UK Tops the US in Violent Crime by 25%

reply to post by ratcals

So you don't consider murder committed by youths a violent crime? Something the US is beating the UK by a margin of 58 times. How about murders with firearms. Is that violent enough for you? The US is beating the UK by a factor of 688 on that one.

The only statistics I saw where the UK was beating the US in what I consider to be violent crimes are assault. The UK is beating the US by 133 times more. The other was rape victims and the margin there is 125 times more with the UK leading.

Sure the UK is beating the US in other areas like bribes, drug offences, and piracy, but those are hardly violent.

I mean that violent crime is 100% higher in the UK than in the US and that gun ownership is the differentiating factor. I will see if I can be more clear but, I am trying to misunderstand that statement and I am having trouble.

U.K. Gun Curbs Mean More Violence Yet Fewer Deaths Than in U.S.

Uk vs US crime statistics depend on definition of violent crime

And in the U.S., you were nearly four times as likely to be murdered: U.S. 2009 murder rate: 5 per 100,000. U.K. 2009 murder rate: 1.49 per 100,000.

Read the article to see how your figures were actually compiled by the UK conservative party who were having a crime initiative. They failed to provide any sources to their figures. Yet the tabloids picked it up, as did you!

The UNODC statistics on assault and sexual violence are not so useful as they do not give numbers per 100,000 for the UK.

And the numbers I cited were for England and Wales. Not Scotland and Northern Ireland.

greencmp
reply to post by ratcals

 

So you don't consider murder committed by youths a violent crime? Something the US is beating the UK by a margin of 58 times. How about murders with firearms. Is that violent enough for you? The US is beating the UK by a factor of 688 on that one.

The only statistics I saw where the UK was beating the US in what I consider to be violent crimes are assault. The UK is beating the US by 133 times more. The other was rape victims and the margin there is 125 times more with the UK leading.

Sure the UK is beating the US in other areas like bribes, drug offences, and piracy, but those are hardly violent.

I mean that violent crime is 100% higher in the UK than in the US and that gun ownership is the differentiating factor. I will see if I can be more clear but, I am trying to misunderstand that statement and I am having trouble.

U.K. Gun Curbs Mean More Violence Yet Fewer Deaths Than in U.S.

So what that study has done is separated violent crime and homocide as two different statistics.

Once you put homicide back in the violent crime category, which I happen to think belongs there, then the US takes the lead again.

And the study they refer to only has UK stats. What are you using for the US for comparison.

reply to post by ratcals

So what that study has done is separated violent crime and homocide as two different statistics.

Once you put homicide back in the violent crime category, which I happen to think belongs there, then the US takes the lead again.

And the study they refer to only has UK stats. What are you using for the US for comparison.

I don't think so, just going by the source for the politifact article which is the challenge to Ben Swann's below:

Fact-Checking Ben Swann: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US?

At best the comparison is a wash, though I am holding to my conclusions which are not based on Ben Swann's conclusions in the first place. Ben Swann's report just happened to be the source for the politifact article presenting the counter argument to my thesis.

None of this disproves the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis (though the statistical evidence on whether gun ownership directly affects local crime rates, up or down, appears to be a wash), nor does it make any of the gun control proposals currently being debated any more attractive. What it does mean is that Swann’s argument here is disingenuous, factually inaccurate, and fundamentally flawed. At best, he is giving gun enthusiasts bad reasons to support the Second Amendment when perfectly good reasons are already available. By spreading myths, distorting data, and exaggerating the case, Ben Swann is doing libertarians and Second Amendment advocates a disservice.

Yet another lame thread desperately searching for some indication that US citizens are safer as a result of mass gun ownership.
Murder is violent crime and should be included in the stats of course, but then playing with stats is the option of the desperate.
Bar brawls and the like will be included in our reported 'violent crime' here in the UK, but personally I'm far more comfortable knowing the most likely outcome of a fight is a few missing teeth or a knife to the stomach than a bullet to the chest.
Lame, but not a surprise with the amount of people here who seem to masterbate over their AR's in every other thread.
Pathetic.

www.nationmaster.com...

Population statistics



Again this is taken from YOUR source and by all means point out any errors:

UK- Assault victims 2.8% Defined as People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). The population of the UK, as cited from their page, is 62,435,709. SO 2.8% of that number is 1,748,200.

US- Assault victims 1.2% Defined as People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). The population of the US, as cited from their page, is 311,705,000. SO 1.2% of that number is 3,740,460. That number is bigger than the one for the UK.

UK-RapevVictims 0.9% People victimized by sexual assault (as a % of the total population). Again the population of the UK, as cited from their page, is 62,435,709. SO 0.9% of that number is 561,921.

US- RapevVictims 0.4% Defined as People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). The population of the US, as cited from their page, is 311,705,000. SO 0.4% of that number is 1,246,820. That number is bigger than the one for the UK.

UK-Murders committed by youth per 100,000 was 139.

US-Murders committed by youth per 100,000 was 8,226. That number is bigger than the one for the UK.

UK-Murders with firearms per 100,000 was 14.

US-Murders with firearms per 100,000 was 9,369. That number is bigger than the one for the UK.

And holy crap I just saw how old your source data is. It's from 2002. That might be a little out of date.

Your source

greencmp
reply to post by ratcals

 

So you don't consider murder committed by youths a violent crime? Something the US is beating the UK by a margin of 58 times. How about murders with firearms. Is that violent enough for you? The US is beating the UK by a factor of 688 on that one.

The only statistics I saw where the UK was beating the US in what I consider to be violent crimes are assault. The UK is beating the US by 133 times more. The other was rape victims and the margin there is 125 times more with the UK leading.

Sure the UK is beating the US in other areas like bribes, drug offences, and piracy, but those are hardly violent.

I mean that violent crime is 100% higher in the UK than in the US and that gun ownership is the differentiating factor. I will see if I can be more clear but, I am trying to misunderstand that statement and I am having trouble.

U.K. Gun Curbs Mean More Violence Yet Fewer Deaths Than in U.S.

The fact the US population is almost 500% what the UK's is makes the piddly 2.8% vs 1.2% assault victims and the 0.9% vs 0.4% rape victims rather insignificant.

You can't just look at one set of numbers and get the whole story. You gotta plug them in and find out the bigger picture.

Percentage wise, yes the UK has a higher crime rate. Total numbers wise the US wins (or loses depending on how you look at it).

ratcals
And holy crap I just saw how old your source data is. It's from 2002. That might be a little out of date.

Your source

The Nationmaster link refers to the UNICRI data (a United Nations entity) which is the most recent data available from the UN, some is from as far back as the 90s and as recent as the mid 2000s

UNICRI International Crime Victims Survey

All of the rest of the stats are from articles written in 2013 which typically reference studies from the previous year or two.

Is this just going to be a 'bad data' argument?

I thought we were making progress.

reply to post by ratcals

The fact the US population is almost 500% what the UK's is makes the piddly 2.8% vs 1.2% assault victims and the 0.9% vs 0.4% rape victims rather insignificant.

You can't just look at one set of numbers and get the whole story. You gotta plug them in and find out the bigger picture.

Percentage wise, yes the UK has a higher crime rate. Total numbers wise the US wins (or loses depending on how you look at it).

This is a per capita analysis. Where do I plug your numbers in?

Not trying to be snarky here but, I would like to learn about any erroneous facts or misrepresentations that I have given credence to.

So far, not so much.

grainofsand
Yet another lame thread desperately searching for some indication that US citizens are safer as a result of mass gun ownership.
Murder is violent crime and should be included in the stats of course, but then playing with stats is the option of the desperate.
Bar brawls and the like will be included in our reported 'violent crime' here in the UK, but personally I'm far more comfortable knowing the most likely outcome of a fight is a few missing teeth or a knife to the stomach than a bullet to the chest.
Lame, but not a surprise with the amount of people here who seem to masterbate over their AR's in every other thread.
Pathetic.

You might learn something here, at least ratcals is making arguments and defending his position.

He has brought up some valid questions about separating the homicides from the violent crimes in the data.

Whereas, you seem to be dismissing 'stats' (i.e data) as having any substance to the argument.

I read in the UK news that about 60%
of crimes dont get added to the statistics.
becuse they can not investigate it.
like if some one gets mugged.
and thire is no other witnesses or evidence.
they just dump it!

It makes the police look good!!!
they can say we have high statistics in investigations.

jjkenobi
I believe the point trying to be made is gun ownership reduces violent crime. Obviously you don't need a gun to commit a violent crime.

Correct

buddha
I read in the UK news that about 60%
of crimes dont get added to the statistics.
becuse they can not investigate it.
like if some one gets mugged.
and thire is no other witnesses or evidence.
they just dump it!

It makes the police look good!!!
they can say we have high statistics in investigations.

While true, it happens in the US too so, the ratios ought to be the same.

Check this out, Graham Rayman's new book that touches on that subject:
The NYPD Tapes: A Shocking Story of Cops, Cover-ups, and Courage

greencmp
This is a per capita analysis.

And I basically conceded this in my last post. I just wanted to point out once you plug the percentage numbers into the respective populations the numbers for the US dwarf the UK's.

greencmp

jjkenobi
I believe the point trying to be made is gun ownership reduces violent crime. Obviously you don't need a gun to commit a violent crime.

Correct

I don't think you can come to that conclusion when you have only compared the data for two countries. You have to take into account all of the countries.

greencmp

grainofsand
Yet another lame thread desperately searching for some indication that US citizens are safer as a result of mass gun ownership.
Murder is violent crime and should be included in the stats of course, but then playing with stats is the option of the desperate.
Bar brawls and the like will be included in our reported 'violent crime' here in the UK, but personally I'm far more comfortable knowing the most likely outcome of a fight is a few missing teeth or a knife to the stomach than a bullet to the chest.
Lame, but not a surprise with the amount of people here who seem to masterbate over their AR's in every other thread.
Pathetic.

You might learn something here, at least ratcals is making arguments and defending his position.

He has brought up some valid questions about separating the homicides from the violent crimes in the data.

Whereas, you seem to be dismissing 'stats' (i.e data) as having any substance to the argument.

edit on 11-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

Nope, I'm happy with stats when there is a clear comparison of equal data sources.
The OP as presented does not provide such evidence to support the sensational heading, it is the reason why I consider the thread to be lame.

reply to post by grainofsand

Nope, I'm happy with stats when there is a clear comparison of equal data sources.
The OP as presented does not provide such evidence to support the sensational heading, it is the reason why I consider the thread to be lame.

Well, I am glad you haven't said much then.

"I have no problem with faith if it is not presented as fact."

-someone on ATS I thought would like to learn

greencmp
reply to post by grainofsand

 

Nope, I'm happy with stats when there is a clear comparison of equal data sources.
The OP as presented does not provide such evidence to support the sensational heading, it is the reason why I consider the thread to be lame.

Well, I am glad you haven't said much then.

"I have no problem with faith if it is not presented as fact."

-someone on ATS I thought would like to learn

Unfortunately there is little to learn in this thread aside from veiled but desperate attempts to support gun ownership through misinterpretation of data sets which are not directly comparable to each other.
Good day to you though, I shall get my coat and leave you to your mission