«

Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> (I think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the 100s of
> millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than by
> private persons acting alone.)

It may be safe to say it, but is it true, or merely hyperbole?

Were there "100s of millions of murders" in the 20th century, assuming
commonplace definitions of "murder" (killing humans), "million"
(10 to the 6th power), and "20th century" (period beginning roughly
January 1, 1900 and ending on or one year before December 31, 2000)?

That's a lot of people getting themselves killed, whatever the cause...

-Peter

Peter Hansen wrote:
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>>(I think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the 100s of
>>millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than by
>>private persons acting alone.)
>
> It may be safe to say it, but is it true, or merely hyperbole?
>
> Were there "100s of millions of murders" in the 20th century, assuming
> commonplace definitions of "murder" (killing humans), "million"
> (10 to the 6th power), and "20th century" (period beginning roughly
> January 1, 1900 and ending on or one year before December 31, 2000)?
>
> That's a lot of people getting themselves killed, whatever the cause...

Here's a page with exactly this topic:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

I seem to remember that during World War II alone 50 million people died
because of the war. Not necessarily with weapons, because for example
the Germans invented more efficient ways of mass murder And that
number probably includes indirect deaths caused by famine, etc.

-- Gerhard

|Terry Reedy wrote:
|> (I think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the 100s of
|> millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than by
|> private persons acting alone.)

Peter Hansen <> wrote previously:
|It may be safe to say it, but is it true, or merely hyperbole?
|Were there "100s of millions of murders" in the 20th century

The 99% seems like an overstatement. But the 100s of millions does not.
"State sponsored" murder was awfully prevalent in the 20th C (and
before, and since).

A good resource is:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm

It's unlikely that a single one of those listed occurrences would have
been substantially different because of local ESR-style gun-nuts in the
various places. In fact, in many or most of the places, the murdered
populations -were- armed in the way ESR advocates.

ESR's "arguments" boil down to: (1) Wow, isn't it fun hearing guns make
a loud bang; (2) Oh yeah, be careful not to point them at people by
accident; (3) This bunch of invented history kinda-sorta supports my
nutsiness, if you squint and don't think about it too hard; (4) Did I
mention that I like to hear loud bangs?

Yours, Lulu...

--
mertz@ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY:_/_/_/_/ v i
gnosis _/_/ Postmodern Enterprises _/_/ s r
..cx _/_/ MAKERS OF CHAOS.... _/_/ i u
_/_/_/_/_/ LOOK FOR IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU_/_/_/_/_/ g s

Peter Hansen
> Were there "100s of millions of murders" in the 20th century, assuming
> commonplace definitions of "murder" (killing humans), "million"
> (10 to the 6th power), and "20th century" (period beginning roughly
> January 1, 1900 and ending on or one year before December 31, 2000)?
>
> That's a lot of people getting themselves killed, whatever the cause...

I think Terry means deaths related to war, genocide, and various
internal purges. Here's one source
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
which totals 155 million.

Not all were deaths from arms. Bombs, knives, disease, famine all
played a role. I read one account of the Armenian massacre which said
that people were just forced over a cliff. (Though the people doing the
forcing were armed.) Figure, what, 1/2 of the people died directly as
a consequence of an "armed govern-man"? gives 77 million.

US homicide rates are 9.2 +/- 1.0 per 100,000 claims
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/homrate1.html

Given a population of 4 billion (roughly, over the century) and assuming
the US rate is average for the world, that's

>>> 4000000000 / 100000. * 9.2
368000.0
>>>

or roughly 0.5% of the deaths attributed to murders in the cause of
war. Roughly in line with Terry's claims.

Only we don't normally call those murder. "killing humans"
because you want to do it is usually considered bad. "killing humans"
because enough other people also want them dead is usually
considered okay.

Andrew

Andrew Dalke wrote:
>
> Peter Hansen
> > Were there "100s of millions of murders" in the 20th century, assuming
> > commonplace definitions of "murder" (killing humans), "million"
> > (10 to the 6th power), and "20th century" (period beginning roughly
> > January 1, 1900 and ending on or one year before December 31, 2000)?
> >
> > That's a lot of people getting themselves killed, whatever the cause...
>
> I think Terry means deaths related to war, genocide, and various
> internal purges. Here's one source
> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
> which totals 155 million.
>
> Not all were deaths from arms. Bombs, knives, disease, famine all
> played a role.

I figured it was that. I wasn't questioning the type of killing that
should be called "murder", but the "100s of millions" thing, which evokes
an image of something like a billion people (a mere 10 "100s of millions").

155 million total, while perhaps mind-numbingly high still, is not
really in the "100s of millions" according to the usual interpretation
of such a phrase.

Just wondering... thanks for the links, everyone.

-Peter

"Peter Hansen" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Terry Reedy wrote:
> >
> > (I think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the
100s of
> > millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than
by
> > private persons acting alone.)
>
> It may be safe to say it, but is it true, or merely hyperbole?

Perhaps both: revise 100s to 200 million, which is close to what I
meant (200-300 mill).
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
(thanks all for the link with the list I had in mind)
tabulates +/ 150 million as "maybe ¾ of all deaths by atrocity in the
20th Century".

I am, of course, labelling insufficiently provoked mass-killing,
direct and indirect, by gangs called armies, militias, security
forces, or whatever as murder, regardless of the 'legal' decrees and
excuses made by the directors of such gangs. (I am also aware that
some would not make such a labelling, and that there are 'degrees' of
provocation, but both topics are beyond the scope of this
explanation.)

> That's a lot of people getting themselves killed, whatever the
cause...

and whatever the even approximately exact number.

Terry J. Reedy

Me:
> Given a population of 4 billion (roughly, over the century) and assuming
> the US rate is average for the world, that's
>
> >>> 4000000000 / 100000. * 9.2
> 368000.0
> >>>
>
> or roughly 0.5% of the deaths attributed to murders in the cause of
> war. Roughly in line with Terry's claims.

Oops! That's *per* *year*. Multiply by 100 to get the number
of homicides in a century == 37 million.

Andrew

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters:
> Of course, in reality, the homicide rate is much lower outside of the
> USA, so the base rate isn't good for extrapolation.

I thought of that when I looked up that number. But the
comparison stats I know of are for Europe. I remember in 'Guns,
Germs, and Steel', in the foreword the author points out that
the homicide rate in New Guinea was quite high, pointing out
he knew a woman whose first husband was killed by the man
who became her second husband. He goes on to state that
when two people first met, one of the things they did was to
figure out how they were related, because if they weren't
then the odds of murder was higher. (Can't find my borrowed
copy of the book, so regard the above as a rough summary.)

And I didn't want to do the legwork to find more precise
numbers.

Andrew

Peter Hansen <> wrote in message news:<>...
> "20th century" (period beginning roughly
> January 1, 1900 and ending on or one year before December 31, 2000)?
>
Actually the 20th Century began on January 1 1901. When it ended is a
matter of endless debate, but a debate which is WAY more fun than the
gun debate!

Asun Friere wrote:
>
> Peter Hansen <> wrote in message news:<>...
> > "20th century" (period beginning roughly
> > January 1, 1900 and ending on or one year before December 31, 2000)?
> >
> Actually the 20th Century began on January 1 1901. When it ended is a
> matter of endless debate, but a debate which is WAY more fun than the
> gun debate!

I knew you were out there, which is why I said "roughly".

-Peter