comment: >
  
  Europe is considerably more dense on average, that's a kind of odd point to argue on.
context: People won't like it, but a big part of it is guns. Guns make killing people easier. And I don't mean they're just more efficient - but psychologically it is easier to pull a trigger in a fit of rage than it is to beat someone to death, or stab them, etc. 
  I use to study crime, and the macabre fact is, it takes a lot of strength and force and effort to kill someone with physical force. Whether it is stabbing, strangling, beating, etc. And it requires you to get very close to the person as well and whether people understand it that contact....makes it harder to kill someone. It takes longer, there's more direct contact which makes it hard to dehumanize someone, etc. 
  It's very easy to become angry, pull a trigger, and it only takes once...and it's done. No time to rethink it. And they're efficient. It's unlikely you'll be fought off. It's likely to only take a few shots to do the job in most cases. 
  IMHO, that's all there is to it. People say all the time, 'you can kill someone with anything'. Sure. But if all things were equal they'd keep a box of pencils by their bed not a gun right? Guns are an efficient tool for killing people. The best tool for it really. That's just a fact. 
  We have a lot of guns. And a lot of murders. >
  
  It's obvious. And here's another thing they won't like. This is a feature of American life. It's not going away. It's the second ammendment. There's almost no way to affect meaningfull change. Sorry. The murder rates will remain high, school shootings and mass murders will continue at alarming rates, because the second amendment was a mistake. In a world where the CIA kills people it can't identify on the other side of the planet with missiles fired from robots based on their cell phone meta data, small arms are basically meaningless. The founders aren't to blame for this mistake really. They were definitely meaningful at the time, but they aren't now. But they're here to stay. >
  
  
  In a world where the CIA kills people it can't identify on the other side of the planet with missiles fired from robots based on their cell phone meta data, small arms are basically meaningless.
  
  Tell that to the Taiban. >
  
  Look at how many law enforcement agents are in America compared to the military members in Afghanistan. It's a comical comparison. >
  
  Troop numbers in Afghanistan peaked at around 140,000. That’s counting all of NATO. 
  There are around 650,000 law enforcement officers in the US. But we also have an overall population that handily dwarfs that. Even if you took out everyone who would refuse or be unable to fight it still wouldn’t be close to even. Then you have to account for mass desertion and resignation from the military and law enforcement if things like that started happening as well.
  There are also a bunch of other variables that make that comparison sort of useless.
  Also keep in mind that’s the same intelligence apparatus that gave me an important update in the middle of a patrol in Afghanistan to “be on the lookout in block 2 for an insurgent doing insurgent things” and the one that patted itself on the back for killing the Kabul ISIS-K bomber only to realize afterwards that they had bombed an NGO worker and several other people who had absolutely nothing to do with it. >
  
  
  There are around 650,000 law enforcement officers in the US. 
  
  Add in the national guard you're at a million. Unlike Afghanistan they're all familiar with the local language and culture and have an extremely high level of support among the population.
  Any sort of armed rebellion would be painted as terrorism and the population would turn against them in an instant. American police officers kill more unarmed Americans than any Western European police officers, so the idea that guns prevent abuse of power doesn't seem to follow from empirical evidence. >
  
  We’re not talking about small groups of conspiracy theorist preppers misguidedly trying to trigger a revolution. That would be called domestic terrorism because that’s what it is. 
  What we’re talking about would be an extreme case where the government has gone completely opposite of anything resembling representative government. I think you’re underestimating how committed people can be when they’re pressed hard enough, and how many members of the military and national guard would simply leave to go take care of their families or actively fight against the US government.
  Edit: Even then, we have at least one example of a small community successfully revolting against a corrupt local government in the 20th century. >
  
  At best you turn the United States into Syria. If dictatorship comes to America, it will almost certainly be popular at first(or else it wouldn't have been established in the first place) >
  
  There is a pretty large gap between having a deterrent and full on civil war. Do you think the police would do stuff like this if those protesters were armed? When Cliven Bundy and his merry band of idiots pull their stunts guns aren't the only reason they get the kid glove treatment, but it is certainly a factor. >
  
  If they were armed they would have been shot from a distance or from armoured vehicles if/after they refused to surrender them to police. >
  
  Definitely has nothing to do with the incredible availability of tools that make killing someone as easy as pressing a button. Definitely not that. 
  Its probably that Americans are just inherently more violent than all the other humans. That's gotta be it. >
  
  I have encountered a surprising number of conservative people who shout to the skies how amazing and special and wonderful America is - but will in the very next breath say that we are a uniquely violent, bloodthirsty nation whose tendency towards brutal murder is so hopefully uncontrollable it's pointless to even try.
  Curious how that works in their brains. >
  
  I’m pretty sure they’re talking about “insert group they think is the problem” and not their small town >
  
  Can you really blame them?  Their thinking is no more shallow than yours.  Their small town has plenty of guns without the murder.
  Reality is, you know the real problem too you just never thought it through.
  If I ask you, "Why do black people commit 50% of the murders despite only being 13% of the population?" What is your answer going to be?
  If you know your stuff you will go on about systemic racism and how black people had opportunity  stolen from them as they were herded into densely populated poor via things like redlining in the 70s and 80s
  The onky reason black people commit a disproportionate % of violent crimes is because they make up a disproportionate % of the population in densely populated poor areas.
  Being black doesn't make someone more violent, black culture doesn't make someone more violent, but growing up in a densely populated poor area does make people more violent.  Thus it's the racism of America that put black people in that spot that created such outcomes.
  This is pretty much the standard response about violent crime among Black people and its dead on accurate 
  But I find it fascinating that the thinking stops there.
  
  
  Densely populated poor areas are the cause of disproportionate violence from black people
  
  
  Densely populated poor areas are the cause of disproportionate prison numbers
  
  
  Densely populated poor areas are the cause of over policing in black communities 
  
  
  Densely populated poor areas are the cause of police violence as they are also humans surrounded by violence
  
  
  If America broke up its densely populated poor areas crime, especially violent crime would drop dramatically.  Most the problems that face the black community stem from living in densely populated poor areas. Disbanding them would do wonders for America and black communities.
  Yet for some reason, you suggest organized gentrification, that helped the displaced land in a different spot is racism.
  Seems people think there is a super secret formula that just makes areas not poor and we should do that instead >
  
  several incredibly deep rooted unresolved social issues that create a fractured and disenfranchised populous. >
  
  It's not that complex.
  Densely populated poor areas create exponentially higher violent crime rates regardless of culture or race.  This is true throughout the world and history.
  Most western countries spread out their poor or intertwines it with the more well off.
  The US stacks their poor on top of each other >
  
  
  It's not that complex.
  
  it actually is. talk to a sociologist sometime.
  i've traveled around the world and seen some insanely dense cities with abysmal poverty that have a negligible violent crime rate. >
  
  I don't doubt you have seen immensely  dense cities that had some poverty in them.
  London is a great example. But what they don't have is densely populated poor areas like the US has. >
  
  no, not london. i'm talking about real poverty combined with insane density.
  the old kowloon was a great example. calcutta/kolkata with 15 million is another great example. cairo with 10 million is another great example. kinshasa with 17 million people is another great example.
  none of these places have a violent crime rate remotely close to what we experience in the US in most of our cities. i've been to places without running water, but i can walk around without fear or threat of violence. >
  
  Easy access to guns. High levels of poverty (and very high income and wealth gaps.) An eroded sense of community, including a gutted social safety net. Advanced drug war (not just simple drug prohibition but a decades long offensive by the government against its people.)  
  There are other factors but these are the prominent ones from my understanding. >
  
  Fuck them, they shouldnt have them either! 
  Go too far left you get your guns back.... Id rather we deal with the root causes of violence than take away my only real protection since the cops are lazy and more likely to arrest me than help me.
  Thats the unfortunate part. I know guns are part of the problem, but we need to fix the entire system before we take them. >
  
  I feel like we as a country would have to tackle the mental health/ cultural aspects of the issue before we could ever go on to ban guns because in reality, banning guns will not stop crimes from happening, criminals will just find other ways of buying guns or harming people. What we should do is ask ourselves why people want to do crime to begin with, and what can we to do limit crime and income inequality. >
  
  US has a higher rate of densely populated poor areas.
  Throughout the world, and history, densely populated  poor areas have produced exponentially higher violent crime rates.
  Other western nations spread their poor out, or intertwine their poor with other classes.
  If you stack poor people ontop of each other, it leads to far more violent crime regardless of race, culture, geography ortime period. >
  
  The USA murder rate is 1 for 100,000 for Asians, 3 for 100,000 for white Americans, and 15 for 100,000 for Black Americans.  So we are really 3 separate countries. >
  
  Yet the murder rate for white Americans is still worse than that for white Europeans. >
  
  Extreme poverty, racial divides, minimal social support, a culture based on money and "status" being valued above all else plus every angry kid or psycho can buy a gun for $5.99 at MacDonald's. >
  
  
  racial divides
  
  Most murders are intraracial (the victim and the murderer are the same race). >
  
  Sure, but the divides fuel resentment, poverty and the feeling that you need to join a gang to survive etc. >
  
  Was in a gang for years, all the shit you're mentioning is the last thought on a young minority's mind.  Only the privileged white people looking down on us as if we are are in some zoo enclosure believe this. >
  
  Access to guns is the only thing we quintuple the rest of the world in. Makes sense statistically that we have more deaths along with it. >
  
  Percentage of an area that is black is a 5 times greater predictor of even firearm homicide in that area than gun ownership:
  
  For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, ﬁrearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%
  For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, ﬁrearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%
  
  In short, whilst guns have an effect, there are clearly better predictors. Also note that this is specifically firearm homicide. What we should actually care about is just the overall homicide, where gun ownership may not even be correlated. >
  
  Explain to me why Ghana has lower rates than Alabama? Oh. I know. Racism. >
  
  And in case anyone is confused on the point of that person being a racist, check their post history, which is a dizzying array of racist nonsense. The entire goal of their account is really to try and convert people to the idea that blacks are just genetically disposed to do crime, and there is no input from socially constructed racism in bringing about X Y Z outcomes. >
  
  Please point to a single thing that I have said that is wishing ill-will towards people of any race. All I have said are factual statements. Are facts racist? Is reality racist? >
  
  You draw from a racial correlation to a genetic causal explanation. If you believe racial genetics is the origin of the racial statistic (and you clearly do), then yes, you are a racist. And that might as well be one of the core definitions of being a racist. >
  
  Is it possible that genetic differences cause differences in crime rates? After all, we know this is true of the population overall:
  
  Medium to large effect sizes were found for genetic influences across studies, with approximately 50% of the variance in measures of antisocial behavior attributable to genetic effects. Although effect sizes did not vary across different definitions of antisocial behavior (criminality, aggression, or antisocial personality), significantly larger estimates of genetic effect were found for severe manifestations of antisocial behavior.
  
  If you say it is possible, then what if it is actual? Is that fact racist? Hell, if it is possible but not actual, is it racist to simply be wrong? What possible use does the word "racist" have if such stupid things can be labelled as such? It is clearly just a word you use to morally condemn me, regardless of how correct I am. >
  
  It's possible that the moon could be made of spinach. Prove to me that it isn't. And if it is possible, what if if it is actual? Is the fact of the Spinach Moon still nutjob shit if so?
  Makes u think 🤔 
  
  What possible use does the word "racist" have if such stupid things can be labelled as such?
  
  I just want to point out again that nowhere have they disputed my characterization of their views beyond the naming of their views. Which is why they do this roundabout argumentation about how thinking that black people are more stupid and more violent by fate of birth isn't a blatantly racist belief, despite the fact that it blatantly is.
  Oh, I don't have any ill will toward those incorrigible gibbons, I wish them the best, but the heavy hand of our law is necessited by their naturally violent tendencies. How could this possibly be racist? >
  
  
  It's possible that the moon could be made of spinach
  
  No, it isn't. Spinach can't form moons, nor would the gravity allow it to remain. However, the fact you are comparing something so ridiculous to the idea of genetic differences, despite the fact that the majority of variance in anti-social behaviour is due to genetic differences in the general public, tells me you are just ideologically driven.
  
  I just want to point out again that nowhere have they disputed my characterization of their views
  
  Given that I have shown that you are only using that word to mean that you morally condemn even the possibility of genetic differences, how exactly am I to dispute what is purely your opinion? To state it clearly, though, there is nothing morally wrong with suggesting, or presenting evidence for, the idea of genetic differences between groups causing differences in outcomes between groups.
  
  Oh, I don't have any ill will toward those incorrigible gibbons, I wish them the best, but the heavy hand of our law is necessited by their naturally violent tendencies. How could this possibly be racist?
  
  At no point did I insult blacks, either. It is completely unsurprising to me that cannot evenly and fairly represent what I am saying. >
  
  
  Spinach can't form moons, nor would the gravity allow it to remain.
  
  Bad argument. All matter induces gravitational pull. If you put a moon sized amount of spinach into space, it will form a moon of spinach. Many asteroids, if you believe the planetary science egg-heads, are essentially just loose compactions of dust with fairly airy surfaces (of course, this is just globoNASAnoid propaganda, asteroids are made of cream cheese) 
  
  tells me you are just ideologically driven.
  
  When one analyzes the various race realists of history, not a hint of ideology is ever found. 
  
  All studies on genetic inheritance of behavior require a careful separation of environmental and social factors. For this, the golden ideal of proving a genetic causal determination falls to identical twins, separated at birth, but both being adopted.
  If you can find a way to show that, say, black babies raised in non-black communities are just as [insert social behavior X Y Z] while somehow separating this from the social input of the black baby being very obviously black and treated as such, good luck, but I'm pretty sure this kind of separation of causal factors is impossible - and it becomes especially difficult once one is talking about black communities, since the genetic influence can be quickly washed out by bogstandard social explanations.
  But given the distinction between racial phenotype and underlying genotype, and the incredibly powerful incentives and legacy of racial essentialization and all the "scientific racism" that has come along with it for centuries - the use of these to reinforce and naturalize historically constructed class divisions -  I'm just gonna make a judgement call here - it seems unlikely. 
  Given that, yknow, these people were enslaved a few generations ago, and explicit white supremacism was the norm until a few decades ago, and in some ways, such policies still continue today. That seems kind of important. >
  
  Is there a high correlation between very homogenous nations and low crime/murder? >
  
  The percentage of foreign-born people in Germany and Austria is higher than in the US. Vienna has 30% non-citizens, 40% foreign born inhabitants(roughly the same as New York), with the biggest groups being from Serbia, Germany, and Turkey. It's one of the safest major cities in Europe and has been found to be the city with the highest quality of living in the world multiple times by different organizations.
  Crime actually went down, while diversity increased. >
  
  
  The percentage of foreign-born people in Germany and Austria is higher than in the US
  
  A pretty significant % of "immigrants" to Germany and Austria are from EU countries.  There isn't much diversity in that. >
  
  A pretty significant % of "immigrants" to the US are from NAFTA countries. There isn't much diversity in that. >
  
  Yeah, the correct answer really is gang culture and the fetishization of criminality in certain subcultures. Everybody blames gun availability, but these people shooting each other up usually don't obtain their guns legally. >
  
  I suppose (without looking) that the gun angle is going to be covered. I suppose, also without looking, the blame will be on the poor (black or latino specifically).  
  Imo, that is part of it. But the equal part is drugs. 
  The US is the wealthiest country in the world, we have the largest recreational drug markets in the world. We have set them up (purposefully or no) so that they are unregulated, illegal, and controlled mainly by gangs (at least the coke/dope/meth/party pills aspect). 
  Anyone that wants any of the above mentioned drugs need to go to a major metro area to get them. And they have to deal with shady characters. And they and the shady characters have zero protection from the law, in fact they are purposefully avoiding any kind of law enforcement. So we see a stream of money and people pouring from the rural suburbs to the cities for drugs. 
  The drug markets are able to use their money to secure access in poverty stricken areas. Can literally become protected in these areas. These become the only areas available for the most part. Poverty drug malls, protected by gang members with guns. The gangs have turf battles, the customers cheat, the dealers cheat, guns are the only form of justice. 
  The guns they use for justice ALL come from the rural suburbs. Whenever anyone says anything about gun violence the gun sellers (who make major profits off their rural to urban gun sales) all then point the finger at the poor urban people.
  It starts to look very much like a cycle when viewed from any distance. >
  
  Where is the data behind the "the guns they use for justice all come from rural areas" I am genuinely curious >
  
  Well, if it's not the sheer quantity of guns and normalized attitude toward violence, then it's the people. On the whole, it just means America is in a state of regression and disrepair. >
  
  How is it regression when it is significantly below the peak?  That means 1980 was the greatest point of regression. >
  
  Because it's rising again. "Significantly" may be a little over statement too. We're hovering above 7/100K currently. The peak was 10. >
  
  There’s some seriously poor parts of the US with vast wealth inequality. When truly poor people, as with any other human, are in a daily fight for survival, violence will typically follow. 
  Add in the availability of guns, gangs, religious and racial tensions and you’ll get the results you see. 
  Also have to consider population density. the numbers are being bumped up by several cities that are significantly larger than most in the western nations. Remove NY, LA, Chicago, DC, Boston, Miami from the per capita stats and numbers may not be too different compared to Europe. >
  
  Europe is considerably more dense on average, that's a kind of odd point to argue on. >
  
  “Europe is considerably more dense on average” - I’m not stating on average, hence why I didn’t use the word average. 
  The US factually has more cities with larger populations than in Europe and most western nations. Those US cities mentioned coincidentally also have higher murders per capita than most western nations. 
  As the original comment clearly states, those cities are impacting murder rates per capita negatively. Remove them from the stats and numbers would be much closer to European numbers. Not better, but closer. >
  
  
  The US factually has more cities with larger populations than in Europe and most western nations. Those US cities mentioned coincidentally also have higher murders per capita than most western nations.
  
  Is your argument that European cities aren't dense enough to develop these problems? 
  
  As the original comment clearly states, those cities are impacting murder rates per capita negatively. Remove them from the stats and numbers would be much closer to European numbers. Not better, but closer.
  
  Why would you do this though? Saying that our murder rate is better if you remove the cities isn't helpful when you're trying to compare to another entity's murder rate that includes their cities. 
  Why are our cities so much more violent despite similar population density? >
  
  Our culture glorifies violence on a whole other level.
  It's in our movies, TV shows, songs and more and more frequently our political discourse.
  Our fetishizing of guns stem from this country's open embrace of violence in all facets of life, not the other way around.  Its amplified by inequality and organized crime, especially in our inner city gang violence.  But overall we still kill each other more.  Because we love violence.  Military violence, law enforcement violence, the death penalty.  We love that shit.  Using fire arms against the government just legitimately elected, fucking love it.  School shooters bad, or fake or whatever, but guy with gun shooting the schoolshooters, fucking love it.  Let's give all the teachers guns so they can shoot school shooters.  Let people take guns into bars because fuck it.  The best part is when the guns constantly remind us of these depressing statistics with mass shootings and half of us are like, "shit happens".
  Getting rid of guns is impossible because we have violence at the centre of our culture and guns are the best violent tool on the market.  We just love violence. >
  
  
  Guns.
  Lack of access to quality mental healthcare.
  Did I mention guns? >
  
  Guns everywhere, shitty living standards, institutional discrimination, media propaganda machines, political corruption, a general "fuck you, I got mine" attitude, dehumanization of people you disagree with, murder fetishizing.
  The only thing keeping the USA from being seen as a failed third world nation is their cultural influence and military power and aggression. They are the psycho in your neighborhood that you're forced to deal with and can't change going after because they're always walking around in full body armor and aiming their guns at shit, hoping for an excuse to kill. >
  
  Because of punks that think living the thug life is cool until they get capped. >
  
  For-profit media companies have determined that fear brings eyeballs that they can sell to advertisers. Unrealistic fear leads to gun purchases. Gun purchases lead to gun violence and deaths. >
  
  We (as a whole) value guns over the lives of people and more specifically children. >
  
  Guns.   USAs real god.  Guns mean more to us than our children and cars.   
  Let the downvotes flow ... >
  
  American here- I can tell you why- access to guns and economic disparity. I am not Anti gun by any means but people have extremely easy access to weapons, and many will use those weapons out of desperation to do get access to money for food, drugs( legal and illegal)  transportation, alcohol and a litany of other things. >
  
  High poverty,  lack of mental health care,  low education,  with easy access to guns. >
  
  The US has the highest gun rate of ownership per capita (per 1,000 citizens). The second country is around half of the US' rate and is more prone to civil wars. 
  When you have a lot of people packed in together, with a lot of firearms, political division and leniency on crime then you're going to see what happens. 
  Out of 23 high-income countries, the US made up 50% of the population. Yet 91% of gun deaths of children occurred in the US. >
  
  It is pretty obviously our ease of access to guns. Our wealth disparity is not too far off from the UK's. Our mental health situation is not much different than several other developed nations. The big difference is the proliferation and ease of access to guns. Guns do not force anyone to kill but they make it SIGNIFICANTLY easier. There are no drive by shootings on other countries because guns are harder to come by. A drive by knifing is less effective.
  And no, the make up of murders would not stay the same and simply shift to being done by knife. The UK has much lower homicides by guns but similar number of homicides by knife compared to the US.
  You can argue whether citizens have the either to own guns (depends on a states definition of militia TBH) or you can argue that there are other causes of death that can be dealt with cheaper and more efficiently than murders by gun but you cannot argue that the proliferation and ease of access to guns is not the main reason for our higher homicide rate. That amounts to sticking your head in the sand. >
  
  Easy access to guns.
  Having to pay to be educated also means that overall intelligence is reduced.
  Arrogance too. >
  
  Add to the pile of reasons, our media and politicians, one side in particular, are constantly pointing at other Americans and calling them "enemy". 
  That places the "enemy" in your work place, in your neighborhood, on your highways, and since you are well armed with guns and all-too-easily triggered hate and anger because yeah, life is hard, the "enemy" dies...except they weren't really the "enemy", just different people, and you destroyed not just them, but your own life because you listened to media and politicians. >
  
  [ Removed by Reddit ] >
  
  Top post is of course about inanimate objects apparently causing this, but I invite you to start removing races one by one from the overall violent crime number. Without leaving any surprises, when removing one specific race you get to the same rates an average Western European country. >
  
  Statistically, that isn't remotely true no matter what race you'd like to point the finger at, but please: what makes you keep us in suspense? >
  
  Have you looked at the data?  Black males commit a significant amount of violent crime in the US, relative to the population.  I would contribute black on black gang and drug violence to be the main culprit that skews the data in such a way, but as an Asian American I am aware of and have read the data that Asians have most violent crimes committed against them by blacks. >
  
  Because the US is more diverse. Income is the strongest predictor of homicide rate, and within US there is substantial income inequality.
  If you exclude a few low income inner cities, the rest of US is on par with Europe. >
  
  
  Because the US is more diverse. Income is the strongest predictor of homicide rate
  
  Actually, this isn't true. The correlation of race to crime in an area is greater than socioeconomic factors, and poor whites commit less crime than more affluent blacks. >
  
  
  Unz is regarded as...
  
  Don't care. Is the data wrong? Please point out how.
  
  Moreover, "The website has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League
  
  If you want to talk about reputations, don't bring up the ADL...
  
  Your second study is paywalled
  
  Let me introduce you to scihub. Just paste in the DOI of nearly any paper, and it will have it for free. Here is the specific article. >
  
  
  Don't care. Is the data wrong? Please point out how.
  
  It's one study done on 1979 cohort, and it doesn't say rich blacks commit more crime than poor whites...did you read your own study?
  
  In several years in addition to 1985, we find that white future incarcerees had more wealth at the median than blacks who never were incarcerated (see Fig. 1).
  
  Once... again
  
  In several years in addition to 1985, we find that white future incarcerees had more wealth at the median than blacks who never were incarcerated (see Fig. 1).
  
  One glance at the study shows that white people who went to jail had a higher median wealth than black people who went to jail and many times black people who didn't go to jail. It's literally saying the opposite of your point. >
  
  Here is an article for easier reading:
  
  About 10 percent of affluent black youths in 1985 would eventually go to prison. Only the very wealthiest black youth — those whose household wealth in 1985 exceeded £57,359.01 ($69,000) in £1,672.56 (2012 dollars) — had a better chance of avoiding prison than the poorest white youth. Among black young people in this group, 2.4 percent were incarcerated. >
  
  You realize that paper shows that wealthy whites were more likely to go to prison than poor whites?
  Which really shows that the method they're using for measuring wealth is somewhat suspect or not particularly relevant. A doctor right out of medical school is in the lower percentile of wealth(negative in fact due to medical school debt) than a guy who works at McDonalds and owns his car, who at least has one asset.
  A paper based on income which be much more interesting. >
  
  
  A paper based on income which be much more interesting
  
  Well, I have already said that percentage black in an area is a better predictor of crime than multiple other socioeconomic factors. There's also this:
  
  The correlation with a composite of total violent crime was higher with skin color (r = .55), a more biologically influenced variable than with GDP (r = −.17), a more culturally influenced variable. >
  
  Everybody wants to point at guns. And, sure, without guns, murder would be slightly  more difficult. 
  *Disclaimer: I am all for tougher gun laws. 
  That being said, I think we should view shooting deaths like overdose deaths. As a society, we're starting to see outlawing a drug does not keep people from doing those drugs. It's better to attack the reason why people do drugs, rather than the drug itself. The same should apply here. Instead of saying, "well, it's obvious. It's the guns. Limit that and you'll limit homicides.", we should instead be saying, "why do so many people commit homicide? Why are there so many mass shootings?" 
  I believe, we'll find the answer somewhere in;  low wages, high prices, expensive education, unrealistically and prohibitively expensive Healthcare,  homelessness, poverty, child hunger, broken homes, and a myriad other problems our society faces. The guns are just the means, but what's driving that? >
  
  You're not wrong.  The CDC wanted to study gun violence like an illness, but thanks to the Dickey amendment, they intentionally avoided the subject for 25 years. >
  
  Wouldn't want to upset the richers. >
  
  It starts with a G and ends with an N and people just hope U aren't in the middle.
  That and the US is so obsessed with the fraudulent "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality that there isn't much infrastructure to help people who are in vulnerable circumstances or health like there is in other western nations. That pushes people over the edge easily. I mean, it's a nation where GoFundMe might as well count as a healthcare provider. >
  
  Fundamentally for decades the USA has endorsed policies to effect a slow genocide of its ethnic populations. >
  
  We have more gang type violence which is a culture problem.  Just check the local news of any larger city and it’s night after night of "someone got shot".  Some people want to blame guns and that’s just not the issue.  It’s the people that refuse to live the right way and instead choose a life of thuggery.  Sorry but those are the facts. >
  
  Couldn’t possibly be the sheer number of guns.  Absolutely not, no way.  ffs >
  
  Percentage of an area that is black is a 5 times greater predictor of even firearm homicide in that area than gun ownership:
  
  For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, ﬁrearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%
  For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, ﬁrearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%
  
  In short, whilst guns have an effect, there are clearly better predictors. Also note that this is specifically firearm homicide. What we should actually care about is just the overall homicide, where gun ownership may not even be correlated. >
  
  It’s handgun proliferation, and the fact that this question even has to be asked is a testament to American gun propaganda. >
  
  The US has far more people that belong to demographics that commit most murders.  Simple question. >
  
  Yeah, the correct answer really is gang culture and the fetishization of criminality in certain subcultures. Everybody blames gun availability, but these people shooting each other up usually don't obtain their guns legally. >
  
  Well whatever the cause is, it is definitely not poverty. 23% of Asians in NYC are impoverished and yet only 3.5% of all murder suspects in NYC are Asians in 2020. >
  
  Notice the flawed use of statistics that this racist is using. 
  He's mentioning the % of Asians in poverty, which is an obfuscation. Asians are (apparently) 11% of the NYC population, so 23% of that is 2.5% of the NYC population. That's pretty close to that 3.5% figure. 
  Note also they do that racist thing where they refer to the number of "suspects". Which is a meaningless statistic, since you often have several suspects only one of whom committed the crime, and being a suspect doesn't mean being guilty.   It's a bad faith statistic used often by racists trying to push false narratives. >
  
  It's funny how people like you call anyone citing actual statistics "racists",  and at the same time proclaim that you "believe in Science"...
  Can you point to a prominent subculture in Asian populations that glorifies murder and crime like rap does?
  It's not "racist" to notice facts.  The refusal to admit that there is a problem is actually the most "racist" position there is, especially since it prevents any action to improve that community. >
  
  Gun availability, a broad array of the type of guns, restrictions on gun restrictions, but also a history that teaches Americans that quite often, you should rely on yourself and on self help with that gun to solve issues.  Every state has some version of a "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" case where if someone is attacking you or breaking in, you have some type of right to shoot them.  
  Another major factor is America's wars which teach a lot of men about gun use - there was a large veteran population after the Civil War that ended up in the cities and flowed west to the mining camps that had a relaxed approach to gun use; after World War I there was prohibition, and the rise of organized crime with plenty of men handy with guns, trained in their use, and desensitized to violence.  The murders in the 1970s and 80s were related to Vietnam Veterans plus heroin and then crack wars.
  However the highest murder rates are in southern states, not the big urban states - Mississippi leads the nation, followed by Louisiana, and then Alabama.  These states have a history of law enforcement ill serving a part of its population (the black part) which leads again to that American remedy of "self help" and depending on yourself, your gang, and your guns to find redress, rather than politics and the law.  Those states are also heavily against any gun control measures and generally against anti-poverty measures that might improve governance.  This belief also extends to poor white areas as well, who do not believe the law or law enforcement is there for them; it cannot be relied upon (low services state) and having a gun and taking measures into your own hands is the right way to go. 
  People who don't believe in the ability of the law to deliver justice will seek their own ways. >
  
  America is the most violent country that I have ever lived in. 
  Too many movies and TV shows portray violence as the solution to all problems. This lowers the mental threshold to becoming violent.
  Guns are too easy to obtain. There is less than zero political desire to stop gun violence in the US. Look at all the school shootings. They will never stop. Ever. >
  
  Because when people get pissed they pull out a gun and shoot someone. Or hear a noise outside and shoot someone. Or get cut off while driving and pull out a gun and open fire. >
  
  What experience or media are you basing this off? >
  
  Lets see. I Florida two nen in separate cars had a road rage, shot at each other but each shot the others daughters who were in the car. Both girls lived but now will not have a father. 
  That's one of hundreds I read every day. 
  Bless your heart. 
  I won't even touch on the toddlers who get their hands on unsecured guns and either kill a sibling or in one case, kid killed the mom. That's going to be great to explain to the kid when he's old enough. Why don't you have a mommy? Because you shot her >
  
  And shootings like you describe are in the news because they are A. common or B. Uncommon? >
  
  Capitalism's effects have been worse here so the social decay is greater in magnitude. We don't care about fixing the conditions of Americans by building/providing more homes, food, healthcare, school/education (pretty important if I say so myself), and we also incarcerate people at high rates for petty "crime." All of our "leaders" abandoned us decades ago and just care about funding their own pockets despite it destroying the lives of Americans. >
  
  If Capitalism is at fault what method would you use to insure the consentule trade between individuals? >
  
  Ah yes, trade exists only under capitalism. That must mean trade did not exist before capitalism, huh? >
  
  “It's not the gun but the man behind the gun” is a common statement by pro gun enthusiasts.
  But like someone said
  “If I gave you a mobile phone, do you think you would be more likely to make a phone call than if you didn’t have one”. >
  
  Why do you think those with a concealed carry license are less likely to murder despite having greater access to a gun? >
  
  There’s a concealed carry sub that could explain a little. If you have access to guns - regardless of your socioeconomic status - you’re more likely to use it. >
  
  Concealed carry holders are actually less likely to commit a violent crime than the police. >
  
  Guns everywhere.
  Movies and TV normalize violence.
  Toxic masculinity (and yes, the overwhelming percentage of murders are committed by men). >
  
  
  Movies and TV normalize violence.
  Toxic masculinity
  
  And Western Europe is insulated from this how...? >
  
  Not saying they are "insulated."  Obviously, the availability of guns is a major distinguishing factor.  Which is why I listed it first. 
  However, my perception (from afar) is that Europe has far less toxic masculinity than the U.S. and based on the European films and TV I see (admittedly a very small sampling) there is far less violence. >
  
  We have more guns than people.  Therefore we have fewer brains than guns. Also, we're more pissed off in general.  If those aren't the answer I don't know what is. >
  
  Easy access to firearms. It might be a shorter answer than you were looking for, but it really is that simple. It turns out guns are super good for murder.
  Edit: also poverty. The US is an absolute nightmare for a poor person so the struggle to survive can be life or death. Think people steal shit because they're bored? Maybe a few but the vast majority are doing it to try to make a dollar and survive. >
  
  Guns. Guns make it easier to commit any crime. It makes the weak feel powerful because they don’t need strength to assault or rob someone, they can simply just pull a trigger. >
  
  Gang culture is widely accepted and celebrated in certain communities. Most of it is gang violence. >
  
  Our culture has shifted from “We’re all in this together” to “I’ll take care of me and mine” to “ I’ll take care of me and mine, and fuck you.” There seems to be no compassion and no effort at compromise any more. We are a culture based on hate and despise and/or fear anyone who is even slightly different. So if you hate or fear everybody it’s easy to slide down the slippery slope to justify killing them. >
  
  It surely isn't rap culture glorifying gang wars, all that talk of shooting at the opps and smoking they dead homies and catching bodies with glocks with switches and shit couldn't be getting to our youth. >
  
  Guns. America is obsessed with the private ownership of guns. No other nation permits this on quite the same scale. >
  
  It's a combination of a few different issues, but one thing that America definitely does more than other western nations is glorify violence/criminality. People can talk about guns but Switzerland has more guns per capita than America, but the difference is that the guns in Switzerland aren't combined with a culture that glorifies violence. 
  Glorification of violence is why certain subcultures in western countries are more violent than other cultures too. For instance, the travelling culture in Britain/Ireland is more violent than the rest of society. 
  Culture tends to be an overlooked issue but it's hugely important. >
  
  5 - 10x more self-entitled people who can't accept when things don't go their way >
  
  Because millions of Americans walk around with firearms. They’re pretty unique in that regard. >
  
  Protecting each young white male's right to commit a spree shooting is one of the pillars of the republican party in America. >
  
  Because it's a lot easier to kill people with guns. It's not quantum physics. >
  
  A big part of it is activists in our legal system that refuse to prosecute criminals over political objections and a refusal to lock up violent criminals that need to be locked up. (Instead opting to leave them out out the street to commit more crime)
  Something needs to be done about gang violence, but good luck getting politicians to find the backbone to do it. >
  
  In a nutshell: Murder with a gun is impersonal. Murder will a knife or hammer or sling blade or with your bare hands is personal and most times physical. 
  So one could extrapolate: Killing with a gun is for cowards unless someone is obviously trying to murder you. >
  
  Racism is the answer not guns.
  If you subtract racism from the murder statistics, like by looking at just white on white murder, the difference goes away.  White on white murder in the US is just about dead even with some EU countries like France. >
  
  The white murder rate is 2.2 per 100,000.  It is sourced and not made up. >
  
  Your source is paywalled, so I can't verify the claim.  My number is also sources, and not paywalled. >
  
  You can click on the link and see the interactive graph that allows you to verify the numbers.  Every country on the graph shows it’s numbers as you click over it. >
  
  It’s quite simple. 
  We make excuses for those that refuse to go to public school (which is free) and learn. We also make excuses for their parents that are disengaged and provide little to no guidance for the children they’ve created. 
  Here’s how it works. 
  Kids without a stable home and foundation lack interest in basic academics and their lack of effort to learn condemns them to the line of other unemployables for better paying jobs. They and many of their preferred political leaders blame everyone else because these low capable folks bring very little value to any job they desire - hence they remain unemployed or work the most menial jobs but their political leaders gain their votes. 
  I mean, who likes to be told their problems are of their own creation and who doesn’t want to vote for the people that ask nothing of you but make excuses and blame others for your failed decisions?
  It’s not your fault. It’s some other person who neither knows you, nor comes in contact with you that has somehow stopped you from succeeding. Those unnamed…., need to pay more taxes even though throwing money at problems like this won’t solve them but it both creates a poor excuse for failures and gets votes for politicians that refuse to speak the truth. 
  Many have children while they are children. They have no foundation for raising them properly and so they don’t raise them at all and it becomes a relentless cycle. 
  Our government gives these people enough so that they don’t starve but not enough to live carefree. In such case, they are encouraged to blame society but to never look inward to improve themselves. 
  This is how many politicians get a lot of votes (not all). 
  When they rob, steal and injure others we blame the unnameable society that had nothing to do with their fractured family structure or their decisions to refuse to learn even the most basic of English and math skills. We assess little to no guilt to the perpetrators in this country or their family for how they were raised. 
  We often release them into society because we feel sorry for them when we should really be fearful of them re-mixing with society. 
  Hence, they are given every opportunity to injure and hurt again. 
  Remarkably, we too often blame the robbed and injured and not the robber and the killer. 
  Somehow and for reasons unknown, we refuse to blame people, in a free country for their many poor decisions. 
  These are the predominant people that hurt and kill others. 
  I think that pretty much covers it. >
  
  Way too many guns and a lack of strict laws for owning and carrying guns.
  A huge wealth gap, leaving many extremely poor and desperate. >
  
  Most Americans would rather fuck their gun than another person. That’s how brain dead our country has become. Along with the hatred that is politicized by the right towards LGBTQ+ members and other minorities >
  
  The "melting pot" of ideas/cultures mixed with people who demand their own personal ideas/culture is superior. It's really difficult to murder someone when you don't think you are above them. Murder often requires you to believe you have the authority to control the life of another. That your desire takes precedent over another. That comes from perspectives of self-superiority and/or such an ingrained perspective of another as lesser in some respect.
  When you lose respect for your fellow man, you're more prone to doing things the collective would deem immoral. >
  
  People won't like it, but a big part of it is guns. Guns make killing people easier. And I don't mean they're just more efficient - but psychologically it is easier to pull a trigger in a fit of rage than it is to beat someone to death, or stab them, etc. 
  I use to study crime, and the macabre fact is, it takes a lot of strength and force and effort to kill someone with physical force. Whether it is stabbing, strangling, beating, etc. And it requires you to get very close to the person as well and whether people understand it that contact....makes it harder to kill someone. It takes longer, there's more direct contact which makes it hard to dehumanize someone, etc. 
  It's very easy to become angry, pull a trigger, and it only takes once...and it's done. No time to rethink it. And they're efficient. It's unlikely you'll be fought off. It's likely to only take a few shots to do the job in most cases. 
  IMHO, that's all there is to it. People say all the time, 'you can kill someone with anything'. Sure. But if all things were equal they'd keep a box of pencils by their bed not a gun right? Guns are an efficient tool for killing people. The best tool for it really. That's just a fact. 
  We have a lot of guns. And a lot of murders. >
  
  It's obvious. And here's another thing they won't like. This is a feature of American life. It's not going away. It's the second ammendment. There's almost no way to affect meaningfull change. Sorry. The murder rates will remain high, school shootings and mass murders will continue at alarming rates, because the second amendment was a mistake. In a world where the CIA kills people it can't identify on the other side of the planet with missiles fired from robots based on their cell phone meta data, small arms are basically meaningless. The founders aren't to blame for this mistake really. They were definitely meaningful at the time, but they aren't now. But they're here to stay. >
  
  
  In a world where the CIA kills people it can't identify on the other side of the planet with missiles fired from robots based on their cell phone meta data, small arms are basically meaningless.
  
  Tell that to the Taiban. >
  
  Look at how many law enforcement agents are in America compared to the military members in Afghanistan. It's a comical comparison. >
  
  Troop numbers in Afghanistan peaked at around 140,000. That’s counting all of NATO. 
  There are around 650,000 law enforcement officers in the US. But we also have an overall population that handily dwarfs that. Even if you took out everyone who would refuse or be unable to fight it still wouldn’t be close to even. Then you have to account for mass desertion and resignation from the military and law enforcement if things like that started happening as well.
  There are also a bunch of other variables that make that comparison sort of useless.
  Also keep in mind that’s the same intelligence apparatus that gave me an important update in the middle of a patrol in Afghanistan to “be on the lookout in block 2 for an insurgent doing insurgent things” and the one that patted itself on the back for killing the Kabul ISIS-K bomber only to realize afterwards that they had bombed an NGO worker and several other people who had absolutely nothing to do with it. >
  
  
  There are around 650,000 law enforcement officers in the US. 
  
  Add in the national guard you're at a million. Unlike Afghanistan they're all familiar with the local language and culture and have an extremely high level of support among the population.
  Any sort of armed rebellion would be painted as terrorism and the population would turn against them in an instant. American police officers kill more unarmed Americans than any Western European police officers, so the idea that guns prevent abuse of power doesn't seem to follow from empirical evidence. >
  
  We’re not talking about small groups of conspiracy theorist preppers misguidedly trying to trigger a revolution. That would be called domestic terrorism because that’s what it is. 
  What we’re talking about would be an extreme case where the government has gone completely opposite of anything resembling representative government. I think you’re underestimating how committed people can be when they’re pressed hard enough, and how many members of the military and national guard would simply leave to go take care of their families or actively fight against the US government.
  Edit: Even then, we have at least one example of a small community successfully revolting against a corrupt local government in the 20th century. >
  
  At best you turn the United States into Syria. If dictatorship comes to America, it will almost certainly be popular at first(or else it wouldn't have been established in the first place) >
  
  There is a pretty large gap between having a deterrent and full on civil war. Do you think the police would do stuff like this if those protesters were armed? When Cliven Bundy and his merry band of idiots pull their stunts guns aren't the only reason they get the kid glove treatment, but it is certainly a factor. >
  
  If they were armed they would have been shot from a distance or from armoured vehicles if/after they refused to surrender them to police. >
  
  Definitely has nothing to do with the incredible availability of tools that make killing someone as easy as pressing a button. Definitely not that. 
  Its probably that Americans are just inherently more violent than all the other humans. That's gotta be it. >
  
  I have encountered a surprising number of conservative people who shout to the skies how amazing and special and wonderful America is - but will in the very next breath say that we are a uniquely violent, bloodthirsty nation whose tendency towards brutal murder is so hopefully uncontrollable it's pointless to even try.
  Curious how that works in their brains. >
  
  I’m pretty sure they’re talking about “insert group they think is the problem” and not their small town >
  
  Can you really blame them?  Their thinking is no more shallow than yours.  Their small town has plenty of guns without the murder.
  Reality is, you know the real problem too you just never thought it through.
  If I ask you, "Why do black people commit 50% of the murders despite only being 13% of the population?" What is your answer going to be?
  If you know your stuff you will go on about systemic racism and how black people had opportunity  stolen from them as they were herded into densely populated poor via things like redlining in the 70s and 80s
  The onky reason black people commit a disproportionate % of violent crimes is because they make up a disproportionate % of the population in densely populated poor areas.
  Being black doesn't make someone more violent, black culture doesn't make someone more violent, but growing up in a densely populated poor area does make people more violent.  Thus it's the racism of America that put black people in that spot that created such outcomes.
  This is pretty much the standard response about violent crime among Black people and its dead on accurate 
  But I find it fascinating that the thinking stops there.
  
  
  Densely populated poor areas are the cause of disproportionate violence from black people
  
  
  Densely populated poor areas are the cause of disproportionate prison numbers
  
  
  Densely populated poor areas are the cause of over policing in black communities 
  
  
  Densely populated poor areas are the cause of police violence as they are also humans surrounded by violence
  
  
  If America broke up its densely populated poor areas crime, especially violent crime would drop dramatically.  Most the problems that face the black community stem from living in densely populated poor areas. Disbanding them would do wonders for America and black communities.
  Yet for some reason, you suggest organized gentrification, that helped the displaced land in a different spot is racism.
  Seems people think there is a super secret formula that just makes areas not poor and we should do that instead >
  
  several incredibly deep rooted unresolved social issues that create a fractured and disenfranchised populous. >
  
  It's not that complex.
  Densely populated poor areas create exponentially higher violent crime rates regardless of culture or race.  This is true throughout the world and history.
  Most western countries spread out their poor or intertwines it with the more well off.
  The US stacks their poor on top of each other >
  
  
  It's not that complex.
  
  it actually is. talk to a sociologist sometime.
  i've traveled around the world and seen some insanely dense cities with abysmal poverty that have a negligible violent crime rate. >
  
  I don't doubt you have seen immensely  dense cities that had some poverty in them.
  London is a great example. But what they don't have is densely populated poor areas like the US has. >
  
  no, not london. i'm talking about real poverty combined with insane density.
  the old kowloon was a great example. calcutta/kolkata with 15 million is another great example. cairo with 10 million is another great example. kinshasa with 17 million people is another great example.
  none of these places have a violent crime rate remotely close to what we experience in the US in most of our cities. i've been to places without running water, but i can walk around without fear or threat of violence. >
  
  Easy access to guns. High levels of poverty (and very high income and wealth gaps.) An eroded sense of community, including a gutted social safety net. Advanced drug war (not just simple drug prohibition but a decades long offensive by the government against its people.)  
  There are other factors but these are the prominent ones from my understanding. >
  
  Fuck them, they shouldnt have them either! 
  Go too far left you get your guns back.... Id rather we deal with the root causes of violence than take away my only real protection since the cops are lazy and more likely to arrest me than help me.
  Thats the unfortunate part. I know guns are part of the problem, but we need to fix the entire system before we take them. >
  
  I feel like we as a country would have to tackle the mental health/ cultural aspects of the issue before we could ever go on to ban guns because in reality, banning guns will not stop crimes from happening, criminals will just find other ways of buying guns or harming people. What we should do is ask ourselves why people want to do crime to begin with, and what can we to do limit crime and income inequality. >
  
  US has a higher rate of densely populated poor areas.
  Throughout the world, and history, densely populated  poor areas have produced exponentially higher violent crime rates.
  Other western nations spread their poor out, or intertwine their poor with other classes.
  If you stack poor people ontop of each other, it leads to far more violent crime regardless of race, culture, geography ortime period. >
  
  The USA murder rate is 1 for 100,000 for Asians, 3 for 100,000 for white Americans, and 15 for 100,000 for Black Americans.  So we are really 3 separate countries. >
  
  Yet the murder rate for white Americans is still worse than that for white Europeans. >
  
  Extreme poverty, racial divides, minimal social support, a culture based on money and "status" being valued above all else plus every angry kid or psycho can buy a gun for $5.99 at MacDonald's. >
  
  
  racial divides
  
  Most murders are intraracial (the victim and the murderer are the same race). >
  
  Sure, but the divides fuel resentment, poverty and the feeling that you need to join a gang to survive etc. >
  
  Was in a gang for years, all the shit you're mentioning is the last thought on a young minority's mind.  Only the privileged white people looking down on us as if we are are in some zoo enclosure believe this. >
  
  Access to guns is the only thing we quintuple the rest of the world in. Makes sense statistically that we have more deaths along with it. >
  
  Percentage of an area that is black is a 5 times greater predictor of even firearm homicide in that area than gun ownership:
  
  For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, ﬁrearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%
  For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, ﬁrearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%
  
  In short, whilst guns have an effect, there are clearly better predictors. Also note that this is specifically firearm homicide. What we should actually care about is just the overall homicide, where gun ownership may not even be correlated. >
  
  Explain to me why Ghana has lower rates than Alabama? Oh. I know. Racism. >
  
  And in case anyone is confused on the point of that person being a racist, check their post history, which is a dizzying array of racist nonsense. The entire goal of their account is really to try and convert people to the idea that blacks are just genetically disposed to do crime, and there is no input from socially constructed racism in bringing about X Y Z outcomes. >
  
  Please point to a single thing that I have said that is wishing ill-will towards people of any race. All I have said are factual statements. Are facts racist? Is reality racist? >
  
  You draw from a racial correlation to a genetic causal explanation. If you believe racial genetics is the origin of the racial statistic (and you clearly do), then yes, you are a racist. And that might as well be one of the core definitions of being a racist. >
  
  Is it possible that genetic differences cause differences in crime rates? After all, we know this is true of the population overall:
  
  Medium to large effect sizes were found for genetic influences across studies, with approximately 50% of the variance in measures of antisocial behavior attributable to genetic effects. Although effect sizes did not vary across different definitions of antisocial behavior (criminality, aggression, or antisocial personality), significantly larger estimates of genetic effect were found for severe manifestations of antisocial behavior.
  
  If you say it is possible, then what if it is actual? Is that fact racist? Hell, if it is possible but not actual, is it racist to simply be wrong? What possible use does the word "racist" have if such stupid things can be labelled as such? It is clearly just a word you use to morally condemn me, regardless of how correct I am. >
  
  It's possible that the moon could be made of spinach. Prove to me that it isn't. And if it is possible, what if if it is actual? Is the fact of the Spinach Moon still nutjob shit if so?
  Makes u think 🤔 
  
  What possible use does the word "racist" have if such stupid things can be labelled as such?
  
  I just want to point out again that nowhere have they disputed my characterization of their views beyond the naming of their views. Which is why they do this roundabout argumentation about how thinking that black people are more stupid and more violent by fate of birth isn't a blatantly racist belief, despite the fact that it blatantly is.
  Oh, I don't have any ill will toward those incorrigible gibbons, I wish them the best, but the heavy hand of our law is necessited by their naturally violent tendencies. How could this possibly be racist? >
  
  
  It's possible that the moon could be made of spinach
  
  No, it isn't. Spinach can't form moons, nor would the gravity allow it to remain. However, the fact you are comparing something so ridiculous to the idea of genetic differences, despite the fact that the majority of variance in anti-social behaviour is due to genetic differences in the general public, tells me you are just ideologically driven.
  
  I just want to point out again that nowhere have they disputed my characterization of their views
  
  Given that I have shown that you are only using that word to mean that you morally condemn even the possibility of genetic differences, how exactly am I to dispute what is purely your opinion? To state it clearly, though, there is nothing morally wrong with suggesting, or presenting evidence for, the idea of genetic differences between groups causing differences in outcomes between groups.
  
  Oh, I don't have any ill will toward those incorrigible gibbons, I wish them the best, but the heavy hand of our law is necessited by their naturally violent tendencies. How could this possibly be racist?
  
  At no point did I insult blacks, either. It is completely unsurprising to me that cannot evenly and fairly represent what I am saying. >
  
  
  Spinach can't form moons, nor would the gravity allow it to remain.
  
  Bad argument. All matter induces gravitational pull. If you put a moon sized amount of spinach into space, it will form a moon of spinach. Many asteroids, if you believe the planetary science egg-heads, are essentially just loose compactions of dust with fairly airy surfaces (of course, this is just globoNASAnoid propaganda, asteroids are made of cream cheese) 
  
  tells me you are just ideologically driven.
  
  When one analyzes the various race realists of history, not a hint of ideology is ever found. 
  
  All studies on genetic inheritance of behavior require a careful separation of environmental and social factors. For this, the golden ideal of proving a genetic causal determination falls to identical twins, separated at birth, but both being adopted.
  If you can find a way to show that, say, black babies raised in non-black communities are just as [insert social behavior X Y Z] while somehow separating this from the social input of the black baby being very obviously black and treated as such, good luck, but I'm pretty sure this kind of separation of causal factors is impossible - and it becomes especially difficult once one is talking about black communities, since the genetic influence can be quickly washed out by bogstandard social explanations.
  But given the distinction between racial phenotype and underlying genotype, and the incredibly powerful incentives and legacy of racial essentialization and all the "scientific racism" that has come along with it for centuries - the use of these to reinforce and naturalize historically constructed class divisions -  I'm just gonna make a judgement call here - it seems unlikely. 
  Given that, yknow, these people were enslaved a few generations ago, and explicit white supremacism was the norm until a few decades ago, and in some ways, such policies still continue today. That seems kind of important. >
  
  Is there a high correlation between very homogenous nations and low crime/murder? >
  
  The percentage of foreign-born people in Germany and Austria is higher than in the US. Vienna has 30% non-citizens, 40% foreign born inhabitants(roughly the same as New York), with the biggest groups being from Serbia, Germany, and Turkey. It's one of the safest major cities in Europe and has been found to be the city with the highest quality of living in the world multiple times by different organizations.
  Crime actually went down, while diversity increased. >
  
  
  The percentage of foreign-born people in Germany and Austria is higher than in the US
  
  A pretty significant % of "immigrants" to Germany and Austria are from EU countries.  There isn't much diversity in that. >
  
  A pretty significant % of "immigrants" to the US are from NAFTA countries. There isn't much diversity in that. >
  
  Yeah, the correct answer really is gang culture and the fetishization of criminality in certain subcultures. Everybody blames gun availability, but these people shooting each other up usually don't obtain their guns legally. >
  
  I suppose (without looking) that the gun angle is going to be covered. I suppose, also without looking, the blame will be on the poor (black or latino specifically).  
  Imo, that is part of it. But the equal part is drugs. 
  The US is the wealthiest country in the world, we have the largest recreational drug markets in the world. We have set them up (purposefully or no) so that they are unregulated, illegal, and controlled mainly by gangs (at least the coke/dope/meth/party pills aspect). 
  Anyone that wants any of the above mentioned drugs need to go to a major metro area to get them. And they have to deal with shady characters. And they and the shady characters have zero protection from the law, in fact they are purposefully avoiding any kind of law enforcement. So we see a stream of money and people pouring from the rural suburbs to the cities for drugs. 
  The drug markets are able to use their money to secure access in poverty stricken areas. Can literally become protected in these areas. These become the only areas available for the most part. Poverty drug malls, protected by gang members with guns. The gangs have turf battles, the customers cheat, the dealers cheat, guns are the only form of justice. 
  The guns they use for justice ALL come from the rural suburbs. Whenever anyone says anything about gun violence the gun sellers (who make major profits off their rural to urban gun sales) all then point the finger at the poor urban people.
  It starts to look very much like a cycle when viewed from any distance. >
  
  Where is the data behind the "the guns they use for justice all come from rural areas" I am genuinely curious >
  
  Well, if it's not the sheer quantity of guns and normalized attitude toward violence, then it's the people. On the whole, it just means America is in a state of regression and disrepair. >
  
  How is it regression when it is significantly below the peak?  That means 1980 was the greatest point of regression. >
  
  Because it's rising again. "Significantly" may be a little over statement too. We're hovering above 7/100K currently. The peak was 10. >
  
  There’s some seriously poor parts of the US with vast wealth inequality. When truly poor people, as with any other human, are in a daily fight for survival, violence will typically follow. 
  Add in the availability of guns, gangs, religious and racial tensions and you’ll get the results you see. 
  Also have to consider population density. the numbers are being bumped up by several cities that are significantly larger than most in the western nations. Remove NY, LA, Chicago, DC, Boston, Miami from the per capita stats and numbers may not be too different compared to Europe.