many guns of all kinds in the USA. However, they are here now -- at least 1 per person, averaging out the total supply, and there isn't any acceptable way to round them up. While I loathe the slogan, it is true that guns don't kill people ON THEIR OWN--people do. Most people who own guns do not shoot other people. They could, but they don't. That fact doesn't make me feel better, but it a good idea to keep it in mind.
55% of households in Mississippi own guns, 28% of California households own guns. The state I live in, Minnesota, has a gun rate of 42% and a low rates of gun violence.
Most of the shooters and victims of gun violence are decidedly NOT middle class.
Compare Chicago's or New Orleans murder rate to other cities or places.
...or a place with a Narco-War like Mexico:
Quoting Hanover
I'm guessing you're in one of the safest areas on Atlanta's crime map?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/crime-maps-aws.neighborhoodscout.com/atlanta-ga-crime-map.png
Quoting Bitter Crank
What do you think outlawing guns (like the UK does) would do to the US murder rate?
The likelihood of the US Congress and 38 states approving a constitutional amendment repealing the Second Amendment and banning gun possession is zero, or close to it. Even if this were done, there are so many guns already in possession (by about 1/3 of the adult population) gun violence would remain a problem.
If gun and ammunition manufacture and sale were ended, it would take time for the existing supplies of ammunition to be used up. Some of those bullets would be used to kill people intentionally. Eventually, gun violence would decline; it might take quite a while.
Now, let me point out again -- as anti-hand gun and anti-assault weapons as I am -- a very small percent of gun owners shoot people. Those who do shoot other people almost always use hand guns. [Of course, mass murders with rifles or assault weapons are an egregious exception.] A large share of hand gun deaths are among young minority males, generally in urban areas, who often are at least relatively poor, may be involved in the drug trade, and may be involved in gangs.
So, the problem of gratuitous violence also requires changes in the urban environment (economically, socially, educationally, medically, and so on).
One can kill other people with devices besides guns. A large rock will work if nothing else is available. A highly motivated individual can do it with his bare hands.
I think actually the only statistic that is easy to point out to be a direct and obvious consequence of the huge amount of weapons among people are the gun accident statistics. Not surprisingly, the US leads the charts by all accounts in gun related accidents. So many people that anywhere else wouldn't have a gun and aren't at all interested in guns have guns that are loaded in their drawer. And above all, the gun is intended for protection if someone invades the home, not for hunting. The fact is that the small handgun is far more dangerous and accident prone than a rifle or a machine gun: you don't easily accidental point at yourself or another person a machine gun (if you had one).
More guns generally means more gun deaths in US states, but murder rates are highest in urban areas with more significant gun control. The correlation between homicides and guns for US states is very weak. Internationally, it can show up as negative fairly often because guns are expensive and poorer countries have more homicides.
Notably, some areas of the US have low homicide rates in line with Europe and high gun ownership (Vermont or North Dakota for example have firearms in 48/56% of homes respectively and a handful of murders a year out of populations a decent bit larger than Baltimore, Baltimore had 315 murders last year and a murder rate on par with the worst Central American states), so it's a complex relationship.
What do you think outlawing guns (like the UK does) would do to the US murder rate?
— Down The Rabbit Hole
I think the murder rate would go down. However, if I was not allowed to own a gun, I think my personal chances of being murdered by a bear or a person increases. So outlawing gun possession is not a solution for me. I would prefer a questionnaire requirement to own a gun with at least one question: "Do you want to buy this gun to shoot some people who disagree with your beliefs?" If someone is crazy enough to answer yes to that question, they should not own a gun.
A bear might kill you, but it would not be murder. The idea that owning a gun makes you safer is completely false, as the number of crimes or assaults prevented by use of a licensed firearm is dwarfed by the numbers of suicides, murders and other criminal acts committed with guns. See https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
Quoting Ree Zen
Here's what you have to do to own a gun in Japan:
1. Join a hunting or shooting club.
2. Take a firearm class and pass a written exam, which is held up to three times a year.
3. Get a doctor’s note saying you are mentally fit and do not have a history of drug abuse.
4. Apply for a permit to take firing training, which may take up to a month.
5. Describe in a police interview why you need a gun.
6. Pass a review of your criminal history, gun possession record, employment, involvement with organized crime groups, personal debt and relationships with friends, family and neighbors.
7. Apply for a gunpowder permit.
8. Take a one-day training class and pass a firing test.
9. Obtain a certificate from a gun dealer describing the gun you want.
10. Buy a gun safe and an ammunition locker that meet safety regulations.
11. Allow the police to inspect your gun storage.
12. Pass an additional background review.
13. Buy a gun.
Total Number of Gun Deaths Japan
2018: 9
2017: 23
2016: 25
2015: 20
Source: https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/japan
Because the US is a democracy, duh.
This made me laugh...
But then with you, it's possible you are serious.
If memory serves, I heard that a background check must be done when buying in any state, and you cannot buy if you are a felon, domestic abuser, or mentally unstable? I guess this is what's called a federal law - it cannot be ignored by the states?
It's not that the relationship is complex. When you factor in black-market drug association, criminal history, cultural influence, mental illness, relationship issues, and accidents the "complex relationship" concept breaks down entirely. More guns and access to them does not correlate to gun deaths in any way that is significant. What positively correlates to gun deaths is all the reasons WHY humans choose to kill people and commit crimes with them. This has always been that simple.
Gun quantity by state: https://www.statista.com/statistics/215655/number-of-registered-weapons-in-the-us-by-state/#:~:text=Texas%20was%20the%20state%20with,least%2C%20with%204%2C887%20registered%20firearms.
Gun deaths by state, adjustable by year:https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
There is no correlation.
It's just that there a whole lot of gun related deaths in fairly small pockets, so dividing by counties, city limits, ZIP codes, or whatever arbitrary method is only going to reveal statistics for the generalized area, but residents of those communities are aware of the actual areas where those crimes are occurring.
In terms of correlating gun ownership to murder, I don't know if the data will bear that out because of the large gun ownership in more rural communities where the murder rate is low. That is, you won't necessarily see murder increase where gun ownership increases. It's an obvious statement to say that if we eliminate guns, we'll eliminate gun related deaths, but it doesn't necessarily follow that if we reduce gun ownership, we'll reduce gun related deaths. There are and always will be plenty of guns to go around for those intent on murdering. Stricter gun laws are a feel good way of addressing the problem, and it serves also for the left to piss off the right, but, as a matter of effective policy, it's not terribly effective.
I don't know. It's fairly common (in an emergency department) to see gun crime that started as a dispute and then escalated.
Without the ridiculously easy access to firearms, those crimes wouldn't be so bad.
Would it eliminate gun crime altogether? No. Would it save lives (including the lives of so many poor kids who were unlucky enough to have a gun in there hands when they were angry?). Yes.
This seems like reason, and an many occurences you're right. But, frankly, the correlation between access and crimes is simply not there by and large. I posted some data in an above post if you want to have a look. For example California has consistently had greater gun crime than Texas. Texas.. That's just one comparison of many. It really boils down to individual incentive, just like everything else.
I agree there are factors other than availability, like gang activity. Intuitively, it just doesn't seem likely that availability is of no importance, though.
But by 'availability' I meant how easy it is to get one, not how many are owned.
It's easier for a criminal to steal a gun, than it is for me, a non-criminal to gain one. I must save the money through labor, then go through the proper channels of back groundchecks. This happens to be why I haven't been able to get one in the past few years. It isn't easy to get one. It's easy to break the laws, that criminals do not care about, to obtain one.
Sure. As I said, there is gun crime that just started as a regular old disputes. There weren't necessarily any criminals involved.
The existence of criminal activity is no reason to withhold efforts to help there.
Yeah, I'm with you 100%.
:grin: :up:
Guns laws? I want to say as the lunatic gun advocates do that people kill people, not guns. True enough. Put a gun in my hand and I tremble at the possibility. But then, gun prevalence and living in a culture of violence glorified in the media, this is a self fulfilling prophesy of sorts: Makes people into "gun believers", familiarizes the culture with guns and violence, and if one is brought up in this visceral assault on our humanity, then...well, "then" is the trouble.
Maybe there is an old Testament God and maybe the time nears to build that ark.
In truth I think something simply like a turf war of organized crime (or the lack of it being organized) or competition for the lucrative drug trade can be the real reason for the statistics.
1957 Broadway Lyrics West Side Story. 1957 was nothing special in the history of gangs, of course. The 5 Points gangs in 19th century New York were bad news. Then there are the clans of Scotland, who were bloodthirsty gangs, designer plaids notwithstanding. Then the IRA, Sinn FĂ©in, Royal Ulster Constabulary, the whole slug of Windsors, the KKK, KGB, CIA, etc.etc. etc.
RIFF
When you're a Jet,
You're a Jet all the way
From your first cigarette
To your last dyin' day.
When you're a Jet,
If the spit hits the fan,
You got brothers around,
You're a family man.
You're never alone,
You're never disconnected.
You're home with your own—
When company's expected,
You're well protected!
The Jets and Sharks didn't seem to be engaged in anything illegal, just brotherhood and turf-holding. And that produced reason enough to fight with knives and chains. Guns hadn't become de rigueur yet.
I think you're correct. Outside of gang members, there are also a large number of gang adjacent individuals who feel they can't trust/rely on police, and get dragged into the same sort of honor culture reciprocal violence. These organizations produce a shockingly high level of violence in Central America even with a much lower supply of fire arms per capita as well.
The hope is that the flare up in violence is actually a sign of gang's economic fundementals collapsing. Marijuana is legal for a large portion of the US population. Milder research chemicals, normally analogues of THC, as well as low potency drugs like kratom are sold over the counter at gas stations. Research analogs of all sorts of drugs from amphetamines, to benzodiazapines, to LSD are on regular sites. All sorts of illegal drugs can be easily procured through the mail via Tor sites, using cryptocurrency as a medium. Pornography, a substitute for prostitute, is hosted for free by hordes of opportunists. This is killing the cartels and gangs.
In a way, it's sort of a natural experiment showing how dumb prohibition was, as not only does this result in less violence, but it also allows people to have illicit substances lab tested for purity, something you still have to worry about with US pharmacueticals since the FDA allows a huge average variance in quality.
The quasi-conspiracy theory I'm going to lay on you is that gangs are part of a situation that was intentionally fostered: they built projects for black people to live in, allowed those communities to be inundated by drugs (there's more credibility to that than I would have thought : the FBI looked into it.). And refusing to do gun control not only reduces the population of black men, but makes sure a lot of them end up behind bars. For real, black men have the highest mortality rate in the US demographically.
I'm not saying it is all orchestrated. I'm saying the way choices are made is partly influenced by an interest in undermining progress for blacks. Maybe it's a leftover from the late 1960s?
I think that is way too optimistic to think so. In truth only a rise in the economic prosperity and a functioning local economy in the society will dramatically alter crime. Then only those who genuinely want to be criminals are criminals.
Quoting frank
I genuinely think that drugs are a way to control the masses in the US as vodka has been a way to control the Russians. Only two Russian leaders have tried to take the vodka-bottle out of the hands of the Russian people. Both events lead to the collapse of the state (the leaders were Nikolai II and Gorbachev). It's not a deliberate written policy you will find somewhere. It's just a thing that leaders are happy with, because it makes any organizing of a social movement difficult.
Without all the description drugs, and the "undescribed" drugs you too would have a revolution.
And don't get your hopes on it being a revolution that you would want to see, @Frank.
It is a quasi-conspiracy.
Yes, they did build projects for black people to live in, and the initial experience of the residents was good. There was a flaw, however: too many families, too many children. Little children don't join gangs. When they get to be teen-agers, they do. The housing projects didn't spawn gangs, but they were infiltrated by nearby gangs who sold drugs, fought turf battles, and gradually turned the projects into a social disaster for the residents.
Was this inevitable?
No, but preventing this unfortunate outcome (which some cities, like New York, managed to prevent) required good advance planning and proactive policing and maintenance. Cities like Chicago failed.
The gangs proceeded the housing.
Gun manufacture is, of course, a perfectly legitimate capitalist activity. Gang members might buy some guns brand-new at gun shops, but are much more likely to acquire guns from a shadowy secondary market. Gang members are usually not gun nuts; quite often they use cheap hand guns, not the items that gun nuts desire. (I'm extrapolating here, sort of guessing.).
Adolescent male gang members behave like your typical adolescent male whose emotional control is not well developed. They are a touchy lot, kind of tetchy at times. Upset them and a spray of bullts is the result. Then too, gangs have a habit of more cooly settling scores with guns. But, as bad luck would have it, they aren't marksmen so there is quite often collateral damage.
The conspiracy isn't public housing, drugs, or guns. The "conspiracy" -- if you can call it that -- is 155 years worth of post-slavery economic, political, and social suppression of blacks. The substructure and superstructure of racial suppression has been reduced, but it hasn't been torn down the way the old housing projects have been. Groups subjected to ongoing suppression and marginalization tend not to do well. Some individuals escape, do OK, maybe flourish and excel, but a most don't.
All that is not critical race theory, that's just conventional history. If the Brooklyn Bridge was a conspiracy, most Brooklynites and New Yorkers played no part in it, even if they benefitted from its construction. Same thing with racial suppression. Most whites were not part of the conspiracy, even if they were OK with the results.
But of course, gun laws, lack of social welfare, immigration on an uncomtrolled scale, drugs do not help.
The cure - the fair race as the vision. The ruthless meritocracy with comfortability strictly doled out according to personal merit. And no fast lanes from birth. No mommies asking offspring what they want to do with life. All in the same race and all work office/factory/hospital hours until same age retirement. If you want to talk justice, are you ready to walk that walk? Crime would be pretty hard to commit in a community like that, wouldnt it?
Partly it's also about poverty being this vicious cycle: poverty creates poverty. If some region is poor, it likely will stay poor. Active entrepreneurial people will move to bigger places where there are jobs and it's the old and the poor with not much to offer that will stay. The smart investments will likely go somewhere else. For this to happen you don't need racial or ethnic differences or divides. You being from the poor neighborhood can be a stigma. That city dwellers look down on the country folk and the countryside dweller being suspicious about the city slickers is actually quite universal. When you add ethnicity and race to mix, the issues just become more ugly.
So, a lot of white people ended up at the bottom too, as per your description, When groups that could be identified (like Asians, Mexicans, effeminate swishy gays, blacks, etc.) they also were subjected to policy limitations, plus the processes you describe.
I don't think you can reduce it all to the economy either. The correlation between economic growth and income and violence is also very weak. It can show up as stronger in the US, but only if you restrict your dataset to urban areas. There are many poor areas with low crime (often rural areas) and wealthier areas high crime (often suburban exclaves).
Some of the US's poorest counties have violent crime rates below the national average. Many aren't their own reporting units due to low population, so you'll see websites that list them as high crime based on demographic projection models, but these models turn out to be way off. These a large gaps, less than $25,009 average incomes vs $75,000.
The same thing is even more apparent internationally, particularly comparing poor nations in East Asia to Central America.
Income inequality is a much better predictor of violent crime. Which suggests to me that it is more of a social relationship factor. It's less about absolute privation and more about how people see themselves. Hence, you can have the Amish, who don't have heat, refrigeration, K-12 education, or modern tools, who beat the average on crime, farm productivity, debt, small business success, etc. and even out earn the average for surrounding communities in some cases.
I was only referring to poverty. Now crime is different and complex. Starting from having effective institutions like the justice system and a working and among the people an accepted police force. Huge income inequality and lack of social cohesion helps crime. I've always said to Finns that Finland would be like Mexico, if no criminals would be jailed and they could do whatever they want. Mexico is a perfect example when organized crime just can go rampant and integrates into the legal system and security forces. Basically if something happens to you in Mexico, stay away from the police.
Basically it just takes a few criminals and everybody loses the notion of safety. In Mexico over 90% of the homicides go unsolved. In Finland they make books and television series of the unsolved murder cases. Which there are in a hundred years like 10 or so. There has been a huge scandal here when a drug police chief had been too friendly with the local criminals.
Same with tobacco, same with sugar, same with fossil fuels, same with opioids, same with hundreds of other examples. When you live in a socioeconomic system that chooses to value money and property over everything else, these issues are mere symptoms.
God Damn It, I love how true this is. They come try and get some, if they wish.
Profits are what benefits people, specifically people willing to produce for their own benefit. Meaning, there is no distinction between people, and the pursuit of profits in function, and also nothing wrong with profit. The lobbying you mention would not be possible if law makers, who are representatives of the monopoly on force that is actually the core "of this rot," wern't there to be bought from rich people seeking to avoid competition through government protections against said competition.
Quoting Xtrix
Money and property is the recognition of individual value. They are the representation of respect for the Human Consciousness to pursue its own homeostasis, and being successful in doing so. If I open a bar, and people come to my bar, get wasted, attempt to drive home, and are killed in a car crash, that is clearly their fault, as I was simply providing a service for profit and had no involvement in such irresponsible actions. If, however, I can simply purchase representatives of the state to avoid any accountability for problems that I did, in fact, cause, then there's an issue with profit seeking, you see? In which case, who exactly is doing the most consequential amount of valuing profit over people? This type of phenomena, in all of its varied permutations, is actually what the problem is. Kind of like with slavery. It wasn't the fact that ignorant dipshits thought it was justified for so long, reason could have covered that, it was the fact that it was instantiated and protected by the state. Nothing has changed about the nature of things. You're about to get a front row seat to an example of what I mean in Ukraine here soon, so you'll see what I'm getting at.
A small minority of people, yes. The environment and the rest of the population -- not so much.
Quoting Garrett Travers
There is a very clear distinction between people and the concept of profits. I don't know what the above sentence is supposed to mean.
There is something wrong with profit when profit gets prioritized over human well being, yes. As we see over and over again, with the examples I mentioned.
Quoting Garrett Travers
That's one part of the story, yes. We can blame the weak-willed bride-takers. We can also blame those who bribe. You seem much more reluctant to do the latter.
Blaming the government in every instance is, as I've talked with you about before, too simplistic. It's an incomplete analysis. But one with an important function: to divert attention from the decisions of private power.
There is also no evidence whatsoever that market "competition" will solve any issue, let alone all issues (as is often claimed). Market efficiency, in my view, is a myth -- much like free markets.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Money and property have nothing to do with a human being's value.
But even if it were true, the ranking of money and property over everything else, as mentioned above, is leading, and will continue to lead, to massive destruction.
There's a social world outside of the self.
No, all people who have things are benefitted by profit. There are no exceptions.
Quoting Xtrix
No, there isn't. You and all other humans are almost exclusively dominated by a desire for homeostasis, you are a functionally profit-seeking being. What is evil about profit, the only thing at all, is profit at the expense of other people, not profit before. The only institution in history to ever allow such a thing long-term is the state.
Quoting Xtrix
Those who take the bribe are the state, the people I was specifically criticising. They're the one's with all of the power, and it is the power that institutionalizes this behavior, and perpetuates it. Not the people tempted to offer the bribe because of some perception of fear. It is the responsibility of the person withthe most influence over everybody, the law maker, to not institutionalize evil, which has never happened in the history of mankind.
Quoting Xtrix
There is no private power, there is only state institutionalized power. However, I would like to highlight that I hate evil of all kind, including private owners enlisting the aid of such evil. They are in fact both involved, one simply has more of a responsibility than another. Moral societies are completely stateless and no such thing occurs in them. But, those have long since been murdered out of history by the Roman Catholic church.
Quoting Xtrix
It depends on the issue. If it is a market contained issue, yes, it most certainly will solve itself in the form of reorientation toward customer service, and employee happiness. But, that's in markets that don't exist. Nothing can or will save this evil that has poisoned capitalism now.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes they do. It is specifically the human's individual values that are pursued to obtain securities from other people. You show me your money, I can show you what you value. If you value only money, I can see that too, and such is not ethical, I think we can agree there. That kind of life will lead to no value, as value in security beyond what is necessary is not fulfilling if it is not paired with a productive value one loves, such as philosophy.
Quoting Xtrix
You've got this disjointed. The money in my bank account in no way relates to anyone else. It relates to me. I value what I do to achieve it, and what it does for my life, and the values it allows me to pursue, other people are not even a part of the equation in any other way than staying out of their way to allow them to do the same. Valuing money is not what is leading to destruction, valuing destruction is, and using money as a means to do so. You'll see in time. Keep your eyes focused on the East, the beast is coming.
Homeostasis, a desire for food, etc., has nothing to do with profit. Nothing. If you want to define profit in some other way, you're welcome to.
Quoting Garrett Travers
A small minority benefit from profit. The rest get scraps.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I don't let those who bribe others off the hook. Again, you're welcome to.
Quoting Garrett Travers
There is private power, and it's unaccountable. State power is accountable to the people, in principle. In corporations, there isn't a vote for CEO among the employees. They're private tyrannies. We can find a way to blame the state for the decisions of private power, but again -- simplistic, incomplete analysis.
Quoting Garrett Travers
It does.
Because there's a world outside the self.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I doubt very much that the CEOs of Chavron or Exxon "value destruction." They're helping to destroy he environment, yes -- but that's not because they value destroying it. Their destroying it is a consequence of short-term thinking, spurred on by a system that demands greater share prices each quarter.
That's not homeostasis.
Quoting Xtrix
Scraps are profit. And perhaps they should try harder and live more virtuously.
Quoting Xtrix
No, just their masters.
Quoting Xtrix
But in actuality is the greatest murder of the human in history.
Quoting Xtrix
It doesn't, and I don't care about the world outside in terms of other people.
Quoting Xtrix
I can't hear your words over their actions.
I didn't once offer a definition, so this statement is meaningless.
Quoting Garrett Travers
:lol:
Quoting Garrett Travers
The people being bribed are the "masters"?
You're derailing.
Quoting Garrett Travers
According to a simplistic dogma that blames any and all problems on governments.
Quoting Garrett Travers
It does, and we're all well aware that you don't care about other people -- but thank you for clarifying.
Yes, you used words to describe something that wasn't homeostasis.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, that's why their crawling to them to purchase services only they can provide. Like puppies chasing after their master that will feed them.
Quoting Xtrix
Name one government in history that sits outside this paradigm, and you still won't even be close to how dogmatic it is to defend such an organization of killers.
Quoting Xtrix
Again, people who defend the world's premier murderers do not care about people, they care about power and dominating people. I care about the non-violation of the Human Consciousness, and therefore respect their own responsibility to themselves and their happiness to be achieved by them and without my interference. Meaning, I care more about people than anyone you know, including yourself.
Quoting Xtrix
Are you under the impression that scraps are not profits?
I didn't once describe homeostasis, so the above is meaningless.
Quoting Garrett Travers
:lol: OK!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Good for you! Well done.
Your words exactly.
Quoting Xtrix
Notice you didn't have an argument against my assertion?
Quoting Xtrix
Okay.
"X, y, etc.," does not imply y=x.
Thanks for clearing that up, you had confused the hell out of me. It looks to me like you are starting with the word, placing a comma, and then describing what its functions etc.
Nonetheless, yes, homeostasis requires profit to achieve, or maximize.
Homeostasis has nothing to do with profit. You wish to invoke "profits" in the definition, that's your prerogative.
Profit is disntinguished by any form of benefit one can accrue that contributes to homeostasis. You can keep disregarding that, but, nothing changes facts.
Demonstrate that such is true, considering the fact that aggression is specifically linked to one feeling entitled him/herself to something they don't have? It's a competitive neural network. There is more reason to think that high murder rates are due to the greedy entitlement of the poor, not of people who value themselves rationally. Find me a Randian whose killed someone, and I'll show you 10 mindless miscreants who did it in comparison for petty gain. Also, most people are Christian in this country, and in the West broadly, or lean left. Randian philosophy constitutes like 1% of the population, so you're angry at your own people, not Rand. Randian philosophy would save most people from the irrationality, and immature lack of control of one's emotions that distinguish aggression and the vast majority of the population constantly bitching about what they don't have. Which is why the Randian philosophy is one of the few in the history of the world that has never been shown to lead to murder, or aggression. Because it's superior to just about all of them, and it's not even close. Some science for you on the subject, food for thought:
https://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/article/85/1/11/5299239
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7661405/
Meaningless.
Homeostasis has a meaning, and generally a physiological one. Profits is basically an accounting term. It’s what is left after you subject cost from final price. One has nothing to do with the other, except perhaps in a some constructed semantic fantasy. If that’s where you choose to live, you’re welcome to. But don’t involve me.
That's correct. A term that implies the accrual of resources to maintain as a matter of physiological imperative, my friend. Very meaningful.
Quoting Xtrix
No, that's just one aspect of the word. Profit encompasses all forms of benefit accrual. Be it monetary, subjective desire, water and food, sleep, everything that could be beneficial to human life.
Quoting Xtrix
No, in biological fact and lingustic accuracy. You're playing a reduction game, bud.
Again, you’re welcome to your invented semantics. I’m not interested.
Homeostasis:
the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.
Profit:
a valuable return : GAIN
2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions
especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost
3: net income usually for a given period of time
4: the ratio of profit for a given year to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales
5: the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent
profit verb
profited; profiting; profits
Definition of profit (Entry 2 of 2)
intransitive verb
Definitions aren't semantics dude. Their definitions. Homeostasis is the abeyance of stressors, and the accrual of resources. Profit is the natural motivating factor for all biological systems, including you.
Garrett, I don't read your posts, and you promised to not read mine, but apparently you forgot.
No problem, just a gentle reminder that I ignore everything you say for I believe you are not worthy to be present on this board, but that you should not take it as an insult, because it is my opinion, and only that. If you feel like you can reciprocate this sentiment, and I believe you have in the past, then of course please do. This post is also a refresher for that opinion-exchange.
Happy philosophizing. :-)
And to you as well, kind sir. I just like to provide irrational assertions with no basis for being posited a chance to demonstrate themselves as irrational. Thank you for continuing that trend. Take care!
Semantics deals with meanings. Definitions are meanings of words.
Why you continue on like this is baffling.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Exactly right.
Profit:
Totally different concepts. One deals with physiology -- equilibrium of temperature, for example -- and the other is (apart from whatever semantic fantasy one can construct) about financial gain.
Again, if you want to use the words differently, that's fine. I myself have no interest in it. Likewise if you want to argue that financial gain is "the natural motivating factor" in biological systems. It's just utter confusion to form the argument in this way, but that's not my business.
Quoting god must be atheist
I'm only beginning to understand this.
You are understanding only that which you seek to understand, and ignorarntly negating anything you don't like because you must find some way to be correct about that which you are clearly wrong. You literally are just choosing to ignore the fact that homeostasis requires profit. Nothing else is happening. It isn't about "concepts" and it isn't about "semantics," which is precisely what people say when they have absoultely no place left to run to in an argument.
No, it isn't. Because, as I'll repeat for the umpteenth time, homeostasis, a physiological concept of mainlining equilibrium in the body, has nothing to do with profit, which is financial gain.
"Selling at $10 when the cost was $5 gives me a profit of $5 -- and has really helped maintain my temperature of 98.6."
:100: I agree. There are endless examples. Even after Sandyhook, the gun manufacturers still lobbied strongly against regulations that over 90% of Americans were in favor of. It comes down to valuing money and livelihood over human life. Really sad.
No the fuck it isn't, I just gave you the damn definitions. That's all there is to it.
Maybe I'm missing something!
(Simple google search.)
Again, if you wish to define "profit" as "any gain whatsoever," OK. That's your call. But that's not what I was referring to, clearly. You responded to me. If you want to take "profit" in the sense I mean (the above definition), and object on the grounds that "profits are gains and, thus, everything we do is for profit in this sense" -- then make that clear, so I can simply ignore a completely off-topic remark.
You are missing something, and that is exactly what I said. The definitions of the term "profit" encompass all forms of individual benefit, period end of story.To place profit only within the domain of finance is a reduction fallacy, plain and simple. There is nothing idiosyncratic about defining terms. There is plenty idiotic about denying definitions. Here's the definitions for you to review so that you can change your opinion now:
a valuable return : GAIN
2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions
especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost
3: net income usually for a given period of time
4: the ratio of profit for a given year to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales
5: the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent
to be of service or advantage : AVAIL
2: to derive benefit : GAIN
3: to make a profi
Understand now how language works? Or, is it too idiosyncratic to apprehend?
The definition doesn't care how reductive you are about it's usage, you'll need to actually clarify that you are ONLY speaking about monetary profit, so that such context is available to me. Otherwise, what you say doesn't make sense. To be clear: Yes, that is exactly what I mean, and such is consistent with both biologically objective phenomena, as well as both definitions. To engage with me on the topic will require that assessment to be integrated into your position, or you are being reductive. If you have a perspective that is true that I am not considering, it becomes my duty to integrate THAT bit of info. That's how philosophy works.
No, it doesn't. It's one definition, and not the one which I used and which you responded to. I was using "profit" in the financial sense, which was clear from context.
Notice the definitions you cite all pertain to finances, except for the broadest one possible which, for some reason, you've convinced yourself is the definition.
So, to recap: profits are, to use your definitions:
Which is exactly what was meant by my post here:
Quoting Xtrix
Which you decided to injected yourself into, invoking your own preferred definition of "profit = gain of any kind." Disingenuous at best. But mostly just confused.
This is impermissable ignorance, I posted the definitions in the message you just quoted. So, I'm talking to a child.
This is what I meant by "disingenuous," above.
If you read that post and thought, "By 'profits over people' is he referring to monetary gain, or any gain whatsoever?" ... then the issue isn't with me.
Quoting Garrett Travers
You really struggle with meanings, unfortunately. Using the most common use of "profit," when discussing businesses (gun manufacturers), is not reductionism. It's using one definition of the word. I'm not denying there are other meanings.
Quoting Garrett Travers
And I'm supposed to be convinced that you know how philosophy "works"? Given the above behavior, forgive me if I'm less than interested.
Yes, you posted the definitions, and I'm telling you that the definition used in the original post (the one you responded to initially) was this one (in bold):
a valuable return : GAIN
[b]2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions
especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost[/b]
3: net income usually for a given period of time
4: the ratio of profit for a given year to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales
5: the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent
Which should be clear to anyone reading what I wrote. Again, if you thought "maybe he means 'profit as gain of any kind'", then that's your own misunderstanding. In that case, try to comprehend what others are saying before jumping in with non sequiturs.
Uh, most of those definitions pertain to money. So yeah, I think choosing one of them and claiming it's the REAL definition and then expecting everyone to know what you're talking about is just stupid.
But you're clearly a child, so I'll leave you to it.
Quoting Xtrix
:fire: :100:
You see how not ALL? You see seeing that detail you're leaving out for some reason?
Quoting John McMannis
The child to whom you've not presented an argument, but have arbitrarily limited the definition of a term to your own admission? You seeing how that's stupid?
Quoting John McMannis
:rofl:
No, like I said, if you are using a delimited definition, it is your job to explain that. Not my job to understand all definitions of a term that apply in accordance with your unexplained usage. I've been clear, you haven't, and only people like the guy kissing your ass and also reducing the definition to only mean what he wants it to mean will be willing to say that you've been clear.
The States get a bad rap. I have not lived in the US. I have spent my life in Canada. I had a friend from high school get murdered with a pair of scissors while delivering a pizza. He was 22 and the guy that killed him didn't want to pay, so stabbed him in the throat with the scissors. After 10 minutes someone else saw the pizza guy bleeding out in the yard and called the ambulance. My friend was dead before they arrived. He left behind a 2 year old daughter. A classmate of mine from junior high was fished out of the Fraser river. She had been found tied to a chair and had been tortured to death. I always felt she had been dealt a shit hand, even in junior high. she wasn't 25 when they fished her out. In 2015 i worked on a chest stabbing, same part of town. He was also dead before he arrived in the ER. Not one died from a firearm.
I have been stabbed on two separate occasions, each time only once, in my right thigh. Both times while going to start the car outside the same bar in February, nearly one year apart to the day. I was the designated driver. I did not recognize either guy that stabbed me and never bothered to pursue it further. I have had hockey sticks broken over my knee, and have a lovely scar in my hairline from a baseball bat. I have been in knife fights, bat fights, and sword fights. I have not killed anyone, but I have made a few bleed while defending myself, once an attacker realizes you intend to also play rough they tend to go away. I have slept with a shotgun beside my bed, with 7 in the pipe, and knife under my pillow, knowing that I may be called to use both before the night ended. Canada is peaceful in the brochures, out in the northern communities...not so much. I don't know anyone that has been murdered with a gun, or even shot, except a single hunting accident.
So yeah, I say the States get a bad rap. All of us know how to kill each other.
The funny part is that I did not realize that I had a rough upbringing until I was 23 years old. I found out from watching TV: there was an injury list on the right side of the screen with a narrator reading off the list. To me the list was nothing special, respectable sure, but not impressive. It could have been anyone of my friends growing up, I had had more injuries, but still, whoever the TV was talking about had done some shit too. Then a picture showed up on the left, some hockey enforcer, I don't follow sports much as I am not a spectator type. Anyway, turns out the list was that dude's lifetime injury list. His entire life of injuries could have been anyone of my high school friends. So yeah, I guess we grew up rough. Been a long time since I have really thought about it.
Sorry to hear this.
All of these attacks happened in Canada?
I have property in one of the roughest parts of the UK. It's like a different world.
Would imagine it would be much worse if guns were legal?
Not to sound facetious, but the primary reason is probably that the United States is far more violent than the United Kingdom...the answer you are looking for is "culture" (amongst other things). It is most likely that our culture in America leads to an allowance and appreciation of more violence than is typically seen in United Kingdom.
I notice one of your choices was "gun law". Well "culture" (the beliefs, customs, traditions, etc., of a people) is the social basis for a multitude of statistics that apply to a country, including the statistic of murder rates. Culture affects the philosophy of a people, which in-turn affects the ethics of a people, which in-turn affects the laws that are created and voted for (in a democracy) by the people, including gun laws.
Also the legality of a gun is relatively irrelevant. For example: I am currently at work and here it is 1 am. Gun stores are closed, so legally purchasing a gun is not currently possible, from a store. I could still likely get one in a few hours, legally, by looking online for a private sale. Legally they would take my license number down and I would sign a bill of sale for the gun and away I go with my gun. Chances are, at this time of day, an eyebrow or two might be raised, however I could probably explain that away as being a shift worker and this is the best time for me to buy anything, gun or otherwise. However, If I elect to go illegal, I could likely find something in under 2 hours, complete with a reasonable amount of ammunition. They would not ask for my license, or name, and I would not ask for theirs. It would be a cash exchange and relatively untraceable. All things considered, the illegal transaction is slightly more annoying as I have no local contacts for illegal weapons, but otherwise, nothing very exciting. Much like buying anything else; you like it, you buy it, if not, see what else is available, or walk away. The point is, if you want something; guns, drugs, whatever, you usually don't have to look very hard for it. Just have money and start looking, it will come to you.
The vast majority of gun crimes are not committed by the legal owners of the guns, which is why gun control laws are odd to me. It is a lot like restricting access to Codeine because people are dying of Fentanyl overdoses. I don't really see the connection.
Quoting chiknsld
Ultimately you are right, as even if "gun laws" are the difference, it is culture that has lead to the difference in gun laws.
Quoting Book273
I think this goes to what @Bitter Crank was saying, that there are so many guns in the USA now that even if they were outlawed there would be no real effect in the near future. Compared to the UK where almost nobody can get hold of a gun.
No it isn’t, because it was perfectly clear from context. You miscomprehended it. A possible reason for misreading it is your adherence to objectivism, which you’re quite zealous about.
I’m well aware that within that particular worldview, capitalism is seen as the best possible system for the flourishing of a human being, and thus “profit” in the monetary sense is taken as simply one outgrowth of the broader definition, which is “gain” from productive, creative work.
This philosophy sees a human being as objects with needs to satisfy, as psychologically egoist, and claim that human beings can guide their greed with reason.
I disagree with how objectivists conceptualize happiness, and how they conceptualize the human being/human nature. And you know this. So you also know, very well, that I wouldn’t be using “profit” in this way — even leaving the contextual cues aside.
That gets to the heart, I believe, of this odd interchange.
Well said. I think this is an important point to always bear in mind when discussing these social issues.
It’s the other side of the factor I mentioned earlier, which is the influence of business.
But then the question is: who influences culture?
What would happen if all countries in the world had the same (lax) gun laws as the US? I have a feeling the US murder rates will be rather low (comparatively).
Does northern New England have very strict gun laws? Because AFAIK it's not that homicidal. But what works in its favor is that it's much whiter than the rest of the US is.
We could go back to ancient times when swords, daggers, hammers, axes, falxes, etc. were used. Which countries had thr highest violence rates? All, presumably.
World's most dangerous countries 2022, by homicide rate
El Salvador, Mexico and Venezuela tend to be always the most dangerous countries. What surprised me, it is the appearance of Jamaica.
Interesting. So we're looking at violence in general, as opposed to gun-related violence.
Seems like you might want to find some new bars to hang out in.
I'm can't remember the source, but one scholar said that if you look at the recovered skulls of our hunter-gatherer ancestors or "cavemen" there was a fairly high percentage of bashed in skulls. That isn't to say they were terrible people -- just that violencce was resorted to fairly often.
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting.[/quote]
Superb observation. It never crossed me mind. Is it a coincidence though? Correlation dossn't imply causation, oui? Are we ignoring other relevant factors?
It is sad... I guess one of the main causes is that they live in poor and undeveloped countries. Then, they need to use violence to survive or get basic resources.
Among Hispanic countries only Spain and Chile are states where they care about people.
There you go! Nevertheless, an A for noticing a correlation. Have you tried comparing Africa to Europe?
Well, truste me when I say that they hate to be compared with Spaniards :lol:
Not specifically in comparison to United Kingdom but...
- Problematic gun laws
- Schools are "pay to win"
- No actual quality health care that's free
- Extremely costly basic insurance models
- No proper economic support when out of work
- Lack of actual state support for families in trouble
- High class-based inequality
- Systemic racism
- Degenerate media focused on entertainment instead of informing and unbiased educating
- Extreme neoliberal capitalism with little to no oversight
- High corruption and/or lobbyists being more powerful than politicians
List can go on, but basically, the overall extreme focus on individual independence in conjunction with a delusional extreme nationalism centered around viewing itself as the hegemony on the global stage and chosen by God.
USA is basically a form of extremely capitalistic neoliberal christian fundamentalistic nation. In such a place, everyone forces everyone else to be part of the nationalistic delusions but at the same time forces everyone to be left to handle their own life all on their own with little to no safety nets.
It's a shallow media and corporate mentality of everyone being together as a unified people, but no one is unified at all. A self-delusional narrative of a collective caring for each other while individually just profiting on each others misfortune.
I really don't know why people even have to wonder why the US has the problems that it has. Any type of study on how the US does things compared to other nations (that functions better for the well being of the people) clearly shows where the problem lies. Even the people and government of the US knows about all the problems and has insight into what is needed, but the people and government don't change because they're basically fundamentalists of the "American dream". It's like the people are drug addicts of the US mentality, they cannot move past it in order to implement necessary changes for the improvement of society.
It will take a collapse or new civil war to radically change the nation. Basically updating the constitution to make sense in a modern world and implementing social securities, free education, free health care etc. to let the people be able to navigate a highly competitive environment without tripping into poverty and despair at the slightest misstep.