The “crime rate” in the US is often extrapolated from the murder rate, which is indeed much higher than in most Western countries.
But as you point out here, violence is more than murder.
The results are not necessarily apples to apples, as jurisdictions define and categorize crimes differently. That’s the advantage of murder as a category, the guy’s either dead or he isn’t.
I wish I could remember where I saw it, but it was about five years ago. It pointed out that 20 years earlier, which would have been near the peak of the US crime wave, a person was 8x more likely to be mugged in London than NYC. But at the time of the writing, UK crime had jumped a bunch, and NYC crime was way down. You were then 8x more likely to be mugged in London than NYC.
The murder rate is higher. But one interesting thing is that if someone here justifiably shoots another person in self defense, it is first classified as a “homicide”. It is only after a ruling by the authority (usually a district attorney) that the homicide is ruled “justifiable”.
A lot of organizations (including the UN) use the first number , not the second.
Obvious typo in first reference. 25 years ago or so you were 8x more likely to get mugged in NYC than London. 20 years later it was the reverse.
And if you break that number out on a municipal basis where it is mostly criminal-on-criminal murder, you would find that on the whole, the US is one of the safest places to live.
Not that different in the UK where crime is localized in 'certain' areas among 'certain' groups... i.e. those living off their welfare system.