If the population grew from 100k in 1700 to 300k in 1750, and if the homicide rate was right around 2 per 100k, then that would mean that the total number of homicides in New England, over the 50 years span was less than 300.

Do you really believe that fewer than 300 murders occurred during this time?

300 murders per year.

The FBI maintains murder statistics for most policing jurisdictions in the US. Many of them are under 2 per 100,000 per year: Sunnyvale, CA; Hercules, CA; Novato, CA, Brookline, MA; the Twin Cities. The rate in Beverly, MA, is 0.946.

Japan's rate is 0.4.

No, 300 murders total.

The population reached ~300k in 1750. A murder rate of 2 per 100k times 300k people equals 6 murders. Multiply that by 50 years to get 300 murders.

OK. Thanks for the correction. I aspire to make sure I understand a thread before I add to it, but I fell short of my aspiration this time.

This doesn't affect my 2nd and 3rd paragraphs though.

In my country homicide rate per 100k is less than 1. Why is 2 unbelievable? Or do I understand something wrong?

He's making a claim about 1700s America. Not modern day countries.

It was a violent time.

Just one 'dataset': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres_in_No...