Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ouze wrote: The fact a large number of gun deaths in the US probably shouldn't be handwaved away as saying well, a lot are suicide. Yes, that is true, but I think most reasonable people can probably agree that suicide is very much an impulsive act, and access to a firearm gives a much higher chance of successfully executing it. Yes, if you really want to, there is nothing stopping you from running in front of a bus or jumping off a bridge, but by and large, the amount of successful suicides in this country are at least in part because of easy access to firearms.
This isn't an argument that we need to ban firearms, just one of those things we have to accept that we're OK with as the cost for our way of life.
Prestor Jon wrote: Most drownings are accidental and there are many times more accidental drownings deaths than accidental shooting deaths.
And tell me, do most localities not have requirements to try and mitigate this? i.e. require a fence around a pool?`
We don't really do this with firearms. States that attempt to require firearms be secured in a safe are decried as both unconstitutional and unworkable, and those arguments aren't without a grain of merit - but it's an attempt to mitigate, just like with pools. When a kid finds a gun and blows away a sibling or themselves, we often describe it as "an accident" and barring some modifier like the owner was a felon, the firearm owner isn't charged with a crime because it "was a tragedy, and they've suffered enough". Again, not making an argument for banning anything but they're both good examples of the weird blinders we wear as Americans.
Pools are open structures that people can wander into an fall into so they are required to be fenced in. Guns are personal property that are kept indoors or on one's person so the need for them to be fenced in isn't present. Indoor pools don't need to be fenced in like outdoor inground pools. Gun storage laws are more problematic because of the 4th Amendment violation caused by their enforcement. Negligence in regards to child welfare is already a crime that is used to punish parents/guardians/adults who are negligent with their gun storage to the extent that it harms minors or allows minors to harm others. People get prosecuted for it and negligent discharges by minors is a much rarer problem than accidental drownings. If the dangers aren't equitable than there is no need for the safeguards addressing them to be equitable.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to own my own nuclear reactor? Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to punch people in the face? You're bending the word to absurdity and beyond.
neither of these are rights the way owning a firearm is in the US, and one is so far beyond the means of 99.99999% of the population as to be meaningless and the other is a physical act of aggression as opposed to a property rights issue
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to own my own nuclear reactor? Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to punch people in the face? You're bending the word to absurdity and beyond.
No you're just bending what I thought was a pretty clear argument into a something that isn't analogous at all and is indeed absurd. If you had a legal right to own nuclear reactors and you chose to own a nuclear reactor and you had a clean safety record of nuclear reactor ownership and had never broken any nuclear reactor laws and then the government passed a new law that declared nuclear reactor ownership was forbidden and they came to your home and confiscated your nuclear reactor you would be the victim of an undeserved punishment. You would have been deprived of a right and the liberty to exercise it without being afforded due process and without being awarded just compensation.
Suicide is cause by one person using an easy means to carry out the deed. This number should be pointed out so that we can properly assess the seriousness of mental health needs. Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission.
Someone who is suicidal and does not have access to a gun is much less likely to commit suicide than someone who does.
The act of suicide is often impulsive. It's why there are often barriers on high bridges. They aren't impossible to scale, but enough of an obstacle that the suicidal episode passes.
I'm not a proponent of banning guns. But if we could "gunsia exumai" away all the guns tomorrow, suicide rates would drop.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Suicide is cause by one person using an easy means to carry out the deed. This number should be pointed out so that we can properly assess the seriousness of mental health needs. Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission.
Someone who is suicidal and does not have access to a gun is much less likely to commit suicide than someone who does.
The act of suicide is often impulsive. It's why there are often barriers on high bridges. They aren't impossible to scale, but enough of an obstacle that the suicidal episode passes.
I'm not a proponent of banning guns. But if we could "gunsia exumai" away all the guns tomorrow, suicide rates would drop.
This. The UK was able to reduce the number of successful suicides by reducing the amount of paracetamol you could purchase in a single transaction. So the inconvenience of having to go back round the shop and pick up more paracetamol to buy in a separate transaction in order to ensure you had a lethal dose was enough to save some lives.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to own my own nuclear reactor? Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to punch people in the face? You're bending the word to absurdity and beyond.
Can you afford your own nuclear reactor?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Suicide is cause by one person using an easy means to carry out the deed. This number should be pointed out so that we can properly assess the seriousness of mental health needs. Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission.
Someone who is suicidal and does not have access to a gun is much less likely to commit suicide than someone who does.
The act of suicide is often impulsive. It's why there are often barriers on high bridges. They aren't impossible to scale, but enough of an obstacle that the suicidal episode passes.
I'm not a proponent of banning guns. But if we could "gunsia exumai" away all the guns tomorrow, suicide rates would drop.
Bridges don't just have railings and barriers to prevent suicides.
The problem with trying to keep guns away from suicidal people is that there is no effective way to mark people as suicidal to alert gun stores from selling them guns and there is no way to accurately predict when a given gun owner would become suicidal and there are legal obstacles that prevent the authorities from just confiscating guns from somebody just in case they become suicidal.
Suicide is cause by one person using an easy means to carry out the deed. This number should be pointed out so that we can properly assess the seriousness of mental health needs. Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission.
Someone who is suicidal and does not have access to a gun is much less likely to commit suicide than someone who does.
The act of suicide is often impulsive. It's why there are often barriers on high bridges. They aren't impossible to scale, but enough of an obstacle that the suicidal episode passes.
I'm not a proponent of banning guns. But if we could "gunsia exumai" away all the guns tomorrow, suicide rates would drop.
Bridges don't just have railings and barriers to prevent suicides.
Sure, they also help prevent debris, etc from falling off. But they are called suicide barriers, implying they have a primary purpose.
The problem with trying to keep guns away from suicidal people is that there is no effective way to mark people as suicidal to alert gun stores from selling them guns and there is no way to accurately predict when a given gun owner would become suicidal and there are legal obstacles that prevent the authorities from just confiscating guns from somebody just in case they become suicidal.
Exactly. I am not suggesting we ban guns, because that's basically impossible. I'm refuting the point that "Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission". That statement does not accurately reflect the nature of most suicides.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to own my own nuclear reactor? Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to punch people in the face? You're bending the word to absurdity and beyond.
No you're just bending what I thought was a pretty clear argument into a something that isn't analogous at all and is indeed absurd. If you had a legal right to own nuclear reactors and you chose to own a nuclear reactor and you had a clean safety record of nuclear reactor ownership and had never broken any nuclear reactor laws and then the government passed a new law that declared nuclear reactor ownership was forbidden and they came to your home and confiscated your nuclear reactor you would be the victim of an undeserved punishment. You would have been deprived of a right and the liberty to exercise it without being afforded due process and without being awarded just compensation.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, but to me a punishment implies that someone's actively reacting to something you've either done or are percieved as having done by the acting party. The intention of a hypothetical gun-ban is not to "teach you a lesson" or in any other way bring retribution for something anyone's done, it's an end to another mean than punishment. We might be getting a bit too philosophical here though.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Ouze wrote: The fact a large number of gun deaths in the US probably shouldn't be handwaved away as saying well, a lot are suicide. Yes, that is true, but I think most reasonable people can probably agree that suicide is very much an impulsive act, and access to a firearm gives a much higher chance of successfully executing it. Yes, if you really want to, there is nothing stopping you from running in front of a bus or jumping off a bridge, but by and large, the amount of successful suicides in this country are at least in part because of easy access to firearms.
This isn't an argument that we need to ban firearms, just one of those things we have to accept that we're OK with as the cost for our way of life.
.
Actually, there are a number of things that throw a wrench into those statistics. Now, having a firearm DOES increase the chance of you pulling off a suicide, but it's not as bad as you think.
There are two different "kinds" of suicide attmept: An actual real suicide attempt, and the cry for help/attention. Cries for attention are the larger group, and the manner of attempt is not evenly distributed. Few people try to get attention by shooting themselves in the head.
Men are more likely than women to try an actual attempt, and men are more likely to own firearms.
Also, suicide attempts and physical location are also linked. Obviously firearms are more concentrated in rural areas, which also have fewer options for mental health help. People there are less likely to see a doctor, and more likely to have feelings of isolation. So in this sense, firearms ownership and suicide are correlational, but not really causitive.
Ouze wrote: The fact a large number of gun deaths in the US probably shouldn't be handwaved away as saying well, a lot are suicide. Yes, that is true, but I think most reasonable people can probably agree that suicide is very much an impulsive act, and access to a firearm gives a much higher chance of successfully executing it. Yes, if you really want to, there is nothing stopping you from running in front of a bus or jumping off a bridge, but by and large, the amount of successful suicides in this country are at least in part because of easy access to firearms.
This isn't an argument that we need to ban firearms, just one of those things we have to accept that we're OK with as the cost for our way of life.
Prestor Jon wrote: Most drownings are accidental and there are many times more accidental drownings deaths than accidental shooting deaths.
And tell me, do most localities not have requirements to try and mitigate this? i.e. require a fence around a pool?`
We don't really do this with firearms. States that attempt to require firearms be secured in a safe are decried as both unconstitutional and unworkable, and those arguments aren't without a grain of merit - but it's an attempt to mitigate, just like with pools. When a kid finds a gun and blows away a sibling or themselves, we often describe it as "an accident" and barring some modifier like the owner was a felon, the firearm owner isn't charged with a crime because it "was a tragedy, and they've suffered enough". Again, not making an argument for banning anything but they're both good examples of the weird blinders we wear as Americans.
Pools are open structures that people can wander into an fall into so they are required to be fenced in. Guns are personal property that are kept indoors or on one's person so the need for them to be fenced in isn't present. Indoor pools don't need to be fenced in like outdoor inground pools. Gun storage laws are more problematic because of the 4th Amendment violation caused by their enforcement. Negligence in regards to child welfare is already a crime that is used to punish parents/guardians/adults who are negligent with their gun storage to the extent that it harms minors or allows minors to harm others. People get prosecuted for it and negligent discharges by minors is a much rarer problem than accidental drownings. If the dangers aren't equitable than there is no need for the safeguards addressing them to be equitable.
Guns are deadly weapons that children can find and discharge, killing themselves or another. Maybe we should require people to be responsible with them.
Or maybe we should take down the fences around pools so we don't have to have sensible gun laws.
Vaktathi wrote: The person giving up something isnt the one making the decision in this case, the decision is forced upon them.
That's not true. Each and every one of the persons making the decision are giving up something. Now of course it's a decision that needs to be made at a whole community level rather than at a personal level. Hence, some people who disagree are still forced to comply. Just like in every goddamn decision made at a community level.
Are each and every decisions made at a community level rather than at a personal one a punishment?
Vaktathi wrote: There are also very different categories here. You're mixing criminal law and civil law. Traffic laws are an entirely different area of law from drug law.
And that's entirely irrelevant to my whole analogy, which is made more explicit just above.
Prestor Jon wrote: Removing rights and liberties is punishment.[…]
Why do you assume that I don't view drug laws, taxes the same way I view gun control laws?
US individualism at its finest. See just above actually. Apparently you hate decisions that are taken at a community level and then enforced to every member of the community. That's why the US hates communism so much .
Prestor Jon wrote: You would have been deprived of a right and the liberty to exercise it without being afforded due process and without being awarded just compensation.
So it's only a punishment if you are not awarded just compensation? Why do you assume no just compensation? Would you be okay with it if just compensation was given?
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Vaktathi wrote: The person giving up something isnt the one making the decision in this case, the decision is forced upon them.
That's not true. Each and every one of the persons making the decision are giving up something. Now of course it's a decision that needs to be made at a whole community level rather than at a personal level. Hence, some people who disagree are still forced to comply. Just like in every goddamn decision made at a community level.
Are each and every decisions made at a community level rather than at a personal one a punishment?
Such decisions generally dont involve forfeiture of established rights and physical property. Thats a huge distinction, and generally tends to have very messy consequences.
A collective decision that you cant just dump garbage anywhere or that murder is wrong is very different from one that overturns a long established right and requires many to give up valuable property, and such collective decisions in the US are very rare indeed.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Suicide is cause by one person using an easy means to carry out the deed. This number should be pointed out so that we can properly assess the seriousness of mental health needs. Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission.
Someone who is suicidal and does not have access to a gun is much less likely to commit suicide than someone who does.
The act of suicide is often impulsive. It's why there are often barriers on high bridges. They aren't impossible to scale, but enough of an obstacle that the suicidal episode passes.
I'm not a proponent of banning guns. But if we could "gunsia exumai" away all the guns tomorrow, suicide rates would drop.
I am not entirely sure of that statement since Japan has a higher suicide rate than the U.S., placing them at number 17 in the world compared to the the U.S. at number 50.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/28 23:28:41
Are you seriously suggesting that easy access to guns does not contribute to the suicide rate?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Japan and the US is not analogous. The culture is very different.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Vaktathi wrote: Such decisions generally dont involve forfeiture of established rights and physical property. Thats a huge distinction, and generally tends to have very messy consequences.
A collective decision that you cant just dump garbage anywhere or that murder is wrong is very different from one that overturns a long established right and requires many to give up valuable property, and such collective decisions in the US are very rare indeed.
The physical property argument makes a lot of sense. Way more than the whole “I'm being punished” one.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
feeder wrote: Japan and the US is not analogous. The culture is very different.
The US does indeed have a culture that is different, which makes comparing suicides difficult. However, doesn't that make comparing homicides to other countries difficult as well?
Ouze wrote: The fact a large number of gun deaths in the US probably shouldn't be handwaved away as saying well, a lot are suicide. Yes, that is true, but I think most reasonable people can probably agree that suicide is very much an impulsive act, and access to a firearm gives a much higher chance of successfully executing it. Yes, if you really want to, there is nothing stopping you from running in front of a bus or jumping off a bridge, but by and large, the amount of successful suicides in this country are at least in part because of easy access to firearms.
This isn't an argument that we need to ban firearms, just one of those things we have to accept that we're OK with as the cost for our way of life.
Prestor Jon wrote: Most drownings are accidental and there are many times more accidental drownings deaths than accidental shooting deaths.
And tell me, do most localities not have requirements to try and mitigate this? i.e. require a fence around a pool?`
We don't really do this with firearms. States that attempt to require firearms be secured in a safe are decried as both unconstitutional and unworkable, and those arguments aren't without a grain of merit - but it's an attempt to mitigate, just like with pools. When a kid finds a gun and blows away a sibling or themselves, we often describe it as "an accident" and barring some modifier like the owner was a felon, the firearm owner isn't charged with a crime because it "was a tragedy, and they've suffered enough". Again, not making an argument for banning anything but they're both good examples of the weird blinders we wear as Americans.
Pools are open structures that people can wander into an fall into so they are required to be fenced in. Guns are personal property that are kept indoors or on one's person so the need for them to be fenced in isn't present. Indoor pools don't need to be fenced in like outdoor inground pools. Gun storage laws are more problematic because of the 4th Amendment violation caused by their enforcement. Negligence in regards to child welfare is already a crime that is used to punish parents/guardians/adults who are negligent with their gun storage to the extent that it harms minors or allows minors to harm others. People get prosecuted for it and negligent discharges by minors is a much rarer problem than accidental drownings. If the dangers aren't equitable than there is no need for the safeguards addressing them to be equitable.
Guns are deadly weapons that children can find and discharge, killing themselves or another. Maybe we should require people to be responsible with them.
Or maybe we should take down the fences around pools so we don't have to have sensible gun laws.
We already have child endangerment laws and child neglect laws and negligence laws. If you are irresponsible enough to let a minor get his/her hands on a loaded gun and accidentally game somebody or himself/herself then you will be charged and prosecuted. They're not gun specific laws but they cover guns. It's not like there's no legal ramifications to irresponsible gun ownership. A fence around a pool will keep kids from falling into it and drowning. There is no equivalent way to fence in all of the dozens or hundreds of objects in a home that have the potential for lethal accidents. Failure to be responsible with any of those objects can result in criminal charges. Different safeguards for different dangers.
whembly wrote: So, adding in the suicide numbers with other violent gun deaths simply inflates that number and gives a flawed result.
I'd argue that suicide by gun is a pretty violent way to die and should be considered part of the cost of a society having (relatively) free access to guns.
Unless you're a supporter of eugenics, having depressed people kill themselves is a downside. Of course if you are a supporter of eugenics then I guess guns are great for reducing the number of depressed people in society, given that something like half of depression cases have a genetic link.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: We already have child endangerment laws and child neglect laws and negligence laws. If you are irresponsible enough to let a minor get his/her hands on a loaded gun and accidentally game somebody or himself/herself then you will be charged and prosecuted. They're not gun specific laws but they cover guns. It's not like there's no legal ramifications to irresponsible gun ownership.
But again this is all "after the event" measures. Like if this dude from Florida goes to jail, it doesn't bring back the guy he killed.
You can put people away for using guns recklessly, or you can do what many other cultures across the world do and realise there's always going to be reckless people and remove the item that is likely to turn that recklessness in to deadliness.
Doesn't mean you stop policing the recklessness, just means that recklessness is less likely to result in deaths.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/03/01 04:28:00
feeder wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that easy access to guns does not contribute to the suicide rate?
I can't deny that guns help those who want to commit suicide, but I also think if guns weren't around, as in Japan, people would still find a way to kill themselves.
feeder wrote: Japan and the US is not analogous. The culture is very different.
The US does indeed have a culture that is different, which makes comparing suicides difficult. However, doesn't that make comparing homicides to other countries difficult as well?
I'd say comparisons are hard to draw, even among countries that might be similar on the surface. Doesn't the amount of sunlight a country receives have a strong correlation with the suicide rate?
But I think even though you can't necessarily compare rates across whole countries, you can look at specific statistics, like putting up barriers on bridges making it less likely for people to commit suicide or selling pain killers in smaller quantities so a person has to stockpile the amount required to commit suicide. Suicide is often impulsive and the more time and effort you have to put in to planning it, the less likely you are to succeed.
I could be wrong but I think with Japan's culture, is there more non-impulsive suicides?
feeder wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that easy access to guns does not contribute to the suicide rate?
I can't deny that guns help those who want to commit suicide, but I also think if guns weren't around, as in Japan, people would still find a way to kill themselves.
But there'd be less people being able to find a way to kill themselves because of the impulsive nature of many suicides. It's why you have so many "attempted suicides", it's not that people are too stupid to kill themselves, if you make it harder to do, people are less likely to succeed.
But I think this is often a common theme with pro-gun debates, "people will still be able to find a way" whether it's violent crime, suicide or stupidity, people will still find a way to kill themselves and each other.... but just because you can't save ALL lives doesn't mean you can't save some.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/03/01 05:37:03
feeder wrote: Japan and the US is not analogous. The culture is very different.
The US does indeed have a culture that is different, which makes comparing suicides difficult. However, doesn't that make comparing homicides to other countries difficult as well?
Are you saying that the USA has a culture of murder?
feeder wrote: Japan and the US is not analogous. The culture is very different.
The US does indeed have a culture that is different, which makes comparing suicides difficult. However, doesn't that make comparing homicides to other countries difficult as well?
Are you saying that the USA has a culture of murder?
In a way, yes. The US is a nation founded on running out into the unknown (or little known) and not taking a whole lot of guff off anyone. Adding on to that we are a huge mixing pot of incredibly different cultures. As great as being a melting pot is, one of the downsides is increased violence. Studies have shown that the more diverse a community is (regardless of income, education, employment rates, or political ideologies) the more violent it is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 05:43:37
feeder wrote: Japan and the US is not analogous. The culture is very different.
The US does indeed have a culture that is different, which makes comparing suicides difficult. However, doesn't that make comparing homicides to other countries difficult as well?
Are you saying that the USA has a culture of murder?
In a way, yes. The US is a nation founded on running out into the unknown (or little known) and not taking a whole lot of guff off anyone. Adding on to that we are a huge mixing pot of incredibly different cultures. As great as being a melting pot is, one of the downsides is increased violence. Studies have shown that the more diverse a community is (regardless of income, education, employment rates, or political ideologies) the more violent it is.
I think you overestimate how culturally diverse the US is, it usually falls somewhere in the middle compared to most western countries using different cultural diversity statistics, I think it typically ranks below Canada.
Subjectively I'd guess people who move to the US are more likely to adopt much of the local culture compared to other countries as well.
EDIT: Unless by culturally diverse you just mean a decent number of blacks, whites and latinos.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/01 06:31:49
Kilkrazy wrote: Are you saying that the USA has a culture of murder?
I think that the US has a problem with violent murders largely because of the pervasive drug culture. The US consumes far more drugs than most other countries and that helps creates a stage for violence, both from criminal gang activities surrounding the drug trade and crimes committed while users are under the influence of those drugs. A very significant portion of violent crimes occur when somebody is high or drunk. Reduce the impact of the drug culture and it'd go a long way to reducing the murder rate in the US.
.
