Violence in the U.S.

[Gulliamo]

One of the main themes of Bowling for Columbine was the amount of violence in the U.S. compared with other developed countries. Some of the popular beliefs were debunked by M. Moore.

Example:
Because we have a history of violence? No. Other countries (Germany) have a much greater history than us.
Because we have more guns than everyone else? No. Canada has a equal number or guns per capita.
Because of our TV or our violent video games? No. Most countries watch our movies and our games come from Japan.

The question was left inconclusively answered...

Why do we have so much more violence in the U.S. than most other 1st world countries?

 

[EdipisReks]

economic disparity.

 

[uruk]

manifest destiny..........think about it.

 

[Cosmo]

economic disparity.

Indeed. In fact, since the late 1970s, the spread between the average lower class income and the average upper class income has been steadily rising at an increasing rate.

There's probably some sort of connection there, but it is almost assuredly not the only cause.

 

[Gulliamo]

economic disparity.

Please elaborate. Could simple jealousy really be the root cause of the U.S. murder rate?

 

[Gulliamo]

Stats
here

 

[The Don]

I'm sure there are other countries with an even greater level of economic disparity with less violence. Perhaps looking for a single cause in a country and large and disparate as the U.S. is a waste of time. The causes of violence in an inner city drugs war may be fundamentally different to those in a suburb. One thing I did notice is that for each comparison, a different comparison country is offered. Perhaps the U.S. doesn't have such a bad history of violence than Germany (though I think this is a false comparison because we're comparing state violence to individual violence) but the U.S. may be in the top 25% of developed countries in this regard. Likewise for gun ownership, the U.S. may not be number 1 as far as private gun ownership goes, but it may again be in the top 25%.

Add in a whiff of economic disparity together with a basic philosophy which encourages self reliance and improvement, and you may have a set of circumstances which contribute towards the level of violence.

 

[AWPrime]

Culture?

 

[Dragonrock]

Sexual repression and frustrated teenage boys.

 

[AWPrime]

To clearify my point:

I think it is the level of acceptable violence in a culture.

 

[Dymanic]

It's the 'John Wayne syndrome'.

Above all, we idolize the 'rugged individualist' -- the rebel who refuses to become a cog in the machine, the pioneer who carves out a place for himself in the wilderness. We just ran out of wilderness, is all.

 

[c4ts]

One of the main themes of Bowling for Columbine was the amount of violence in the U.S. compared with other developed countries. Some of the popular beliefs were debunked by M. Moore.

Example:
Because we have a history of violence? No. Other countries (Germany) have a much greater history than us.
Because we have more guns than everyone else? No. Canada has a equal number or guns per capita.
Because of our TV or our violent video games? No. Most countries watch our movies and our games come from Japan.

The question was left inconclusively answered...

Why do we have so much more violence in the U.S. than most other 1st world countries?

Because we're bigger and dumber than the rest. At least that is what Moore is trying to imply since he doesn't have the evidence to prove it.

Anyway, the U.S. has relatively little gun violence when compared to developing nations like Columbia and Serbia, but I'd like to point out that Moore never compares us to those countries, probably because the U.S. would look good in comparison, and the whole point of a Michael Moore documentary is to make America look bad.

 

[uruk]

It's the 'John Wayne syndrome'.

Above all, we idolize the 'rugged individualist' -- the rebel who refuses to become a cog in the machine, the pioneer who carves out a place for himself in the wilderness

....Who feels he has a god given right to posses and defend any territory he may wish to aquire. A type of person who's self image and reputation are as important to him as his life.
And all of this compensating for personal insecurities that a patriarcal society will not allow him to deal with.

Manifest destiny. An ideal that allows the individual to objectify another person as an obstacle in path of his god given right to exercise dominion over everything.

Ok maybe I'm pushing it.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by uruk

Ok maybe I'm pushing it.

Not at all. I think you nailed it.

 

[H'ethetheth]

One of the main themes of Bowling for Columbine was the amount of violence in the U.S. compared with other developed countries. Some of the popular beliefs were debunked by M. Moore.

Example:
Because we have a history of violence? No. Other countries (Germany) have a much greater history than us.
Because we have more guns than everyone else? No. Canada has a equal number or guns per capita.
Because of our TV or our violent video games? No. Most countries watch our movies and our games come from Japan.

The question was left inconclusively answered...

Why do we have so much more violence in the U.S. than most other 1st world countries?

I think it was answered, but very elaborately by the use of many examples, parables etc. I remember a long part about fear mongering, relentless TV about black and latin Americans committing crimes and Canadians not locking their doors, because the lack of such fear.
This seems to me a reasonable but probably incomplete explanation.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: Re: Violence in the U.S.

Because we're bigger and dumber than the rest. At least that is what Moore is trying to imply since he doesn't have the evidence to prove it.

Anyway, the U.S. has relatively little gun violence when compared to developing nations like Columbia and Serbia, but I'd like to point out that Moore never compares us to those countries, probably because the U.S. would look good in comparison, and the whole point of a Michael Moore documentary is to make America look bad.

Hmmm, it wouldn't be a fair comparison then would it? I mean there hasn't been a civil war in the US for some time, nor is half of the country run by drug lords and paramilitary factions. No doubt life in the US is safer than in some parts of the world, but I must agree with Michael Moore when he says the difference between the US and otherwise comparable 1st world countries is amazingly huge.
It puzzles me as well, but I'm relatively safe here in Holland. Just this month two policemen were shot, one died. Then the news showed some statistics on killed policemen. It was 2 policemen per decade over the last 3 decades in all of the Netherlands (over 15 million people).

Edited to insert missing 'n'.

 

[Flaherty]

economic disparity.

I don't think that washes, either. Many countries, most of them much poorer than us, have a far greater degree of income inequality than we do and yet have less violent crime. Plus, the US income distribution was more equal in the 1970s when the amount of violent crime per capita was higher than it is now.

 

[Gulliamo]

I think it is the level of acceptable violence in a culture.

I believe that is a common misconception. The opposite example being Japan who, if you've ever watched Japanimation, has a MUCH higher level of socially acceptable violence than we do.

 

[Gulliamo]

Re: Re: Violence in the U.S.

Anyway, the U.S. has relatively little gun violence when compared to developing nations like Columbia and Serbia, but I'd like to point out that Moore never compares us to those countries, probably because the U.S. would look good in comparison, and the whole point of a Michael Moore documentary is to make America look bad.

Right, but I'm not comparing us to Columbia even though we do not rank much better. I am not even asking, "Why are we not better than similarly developed countries?" I am asking, "Why we are not even close to the same level?"

 

[Gulliamo]

I'm sure there are other countries with an even greater level of economic disparity with less violence. Perhaps looking for a single cause in a country and large and disparate as the U.S. is a waste of time. The causes of violence in an inner city drugs war may be fundamentally different to those in a suburb. One thing I did notice is that for each comparison, a different comparison country is offered. Perhaps the U.S. doesn't have such a bad history of violence than Germany (though I think this is a false comparison because we're comparing state violence to individual violence)

No, he was rebutting the violent history excuse -"Well, what do you expect from a country that was founded on war?! Revolutionary, French / Indian, Civil and World Wars! "

but the U.S. may be in the top 25% of developed countries in this regard. Likewise for gun ownership, the U.S. may not be number 1 as far as private gun ownership goes, but it may again be in the top 25%.

Add in a whiff of economic disparity together with a basic philosophy which encourages self reliance and improvement, and you may have a set of circumstances which contribute towards the level of violence.

If you are correct in that it might be our combination of history, attitude, our diversity, gun ownership, etc. has hit the magic formula for 1st world violence to flourish, then what can we do as a people to improve the situation?