Is the U.S. violent?

[mozzandherb]

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]

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]

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]

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 dowith it?

 

[Deaf Smith]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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 – 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 – 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.