Is the USA a Developed Country?

[Galloism]

Well that's just an oxymoron.



You will have severe difficulty in proving this. Finland and Iraq have about the same number of guns per capita (34.2 per 100). In fact, Finland is number 6 in the world for number of guns.

Is Finland a dangerous hellhole undeveloped country? How about Sweden, coming in at #9, with 31.6 guns per 100 citizens? Undeveloped?

Finland is nowhere close to the level of gun ownership in the USA though even if its at number 6. The thing is, there is a huge gap between the USA and every other high economy nation on the list.

There is also a huge gap between the USA and every other low economy nation on the list - and most of those gaps are larger than the high economy ones.

Of the top 20 countries for guns, the first one is, of course, the United States. 11 are in Europe (Serbia, Cyprus, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Macedonia, and Switzerland). And 9 of the 11 are considered developed (Serbia and Macedonia are working on it.)

In addition, Canada is in there, coming in at number 12 (my previous number was based on a bad wikipedia edit).

There's also several other very rich countries in there although there's some debate as to whether they're developed - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain are all considered "high income economies".

Comparatively, the bottom 20 are almost all undeveloped (except for Japan, Fiji, and Singapore - where they still cane people for crimes).

Nepal, Lithuania, Malawi, Niger, Romania, Haiti, North Korea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bangladesh, Eritrea, Fiji, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Ghana, The Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, and Tunisia.

So, who does the US have more in common with, the developed world, or the undeveloped world? The undeveloped world has few guns compared to the developed world, generally speaking.

[Infected Mushroom]

Finland is nowhere close to the level of gun ownership in the USA though even if its at number 6. The thing is, there is a huge gap between the USA and every other high economy nation on the list.

There is also a huge gap between the USA and every other low economy nation on the list - and most of those gaps are larger than the high economy ones.

Of the top 20 countries for guns, the first one is, of course, the United States. 11 are in Europe (Serbia, Cyprus, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Macedonia, and Switzerland). And 9 of the 11 are considered developed (Serbia and Macedonia are working on it.)

In addition, Canada is in there, coming in at number 12 (my previous number was based on a bad wikipedia edit).

There's also several other very rich countries in there although there's some debate as to whether they're developed - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain are all considered "high income economies".

Comparatively, the bottom 20 are almost all undeveloped (except for Japan, Fiji, and Singapore - where they still cane people for crimes).

Nepal, Lithuania, Malawi, Niger, Romania, Haiti, North Korea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bangladesh, Eritrea, Fiji, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Ghana, The Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, and Tunisia.

So, who does the US have more in common with, the developed world, or the undeveloped world? The undeveloped world has few guns compared to the developed world, generally speaking.

I'd say the USA would be in a third category, not quite developed (like other countries who enjoy a high combination of safety and economic development) but not quite under-developed either

so it would be in a similar category where you would have put the USSR, maybe today's China/Russia etc

I'm not suggesting the USA has more in common with Iraq than Germany for instance. But I am saying that the USA is in a different situation where it is very strong and advanced economically and militarily... but socially and politically it lags behind other countries. These lags are serious enough that the USA should not be considered a truly developed country.

[Galloism]

There is also a huge gap between the USA and every other low economy nation on the list - and most of those gaps are larger than the high economy ones.

Of the top 20 countries for guns, the first one is, of course, the United States. 11 are in Europe (Serbia, Cyprus, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Macedonia, and Switzerland). And 9 of the 11 are considered developed (Serbia and Macedonia are working on it.)

In addition, Canada is in there, coming in at number 12 (my previous number was based on a bad wikipedia edit).

There's also several other very rich countries in there although there's some debate as to whether they're developed - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain are all considered "high income economies".

Comparatively, the bottom 20 are almost all undeveloped (except for Japan, Fiji, and Singapore - where they still cane people for crimes).

Nepal, Lithuania, Malawi, Niger, Romania, Haiti, North Korea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bangladesh, Eritrea, Fiji, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Ghana, The Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, and Tunisia.

So, who does the US have more in common with, the developed world, or the undeveloped world? The undeveloped world has few guns compared to the developed world, generally speaking.

I'd say the USA would be in a third category, not quite developed (like other countries who enjoy a high combination of safety and economic development) but not quite under-developed either

so it would be in a similar category where you would have put the USSR, maybe today's China/Russia etc

I'm not suggesting the USA has more in common with Iraq than Germany for instance. But I am saying that the USA is in a different situation where it is very strong and advanced economically and militarily... but socially and politically it lags behind other countries. These lags are serious enough that the USA should not be considered a truly developed country.

Yeah but that's not the definition of development. Development is actually associated with more guns, not less. That doesn't mean more guns = more development, but more development is generally associated with more guns. This is for a very obvious reason.

We have the money in the developed world to buy them.

And no, you don't get to randomly redefine development to get a special case for the United States - which more closely relates to the developed world in gun ownership than the undeveloped world - just because we have somewhat more guns than average.

[Oil exporting People]

A truly developed country would have trust with the government and with each other

What does this mean?

- Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity, case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present.
- Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust.
- “In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.”
- The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal.
- In Australia, ethnic diversity lowers social cohesion and increases “hunkering”, providing support for Putnam’s thesis finding the same results in the US.

(Credit to Chateau Heartiste for finding the links)

and subsequently enjoy higher standards of safety and stability.

[Gibet]

I feel that this is best solved logically.

According to Merriam-Webster, Developed: having a relatively high level of industrialization and standard of living ·a developed country.
Cambridge; a country with a lot of industrial activity and where people generally have high incomes

Investopedia, on the definition of a "Developed Economy"; a country with a relatively high level of economic growth and security. Common criteria for evaluating a country's degree of development are per capita income or gross domestic product (GDP), level of industrialization, general standard of living, and the amount of widespread infrastructure. Noneconomic factors, such as the Human Development Index (HDI), which quantifies a country's levels of education, literacy and health into a single figure, can also be included in evaluating an economy or country's degree of development.

The United Nations lists the United States, alongside the other G7/G8 powers as developed countries. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_current/2014wesp_country_classification.pdf

Essentially, according to just about every understanding of the terminology, a developed country is one that boasts a high level of industrial capacity, as well as technological and infrastructure capacity, and a generally high standard of living--including GNP/GDP, access to healthcare, education, literacy, etc. Literally nowhere in the terminology or research is gun control/violence even remotely considered to be a marker of developed nations.

Put simply, the ability of a national government to control who does and doesn't decide to go-off half-cocked and kill people has no bearing in whether or not that country is developed. Gun Crime is not decisive in measuring a country's economic, industrial, and HDI capacities.

In that sense, your argument holds no solid, supportable ground. You are using conjecture, and personal definitions to attempt to alter the standard, accepted data on developed vs. developing nations.

[Plzen]

Here's an analysis for 159 countries. Data from 2007. Graph my own.



Countries with higher rates of gun ownership tend to be more democratic.

Questions?

---

And no, you don't get to randomly redefine development to get a special case for the United States - which more closely relates to the developed world in gun ownership than the undeveloped world - just because we have somewhat more guns than average.

To be fair, the developed/undeveloped dichotomy is detached from reality.

The era in which there was a distinct group of developed countries and a second distinct group of undeveloped countries are decades past.

[Galloism]

Here's an analysis for 159 countries. Data from 2007. Graph my own.

(Image)

Countries with higher rates of gun ownership tend to be more democratic.

Questions?

And no, you don't get to randomly redefine development to get a special case for the United States - which more closely relates to the developed world in gun ownership than the undeveloped world - just because we have somewhat more guns than average.

To be fair, the developed/undeveloped dichotomy is detached from reality.

The era in which there was a distinct group of developed countries and a second distinct group of undeveloped countries are decades past.

Eh... well, I don't think you're quite right. There is a distinct group of undeveloped countries and a distinct group of undeveloped countries. There's also a whole lot of countries that are like "hmm, well, kinda this way... sorta, but not really....". We often classify those as "developing".

[The Two Jerseys]

We've been over this before with you.

There are parts of the country where it would literally take the police a half hour or more to get to a location after they're called.

Why is it "undeveloped" for people who live there to think that they need a gun to protect themselves from armed intruders?

Because in a truly developed country (like in many places in Europe and Canada for instance), there's enough social trust in the government and in each other (through conditions that have been created like high education, widespread healthcare, reasonably effective police) that its not a concern that the nearest police station is many many miles away.

The fact that the USA cannot do that shows that its citizenry has the mindset of a country in a different stage. In a truly developed country, there would be no actual or perceived need to own guns.

Sweden and Germany also have places where police stations are many many miles away. Yet the mentality of the developed country persists... high social capital and trust is exemplified, the citizens have faith and trust in their government, in the police (even if far away), in the robustness of their social infrastructures to protect them and in each other.

Is that so?

Well Canada is underdeveloped because of its under-utilisation of land and resources. 35 million people (almost half of France) in a land almost as big as all of Europe... I mean clearly there's a lot of further development to be done.

I would say Canada is a developing country. Its over 100 times bigger than the UK and France yet it only has close to half of the population as EITHER one of them (35 million to 65 million).

This suggests MASSIVE under-utilisation of resources and land... this suggests that Canada is still on the developing curve and not on the Developed end. Even if you argue that most of Canada's land is frozen all year round and uninhabitable, Canada still has hundreds of times more habitable land than the UK.

There's no reason why BC or Alberta couldn't each house at least as many people as Ontario for instance.

Development is not finished, nowhere close.

Having trouble keeping the bullshit straight, are we?

[Plzen]

-snip-

Good point.

To be fully fair, if you remove the gun-loving, 9-or-10-scoring European social democracies (see that cluster on the top-right?) from the list, the relationship disappears. But then again, the fact that there are gun-loving, 9-or-10-scoring European social democracies on the list is pretty much the point of this argument, isn't it?

Also I should've weighed the points by national populations so that tiny outliers like Sweden and such don't swing the result so much, but I have no idea how to do that on Google Spreadsheets.

---

-snip-

Also relevant:


There is indeed a clustering of similar countries on the top-right of the chart there, but then there's no clear divide between groupings of countries... anywhere... on the chart.

[Galloism]

-snip-

Good point.

To be fully fair, if you remove the gun-loving, 9-or-10-scoring European social democracies (see that cluster on the top-right?) from the list, the relationship disappears. But then again, the fact that there are gun-loving, 9-or-10-scoring European social democracies on the list is pretty much the point of this argument, isn't it?

Also I should've weighed the points by national populations so that tiny outliers like Sweden and such don't swing the result so much, but I have no idea how to do that on Google Spreadsheets.

I don't think such a distinction is super relevant. We're talking about countries here - not populations. Populations would cause certain countries to swing the chart extremely for a single policy or group of policies. Countries like China and India, just as examples, would weight heavily just because so very many people live there.

They still each only have one central government and group of policies. If it's policies being compared, the size of the country is irrelevant.

---

-snip-

Also relevant:

There is indeed a clustering of similar countries on the top-right of the chart there, but then there's no clear divide between groupings of countries... anywhere... on the chart.

Well, there's clear divide between "undeveloped" and "developed" on that chart. It's just that there's very few undeveloped compared to the nebulous broad catch-all "developing" category, which is bumping up against developed (as it would).

That being said, IM started this thread with the term, and dammit, I'm gonna finish with the term.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'd say the USA would be in a third category, not quite developed (like other countries who enjoy a high combination of safety and economic development) but not quite under-developed either

so it would be in a similar category where you would have put the USSR, maybe today's China/Russia etc

I'm not suggesting the USA has more in common with Iraq than Germany for instance. But I am saying that the USA is in a different situation where it is very strong and advanced economically and militarily... but socially and politically it lags behind other countries. These lags are serious enough that the USA should not be considered a truly developed country.

Yeah but that's not the definition of development. Development is actually associated with more guns, not less. That doesn't mean more guns = more development, but more development is generally associated with more guns. This is for a very obvious reason.

We have the money in the developed world to buy them.

And no, you don't get to randomly redefine development to get a special case for the United States - which more closely relates to the developed world in gun ownership than the undeveloped world - just because we have somewhat more guns than average.

why would people living in a highly developed society (politically, socially, economically) need to have lots of guns in the hands of private citizens with a side effect being that there is a high gun crime rates and gun related killing sprees?

it doesn't seem very highly developed

[Infected Mushroom]

I feel that this is best solved logically.

According to Merriam-Webster, Developed: having a relatively high level of industrialization and standard of living ·a developed country.
Cambridge; a country with a lot of industrial activity and where people generally have high incomes

Investopedia, on the definition of a "Developed Economy"; a country with a relatively high level of economic growth and security. Common criteria for evaluating a country's degree of development are per capita income or gross domestic product (GDP), level of industrialization, general standard of living, and the amount of widespread infrastructure. Noneconomic factors, such as the Human Development Index (HDI), which quantifies a country's levels of education, literacy and health into a single figure, can also be included in evaluating an economy or country's degree of development.

The United Nations lists the United States, alongside the other G7/G8 powers as developed countries. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_current/2014wesp_country_classification.pdf

Essentially, according to just about every understanding of the terminology, a developed country is one that boasts a high level of industrial capacity, as well as technological and infrastructure capacity, and a generally high standard of living--including GNP/GDP, access to healthcare, education, literacy, etc. Literally nowhere in the terminology or research is gun control/violence even remotely considered to be a marker of developed nations.

Put simply, the ability of a national government to control who does and doesn't decide to go-off half-cocked and kill people has no bearing in whether or not that country is developed. Gun Crime is not decisive in measuring a country's economic, industrial, and HDI capacities.

In that sense, your argument holds no solid, supportable ground. You are using conjecture, and personal definitions to attempt to alter the standard, accepted data on developed vs. developing nations.

the definitions seem to confuse development (which should be a combination of social, political, and economic factors with a high emphasis on the safety of the country) with economic power

why not just say, "the USA is an economic power" rather than say "the USA is a developed country."

Why do people mistakenly equate development with macroeconomic stats alone?

Then why not just say, "economic power"?

I'm not talking about economic power, I'm talking about development as a whole (economy is a component, but more importantly... social and political development and how safe the country is)

[Oil exporting People]

why would people living in a highly developed society (politically, socially, economically) need to have lots of guns in the hands of private citizens with a side effect being that there is a high gun crime rates and gun related killing sprees?

Once you account for gang violence, police shootings, and self defense cases, how many gun killings are there really?

it doesn't seem very highly developed

American HDI is right there with Europe, and our GDP beats all but a few; larger GNP as well. In what ways, besides higher gun violence, are we not developed? Does Europe having higher than average instances of Truck attacks mean they're not developed?

[Infected Mushroom]

why would people living in a highly developed society (politically, socially, economically) need to have lots of guns in the hands of private citizens with a side effect being that there is a high gun crime rates and gun related killing sprees?

Once you account for gang violence, police shootings, and self defense cases, how many gun killings are there really?

it doesn't seem very highly developed

American HDI is right there with Europe, and our GDP beats all but a few; larger GNP as well. In what ways, besides higher gun violence, are we not developed? Does Europe having higher than average instances of Truck attacks mean they're not developed?

well I was thinking healthcare, education, infrastructure (like public transport) as other issues...

but the most pressing is that the citizens have, overall, the mindset of a less developed society where large numbers of individuals need to own guns to protect themselves from each other and corrupt government officials... its just something that shouldn't exist as a large-scale phenomenon in a more advanced society that has accumulated and earned enough social capital

[Gibet]

the definitions seem to confuse development (which should be a combination of social, political, and economic factors with a high emphasis on the safety of the country) with economic power

why not just say, "the USA is an economic power" rather than say "the USA is a developed country."

Why do people mistakenly equate development with macroeconomic stats alone?

Then why not just say, "economic power"?

I'm not talking about economic power, I'm talking about development as a whole (economy is a component, but more importantly... social and political development and how safe the country is)

There you have it! You posed the query, is the US a developed nation? As per the accepted guidelines--put forth by the UN, as well as accepted literal definitions--, a developed country fits the definitions above. People don't "mistakenly equate" development with macroeconomic statistics--you are attempting to subplant your own definition with what is commonly accepted. Your idea of developed is not the definition as it is used at current. We cannot give you a viable answer on what species a fish is, if you continue to label it a dog.

[Oil exporting People]

well I was thinking healthcare, education, infrastructure (like public transport) as other issues...

Diversity; I'd imagine Europe would look just as terrible if you were 40% Turkish or Sudanese.

but the most pressing is that the citizens have, overall, the mindset of a less developed society where large numbers of individuals need to own guns to protect themselves from each other and corrupt government officials... its just something that shouldn't exist as a large-scale phenomenon in a more advanced society that has accumulated and earned enough social capital

You're literally arguing a mindset determines if a country is developed or not, and completely ignoring the fact it matches all socio-economic aspects that define a developed nation.

[Infected Mushroom]

the definitions seem to confuse development (which should be a combination of social, political, and economic factors with a high emphasis on the safety of the country) with economic power

why not just say, "the USA is an economic power" rather than say "the USA is a developed country."

Why do people mistakenly equate development with macroeconomic stats alone?

Then why not just say, "economic power"?

I'm not talking about economic power, I'm talking about development as a whole (economy is a component, but more importantly... social and political development and how safe the country is)

There you have it! You posed the query, is the US a developed nation? As per the accepted guidelines--put forth by the UN, as well as accepted literal definitions--, a developed country fits the definitions above. People don't "mistakenly equate" development with macroeconomic statistics--you are attempting to subplant your own definition with what is commonly accepted. Your idea of developed is not the definition as it is used at current. We cannot give you a viable answer on what species a fish is, if you continue to label it a dog.

i'm not interested in official categorisations though, i'm only interested in whether its truly developed

otherwise the discussion would just stop at... "Well it says so in the textbook. The End."

[Pilarcraft]

Is the OP a troll?
seriously.
How many people have to tell you this, Development is an economic concept. Social Concepts like Safety don't come into it.

[Infected Mushroom]

well I was thinking healthcare, education, infrastructure (like public transport) as other issues...

Diversity; I'd imagine Europe would look just as terrible if you were 40% Turkish or Sudanese.

but the most pressing is that the citizens have, overall, the mindset of a less developed society where large numbers of individuals need to own guns to protect themselves from each other and corrupt government officials... its just something that shouldn't exist as a large-scale phenomenon in a more advanced society that has accumulated and earned enough social capital

You're literally arguing a mindset determines if a country is developed or not, and completely ignoring the fact it is matches all socio-economic aspects that define a developed nation.

So its because of the minorities? What do you mean?

[Oil exporting People]

So its because of the minorities? What do you mean?

Literally on this page.

[Albrenia]

Having guns doesn't make you more or less developed. It's something entirely beside the point of being a developed nation.

The US pretty much sets the benchmark for developed nations, due to sheer economic, military and international clout. It also has a good level of technology, freedoms and industrialisation. I disagree with them on a lot of things, but I won't deny them credit where it is due.

[Infected Mushroom]

Is the OP a troll?
seriously.
How many people have to tell you this, Development is an economic concept. Social Concepts like Safety don't come into it.

I'm trying to encourage alternative conceptions of Development.

The OP says, "despite the official classification being X"... please discuss what you think the definition of Developed should be and whether the USA should be considered, in a true sense, developed.

I'm not asking you to simply parrot the authorities. I'm asking people to think critically and to come up with something. If you agree, why. If you don't and there should be another conceptualisation, why?

For instance... labelling a country as simply Developed if it has high macroeconomic variables and Not Developed if it doesn't sidesteps the bigger picture. Its more important to me how safe the country is, whether or not the citizens think like a society that has accumulated high social capital/trust (and act like it), the overall safety of the nation, and the development of other soft factors like education, infrastructure, policing etc. Its a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of Development and it would also explain why we traditionally would show discomfort at labelling something like the USSR or China/India as Developed even though they have very high macroeconomic stats in some respects (in many cases, larger numbers on things like GDP then officially Developed examples like France the Italy).

If you think the official classification with its fixation on macroeconomic stats should be the End All, then you can defend it too.

[Albrenia]

Well if you translate 'Developed' to mean 'A Place I'd like to live' then... uh... no. It's not on my List of Shitty Places to Live in, but it's not in my Top 10 Awesome Places to Live either.

[Infected Mushroom]

So its because of the minorities? What do you mean?

Literally on this page.

So could it be that the massive influx of minorities into the country has somehow created the conditions that have set the USA back in its political and social development?

Maybe we would have less guns in the country in an alternate timeline where the USA was restrictionist in its immigration policies from the start?

[Volkegoth]

In light of... general widespread ownership of guns in the hands of civilians...

So you want the government... to be the only people... to own guns... okay then...

Am I the only one who remembers the 100 or so people who died by guns in Paris in 2015?

Is that why Sweden is the "rape capital of the west?"

This is one of the smartest political commentators I've ever listened to. I think he can describe it pretty well.