Is the U.S. violent?

[Deaf Smith]

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]

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]

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]

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]

{Irrelevant Curiosity Deleted}

 

[MA-Caver]

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

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

 

[myusername]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

Always a very chilling fact :brr:.

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:.

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:.