*Reality Check* Ben Swann corrects himself regarding his numbers on UK vs US violence rates

On Monday, Ben posted this on his facebook page:

Spent the weekend running through numbers from Britain's Home Office. A number of people have explained that the violent crime rates in the UK and US are not comparable simply because different criteria are used. Tomorrow night Reality Check will correct that information using apples to apples comparisons with violent crime in Britain. (spoiler alert) the number in the UK are STILL higher than the US.

Video link here:
www.fox19.com...

Mirrored youtube upload:


Digging deeper for UK through these sources:
www.ons.gov.uk...
www.homeoffice.gov.uk... statistics?view=Binary

A rate of "Violence against the person, with Injury" (including murder, homicide, attempted murder, etc)
586.66 per 100,000

If the above does not also include Rape and Robbery figures.

Let's look at "Most Serious Sexual Crime and Robbery Offenses"
204.25 per 100,000

586+204 = 790.91 per 100,000

It seems like the ~776 per 100,000 figure suggested in the video was a pretty close estimation.

reply to post by eLPresidente


I wish the pro-2nd argument could rely less on facts and their inherent right to defense and argue from emotion and what other countries do. That way, at least both sides would be on a level playing field.

Thanks for the vid!

S+F for you!

I think it's obvious why there isn't a ban on what seems to be the mode of weapon used in killings.

By making it harder to obtain weapons and high capacity magazines for war dulls the effectiveness for a revolution.. Imagine having to fight off LEO's and uniformed government mercs with 10 round mag hunting rifles and hand guns.

Seems they would have the upper hand since the government has the edge. This should just be added to the bag of evidence our government is trying to tie another hand behind our backs.

I really dislike and distrust Fox, but this was interesting. I do however wonder who the skeptical libertarian is and can they be trusted as a valid source?

Great share. I've been citing the same statistic that the UK has 4x the violent crime rate as the U.S.; now I know to change that.

That said, if the interpretation of violent crime differs from country to country, it would be a good idea for someone to research & compile a more accurate comparative list. Currently the UK at the top, past South Africa...

In the second half of the video Swann pointed out some other necessary statistics. In all the mass shootings since 1982, 68 semi-auto handguns were used --- twice the number of assault rifles. Approximately 119 children are killed per year, and nearly all of those deaths are the result of handguns. Not to mention assault rifles account for only 3.5 percent of annual firearm homicides.

Originally posted by MaMaa
I really dislike and distrust Fox, but this was interesting. I do however wonder who the skeptical libertarian is and can they be trusted as a valid source?

Fox is his company's affiliate, FOX doesn't have any say over what they do.

Whoever the 'skeptical libertarian' is, most likely an online editorialist...he was close. I did some light digging into the numbers and indeed he was very close, by estimation.

Originally posted by 31Bravo
I think it's obvious why there isn't a ban on what seems to be the mode of weapon used in killings.

By making it harder to obtain weapons and high capacity magazines for war dulls the effectiveness for a revolution.. Imagine having to fight off LEO's and uniformed government mercs with 10 round mag hunting rifles and hand guns.

Seems they would have the upper hand since the government has the edge. This should just be added to the bag of evidence our government is trying to tie another hand behind our backs.

edit on 17-1-2013 by 31Bravo because: (no reason given)

And we have a winner.. He hit the nail right on the head. If all we have are handguns and shotguns for the most part, we stand no chance against men in armor made to stop those. Sure a hunter with his scoped bolt gun can take a few out but yea...They want the upper hand in any revolution that may occur. That stupid question that comes up.. "why do americans need assault rifles" First off they aren't really "assault" weapons.

But we need them for the same reason police now have them after the North Hollywood bank shootout. Multiple assailants and/or assailants wearing body armor. Criminals do have access to it ya know..

It has nothing to do with crime rates or making our "children safer" it is about making themselves safer from those they govern and screw on a daily basis.


Gs

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

I wish the pro-2nd argument could rely less on facts and their inherent right to defense and argue from emotion and what other countries do. That way, at least both sides would be on a level playing field.

Thanks for the vid!

S+F for you!

Maybe engineers should rely less on facts when they design bridges and airplanes. You know, design things from their heart, whatever their emotions tell them is the right way to engineer something. Design an airplane that makes people feel good, rather than one that keeps people alive when it's flown.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by MaMaa
I really dislike and distrust Fox, but this was interesting. I do however wonder who the skeptical libertarian is and can they be trusted as a valid source?

Fox is his company's affiliate, FOX doesn't have any say over what they do.

Whoever the 'skeptical libertarian' is, most likely an online editorialist...he was close. I did some light digging into the numbers and indeed he was very close, by estimation.

It does validate the source more if others can get the same numbers as he did.

Originally posted by Raelsatu
Currently the UK at the top, past South Africa...

Doesn't that fact alone tell you there is something wrong with the numbers?

As a Brit, I am telling you, and as I have pointed out in many other threads, the actual physical violent crime rate in the UK is a lot lower than the given numbers.

I posted a link to the crime prosecution services definition of violent crime......

Conspiracy to Murder
Threats to Kill
Causing Death by Dangerous Driving
Causing Death by Careless Driving under the Influence of Drink or Drugs
Causing Death by Careless or Inconsiderate Driving
Causing Death by Driving: Unlicensed, Disqualified or Uninsured Drivers
Harassment
Racially or Religiously Aggravated Harassment
Public Fear, Alarm or Distress
Racially or Religiously Aggravated Public Fear, Alarm or Distress
Possession of Firearms with Intent
Possession of Firearms Offences
Possession of Other Weapons
Possession of Article with Blade or Point
Child Abduction
Procuring Illegal Abortion
Causing Death by Aggravated Vehicle Taking
Assault without Injury on a Constable
Assault without Injury
Racially or Religiously Aggravated Assault without Injury

Source

Burglary is classed as a violent crime, even though most of the time there is no violence involved!

This is why the numbers are so high in the UK, not because everyone is beating the crap out of each other, but because we have a stupid method of categorising crime.

That being said, there is a lot of actual physical violent crime, just nowhere near the amount the figures show.

Please, take it from a Brit who has some knowledge of how his countries legal system works.

quote]Originally posted by eLPresidente



A rate of "Violence against the person, with Injury" (including murder, homicide, attempted murder, etc)
586.66 per 100,000

If the above does not also include Rape and Robbery figures.

Let's look at "Most Serious Sexual Crime and Robbery Offenses"
204.25 per 100,000

586+204 = 790.91 per 100,000

It seems like the ~776 per 100,000 figure suggested in the video was a pretty close estimation.






The comparison's are still greatly flawed.......

Aside from the things in common like murder etc "violence against the person with injury" in the UK also includes ALL injury however insignificant ( even things like a bruise or a scratch). The US only includes aggravated assault in it's violent crime statistics and by the FBI's definition aggravated assault means

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm

I'm pretty sure that if you included "violence against the person with injury" in the UK using that definition then the stats would reduce dramatically!

Also you used all serious sexual crimes in the UK to offset against US forcible rape....Not all serious sexual crimes in the UK involve forcible rape.

So we are still left in a position whereby we are still not comparing the same crimes.

As always my stance is that the UK DOES have it's many problem's and I am not here to sugar coat that......but once again if we are going to compare "like" for "like" if it's not done in all fairness and without an agenda and involving media hype then it cannot be considered by any intelligent person to reflect the real picture.

If someone can break it down for me EXACTLY like for like and the UK fairs a lot worse than the US then i will whole heartedly accept it.....I am for finding out the truth.

We have gone from being told by those it suits that the UK has four times more violent crime than the US....to now only not even twice that of the US.......and the comparison is still flawed. ( and I am going off those figures given in the vid you posted and those figures you dug up yourself that seemed to reflect those claims ...I haven't done my own digging but I will!)

Do you honestly think that those with an agenda and those with high profile's didn't already know the original comparison's where flawed? ...Because I did and I have been saying this for the last couple of weeks on here...so I'm pretty damn sure they did too! So now it's been redressed...but the comparison's are still greatly flawed.....do you think they don't know that too?

Maybe it's time that people from the US AND the UK look at the bigger issue of how the media and those individual's with something to gain twist and distort the real pictures and keep us all occupied with half truths and have us arguing over irrelevant issue's when there are greater things at stake....divide and conquer!

I see it as no sheer coincidence that this whole issue of the UK and violent crime as been thrust into your own gun debate....It steers people away from the real and relevant issues ...more time and energy used in this pointless and irrelevant argument seem's to me quite possibly a nice little distraction, although no doubt one of many!

Gun related deaths in the US per 100.000:
10.2 Homicides:3.6
UK:
0.25, Homicides 0.04 (Second lowest rate of gun related deaths in Europe)
Switzerland
3.84, Homicides: 0.52 (Highest rate of gun related deaths in Europe)

Homicides regardless of weapon:
US: 4.8
UK: 1.2
Switzerland: 0.7

What this guy does is cherry picking. Why isn't he using murder but "violent crimes"? So he can find a "Violent crime" definition for the US and another one for the UK, in which UK>US.

Here is a fun thing to do, take all those crime stats that show how violent the US is, and discount all the stats that happen in the liberal cesspools that constitute our inner cities. The Us seems a whole lot less violent then. Better yet compare the crime in "gun free" zones to crime in zones where people are all allowed to have guns.

Originally posted by narwahl
Gun related deaths in the US per 100.000:
10.2 Homicides:3.6
UK:
0.25, Homicides 0.04 (Second lowest rate of gun related deaths in Europe)
Switzerland
3.84, Homicides: 0.52 (Highest rate of gun related deaths in Europe)

Homicides regardless of weapon:
US: 4.8
UK: 1.2
Switzerland: 0.7

What this guy does is cherry picking. Why isn't he using murder but "violent crimes"? So he can find a "Violent crime" definition for the US and another one for the UK, in which UK>US.

edit on 19-1-2013 by narwahl because: (no reason given)

That comparison doesn't even come close to proving your point that guns cause violence or that gun control works.

First Switzerland has relatively lax gun laws yet their gun murder rate is almost 3 times lower than in the U.S.

Second, over 70% of gun related deaths are gang related and happen in inner cities, criminals don't abide by the laws.

Talk about cherry picking, narwahl? Are you just angry that UK has a poor violence rate? Don't hate the messenger, hate the facts.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by narwahl
Gun related deaths in the US per 100.000:
10.2 Homicides:3.6
UK:
0.25, Homicides 0.04 (Second lowest rate of gun related deaths in Europe)
Switzerland
3.84, Homicides: 0.52 (Highest rate of gun related deaths in Europe)

Homicides regardless of weapon:
US: 4.8
UK: 1.2
Switzerland: 0.7

What this guy does is cherry picking. Why isn't he using murder but "violent crimes"? So he can find a "Violent crime" definition for the US and another one for the UK, in which UK>US.

edit on 19-1-2013 by narwahl because: (no reason given)

That comparison doesn't even come close to proving your point that guns cause violence or that gun control works.

First Switzerland has relatively lax gun laws yet their gun murder rate is almost 3 times lower than in the U.S.

Second, over 70% of gun related deaths are gang related and happen in inner cities, criminals don't abide by the laws.

Talk about cherry picking, narwahl? Are you just angry that UK has a poor violence rate? Don't hate the messenger, hate the facts.

Switzerland is nowhere *near* the gun toting paradise you imagine it. Yes, you *can* have your militia issued weapon at home. But you don't have to. You can just as well leave it in the Zeughaus. (And most people do, because why carry it back and forth? Thing is heavy.) You want to take your gun home and want ammunition for it? First of all, no you can't do that, because you are not defending an airport, and second please have a talk with the troop psychiartrist. Just to check if everything is allright at home.

Own a private gun? You get a visit from the police every 6 months to check if you still have it, and if it is securely locked, and the ammunition is locked as well, in a different place.
You want to carry in public? Prove that you have a reason! 6 months later prove that you still have the reason! 6 months later: Seriously? Still? etc, etc etc...

And still: they do have the most lax gun laws in europe, and also the most gun-killings.
Next in the list is finland (They like to stick to their guns because they have to defend against russian invasions) And suprise, suprise, more guns more killings.
3rd in gun ownership and for some wierd coinkidink, again, also, in gun killings is Austria.
UK the most strict laws considering guns: their accident rate is lower than Switzerlands Murder rate!

But that is allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll just coincidental, and some rubberband "violence" definition (In a land with 20% youth unemployment) is much more accurate to describe the picture.

meh, the figure them selves are irrelevant anyway, too many different factors in play, not just gun availability and control, anyone with half a brain should be able to see this, the media are justr trying to engage your emotions to deflect you from deeper thinking etc etc blah blah blah
it's funny where on a site where we all (repeat after me...) say "you cant trust the mass-media/govts" etc that at times "we" hang off of their every word and then go to base threads off of it.

no one else seing this?

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by narwahl
Gun related deaths in the US per 100.000:
10.2 Homicides:3.6
UK:
0.25, Homicides 0.04 (Second lowest rate of gun related deaths in Europe)
Switzerland
3.84, Homicides: 0.52 (Highest rate of gun related deaths in Europe)

Homicides regardless of weapon:
US: 4.8
UK: 1.2
Switzerland: 0.7

What this guy does is cherry picking. Why isn't he using murder but "violent crimes"? So he can find a "Violent crime" definition for the US and another one for the UK, in which UK>US.

edit on 19-1-2013 by narwahl because: (no reason given)

That comparison doesn't even come close to proving your point that guns cause violence or that gun control works.

First Switzerland has relatively lax gun laws yet their gun murder rate is almost 3 times lower than in the U.S.

Second, over 70% of gun related deaths are gang related and happen in inner cities, criminals don't abide by the laws.

Talk about cherry picking, narwahl? Are you just angry that UK has a poor violence rate? Don't hate the messenger, hate the facts.

Switzerland is nowhere *near* the gun toting paradise you imagine it. Yes, you *can* have your militia issued weapon at home. But you don't have to. You can just as well leave it in the Zeughaus. (And most people do, because why carry it back and forth? Thing is heavy.) You want to take your gun home and want ammunition for it? First of all, no you can't do that, because you are not defending an airport, and second please have a talk with the troop psychiartrist. Just to check if everything is allright at home.

Own a private gun? You get a visit from the police every 6 months to check if you still have it, and if it is securely locked, and the ammunition is locked as well, in a different place.
You want to carry in public? Prove that you have a reason! 6 months later prove that you still have the reason! 6 months later: Seriously? Still? etc, etc etc...

I hope you don't post anymore (for your own good) because you're just discrediting yourself as you type more and more.

California, Chicago, and NY have the most strictest gun laws in America and have high gun related death numbers. Most of those are gang-related and come from illegally acquired guns (this contradicts your points).

In California, you also need to prove you have good cause, a very very good reason to carry a concealed weapon and even at that, the police department can still deny you. Yet look at all the crime committed by illegally acquired guns but no, you want to count all of those into our extremely high crime rates.


Gun control doesn't stop gun deaths, GET IT?

If you ban guns and still have guns around, you didn't do a good job banning them.
(Of course an insular ban won't do much good, there needs to be enforcement and confiscation as well)

So I actually agree with you: Gun bans that don't actually ban guns don't work.
But that isn't a gun ban. That's a gun-suggestion.

Fact is, all else being equal the more guns around the more guns get shot. At yourself, at others, accidentally or on purpose. (Yes, even in Switzerland)

Originally posted by skalla
meh, the figure them selves are irrelevant anyway, too many different factors in play, not just gun availability and control, anyone with half a brain should be able to see this, the media are justr trying to engage your emotions to deflect you from deeper thinking etc etc blah blah blah
it's funny where on a site where we all (repeat after me...) say "you cant trust the mass-media/govts" etc that at times "we" hang off of their every word and then go to base threads off of it.

no one else seing this?

Yes...the mass media/government etc is our enemy....unless they back an agenda we subscribe to......then they quite obviously are infallible!.

What a load of old tosh!