On the other hand, I think it's generally true that social solutions come up to problems that regularly present themselves, but we tend to forget about those formalisms that aren't often used. That doesn't imply the social solutions are particularly fair or globally effective.
Imagine a situation where you almost never have to worry about another driver cutting you off in traffic, but you know your chance of being shot in a road rage incidence goes up 5x. Is it worth it and does the implied threat really more polite (eg in an emergency) ?
However, there is one such city for me, it's the only city I ever got bumped into twice in a single day by (seemingly sober) busy pedestrians: Prague
>I mean we're still talking about very low absolute levels.
So no, I don't see how it logically follows, whatever that means, that people Turkey or Croatia would be more likely to resort to violence to solve problems:
-Germany's crime rate is very low, and even 3.5x a very small amount is still very small. Croatia's is lower, but it apparently doesn't count because reasons. (For information, the US has never had any war on its own soil since 1865 and still sports higher homicide rates than all three of these countries).
-Unless a country is literally at war or does lynchings or something, most violence typically happens within an underclass and rarely spreads to the middle to upper classes and becomes a cultural trait affecting the general population.
-Cities are often more developed than the countryside, and the original poster was mentioning Istanbul. I get that there may be dodgy areas like in every city in the world, but does it logically follow that a whole culture shift in the entire city (or even country) stemmed from that specific number increase, and led to a peculiar general attitude when bumping people in the street? Here I'm lost.
And I didn’t discount Croatia at all, if you read my comment you’ll notice that I explicitly mention Croatia has lower per capita homicides. You’d then notice that I speculate as to why some people may have a mistaken impression of them, based on their history. You’re trying to argue against claims that I explicitly introduced contradictory evidence against, as if I support them.
As for Turkey, I’m saying that a higher per capita homicide rate is indicative that more people commit homicide on a per capita basis. People who look at a country with a higher Per Capita homicide rate may come to the conclusion that there are more people there who may commit a homicide - that is what I mean by logically follows.
I don’t know how the US, or it’s wars, factors into this discussion at all, but I think the per capita homicide rate of a country is a heuristic to the countries relative acceptance of violence. I think American culture is very violent, but that’s irrelevant to the question at hand.
Germany's homicide rate (per 100,000 people) is approximately 1. Turkey's is 4. If you lived in a city with population 100,000, would the extra three homicides be so impactful that the remaining 99,996 people would shift their whole attitudes so that they'd be careful not to bump people in the street? What I'm arguing is: no, they wouldn't. I'm not arguing anything else, so please don't shift this away from the original point.
Correlation is not causation, and definitely not logic. A high homicide rate is not indicative of a trend in problem solving, it is indicative of a safety issue.
Specially, a high homicide rate is often the result of warfare. In the absence of conflict with a different nation, usually this means gang warfare. In that case, homicide is sometimes a business tactic, and sometimes tribal.
In some societies, human life isn't as valuable, or there is a precedent for settling disputes with violence, or insignificant problems are dealt with harshly, and so homicide sometimes is a problem solving tool. But it's also sometimes a cultural quirk.
My example is Baltimore, Maryland. Often the city with the highest murder rate, this is a result of gang disputes and the drug trade. The people are friendly and neighborly, and it's got a similar culture to a liberal Southern city.
(1) Chivalry evolved as a code of behavior between noble European families. It did not protect the man in the field. Some versions of the code even included the "duty" for nights to terrorize the peasantry in order that they respect their lords and continue working the fields.
(2) Japan. The modern, early-modern, samurai codes developed during the tokugawa period ... which contrary to legend was actually very peaceful. Basically held prisoner in Edo (see "sankin kotai") the samurai class was bored. Lots of people with swords all sitting around. Some became authors who wrote about being samurai, but many were often just drunk. Rigid codes kept the peace. But samurai were basically free to slaughter commoners.
One could argue that rather than reduce violence, such codes succeed only in channeling violence towards the poor, to those without weapons. Arming everyone might seem an answer, but historically removal of the weapons was more effective.
However what is absolutely true is that a violent society has very strong notions around honor and respect. You have to when failure to respect others is grounds for getting killed, and failure to get others to respect you leaves you liable to get assaulted yourself.
That kind of honor and a high murder rate go hand in hand. Whether we are talking medieval nobles or organized crime today.
Did you mean “pleasing the king,” or were you perhaps referring to bonded serfs? ;)
There are places in the world where keeping a full-auto Kalishnikov at home is considered normal. They're much more violent than the US is.
Guns aren’t really for self defense, so much as self direction. If Trump decided he wanted to make an executive order forcefully sending people to retention centers... you don’t think those guns would come in handy? It’s the last line of defense.
This is different than the knives which were literally part of every meal. Most people keep their guns in their home, often locked
There aren't a lot of public environments where one draws and uses a gun, without that being the essential purpose of the event, with injunctions towards due caution being made over and over. Gun ranges are pretty strict about eating, drinking and making merry on the premises. Eating knives were brandished casually and in the presence of alcohol.