This is the craziest thing I’ve read this week. Yes, we have too much violent crime, but it’s not worse than it was in the 90s. That’s a lot of regression in a short period of time, and we don’t want to continue on this trajectory, but it’s not nearly as extreme as you suggest.
I suspect you’re making a couple of errant assumptions:
1. Looking at the sheer number of homicides in the US without accounting for the US’s very large population (our rates are still high for a 1st world country, but not as much as they seem without the population adjustment)
2. Assuming that crime is evenly distributed across our country. Most of the violent crime in the US happens in so-called “inner cities”. Most of the country is very safe, but a few places are very unsafe.
Basically the US is a biiiigggg and diverse country by 1st world standards.
US crime is only "low" because such a huge number of people can live dispersed. And it's a terrible way to live. To make a meaningful safety comparison between interesting places low population density areas need to be excluded.
I suspect you’re making a couple of errant assumptions:
1. Looking at the sheer number of homicides in the US without accounting for the US’s very large population (our rates are still high for a 1st world country, but not as much as they seem without the population adjustment)
2. Assuming that crime is evenly distributed across our country. Most of the violent crime in the US happens in so-called “inner cities”. Most of the country is very safe, but a few places are very unsafe.
Basically the US is a biiiigggg and diverse country by 1st world standards.