Crime New map of gun homicide rates by country

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.

new-york-snow-2.jpg



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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Something like this?

 
Last edited:
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. :rolleyes:
 
Maciamo;612450]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.

I don't think it's my place to tell American Protestant fundamentalists what "taking the scriptures literally" means in their branch of Christianity. They define their own religion, and what I am saying is that they don't include in their definition a belief in those Old Testament rules you listed.

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?

A By definition I think not, since Christian fundamentalism in modern parlance means "Protestant", and usually, although not always, means a Protestant sect which is an offshoot of "mainstream" American Protestant congregations. They don't believe in saints, the supremacy of the Pope in any way, most don't have communion services and on and on. It's extremely different from Roman Catholicism.

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?

I think there's a big difference between Fundamentalist Muslims and Protestant Fundamentalist Christians in terms of how "literally" they take ancient rules of societal behavior or even religious behavior from their scriptures. Some, not all Muslims, follow them. Indeed, for them, Sharia, or the laws found in their holy books, are supposed to rule civic life. That's not a "thing" in terms of Protestant fundamentalists except to the extent that in some areas they lobby legislators to pass anti-abortion laws, or to allow for the mention of Creationism in schools. None of them follow the dietary rules in Deuteronomy, they don't marry the wife of their dead brother, they can't have multiple wives, and on and on. The Ten Commandments yes, they accept, as do mainstream Protestants and Catholics, but not the minutiae of rules in the OT, or, indeed, the societal structures. It's not my choice; I'm not a Protestant Fundamentalist.

As for Catholics, yes, the "interpretation" of scripture allows for evolution; I also haven't heard of a priest saying for a long time that Joshua literally blew down the walls of Jericho. However, at every Mass Catholics still recite the Nicene Creed, and if you don't believe it, you're not a Roman Catholic even if you go to Mass. I no longer believe it, so I can't recite it, and so I don't call myself a Catholic. I also know a lot of Catholics who do sincerely believe what they're saying when they recite the Nicene Creed, but they still are what we call here "cafeteria Catholics" nonetheless. So, for example, they practice birth control, although I don't personally know any who would say they support abortion; not if they go to Mass every Sunday etc. People aren't always logical and consistent, I guess.

The Nicene Creed for those who don't know it.
https://www.loyolapress.com/catholi...yers-every-catholic-should-know/nicene-creed/


I really think I'm going to leave the discussion at this point. I'm in the midst of moving and have only responded to the extent I did out of courtesy, but the movers are booked, and I have to be ready, so detailed theological discussions will have to wait for another time if that's ok.
 
What really surprise i this map
is the difference among Aegypt and rest Arabic countries
Russia and Belaruss

Firearms_homicides.png
 
I don't know, it could be, but it's not my lived experience. And, I have little faith in the artistic license of movies.


Legends? reality?



could be like a Vendetta as a Cretan would say,
or 'στα μαχαιρια' grabing the knives as we say here in North?

passion or honour attacks?

or just fatrias earnings? a kind of medieval Europe feudal wars.

and last with roberry style and effects, like the old West we see at John wayne and C. Eastwood films

I think has to do with culture, psychic disorters (drugs - alcohol included), and law officers ability and thinking

comparing my country, we had much much more gun crimes until 1960's
and many were passion and 'honour' crimes,
all the above today are not even 10% of what was at 1930's
except the armed robbery,
the only thing that increased the last 2 decades is armed robbery,
the traditional 'klephtes' thieve, usually the poor or smart guy who steal chickens or supplies or even some money and used only tools
is replaced by an organised 'ληστης' burglar, who uses AK-47 and may exterminate witnesses.
 
I don't think it's my place to tell American Protestant fundamentalists what "taking the scriptures literally" means in their branch of Christianity. They define their own religion, and what I am saying is that they don't include in their definition a belief in those Old Testament rules you listed.

It's not really up to Fundamentalist Christians to define the words in the English language. Fundamentalist should have the same definition for everyone. Ditto for 'literally'. According to the Oxford dictionary, 'literally' means 'exactly'. You can check other dictionaries, but none of them say it means 'selectively' or 'approximately'.


I think there's a big difference between Fundamentalist Muslims and Protestant Fundamentalist Christians in terms of how "literally" they take ancient rules of societal behavior or even religious behavior from their scriptures.

There shouldn't be. Literally means literally, just like exactly doesn't mean approximately.

Some, not all Muslims, follow them. Indeed, for them, Sharia, or the laws found in their holy books, are supposed to rule civic life. That's not a "thing" in terms of Protestant fundamentalists except to the extent that in some areas they lobby legislators to pass anti-abortion laws, or to allow for the mention of Creationism in schools. None of them follow the dietary rules in Deuteronomy, they don't marry the wife of their dead brother, they can't have multiple wives, and on and on. The Ten Commandments yes, they accept, as do mainstream Protestants and Catholics, but not the minutiae of rules in the OT, or, indeed, the societal structures.

They cannot have multiple wives because that is illegal. Not only do Fundamentalists lobby legislators about anti-abortion laws and creationism, they also managed to make it illegal for Atheists to hold office in Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. It is unambiguously written in the Constitution of those states (even it was overruled by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't change the fact that Fundamentalists try to translate the Bible into Law).
 
What really surprise i this map
is the difference among Aegypt and rest Arabic countries
Russia and Belaruss

Firearms_homicides.png

Gun homicides are low in the Maghreb, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar... It is only high in Iraq and Syria because of the war and Palestine because of the tensions with Israel. Not sure about Jordan. That would be the odd one out in the lot.
 
As for people not disliking non-Christians in the Bible Belt, it seems that local residents posting on Quora disagree.

What is the best way to explain what the Bible Belt is and what life is like inside the belt to non-US people?

"If you are not Christian, and openly Christian -- preferably protestant -- there is little chance of you holding even a local elected office, even down to (sometimes especially) school board or county commission."

"If you are not religious, you are immediately suspect. You might have a hard time finding work, neighbors may shun you, and your kids will almost certainly be teased and bullied at school."


As for interpreting the Bible literally and not accepting modern medicine.

"There are churches in rural areas where they take the Biblical passage about taking up serpents literally. These people handle poisonous snakes as part of their service. Every now and then one of them dies, but that never dims the faith of the remaining congregation.There are churches where followers are taught that faith healing is the only true way, and relying on doctors is a sin, turning one's back on faith in the power of God. A while back, in fact, I was giving a ride to a woman at work whose car had broken down, and she told me how her grandson was up coughing all night, but no matter how hard they prayed he wouldn't stop."

From What is it like to live in the Bible Belt?

"Things people in my high school health class believed to be true include that only atheists can get pregnant if they aren't married, that girls shouldn't swim in public pools because of a pregnancy risk, and that women can't get STDS. One young lady insisted she could skip the sex ed unit because her family was Christian. She claimed that her mother was a virgin, as was her grandmother before her, because Christians would never be impure enough to have sex. I wish I was making this up.

It is illegal for an atheist to hold public office in my state. This is unconstitutional.

I’ve had teachers, more than one, try to tell us that women are mentally unfit for higher education.
"
 
As for people not disliking non-Christians in the Bible Belt, it seems that local residents posting on Quora disagree.

I've never used the site so I don't know, but is Quora a survey of the people of the region, or just people sharing their opinions? That is, how do we know it's representative or if the views are of the people of the region?
 
I've never used the site so I don't know, but is Quora a survey of the people of the region, or just people sharing their opinions? That is, how do we know it's representative or if the views are of the people of the region?

Quora is probably the most famous and active question-and-answer website on the Web. It was founded by former Facebook employees and has 300 million unique people a month. The site has been praised for the quality of the answers written by its users, many of whom were recognized as experts in their fields. The Quora community includes various well-known people such as Jimmy Wales, Richard A. Muller, Justin Trudeau, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

Users can upvote or downvote any answer to a question and answers with the highest balance towards upvotes are displayed on top. The first answer I posted has 2200+ upvotes for instance. This means that at least as many users agree with it.
 
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).


HSI_SW_SafestCities_Online_Dating_map.jpg
LOL, yeah these might be the religious states but moreso the ones with all the "diversity". How's that for a corelation?
 
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.

Firearms_homicides.png



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.
It's interesting how Russia is really high up in the chart because it's really hard to get a gun owner's license in Russia. You have to go through a bunch of check-ups, medical examinations, pass an exam on firearm safety, and only then you might have a chance of getting a positive reply from your local gvnmnt. And even then, once you obtain the license, you can only own a shitty double-barrel shotgun for 2 years before you can get a proper shotgun, and even then you have to wait 5 more years until you can buy a firearm with a rifled barrel.
Is it due to criminal groups getting tons of illegal firearms? Or are Russians who get the license just prone to committing firearm homicides? :D
 

This thread has been viewed 20591 times.

Back
Top