The interactive Homicide Monitor allows you to click on a country and see its murder count in a specific recent year, and the rate the number represents per 100,000 people. For some countries, you can also see the weapon most commonly used.
1 in 5 people were either Brazilian, Columbian, or Venezuelan. In fact Latin America and the Caribbean seem downright scary overall. I suppose it comes as no surprise that in the developed Western counties the U.S.A. stands out with a high number (it's almost as if we just have things sitting around waiting to kill people)… Bosnia and Libya have lower rates?!
Greenland and Antarctica look quite dangerous
I was a little surprised when I looked at Greenland too.
my friend 'them little things have bullets',,,,an please no nra , half quotes of bill of rights , you think bosnia an Libya report , anything , ? mate ,, they don't
That was such a fragmented statement I have no idea what you're attempting to express.
On a chart like this, countries with very low populations have it tough. If the population is extreemly low and you get a few Homicides, that puts the curve in the crapper. That's why Greenland is red.
Also, is that counting the "official" homicides when cops kill someone or not ? 🙁
+West Kagle Well, yes, be better averaged over a few years for lower populations.
uh…. if it's rate/100,000 then how does that make it worse? If you only have 100,000 and have 1 homicide then you have homicide rate of 1 per 100,000. If you have 200,000 and have 1 homicide then you have a homicide rate of 0.5 per 100,000. The rate / x changes to reflect population; that doesn't handicap Greenland because of it's size. I mean Iceland only has 333,333 people (vs 56,701 in Greenland) but their homicide rate is only 0.3. They have more people but less homicide.
+Paul Spoerry I assumed his point was the stats for a specific year can be throwen off wildly by a small change.
Oh well yeah that would make sense +Thomas Wrobel. I think the dates shown are just the most recent info they have but that the data is aggregated over several years so I don't think one year would get it thrown off wildly… but I could be mistaken, I'll have to take a look over what they say about the data to be sure.