https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by...
From New Hampshire at 1.1, Hawaii at 1.3, and Vermont at 1.6 to Mississippi at 8.7 and Louisiana at 10.
If there's a correlation there, it doesn't seem obviously strong.
This linked adds a new dimension - climate change with warmer temperatures would appear to come with an increased death toll due to crime.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009506961...
per_capita_data = {'white': 3, 'asian': 1, 'black': 21, 'hispanic': 6}
cali_cencus = {'white': 37.7, 'asian': 14.8, 'black': 6.5, 'hispanic': 37.7}
texas_cencus = {'white': 42.4, 'asian': 4.8, 'black': 12.6, 'hispanic': 39.1}
def calculate(per_capita, state_stats):
rate = 0
for race in per_capita:
rate += per_capita[race] * (state_stats[race] / 100)
return rate
print calculate(per_capita_data, texas_cencus)
print calculate(per_capita_data, cali_percentages)http://amp.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article191211704....
Population of NYC: 8,537,673
Population of St Louis: 312,000
The one thing NY does have is high inequality measured in gini, the highest of all states. That usually drives crime/murder rates. But it's probably because of rich outliers (extreme upper capital class), rather than a big gap between lower-uppermiddle.
It's true that the rates are rising for a few years in a row, but this is nothing new. If anything, Canada's typical pattern is to see a rise a few years in a row, followed by a stronger drop. [0]
It's also true that gang related offences were part of the recent rise. But let's also note that they entail about 100 of the 600 murders in Canada, 15.5% in the last year for which I can find data. (2016). The vast majority of murders are done not by strangers but by friends or family, not related to gang violence.
[0] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/171122/cg-b001-eng....
So how effective is that alone? It seems per capita income would be the prevalent factor.
Arguably the poorest US state, West Virginia, has a typical murder rate of around 3 to 4 per year per 100k.
Vietnam has been extraordinarily poor for the last half century, only recently beginning to climb economically. Its murder rate is typically 1 to 1.5 or so.
Per capita income probably only has a correlation in regards to the resources you have available to deal with crime problems if such presently exist, rather than being the defining characteristic of whether eg murder will be prevalent in a nation.
Sure if the average salary in Vietnam is $150/month then yes per capita income is going to to be lower than the poorest cities in US. $150/month is a different story in NYC or SF. It would have to be adjusted for purchasing power or maybe just looking at poverty rates.
It isn't, alone, in a cherry-picked example. But ceteris paribus it's a explanatory factor.
I mean, one could also use your argument the other way around and question whether income is effective as a factor by itself. Cherry pick some country with similar levels of median wealth and a wildly different murder rate and gun laws. Like say the Netherlands and the US. Doesn't really prove a point, it'd be silly to now claim income isn't an important factor.
Among OECD countries, only 3 countries are worse than the USA [1]
The USA really does rank among developing countries in a lot of different measures.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-homicide-rates-chart-201...
It would also have a GDP much like the USA, and would qualify for the OECD.
Obviously this is just about how averages work -- the high violence stats of the 10% can completely skew the average, but their low income stats can't. But it's worth remembering, every time someone tries to tell you what an outlier among rich countries the US is. It's a large, diverse, country... and often different averages are telling you facts about completely different people & places.
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/national/the-cities-with-the...
Amsterdam has a murder rate commonly as high as the whole of the US. That isn't a rational comparison and isn't indicative of the murder rate of the Netherlands.
Currently, St. Louis, United States, sit's at # 14 most dangerous city worldwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate
To believe you aren’t in danger does not make it so.
That's significantly higher than average, but not 'crazy' relative to Venezuela's murder rate of 90 per 100,000.
On the other hand Washington DC was ~70-80 from 1988 to 1998, which would have put it on the current list of top 10 deadliest city's worldwide. DC: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/data/ct-homicide-spikes-c...)
Current top 50: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-violent-cities-in-the-wo...
PS: Homicide rates are not necessarily accurate, but tend to be closer to reality than say rape statistics.
There's no scenario where you can propose the Netherlands should compensate slave descendants in the Americas, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars or more, where you're going to convince them to even have that conversation. People of the Netherlands today will simply tell you they had nothing to do with it, and should not be held responsible for past sins, and that's the end of the conversation (unless you want a small token sum to wipe away the guilt and grievance).
It’s simpler here because much of the harm done relates to land theft. Working out who you repay when people don’t necessarily know where they were kidnapped from and what they lost is not the same.
Edit: I see that your account is a throwaway that spends its time defending the slave trade.
Most people's hands are clean in a direct sense. Almost nobody in a developed nation has clean hands indirectly. Very few white people were slave owners or traders. How could one possibly account for the benefit a white (or black or asian) person in Britain today derives from British slavery in the 18th century? How could you possibly proportion reparations on any nation? Should a person that immigrated to Britain in 1978 from China, have to pay taxes to cover those reparations? Plausibly there's no way to deal with that fundamental issue that doesn't involve harming extremely large numbers of strictly innocent people, and the theoretical cost would be massive if you did attempt to do it (such that it would be guaranteed to be a tax on everyone across the board, regardless of race or guilt).
I've seen a lot of valid discussion of reparations in my lifetime. The topic itself is perfectly legitimate as a discussion matter. I've never once seen a practical way suggested that it could be implemented justly in regards to any of that nations that were responsible for the African slave trade.
Slaves worked 89 percent as many hours per year as whites.
[Trevon Logan](http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/trevon/pdf/Pres_Address_09-02...) did an experiment seeing how much cotton his children could pick in a day and found that they picked 95% of what the slaves picked of the same age.
Only 1.2% of the former slaves interviewed by the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s reported having been raped by a master. Today, 22% of black women report having been raped.
According to Steven Crawford in "The Slave Family: A view from the slave narratives", 51% of black slaves had intact families. In 2011, only 37% of blacks had intact families.
In the first search result I found for this, it says 18.8% of African-American woman are raped in their lifetime, 17.9% for Caucasian. They also indicate that some of the differences in numbers have to do with cultural perceptions of what constitutes rape and privacy about personal matters.
https://endsexualviolencect.org/resources/get-the-facts/wome...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6631a9.htm