No one has been murdered in Norway so far this year
phys.org
phys.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Norwegian_law)
I am suprised to see that Norway's definiton is actually very broad, encompassing some killings that common law nations would not call murder (negligence). I do, now, appreciate that Norwegian law draws lines between intentional murder and planned murder. Common law (british) stops at intention, planning being irrelevant as you would generally be hanged either way. There has to be a historical basis for Norway's approach. Viking law?
Late but I think it is from Judaism via Christianity. I used to read a lot in the Bible when I was young (still read but not as much) and I think there are rules about intentional vs unintended killings in the old law, more specifically there are rules about cities of refugee where someone who has killed someone unintentionally can flee to.
Viking law is more about blood revenge, at least in practice (I've read a fair bit of Snorre and other Icelandic stories as well when I was younger.)
Norway has a rigorous involuntary admittance into mental asylums; US has at most strictest, 3-day VOLUNTARY admittance.
It is arguable that US mental asylums were dismantled by US Mental Health Systems Act of 1980.
In 1980 to 1993, Feds have shriveled up the states’ funds earmarked for fixed mental facilities and dedicated psychiatric hospitals of which took decades to recover in some form of private-funded psychiatry hospitals but still in no way covering all the US needs required for such care due to its “voluntary”-only approach and perhaps the lack of personal funding needed for its own mental health.
So, could that be the small price that US citizens pay for allowing freedom for some “insane” of their citizens just to roam ... freely and with unchecked access to firearms?
== Reference: ==
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1...
- https://ijmhs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13033-018-...
- https://www.reddit.com/r/Norway/comments/17tq0i/how_are_the_...
- https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210121/Researcher-explor...
https://controller.phila.gov/philadelphia-audits/mapping-gun...
I just finnished watching HBO's "The Wire" and my reaction was Jesus! Does is this really happen?
Edit: the McNulty arc in the last season probably doesn't happen particularly often. The alternative, that the murders are never found or investigated, is much more likely. I don't want to say what he does (it would be a spoiler), but yes, that was more character-driven than most of the dynamics on the show.
source: everyone I know that's lived there more than five years.
Muggings are uncommon in neighborhoods like locust point,hampden, Roland park, federal hill, charles village, Patterson park, etc.
Even in "rougher" areas of the white l (station north, Remington, Barclay) Muggings are still uncommon
doesn't happen much in roland park, LP, and hampden, but I don't really agree on the others you listed. look at the the crime map with the "robbery - street" filter if you don't believe me. it looks like a population density map. fed in particular has a surprising number of muggings (probably due to drunk idiots by the bars).
It absolutely will not. I've lived in those neighborhoods (A few blocks north of north ave in old goucher) and neither my wife nor I ever had issues with violent crime. Prostitution is another story.
Link to the map?
see for yourself. in the last three months there's been at least one street robbery in most of the neighborhoods you named. if you look at the last year, they're surprisingly evenly distributed everywhere below university/33rd. I would have agreed with you seven to ten years ago, but things have really gone downhill.
roland park is almost a suburb, very car oriented, and LP is a special case due to its geography (really its connectivity). aside from that you gotta assume anything can happen at any time in baltimore.
You're aware that thousands of people live in these areas right?
> I would have agreed with you seven to ten years ago, but things have really gone downhill.
Do you live in the city? The amount of development + property prices have consistently moved upwards over the last few years
btw I'm not saying it can't be a great place to live or that you should be afraid every time you step outside. just don't believe no one will ever stick a gun in your face. it's a lot more likely than you seem to think.
Agree, but I think you're overestimating the likelihood.
Overall thanks for taking the time and best of luck in the future
The ones with cold winters and minimal urbanization.
The worst in Europe are the Baltic states. Latvia and Lithuania would be equivalent to middle of the pack US states. Outside the Baltic states, the rest of the EU and UK would be, at worst, just nudging the bottom of the states' rankings or, at best, quite some way below.
Once you get to Turkey and the Balkan states, you are again nudging lowish US numbers. BTW the reason Liechtenstein is an outlier is because it has a population of 38k. So this suggest that one person was murdered there in 2018.
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
Canada murders per 100,000: 1.8
US: 5.0
If you compare Minnesota to Canada the murder rates are very similar. So I guess the common thread is the cold weather. /s
I think it would be more informative to compare various US states by murder rate to try to find common threads, since the rate varies widely, and also because it seems more practical to make New Mexico more like Idaho than to make it more like Norway.
Does Norway have open borders? I'd like to live there. No? Oh well.
You lack both.
Documentation?
[1]: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/the-economy/economic-po...
[2]: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/prop.-1-s-gul-bok-2... (page 14, used 2019 budget for corona reasons).
Norway is part of the Schengen area, yeah
[1] https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/person/foreign/you-must-notif...
But broadly speaking you can't live permanently here unless you have a job here or are an EU or EEA citizen.
She warns that the positive development may turn once ...society reopens. (Because leaving an abusive relationship) is the setting in which most domestic murders take place.
A lot of people seem to not know this: Leaving an abusive situation is the most dangerous time. You are most likely to be killed when you try to leave.
Abusers don't think you have any rights. They don't think you deserve any respect. They see you as their personal property and it angers them for you to try to take that away from them.
Abusers trend towards feeling like "If I can't have you, no one can have you."
Edited to remove gendered language from the article quote, among other things.
[1]: https://www.nrk.no/sorlandet/har-gjennomgatt-19-drap---i-dag...
[2]: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/5f3dc96de14f443f869...
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SGP/singapore/murder-h...
[1] https://www.politiet.no/globalassets/04-aktuelt-tall-og-fakt..., excluding the 2011 terror attack.
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
The Onion has published the article 17 times:(
They own them because they trust their government or if that's too strong of a word, they are content with their ability to defend Switzerland for the government. Instead of defending themselves from the government. (But that sentiment exists too)
And of course most pistols are not purchased for hunting.
So to answer your question: none of the above. It's demographics.
There's a lot of unrecorded relationships, but family and intimate partners make up a pretty big chunk of the homicides in the US.
- Mandatory military service makes people know how to use guns
- People have mandatory health insurance and social security, means there is no need to shoot people for money
- Less racist police, means minorities dont solve problems by themselves with violence
- high minimum wage, so nobody has to starve
- Gun owners do not use guns to defend against burglars, so burglars also dont have to use guns
- Proper handling of drug addiction (including addicts)
- better mental health because of mandatory holidays, parental leaves, and a lot of chocolate
- Prostitution is legal, so no pimping
Even European countries with a decent social safety net still have some drug addicts (mainly heroin) who are desperate for money to buy that expensive drug and will engage in petty crime to do so, e.g. pickpocketing, mugging, bicycle theft, theft of copper wiring, etc. (And yes, some states provide assistive infrastructure for addicts, but there are still demographics that avoid it and continue their addict to street drugs.) The fact that there is almost no shooting going on has more to do with legal and/or cultural pressures on guns than the existence of a welfare state making life OK for everyone.
Petty crime yes, mostly bicycle theft, and some mugging
So if they have forced conscription, where does the vetting come in? Do they exempt, not conscript, the people who look particularly killy? Or does it come during their short military service? "19 year old Private Hans, we think you might murder someone in 20 years, we're banning you from ever owning a gun hereafter."
If Switzerland has less murder, it's because people feel less inclined to murder there. Why that is may be up for debate, but I certainly don't think a couple years of conscripted service right out of high school plays a role--or else you'd never hear about American vets killing anyone.
Presumably people with mental illness or certain criminal convictions are excluded?
>Why that is may be up for debate, but I certainly don't think a couple years of conscripted service right out of high school plays a role--or else you'd never hear about American vets killing anyone.
This is likely self selecting. If everyone in Switzerland serves then their average vet is essentially their average citizen, the murder rate for an Average American is probably low. The type of people who enlist in the US are not typically "average."
I don't think people who believe this have ever actually been to a gun show. Anyone who commercially sells guns is required to have an federal firearms dealer's license (FFL), not having one will get you in big legal trouble with the ATF. If you have a table with 100s of guns for sale there is a 100% chance you are an FFL gun seller in which case you are required to do background checks on all gun purchases.
Yeah it's called a background check.
When you buy a gun from an FFL they submit your ID (SSN, name, birth-date, etc) to the NCIS system that basically checks that you answered all the questions on the 4473 truthfully. Then the seller tells them what kind of gun you're buying (long gun vs handgun) and assuming it's all clear records the specific serial numbers on the 4473 which they then file and keep for 20+yr. So there exists a record of who every professionally manufactured gun was first sold to.
Of course nobody would tolerate being subject to those record keeping requirements for private sales. But nobody wants to get the pigs knocking on their door asking who they sold a gun they recovered from a crime scene to so people want to be able to call up the NCIS system (without being a federally licensed dealer, which is an onerous process) and confirm that whoever they're about to sell a gun to in a Walmart parking lot isn't a prohibited person.
Over the years there have been numerous proposals to open up the NCIS system. They've all included requirements about recording serial numbers and retaining records and are a comically bad deal for gun owners so of course it goes nowhere.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you aren't comfortable selling a gun to a criminal or someone with a potentially dangerous mental illness you need to do a background check there's no alternative. Maybe for your specific gripe, which I don't find compelling, you disconnect the background check from the specific gun being sold but you still need to do it.
Irrelevant but ok.
>A conscripted army by definition has lax standards of vetting and lesser standards of training
In Switzerland: "People determined unfit for service, where fitness is defined as "satisfying physically, intellectually and psychological requirements for military service or civil protection service and being capable of accomplishing these services without harming oneself or others", are exempted from service but pay a 3% additional annual income tax until the age of 37, unless they are affected by a disability. Almost 20% of all conscripts were found unfit for military or civilian service in 2008; the rate is generally higher in urban cantons such as Zurich and Geneva than in the rural ones"
>There's nothing magical about getting yelled at for 90 days that makes them less likely to solve problems with violence
You really think average Joe who walks into walmart and walks out with a rifle is going to be as responsible a gun owner as someone with military training? Also Basic in Switzerland is ~140 days for reference...
I don’t think Swiss is any different.
I literally posted a quote saying 20% of conscripts are rejected as unfit... But this is all way outside the original point I was making anyway.
Which movie is that from? I dont remember ever being yelled at during basic. Our "staff" never felt the need to raise thier voices. If you are infantry you know to be most afraid when the training staff say nothing.
Conscription in Europe is more akin to a summer camp, you really can’t compare it to military service in the US.
For example, the population density is 14.0/km2 (36.3/sq mi) and their ethnicity is primary Norwegian with a large part of the immigrants from other European countries.
This is very different from most places in the US. For density you'd need to look at Utah or Kansas. These two states have more ethnic diversity than Norway, it appears.
Note, I only point people to the data so we can try to start to look at why we have cases like Norway. And, this is only a start and the easy data to pull from Wikipedia. It's not meant to paint the reason for or picture.
(Note, I only point people to the data so we can try to start to look at why we have cases like Norway)
edit: to defuse the snark in my reply as it's not fitting for a HN debate - presenting cherry picked data points and saying "I'm just presenting the data" is still making an argument just through which data you have chosen. Not explicitly stating your argument just makes it weaker.