Is the USA a Developed Country?

[Infected Mushroom]

So we should equate economic power with development because the "experts" say so?

And ignore social, safety, and political aspects of development because its the norm to do?

No one ignores those things. You'll find the US scores pretty well compared to non-developed and developing countries on all of those, even if our crime rates are high and we have more gun murders than other developed nations. Your failure is in ignoring all other aspects of development- particularly economic, which is probably the most important, along with political- in favor of "safety", which you've sliced and diced to fit your stupid narrative.

Regardless of how economically powerful you are...

if you've got a country where so many people (non government) have guns, where every few months a major killing spree involving guns pops up and is the norm, where there is gun crimes and violent crime much higher than in the rest of the Developed world, and where large segments of the citizenry habitually exhibit the thinking of a society that is in a less advanced stage of social/political development (and so hasn't built up enough social trust/social capital) like:

"We can't trust the government. We need to individually own guns in case things break down or in case the government goes rogue."

"We can't trust the government to protect us. We need to individually own guns to protect ourselves from each other and from gangs."

It becomes less and less useful to think of the USA as a Developed country.

[Swuvania]

In light of the Las Vegas shooting and other school shootings, gun crimes, and just the general widespread ownership of guns in the hands of civilians...

I have to ask the theoretical question:

Is the USA a Developed Country?

I have a feeling that despite the official classification of the USA as such (based on things like the economy) it may actually not be the case.

The USA has really high crime rates and the gun control is so out of control that its quite unlike other Developed countries. Does it still make sense to call the US a Developed country when so many people legally (and illegally) own firearms? Isn't this something we would instead expect to be happening in a less developed country?

Can the USA still be a developed country when things like Las Vegas where hundreds of people are killed/injured because of guns happen quite frequently?

At what point does the USA stop being a Developed country?

Please discuss. What is your definition of the Developed country and in light of the gun problems in the USA, is the USA still a Developed country?

In my view, the USA is not a Developed country, it has been misclassified.

I would define a Developed country primarily on its safety and crime rate though the economy plays a role. In light of this, I feel the USA no longer fits the label unless it can get rid of the gun problem.

A Developed country does not have such widespread gun ownership in the hands of the population. A Developed country does not have gun problems and gun crimes on the scale of the USA. A Developed country does not have such widespread illegal ownership of firearms, such high frequencies of school shootings, gun crimes, and incidents like Las Vegas where hundreds are killed/injured. It is inconsistent for a Developed country to have massive numbers of people walking on the streets who are not police, carrying firearms who can turn on each other.

A Developed country looks like Japan, Norway, Germany etc where most of the people don't own guns and you don't have gun incidents where dozens to hundreds are killed/injured. The USA is in need of massive reforms.

With Donald Trump and the Fake Republicans? Hell No, But in general? Hell Yes, If a country gained Independence from another country in the 18th century and still is THAT country and survives to the 2000s, It is sincerely a developed country. I am as surprised to see the United Kingdom holding severely strong as a Kingdom, and a Democratic Diplomatic Country, And especially after losing a major historic figure of it's history in 1997, Hong Kong, and the re-modernization of the British Empire, which also ended and re-began as the British Overseas Territories.

[Infected Mushroom]

In light of the Las Vegas shooting and other school shootings, gun crimes, and just the general widespread ownership of guns in the hands of civilians...

I have to ask the theoretical question:

Is the USA a Developed Country?

I have a feeling that despite the official classification of the USA as such (based on things like the economy) it may actually not be the case.

The USA has really high crime rates and the gun control is so out of control that its quite unlike other Developed countries. Does it still make sense to call the US a Developed country when so many people legally (and illegally) own firearms? Isn't this something we would instead expect to be happening in a less developed country?

Can the USA still be a developed country when things like Las Vegas where hundreds of people are killed/injured because of guns happen quite frequently?

At what point does the USA stop being a Developed country?

Please discuss. What is your definition of the Developed country and in light of the gun problems in the USA, is the USA still a Developed country?

In my view, the USA is not a Developed country, it has been misclassified.

I would define a Developed country primarily on its safety and crime rate though the economy plays a role. In light of this, I feel the USA no longer fits the label unless it can get rid of the gun problem.

A Developed country does not have such widespread gun ownership in the hands of the population. A Developed country does not have gun problems and gun crimes on the scale of the USA. A Developed country does not have such widespread illegal ownership of firearms, such high frequencies of school shootings, gun crimes, and incidents like Las Vegas where hundreds are killed/injured. It is inconsistent for a Developed country to have massive numbers of people walking on the streets who are not police, carrying firearms who can turn on each other.

A Developed country looks like Japan, Norway, Germany etc where most of the people don't own guns and you don't have gun incidents where dozens to hundreds are killed/injured. The USA is in need of massive reforms.

With Donald Trump and the Fake Republicans? Hell No, But in general? Hell Yes, If a country gained Independence from another country in the 18th century and still is THAT country and survives to the 2000s, It is sincerely a developed country. I am as surprised to see the United Kingdom holding severely strong as a Kingdom, and a Democratic Diplomatic Country, And especially after losing a major historic figure of it's history in 1997, Hong Kong, and the re-modernization of the British Empire, which also ended and re-began as the British Overseas Territories.

so Development = how long the said regime has been around for (longer = more developed)?

[Xelsis]

No one ignores those things. You'll find the US scores pretty well compared to non-developed and developing countries on all of those, even if our crime rates are high and we have more gun murders than other developed nations. Your failure is in ignoring all other aspects of development- particularly economic, which is probably the most important, along with political- in favor of "safety", which you've sliced and diced to fit your stupid narrative.

Regardless of how economically powerful you are...

if you've got a country where so many people (non government) have guns, where every few months a major killing spree involving guns pops up and is the norm, where there is gun crimes and violent crime much higher than in the rest of the Developed world, and where large segments of the citizenry habitually exhibit the thinking of a society that is in a less advanced stage of social/political development (and so hasn't built up enough social trust/social capital) like:

"We can't trust the government. We need to individually own guns in case things break down or in case the government goes rogue."

"We can't trust the government to protect us. We need to individually own guns to protect ourselves from each other and from gangs."

It becomes less and less useful to think of the USA as a Developed country.

Again, you say the U.S. is less developed because the people think they can't trust the government, but that sort of lack of trust has been reinforced in Europe. We don't even need to go back to the the Third Reich for this example. How well is trusting blindly in government and democracy working out for the Catalonians?

EDIT: Also, I believe I stated this earlier, but Norway, Finland, and Switzerland all have proportionately more mass shootings than the United States.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Regardless of how economically powerful you are...

if you've got a country where so many people (non government) have guns, where every few months a major killing spree involving guns pops up and is the norm, where there is gun crimes and violent crime much higher than in the rest of the Developed world, and where large segments of the citizenry habitually exhibit the thinking of a society that is in a less advanced stage of social/political development (and so hasn't built up enough social trust/social capital) like:

"We can't trust the government. We need to individually own guns in case things break down or in case the government goes rogue."

"We can't trust the government to protect us. We need to individually own guns to protect ourselves from each other and from gangs."

It becomes less and less useful to think of the USA as a Developed country.

Again, you say the U.S. is less developed because the people think they can't trust the government, but that sort of lack of trust has been reinforced in Europe. We don't even need to go back to the the Third Reich for this example. How well is trusting blindly in government and democracy working out for the Catalonians?

Bad example, Catalonia is just pitching a fit.

[Xelsis]

Again, you say the U.S. is less developed because the people think they can't trust the government, but that sort of lack of trust has been reinforced in Europe. We don't even need to go back to the the Third Reich for this example. How well is trusting blindly in government and democracy working out for the Catalonians?

Bad example, Catalonia is just pitching a fit.

Catalonia has seen police forces breaking in and shooting people with rubber bullets for voting, and bash through firefighters to get at said people.

This is not a ringing endorsement of "Hand in your guns, the government will protect you."

[Pilarcraft]

Bad example, Catalonia is just pitching a fit.

Catalonia has seen police forces breaking in and shooting people with rubber bullets for voting, and bash through firefighters to get at said people.

This is not a ringing endorsement of "Hand in your guns, the government will protect you."

I mean it's not like the cops wouldn't attack said voters if the voters had guns. it'd just be bloodier.
probably.
normally, if the state is willing to act like a rabid dog, it doesn't really care the number dying.

[Xelsis]

Catalonia has seen police forces breaking in and shooting people with rubber bullets for voting, and bash through firefighters to get at said people.

This is not a ringing endorsement of "Hand in your guns, the government will protect you."

I mean it's not like the cops wouldn't attack said voters if the voters had guns. it'd just be bloodier.
probably.
normally, if the state is willing to act like a rabid dog, it doesn't really care the number dying.

Firearms aren't a deterrent only in their active use. When a government decides to start cracking down, that decision is vastly more easily made if those they're cracking down on are unarmed than if they are.

OP doesn't like it, but the U.S. fear of government is built on historical events, and continually grounded in realism, as multiple tyrannical governments in Europe repeatedly show.

The U.S. is the world's longest-lasting Constitutional democracy. You can call the social attitudes "regressive" all you want-but they've held society together in a representative system better than anywhere else in the world.

[Pilarcraft]

I mean it's not like the cops wouldn't attack said voters if the voters had guns. it'd just be bloodier.
probably.
normally, if the state is willing to act like a rabid dog, it doesn't really care the number dying.

Firearms aren't a deterrent only in their active use. When a government decides to start cracking down, that decision is vastly more easily made if those they're cracking down on are unarmed than if they are.

OP doesn't like it, but the U.S. fear of government is built on historical events, and continually grounded in realism, as multiple tyrannical governments in Europe repeatedly show.

The U.S. is the world's longest-lasting Constitutional democracy. You can call the social attitudes "regressive" all you want-but they've held society together in a representative system better than anywhere else in the world.

oh no, the American fear and hatred of state tyranny is completely justified, even if their own state might have started acting a bit tyrannical these last years. It's justified, and has a realistic basis. I do agree that guns shouldn't be banned in any way for the population of a country.

[Taihei Tengoku]

"i think the USA isn't developed"
"it is, here's the literal definition of developed country, created over many decades by tons of very bright people and carefully measured"
"...well um that's a bad definition, it doesn't fit my poorly thought out bullshit narrative"

So we should equate economic power with development because the "experts" say so?

And ignore social, safety, and political aspects of development because its the norm to do?

That's literally what HDI is

[The New California Republic]

Does a country that stole everything for others (UK, Germany and Japan) count as being developed?

I am waiting for some kind of explanation as to what is meant by this. Some examples of what "everything" after the word "stole" actually consists of would be good.

[Sovaal]

Does a country that stole everything for others (UK, Germany and Japan) count as being developed?

I am waiting for some kind of explanation as to what is meant by this. Some examples of what "everything" after the word "stole" actually consists of would be good.

Probably asking if those countries count as developed ones since they at one point had a good amount of wealth coming in from colonies and conquered nations.

[The New California Republic]

I am waiting for some kind of explanation as to what is meant by this. Some examples of what "everything" after the word "stole" actually consists of would be good.

Probably asking if those countries count as developed ones since they at one point had a good amount of wealth coming in from colonies and conquered nations.

That is not what is meant by it. In the context, Keshiland is referring to the USA not being "Developed" because it stole everything from the UK, Germany, and Japan. Here is the quote with my additions and word corrections for clarity:

Does a country (The United States) that stole everything for from others (UK, Germany and Japan) count as being developed?

[Sovaal]

Probably asking if those countries count as developed ones since they at one point had a good amount of wealth coming in from colonies and conquered nations.

That is not what is meant by it. In the context, Keshiland is referring to the USA not being "Developed" because it stole everything from the UK, Germany, and Japan. Here is the quote with my additions and word corrections for clarity:

Does a country (The United States) that stole everything for from others (UK, Germany and Japan) count as being developed?

Well going by that criteria no New World nation is a developed country.

[The New California Republic]

That is not what is meant by it. In the context, Keshiland is referring to the USA not being "Developed" because it stole everything from the UK, Germany, and Japan. Here is the quote with my additions and word corrections for clarity:

Well going by that criteria no New World nation is a developed country.

That wasn't the conclusion I drew from it, I think I was more concerned with what was "stolen", rather than the effect of it if it were true.

[Infected Mushroom]

Regardless of how economically powerful you are...

if you've got a country where so many people (non government) have guns, where every few months a major killing spree involving guns pops up and is the norm, where there is gun crimes and violent crime much higher than in the rest of the Developed world, and where large segments of the citizenry habitually exhibit the thinking of a society that is in a less advanced stage of social/political development (and so hasn't built up enough social trust/social capital) like:

"We can't trust the government. We need to individually own guns in case things break down or in case the government goes rogue."

"We can't trust the government to protect us. We need to individually own guns to protect ourselves from each other and from gangs."

It becomes less and less useful to think of the USA as a Developed country.

Again, you say the U.S. is less developed because the people think they can't trust the government, but that sort of lack of trust has been reinforced in Europe. We don't even need to go back to the the Third Reich for this example. How well is trusting blindly in government and democracy working out for the Catalonians?

EDIT: Also, I believe I stated this earlier, but Norway, Finland, and Switzerland all have proportionately more mass shootings than the United States.

And why should I give a wooden nickel about the Catalonians?

What does this have to do with anything?

Wikipedia and other sources are very clear that the VAST MAJORITY of gun crimes, close to 90% are in the USA. I'll find the link later...

[The Emerald Legion]

In light of the Las Vegas shooting and other school shootings, gun crimes, and just the general widespread ownership of guns in the hands of civilians...

I have to ask the theoretical question:

Is the USA a Developed Country?

I have a feeling that despite the official classification of the USA as such (based on things like the economy) it may actually not be the case.

The USA has really high crime rates and the gun control is so out of control that its quite unlike other Developed countries. Does it still make sense to call the US a Developed country when so many people legally (and illegally) own firearms? Isn't this something we would instead expect to be happening in a less developed country?

Can the USA still be a developed country when things like Las Vegas where hundreds of people are killed/injured because of guns happen quite frequently?

At what point does the USA stop being a Developed country?

Please discuss. What is your definition of the Developed country and in light of the gun problems in the USA, is the USA still a Developed country?

In my view, the USA is not a Developed country, it has been misclassified.

I would define a Developed country primarily on its safety and crime rate though the economy plays a role. In light of this, I feel the USA no longer fits the label unless it can get rid of the gun problem.

A Developed country does not have such widespread gun ownership in the hands of the population. A Developed country does not have gun problems and gun crimes on the scale of the USA. A Developed country does not have such widespread illegal ownership of firearms, such high frequencies of school shootings, gun crimes, and incidents like Las Vegas where hundreds are killed/injured. It is inconsistent for a Developed country to have massive numbers of people walking on the streets who are not police, carrying firearms who can turn on each other.

A Developed country looks like Japan, Norway, Germany etc where most of the people don't own guns and you don't have gun incidents where dozens to hundreds are killed/injured. The USA is in need of massive reforms.

The United States sets the standard for developed country. If a country is not exactly like the United States of America it is developmentally deficient.

[Xelsis]

Again, you say the U.S. is less developed because the people think they can't trust the government, but that sort of lack of trust has been reinforced in Europe. We don't even need to go back to the the Third Reich for this example. How well is trusting blindly in government and democracy working out for the Catalonians?

EDIT: Also, I believe I stated this earlier, but Norway, Finland, and Switzerland all have proportionately more mass shootings than the United States.

And why should I give a wooden nickel about the Catalonians?

What does this have to do with anything?

Wikipedia and other sources are very clear that the VAST MAJORITY of gun crimes, close to 90% are in the USA. I'll find the link later...

Because the Catalonians are citizens of one of those lovely western European "developed" countries you love so much, who are so 'socially advanced' because they can trust the government beating them into submission for the heinous crime of voting. You're making the argument that all developed countries must test the government because the government is trustworthy. It isn't. Catalonia's just one of many examples

You claimed there were never mass or school shootings in European countries. I gave you multiple examples from all of the big three and some Scandinavia and Switzerland for good measure. I even used your beloved Wikipedia for it. You still haven't addressed the claim.

Once again, as you ignored it once your point was disproved, there's twenty times more preventable deaths from a percentage point standpoint in Belgium from the tobacco difference with the U.S. than the gun difference. You're still hung up on less than one-third of one percent of deaths and ignoring far larger killers.

[Infected Mushroom]

And why should I give a wooden nickel about the Catalonians?

What does this have to do with anything?

Wikipedia and other sources are very clear that the VAST MAJORITY of gun crimes, close to 90% are in the USA. I'll find the link later...

Because the Catalonians are citizens of one of those lovely western European "developed" countries you love so much, who are so 'socially advanced' because they can trust the government beating them into submission for the heinous crime of voting. You're making the argument that all developed countries must test the government because the government is trustworthy. It isn't. Catalonia's just one of many examples

You claimed there were never mass or school shootings in European countries. I gave you multiple examples from all of the big three and some Scandinavia and Switzerland for good measure. I even used your beloved Wikipedia for it. You still haven't addressed the claim.

Once again, as you ignored it once your point was disproved, there's twenty times more preventable deaths from a percentage point standpoint in Belgium from the tobacco difference with the U.S. than the gun difference. You're still hung up on less than one-third of one percent of deaths and ignoring far larger killers.

It could be that the Catalonia situation actually disqualifies Spain from the Developed category. I wouldn't know unless I understood Spain's situation better.

The stats of school shootings and gun crimes in Switzerland and Scandinavia PALE compare to the US numbers and proportions. Its not to say shootings don't happen elsewhere, just nowhere in the same frequency plane as in the USA.

It could also be that tobacco could disqualify Belgium. But again, I'd need to understand Begium's situation better. In general, not very uncommon for people in high economy countries to be dying due to health reasons so long as its at a relatively late age. Gun Violence though? Whole new different bag.

[Galloism]

Because the Catalonians are citizens of one of those lovely western European "developed" countries you love so much, who are so 'socially advanced' because they can trust the government beating them into submission for the heinous crime of voting. You're making the argument that all developed countries must test the government because the government is trustworthy. It isn't. Catalonia's just one of many examples

You claimed there were never mass or school shootings in European countries. I gave you multiple examples from all of the big three and some Scandinavia and Switzerland for good measure. I even used your beloved Wikipedia for it. You still haven't addressed the claim.

Once again, as you ignored it once your point was disproved, there's twenty times more preventable deaths from a percentage point standpoint in Belgium from the tobacco difference with the U.S. than the gun difference. You're still hung up on less than one-third of one percent of deaths and ignoring far larger killers.

It could be that the Catalonia situation actually disqualifies Spain from the Developed category. I wouldn't know unless I understood Spain's situation better.

The stats of school shootings and gun crimes in Switzerland and Scandinavia PALE compare to the US numbers and proportions. Its not to say shootings don't happen elsewhere, just nowhere in the same frequency plane as in the USA.

It could also be that tobacco could disqualify Belgium. But again, I'd need to understand Begium's situation better. In general, not very uncommon for people in high economy countries to be dying due to health reasons so long as its at a relatively late age. Gun Violence though? Whole new different bag.

I think we're headed for no such thing as a developed country.

[Farnhamia]

It could be that the Catalonia situation actually disqualifies Spain from the Developed category. I wouldn't know unless I understood Spain's situation better.

The stats of school shootings and gun crimes in Switzerland and Scandinavia PALE compare to the US numbers and proportions. Its not to say shootings don't happen elsewhere, just nowhere in the same frequency plane as in the USA.

It could also be that tobacco could disqualify Belgium. But again, I'd need to understand Begium's situation better. In general, not very uncommon for people in high economy countries to be dying due to health reasons so long as its at a relatively late age. Gun Violence though? Whole new different bag.

I think we're headed for no such thing as a developed country.

That was that movie from 2007 with Javier Bardem and Tommy Lee Jones, right?

[Luziyca]

It depends on your definition of a developed country.

But honestly, in my opinion, yes. It has a relatively high HDI (for now).

[Senkaku]

It could be that the Catalonia situation actually disqualifies Spain from the Developed category. I wouldn't know unless I understood Spain's situation better.

The stats of school shootings and gun crimes in Switzerland and Scandinavia PALE compare to the US numbers and proportions. Its not to say shootings don't happen elsewhere, just nowhere in the same frequency plane as in the USA.

It could also be that tobacco could disqualify Belgium. But again, I'd need to understand Begium's situation better. In general, not very uncommon for people in high economy countries to be dying due to health reasons so long as its at a relatively late age. Gun Violence though? Whole new different bag.

I think we're headed for no such thing as a developed country.

Developed= IM's utopia

[North-Nebraska]

North Nebraska is no joke when it's compared to the German Empire. Your exports are 73% crops, 21% cattle, and 9% other. Our economy is weaker then pie crust and 58% of our population lives in poverty and 99.9% watch anime.

[Thermodolia]

I think we're headed for no such thing as a developed country.

Developed= IM's utopia

No dogs and a police state isn't utopia