I have been in this discussion many times, and will say at the outset that I tend to favor the more typical American view, but not entirely.

First, there is enormous regional variation in the murder rate in the US, which far overwhelms other factors such as race, concealed carry, registration, etc. The regional variation is most likely cultural, descending from its original European, especially British, settlers. The New England Puritans had a low homicide rate and the region still does, in both Canada and the US. The Middle Atlantic areas, settled by Quakers and German Pietists, has a low, but not as low rate of violent crime. The Appalachian areas, settled by Scots-English Borderers (think Glasgow football and Belfast) have always had high homicide rates. Clan social organization often leads to high violence, wherever it shows up in the world.

Secondly, drug-related violence accounts for an enormous percentage of "youth" homicide. Beware statistics coming out of America which which purport to show high rates of gun deaths of children, whether intentional or accidental. 15-19 year-olds involved in the drug trade are most of this number, though the word-picture is often made to suggest there are large numbers of American 8 year-olds dying from guns.

Thirdly, there is an increase in homicide in most places in the world where races brush up against each other, and America is one of the places with most racial interaction in the world. While it is difficult to measure, there is some suggestion that Americans of different races interact less violently than in other countries. We just have much, much more of said contact going on here, because we are more racially mixed. Violent crime is on the rise in the more mixed areas of Northern Europe.

Fourth, mobility of population tends to increase violence. Stable, culturally continuous areas tend to have less crime. Americans are very mobile. It is likely that something in the social contract weakens when people move. This reason is of course intimately bound up with the first and third reasons.

Germany's homicide rate is low, but there are French cities with higher violent crime rates than most of the US. Belgian cities are not too safe at the movement. Look to original culture of an area, plus the instability and tension of recent arrivals of different appearance, and you can usually draw out the violent crime estimates. Mix in the drug trade, and you have almost the complete picture.

Obviously, an excellent solution would be for all the sensible people to have guns and the foolish or evil ones to not have them. How to effect that is hard to easily imagine. Concealed carry permits seem to help somewhat, but are not the panacea that gun-enthusiasts claim.

I didn't say anything about European softness, big government, etc. I might in other sections. It's a complicated issue, not easily captured in a black/white painting.

There is no contradiction between 1 and 4. New England and the Canadian Maritimes were settled earliest, have always had the lowest homicide rates, and have been the most stable - people moved out, not in, and even the immigrant groups that came in tended to stay put. That has been changing since the mid 20th C, and the crime rate is slowly rising.

As to the mixing, I would note that the areas of Canada, Britain, and Western Europe that have newer arrivals have higher crime rates. Toronto, Lyons, Manchester - all these have high crime rates. The more stable and homogenous villages in those countries have less.

You make rather dramatic statements about our state failing, and not caring about inner-city youths, etc. I am aware that is the perception in Europe, but I am not convinced it is true. There are a host of reasons why this misperception should be common, and I don't know which applies to you and your circle of firends most. I assume that will come up in other threads where discussions of perception are more germane.

For the record: I have traveled and volunteered a bit in Eastern Europe as well as Western, and have a slight ability to view Germany, GB, France, et al through those eyes. The Eastern Europeans also had misperceptions of America, some similar to your own, but they have a rather different take on them. My Romanian sons, 19 and 21, find the arguments I get into online with Western Europeans to be uproarious.

Zyme, there are actually rational people in Europe who believe the US entered the wars in order to extend its own influence and power? Or that such a goal was even 1% of our motivation? If you believe such nonsense, then obviously every other evil thing you believe about us flows from that. If you are unable to consider that a country could have other motives, that perhaps says more about yourself than it does about me. Hopefully, that is not a general inability among Germans.

Olaf, you bring up too many subjects at once. As to your questions, I have answered the first one. Why ask again? Ponder the new information first. Then perhaps we can go on to discuss the others.

Timo, many in America would also claim that we ignore our inner cities. When you look at the money that flows in, that is clearly not so. We don't lack for rescuing dollars there, nor for caring and concern, but we do lack for wisdom.