(08-05-2010, 05:29 PM)kandrathe Wrote: It would probably be best to choose an area of the US that is comparable to the Netherlands in population size and demographics to compare (80% white, 16 million people, ~$40K GDP per person). Probably some of the northern areas, such as near where I live would be close, although, we may have less population density. In Minnesota in 2009, there were a total of 69 (1/100K) criminal homicides in the state (a 27 year low), and 37 involved firearms. Typically, 1/4 of them are gang related, and 1/2 are related to domestic violence. In the Netherlands (2008), there were (~157) 1.11/100K people. So, the murder rate is pretty close really. I've looked and I can't find the percentage of the Dutch murders committed with firearms for comparison.
Leaving aside for a minute your increasingly strange definition of "progressive", these numbers aren't quite right.
The homicide rate in The Netherlands is more like 0.92. If you take your 2008 murder number, 157, and divide by the approximate population of The Netherlands in 2008, 16.6 million, and you get a rate of 0.95 per 100k, not 1.11.
Similarly, if you take your number of 67 homicides (that seems very low - the recent historical average is more like 100, no?) in Minnesota, divided by the population of about 5.25 million, you end up with about 1.27 per 100k, not 1.0. (Edit: This is slightly wrong - 69 is the correct number, yielding a murder rate of 1.3/100k.)
You're right that these are not terribly dissimilar - both are among the safest places in the world to live. But even so, The Netherlands is safer, at least from being murdered. Your original numbers would show The Netherlands having 10% more murders per capita. By the correct numbers, the Dutch have 30% fewer.
-Jester
(That is, these numbers are correct assuming their source is correct, and that we are not comparing apples to oranges.)