Please explain why countries that quite specifically don't have "guns everywhere" have the highest rates of firearm-related homicide on the planet, if firearm ownership does in fact have a causative relationship to firearm-related homicide and poverty/income inequity has nothing to do with it.
Well that escalated quickly...
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
]
www.statista.com
I beg your pardon?
Infographic: America's insane rate of gun homicide in perspective
This chart shows homicides by firearms per 1 million people in selected developed countries in 2012.
www.statista.com
Let me get this straight.]
I beg your pardon?
Infographic: America's insane rate of gun homicide in perspective
This chart shows homicides by firearms per 1 million people in selected developed countries in 2012.
My original post was all about disparities in economic and social outcomes correlate more strongly to firearm-related violent crime and homicide than to gun ownership, and how economic northern countries are disproportionately represented in analyses of it compared to economic southern countries -- which have lower firearm ownership rates but higher firearm-related violent crime and homicide rates.
And your response to this is to post an infographic showing gun homicide rates in exclusively economic northern countries.
Now, here's my point in a nutshell:
Gun Deaths by Country 2024
Gun Ownership by Country 2024
Gini Coefficient by Country 2024
Funny how that works. It's almost as if there are intervening variables in the equation and that rate of firearm ownership doesn't actually tell the entire story. Variables like socioeconomic disparity, government instability, and civil unrest. You know, all the things I said in the first place.
And, that US violent crime rate is only an outlier if one looks only at firearm ownership rate and disregards Gini coefficient. But if one looks at Gini coefficient, its firearm-related homicide rate falls perfectly in line with comparable countries. In other words, the US has income inequality on par with third-world failed states and a violent crime rate to match.
Last edited:
Okay, interesting data.Let me get this straight.
My original post was all about disparities in economic and social outcomes correlate more strongly to firearm-related violent crime and homicide than to gun ownership, and how economic northern countries are disproportionately represented in analyses of it compared to economic southern countries -- which have lower firearm ownership rates but higher firearm-related violent crime and homicide rates.
And your response to this is to post an infographic showing gun homicide rates in exclusively economic northern countries.
Now, here's my point in a nutshell:
Gun Deaths by Country 2024
worldpopulationreview.com
View attachment 7210
Gun Ownership by Country 2024
View attachment 7211
Gini Coefficient by Country 2024
View attachment 7212
View attachment 7213
Funny how that works. It's almost as if there are intervening variables in the equation and that rate of firearm ownership doesn't actually tell the entire story. Variables like socioeconomic disparity, government instability, and civil unrest. You know, all the things I said in the first place.
And, that US violent crime rate is only an outlier if one looks only at firearm ownership rate and disregards Gini coefficient. But if one looks at Gini coefficient, its firearm-related homicide rate falls perfectly in line with comparable countries. In other words, the US has income inequality on par with third-world failed states and a violent crime rate to match.
Do you have any lessons to share on why the north ended up with economic wealth and the south didn't? (I mean this earnestly. I like hearing your information on things.)
Four centuries of colonial imperialism and wealth extraction from the economic south, dude. The economic system in employ at any given time -- whether it's mercantilism, classical liberalism, the laissez-faire/socialism divide of the early-to-mid 20th Centuries, or neoliberalism -- is just window dressing for the ongoing nature of north/south relations. Running plantations by land grant is little different, in terms of global trade, than coercing nominally-independent countries into free trade agreements and accepting unequal trade deals.
Well, part of it is just happenstance (in my totally not export opinion). Being in the northern hemisphere isn't why the US or Japan are successful. Europe happens to be in the north and happened to be in the ascendant.
I agree, especially considering 90% of the WORLD lives North of the Equator. That is probably why the North is so awesome, fucking everybody is here. Also the South has too many snakes and lions and shit.
90% of Earth's population lives in Northern Hemisphere
An estimated 90% of the population of the Earth lives in the Northern Hemisphere. This is because approximately 6.57 billion people, of the total human population of 7.3 billion, live north of the equator. The Northern Hemisphere includes all of Europe and North America, most of Africa and Asia...
inshorts.com
Oh, good lord.
"Economic north" and "economic south" are specific terms, they don't literally mean "northern hemisphere" and "southern hemisphere" and geography has fuck-all to do with it. They're a derivation and continuance of the older, Cold War-era, terms "first/second/third-world" as defined by predominant global cultural, social, economic, and political cleavages: chiefly, allied with NATO (first world), the Warsaw Pact (second world), or unaligned/satellite/proxy states (third world). As the Cold War ended thirty years ago and the time since has been defined by US unipolarity, those particular divides are no longer really relevant and new terminology was needed.
"Economic northern" countries are comparatively developed (i.e. highly-rated on the Human Development Index), generally liberal democratic, states which more often than not have post-industrial economies. "Economic southern" countries are less-developed, flawed-democratic or authoritarian, states with pre-industrial or industrial economies. There's debate on where individual BRIC states fall on the Global North-South divide -- Russia and China being the biggest two.
Russia's generally considered to be economic north because it's nominally a liberal democracy and has a primary sector export-based economy, but China's generally considered to be economic south because it's lower-rated on HDI and strongly authoritarian, despite being highly developed with a primary sector export-based economy. I'd personally argue none of the BRIC states should be considered economic northern. You'll notice that despite China being in the northern hemisphere, it's an economic southern country. And likewise, Australia and New Zealand are in the southern hemisphere, but are economic northern countries.
"Economic north" and "economic south" are specific terms, they don't literally mean "northern hemisphere" and "southern hemisphere" and geography has fuck-all to do with it. They're a derivation and continuance of the older, Cold War-era, terms "first/second/third-world" as defined by predominant global cultural, social, economic, and political cleavages: chiefly, allied with NATO (first world), the Warsaw Pact (second world), or unaligned/satellite/proxy states (third world). As the Cold War ended thirty years ago and the time since has been defined by US unipolarity, those particular divides are no longer really relevant and new terminology was needed.
"Economic northern" countries are comparatively developed (i.e. highly-rated on the Human Development Index), generally liberal democratic, states which more often than not have post-industrial economies. "Economic southern" countries are less-developed, flawed-democratic or authoritarian, states with pre-industrial or industrial economies. There's debate on where individual BRIC states fall on the Global North-South divide -- Russia and China being the biggest two.
Russia's generally considered to be economic north because it's nominally a liberal democracy and has a primary sector export-based economy, but China's generally considered to be economic south because it's lower-rated on HDI and strongly authoritarian, despite being highly developed with a primary sector export-based economy. I'd personally argue none of the BRIC states should be considered economic northern. You'll notice that despite China being in the northern hemisphere, it's an economic southern country. And likewise, Australia and New Zealand are in the southern hemisphere, but are economic northern countries.
