It also has way more guns, and the states where gun ownership is most valued (the Southern states) also has the highest rates of gun violence, but we've been over this before.
Never mind Chicago and D.C.
Still I claim a victory. At least now you are blaming violent crime on gun ownership, which is, really, a much more sociologically sustainable proposition than women's rights. So there you go, you admitted women's rights are not as important as other factors for violent crime.
You'd be wrong. I'm including all violence, and even so, it has still decreased steadily over the decades overall, as Pinker amply shows.
I know that violent crime in the world is generally decreasing.
I also know that war in the world is also generally decreasing. But that is, quite ironically, because modern wars are so destructive. Current weaponry makes it impossible to make "limited" wars where casualties are kept low or civilian targets are avoided. Any war today means an amount of destruction that nearly nobody, even at the corridors of power that can take those decisions, wants. The Koreas would have fought more wars already if it wasn't because neither of them wants to lose millions of people even for the promise of winning and destroying the other. Same for why India and Pakistan taunt each other but carefully avoid fighting a real war, where 150 million could die before a result is achieved. And on and on. Israel and the Arabs are an exception because both sides believe they are fighting for their own existence, so any losses in war are worth it. The USA have the advantage that they fight their wars away from their own shores, so they can be a little more trigger-happy than any other militarily advanced country, but as terrorism has shown, even that is not enough anymore. In any case, I am pretty convinced that the reduction in wars is due to modern weaponry changing the tactical calculations of military strategists, not due to values. If today's world is more "humanitarian", that only means that now wars will be fought for "humanitarian" reasons, like democracy for Iraq and Libya and whatever they think they are going to achieve in Uganda (apart from oil contracts, that is).
Guess where a lot of that violence in England comes from? Good ol Islamic folk. But you already knew that, didn't you?
And most of the violence in the USA comes from Blacks and Hispanics, but you will still refuse to say it, even though you know it too.
lib*rul adj. and n.
1. Person who believes men commit more crimes because of genetic predisposition but Blacks commit more crimes because of systemic discrimination.
2. Person who believes reading the Quran makes people violent, but watching Hollywood R rated movies or playing first person shooting videogames does not.
Although yes, it is interesting that Arabs, Pakis and Deshis commit more violent crime in Britain than in their countries of origin. I don't know why this would be so, but I know it's not because of legal gun availability - which does not exist in Britain. Even most cops in Britain do not carry while on the job.
What utter crap. It was you who pointed out in a different debate that the most violent region in the world was Africa, which is also the continent with the worst human rights records (like almost no women's rights to speak of). Violence . . . okay? The Middle East is a big region, and parts of it have higher violence than the U.S. and parts of it lower violence than the U.S., but overall they are about the same.
No, you were right to use violent crime as the best statistic. Violent crime follows the incentives and social structures valid in a society during normal times. Adding wars and terrorism is confounding: both wars and terrorism happen for political reasons not dependent on whether a country or a culture "is violent." (France and Germany have made war with all their neighbors; Switzerland hasn't, and please tell me just how the Swiss are so culturally different from French and Germans). Wars, moreover, have a male bias because women were generally denied the chance to be soldiers, so you're always going to end up with men overrepresented because of discrimination rather than ability (as in art and science, as we agreed in the other sub-thread).
So I stand by this. Africa and Latin America have high violent crime, then Eastern Europe. Scandinavia and rich East Asia have low violent crime, then poor East Asia, then Western Europe, then the Middle East, then Anglo-Saxon countries and South Asia. Both in the higher and in the lower ends, you find feminist paradises, feminist hells and everything in between. As you admit: The Middle East is a big region, and parts of it have higher violence than the U.S. and parts of it lower violence than the U.S., but overall they are about the same. Since much higher women rights do not make the Anglosphere have less violent crime, we have to look for something else.