England: Worst Crime Rate in World

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Crime is the justification given for gun confiscation.

Confiscating guns has no effect upon crime.

Got it?

Do you honestly think Parliament legislated because of ordinary violent and or firearms crimes?

Ask yourself this: What two single events preceded each piece of firearms legislation in the UK in the last 20 years?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Are you suggesting that the NRA only draws attention to statistics that back their cause?

That's outrageous!!!

The understanding of statistics is either sadly lacking at the NRA, or they're fine with bending the truth a little.

That said, it's a great step forward compared to their opposition, who are quite content to deliver outright lies like "10 children die every day" or "a gun is 44 times more likely to kill a family member than a crook."

If you wanted to demonstrate examples of common misinterpretations, you could cite the NRA. If you wanted to show great examples of disception through statistics, you got the Brady clan.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

secondly it also depends on urbanisation, i.e. how many % of people live in cities and how big are those cities in average. You probably agree that a 50 K town is much safer then LA.

It is true that the larger the population of a city, the higher the crime rate.

America has 42 cities of over 1 million people. So a lot of our crime is simply a product of our large size and numerous population centers. These 42 population centers represent about 135 million people, or double the entire population of England.

So, since the U.K. has only one-fifth the population of the U.S.,
they have far fewer large cities to negatively skew their crime rates
from this type of crime concentration.

Thus, logically, you would expect America to have the higher crime rate.

Yet despite this factor, England, with fewer large cities, still has a higher victimization rate, according to this UN study...

[tilly 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but is it not measured proportionately?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Are you suggesting that the NRA only draws attention to statistics that back their cause? That's outrageous!

Your reading comprehension is lacking. The source of my story was the United Nations. The NRA had nothing to do with it.

What's outrageous is you introducing a nonexistant "strawman" just so that you can criticize it. Tsk tsk. That looks kinda silly.

And even if the NRA did have something to do with the statistic, just dismissing it outright because of the source is an invalid means of discrediting it. You would have to attack the methodology itself.

You've failed on three counts here.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the US having the highest murder rate among leading industrial nations.

You are incorrect about the U.S. having "the highest" murder rate.

I'll bite: which "LEADING INDUSTRIAL NATION" has a higher murder rate than the USA?

Well if you didn't even know which country it really is, then what business did you have posting that it was America?

There are quite a few that are higher than the U.S. The worst is South Africa.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Crime is the justification given for gun confiscation.
Confiscating guns has no effect upon crime.

Do you honestly think Parliament legislated because of ordinary violent and or firearms crimes?

Ask yourself this: What two single events preceded each piece of firearms legislation in the UK in the last 20 years?

You're trying to change my story. I didn't qualify my "crime" justification as being "ordinary" crimes. I'm aware of the two events to which you are referring. Those two events were gun crimes. Gun crimes used as justification for confiscating guns from law-abiding people. Thus, my statement holds true.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong - but is it not measured proportionately?

I'm not sure what you mean. The figures were "per capita", which means the rate per 100,000 people. Thus, this means of expression provides a way to compare rates despite the population differences.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

How do you figure the US is obligated to do business with Cuba?

Never said it was. There is a bit of a difference between being obligated and not allowing anybody to. What is wrong with doing business with a communist regime......you seem to have no problem with it when it comes to China.

[mikkey 0]

You are mixing and using statistics as it pleases you.

Again:

1) How much first hand knowledge do you have about living conditions in the UK?

2) You are using stats that show Russia having a low crime rate - which shows that they are useless.

3) You are using demographic data selectively. I give you a stats: Population density in the US is 78 per square mile in the UK it is 638. The UK population is concentrated in a few major urban centres - the greater London area and the old industrial centres which lie north of London in areas like Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool etc. If you had ever travelled in the area you would know that there are not cities over one million but they are close together so it is very much like one large urban area.

4) You are mixing absolute numbers with relative numbers.

5) A key stats you haven't mentioned is that according to the stats I have seen you have a 10-20 times higher chance of being killed by a fire arm in the US compared to the UK.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales.

I don't know much about the Dominican Republic, but having been in New Zealand and Finland, I'd say that any survey that puts these 2 countries in the top 3 World Highest Crime Rate Club is, at best, comical...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales.

I don't know much about the Dominican Republic, but having been in New Zealand and Finland, I'd say that any survey that puts these 2 countries in the top 3 World Highest Crime Rate Club is, at best, comical...

Yes, the stats used by John are about as ridiculous and useless as it gets. It shows NZ being a gangsters paradise (must be the raping of sheep) and Russia a safe haven.

Cross border statistics are very difficult to use and thus my original point about first hand experience in a country. Give you an example. I live in Australia which has a very low density of population per sq mile but on the other hand most of the population live in a few large cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide). I live in Melbourne with 3.5 million people and every American I met thinks it is a very safe city. However – we had a big spike in murders over the last few years. Now, is the city suddenly very dangerous? No, the reason for the increased killings is an underworld turf war over drugs and those guys have been killing each other in droves. Has this affected the normal population? Not a bit. Does it proof anything in regard to gun control – nope. So statistics are a difficult thing – you need to at least use it together with other information and preferably first hand knowledge.

I am personally very happy that we have strict gun laws where I live, but I would not get involved in the US debate except when they are trying to misuse “stats” from other countries. I have no idea why John Rich so often is posting about UK law enforcement and gun issues. Maybe he just doesn’t like Poms.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[freakbrother 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

the US having the highest murder rate among leading industrial nations.

You are incorrect about the U.S. having "the highest" murder rate.

I'll bite: which "LEADING INDUSTRIAL NATION" has a higher murder rate than the USA?

Well if you didn't even know which country it really is, then what business did you have posting that it was America?

There are quite a few that are higher than the U.S. The worst is South Africa.

Oh well, apparently you define Leading Industrial Nation somewhat differently than I do. I'd expect a "group of 7" nation in that category, but not SA.

Didn't you make an error in THIS thread title?

.
.
www.freak-brother.com

[ScottishJohn 25]

it's got to be crimes against sheep

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

1) How much first hand knowledge do you have about living conditions in the UK?

None. Nor is that relevant.

Quote

2) You are using stats that show Russia having a low crime rate - which shows that they are useless.

I agree that something is fishy there, as well as with the South Africa stats, which is a place that most sources say has the highest murder rate in the world.

However, I must say, that regardless of those suspicious examples, as far as England and America are concerned, I think the comparison is pretty good. We both have similar well-developed central crime reporting systems.

Quote

3) You are using demographic data selectively. I give you a stats: Population density in the US is 78 per square mile in the UK it is 638.

That ignores the fact that vast amounts of America are virtually uninhabited. That too is a selective distortion of the demographics. I forget the numbers, but something like 90% of all Americans live on 10% of the land mass.

Quote

4) You are mixing absolute numbers with relative numbers.

Where?

Quote

5) A key stats you haven't mentioned is that according to the stats I have seen you have a 10-20 times higher chance of being killed by a fire arm in the US compared to the UK.

I acknowledge that the U.S. murder rate is higher. It is, however, only about 5 times higher, not 10 to 20.

But the U.S. murder rate has been going down for over a decade, and is now at a 25-year low, despite more guns than ever in circulation. In England, on the other hand, the already low murder rate has been rising to record highs, despite the gun confiscation.

There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and murder.

[vmsfreaky1 0]

Quote

what exactly are you trying to prove?

I'm guessing its Guns can fix everything. even crime rates.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

I acknowledge that the U.S. murder rate is higher. It is, however, only about 5 times higher, not 10 to 20.

Oh, I see. The US murder rate is only 5 times higher than the UK's, but the UK's crime rate is a whopping 15 percent higher than the US (according to your numbers).

How about we say those numbers even each other out and call it quits. I'm beginning to think you're taking up PJ's crusade.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

1) How much first hand knowledge do you have about living conditions in the UK?

I do. So what?

Quote

2) You are using stats that show Russia having a low crime rate - which shows that they are useless.

That shows that the stats on Russia are useless, not that all statistics reported are bunk.

Quote

3) You are using demographic data selectively.

You should take your own advice here and not speak of what you don't know. Most of our population is in urban centers as well. THe vast majority of our country is empty.
(just ask billvon about his "if only dirt could vote" comment)

Quote

4) You are mixing absolute numbers with relative numbers.

I didn't see John or anyone else do that in this thread. Could you point me to the post where it did happen?

Quote

5) A key stats you haven't mentioned is that according to the stats I have seen you have a 10-20 times higher chance of being killed by a fire arm in the US compared to the UK.

So what. You are 600 times more likely to be killed with a sword in Japan than in America. What difference does the implement of death make? Would you rather be murdered with a blade than a firearm? I don't think it would make much difference to me.

Besides, if you want to talk about unflattering crimes stats, lets talk about the fact that the UK has a violent crime victimization rate of 26% while in the US it is around 4%.

We've both got crime problems. John just likes to point out that their little gun ban isn't doing a damned thing in helping crime. National gun ownership rates have no correlation with crime rates, let alone any causation.

Now if only people would stop calling for gun bans in the name of fighting crime...


Using violent massacres to set national crime policy is like using a tsunami to set beach lifeguarding rules.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mikkey 0]

Quote

None. Nor is that relevant.

Yes it is. Ask "third parties" who spent time in both UK and US cities and ask them where they felt safer (e.g. walking in the streets at night).

Also, there are a lot of issues regarding US domestic politics that I do not comment on, because while I have visited the US numerous times, I have not lived there, thus really should not and would not make judgement on a whole range of domestic issues. You seem to be obsessed on issues regarding the UK and use articles, snippets and dubious statistics. I wonder why? Most non-US posters do discuss US politics exclusively in regard to foreign policy.

Quote

I agree that something is fishy there, as well as with the South Africa stats, which is a place that most sources say has the highest murder rate in the world.

However, I must say, that regardless of those suspicious examples, as far as England and America are concerned, I think the comparison is pretty good. We both have similar well-developed central crime reporting systems.

The statistics you used were clearly crap - e.g. in regard to Finland, NZ, Russia etc. But in regard to the US and UK it is spot on? Come on...... And how do you know that the reporting systems and definitions are similar?

Quote

That ignores the fact that vast amounts of America are virtually uninhabited. That too is a selective distortion of the demographics. I forget the numbers, but something like 90% of all Americans live on 10% of the land mass.

You want to see "uninhabited" come to Australia... I have been looking for some realiable stats, but could not find any. If you really wanted to compare the UK and and US in regard to urbanisation, you need a lot of different stats - from how many live in rural, semi-rural, towns, small cities, large cities etc. as a proportion of the population.

Quote

4) You are mixing absolute numbers with relative numbers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where?

Here:

Quote

America has 42 cities of over 1 million people. So a lot of our crime is simply a product of our large size and numerous population centers. These 42 population centers represent about 135 million people, or double the entire population of England.

You used it in regard to a point on population living in large cities. That makes about 50% living in large cities. How does stack up against the UK? (I don't have the numbers). And as mentioned in another post - if you want to compare you need to take certain circumstances into account like the area with "middle sized" industrial cities in the UK that are very close together and create one large urban area. Again, very difficult to compare.

You are taking snippets from dubious stats, articles etc. and make wide judgement about the countries legal system, gun laws, law enforcement (e.g. your "apple thread"). What is the agenda here?

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[sfc 0]

Quote

Quote

The 1997 legislation was created to remove guns from those people who would otherwise have legally owned them – nothing more.

Crime is the justification given for gun confiscation.

Confiscating guns has no effect upon crime.

Got it?

How many more Hungerford or Dumblane mass killings have there been since the ban in the UK, zero, I guess it has worked, you have to look at what drove the ban and not invent some other reason and then use that to blame the ban for not working.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

How many more Hungerford or Dumblane mass killings have there been since the ban in the UK, zero, I guess it has worked, you have to look at what drove the ban and not invent some other reason and then use that to blame the ban for not working.

Since legislation was passed, there's been a war in Iraq, a Tsunami in Asia, and Greece won the Euro... In other words, earth is a worse place to walk since the ban...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

How many more Hungerford or Dumblane mass killings have there been since the ban in the UK, zero, I guess it has worked,

My neighbor painted th inside of his house fluorescent pink to keep the aliens away. So far he says they haven't visited, so I guess it worked.

I know a guy who puts salt on his shirt to keep elephants away, and he hasn't seen any, so I guess it worked, right?

Quote

you have to look at what drove the ban and not invent some other reason and then use that to blame the ban for not working.

So you think John is inventing the idea that banning guns enacted to reduce crime? Boy, I guess you don't watch or read the news much, huh?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Ron 7]

Quote

Yes it is. Ask "third parties" who spent time in both UK and US cities and ask them where they felt safer (e.g. walking in the streets at night).

Personal opinons are not facts. I personally think a Stiletto 120 is a dog and would not jump it...you might never jump a ST120 since you think it is a very small ,fast canopy.

Just cause you felt safe is not any indication if you were safe.

England has a higher rate of victumization than the US. The US may have more murders. Both numbers are do more in part to the attitude of the populace, not guns alone.

Maybe England needed a gun ban. But that does not mean the US does.

Quote

The statistics you used were clearly crap - e.g. in regard to Finland, NZ, Russia etc. But in regard to the US and UK it is spot on? Come on...... And how do you know that the reporting systems and definitions are similar?

Take that up with the UN..they created the reports.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[sfc 0]

Quote

So you think John is inventing the idea that banning guns enacted to reduce crime? Boy, I guess you don't watch or read the news much, huh?

Yes in a way I do, John is ignoring the real reason behind the ban in order to bash it. The ban was introduced in two stages, one after Hungerford that banned automatics, two, after Dumblane to ban handguns. The reason was to stop a nutcase from using a legally held gun from mass killings. The ban was not intended to prevent other gun crimes. Since these laws were introduced there have been no mass killings, so in that respect it worked.
This thread is just another attempt to use suspect statistics to "prove" that the UK gun ban is not working. It is one of many such threads by John and I expect there will be many more.
It is an obsession with some people on this web site to continually bash this law even though they do not live in the UK and don't understand what the whole thing was about. While the US maintains gun laws that allow individuals to buy legal guns and "go postal" the UK does not, get over it and stop trying to twist it into something it is not.
I moved to the US from the UK and once or twice a month there is a news report of some killing at a company where some worker or other individual goes postal, it is so common that it hardly makes the news any more, this does not happen in the UK.

[Ron 7]

Quote

The ban was introduced in two stages, one after Hungerford that banned automatics, two, after Dumblane to ban handguns. The reason was to stop a nutcase from using a legally held gun from mass killings. The ban was not intended to prevent other gun crimes. Since these laws were introduced there have been no mass killings, so in that respect it worked.

OK but do you consider that it might have also had the affect of making violent crime rise since criminals now know that people are not armed?

See it can do both.

Quote

This thread is just another attempt to use suspect statistics to "prove" that the UK gun ban is not working

So you don't think that it might have caused other problems? Thats just not possible?

Quote

It is an obsession with some people on this web site to continually bash this law even though they do not live in the UK and don't understand what the whole thing was about

What about how people from England who don't understand America seem to think the "Solution" they used will work here....do they have the right to make those statments, but we don't have the right to show where the gun ban might not be perfect?

Quote

While the US maintains gun laws that allow individuals to buy legal guns and "go postal" the UK does not, get over it and stop trying to twist it into something it is not.

You mean like you just twisted that?

The US does not have gun laws that allow anyone to "Go Postal". People will kill people if they want, you seem to think that your governments answer is the best for everyone...That is rarely the case. And you are not willing to look at the fact that your gun ban may have in fact increased violent crime rates in your country.

Quote

I moved to the US from the UK and once or twice a month there is a news report of some killing at a company where some worker or other individual goes postal, it is so common that it hardly makes the news any more, this does not happen in the UK.

According to the numbers you are more likely to be a victum of violent crime in England than the US. Your rate of murder may be less, but your rate of crime, and violence is higher.

So maybe your gun ban had unintended side affects?
And maybe while you might be willing accept them, that does not mean that everyone should?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334