Worldwide gun control disscussion

[Elheru Aran]

I have actually looked into emigrating to another country. The only one I have any chance of moving to at all is Canada - and they will not take my spouse so doing so means abandoning him since he can not follow.

Immigration is NOT easy in today's world. Not for anyone.

You've probably said elsewhere but I'm curious why that would be the case. Sounds out of character for the Canadians.

It is quite common for nations to ban the immigration of people with birth defects. My spouse was born with spina bifida.

It is quite common for nations to put age limits on immigrants - they want young people, not elderly. Another few years I'll be too old myself even if technically I still qualify right now.

Canada prefers you know some French - while he knows some Spanish he knows absolutely no French. Well, he knows escargot are snails, that's about it.[snip]

OK, so linguistic barrier and age limit, I understand those. Barring someone on the basis of a birth defect sounds rather... callous, though.

I do understand that countries would like their residents to be largely productive members of society. Obviously if you're past retirement age or physically incapable of working, then that's a problem. But still, in this day and age, barring people for something they were *born* with?

That's a sidetrack from the rest of this discussion though, so I'll drop it. Just sounds like a real dick move, though.

[Joun_Lord]

It is quite common for nations to ban the immigration of people with birth defects.

I can kinda understand the reasoning behind it but it seems really heartless. Also seems really strange for a 1st world nation where immigration would I would think would be more then just "what can you offer us". Though I suppose few nations want to implement open borders either for obvious reasons.

"Fuck it, imma move to Canada" aside, yeah the thought that someone can just move is patently false and does smack of "privilege" (and I usually hate using that word) or atleast ignorance.

Most of what follows is I'm HIV positive going to be "well no duh" for you Broomstick.

The most badly effected by gun violence, violence in general lest we forget, tend to be the most poor in society. Its not because poor people are inherently violent, just far too many poor people don't have opportunities and must do terrible shit to survive. Thats not a condemnation or condoning their actions, stating a fact. Poor people doing bad shit tend not to take their bad shit to rich suburbs or streets of walls but tend to spread the misery onto their own people like the world's second shittiest sandwich spread.

Poor people trying to get out of poverty have it rough to say an understatement. Public assistance seems designed to give people just enough to barely survive (if even that) while being not exactly welcoming to those who try to improve their lives. Most poor people are going to be working multiple jobs, barely having free time. What free time they have they will want to not do much of anything being mentally and physically exhausted. Trying to save money works right up until somebody gets sick or a appliance or vehicle gets sick and all their savings are destroyed.

For poverty stricken individuals even just moving to another state, another county even can be incredibly tough.

Moving to another country? Fuggedaboudit.

The only people who can easily move are people with the money to do so and they probably aren't greatly affected by violence so they don't need to move for that. Now because of tax issues or some other rich people problems, then they might move.

[Formless]

The point about Norway or other nations is a bit disingenious considering that there was only one such shooting and the occurrence of mass shootings is way lower.

Fact is that nations with strict gun control - nearly all of Europe - have much less people shot (much less people shot by the police too). Whether that is due to social factors or not is up for debate, but not the less number of people shot.

Except, you know, Finland and Norway. The point is that they are excellent counterpoints to the casual connection you are implying between gun control and number of shootings. And yeah, I know you just said that the "social factors" are up for debate, but we know what you are trying to say or else you wouldn't even bother. Its rather disingenuous to compare those countries to one that has a serious (state sponsored) drug war going on, the worlds highest rate of incarceration by an order of magnitude, and far, far fewer social safety nets than any European country. These too are facts. They aren't up for debate. Not to mention that you are using a rather circular measurement: number of people shot. Well, if there are no or fewer guns, of course people aren't being shot! But what is the true rate of violence, and is it actually effected by gun control laws? You may call this a talking point if you like, but the point still remains that "number of people shot" is a poor argument when the larger issue isn't necessarily guns in themselves, but the level and rate of violence expressed through gun crimes.

[K. A. Pital]

The "move elsewhere" line is bullshit.

Not that I'd get offended, but moving "elsewhere" from the First World is, on the average, easier in comparison to what loser third worlders have to look at. Who have, like, no cash at all when they embark on the journey. And no right to permanent residence anywhere (who ever said anything about immediately receiving a right to permanently reside? that right has to be earned through years and years; five at best and a decade or more at worst)..

I have actually looked into emigrating to another country.

And I've actually moved around several countries. Was it hard? Extremely. But what alternative does one have when not in the First World? Eat a bullet on the street or a knife in the chest? Once the question is framed so, it becomes a matter of survival. When one doesn't even have enough income for basic necessities like food, in the end, there's little left but to move and strive for a change in life, taking whatever chances you have to, and risking a lot in the process.

The only one I have any chance of moving to at all is Canada - and they will not take my spouse so doing so means abandoning him since he can not follow. Immigration is NOT easy in today's world. Not for anyone.

I never said that's an easy solution or that it fits everyone, please.

But it is an easier personal solution than arguing in favor of upturning the entire US political culture... I think. I personally think it is easier to leave than to put up, probably because I've already had the experience of being on the opposite side of what the government stands for - at some point fighting against the windmill tires even the most decent and noble of Don Quixotes

Most people are not able to move permanently to another country. If you can, bravo, but that means you're luckier than most people in the world. As a solution to gun violence it's a horseshit recommendation for the vast majority of people. Unless they want to live as criminals, which is how illegal aliens are treated everywhere. Not sure what the overall benefit is there.

It is not a horseshit recommendation for people who are young and still able to flee or willing to take the risks connected to that, and who have no reason to put up with the bullshit. Getting yourself and your family killed by a random criminal - or, in case of the Third World, by mafiosis or paramilitary groups, - isn't a good outcome for anyone, and if the US has a security problem, then why is my recommendation wrong?

Not for everyone? Sure. Wrong? Hell no.

[Broomstick]

Your argument would hold more weight if the violence in the US was evenly spread but it's not. Merely by being white and female I'm in a lower risk group. The killing is overwhelming brown and black people under the age of 50, the majority in urban settings. Yes, other groups occasionally get shot but it's more like the risk of a lightning strike or a tornado hitting the house. The risk exists, but it's small compared to other concerns.

Merely by moving from a heavily urban area to a suburban or rural one Americans can greatly reduce their risk of being shot. Out in rural areas what risk there is comes more from suicides and accidents than crime.

The problem with gun violence in the US is NOT just about guns - it's about poverty, urban population densities, prejudice, and probably other factors. Rural white Americans probably have the same risk as someone living in Norway or Finland. It's been noted several times that young black men from big city housing projects actually have less risk of being shot if they join the military and serve time in an active war zone as opposed to staying where they were raised.

So yes, you could in theory eliminate gunshot wounds by eliminating guns but given those brutal facts do you honestly think it's going to end the violence? If it doesn't, then what good is gained by a ban that will piss off a significant portion of the population?

[Channel72]

The "move elsewhere" line is bullshit.

Not that I'd get offended, but moving "elsewhere" from the First World is, on the average, easier in comparison to what loser third worlders have to look at. Who have, like, no cash at all when they embark on the journey. And no right to permanent residence anywhere (who ever said anything about immediately receiving a right to permanently reside? that right has to be earned through years and years; five at best and a decade or more at worst)..

I have dual US and EU citizenship - but I live in the US because all my friends/family are here. Generally speaking, gun violence in the US is not significant enough to outweigh other decisions when deciding where to live (i.e. job, family, etc.) Plus in my field at least the US pays more than most places in the EU (except maybe the UK) and since I'm a greedy asshole, that factors into my decision quite a bit.

[Thanas]

The point about Norway or other nations is a bit disingenious considering that there was only one such shooting and the occurrence of mass shootings is way lower.

Fact is that nations with strict gun control - nearly all of Europe - have much less people shot (much less people shot by the police too). Whether that is due to social factors or not is up for debate, but not the less number of people shot.

Except, you know, Finland and Norway.

Less people are shot in Finland and Norway than in the USA. I don't know why you are claiming otherwise.

The point is that they are excellent counterpoints to the casual connection you are implying between gun control and number of shootings.

I am not implying anything. What I am saying is that one cannot claim "one massacre in norway totally is worse than the USA having way more of those massacres and way more gun deaths in total". That argument is bullshit.

And yeah, I know you just said that the "social factors" are up for debate, but we know what you are trying to say or else you wouldn't even bother.

Really? What am I trying to say, oh great mind reader?

But what is the true rate of violence, and is it actually effected by gun control laws?

Lower than in the USA and rates of death by police are way less either. Heck, just compare murder rates or crime statistics.

[TheFeniX]

The problem with gun violence in the US is NOT just about guns - it's about poverty, urban population densities, prejudice, and probably other factors. Rural white Americans probably have the same risk as someone living in Norway or Finland. It's been noted several times that young black men from big city housing projects actually have less risk of being shot if they join the military and serve time in an active war zone as opposed to staying where they were raised.

This. Telling a group of people with little mobility even in their own country to perform some kind of miracle and get residency in another country for them and their family is just not in anyway a remote possibility. These people are at risk specifically because they have no kind of physical or economic mobility. Also racism, but poor urban whites also have issues with violent crime. But they only have to deal with class discrimination (which is a huge problem in this country). Minorities have to deal with that and racism.

Performing military service is actually a form of mobility. But the idea that you need to sign away 4 years (depending) of your life to possibly get your ass shot off to get away from violent crime is..... not a solution. And, knowing multiple active and retired servicemen and women: it's cool they help you with college, but fighting PTSD with little help from the government fucks it up. And those are the lucky ones, they didn't end up homeless because of their disabilities.

[madd0ct0r]

(Citation needed)

Citations available in TFA linked upthread. Check the author's comments if not found in the article proper.

I think you should do better then that, or can I copy and paste ramblings with no source too?

[Formless]

The point about Norway or other nations is a bit disingenious considering that there was only one such shooting and the occurrence of mass shootings is way lower.

Fact is that nations with strict gun control - nearly all of Europe - have much less people shot (much less people shot by the police too). Whether that is due to social factors or not is up for debate, but not the less number of people shot.

Except, you know, Finland and Norway.

Less people are shot in Finland and Norway than in the USA. I don't know why you are claiming otherwise.

Reading comprehension, Thanas. I'm saying that you can't dismiss it when people bring up Finland and Norway precisely because they have both a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of violent crime. That is the real reason those countries get brought up in these discussions. They are counterexamples to the idea that gun control is the only way to reduce gun crime.

The point is that they are excellent counterpoints to the casual connection you are implying between gun control and number of shootings.

I am not implying anything. What I am saying is that one cannot claim "one massacre in norway totally is worse than the USA having way more of those massacres and way more gun deaths in total". That argument is bullshit.

Have you considered the size of each population? The density? The dispersal of the population? Besides, that doesn't seem to be at all related to what I just said. And I don't think its related to what anyone else has said either.

And yeah, I know you just said that the "social factors" are up for debate, but we know what you are trying to say or else you wouldn't even bother.

Really? What am I trying to say, oh great mind reader?

Ever heard of "weasel words," Thanas? You just used them. Right in that post. Its clear that you are trying to infer something about the cause and effect relationship between gun control laws and rate at which people get shot, and the disclaimer is just a smokescreen to make it look like that isn't what you are doing.

But what is the true rate of violence, and is it actually effected by gun control laws?

Lower than in the USA and rates of death by police are way less either. Heck, just compare murder rates or crime statistics.

Go ahead and cite those figures, then. I'm sure other people can then do a proper analysis of the statistics.

[MKSheppard]

Your argument would hold more weight if the violence in the US was evenly spread but it's not.

According to statistics published by the Governor's Office of Crime Control in Maryland:

http://goccp.maryland.gov/msac/crime-statistics.php

Baltimore City over the last 38 years (1975-2013) has averaged:

36.2 Murders per 100,000
61.0 Rapes per 100,0000
1,011.1 Robberies per 100,000
965.7 Assaults Per 100,000
999.5 Motor Vehicle Thefts per 100,000

On a population ranging from 864,100 to 662,671.

Meanwhile, Baltimore County (which surrounds the City) has averaged over the last 38 years (1975-2013):

4.1 Murders per 100,000
27.9 Rapes per 100,0000
219.7 Robberies per 100,000
565.1 Assaults Per 100,000
491.8 Motor Vehicle Thefts per 100,000

On a population ranging from 642,154 to 822,814.

Prince George's County has averaged over the last 38 years (1975-2013):

12.4 Murders per 100,000
44.8 Rapes per 100,0000
433.3 Robberies per 100,000
419.8 Assaults Per 100,000
1,135.6 Motor Vehicle Thefts per 100,000

On a population ranging from 680,363 to 888,070.

My home county of Montgomery has averaged over the last 38 years (1975-2013):

2.5 Murders per 100,000
20.5 Rapes per 100,0000
112.8 Robberies per 100,000
114.6 Assaults Per 100,000
323.0 Motor Vehicle Thefts per 100,000

On a population ranging from 571,436 to 1,016,455.

What's even more impressive is the 2013 stats for murder per 100,000:

Baltimore City: 37.4
Baltimore County: 2.4
PG County: 6.3
Montgomery: 0.9

To put all this in comparison, in 2013, the United Kingdom rate was 1.0 murders per 100,000.

Statistically, I'm actually safer in Montgomery County, MD from being murdered than I am in the UK.

Some population maps to illustrate this:





Montgomery has:

50~% minority population
32% are foreign born
36% people age 5 and older who speak a language other than english at home

Plus, there are huge economic differences within the county; the area of Montgomery where I work has multi-million dollar mansions owned by the 2%, while the area where I live is kind of run down and working class -- yet we don't have the insane crime rates of PG County or Baltimore City.

[MKSheppard]

And if being poor was the sole determinant for crime...



Baltimore City 2013 Murder Rate: 37.4
Somerset 2013 Murder Rate: 7.6
PG County 2013 Murder Rate: 6.3
Alleghany 2013 Murder Rate: 5.4
Dorchester 2013 Murder Rate: 0.0 (not a typo)

[Wild Zontargs]

I think you should do better then that, or can I copy and paste ramblings with no source too?

I originally posted this as a counterpoint to Aly's opinions, from someone on the other side of the debate who appears to know what he's talking about with respect to his side's points. Want to post your own articles? Knock yourself out. I'm not copying over all the formatting, and I'm not digging through the sources for you. Here's the link, Ctrl-F works just fine.

[madd0ct0r]

If you csnt be bothered, im just going to go right ahead and ignore it. The stuff you posted has no evidebnce of footnotes or inline sources, and the vast majority of the bits i pointed out as lacking evidence (my gun lessons stopped a couple of rapes and muggings) we both know will have no evidence. You just dont want to admit that and would rather hide behind a veil of laziness.

And the meat of his argument rests on the assesrtion that most spree shooters stop on the first violent response. Again, im not seeing the evidence, and thsts kinda crucial here.

[K. A. Pital]

Your argument would hold more weight if the violence in the US was evenly spread but it's not

I know, it is not evenly spread but I personally perceived the chance to get killed or wounded as much higher than in safer parts of Europe or industrialized Asia. Washington DC and New York did not create an impression of safe cities, and I have heard that they are far from being the worst. So my advice is aimed at people who feel the same way. Perhaps it is a very crude approximation, but this map of countries' intentional homicide rate shows:

You are much safer in Canada, Japan, S. Korea, China and Western Europe, than you are in the US.

You are safer in the US than elsewhere in America (the American continents are world leaders by murder rate, even Africa as a whole has a lower one) and than in Africa, and most of the post-Soviet space that's a crime ridden shithole. But that's it.

Merely by being white and female I'm in a lower risk group. The killing is overwhelming brown and black people under the age of 50, the majority in urban settings. Yes, other groups occasionally get shot but it's more like the risk of a lightning strike or a tornado hitting the house. The risk exists, but it's small compared to other concerns. Merely by moving from a heavily urban area to a suburban or rural one Americans can greatly reduce their risk of being shot. Out in rural areas what risk there is comes more from suicides and accidents than crime. .

I did not find the risk acceptable. I am not black. I understand there are risk reduction strategies even inside a given country, and they should be applied whenever possible, but it is still quite alarming.

The problem with gun violence in the US is NOT just about guns - it's about poverty, urban population densities, prejudice, and probably other factors. Rural white Americans probably have the same risk as someone living in Norway or Finland. It's been noted several times that young black men from big city housing projects actually have less risk of being shot if they join the military and serve time in an active war zone as opposed to staying where they were raised.

I don't think it is about guns. It is a socio-economic problem. But the political, social structure in the US is not going to change overnight, maybe not in a lifetime.

So yes, you could in theory eliminate gunshot wounds by eliminating guns but given those brutal facts do you honestly think it's going to end the violence? If it doesn't, then what good is gained by a ban that will piss off a significant portion of the population?

I am not even proposing to further regulate (not "ban!") gun ownership. Like I said, it is unacceptable for the diseased political culture in America and perhaps would not do much good, if any. I proposed - for those who are able - to seriously think if they want to tie their future destiny to such a place. That's all.

[Wild Zontargs]

If you csnt be bothered, im just going to go right ahead and ignore it. The stuff you posted has no evidebnce of footnotes or inline sources, and the vast majority of the bits i pointed out as lacking evidence (my gun lessons stopped a couple of rapes and muggings) we both know will have no evidence. You just dont want to admit that and would rather hide behind a veil of laziness.

Dude, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm Canadian, and I've never even fired a gun. I thought people would appreciate countervailing Opinion B to go along with (unsupported, I'll note) Opinion A. You want to circle-jerk over in one side's corner? Feel free. Doesn't affect me any. We already have gun control up here, and most of our shootings are gang-related and done with (heavily-regulated and therefore usually illegal) handguns.

[Azazal]

Sorry for being late to the game. For those that are curious on how much a silencer suppresses a gun, here is my friend with his FN FNX 45 with and without the can attached.

Normal


Suppressed

[Jaepheth]

Sorry for being late to the game. For those that are curious on how much a silencer suppresses a gun, here is my friend with his FN FNX 45 with and without the can attached.

Normal


Suppressed

I find that video/audio recordings don't do a good job at showing the difference; people's voices seem to sound just as loud as the gunshots and such.

I think numbers and charts show the difference a bit better to those who haven't heard it in person:


A "silencer" only reduces the report by ~40 dB; taking a gunshot from being "instant pain loud" to "very loud but tolerable" for those without ear protection.

[Thanas]

Reading comprehension, Thanas. I'm saying that you can't dismiss it when people bring up Finland and Norway precisely because they have both a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of violent crime. That is the real reason those countries get brought up in these discussions. They are counterexamples to the idea that gun control is the only way to reduce gun crime.

That is not what he said. He specifically pointed out the breivik massacre. Maybe you are the one who should read the text?

Besides, that doesn't seem to be at all related to what I just said. And I don't think its related to what anyone else has said either.

Then you should maybe learn to read the article.

Ever heard of "weasel words," Thanas? You just used them. Right in that post. Its clear that you are trying to infer something about the cause and effect relationship between gun control laws and rate at which people get shot, and the disclaimer is just a smokescreen to make it look like that isn't what you are doing.

I said no such thing. I noted a flaw in his argument, mainly his claim of Norway being just as bad due to the Breivik massacre as the USA where massacres are commonplace. That's it. The rest is just you protecting strawmen upon everything, as usual.

Lower than in the USA and rates of death by police are way less either. Heck, just compare murder rates or crime statistics.

Go ahead and cite those figures, then. I'm sure other people can then do a proper analysis of the statistics.

Stas did so.

[MKSheppard]

So I recently got a whole stack of American Rifleman magazines from the 1960s. While flipping through a 1961 issue that detailed the NRA's year of 1960 (hottest item at the NRA convention -- the new M-14 on display by the US Army); I found this ad in the classifieds; which is I believe to my knowledge, the first known use of "assault rifle" by the gun populace:



That's about $1,400 in today's money.

Also note "shipped to you", for both the pistol on sale and "assault rifle".

Pre 1968 GCA, there was no such thing as FFLs; you could order something through the mail and have it shipped to you through the post.

[Formless]

Reading comprehension, Thanas. I'm saying that you can't dismiss it when people bring up Finland and Norway precisely because they have both a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of violent crime. That is the real reason those countries get brought up in these discussions. They are counterexamples to the idea that gun control is the only way to reduce gun crime.

That is not what he said. He specifically pointed out the breivik massacre. Maybe you are the one who should read the text?

Who are you talking about? I have not seen anyone but you bring up Breivik, and you never quoted the person who supposedly did. I have been paying attention to this conversation, but I suppose its possible that you and I are talking past one another because at no point did you make it clear who you were responding to specifically.

Besides, that doesn't seem to be at all related to what I just said. And I don't think its related to what anyone else has said either.

Then you should maybe learn to read the article.

Again, which article? None of the ones I saw mentioned Brevik. Lots of articles have been posted, though, Thanas, so perhaps you should learn to be more clear.

Ever heard of "weasel words," Thanas? You just used them. Right in that post. Its clear that you are trying to infer something about the cause and effect relationship between gun control laws and rate at which people get shot, and the disclaimer is just a smokescreen to make it look like that isn't what you are doing.

I said no such thing. I noted a flaw in his argument, mainly his claim of Norway being just as bad due to the Breivik massacre as the USA where massacres are commonplace. That's it. The rest is just you protecting strawmen upon everything, as usual.

No, that's me responding to something with no stated antecedent which, on its own, appears to be a strawman in itself. Again, perhaps you should learn to be more clear, because a lot of articles have been posted, and there is a lot of text here to memorize.

Lower than in the USA and rates of death by police are way less either. Heck, just compare murder rates or crime statistics.

Go ahead and cite those figures, then. I'm sure other people can then do a proper analysis of the statistics.

Stas did so.

Fine, whatever. What I would like to see is someone analyze it, of course; interpretations are like opinions unless you do the math. i.e. not very useful.

[K. A. Pital]

Analyze what? The US is a shit country whose overall safety and crime record are on par with shitholes like Russia and Ukraine.

http://www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_ranki ... title=2016

http://www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_ranki ... title=2016

I am not sure what you are asking of me. Do I need to explain to you why other nations I have mentioned have far lower violent crime rates or just report this fact? Because I already did the latter. The former, well, would take a shitload of my time.

So let us just avoid cultural dissimilarities for a bit and take only Anglo-Saxon stuff.

[Formless]

For one thing, your data is not broken down by geographic area. That makes it appear as if San Fransisco or New York are as dangerous as Detroit or Memphis. But that is a painfully ridiculous thing to assert if you know anything about America. The United States is huge by area and quite diverse. Besides Russia, no European country is nearly as big. Any time you are relying on an average you are going to have this problem. Its little wonder that people are annoyed by your argument, because frankly everyone who lives here knows better. There are parts of this place that are literally at war with the police over fucking drugs, and there are parts of here where your odds of being victimized by anyone are on par with being struck by a plane falling out of the sky. To claim it is as bad as the Ukraine is to oversimplify beyond belief and reveal you haven't done the slightest bit of actual analysis.

[K. A. Pital]

If it is a cross-national comparison, why the fuck would I need to go into city-by-city listing when the averages speak for themselves?

New York and Washington DC were already dangerous enough, and I'm telling you that as a person from the god damn Third World. If Detroit and Memphis are so bad that these two look good in comparison, well, that only solidifies my impression of the country as of an unsalvageable wreck.

Why the bloody fuck should I take into account that the US is big? So fucking what? China and Canada are bigger and Australia is not much smaller, area-wise.

You are telling me parts of your nation are a warzone? Seriously? That's exactly what I had in mind when I used the word "shithole", and it was appropriate. An industrialized nation that is in such a state of sickening disrepair that parts of it equal a hot spot, a real warzone? No wonder the statistics are so dismal.

Why are you so fucking sore that I've compared it to Ukraine? That place is partly a warzone, too. And it seems the murder rate in the Ukraine almost equals that of the US. Ukraine: 4,3 per 100k, US: 3,9 per 100k.

Obviously you are just feeling insulted because I've dug up the statistics and you are dissappointed. But sorry, finding some Elysium-like rich enclaves in a country does not change the average numbers, which are shit.

[MKSheppard]

Nothing new

http://alternatewars.com/Politics/Firea ... mplete.htm

COMPARISON OF STATISTICS CONCERNING MURDER AND MANSLAUGHTER IN THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, 1920-31

The following tables indicate that far more crimes of murder and manslaughter, in proportion to the population, are committed annually in the United States than in the leading European countries. In the year 1930, which is the last year for which comparative statistics are available, there was approximately one such crime per 11,000 of population in the United States, as compared with approximately one in 72,500 of population in France, approximately one in 46,000 of population In Germany, approximately one in 165,000 of population in Great Britain, and for the year 1928 (which is the last available record we have) approximately one in 40,000 of population in Italy.
Moreover, murder, for the period from 1920 to 1931, has been increasing in this country more rapidly than has the growth of population, whereas in all the leading European nations there has been a constant decrease in this form of crime. In the year 1931 there were 669 known cases of murder or manslaughter in the city of Now York, as compared with 287 in the entire country of Great Britain. In the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, which is one of the 6 boroughs constituting the city, there were 333 homicides in the year 1931 as compared with 287 homicides in all of Great Britain for the same year. The entire population of the city of New York is approximately 7,000,000.
Homicide statistics for the United States and certain foreign countries
(Latest comparative figures available)
I. United States, 1931: Murder and manslaughter

11,160

United States. Division of Vital Statistics, Census Bureau of the United States Government.

II. France, 1930: Murder and manslaughter

562

France. Bureau de la statistique generale. Annuaire statistique, 1932, p.92.

III. Germany, 1931: Murder and manslaughter

1,336

Germany. Statistisches reichsamt. Statistisches Jahrbuch for das Deutsche Reich. Berlin 1933, p. 46.

IV. Great Britain. 1931: Murder and manslaughter

287

Great Britain. Home department. Criminal statistics, England and Wales, 1931. London, 1933, p. 15.

V. Italy, 1928: Homicide and infanticide

988

Italy. Direzione generale della statistics. Annuario statistico Italiano. 1930, p. 68.