Homicide Rates, A Dated Comparison By Country.

• It's always interesting for me to take a peek back in time and review some of the data that was collected "then" to address the questions we were having relating to problems we're experiencing as a society and how they were addressed, remedied (if appropriate) and how they might apply to what we're currently experiencing in our society and globally today.

  
  

  This little tidbit sent to me recently is pretty revealing. 

  
  

  It was sent by a friend. As mentioned, a portion of it is dated but it helps to define the trends, assigned assumptions, potential remedies, successes and failures relating to the deterrence of murder and crime in particular.

  
  

  Here's the information:

  
  

  REB Research Blog by Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum

  
  

  * REBRESEARCH.COM

  
  

  Crime: US vs UK and Canada

  
  

  The US has a lot of guns and a lot of murders compared to England, Canada, and most of

  Europe. This is something Piers Morgan likes to point out to Americans who then struggle to

  defend the wisdom of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment: “How do you justify 4.8

  murders/year per 100,000 population when there are only 1.6/year per 100,000 in Canada,

  1.2/year per 100,000 in the UK, and 1.0/year per 100,000 in Australia — countries with few

  murders and tough anti-gun laws?,” he asks. What Piers doesn’t mention, is that these anti-gun countries have far higher contact crime (assault) rates than the US.

  
  

  The differences narrow somewhat when considering most violent crimes, but we still have far

  fewer than Canada and the UK. Canada has 963/year per 100,000 “most violent crimes,” while the US has 420/year per 100,000. “Most violent crimes” here are counted as: “murder and non-negligent manslaughter,” “forcible rape,” “robbery,” and “aggravated assault” (FBI values).

  
  

  England and Wales classify crimes somewhat differently, but have about two times the US rate, 775/year per 100,000, if “most violent crimes” are defined as: “violence against the person, with injury,” “most serious sexual crime,” and “robbery.”

  
  

  It is possible that the presence of guns protects Americans from general crime while making

  murder more common, but it’s also possible that gun ownership is a murder deterrent too. Our murder rate is 1/5 that of Mexico, 1/4 that of Brazil, and 1/3 that of Russia; all countries with strong anti-gun laws but a violent populous. Perhaps the US (Texan) penchant for guns is what keeps Mexican gangs on their, gun-control side of the border. Then again, it’s possible that guns neither increase nor decrease murder rates, so that changing our laws would not have any major effect. Switzerland (a country with famously high gun ownership) has far fewer murders than the US and about 1/2 the rate of the UK: 0.7 murders/ year per 100,000. Japan, a country with low gun ownership has hardly any crime of any sort — not even littering. As in the zen buddhist joke, change comes from within.

  
  

  One major theory for US violence was that drugs and poverty were the causes. Remove these by stricter anti-drug laws and government welfare, and the violent crime would go away. Sorry to say, it has not happened; worse yet, murder rates are highest in cities like Detroit where welfare is a way of life, and where a fairly high fraction of the population is in prison for drugs.

  
  

  Detroit’s higher living wage, has made it hard for people to find honest work. Stiff drug penalties have not helped Detroit either, and may contribute to making crimes more violent.

  
  

  As Thomas More pointed out in the 1500s, if you are going to prison for many years for a small crime, you’re more likely to use force to avoid risk capture. Perhaps penalties would work better if they were smaller.

  
  

  Detroit 1967 to 2017: unemployment comes down, murder rate doesn't.

  
  

  Homicide rate per country:

  
  

  

  
  

  
  

  Thanks for sharing this Dan!

  
  
• 
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

They're Poised To Manage Our Country...

The global elites are poised to manage our country when we fail and fall. And according to them it's simply a matter of time.

For those of you who know me we've definitely discussed this "takeover" many, many times in the past. But the difference between then and now is this... back "then" they denied the very fact that they were posturing to fill the vacuum that they're helping to create in our national government, economy, etc. "NOW"? They're openly admitting they're ready to step in and assume control of our crumbling infrastructure, economy and divisive government. They're not even trying to hide that fact.

I'm guessing the global elites are guessing we're closer to failing than they previously thought. Hence they're making public their objective... take over our country, our government, our economy... our independence. The global elites claim they'll avoid global war by managing our decline for us.

They don't want to be a part of our "pending decline" but they do want to manage it. They're all about protecting what they have and at the same time offering us, our culture, our independence, our nation up to the rising global powers, in particular, China.

They've been emboldened by the left in our country and our fledgling economy that was wholly and (I believe) intentionally mismanaged by the left to the point of near crisis. In the end, what appears to have occurred (and it occurred on our watch) the national left failed to destroy us from within... or at least wholly destroy us from within so now the global elite left appear to be posturing to deliver the coup d'état and subsequently the coup de gras to our nation, our independence as we know it.

Molon Labe! Your surprises will be waiting for you.

IMHO

From the "Classical Values" website...

Why is Trump in trouble?

This helps tell the story.  No one liked him "then" when he was running and no one likes him "now" that he's president. No one from the global elite that is. Our election of Donald J. Trump as our latest POTUS was a blindsided blow to the global politically elite group.

And now they're doubling down on destroying our POTUS Donald J. Trump in office.

Simon from Classical Values provided the feed.

IMHO

Are Our Politicos Trying To Control Our Freedom Of Speech Rights?

...Again?

Yep, I'd say they are. They're catering to those who wish to destroy us rather than those of us who wish to protect what we have.

The muslims, daesh... they're winning the votes of our politicos in the name of political correctness in spite of us, the citizens, our safety, our existence as we know it.

Our politicos are willing to throw us, our rights under the bus in order to ensure they're being wholly politically correct to those who seek to destroy us. They want to make us a North American caliphate. Or so it seems.

IMHO

The Germans. They See Their Foot... and Shoot Their Foot. They can't control their latest invaders.

How ironic is this...

The very rules established and the very laws adopted by post war Germany are biting them in their arses. Many of those laws were self imposed and many of those laws were internationally imposed. Either way, they've become wholly inept at combating the influx of mideastern, islamic criminals. Gangs, cartel's, consortiums... whatever you want to call groups of daesh, of muslims, islamists in Germany are running amok. German citizens are not safe.

Or so it appears from the international news reports. They're going the way of France and beyond.

IMHO

Why Puerto Rico should never become a state in the United States of America.

Or so the political discussion goes. At least one side of it.

The fine citizens of Puerto Rico want statehood but here's some of the reasons our stuff shirt politicos are claiming they shouldn't be allowed to get what they want. According to our politicos Puerto Rico has a faltering economy, would most likely be a burden on the United States and it has exhibited a pattern of failed leadership.

These are cited as a few of the reasons Puerto Rico doesn't qualify for statehood, or so we're told.

Sound familiar?

Can we say California, New York, Illinois, Virginia, West Virginia... several other states who came close to having, have or at one time have had one or more of these problems throughout their existence as a state and/or as a territory. I can name several but that's not the issue here. The issue is Puerto Rico and statehood.

The citizens of a United States Territory, Puerto Rico voted for statehood. Well, let's say the overwhelming majority of those Puerto Ricans who voted, voted for statehood. The vast majority of those who voted!

But in all fairness a vast majority of Puerto Ricans didn't vote.

Either way, I don't see much of a difference between what is, what was and what's desired in acquiring statehood in the United States of America and what most, if not all of the previous "Territories" brought to the table when they applied and subsequently were accepted as a state.

IMHO

Europe's enabling a replacement population.

And it's not European.

Europe is transforming before our very eyes. It's willingly opened its arms to wholesale change. Seemingly accepting history for what it was and moving forward down a separate path from that storied history. It's a path that appears to be totally foreign to all things European

Or so it seems.

In a short period of time (historically) all of Europe will be inhabited by approximately 37% non-European "immigrants".

And they're doing this to themselves. WHY?

IMHO

Europe's going insane!

Europe is evidently choosing to destroy themselves.


"It would simply never in a million years have occurred to the authors of the original Convention on Human Rights that it would one day end up in some form being used as a justification to stay here by individuals who are a danger to our country and our way of life."


But it is being used as that justification. And will continue to be used as that justification until something is done about it... or until it's too late.


IMHO