# Is the U.S. violent?



## Deaf Smith (Jan 31, 2009)

I know we are worried about Mexico, and we think crime is high here but...

The British Home Office and the British Crime Survey for 2005/2006.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0506.html

Shows in excel that 2,420,000 violent crimes in the time frame of Sept. (2005) to Sept. (2006). Now the population of U.K. for about that time period is of 60,609,153, July 2006 est from the CIA factbook: 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

That gives a rate of *3992.8* per 100,000 inhabitants.

In the U.S. using 2005 data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Uniform Crime Report for 2005:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

We see the crime rate for 2005 per 100,000 inhabitants was *469.2*.

But then the U.K. paper, the SUN, says in an article: 600 kids mugged each day! That's 113,000 additional crimes! Yes additional as you see, the U.K. crime report above does NOT include criminal offences on under-16 year olds!!!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article7826.ece

So, when we worry about crime here in the USA, remember that many 'advanced' societies today have far far more (and lots lots more gun control.)

What we don't want to be is like Mexico and U.K. That is, no way for citizens to defend themselves and laws restricting them when defending themselves.

Deaf


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 31, 2009)

International comparisons are always problematic.  The Brits may have different reporting standards or different definitions of what makes a crime, which may make any direct comparison meaningless.  One good crime to compare to get around these problems is murder, since a dead body is an unarguable standard.

Just something to keep in mind.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 31, 2009)

Oh it is true Empty Hands. I have no doubt the British do have differnent ideas as to what is 'violent' than we do. But, they do have quite a bit of crime, guns or no guns.

Deaf


----------



## arnisador (Jan 31, 2009)

The British fear they're in a "knife epidemic"! Everyone seems to think they have it bad.

Years ago there were two U.S. embassies not guarded by Marines because of the low crime rate there...I think one was in Belize, if memory serves.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 31, 2009)

{Irrelevant Curiosity Deleted}


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 31, 2009)

Crime is more feared, worried about because it's sensationalized more I think. 

America, U.S. IS indeed violent. Just ask any victim.


----------



## myusername (Feb 1, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> I know we are worried about Mexico, and we think crime is high here but...
> 
> The British Home Office and the British Crime Survey for 2005/2006.
> 
> ...



Sorry but as a UK citizen the constant repetition of this sort of BS on these boards really annoys me. As some one on this thread already stated crime statistics in different countries are collected and reported on differently. Sorry to be a little antagonising here but may be comparing murder rates would be more appropriate? In that comparison may be we should include the number of people that your country executes in the name of justice! Can any country which still has a death penalty really claim not to be violent?

We are culturally very different countries so what on earth makes you think more relaxed gun control will have any bearing on our crime statisics? An example of the UK attempting to adopt a different cultures laws would be the recent introduction of 24 hour drinking. It was suggested that if the UK adopted 24 hour licencing then it would encourage a more _mediterenean cafe culture_ and reduce binge drinking! This turned out to be completely false as we, being culturally different than the countries we were emulating, just binge drinked for longer! Some pubs steadfastly stuck to the original opening hours, whilst some embraced 24 hour opening, whilst some just opened later. This has the result that the our police force has to police numerous kicking out times rather than one!

The lesson is what works for one country does not necessarily work for another. So keep your gun laws but stop quoting ours as a bad example because you quite frankly do not have a clue what you are on about!

I would argue that any country that has people in it is going to have violence because people are violent. The UK is no better or worse than the US. The reasons for violent crime are far more complex than simple gun laws. I personally would argue that they have more to do with economy, education, social care, welfare, a class system etc than the laws on self defence and gun ownership. In actual fact our self defence laws are pretty effective, I know where I stand and how far I should go when defending myself. In the US you have different self defence laws in different states, far more confusing I think.

In addition, for future reference when quoting English newspapers, if you wish to be taken seriously stay away from "The Sun!" It is pretty much a joke newspaper.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2009)

myusername said:


> Sorry but as a UK citizen the constant repetition of this sort of BS on these boards really annoys me. As some one on this thread already stated crime statistics in different countries are collected and reported on differently. Sorry to be a little antagonising here but may be comparing murder rates would be more appropriate? In that comparison may be we should include the number of people that your country executes in the name of justice! Can any country which still has a death penalty really claim not to be violent?
> 
> We are culturally very different countries so what on earth makes you think more relaxed gun control will have any bearing on our crime statisics? An example of the UK attempting to adopt a different cultures laws would be the recent introduction of 24 hour drinking. It was suggested that if the UK adopted 24 hour licencing then it would encourage a more _mediterenean cafe culture_ and reduce binge drinking! This turned out to be completely false as we, being culturally different than the countries we were emulating, just binge drinked for longer! Some pubs steadfastly stuck to the original opening hours, whilst some embraced 24 hour opening, whilst some just opened later. This has the result that the our police force has to police numerous kicking out times rather than one!
> 
> ...


 

Well said ....and seconded.

Deaf, you have an unhealthy obession with British crime and franfly now it's got insulting. You have continously posted nonsense in an attempt to make us seem like lambs led to the slaughter by a loony left government, well sunshine I have news for you. it's our country, not yours, it's our government, not yours so if you could control this thing you have about posting up sheer nonsense and keep your nose out of what doesn't concern you we'd been all much happier.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 1, 2009)

I concurr - well said, *MuN*.  

Whilst I stand with my countrymen on this, I would like to remind everyone that a persons opinion is just that, their opinion.  

So, much as it may be an irritation to see reports in tabloid newspapers held up as 'evidence', if that is what someone chooses to found their opinions on then that is their perogative.

The best advice, as with many emotive subjects, is not to allow a sense of injustice that partial or inaccurate statistics are being used to blacken our countries name goad you into intemperate posting.

If you disagree with someones conclusion, then either let it pass (it is just the Internet after all) or, as politely as you can, refute the claims or the evidence.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 1, 2009)

*Crime happens every where period*.  

Whether it be in the US, UK, South Africa, France, Mexico, Japan, etc.  Sure some places have less but there may be all kinds of reasons for that.  Maybe they have less people, higher standards of living, extreme poverty, lack of education or great education, etc, etc, etc.  Personally I feel *very, very safe* where I live in small town USA and yet I train every day for that instance when I may need to defend myself or my loved ones in a violent situation.  Are there other places in the US that are not as safe?  Sure and I have traveled the whole country and actually lived in some of the rougher areas (ie. Detroit as one example) but I still always was pretty safe.  Yet I can understand where someone who has never lived here could think the US might not be as safe as where they live.  Yet they may be misinformed.

I do not think that anyone should be put out when someone brings up some thing up about their country but instead refute with sound evidence.  

In this case our British friends have yet again mentioned that the Sun is a tabloid rag and not the most reliable source.  *That gives us all the opportunity to know that and it is appreciated.*


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2009)

The point is I have refuted this time and time again on numerous threads started by the OP, I've posted up evidence of crime figures, murder figures and the problems we have with gangs and the drinking culture and time and time again I have to repeat it because frankly my refuting it and putting up evidence to show the contrary is wasted because another post like this turns up. 
I think you have to understand my frustration at constantly having to repeat myself. this is just a small selection of the threads where I've posted up evidence of our culture. there s far more of course in individual posts.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66977
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70406
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72266


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 1, 2009)

Oh I can understand frustration but the best course is to refute with evidence. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Personally I would love to see the actual United Kingdom statistical evidence and the method of how it was gathered and what was included and what was not.  That would be cool.

I think that trying to compare crime rates across countries is very challenging because everyone does things differently.  In some countries and one in particular that I know of when some violence does happen they do not necessarily report it in their statistics. :erg:  So they do look even safer than what they are.  Having said that it is in general a very, very safe country but their statistics are not a true representation of this.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2009)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0209.pdf

"*
1 Homicide​*_Kathryn Coleman​_The term homicide covers the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Murder and
manslaughter are common law offences that have never been defined by statute, although they
have been modified by statute. The offence of infanticide was created by the Infanticide Act 1922
and refined by the Infanticide Act 1938 (s1).
In this chapter, homicide offences are shown according to the year in which the police initially
recorded the offence as homicide. This is not necessarily the year in which the incident took
place or the year in which any court decision was made. The data refer to the position as at 4
November 2008, when recording closed down for the purpose of analysis, and will change as
subsequent court hearings take place or other information is received. Because of differences in
recording practice with respect to no crimes, data from the Homicide Index do not necessarily
agree with the recorded crime data.​*SUMMARY​*There were 773 deaths initially recorded as homicide in England and Wales based on cases
recorded by the police in 2007/08, an increase of two per cent (15 homicides) since 2006/07.​​​​​Almost three-quarters of homicide victims (73%) were male.​
​​​​The most common method of killing, at 35 per cent, involved a sharp instrument. The number
of sharp instrument homicides recorded during 2007/08, at 270, is only one higher than was
recorded the previous year, but is the highest number recorded during a financial year since
the Homicide Index was introduced in 1977.​
​​​​There were 53 shooting victims in 2007/08 compared to 59 in 2006/07.​
​​​​Female victims were more likely to be killed by someone they knew: 73 per cent of female
victims knew the main suspect compared to 48 per cent of male victims. Eighty per cent of
victims aged under 16 knew the main suspect.​
​​​​*Overall, the risk of being a victim of homicide was 14.1 per million population*. Children under​
one year old were the most at risk age group, at 36 per million population."

"
Caution is needed when looking at homicide trend figures, primarily because they are based on
the year in which offences are recorded by the police rather than the year in which the incidents
took place. An example of this is 172 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman as a result of
Dame Janet Smiths inquiry; the offences took place over a long period of time but were all
recorded by the police during 2002/03. Also, for an incident where several people are killed (such
as the cockle pickers drowning in Morecambe Bay and the 7 July London bombing victims), the
number of homicides counted is the total number of persons killed rather than the number of
incidents.
Court proceedings had resulted in homicide convictions in respect of 241 victims and
proceedings were pending for a further 63. Suspects responsible for the deaths of 17 victims had
committed suicide or died, and all suspects were acquitted in 36 cases. No suspects had been
identified in connection with 402 cases (52% of victims) when data collection closed on 4
November 2008 for the purpose of analysis. In the remaining 14 cases the proceedings were
either discontinued or not initiated (Table 1.02)."​


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 1, 2009)

Just as a point of order here...
Members finding that another members posts are tweaking their sensitives have the options of refuting with backing information, putting the offender on their ignore list, or leaving the site though the latter would tend to be overkill and an extreme over reaction when there are other more sensible options (kinda like burning ones house down because the toilet was broken).

Regarding posting of stats, and anti-whatever sentiment:
Statistics are easily manipulated, often misunderstood, and need to have their sources cited and understood along with their error margins.  In the case of crime statistics, how a particular issue is counted, counts. Take rape crimes as an example. For years, rape statistics did not include rape of men by women because "such a thing is impossible". Rape of wives was counted as domestic violence, not rape. Rape of children kept quiet and not reported at all. And so on.

The crime statistics I've seen indicate that I have a better chance of surviving a walk through Baghdad, than I do Washington DC, Chicago Il, New York, NY, Paris France or London England.

I can point at staistic from Vermont (and have) where getting a gun is as easy as buying a burger, and say "see, everyone having a gun = safe". Yet Vermont is a small state, with a population less than most major US cities.  It's also culturally laid back, rather accepting of difference and individuality, and rural.  

Contrast that with a larger state such as Texas, who also has fairly easy gun access laws, and the numbers are quite different.  Border towns have higher crime rates, the larger cities as well.  Austin looks safer than Dallas. Same state, but different cultures. Austin has a reputation of being an open minded city in a somewhat conservative state. San Franciso has a reputation as very open minded, yet it has higher crime stats than Austin.

Bottom line is, there are alot of factors to look at, and pointing at a group without full data is simply poor science. Unless the intent is simply to make a group look bad, in which case it's simply poor form.


----------



## tellner (Feb 1, 2009)

Violent crime other than homicide is on a par in the US and most of Europe. Violent crime in the UK is a touch higher than in most of the EU, and some of the measures that the British government has instituted to fight it ignore the real causes and are ineffective, heavy-handed and downright Orwellian. Those are the simple facts.

That said my fellow Americans do tend to kill each other at a really appalling rate for a supposedly-developed country. That's due in large part to the presence of a permanent hereditary underclass which gave us the equivalent of an undeveloped country mixed in with a developed one. Most of our murders are criminals killing criminals - casualties of the idiotic "War on Drugs" - or domestic homicides where the police have already been contacted but the system has failed.

What we is are irrationally fearful, anxious and prone to panic. Much of it is based on race and is a holdover from America's unique past. We didn't right the book on systematic genocide and ethnic cleansing, but we did contribute some of the more colorful chapters. Hundreds of years of the South's "peculiar institution" required the demonization of anyone with dark skin and incessant reminders that the slaves were subhuman savages who had to be kept down lest they rape the White women and run wild in the streets murdering and pillaging. These didn't end when the Confederacy was put down or when we stopped murdering our aboriginal population wholesale and switched to death by malign neglect. It became part of a generalized fear that is still with us. The fear is currently directed towards "gangs" (brown, yellow or black), "terrorists" (swarthy brown Orientals) or whatever Scary Dark-Skinned Other frightens the sheep enough to make them cough up the votes. 

The targets change. The pattern remains. If you look at police and press accounts of the Scary Other for the last hundred and fifty years - and I did some years back - it's always the same. The last generation of criminals was alright. But the ones now? They're not even human. They're animals, worse than animals. They're cruel. They're cold. They kill for fun. It's their culture or just the way Those People are. 

'Those People' have been, in turn, the Irish, Jews, Italians, Blacks, Mexicans, Blacks, Blacks with funny accents from the Caribbean, Russians, Latins from further south than Mexico and anyone from Africa, the Near East or the Indian sub-continent. Oh yes, and Blacks, especially now that we have one in the White House. Racially-motivated attacks against Blacks are up since the election.

We have a national culture built on the fear that anyone who looks different or doesn't speak English with the right accent is about to murder us. It makes us a tad anxious about crime and violence.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 1, 2009)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Oh I can understand frustration but the best course is to refute with evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's almost impossible to compare crime rates across different countries.  We have enough trouble state to state here in the US with different laws (the line for petit larceny and grand larceny varies widely alone!) -- it gets even worse when you deal with different legal systems.  A "simple assault" in one country is a "battery" in another and not reported at all in a third.  And that's before you even get into statistical games and cooking the books...

The UK is a very different place from the US.  There's a nice long thread about that...  If you want to compare crime rates, do the research, and do it right.  Don't just grab some newspaper articles.


----------



## myusername (Feb 1, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I concurr - well said, *MuN*.
> 
> Whilst I stand with my countrymen on this, I would like to remind everyone that a persons opinion is just that, their opinion.
> 
> ...



I hear what you are saying Sukerkin. For some reason this got under my skin a little this morning! I think it is an accumulation of the OP's "Soup Nazi's"  thread and the dreadful Tony Martin thread (which in fairness was started by Celtic Crippler rather than Deaf Smith) that has led me to perhaps react more strongly than I should have done. It is just that I am seeing more and more of these threads that seem to hold the UK up as a warning to all and sundry about gun control when in reality our problems have very little or indeed nothing to do with gun ownership. 

I'll try not to be quite so grumpy in future! However, what would really help me in my new grump free resolution would be for people to stop writing nonsense about my country to support their agenda. I apologise to any one that I have offended.  :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2009)

The story in the Sun newspaper is that of the opinion of the Tory party not actual figures of muggings or crime, the Tories of course are the Opposition party here and as such will state whatever they want to put to make the government look bad. There is no truth in the story, no facts nor any proof. To use a tabloid newpaper report of a Tory party opinion as truth is laughable. 
The facts are that I have to fight crime in this country and use what tools are given us, is violent crime worse in this country than other countries in the EU, no it's not. Do we have violent crime? Of course we do. Some of it has been 'imported' from America, young people are emulating the gang culture they seen in the media that seems to be prevelant ( I said seems) The facts are that the general population of the UK is actually in little danger, the majority of violence is aimed at young men by other young men. There are of course 'domestic' murders, we've had tragically a few fathers who've chosen to kill their children then themselves, also child abuse cases resulting in deaths. Most murders are still committed by someone known to the victim.

The figures in the unlawful killings also include soldiers killed in action, over 150 in Afghanistan alone, the deaths of Chinese cockle pickers in an accident (they were however unlawfully killed by neglect), 58 illegal immigrants who died in a truck smuggling them into the country, the 53 people who died in the July bombings in London.

I would suggest that thinking our laws are orwellian are mistaken as Uk laws vary from country to country and are sometimes hard to understand. if examples are posted up I'll do my best to explain the logic and the workings of them.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2009)

myusername said:


> I hear what you are saying Sukerkin. For some reason this got under my skin a little this morning! I think it is an accumulation of the OP's "Soup Nazi's" thread and the dreadful Tony Martin thread (which in fairness was started by Celtic Crippler rather than Deaf Smith) that has led me to perhaps react more strongly than I should have done. It is just that I am seeing more and more of these threads that seem to hold the UK up as a warning to all and sundry about gun control when in reality our problems have very little or indeed nothing to do with gun ownership.
> 
> I'll try not to be quite so grumpy in future! However, what would really help me in my new grump free resolution would be for people to stop writing nonsense about my country to support their agenda. *I apologise to* *any one that I have offended*. :asian:


 

Same for me.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 1, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Most murders are still committed by someone known to the victim.


 
Always a very chilling fact :brr:.




Tez3 said:


> The figures in the unlawful killings also include soldiers killed in action, over 150 in Afghanistan alone, the deaths of Chinese cockle pickers in an accident (they were however unlawfully killed by neglect), 58 illegal immigrants who died in a truck smuggling them into the country, the 53 people who died in the July bombings in London.


 
I didn't know that; it seems that the umbrella of 'Unlawful Kiling' covers a lot more than I thought it did :tup:.




Tez3 said:


> I would suggest that thinking our laws are orwellian are mistaken as Uk laws vary from country to country and are sometimes hard to understand. if examples are posted up I'll do my best to explain the logic and the workings of them.


 
But surely as the Jackbooted Minion of the State, your views are just designed to twist our minds to the _authorised_ way of thinking ... oh wait, no ... that would be in the News of the World version of reality (on those days when the police aren't being pilloried for being too soft on criminals) :lol:.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Always a very chilling fact :brr:.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 but people like my jackboots...especially when worn with stockings and sussies!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 1, 2009)

I'm biting my tongue here.....I now have an evil idea for a photo shoot that'll get me in all sorts of trouble I think. LOL!   4 outta 5 conservatives will hate it. LOL!


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2009)

By having an unlawful killing verdict it means we also have a 'lawful' killing one available. It means we can lawfully kill to defend ourselves, as long as it was using reasonable force. Killing someone may seem as if you are using unreasonable force but it is all down to the circumstances.

Unlawful killing is anything other than an accident or self defence of yourself or others basically.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm biting my tongue here.....I now have an evil idea for a photo shoot that'll get me in all sorts of trouble I think. LOL! 4 outta 5 conservatives will hate it. LOL!


 
~thats my secret out lol! I rarely wear trousers at work...


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 1, 2009)

To compare the US and its crime dynamics with the different states...laws...and variations in cultures (not to mention SIZE). It would be more fair to look at Europe as a whole in comparison instead of just the UK.

How does the UK compare to California? How does France compare to the northeast?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2009)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/worried-about-crime/?version=2

This man was killed by someone known to him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/01/stab-death-arrests-croydon

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5614274.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5604310.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5601084.ece


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 1, 2009)

Universal truths.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2009)

The crime figures for assault and rape have gone up, this reflects new initiatives by the police to deal with spousal abuse and the victims of rape. Frankly the way these crimes were dealt with in the past by the police and the judicial system was appalling so many victims didn't even try to report crimes. Now domestic abuse is treated as assault which it is, being married to or living with someone doesn't make being beaten up by them any less of a crime. 

People coming into police stations with accusations of rape are now treated sympathically, the courts are less tolerant of the aggressive questioning of victims and it's not now taken for granted that the women 'asked' for it by being dressed in a mini skirt.

Knife and blade crimes have always been high here, its part of the culture that predates gun control. People here have always seemed to prefer blades. We have a Catch 22 situation in that teenagers carry knives beause they feel unsafe causing them to use them because they have them so others carry knives to feel safe etc etc. 

Gangs have also always been prevelant here and in spite of the media suggesting it's an American thing I suspect we imported them to America.
http://www.gangland.net/glasgow.htm

We have also have our fair share of violent criminals.
http://www.gangland.net/ukgangland.htm

The problem we have won't be solved by arming the populace because the average citizen isn't the one who is being threatened, its teenagers threatening teenagers. We don't have an epidemic of thugs breaking into houses where the householders can defend themselves with weapons, we have an epidemic of predominately (though not exclusiely of course) young black men killing other young men. It's a secretive world of teenagers where it's hard for the police to gather information, it's also hard to know how to control the situation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576698/Youth-gangs-triple-child-murder-rate.html


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 1, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> I know we are worried about Mexico, and we think crime is high here but...
> 
> The British Home Office and the British Crime Survey for 2005/2006.
> 
> ...


 
Dude.

It's the Sun.

That's like our Enquirer.

Pay no heed.


----------



## exile (Feb 1, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> but people like my jackboots...*especially when worn with stockings and sussies!*



I don't know, folks... maybe this thread needs to moved to MT After Dark!


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2009)

exile said:


> I don't know, folks... maybe this thread needs to moved to MT After Dark!


 
Ah but it's a secret code known only to a few of us, thankfully the American and English meanings of certain words differ here! I believe it's the gentlemen in America that wear the suspenders!
And besides the Sun is known for it's page three rather than it's 'news'!


----------



## exile (Feb 1, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Ah but it's a secret code known only to a few of us, thankfully the American and English meanings of certain words differ here! I believe it's the gentlemen in America that wear the suspenders!
> *And besides the Sun is known for it's page three rather than it's 'news'!*



I only know about p. 3 of the _Sun_ and _News of the World_ by reputation, I have to say! :angel:

I've been in the UK many, many times for reasonably extended stays in some cases, and I've never felt the presence of danger there. I'm certain it _is_ there, of course&#8212;there are parts of not just London, but many other towns (I'm thinking Coventry, Manchester, maybe Glasgow, at least once upon a time)... but I've always had the sense that trouble is something that you probably need to pursue if you want it; it won't come looking for you. A bar frequented by National Front thugs after a Team England loss to Nigeria or Turkey would probably be as dangerous as any biker bar in West Yellowstone&#8212;but why would you go there knowingly in the first place? The thing is, both there and here, the main victims of violence are those who are in the business of violence, I suspect (just as in the US, it's probably true that the main victims of Mafia hitmen were other mafiosi). The main victims of gang violence are gang members, and so on&#8212;and that's probably equally true in Vancouver, Chicago and London.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 1, 2009)

exile said:


> I only know about p. 3 of the _Sun_ and _News of the World_ by reputation, I have to say! :angel:
> 
> I've been in the UK many, many times for reasonably extended stays in some cases, and I've never felt the presence of danger there. I'm certain it _is_ there, of coursethere are parts of not just London, but many other towns (I'm thinking Coventry, Manchester, maybe Glasgow, at least once upon a time)... but I've always had the sense that trouble is something that you probably need to pursue if you want it; it won't come looking for you. A bar frequented by National Front thugs after a Team England loss to Nigeria or Turkey would probably be as dangerous as any biker bar in West Yellowstonebut why would you go there knowingly in the first place? The thing is, both there and here, the main victims of violence are those who are in the business of violence, I suspect (just as in the US, it's probably true that the main victims of Mafia hitmen were other mafiosi). The main victims of gang violence are gang members, and so onand that's probably equally true in Vancouver, Chicago and London.


 

All comes back to Jon Farnam's "3 stupids" rule. ( By not going to stupid places, with stupid people, and doing stupid things, you exponentially decrease your risk of assault).


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 1, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Dude.
> 
> It's the Sun.
> 
> ...


 
Andy,

Were the other links to the crime statitics the 'Sun'?

What is more, are you saying the actual article was false? That is did the British government under report crime back then? Yes or no?

And guys, Homicide is simpley takeing another persons life. It might be murder, it might be justified. We are all in a way homicidal! It's just either we will murder someone or not.

Deaf


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 1, 2009)

exile said:


> The thing is, both there and here, the main victims of violence are those who are in the business of violence, I suspect (just as in the US, it's probably true that the main victims of Mafia hitmen were other mafiosi). The main victims of gang violence are gang members, and so onand that's probably equally true in Vancouver, Chicago and London.



Unfortunately, it's not particularly true of gang violence.  Yes, gangs fight each other, dish out beatings as "discipline" or punishment... but they also prey on the community.  Drive-bys aren't particularly known for selective targeting.  Robberies, extortion, and "bus taxes" are common offenses for gang members, too.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 1, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Andy,
> 
> Were the other links to the crime statitics the 'Sun'?
> 
> ...


Deaf, 
I got a question.  What is it with you and trying to shoehorn comparisons between the US and England?  While we do share a common heritage -- there's been a lot of diversion since those days.  What's the point you're going after?


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 1, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> What's the point you're going after?



Gun control and euro-socialism are bad.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 1, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Deaf,
> I got a question. What is it with you and trying to shoehorn comparisons between the US and England? While we do share a common heritage -- there's been a lot of diversion since those days. What's the point you're going after?


 
Don't have to shoehorn jks,

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/contents.htm

This report compares crime in the United States and England with respect to crime rates (as measured both by victimization surveys and police statistics), conviction rates, incarceration rates, and length of sentences. Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States. *Crime rates as measured in police statistics are higher in England for half of the measured crime types.* *A person committing serious crime in the United States is generally more likely than one in England to be caught, convicted, and incarcerated. Incarceration sentences are also generally longer in the United States than England.* 

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/22/63817.shtml

*Did British Gun Control Work?*  by I*ain Murray*
*Saturday, June 23, 2001* 

Yet the odd thing is, before gun control was started in the 20th centruy crime was VERY LOW in Enland (yet lots of guns.)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59866,00.html

"_In the course of three years, according to hospital reports, there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people. Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides, and only 3 were homicides 3 an average of one a year."_

And you know what the most ironic thing is?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/02/knifecrime.ukguns

Anti-gun campaigner stabbed to death in the UK.

Now that's ironic.

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2009)

Deaf, your first three links are all American, no British statistics there. The last link on the anti-gun  knife campaigner is misleading as the grandson was charged with the murder. A tragic death but not one I think you should find amusing because she was anti guns.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2009)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506014.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7511758.stm


I think perhaps you either have to live here or have stayed here enough times to know the truth of what is happening here. Sitting thousands of miles away reading media reports and statistics doesn't give you the truth. If we did that about America I doubt you'd recognise your country as the one you live in.

The truth is, there's crime here however as a whole we don't walk the streets fearfully and the citizens of this country don't want to be armed. There is gang crime, drugs and murders. Show me a country that doesn't have crime. We deal with the best way we can, it's maybe not the way you'd do it but then you're not paying British taxes and should confine your criticisms to your own police/government. Opinions welcome but there's no need to portray our country as a fascist dictatorship who doesn't allow guns and state this as a fact. It's probably worth remembering that England, Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man and Northern Ireland are each different when it comes to laws and policing.

While crime is a problem ( of course) politicians do like to 'big up' the figures then when they have taken over it's a relatively easy job to put them down, crime figures are one of the easist things to manipulate. the big worry in the UK is the recession, people losing their homes because of the American mortgage problems, many British banks bought into the American mortage market and have lost hundreds of millions of pounds,one bank went bankrupt. Now many Brits are losing their homes. Fuel and utility bills are going up higher than the rate of inflation and it's feared with a long cold winter many old people will die. Jobs are being lost as well known companies are going out of business, Woolworths, Wedgewood and many others. Honda have laid off workers for four months, the steel works are closing. There's lots more. The crime we have in this country is not at such a level that it's high on most peoples lists of worries. As the recession continues however it may rise and we'll have to deal with that when the time comes.

Can I compare the UK to Mexico, no, I've never been there and know little about it. I could look it up but then the information would be misleading. I can't compare UK to the US either for the same reason, the media would have us believe thats is inhabited by Paris Hiltons and Brangelinas, ravaged by gangs and wildfires, rednecked KKK members or sinister CIA types, watch television cop shows and you'll believe there's thousands murders everywhere plus America is the home of the serial killer! I said you wouldn't recognise your country!


You may not like us, you may not like our politics but when push comes to shove we always back you up when it's needed, our dead soldiers in the Middle East prove that. We declared war on Japan because they declared war on you, yes you helped during the Second World War but my, you charged us millions of pounds for that, just finished paying it off a couple of years ago. All in all though, the British like who they are and while moaning about politicians ( and the weather) is a national hobby we like the way things are run, if we don't we change them. It really is as easy as that.


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 2, 2009)

There's is absolutely more violent crimes in the US than there is in the UK and that's because of the accessibility to firearms.
Are the crime rates higher in the US, No, but violent crimes are and the amount of people incarcerated in the US is a staggering number.
Believe it or not property crime in Canada is higher than in the US, but like I said it is violent crimes that are of concern in the US.
There are a ton of statistics that are shown, but you have to take each of those stats with a grain of salt, because there are many more crimes that go un-reported, it's called the "dark figure of crime".  There is a GSS which survery the entire population about crime, but this survey does not always reach the intended people or areas where crimes mostly occur.
So I see all these links to stats, and I consider them to be true, but there is much more going on that what we see in the media and through statistics.


----------



## tellner (Feb 2, 2009)

It's also confounded by reporting errors and cultural factors. Things which would have red and blue lights coming from every direction in the US are sometimes treated as "just lads being lads" outside a pub. 

More important is the fact that the US loves to throw people, especially dark-skinned ones, into jail for a long time. With mandatory minimum sentences of five years or more for simple possession of marijuana and laws putting non-violent criminals away for life on a third offense we have ended up with 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners. It's a stupid policy built out of fear-based vengeance and an unholy alliance between private interests and the prison industry.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 2, 2009)

I have yet to see ANYBODY thrown into prison for simple possession...hell I cant remember the last time I saw someone get a prison term for marijuana sale for that matter....


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 2, 2009)

I think Mark Twain said it best: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. 

Unfortunately, Deaf, the statistics you post are inconclusive. Even now, there are statistics touted to show that taking martial arts makes you more violent. The problem with a statistic is that is one bit of info, and really not representative of the whole picture. Regardless of the source of information, analysis of the methods from which the statistic derived is imperative for arriving at anything other than spurious conclusions. 

Moreover, statistics must be cross-referenced or they're just data. What do opposing views say? 

Frankly, you're drawing conclusions on inconclusive data.


But apart from that, why is the conclusion relevant? Why do I care? That, I think is the one thing missing from your argument. Whether or not the US is more violent than Britain, what do you want me to *do* with the information (or in this case, data, really). That is the thing that really bothers me about your posts. You may be right or wrong, but so what?

I live in America. If I'm not planning on going to Britain, what do I care about its crime rate, one way or the other? 

ANY research, in my opinion, must have a reason. Let's say for the sake of argument, that you are entirely correct that the UK is more violent than the US. If there is no call to action, than the information (or data) is nothing more than trivia. Frankly, I have enough data and information in my life, as most in this world do as well. I need to focus on information I can act upon. I can only take in so much information in my lifetime, and I could spend many lifetimes trying to learn all there is to know.

So the biggest question I have is how do you want to add value to my life with this knowledge? What do you want me to *do*with it?


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 2, 2009)

Josh,

The value you can use the data for is to decide if gun control will affect crime. Not 'gun crime', that is the number of crimes with guns, but crime with any weapon (cause dead is dead, wither a gun or a knife or a club or a fist. And robbery is robbery no matter what the weapon that was used.)

Here is an anology. Did you know there are less car wrecks in the Artic than in the rest of the world? Why? Less cars of course. But many people there still die in accidents! Same goes for crime or murder or anything else. Look to see if the same crimes are commited with other weapons, even hands and feet.

Search those countries that banned and see if before they prohibited such items did they have all that much crime. Was there any real reason to do what they did.

Did England have a huge crime wave before they banned guns? Were guns uses all that much? Has the crime level stayed the same but the weapons change?

That's the kind of thing you can look for and find it useful.

Deaf


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 2, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I have yet to see ANYBODY thrown into prison for simple possession...hell I cant remember the last time I saw someone get a prison term for marijuana sale for that matter....


 It's called the War on Drugs, people have recieved pretty harsh sentences for simple possession, but then you look at other countries and think that the U.S drug policy is good, but then again when you look at Canadian or Holland's drug policies you might say that they are too lenient.  But say that you have never seen anyone put behind bars for the selling of marijuana is incredible


----------



## searcher (Feb 2, 2009)

I have a question for all of you that don't like firearms(not weapons).   Do you think that your training would give you an advantage if firearms are taken away from the population?


My reason for asking is that it seems that many of you are thinking you will be able to use your skill set to gain the upperhand in a society where firearms are outlawed.   If you are thinking this way, I have a feeling you will be receiving a rude awakening if that becomes a reality.   

If firearms go the way of the dinosaur, the criminals will have their firearms or they will make the transition to clubs and knives.   Or some other type of tool.

I make no attempt to hide where I fit in this discussion, but I ask with pure curiosity in where the anti-firearm communities mind-set lies.

Please keep this discussion civil.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 2, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Josh,
> 
> The value you can use the data for is to decide if gun control will affect crime. Not 'gun crime', that is the number of crimes with guns, but crime with any weapon (cause dead is dead, wither a gun or a knife or a club or a fist. And robbery is robbery no matter what the weapon that was used.)
> 
> ...


No, you can't.

You can't do a straight comparison like that without considering the significant differences in cultures and histories.  You're oversimplifying things and you're not making much of an argument that way.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 2, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> It's called the War on Drugs, people have recieved pretty harsh sentences for simple possession, but then you look at other countries and think that the U.S drug policy is good, but then again when you look at Canadian or Holland's drug policies you might say that they are too lenient.  But say that you have never seen anyone put behind bars for the selling of marijuana is incredible


Not really.

In at least my part of Virginia, until you're talking about at least multiple tens and more likely hundreds of pounds, or some sort of major organization involvement, you're not doing major time for weed.  First offense, simple possession and even some p/with, you're getting what we call a "251 disposition" (see VA Code section 18.2-251) which is a diversionary approach including community service, drug education, and a fine.  It's only supposed to be for first offenders, but I know of a couple of cases where they got it more than once...

There is a dramatic disparity in sentencing between powder and crack cocaine.  It is NOT racially motivated; it's the result of a knee jerk reaction in Congress to the sudden rise of crack and the violence that accompanied the rise in crack cocaine in the late 80s.  And there are indications that this will be addressed in the near future.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 2, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> It's called the War on Drugs, people have recieved pretty harsh sentences for simple possession, but then you look at other countries and think that the U.S drug policy is good, but then again when you look at Canadian or Holland's drug policies you might say that they are too lenient. But say that you have never seen anyone put behind bars for the selling of marijuana is incredible


 
FYI. I arrest these people..Im fairly aware of how these things turn out in my court system. Other States may vary of course.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 2, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> There is a dramatic disparity in sentencing between powder and crack cocaine. It is NOT racially motivated; it's the result of a knee jerk reaction in Congress to the sudden rise of crack and the violence that accompanied the rise in crack cocaine in the late 80s...


 
Abso F'n loutely. I cant stand it when laws that are DEMANDED by the public and politicians are then turned into some racist police conspiracy.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 3, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Josh,
> 
> The value you can use the data for is to decide if gun control will affect crime. Not 'gun crime', that is the number of crimes with guns, but crime with any weapon (cause dead is dead, wither a gun or a knife or a club or a fist. And robbery is robbery no matter what the weapon that was used.)
> 
> ...



Well, you have at least a decent call to action, but the scope of your data is too narrow to actually draw the same conclusion for the same reasons as you. 

Granted, I happen to be pro second ammendment, and believe that the only people that such gun-control laws actually keep guns from are law abiding citizens. But I draw from different information to make my conclusions. Frankly, I don't think you're doing enough for the cause.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 3, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> No, you can't.
> 
> You can't do a straight comparison like that without considering the significant differences in cultures and histories.  You're oversimplifying things and you're not making much of an argument that way.



In logic, we have two fallacies it falls under: ethnocentrism, and the fallacy of the undistributed middle.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 3, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> There's is absolutely more violent crimes in the US than there is in the UK and that's because of the accessibility to firearms.


 
Once again, reverse causation assertions simply have no merit. 

Unlawful firearms will exist in any society, plain and simple. Criminals will find ways to get guns, regardless of how strictly you restrict firearms from the law-abiding populace. 

Lawful firearms ownership by the law-abiding has no correlation with higher rates of crime, and gun control doesn't reduce crime rates, either. Jamaica for, example, pretty much forbids civilians from owning firearms, yet has one of the world's highest violent crime rates, and the criminals don't seem to be fazed by gun control laws. They don't seem to have any problems obtaining fully automatic weapons. 

For that matter, let's look at the FBI Uniform Crime Report, showing two cities in close proximity to each other, Arlington, Virginia, and Washington DC. 

DC is supposed to be a gun-free zone, and Arlington has a very high rate of lawful firearms ownership. If your assertion held any merit, then you would expect the crime rates to be high in Arlington, and low in DC. However...

CityMurder rates: 
25 years after DC's ban

Washington, DC 46.4 per 100,000
Arlington, VA 2.1 per 100,000 (Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)


Even if we include ALL of the metropolitan area of Virginia...

Total VA metropolitan area 6.1 per 100,000


Reverse causation assertions (e.g. "guns cause crime") simply don't work.


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 3, 2009)

Grenadier said:


> Once again, reverse causation assertions simply have no merit.
> 
> Unlawful firearms will exist in any society, plain and simple. Criminals will find ways to get guns, regardless of how strictly you restrict firearms from the law-abiding populace.
> 
> ...


I think you failed to address the comparison between the U.S and the U.K.  All these stats you show are based in the U.S


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 3, 2009)

Grenadier said:


> Reverse causation assertions (e.g. "guns cause crime") simply don't work.


This is from my State and Policy class. My professor is a real advovate for crime prevention, he is world renowned for his contributions. His name is Irvin Waller. You might have to subscribe to get the full article, but it's a good one. However, this is Canadian news, but I will be sure to show you some other stats

FYI This article shows declines from last year in the number of crimes recorded by the Toronto Police Service &#8211; we do not know how much of this is a change in reporting by victims and/or recording by police. It also shows a growth in crime involving guns from police records. 

It also talks about police budgeting issues but does not provide any reasonable evidence as to what influenced these trends or &#8211; given the knowledge around (see IPC website and Less Law, More Order) - what could have reduced the use of firearms.

"Figures show steep decline in crime this year" 
Crime of virtually every stripe has declined in Toronto this year, domestic violence included, but the number of shooting incidents has jumped sharply and the faltering economy could spell double trouble for Canada ' s largest municipal police force. 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20081217.CHIEF17%2FEmailTPStory%2FTPNational&ord=30220239&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

Also just to add to the topic, it's not about whether guns cause crime, what the debate is whether the U.S is a violent nation compared to the U.S, one thing to really pay attention to is the rates of incarceration between the U.S and the U.K.  According to the Institute for Prison Studies in 2007 the U.S incarcerated 750 people per 100,000 whereas the UK and Wales the rate was 150 per 100,000.  When you incarcerate at the rate of the U.S there will be changes in the crime rate.  The numbers remain the same of the people in custody between the two nations.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2009)

When you talk about gun control in America you are talking about a different thing than gun control in the UK. In America you've always had the right to carry guns so when you put 'gun control' into a place it's somewhere where people feel they have the right to carry and there are probably a lot of weapons in homes already, all you've done then is make them illegal. It's a whole different mindset than you will find over here.

Gun ownership was never as common here as it was in the States, we've never felt it was a constitutional right to bear arms with all the symbolism that carries. Guns were merely for self defence if that. The gradual banning of weapons that we've had has never had people raising their voices against it, in fact we've had campaigns for it notably after the Dunblane massacre. Most people feel the don't want to be armed, if they do they can get a shotgun licence like many of us.


When you talk about gun control you think about it as Americans and can't understand the way we think. You think about the way things work in your country, in the UK we do things and think about things differently. It is horses for courses. It suits us to have royalty, a king or queen as head of state, it doesn't suit you. You drive on one side of the road we drive on the other, it's the same with gun laws, we simply do what we think is best for us. Using statistics to prove you're right and we're wrong is meaningless.


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 4, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> When you talk about gun control you think about it as Americans and can't understand the way we think. You think about the way things work in your country, in the UK we do things and think about things differently. It is horses for courses. It suits us to have royalty, a king or queen as head of state, it doesn't suit you. You drive on one side of the road we drive on the other, it's the same with gun laws, we simply do what we think is best for us. Using statistics to prove you're right and we're wrong is meaningless.


 I could not have said it any better


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 4, 2009)

Thank you!

We all do it, we look at our lives, where we live etc and think oh hey if you did it the way we do you'd do it better but it doesn't work like that. 
Would America be less violent if you didn't have guns? Would Britain be less violent if we had guns? We'll never know because we'd have to go back and change history to find out.


----------



## searcher (Feb 4, 2009)

When I talk about gun control, I am talking about hitting what I am aiming at.


Guns in America, are the reason why we are not a British colony and we are a Nation of our own.   I know this may tick some people off, but it is a reality.   JMO on all of it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 4, 2009)

searcher said:


> Guns in America, are the reason why we are not a British colony and we are a Nation of our own. I know this may tick some people off, but it is a reality. JMO on all of it.


 
Well, that, the fact that America was not worth the expense of keeping (how things change ) and the French Army and Navy, to be fair. 

Mind you, they still used guns so I guess you're bang on target {yeah, firearms based pun attack !}.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 5, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> I think you failed to address the comparison between the U.S and the U.K. All these stats you show are based in the U.S


 
Here are your exact words:



> _There's is absolutely more violent crimes in the US than there is in the UK and that's because of the accessibility to firearms._




_You asserted that the US is violent because of the accessibility to firearms.  

Yet, the statistics shown, prove that in the US, there are low crime areas, and high crime areas, and that your assertion that guns cause crime falls flat on its face.

Even in gun-rich areas of the United States, where lawful gun ownership is at a very high rate, you have violent crime rates that are very low.  Please read the above example again, regarding Arlington, Virginia, versus Washington DC.  For that matter, you can look at Kennesaw, Georgia, where firearms ownership is mandatory.  I'm still waiting to see any surges in violent crimes in that town.  

The level of violence in different localities, regardless of the continent, are going to be dependent on the culture, and not the presence, or forbiddance, of an inanimate object, plain and simple.  The lawful ownership of firearms by the civilian populace isn't a factor when you look the level of violence in an area.  
_


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Using statistics to prove you're right and we're wrong is meaningless.


 
Unless someone claims that guns are the sole reason why the US was more "violent" than the UK.  The above assertion by mozzandherb falls to pieces very quickly, when you compare apples to apples.  

It comes down to a cultural issue, not an issue over inanimate objects.


----------



## Hagakure (Feb 5, 2009)

Grenadier said:


> Here are your exact words:
> 
> [/color][/i]
> 
> ...


 
Agreed, but is gun ownership not ingrained within the culture of the United States, within your own constitution no less? Which, by your own words above inherently links violence to the culture? Just a thought? :idunno:

I ascertain that high levels of crime/violence will occur anywhere and EVERYwhere. Wherever humanity exists, violence and crime will also exist. I also believe that population density plays a big part, and this boils down to opportunity. Opportunity to commit crime against others, violence, or otherwise.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 5, 2009)

Hagakure said:


> Agreed, but is gun ownership not ingrained within the culture of the United States, within your own constitution no less? Which, by your own words above inherently links violence to the culture? Just a thought? :idunno:


 
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms has no bearing on the culture. 

If you think of it this way, the people who lawfully own firearms, are going to be the least likely to commit violent crimes, since they have passed a NICS ATF 4473 background check, and have jumped through whatever additional hoops the specific state, or even locality, requires.  Thus, they have relatively clean records, have no felonies or violent misdemeanors, are not convicted of being habitual drunkards or illegal drug users, are not under restraining orders for domestic violence, etc.  

These people aren't the types that become gangbangers.  Instead, you have people who enjoy sport shooting such as IPSC, IDPA, USPSA, as well as rifle matches, skeet shooting, etc.  You also have people who enjoy the sport of hunting.  Most importantly, you also have people who enjoy having the ability to stop the bad guy without putting themselves in excessive jeopardy.  After all, God may have created man, but Sam Colt (and the multitude of innovative firearms designers) made all men equal!  

The problem that I have with people who assert that guns cause crime, is that they are looking at the wrong group of people, and somehow believe that punishing the law-abiding folks will affect the ability of criminals to commit crimes.  

In other words, they're barking up the wrong tree.  





> I ascertain that high levels of crime/violence will occur anywhere and EVERYwhere. Wherever humanity exists, violence and crime will also exist.


 
No arguments here.


----------



## searcher (Feb 5, 2009)

If you think guns cause violence to go up read the following:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 6, 2009)

searcher said:


> If you think guns cause violence to go up read the following:
> 
> http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288


It's much different living in a small town.  I don't think a law like that would work in any metropolitan area.


----------



## donald (Feb 6, 2009)

I would imagine a large portion of violent crime is never reported. All you have to do is look around some of our cities, and neighborhoods to see the sad facts first hand. A whole generation of our citizens has been raised being taught thelaw of the jungle is the way to live.

Sad...
Joshua 1:9


----------



## Guardian (Feb 8, 2009)

To answer the initial question posed.  Yes the U.S. is violent, is it to violent, probably so, it's the way our society is made up, it's the way we've allowed it to become.

So my answer is yes, short, sweet and simple.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 8, 2009)

If you are really interested in this topic read this:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_violent_crime_increasing


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2009)

That is a very interesting article, *Angel*.  Thanks for linking to it. 

Even transplanting it to the context of my own society, some of the points it raised about the perception of violence gave me something to think about :tup:.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 8, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> If you are really interested in this topic read this:
> 
> http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_violent_crime_increasing


 


> Imprisonment reduces the number of crimes prisoners commit while they are behind bars. A panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences in the mid-1980s estimated that if this were the only effect of incarceration, doubling the prison population would reduce crime by about 10 percent.


 
This is true. Rather ovious, but true. As long as they are in the slammer they cannot repet their crimes. And they have found once they reach an older age they tend to mellow and not enguage in crime (that is, they grow old.)



> Imprisonment is also likely to increase the number of crimes prisoners commit after being released, both because it exposes them to a lot more violence while they are in prison and because a prison record makes it harder to integrate oneself into society after release.


 
This is also true. I know of one many who did go to prison and I went and visited. He had several teath broken out from fights. That's prison in any country and it's not a nice place.



> Locking up convicts deters others from engaging in violence. The magnitude of this effect is controversial. Most conservatives think deterrence is very effective. Most liberals think it ineffective. Criminologists have not been able to resolve this controversy.


 
Only if it's the gang leaders. Many people are followers and they normaly would not get into crime except for a leader who presuaded them to join and prove themselves.

Deaf


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 9, 2009)

donald said:


> I would imagine a large portion of violent crime is never reported. All you have to do is look around some of our cities, and neighborhoods to see the sad facts first hand. A whole generation of our citizens has been raised being taught thelaw of the jungle is the way to live.
> 
> Sad...
> Joshua 1:9


That would be very true. It's referred to as the dark figure of crime and is the mojrity of crimes a good 85-90% of the overall total.


Overall, without getting into it with anyone and just going with the question, I would say yes we are. It's all over our culture music, videos, movies, tv etc.... It's marketed heavily and glamorized.


----------



## jarrod (Feb 9, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Well, that, the fact that America was not worth the expense of keeping (how things change ) and the French Army and Navy, to be fair.
> 
> Mind you, they still used guns so I guess you're bang on target {yeah, firearms based pun attack !}.


 
don't forget government sanctioned piracy!  privateer harassment of british supply shipping was a pretty significant factor too.

jf


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 27, 2009)

It's the course our ancestors chose, yes. 

Guess what, though, there are other routes to that path, and history shows it.

Two examples: India, and Canada


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> I know we are worried about Mexico, and we think crime is high here but...
> 
> The British Home Office and the British Crime Survey for 2005/2006.
> 
> ...


 You'll find that, when trying to comparing crime rates between countries, the FIRST thing you come up with is wildly different methodologies of gathering and analyzing data.

In the US, for example, we consider a crime as what it was reported......so if a Rape was reported, it's a rape for Uniform Crime Report statistical purposes.......even if it turns out to be bogus.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 9, 2009)

Thank you for that information, *Mac*; I for one certainly didn't know that that was how the statistics were compiled in the States.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 10, 2009)

At the risk of sounding brash,_ so what _if the US is violent? I didn't get into martial arts to be a Zen master. I got into martial arts because my parents were tired of me coming home battered from the most recent butt-whooping. 

I stayed with martial arts as a kid because I moved a lot and it saved me from many an aforementioned butt-whooping.

Now, as an adult, I have many many reasons I still do martial arts, but my primary purpose is to save others from getting the butt-whoopings they don't need to experience. 

It's not the only reason, but it's smack-dab on the top of the list. Many other instructors I know do it for many of the same reasons. But in reality, it keeps American martial arts from being a useless anacronism. Many martial arts today (not all, mind you) have been stress-tested in realm situations.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a lot of this nonsense go away, it's part of why I do what I do. 



And I know this is a non-sequitor, but it's not like the US violence is as bad as Rawanda, or the Brazillian dead squads. Or Iraq in the time of Hussein.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 10, 2009)

Josh Oakley said:


> And I know this is a non-sequitor, but it's not like the US violence is as bad as Rawanda, or the Brazillian dead squads. Or Iraq in the time of Hussein.


 
Or Mexico.... Or Russia.... And who knows what is happening in North Korea!

And don't forget most of the Middle East countries allow 'honor killings'. Legal murder it is. Not to mention countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh.

The world is a violent place.

Deaf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 11, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Thank you for that information, *Mac*; I for one certainly didn't know that that was how the statistics were compiled in the States.



Yeah, in the US it stays what it was reported as.  The UCR doesn't follow it through the system to what it is subsequently adjudicated as.  So the most severe allegation remains the statistics.

That method of dealing of data tends to inflate the crime rate, as it doesn't adjust for lessor crimes, or false reports of crime.


----------



## bowser666 (Mar 12, 2009)

I think we shoudl call it like it is. Doesn't matter what country you are in. PEOPLE are violent in general. As long as we have the "cave man" gene, we will continue to be this way. Hopefully as more and more people become educated we will see that violence is not the only option.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 13, 2009)

bowser666 said:


> I think we shoudl call it like it is. Doesn't matter what country you are in. PEOPLE are violent in general. As long as we have the "cave man" gene, we will continue to be this way. Hopefully as more and more people become educated we will see that violence is not the only option.


 I have to disagree in some sense......humanity today, as a whole, is far less violent than it was generations ago.  Increasingly, violence is relegated to pockets of society.  Most folks are decent, hard working people who usually only harm each other by accident.

The cave man gene still exerts it's influence........but thousands of years of civilization and it's rules have selected out many of the most violent examples.


----------



## chinto (Mar 16, 2009)

is the US violent?  depends, compared to where?  the middle east country of say Pakistan? or Lebanon?  or say to um Switzerland? or Canada? 

and again are you talking about by population? or by number of crimes only?


I would say its a lot more peaceable then a lot of places, perhaps worse then a few small places.  but then as others have said, the world is a violent and dangerous place. 

oh and the overly peaceful have the  title generally of Dead or disposesed very very quickly historically.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 16, 2009)

chinto said:


> is the US violent?  depends, compared to where?  the middle east country of say Pakistan? or Lebanon?  or say to um Switzerland? or Canada?
> 
> and again are you talking about by population? or by number of crimes only?
> 
> ...


 Yeah, usually when folks are comparing the violence of the US, they choose to compare it to Canada and the least violent segments of Europe......I say least violent segments of Europe, because if we compared overall US violence to, say, Scotland, we'd find that only in the murder rate do we score higher........rape, violent assault, etc, you find Scotland to be the most violent society in Europe.

But again, even that's relative.......even the worst pub in Scotland isn't remotely as violent as, say, Rio or Manilla or Bogata or Mexico City.


----------



## qwksilver61 (Mar 16, 2009)

I would have to say yes...especially here in good old Florida.Orlando ranks pretty high as far as Homicides go...over here towards the beach...well take your pick...home invasions,crack heads,meth freaks,you name it everywhere i go around here it seems you have to be hyper-aware.Pumping gas you get checked out (you,your goods) had some sweaty guy with bugged out eyes ready to pounce me (meth head,super paranoid) violent characters and thug life drug addicts rule around here it seems.Innocent people always get the short end,and it's usually after the fact.It never used to be this way in this  area.Could be a sign of the times too,pressure from a lot of different factors...everyone seems uptight..ready to jump! Just an observation....two cents.....


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Yeah, usually when folks are comparing the violence of the US, they choose to compare it to Canada and the least violent segments of Europe......I say least violent segments of Europe, because if we compared overall US violence to, say, Scotland, we'd find that only in the murder rate do we score higher........rape, violent assault, etc, you find Scotland to be the most violent society in Europe.
> 
> But again, even that's relative.......even the worst pub in Scotland isn't remotely as violent as, say, Rio or Manilla or Bogata or Mexico City.


 
Most of us will disagree that Scotland is that violent and if you look at the report you'll find the figures are based on telephone conversations!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4257966.stm

"_The study, based on telephone interviews conducted between 1991 and 2000, said 3% of people in Scotland had suffered an assault, while the figure for England and Wales was second highest at 2.8%._ "

The data can hardly be proved accurate and in any case is over ten years old. Northern ireland is an extremely violent place even before the recent murders of the soldiers and policeman, there are regular kneecappings and punishment beatings as well as the usual inter-terrorist fights.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 19, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Most of us will disagree that Scotland is that violent and if you look at the report you'll find the figures are based on telephone conversations!
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4257966.stm
> 
> "_The study, based on telephone interviews conducted between 1991 and 2000, said 3% of people in Scotland had suffered an assault, while the figure for England and Wales was second highest at 2.8%._ "
> ...



It would appear, however, those weren't just random phone calls, but calls to reported victims of crimes.



> "The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries, found that more than 2,000 Scots were attacked every week, almost ten times the official police figures. They include non-sexual crimes of violence and serious assaults." http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/567-3292.aspx





> The study, by the UN?s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.
> 
> Scotland was eighth for total crime, 13th for property crime, 12th for robbery and 14th for sexual assault. New Zealand had the most property crimes and sexual assaults, while Poland had the most robberies.



Now, if those phone calls of reported victims of crime were made to 21 countries, why would they be less or more accurate in Scotland, assuming the same research methodology as used in the other 20 countries?  Again, it's not as if they just started calling people in Scotland at random......or even Scotland only.  So the question is, what was different about Scotland that yielded these results?



Ironically, this same study yielded a violent crime rate in the US on par with our BJS reported violent crime rate......so it seemed pretty accurate on that count with the same methodology.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 19, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> It would appear, however, those weren't just random phone calls, but calls to reported victims of crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/05/14399/1210

It depends on the questions asked and as you'll see in the survey a new question was asked.
Recently a survey was done of women which asked have they ever had sex with a man when they felt they didn't want to, including with husbands, but didn't like to say no. A lot of women answered well yes so when the statistics were published they put these women down as having been raped. The truth was that in a relationship both people often will have sex when their partner wants to more than they do but they are quite capable of saying no so it's hardly rape. 
The survey asked about domestic violence and any sort of violence such as smashing a window etc was recorded as violent crime. I remember this survey because at the time the Chief Constables in Scotland were saying it was unrepresentative of crime figures.

_"The upward trend in recorded violence can be partly attributed to a new domestic violence 'screener' question which was incorporated in the survey for the first time in 2000. This had the effect of increasing the number of serious assault cases reported to the 2000 survey by 34% and contributed 10% to the overall increase in violent crime. The increase in violent crimes reported to the survey did not reach statistical significance. However, police recorded crime statistics over the same period also showed an increase in violent crime (16%) suggesting that there has been a real increase. *Nevertheless, violent crime in Scotland is still rare, with only 2.8% of the population having experienced such a* *crime in 1999*"_

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/05/14399/1211

Violence is Scotland is the same as it is in England and Wales and as I've said before is more likely to be against young males. The gang culture in Glasgow for example was widespread long before America was discovered, it's likely the Scots gave you gangs. Blade carrying has always been common, a Glasgow 'smile' is notorious, where they slice your face open. 

So while they may have phoned 'real' victims of violence can you imagine the response they got from gang members?

As I said before there is real violence in Northern Ireland but this is mirrored in Scotland, there is sectarian violence as bad as any you will find in NI, you may think Glasgow Rangers and Celtic are just football teams (soccer) they are not. They represent the two sides in sectarian violence that has been going for centuries. The Catholic and the Protestants have never be at peace and probably never, with resulting in violence everyday. It's something thats been overlooked time and time again. theres where you'll find your figures for violence on top of the violence any society produces from its disaffected and criminals.

In the figures for deaths I should point out that deaths by misadventure ( such as climbing, boating, diy etc accidents), deaths occuring outside the UK but to UK citizens ( someone murdred in another country), deaths of servicemen killed in war and accidents, deaths that are unexpected  are all recorded as unlawful deaths and 'bump' up the figures. We have had 152 soldiers killed in Afghanistan alone so thats 152 murders recorded in the statistics. 


*"The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Monday October 24 2005*
_The feature below mistakenly quoted a forthcoming University of California report as claiming that the country's murder rate now exceeds that of America. However, the report combines figures for murder, manslaughter and other "deliberate and non-deliberate deaths" and concludes that Scotland has a higher violent death rate than America. A recent World Health Organisation report, mentioned in the article, gives Scotland's murder rate as 2.33 deaths per 100,000 people. FBI figures released last week put the US rate at 5.5 per 100,000_."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 20, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/05/14399/1210
> 
> It depends on the questions asked and as you'll see in the survey a new question was asked.
> Recently a survey was done of women which asked have they ever had sex with a man when they felt they didn't want to, including with husbands, but didn't like to say no. A lot of women answered well yes so when the statistics were published they put these women down as having been raped. The truth was that in a relationship both people often will have sex when their partner wants to more than they do but they are quite capable of saying no so it's hardly rape.
> ...



'Violent crime' and 'Homicide' are two related, but different figures.  Scotland leads the US in every category of violent crime except homicide.  That distinction might seem unimportant, until you consider that those other categories including rape and violent assault, robbery, etc.

As to 'murder, manslaughter and other "deliberate and non-deliberate deaths".........that's a pretty darned broad and vague set of categories.

One begins to realize when looking at that broad a categorization that where the US gets a FAR higher rate of 'murder, manslaughter and other "deliberate and non-deliberate deaths".........drunk driving related manslaughter!  The US, being a far more mobile society than European societies, has over 15,000 killed every year in DWI related fatality accidents alone.........and, while that certainly is considered 'manslaughter' in our legal system, it's not an indicator of an inherently violent society.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 20, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 'Violent crime' and 'Homicide' are two related, but different figures. Scotland leads the US in every category of violent crime except homicide. That distinction might seem unimportant, until you consider that those other categories including rape and violent assault, robbery, etc.
> 
> As to 'murder, manslaughter and other "deliberate and non-deliberate deaths".........that's a pretty darned broad and vague set of categories.
> 
> One begins to realize when looking at that broad a categorization that where the US gets a FAR higher rate of 'murder, manslaughter and other "deliberate and non-deliberate deaths".........drunk driving related manslaughter! The US, being a far more mobile society than European societies, has over 15,000 killed every year in DWI related fatality accidents alone.........and, while that certainly is considered 'manslaughter' in our legal system, it's not an indicator of an inherently violent society.


 
The way of recording crime here has been a matter of argument for a while now, as I said with the rape figures. A lot of it's political of course, if Scotland's crime figures appear to be high the Scottish Parliament can apply to the British government for more money to 'fight crime'. They have just been given £6m by the British government to police Faslane, the nucleur submarine base in Scotland. Its targeted by the peace campaigners who have a permanent camp there. Now as I know it's already policed by my lot the MOD police which is paid for out of defence funds what are the funds actually going for? 

We've always had non natural deaths lumped in together here. It's the way the coroners courts label them. The drunk driving deaths will be in the same statistics as the murders as will the manslaughters and accidental deaths.

Violence in Scotland is down to two things, alcohol and religion. However I think the figures don't show the true nature of Scotland and what it's like to live there.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 20, 2009)

After seeing another post it's reminded me to add that suicides are also added into the non natural deaths statistics. Scotland has the highest suicide rate in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5297916.stm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 21, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The way of recording crime here has been a matter of argument for a while now, as I said with the rape figures. A lot of it's political of course, if Scotland's crime figures appear to be high the Scottish Parliament can apply to the British government for more money to 'fight crime'. They have just been given £6m by the British government to police Faslane, the nucleur submarine base in Scotland. Its targeted by the peace campaigners who have a permanent camp there. Now as I know it's already policed by my lot the MOD police which is paid for out of defence funds what are the funds actually going for?
> 
> We've always had non natural deaths lumped in together here. It's the way the coroners courts label them. The drunk driving deaths will be in the same statistics as the murders as will the manslaughters and accidental deaths.
> 
> Violence in Scotland is down to two things, alcohol and religion. However I think the figures don't show the true nature of Scotland and what it's like to live there.


 Oh, i'd say that's probably right........even 'most violent in the industrialized world' isn't really that violent, compared to places like Rio, Bogata, Manila or Mexico City.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 21, 2009)

Over here we have had the political parties make a big deal out of crime figures, always making the sitting government look as if they are either causing more crime or are ineffectual in dealing with crime. One party here even had a slogan "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"

 We aren't actually that violent a society but crime figures are easily massaged to make them basically read anything you want by including some crimes, ommitting others etc. Bullying in schools has been included in some figures for assaults. The problems we do have, with gangs and knife crimes make the news dramatically which sells newspapers and are used by pressure groups to score points. Black on black crime here is a political hot potato as is what people call the Muslim problem.

A political party will campaign on crime and of course when they get into government it's easy to then massage the figures down and say well look how good we are.

The truth is the majority of people in this country go their whole lives without being a victim to violence or even seeing violence. It's also true that young men are the most likely to be the victims and the instigators of violent crime. However without adding credence to conspiracy theories, keeping a population afraid of crime and violence is a tried and tested way of keeping the public's mind on a subject and away from others such as the economic downturn, the mounting loss of life in Afghanistan and the appalling number of service people coming back terribly injured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7511192.stm

Knife crime is a problem still, it's mostly tied in with gangs or the fear of gangs.Many carry knives because others do, its a vicious circle. If they carry them they are more liable to use them of course. Apart from domestic situations the deaths by stabbing were of young people, mostly young men and were in 'gang' type situations or young people 'getting in the way' of gangs or being robbed by other young men for mobile phones, trainers etc. Inner city conditions make it hard to police or control though efforts in the communities themselves are showing some success. There is also a cultural tradition on carrying knives here.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 21, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Over here we have had the political parties make a big deal out of crime figures, always making the sitting government look as if they are either causing more crime or are ineffectual in dealing with crime. One party here even had a slogan "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"
> 
> We aren't actually that violent a society but crime figures are easily massaged to make them basically read anything you want by including some crimes, ommitting others etc. Bullying in schools has been included in some figures for assaults. The problems we do have, with gangs and knife crimes make the news dramatically which sells newspapers and are used by pressure groups to score points. Black on black crime here is a political hot potato as is what people call the Muslim problem.
> 
> ...



It's very much the same in the US.......the perception of violence is far greater than the reality in all but a few isolated pockets of society.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 21, 2009)

The problem is that courts utilize a 'reasonable man' doctrine......unfortunately, what a 'reasonable man' thinks changes from rural Kentucky to urban California.


----------

