New map of gun homicide rates by country

[Maciamo]

Gun control is a major issue in the United States and for a good reason as the USA has the highest firearm-related homicide rate in the developed world at 4.46 per 100,000 in 2017 and increasing (2017 had more gun homicides than anytime since 1993 according to GunPolicy.org). No country in Europe comes close to the US. Albania used to have a similar or higher rate until 2003, but it has since fallen to 1.50 and keeps decreasing. In the Middle East and North Africa, only Syria and Iraq have similar gun death rates because of the war. In other words, the US is as violent in terms of actual murders by weapon than a country at war.

In contrast, the latest data shows that there was no a single gun-related homicide in Japan, Iceland, and Saudi Arabia. Countries like Germany and the United Kingdom have a rate of 0.06 and 0.02 per 100,000, i.e. 75 and 225 times less than the United States respectively!

This map was made using data from GunPolicy.org. As the gun homicide rate can vary quite a lot from year to year in some countries, I have made an average of the last 4 years.




EDIT: The gun murder rate varies a lot by US states. It's important not to confuse the statistics with the overall gun death rate, which includes suicides (two thirds of all gun deaths) and accidents too. The lowest gun murder rate in the States is in Vermont at 0.30, similar to Italy, Sweden and India. Only 10 of the 50 states have a gun homicide rate under 1.00 per 100,000. They are sparsely populated northern states, with the exception of Hawaii. The highest gun homicide rate is in the District of Columbia, which shoots (pun intended) at 16.5 per 100,000, a rate similar to Panama and Colombia and only exceeded by a few other Latin American countries and Swaziland. Even Mexico has half that rate.

[Maciamo]

The United States also distinguishes itself by having the world's highest incarceration rate: 645 per 100,000 people (i.e. 0.64% of the population in prison, over 2 million people). In Western Europe the average in between 50 and 100, so about 10 times less imprisoned inhabitants per capita.

[Angela]

Does the method matter I wonder?



What on earth is going on in northeastern Europe??? Peaceful Scandinavia doesn't seem to peaceful either.

For the first is it related to alcohol abuse?

[Maciamo]

You are right, the method does not matter. But the stats you posted only appear high in Baltic countries because they are only put in relation to other European countries. To put this in perspective, Lithuania's intentional homicide rate by any method is still lower than the intentional homicide rate by firearms only in the United States! The homicide rate in Scandinavia is 4 to 5 times lower than in the US.

[Angela]

Both charts are measuring per 100,000 inhabitants. It is what it is. It doesn't matter that the U.S. isn't included.

What is going on is that the charts are measuring two different things.

One is measuring the number of people per 100,000 who die as a result of another human being deliberately assaulting them.

Your chart is measuring "homicides" which is a very different thing.

In the law, at least in the U.S., this is the definition of homicide:
homicide
n. the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime/

As you can see, the two charts are not comparing the same thing at all.

The only way that a real comparison could be made would be to see if there are stats for death by assault for the U.S.A per 100,000 people.

They might well be high, but I would bet money that if you don't include what used to be called the ghetto areas of major metropolitan cities, the rate of death by assault is EXTREMELY low. I've never known anyone personally who died that way. I've never even heard of anyone being assaulted, other than maybe some drunk college kids throwing a few punches. The one exception is spousal or partner abuse, but again, although it certainly exists in middle or upper class areas, the preponderance in in alcohol and drug dependent areas where men feel powerless.

I assure you I don't ever feel in any danger whatsoever walking in my neighborhood or most areas even of the large cities.

Television paints a very exaggerated picture, as does the media in general

I think it is likely that alcohol abuse is the culprit in Europe.


As for the method of death, I'd infinitely prefer death by a bullet than being beaten to death or strangled or having my throat cut. It's not just a question of the mess or relative trauma for those who have to look at it and deal with the body; it's the level of pain and fear that the victim has to suffer, and in some cases for a long time.

[Maciamo]

Both charts are measuring per 100,000 inhabitants. It is what it is. It doesn't matter that the U.S. isn't included.

What is going on is that the charts are measuring two different things.

One is measuring the number of people per 100,000 who die as a result of another human being deliberately assaulting them.

Your chart is measuring "homicides" which is a very different thing.

In the law, at least in the U.S., this is the definition of homicide:
homicide
n. the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime/

As you can see, the two charts are not comparing the same thing at all.

The only way that a real comparison could be made would be to see if there are stats for death by assault for the U.S.A per 100,000 people.

They might well be high, but I would bet money that if you don't include what used to be called the ghetto areas of major metropolitan cities, the rate of death by assault is EXTREMELY low. I've never known anyone personally who died that way. I've never even heard of anyone being assaulted, other than maybe some drunk college kids throwing a few punches. The one exception is spousal or partner abuse, but again, although it certainly exists in middle or upper class areas, the preponderance in in alcohol and drug dependent areas where men feel powerless.

I assure you I don't ever feel in any danger whatsoever walking in my neighborhood or most areas even of the large cities.

Television paints a very exaggerated picture, as does the media in general

It's easy to verify. Here is a list of countries by intentional homicide rates.

For all homicides the US has a rate of 6 per 100,000 people, but for intentional homicides (so not manslaughter), it is 4.96, while the highest in the EU using the same source (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) is Latvia at 4.36. The highest in Scandinavia is Sweden at 1.08 (5x lower than the US) and the lowest is Norway at 0.47 (11x less than the US). Italy is at 0.57.

The murder rate varies a lot between US states too. I found the FBI data for murder rates by State for 2017. New York's rate is twice lower than the national average at 2.8. The lowest nationwide is New Hampshire at 1.0 (slightly lower than Sweden). The states of New England are among the safest in the US. The highest murder rate is obviously in Louisiana at 12.4, although among 'non states' the District of Columbia tops that at 16.7 (down from 19.9 in 2016) and Puerto Rico is at 20.3. Now Latvia doesn't look so bad at 4.36.




New York and New England do not just have lower murder rates, but some of the lowest overall crime rates in the US.

[Angela]

Yes, well, trust me, as I already explained, the population in those areas is exactly the population I was talking about, i.e. minority, little to no education, unemployed, alcohol and drug addicted, overrun by gang violence, where family structure is virtually non-existent, and what rearing is done is done by grandmothers.

These are the areas in which BLM wants to withdraw the police.

You'd need your head examined if you chose to go walking around in those areas.

I assure you that anywhere even working and middle class people live is very different, and that applies to black middle class areas as well.

There are two Americas, unfortunately, and comparing the average of those two Americas won't give you a sense of what life is like here. No one like you or any of the members or readers of this site would ever have occasion to even go there, much less live there.

I lived in New York City for seven years, and on the border of a very bad area. Lived through two black outs too. The closest I ever came to a crime against me was when some idiot kid tried to pull my handbag out of my hands in the middle of Grand Central Station. I held on to it and screamed my head off and he took off.

I've lived here on Long Island for a very long time. Never had a home robbery, never had my car stolen, never had it vandalized, or my house, and as I said I've never heard of anyone beating someone up in a bar because of a drunken rage. I've never even heard of an arrest for spousal abuse, and certainly never heard of rapes anywhere around me. Of course, I know a lot of those don't get reported.

It all depends on which America you live in. Averages distort reality.

The same thing happens with school scores. Results from American schools are averaged, the ones from D.C. , the Bronx, the South Side of Chicago, the bayous of Louisiana and the hollers of Appalachia (all people by British and Irish stock, btw) as well as middle class areas of Queens and middle-to-upper class areas on the island, and it's not because the schools are better in some areas because of high taxes; it's largely because of the education level of the parents.

I don't know if I saved it, but a study was done comparing the accomplishments of students in schools in the U.S. minus the inner cities versus Europe. Our scores were higher, which doesn't surprise me one bit.

I'll put the stats of most of our communities against Latvia and Estonia and parts of the Balkans anytime.

I know I won't convince you, so I'll leave it at that.:)

[Maciamo]

Actually I agree with you, Angela. I am well aware that there are two Americas.

But even in the good states there are better areas and worse ones. You are lucky enough to live in one of the best places in the US. But your area is not representative of the whole country.

As I said in the thread about where we would want to live in the world, if I had to live in the States I would choose New York, New England or the better cities of California. I guess I could have added Seattle too. These places are the closest culturally to Europe. But these areas only represent a very small part of the USA. New England has 15 million inhabitants, less than the Netherlands, and only 4% of the US population. New York state has 19.5 million, a bit less than Norway, Sweden and Denmark together. That little corner of the Northeast USA makes up 3% of the whole country's land area and 10% of its population. Even adding Seattle, the SF Bay Area, LA, Orange County and San Diego, that's about 20 million people more. Overall that's 55 million - still less than the population of Britain. I am probably forgetting some places, but that's what I consider the "good America".

The crime rate is obviously not the only thing I take into consideration of what I consider the "good America" (or the "better states"). One of the things that drives me crazy is the unbridled religiosity in so many places. This map from Wikipedia shows the percentage of respondents in the USA stating that religion is "very important" or "somewhat important" to their lives. Vermont is the only state with less than 60% of the population being quite religious. That's still more than half of the people you can run into.




A Pew Research survey asked American people if they prayed daily. 75% of respondents in Mississippi did. The lowest percentage was once again Vermont, with 33%.

Regarding belief in God, 82% of people in Mississippi and Alabama said they believed in God with certainty (not just probably or maybe). Massachusetts and Vermont had the lowest rates (40% and 41%), similar to Germany, but higher than in France, Britain or Nordic countries.


I was was wondering if you'd ever consider living in one of the Bible Belt states? Personally I would even be afraid to visit these states and I have been to Egypt, Israel and Palestine.

[[email protected]]

You would be afraid to visit these states because they believe in a god? I'm an atheist and that sounds pretty extreme to me. I knew a man who was a Mormon, a religion I think to be preposterous, but that didn't mean I thought he was somehow dangerous. In fact, he was one of the nicest people I've ever known.

[Maciamo]

You would be afraid to visit these states because they believe in a god? I'm an atheist and that sounds pretty extreme to me. I knew a man who was a Mormon, a religion I think to be preposterous, but that didn't mean I thought he was somehow dangerous. In fact, he was one of the nicest people I've ever known.

No, of course not. Otherwise I would never have travelled to so many countries and lived in Italy or Spain. What is scary in the Bible Belt states is not that they believe in God per se but that a lot of them are fanatics that hate Atheists and many of them carry guns.

States with the highest religiosity generally happen to be with those that are the most dangerous (Utah being a notable exception).

[[email protected]]

I wouldn't link those two stats and, personally, I’ve never heard of a rabid hatred of atheists leading to violence. Take a look at Kentucky and West Virginia. Both high in religiosity and safety. Then look at Nevada and New York. Low in religiosity and safety.

Not being argumentative, but I think the violence metric is tied more to culture and poverty.

[Maciamo]

Take a look at Kentucky and West Virginia. Both high in religiosity and safety. Then look at Nevada and New York. Low in religiosity and safety.

Nevada and New York are not low in religiosity. They are average to high. Only New England is "low" (average by European standards).

Not being argumentative, but I think the violence metric is tied more to culture and poverty.

I agree, but religiosity is also closely linked to poverty. That's as true in the US as in Europe.

EDIT: here a chart showing the correlation between GDP per capita and tying belief in God to morality (almost all people who do make the link happent to believe in god).



Not shown on the chart, in Europe the poorest countries have nearly 100% belief in god. This includes Georgia, Moldova and Kosovo.

[Angela]

@I don't think I've ever heard religious people talking about atheists, much less hating them, or wanting to do violence to them, not even Southern Baptists or Born Again Evangelicals. :) If anything, if asked, I think they would say they feel sorry for them.

They might try to convert you, though. Mormons all have to spend two years doing mission work for that purpose. I usually don't let them in, but one day it was raining and I felt badly for the two young men in their dark suits so I let them come inside. I should have left it at that, but they went into their spiel. It was a bad idea on their part; I didn't take theology courses every school day for six years for nothing. :) They were tied in knots, poor things. I wound up feeling badly about it. Lovely young men, btw. Like shissem I think their religion is probably the most absurd one I've ever encountered, but all the Mormons I've met, even when doing some business in Utah, were extremely nice people, and I really respect how committed the men, in particular, are to their children. I used to joke I wish I could believe it because I think their children's groups do a wonderful job. I'm sure there are nasty Mormons as there are nasty or dishonest people in any group, but as a generality they seem like genuinely nice people.

You asked me if I could live in a Bible Belt State, and the answer is no, I probably couldn't, but it has nothing to do with them being very religious. I owned a condo in Florida for decades, and once you get away from the coastal snow bird condos, although even a lot of them are religious (a lot of Lutherans from the midwest in my town, and Jews, some Catholics, but a minority) you do hit a milder sort of Bible Belt. There are lots of mega churches, very fundamentalist churches, and even the Catholic churches are much more active than they are in New York and the North East. It doesn't bother me at all. Even though I no longer go to church it doesn't bother me to hear someone close a transaction by saying God bless you. If they know of some personal issue, health or something, or something I might be relaying like my daughter going for a job interview etc., I think it's lovely that they ask if I'd mind if they included my situation in their prayer circle. Why would I ever throw kindness and concern back in someone's face? It would be like going to Arabia and having someone say "May Allah Bless You". Should I respond "How dare you throw your religion in my face?"

That wouldn't be the problem. Part of the problem would be that most Bible Belt states are either frigidly cold or swelteringly hot or both. The other part of the problem is that they're not the most diverse states in the world. I think it would get wearying having to spell my surname over and over again, and where on earth would I get all my imported Italian food products? :) Outside of New England, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania it's tough. The east coast of Florida would be fine, but as I said, I couldn't live there in the summer months.

Another issue is that for all people talk about the New South, I don't know how "New" it really is. A lot of people from the Northeast are retiring to North and South Carolina. I don't know much about North Carolina, but I've been in and around Charleston, South Carolina a few times, and there's something about the "vibe" there I really don't like. Maybe it's because I pick up on body language, tone of voice, whether or not people look each other in the eye, but at all the hotels I stayed in and restaurants I went to, the totally black staff(except for the front desk staff, who were white) looked as if they were trying to be invisible. They didn't look us in the eye, no chit chat like there is in New York. I don't know, but it seemed like tension to me. I didn't like it at all. It seemed as if old resentments lingered.

Texas is different but the climate is terrible in a lot of it, as it is in the mountainous west. Now Vermont is liberal heavy; the refuge of old sixties liberals and hippies. I could never live there. Couldn't bear it.

I know you often post about guns in American culture, and gun culture in general. We have totally different attitudes towards that.

One reason, strangely enough, is my long involvement in the history of the Second World War in Italy. Virtually the first thing Mussolini did when he took power was to ban firearm use by the citizenry. Every single firearm had to be turned in to the government, even hunting rifles. That's a way to make sure a government stays in power, even an oppressive government. When Germany invaded Italy and the SS rolled in there wasn't a gun in the country. The resistance which a number of my family members joined could do nothing until the British started parachuting agents and firearms in to train the local partisans. I've never forgotten that and other lessons from history. No government, imo, should be completely trusted, and people, should it be necessary, should have the right to defend themselves from tyrannical governments.

I also think a "man" has the right to defend his home and property, and I don't think you should have to "back down" even in the streets. If I did live alone, say, in a rather undesirable neighborhood, I would definitely want a gun. Part of that may be that as part of doing criminal prosecution, as I did for a number of years, I was always around men and women carrying guns, and had to have some training myself. People who habitually use guns have great respect for them. These "school shootings" are usually committed by suburban, insane young men who were given access to guns by parents who were asleep at the wheel. I actually feel quite safe in the more rural states where people know how to handle guns, go hunting, treat them with respect, and have permits to carry them. Yes, sometimes those guns are used in a violent attack, but the vast majority of the gun violence in America is in the inner cities; it's gang and drug violence, and the guns are illegally obtained, usually with a conduit through Mexico. They're not going down to apply for a license. I think I read a study somewhere that "concealed carry" counties are the safest. Again, not talking about the inner cities here. I'm talking about law abiding citizens, with no history of mental illness, who applied for and got a license. From what I've seen, some sick kids are still sane enough to know it might not be a good idea to shoot up a movie theater when there might be ten men in the audience with a gun on them.

To get back to the religious angle, 95% of deeply religious, evangelicals, for example, have absolutely no interest in doing anything to harm anyone who isn't religious, or of their religious. There are a few of these fringe, survivalist groups claiming to be Christians who are off their rocker but they're extremely small in number. I've done work in various parts of the country and I've never met a single one.

I've also not always lived in a "top" zip code. We lived in quite humble circumstances for most of my adolescence, and my experience was the same. Heck, we didn't even lock our doors.

[Maciamo]

@I don't think I've ever heard religious people talking about atheists, much less hating them, or wanting to do violence to them, not even Southern Baptists or Born Again Evangelicals. :) If anything, if asked, I think they would say they feel sorry for them.

This is anecdotal based on your personal experience. But you don't live in the Bible Belt. Even if you did, humans are hardwired to handle a maximum of about 200 social relationships (Dunbar's number). Among those, even if all the people you knew well were fundamentalist Christians, I doubt that you would have discussed with all of them openly and truthfully what they thought of Atheists (especially if they knew you were not religious). And since you don't live in a fundamentalist Christian environment, I doubt that your personal experience representative of the 100+ million Christians in the Bible Belt. So let's look at the statistics instead.

Pew Research asked Americans of every religious denomination in every state how they interpreted the holy scriptures. By definition a fundamentalist Christian is someone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally. 31% of respondents nationwide fall in this category. Fundamentalism was highest among Historically Black Protestants (59%), Evangelical Protestants (55%), Jehovah's Witnesses (47%) and Muslims (42%). Follow the links to see the distribution of the two first denominations by state. They are of course mostly found in the Bible Belt.

The problem I have with Fundamentalists is that, since they take the Bible literally, they believe passages like these:

• Leviticus 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
• Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.
• Ezekiel 18:13 He lends at interest and takes a profit. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.
• When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Deuteronomy 25:11-12
• Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18

On slavery;

• Exodus 21:20-21 – "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

On rape:

• Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

On hating your family;

• Luke 14:26 – " If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

On killing children;

• Hosea 13:16 - "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

On adultery:

• Genesis 38:8-10 - "Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."
• Leviticus 20:10 - “If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”

Now can you say with absolute certainty that there is no link whatsoever between holding such believes and the fact that the crime rate (including homicides) is so high in Bible Belt states? These are people who openly admitted to academics that they took the Word of God literally and 85% of them said that religion is 'very important' for them, so they are not going to take these 'instructions' lightly. Furthermore, those people are poorer (46% earning less than $30,000) and less educated (56% high school or less), two factors that also correlate with higher crime and homicide rates.

Add to this that gun ownership rates in Bible Belt states are among the highest nationwide (from 29% in North Carolina to 58% in Arkansas, but average in the 40%) and you'd got a dangerous cocktail. In New York State only 10% of people own a gun, about the same as New Jersey (11%), but still higher than Rhode Island (5%). Big contrast with the Deep South.

You asked me if I could live in a Bible Belt State, and the answer is no, I probably couldn't, but it has nothing to do with them being very religious. I owned a condo in Florida for decades, and once you get away from the coastal snow bird condos, although even a lot of them are religious (a lot of Lutherans from the midwest in my town, and Jews, some Catholics, but a minority) you do hit a milder sort of Bible Belt. There are lots of mega churches, very fundamentalist churches, and even the Catholic churches are much more active than they are in New York and the North East. It doesn't bother me at all. Even though I no longer go to church it doesn't bother me to hear someone close a transaction by saying God bless you. If they know of some personal issue, health or something, or something I might be relaying like my daughter going for a job interview etc., I think it's lovely that they ask if I'd mind if they included my situation in their prayer circle. Why would I ever throw kindness and concern back in someone's face? It would be like going to Arabia and having someone say "May Allah Bless You". Should I respond "How dare you throw your religion in my face?"

Saying 'God bless you' is not what annoys me. Are you really saying that you would be fine having to socialise on a daily basis with people who do not believe in evolution and therefore also deny the existence of genetic mutations and the whole concept of genetics? These are people who would prefer to let their children die rather than cure a genetic disease with genetic engineering, either because they don't "believe in it" or because it would be "playing God". Not to mention that by denying evolution they are far more likely to be racist (as all races were created by God and not the result of adaptations to local environments) and understand history the way White Supremacists do (again it's not a coincidence that there happen to be far more of them in the Bible Belt).

That wouldn't be the problem. Part of the problem would be that most Bible Belt states are either frigidly cold or swelteringly hot or both.

Really, that's your argument? New York is very hot in summer and frigidly cold in winter. The Deep South is even hotter in summer, but much milder in winter, even inland (I double checked it for numerous cities - I found no exception).

Another issue is that for all people talk about the New South, I don't know how "New" it really is. A lot of people from the Northeast are retiring to North and South Carolina. I don't know much about North Carolina, but I've been in and around Charleston, South Carolina a few times, and there's something about the "vibe" there I really don't like. Maybe it's because I pick up on body language, tone of voice, whether or not people look each other in the eye, but at all the hotels I stayed in and restaurants I went to, the totally black staff(except for the front desk staff, who were white) looked as if they were trying to be invisible. They didn't look us in the eye, no chit chat like there is in New York. I don't know, but it seemed like tension to me. I didn't like it at all. It seemed as if old resentments lingered.

That's also the impression I had.

One reason, strangely enough, is my long involvement in the history of the Second World War in Italy. Virtually the first thing Mussolini did when he took power was to ban firearm use by the citizenry. Every single firearm had to be turned in to the government, even hunting rifles. That's a way to make sure a government stays in power, even an oppressive government. When Germany invaded Italy and the SS rolled in there wasn't a gun in the country. The resistance which a number of my family members joined could do nothing until the British started parachuting agents and firearms in to train the local partisans. I've never forgotten that and other lessons from history. No government, imo, should be completely trusted, and people, should it be necessary, should have the right to defend themselves from tyrannical governments.

That was wartime. Entirely different story. People shouldn't need guns to defend themselves in peace time in a developed country.

I also think a "man" has the right to defend his home and property, and I don't think you should have to "back down" even in the streets. If I did live alone, say, in a rather undesirable neighborhood, I would definitely want a gun. Part of that may be that as part of doing criminal prosecution, as I did for a number of years, I was always around men and women carrying guns, and had to have some training myself. People who habitually use guns have great respect for them. These "school shootings" are usually committed by suburban, insane young men who were given access to guns by parents who were asleep at the wheel. I actually feel quite safe in the more rural states where people know how to handle guns, go hunting, treat them with respect, and have permits to carry them. Yes, sometimes those guns are used in a violent attack, but the vast majority of the gun violence in America is in the inner cities; it's gang and drug violence, and the guns are illegally obtained, usually with a conduit through Mexico. They're not going down to apply for a license. I think I read a study somewhere that "concealed carry" counties are the safest. Again, not talking about the inner cities here. I'm talking about law abiding citizens, with no history of mental illness, who applied for and got a license. From what I've seen, some sick kids are still sane enough to know it might not be a good idea to shoot up a movie theater when there might be ten men in the audience with a gun on them.

That's the thing. There are lots of dangerous neighbourhoods and that's why people feel they need guns. So you do not deny that insecurity is more of a problem in the US in general (not in your New York neighbourhood) than in Western or Northern Europe?

[Maciamo]

Very religious people who are convinced by the existence of God and Heaven are also less afraid to die, as they expect a better life in the after-life. This is especially true if they die for their religion or for their country. Fundamentalist Muslims holding similarly strong beliefs in God, Heaven and the literal interpretation of holy scriptures, were responsible for 9/11 and most terrorist attacks in Europe since then. All suicide bombers in Israel, Syria, Iraq or elsewhere are Fundamentalists who aren't afraid to die due to their beliefs. Historically, Fundamentalist Christians in Europe fought (often to death) in the crusaders, then in the Wars of Religions. Strong religiosity has been one of the main causes of wars and deaths in European and Middle Eastern history in the last 1000 years.

Incidentally, people from the Bible Belt, or at least from very religious states, are much more likely to enlist in the army. They are less afraid to die for their country because of their religious beliefs. Naturally, the least religious states have the lowest ratio of military recruits.

[ratchet_fan]

No, of course not. Otherwise I would never have travelled to so many countries and lived in Italy or Spain. What is scary in the Bible Belt states is not that they believe in God per se but that a lot of them are fanatics that hate Atheists and many of them carry guns.

States with the highest religiosity generally happen to be with those that are the most dangerous (Utah being a notable exception).

This is just gaslighting. What explains some of of the most liberal states on your list (California, New York, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Illinois) and Washington D.C? There's also plenty of religious states that are safe besides Utah.

Also how do we know those southern states (like Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina) aren't dangerous because of their high numbers of African Americans? Contrast that with Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.

These are the two most dangerous cities in Alabama.

The racial makeup of the city was 43.6% Non-Hispanic White, 51.5% Black or African American, 0.3% Native American, 0.8% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, and 1.7% from two or more races. 2.7% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annist...a#Demographics

The racial makeup of the city was 80.3% Black or African American, 18.0% White, 0.20% Native American, 0.60% Asian, 0.1% other races, 0.80% from two or more races and Hispanics or Latinos, of any race, comprised 0.60% of the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma,...a#Demographics

[Maciamo]

This is just gaslighting. What explains some of of the most liberal states on your list (California, New York, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Illinois) and Washington D.C? There's also plenty of religious states that are safe besides Utah.

You are confusing politics (liberal vs conservative) with religion. That's an understandable mistake, but not an excusable one when I just posted a map of religiosity by state. Plenty of US states are religious and liberal. That's because conservatives are more often Baptists and Evangelical Christians, while liberals are more likely to be Methodists or Quakers (while Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans are pretty divided, but generally politically moderate).

The percentage of people who believe in God with certainty is 64% in Maryland, 63% in New Mexico, 61% in Illinois, 61% in Delaware, 56% in New York and 54% in California. How is that not very religious? Even Poland, which is one of the most religious countries in Europe, has only 45% of people who are certain of god's existence (+ another 40% who are not certain).

Anyway, what is safe by US standards is not necessarily safe by EU standards, as shown by the map I posted in the OP.

Also how do we know those southern states (like Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina) aren't dangerous because of their high numbers of African Americans? Contrast that with Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.

These are the two most dangerous cities in Alabama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annist...a#Demographics

[COLOR=#202122][FONT=sans-serif]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma,...a#Demographics

So you are saying that the real cause of high criminality in the Deep South are the African Americans?

[Angela]

[QUOTE]

This is anecdotal based on your personal experience. But you don't live in the Bible Belt. Even if you did, humans are hardwired to handle a maximum of about 200 social relationships (Dunbar's number). Among those, even if all the people you knew well were fundamentalist Christians, I doubt that you would have discussed with all of them openly and truthfully what they thought of Atheists (especially if they knew you were not religious). And since you don't live in a fundamentalist Christian environment, I doubt that your personal experience representative of the 100+ million Christians in the Bible Belt. So let's look at the statistics instead.

Pew Research asked Americans of every religious denomination in every state how they interpreted the holy scriptures. By definition a fundamentalist Christian is someone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally. 31% of respondents nationwide fall in this category. Fundamentalism was highest among Historically Black Protestants (59%), Evangelical Protestants (55%), Jehovah's Witnesses (47%) and Muslims (42%). Follow the links to see the distribution of the two first denominations by state. They are of course mostly found in the Bible Belt.

The problem I have with Fundamentalists is that, since they take the Bible literally, they believe passages like these:

• Leviticus 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
• Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.
• Ezekiel 18:13 He lends at interest and takes a profit. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.
• When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Deuteronomy 25:11-12
• Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18

On slavery;

• Exodus 21:20-21 – "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

On rape:

• Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

On hating your family;

• Luke 14:26 – " If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

On killing children;

• Hosea 13:16 - "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

On adultery:

• Genesis 38:8-10 - "Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."
• Leviticus 20:10 - “If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”

Now can you say with absolute certainty that there is no link whatsoever between holding such believes and the fact that the crime rate (including homicides) is so high in Bible Belt states? These are people who openly admitted to academics that they took the Word of God literally and 85% of them said that religion is 'very important' for them, so they are not going to take these 'instructions' lightly. Furthermore, those people are poorer (46% earning less than $30,000) and less educated (56% high school or less), two factors that also correlate with higher crime and homicide rates.

Add to this that gun ownership rates in Bible Belt states are among the highest nationwide (from 29% in North Carolina to 58% in Arkansas, but average in the 40%) and you'd got a dangerous cocktail. In New York State only 10% of people own a gun, about the same as New Jersey (11%), but still higher than Rhode Island (5%). Big contrast with the Deep South.

Maciamo, I hope you take this in the spirit in which it is offered, but that is a hugely distorted view of even fundamentalist Christians. I don't know how you could have formed such conclusions.

First of all, no, it's not just my anecdotal experience from the bastion of a basically non-fundamentalist area like New England and the Mid-Atlantic states that tells me fundamentalist Protestants don't "hate" atheists, and don't want to harm them. Do you think that our liberal, mostly atheistic or at least agnostic members of the media wouldn't broadcast that if there were any indication of it. I've never heard of such a thing being reported anywhere in this country except maybe a group of a few hundred survivalist fanatics holed up in some mountain valley, or that weird cult that was going around disturbing the burials of war dead.

It just doesn't exist, period, and as a matter of fact I do know fundamentalists. My father's sister scandalized her entire family by marrying for the second time a man from Kentucky and converting to his religion. He was a member of the Pentecostal Church. I don't think you can get more fundamentalist, Bible Thumping, southern Evangelical than that. She annoyed the hell out of us by constantly trying to convert us, and yes, we found it beyond strange that an Italian would no longer drink a glass of wine, and her girls weren't allowed to wear make up and go dancing, which of course they wound up doing eventually anyway. Two members of my husband's family, in small town upstate New York have converted to a fundamentalist religion, and two cousins of mine, who moved to, and married, respectively, in West Virginia and Georgia, converted to the spouse's religion. And yes, we do discuss religion, and it can get a bit heated at times, but never, ever have I heard anything so outlandish as to wish to harm atheists. I'm telling you; they just want to persuade them to "see the light", and that includes non-fundamentalists Christians.

I think you have a "fundamental" misunderstanding of what is meant in modern religious parlance by "taking scripture literally". It's a term of art that has to be understood in context: you have to know what they mean by that. Fundamentalist Christians don't believe in ANY of those things: not one. Likewise they don't follow the dietary laws in Leviticus. What is meant by taking the Bible "literally" is actually not literally at all other than in the sense that SOME of them believe that the "story" of creation actually happened in the way described, that all the miracles that are described, such as the parting of the waters during the Exodus, the giving of the Ten Commandments, Jonah and the whale, Joshua and the towers of Jericho etc. Likewise they believe in Christ's miracles. It absolutely doesn't mean that they follow the rules of the Old Testament.

As for guns and gun violence, there is no "causative" relationship between that and religiosity. It's correlation, not causation. Some southern states, where, if you ask people, black or white, if they believe that the Bible is literally the word of God, almost all of them, imo, would say yes, although as I pointed out they really don't mean "literally" in the way you think. Those states also have vast rural areas where hunting is a way of life, as is sport shooting etc. Even urban dwellers are recently from farm areas or still remain close ties to it. Lots of military bases and retired military personnel there too. There are also, especially in the large cities, but also in small towns, black areas where there is incredible poverty and alcohol and drug addiction. Close to 50% of the population in some southern states is black. They also have guns, bought illegally for the most part. The kind of young men who are deeply committed Christians and go to church every Sunday and go to Bible classes during the week and are highly involved in church social activities, are quite unlikely to go robbing liquor stores and shooting the owner or having a gang war over drugs.

Then there's the case of the southwest. There's a huge percentage of Latinos, Mexicans, mostly, in the large urban centers. Usually Catholic, although Evangelicals are making inroads in some places. Again, if you ask them if they believe the Bible is the word of God they'd say yes, but Catholics aren't fundamentalists. The suburbs are lovely, but the inner city of a place like Phoenix? It's hell on earth: poverty stricken, drug and gang infested, and yes, there's a lot of gun violence, mostly with weapons trafficked through our open border with Mexico, which is where a lot of the drugs flow from as well. Now perhaps you get why so many Americans in the southwest want some sort of barrier or at least much stricter enforcement.

Now, it's true that when there is spousal abuse, and things get out of hand, if there's a gun in the house, that will be used rather than strangling her to death or beating her to death, but frankly, who cares? I've seen the bodies of the victims of all three and I'd prefer the first. The same goes for male suicide, btw. It does make it easier.

A better example might be the far western states, where there is high religiosity, high gun ownership, but low gun violence. Utah is a prime example. Mormons can't smoke, drink, or "God forbid" do drugs. :) The joke is there's an anesthesia level for Mormons and one for the rest of Americans. As I said, although I regret having said it, their religion's tenets make absolutely no sense to me, but by and large they seem, on average, very nice, very peaceful, and very law abiding citizens. Btw, some traditional Protestant fundamentalist sects follow the same lifestyle. I've also found most westerners cordial, friendly, peaceful people.

When you don't know the social dynamics of a country from the inside out, statistics, which are almost always just averages, can be highly uninformative and just downright wrong in terms of the perception created.

Saying 'God bless you' is not what annoys me. Are you really saying that you would be fine having to socialise on a daily basis with people who do not believe in evolution and therefore also deny the existence of genetic mutations and the whole concept of genetics? These are people who would prefer to let their children die rather than cure a genetic disease with genetic engineering, either because they don't "believe in it" or because it would be "playing God". Not to mention that by denying evolution they are far more likely to be racist (as all races were created by God and not the result of adaptations to local environments) and understand history the way White Supremacists do (again it's not a coincidence that there happen to be far more of them in the Bible Belt).

Maciamo, people who wouldn't get medical treatment for their children are predominantly Jehovah's Witnesses; they're a splinter group from a splinter group. They're not "at all" representative of most fundamentalist Christians. Of course evangelicals get medical help for their children. They also believe in the power of prayer, of course. Believing that there is a God who can change the laws of nature if he so chooses doesn't necessarily have anything to do with believing that God gave men brains to make medical discoveries.

No, religious belief is not more likely to make you racist. Not today. In my experience, all I've ever heard in church is about the "brotherhood" of man. Again, it's correlation, not causation. Southerners are more traditional in every way. That doesn't mean that one traditional belief causes the other traditional belief or behavior. Fundamentalist preachers don't get up and preach about how the Bible says blacks should be enslaved. It just doesn't happen. It's true that blacks have their own fundamentalist churches, but that started years ago under segregation. The blacks I know, including my dearest friend, a Jamaican immigrant, value the history and the solidarity of their black churches, and she has no interest whatsoever in joining a white Protestant church. She doesn't "get" Catholicism at all; finds the services very boring. :) As for socializing with people on a daily basis who might not believe in evolution, why not? When would the subject come up? If the neighbor, for example, is considerate, polite, sociable, even kind and helpful, why the heck would I care what he or she believes about evolution. I have fundamentalist friends now, people who have converted. We just don't discuss religion. It's a free country; you can believe whatever you want to believe so long as you don't hurt other people. It's the same where homosexuality is concerned. I have gay men friends whom I adore. I don't want to hear about how they're cruising for anonymous sex in gay bars. We don't discuss it. It doesn't impact my life.

Really, that's your argument? New York is very hot in summer and frigidly cold in winter. The Deep South is even hotter in summer, but much milder in winter, even inland (I double checked it for numerous cities - I found no exception).

Maciamo, I live in Long Island. I know "precisely" what the weather is like. It snows maybe three or four times a year if you mean something other than a few inches. We have a beautiful, long, autumn, and our springs are cool. We don't get really hot weather until the end of June to the end of August. There's absolutely no comparison to South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas etc. and I've been in all those places in summer. I could never, ever, live there year round no matter what other benefits they might have. Same goes, obviously, for Florida.

I could also, btw, never, ever, live in the Pacific northwest. The sun never shines there practically. It's always raining, and if not raining, it's grey and overcast. Yes, the weather in Paris isn't so different (I found it extremely disappointing in terms of the weather), and I would never want to live there either, or in England or Ireland. Maybe I have seasonal affective disorder or something, but weeks of that kind of weather make me extremely depressed. I absolutely hate it. Give me cold winters any time, so long as the sun is shining. My first cousin moved there for her oncology residency, married and stayed. I can't tell you how many times she's said if she had it to do over again she wouldn't choose it.

That's over and above the politics there, which I detest. I really, truly couldn't live in a place where Anti-fa thrives. I also couldn't live in Vermont: full of aging 60s radicals and hippies still with their huge weed gardens and wearing birkenstocks and long hair. YUCK! :)

One can't assume everyone's tastes are the same in weather or in politics.

That was wartime. Entirely different story. People shouldn't need guns to defend themselves in peace time in a developed country.

Maciamo, was Germany a developed country in the 1930s? I would say yes. Yet, they elected Hitler and the Nazi party. Within a few years they were living in a totalitarian regime. Even if they wanted to resist, to protect their disabled children from the gas chamber, they didn't have the means to do it. Why is that? It's because once again they took away everyone's firearms. Mussolini wasn't "elected" but the same thing happened there.

Our founders were correct. NO government should be trusted implicitly. Europeans seem to have very short memories.

That's the thing. There are lots of dangerous neighbourhoods and that's why people feel they need guns. So you do not deny that insecurity is more of a problem in the US in general (not in your New York neighbourhood) than in Western or Northern Europe?

There's a lot of guns in minority communities. Most of them were illegally purchased. In communities in the south, midwest, southwest, even in perfectly nice working class and middle class communities where there's not much danger at all, if any, people still have traditionally felt that it's their right under the Second Amendment not only to have hunting firearms of various sorts and how every many they choose, but to have rifles etc. for self defense in their homes should it be necessary. I think part of it is a hangover from the settlement of this country when in many communities in the south but even more so in the midwest there were no police. I'm talking about periods up until the late 1800s. It's a pioneer mentality I suppose you could say. You protected your own homes. Somebody came on your ranch to steal your cows or even chickens; you came out with your shotgun.

It's different to some degree in the northeast. It's much more settled, much further from pioneer days, much less rural. There's much less legal gun ownership, although there are people who still go hunting. I'll tell you one thing, though, after seeing the riots in New York City, the looting of the flagship Macy's store, the bands of anti-fa and BLM young people harassing diners on the street etc. gun ownership is shooting up.

What I don't understand is why it didn't shoot up, pun not intended, in France after all those riots and killings in Muslim ghettos. People here would have been up in arms, again, pun not intended. Americans just won't put up with that for long.

[Yetos]

Question

is there a chance that this map also be connected with paranoia or schizo cases?
an analogy or something such?

[Angela]

Question

is there a chance that this map also be connected with paranoia or schizo cases?
an analogy or something such?

I regret having to say it but virtually every state in red has high percentages of minority populations. Please don't misunderstand: there are middle and middle to upper class black people, Hispanics etc. including people like my Jamaican friend who has an extremely responsible upper management position in one of the Social Service Agencies in New York City and lives in a lovely "mixed" community. However, very large percentages of those groups are living in drug and gang dominated areas where violence is a way of life.

The statistics by ethnicity and by state are here. Check out the absolutely "safest" states.

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/c...estimates.html

It's really sad, and the saddest thing of all is that the party getting all of those votes has no program other than to give them more "free" stuff, which hasn't worked at all so far.

It's all about the inculcation of traditional values through, if at all possible, intact families. When children aren't socialized this is the result.
The first one to tell you that would be my Jamaican friend, and no one could possibly know the situation better than she does.

Still, even in these particular "red states" it very much depends on where you live. If you don't go to or live in certain areas you're quite safe, or as safe as you would be anywhere. There's no country without thieves, or vandals, and no country without some spousal abuse.

[Maciamo]

Maciamo, I hope you take this in the spirit in which it is offered, but that is a hugely distorted view of even fundamentalist Christians. I don't know how you could have formed such conclusions.

First of all, no, it's not just my anecdotal experience from the bastion of a basically non-fundamentalist area like New England and the Mid-Atlantic states that tells me fundamentalist Protestants don't "hate" atheists, and don't want to harm them. Do you think that our liberal, mostly atheistic or at least agnostic members of the media wouldn't broadcast that if there were any indication of it. I've never heard of such a thing being reported anywhere in this country except maybe a group of a few hundred survivalist fanatics holed up in some mountain valley, or that weird cult that was going around disturbing the burials of war dead.

It just doesn't exist, period, and as a matter of fact I do know fundamentalists. My father's sister scandalized her entire family by marrying for the second time a man from Kentucky and converting to his religion. He was a member of the Pentecostal Church. I don't think you can get more fundamentalist, Bible Thumping, southern Evangelical than that. She annoyed the hell out of us by constantly trying to convert us, and yes, we found it beyond strange that an Italian would no longer drink a glass of wine, and her girls weren't allowed to wear make up and go dancing, which of course they wound up doing eventually anyway. Two members of my husband's family, in small town upstate New York have converted to a fundamentalist religion, and two cousins of mine, who moved to, and married, respectively, in West Virginia and Georgia, converted to the spouse's religion. And yes, we do discuss religion, and it can get a bit heated at times, but never, ever have I heard anything so outlandish as to wish to harm atheists. I'm telling you; they just want to persuade them to "see the light", and that includes non-fundamentalists Christians.

I think you have a "fundamental" misunderstanding of what is meant in modern religious parlance by "taking scripture literally". It's a term of art that has to be understood in context: you have to know what they mean by that. Fundamentalist Christians don't believe in ANY of those things: not one. Likewise they don't follow the dietary laws in Leviticus. What is meant by taking the Bible "literally" is actually not literally at all other than in the sense that SOME of them believe that the "story" of creation actually happened in the way described, that all the miracles that are described, such as the parting of the waters during the Exodus, the giving of the Ten Commandments, Jonah and the whale, Joshua and the towers of Jericho etc. Likewise they believe in Christ's miracles. It absolutely doesn't mean that they follow the rules of the Old Testament.

What you say is very surprising because the very definition of Fundamentalism is taking scriptures literally. And literally does not have two meanings. If the Bible is considered the Word of God, then 100% of what is written must be accepted. That's the most essential difference between fundamentalist and liberal Christians. The former accept all unconditionally. The latter understand that the Bible was written by men and is not the Word of God, and therefore should be 'interpreted' or 'deciphered', either because it has been corrupted by men writing it, or because it is not be taken literally but figuratively. Like you I grew up with a Catholic education (my grandfather almost became a priest), had forced catechism lessons from six years old, then was sent to a Jesuit secondary school. Jesuit priests explained times ans again that for Catholics, unlike Fundamentalist Protestants in the (southern) USA, the Bible should be taken mostly figuratively.

I personally don't see how it's possible to accept that God created the world in seven days, that evolution isn't a thing, and that miracles do happen, if you also don't accept other parts of the Bible. The passages I mentioned are not even supernatural, and they don't seem to be subject to interpretation either. They are clear rules, just like the Ten Commandments. You say that Fundamentalist Christians don't take the Old Testament literally, but they do when it comes to Creationism and the Ten Commandments. They can't just pick and choose what they like. Otherwise they can't call themselves Christians anymore. They would be practising some form of free religion loosely based on Christianity. At the very best they would be very liberal Christians, not fundamentalist ones.

A few questions for you:

1) Were crusaders Fundamentalist Christians? If not, were they ever Fundamentalist Christians? If yes, can we really call modern Baptists or Evangelist Christians fundamentalists too?

2) Fundamentalist Muslims also take the scriptures literally. This is why some become modern Jihadists and suicide bombers. The Quran clearly says to kill the infidels and that Heaven will be the reward. Why would it be different for Fundamentalist Christians? Or are you really saying that they aren't true Fundamentalist Christians in the USA anymore?

As for guns and gun violence, there is no "causative" relationship between that and religiosity. It's correlation, not causation.

I didn't say causation. I also spoke specifically of fundamentalists, not all religious people. Fundamentalists take rules literally. Their mind is inflexible and they can't seem to think by themselves. They need to be told right from wrong, as if they missed the ability to judge that on their own. It is this mindset that makes them more likely to commit violence. The same is seen in Islam. Extremists or fanatics are always fundamentalists.

Some southern states, where, if you ask people, black or white, if they believe that the Bible is literally the word of God, almost all of them, imo, would say yes, although as I pointed out they really don't mean "literally" in the way you think.

Is it because they don't understand the meaning of 'literally' (like people who say "I have literally been waiting forever")? Or are they just hypocrites?

Maciamo, people who wouldn't get medical treatment for their children are predominantly Jehovah's Witnesses; they're a splinter group from a splinter group. They're not "at all" representative of most fundamentalist Christians. Of course evangelicals get medical help for their children. They also believe in the power of prayer, of course. Believing that there is a God who can change the laws of nature if he so chooses doesn't necessarily have anything to do with believing that God gave men brains to make medical discoveries.

Once again, if they are Creationists (and that's not just Jehovah's Witnesses), why would they accept anything to do with genetics? You cannot accept that genetic engineering works if you reject the scientific concept evolution. So are they just big, fat hypocrites who claim to be creationists but really do accept evolution when it suits them? Or are they completely schizophrenic? If so, should they be interned to be treated? I truly believe that creationists should not be allowed any medical treatment relying on any scientific concept that contradicts their beliefs unless they are willing to be treated for mental disorders too. This is not just my personal view. I know that a lot of Northwest Europeans agree with me on this.

No, religious belief is not more likely to make you racist. Not today.

But it did until recently, didn't it? Otherwise why were Martin Luther King and others fighting about? Racism has always been stronger in the former slave-owing states, and they happen to be the states with high percentages of fundamentalist Christians? Or are you denying this part of American history too?

In my experience, all I've ever heard in church is about the "brotherhood" of man.

From the country that produced 'Black Lives Matter'. Yep. Not very convincing.

As for socializing with people on a daily basis who might not believe in evolution, why not? When would the subject come up? If the neighbor, for example, is considerate, polite, sociable, even kind and helpful, why the heck would I care what he or she believes about evolution. I have fundamentalist friends now, people who have converted. We just don't discuss religion. It's a free country; you can believe whatever you want to believe so long as you don't hurt other people.

You don't seem particularly selective when choosing your friends. I agree that in a free country people can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't mean I will become friend with whoever whatever they believe.

Maciamo, I live in Long Island. I know "precisely" what the weather is like. It snows maybe three or four times a year if you mean something other than a few inches. We have a beautiful, long, autumn, and our springs are cool. We don't get really hot weather until the end of June to the end of August.

Almost every winter I see in the news how New York is under several feet of snow. Here are news articles confirming it from 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. And that's in the last few years when global warming already kept temperatures above freezing for most of winter in Belgium.

I could also, btw, never, ever, live in the Pacific northwest. The sun never shines there practically. It's always raining, and if not raining, it's grey and overcast.

It may just be an impression because the climate stats for Seattle show 2169 hours of sunshine per year, which is not bad. Winters may be darker in Seattle, but from May to September Seattle has more sunshine than New York. The number of rainy days is not that different (152 vs 125) and New York actually gets more inches of rain overall. Also NYC gets 12 days of snow in average.

Maciamo, was Germany a developed country in the 1930s? I would say yes. Yet, they elected Hitler and the Nazi party. Within a few years they were living in a totalitarian regime. Even if they wanted to resist, to protect their disabled children from the gas chamber, they didn't have the means to do it. Why is that? It's because once again they took away everyone's firearms. Mussolini wasn't "elected" but the same thing happened there.

Germany was seriously impoverished in the 1920's and '30s. In 1923 Germany's GDP per capita had fallen to $2300 against $6100 for the USA. That's lower than Congo-Brazzaville or Papua New Guinea today. So I am not sure Germany could still be considered a developed country back then.

It's different to some degree in the northeast. It's much more settled, much further from pioneer days, much less rural.

That's also why it's more similar to Europe. Less rural, less pioneer/frontier mentality.

I'll tell you one thing, though, after seeing the riots in New York City, the looting of the flagship Macy's store, the bands of anti-fa and BLM young people harassing diners on the street etc. gun ownership is shooting up.

What I don't understand is why it didn't shoot up, pun not intended, in France after all those riots and killings in Muslim ghettos. People here would have been up in arms, again, pun not intended. Americans just won't put up with that for long.

Are you suggesting that people should buy guns to shoot demonstrators or rioters?

[ratchet_fan]

When did she suggest people should buy guns to shoot rioters? People should buy guns to defend themselves, their homes and their property. Its not a coincidence that the majority of riots are in bastions of liberalism.

And yes there is link between crime in a state and its African American population (and to a lesser degree Hispanic). I don't care if its un PC to say. In this case correlation is causation. I imagine the same is true for Europe and its large MENA population.

Also there might be a link between poverty and religiosity and crime but I would wager people abandon religion after becoming less poor not that being less religious makes you less poor.

[[email protected]]

Maciamo,

I guess you did mean that you were literally afraid to visit a Bible Belt state. But, like Angela, I think you are describing a situation that simply does not exist. Fundamentalists do believe the Bible, but all that I've known stress the message of love of the New Testament, and I've lived in Mississippi, Panhandle Florida (i.e. east Alabama), and Virginia (the religious part on the North Carolina border). They want to pray for you, convert you, open your eyes to their truth. There just isn't any killing spree of atheists by Fundamentalists going on.

[Yetos]

Something like this?

[Maciamo]

Maciamo,

I guess you did mean that you were literally afraid to visit a Bible Belt state. But, like Angela, I think you are describing a situation that simply does not exist. Fundamentalists do believe the Bible, but all that I've known stress the message of love of the New Testament, and I've lived in Mississippi, Panhandle Florida (i.e. east Alabama), and Virginia (the religious part on the North Carolina border). They want to pray for you, convert you, open your eyes to their truth. There just isn't any killing spree of atheists by Fundamentalists going on.

Yeah, right, Dixieland, the land of peace and love and healthy interracial relations.