The UK has 4.9 to 8.4 times the violent crime rate of the US. (1 Viewer)

[Karmashock]

I proved it here below... examine my sources and check my math.

I've looked more into the violence figures and I think UK figures are actually higher then US figures... dramatically so...

here are my sources:
rds crime in england and wales 2005-2006
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
Table 1 - Crime in the United States 2005


Ok, here's what I found:
Via this spread sheet here we see:
http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/h...meoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206chap5.xls]

There are apparently "2,420,000" violent crimes in a September to September window of time. You'll note it says "2,420" but that's in thousands.

Now going to the Cia fact book, under UK we see that the population of the UK is roughly "60,776,238". So incidents per 100,000 people is roughly 3981.6 . This contradicts other information in this publication from the same source here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206chap78.pdf

Examine table 7a where you'll see that it says 23 per 1000 people which scales up to 2300 per 100,000 incidents. Why are the figures different? Unknown.

Regardless, these figures are VASTLY larger then US crime rates as linked here:
Table 1 - Crime in the United States 2005

Where in we see the crime rate in the US per 100,000 people is roughly: 469.2 as of 2005.


Therefore UK crime rates are between 4.9 to 8.4 TIMES higher then in the US on average.




Is that because of our gun laws? I don't know. But I've just shattered the notion that Crime rates are lower without guns.


We might have higher homicides but we have much lower violence rates. 4.9 to 8.4 times lower.

that's major.


The US also provides state by state break downs of these numbers:
Crime in the United States 2005

The most violent area in the US is Washington DC with an average rate of 1459.0 per 100,000 people. Washington DC is also the area with the STRONGEST anti gun laws in the US.


Are these two related or is this a coincidence? I do not know. But it is compelling to point out that the area with the most violent crimes is also the area with the strongest anti gun laws.


What I find interesting at this point is why this isn't very well known?

This might be a clue:
The Sun Online - News: 600 kids mugged each term day

Yet the attacks are not included in the Government’s key measure of crime, which IGNORES offences on under-16s.

Here we learn on or I assume by 16 year olds or under are not counted.

That's crazy... and I expect that isn't the only thing that "isn't counted"...


I'll just finish up with this:
The American Spectator

New York and London have populations of 8 million and 7 million respectively and comparable police budgets, though New York has about 40 percent more police actually on the beat. British papers retail many incidents of British police, rather than preventing crime, being kept busy "celebrating diversity" and prosecuting politically incorrect remarks and behavior (large amounts of money and court time have been spent by the Crown Prosecution Service on cases of children who have made politically incorrect remarks in school playground fights, for instance).

In 2002 a study found that 11 million crimes had been left out of British government figures, including hundreds of thousands of serious crimes involving woundings, robberies, assaults and even murders as well as thefts. Dr. David Green of the Civitas research institute said: "When you check the small print, it turns out the Home Office itself thinks that there were far more than the 13 million crimes discovered by the [official] British Crime Survey, perhaps four times as many." Dr Green said the Office of National Statistics was subject to political interference and a genuinely independent statistical service was needed.

Simply put, the myth that the US is more violent then europe has just been disproven.


So perhaps if we got rid of guns we would be safer... this information does not prove that one way or the other. What it does show however is that england is doing a WORSE job of taking care of crime then the US is... period. I'm not even addressing the gun issue.


On top of that, I'll add this bit which does address the gun issue:
The Enquirer - One tough beauty queen

82 year old 1944 Miss America shot out the tires on two thieves trying to get away from her farm after being caught.

They don't make them like this any more. This is what I mean when I say "your grandparents would be ashamed of you". And it's a fact. This was the generation that won WW2. They had something that many in the current generations lack. Spines. This woman had her likeness painted on the sides of bombers that flew over germany and reduced the Reich to smoking ash.


In short, Hoorah.


Seriously, someone should send me money for doing this... how ****ing pathetic are our news agencies when they can't even look up basic ****ing statistics to see what is going on? PM me for a mailing address... because seriously I deserve cash for this...

I'm going to make a different thread just to host this in... it's that good.

Now, that said... why doesn't the media make this clear? If some jackass (read "the great and powerful Karmashock") can find this to win a forum argument then how completely pathetic must our media orgs be? And don't tell me "it's your corporations, MAAAAAN" Get over your pathetic hippy bullshit. If anything the european press has demonstrated itself to be WORSE on this issue then the american press. So this is everyone's problem.

I mean, I did probably about 2 hours worth of research on this issue and cracked it's head wide open.

Do I have a journalism degree? Nope. Did hire thousands of info monkeys to search the world to collect independent info? Nope.


This is THE OFFICIAL UK/US INFO! and no one knew **** about it.


I mean... just WOW. If that isn't media bias then it's media incompetence. Someone needs to hire me immediately... and pay me a lot of money. Because I've just demonstrated that I'm better at doing research then all the major newspapers in the world... combined. And that isn't me bragging... that's just pointing out the obvious incompetence/bias of these knuckleheads.

 

[Slainte]

Violent crime rates in the Uk are the highest in the developed world, it's basically down to our binge drinking culture. Our murder and rape rates are still far lower than the US though, considering how many of your murders are carried out using legal guns, the basic argument is that if America outlawed guns your murder rate would fall below ours...

Simply put, the myth that the US is more violent then europe has just been disproven.

:rofl How's this exactly? You would need to examine the figures of all of Europe to make any claim like this. That's like me comparing the violent crime rates of New York (or whatever your most violent state is) to the violent crime of Sweden or Denmark.

 

[Karmashock]

Violent crime rates in the Uk are the highest in the developed world, it's basically down to our binge drinking culture. Our murder and rape rates are still far lower than the US though, considering how many of your murders are carried out using legal guns, the basic argument is that if America outlawed guns your murder rate would fall below ours.

FIVE to NINE times the violent crime rate.


as to your rape rates, as I demonstrated in my previous post your statistics are omitting a large section of data. And even if they were entirely accurate they're actually very close to US figures.


What's more our figures have been going DOWN and yours have been going UP. For well over two decades... your crime rates have been going up and ours have been going DOWN.

:rofl How's this exactly? You would need to examine the figures of all of Europe to make any claim like this. That's like me comparing the violent crime rates of New York (or whatever your most violent state is) to the violent crime of Sweden or Denmark.

Who collects these statistics for either of those countries and I'll look it up.


what's more, since you asked... I'll say again.


The MOST violent area in the US is Washington DC. Which has the strongest anti gun laws and the MOST socialism of any given area in the country.


Washington DC was a city designed in fact by a Frenchman. It is the most European city in the country... and it's cesspool... unless you're a tourist and don't have to live there.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

 

[Nietz1950]

Nonsense. You cannot really believe this is how comparative studies are done.

Use a comparative study in which the definitions of "violent Crime" are the same, and you are only looking at a ~10% difference.

As in the other thread, I pointed you to the UN's study on crime trends.
UNODC - The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends

Of course, the UK is very violent for Europe. The countries that have similar economic systems (US, Canada, Australia, and UK) do tend to have higher rates than everyone else.

 

[paulmarkj]

UK: 62 murders per million each year
US: 295 murders per million each year

You've muddled up your numbers.

You seem to want to make a point (conclusion) and then have given data to back it up (analysis), so you have gone the wrong way around, and hence your analysis have has a heavy bias, for example:

In 2002 a study found that 11 million crimes had been left out of British government figures, including hundreds of thousands of serious crimes involving woundings, robberies, assaults and even murders as well as thefts.

ALL countries leave out crimes from their stats, because not all crimes are reported. To give a balanced view, you must report how many crimes are not reported in the US.

You also must define what is a violent crime: a stabbing? a slep in the face? two kids fighting? Again, every country defines differently.

This is why I have given the statistic at the top, it is clear and only ambiguous if you can give a different number.

I could go on with pulling holes in you analysis, but let's take a different view:

The opposition to the Labour government world love to show that UK crime is greater the US, they would love to state what you have. Have you not thought why Tory researchers have not discovered your amazing facts? perhaps they don't have access to the data you have? Or perhaps they can spin only so far? They know it is not true, that is why they will tell the public that US crime rate is going down while ours is going up, in an effort to make the UK figure sound bad. But they have never said the UK crime rate is higher.

And UK crime is only on the increase if you pick the right stats, for example, violent crime in general is coming down, but stabbings amongst youths is going up, so the Tories concentrate on this one area. Next year, if stabbings are down but gun crime is up, they (and I suspect you) will concentrate on that and forget stabbings.

as to your rape rates, as I demonstrated in my previous post your statistics are omitting a large section of data.

Again, your maths is wrong. You must point to the omitted stats in BOTH countries. You must compare like with like.

 

[Nietz1950]

The MOST violent area in the US is Washington DC. Which has the strongest anti gun laws and the MOST socialism of any given area in the country.

Places with lots of crime tend to enact strong gun laws to help keep it down. I have no idea where you get the socialism from.

If you want to see a "European" city, then go to Quebec. Socialist government, French & English speaking, historic elements, high taxes and laws you hate. Of course, the crime in this or any other major Canadian city is far lower than even the safest US metropolitan area.

 

[Nietz1950]

I'm not even addressing the gun issue.

You should. If you really believe the UK is that much more violent than the US, then you should be thinking to yourself how amazing it is that the US has a homicide rate 500% higher than this awful, violent, UK.

 

[Karmashock]

UK: 62 murders per million each year
US: 295 murders per million each year

You've muddled up your numbers.

I wasn't talking about murders, I was talking about violent crime. you have a reading comprehension problem.

ALL countries leave out crimes from their stats, because not all crimes are reported. To give a balanced view, you must report how many crimes are not reported in the US.

Left out and unreported are two different concepts. Again, reading comprehension problem. :2razz:

Left out implies that they knew about it and for some reason excluded the data from the report. Unreported means the crime happened but the police or other authorities were never informed... and whether the crime in fact ever happened is entirely subjective.

You also must define what is a violent crime: a stabbing? a slep in the face? two kids fighting? Again, every country defines differently.

What is a violent crime is roughly the same between the US and england.

The FBI broke it down very clearly in the table.

What's more the FBI put the murder/manslaughter rate at roughly 5.6 per 100,000. Or 56 per million.


You said that the US figure was actually 295 per million. That would the annual number of murders in the US assuming a population of 300 million people to "88500". Where as the reported figure is actually "16,692" . Cite your source.


This should be funny, if the UK murder number is really "62" per million then the US will have a lower murder/manslaughter rate then england too. :lol:

Cite your source. I want to see if it's worth anything.

The opposition to the Labour government world love to show that UK crime is greater the US, they would love to state what you have. Have you not thought why Tory researchers have not discovered your amazing facts? perhaps they don't have access to the data you have? Or perhaps they can spin only so far? They know it is not true, that is why they will tell the public that US crime rate is going down while ours is going up, in an effort to make the UK figure sound bad. But they have never said the UK crime rate is higher.

I'm not spinning anything these are official figures quoted directly from the FBI and "homeoffice".


Deal with it. You're wrong.

=================================================

Places with lots of crime tend to enact strong gun laws to help keep it down. I have no idea where you get the socialism from.

As I said, I have no evidence to show that guns make places safer. I only thought it interesting that the place in the US with the strongest anti gun laws also happen to be the most violent.


what's more by your own logic would not canada and the UK be more violent by default? After all... they have stronger gun legislation then either place...

If you want to see a "European" city, then go to Quebec. Socialist government, French & English speaking, historic elements, high taxes and laws you hate. Of course, the crime in this or any other major Canadian city is far lower than even the safest US metropolitan area.

Prove it. Show me official statistics from the Canadian government.



And all I said was that DC was the most european city in the US... it is... it was designed in fact specifically to impress europeans.

Which explains all the statues, monuments, etc...
=============================================

You should. If you really believe the UK is that much more violent than the US, then you should be thinking to yourself how amazing it is that the US has a homicide rate 500% higher than this awful, violent, UK.

Cite your source please. Show me where it says the UK homicide rate is one fifth the US rate... which I've just found out is 5.6 per 100,000 or 56 per million.

here, they'll break it down for you on a state by state basis...
Table 5 - Crime in the United States 2005


All 50 states... you can see that Vermont had 8 murders/manslaughters ... and Califorina... my home, had 2,503 murders... of course the population of california is about 36 million... this gives us a rate of about 6.9 which is above the national average but considering the international drug trade issue in Los angeles (my city) that's understandable. And before you tell me gang bangers don't contribute significantly to the death toll in Los Angeles... know that there isn't a WEEK that goes by where one of them doesn't get shot to death. That's 52 deaths right there and probably more... per yeah. And as LA has a murder rate of something like 440 over all that's significant... certainly enough to push us over the national average.



Also, I'd like to point out that I'm responding to all of Nietz posts in ONE post. He could have done that too. Don't be an *** hole Respond in single posts or I will ignore you.

 

[Nietz1950]

what's more by your own logic would not canada and the UK be more violent by default? After all... they have stronger gun legislation then either place...

Nope, by your logic they would. I said anti-gun laws are passed in places of high crime, not that they cause high crime.

Prove it. Show me official statistics from the Canadian government.

The Daily, Tuesday, December 18, 2001. Crime comparisons between Canada and the United States

Cite your source please. Show me where it says the UK homicide rate is one fifth the US rate... which I've just found out is 5.6 per 100,000 or 56 per million.

You already said you don't accept the UN studies, although the BJS cites it often.

But here's the number from the UK government, on homicides. 765, or about 1.2 per 100,000 or about 500% of the US rate.
Crime Statistics for England and Wales - Long-term national recorded crime trend: Homicide

 

[RDawson]

The person who started this topic is too proud of an obvious mistake. No great secret has been uncovered.

3/4 of the violent crime in the UK is common assault and it does not exist in American law as a violent crime. In America, they are called things like stalking or minor battery. It even includes minor things like touching someone who has a phobia or asking out a girl after she rejects you once.

 

[Karmashock]

Nope, by your logic they would. I said anti-gun laws are passed in places of high crime, not that they cause high crime.

Ok, so if anti gun laws are passed in places of high crime... why would you assume that the UK and canada having passed such laws would have LOW crime?


Illogical.


I am not saying any of your argument here is right... i'm just pointing out it's inherent illogical conclusions.

The Daily, Tuesday, December 18, 2001. Crime comparisons between Canada and the United States

I'm not accepting canada's comparision. Show me canada's raw stats and we'll compare those with the raw stats of other countries. I don't trust pretty graphs.


Crimes by type of offence


It was "942.9" per 100,000 people in 2005 and hovers around 950.

It includes:
Homicide
Attempted murder
Assaults (level 1 to 3)1
Sexual assault
Other sexual offenses
Robbery
Other crimes of violence2

Violent crime in the US was "469.2" per 100,000 people in 2005.

Murder/manslaughter
Forcible Rape
Robbery
Aggravated Assault

Perhaps you'd like to pick away at the canadian number or add something to the US number... I'm as always open... but I don't see you picking up enough to close the gap.

But here's the number from the UK government, on homicides. 765, or about 1.2 per 100,000 or about 500% of the US rate.
Crime Statistics for England and Wales - Long-term national recorded crime trend: Homicide

Not all their stats are bad... just most of them.

 

[Karmashock]

The person who started this topic is too proud of an obvious mistake. No great secret has been uncovered.

3/4 of the violent crime in the UK is common assault and it does not exist in American law as a violent crime. In America, they are called things like stalking or minor battery. It even includes minor things like touching someone who has a phobia or asking out a girl after she rejects you once.

Prove it. I'd like to see some evidence that asking a girl out that has rejected you once gets included in assault statistics in the UK.


I'm not going to credit uncited declarations.



Otherwise I submit for evidence that 93.2 percent of the UK population is possessed by water faries... maaagicial water faries... from the mooooon!



Prove your claims or keep quiet.

 

[Nietz1950]

why would you assume that the UK and canada having passed such laws would have LOW crime?

I see no statistical influence of gun restrictions on violent crime outside of homicide. In the case of Canada and the UK, such laws were passed during periods of high crime but the crime decreased over time.

3/4 of the violent crime in the UK is common assault and it does not exist in American law as a violent crime.

That was the first mistake and can easily be confirmed by looking up UK criminal code. That adjustment brings the incidents to about 14 per 1000 persons in the UK.

Or, just Google it.
common assault - Google Search

The second mistake was the use of filed US crimes vs the UK victimization survey, which eliminates underreporting. The US has a victimization survey too, although it doesn't include those below the age of 15. The US victimization rate is 20 per 1000 persons.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Violent Crime Rate Trends

In the end, both values do come much closer when the same methodologies are used.

I'm not accepting canada's comparision. Show me canada's raw stats and we'll compare those with the raw stats of other countries. I don't trust pretty graphs.

Wow. A government publication specifically addressing a cross-nation comparison, with the same standards and you don't accept it. Once again, you use completely different definitions of assault. If you look at the full report, you'll notice a citation that says the figures are not directly comparable to the US.

In fact, I have a followup from Parliamentary IRS:

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/LibraryReport_PrairieCrimeFollowUp_2005_04_20.doc

"Statistics Canada defines assault much more widely than the U.S. FBI measure of aggravated assault. Statistics Canada includes simple assault, i.e., pushing, slapping, punching and threatening resulting in no more than minor injury, as well as more serious assaults. The U.S. FBI definition of aggravated assault is compared to Canadian definitions on page 21 of the paper."

Perhaps you should look for published, peer-reviewed comparative reports, where they do the methodology adjustments for you. If will give you a better idea of what actual figures are.

I'm not saying all of their stats are bad, just most of them

Crime Statistics for England and Wales - British Crime Survey: Violent crime

The trend of all violent crimes has seen the same decline.

 

[Karmashock]

I see no statistical influence of gun restrictions on violent crime outside of homicide. In the case of Canada and the UK, such laws were passed during periods of high crime but the crime decreased over time.

Nor do I think it can be said that the presence of guns causes DC's high crime rate. Much of their problem stems from a lax police force and a large idle welfare population... which is what I was talking about with socialism. Idle hands are the devil's playground.

It is a FACT that low unemployment = lower crime rate. Whether you put people on welfare or not doesn't seem to improve the situation.

That was the first mistake and can easily be confirmed by looking up UK criminal code. That adjustment brings the incidents to about 14 per 1000 persons in the UK.

Or, just Google it.
common assault - Google Search

False.

In criminal law, a common assault is a crime when the defendant either puts another in fear of injury or actually commits a battery. Under English law, the offence is now defined in s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

That is extremely extremely extremely similar to our own codes.

The second mistake was the use of filed US crimes vs the UK victimization survey, which eliminates underreporting. The US has a victimization survey too, although it doesn't include those below the age of 15. The US victimization rate is 20 per 1000 persons.

Actually, it doesn't count people below the age of 12 and the british apparently aren't counting victims below the age of 16. Which means the Americans are counting 4 more years then the british are. You can examine by previous sources for that information.


Furthermore, I'm trying to keep this to CONFIRMED cases. Theories are flexible.

In the end, both values do come much closer when the same methodologies are used.

The same methodologies were used in my count. I was comparing confirmed cases with confirmed cases. Police reports... official tallies of incidents.

Wow. A government publication specifically addressing a cross-nation comparison, with the same standards and you don't accept it. Once again, you use completely different definitions of assault. If you look at the full report, you'll notice a citation that says the figures are not directly comparable to the US.

I'm not accepting anything that makes the comparison for you. Show me the raw numbers. I did so and you rejected them. :roll:

Perhaps you should look for published, peer-reviewed comparative reports, where they do the methodology adjustments for you. If will give you a better idea of what actual figures are.

Show me someone that doesn't have a political axe to grind and I'll accept it.


Until then I want to see raw numbers where people aren't in *** covering mode and then I want to do a very careful conversion with every translation backed up with some kind of evidence. Especially when you'll no doubt find ways to inflate the american figures an deflate anyone else's.

The trend of all violent crimes has seen the same decline.

I showed several graphs from the same source that showed many crimes that are in strong increase. The overall trend so far as I know includes such incidentals as property crime which shouldn't be given the same weight in something like that as assault... and they are.


When a combined graph includes something like breaking a window with beating someone up it's bunk on the face of it.

 

[RDawson]

"Numbers of recorded crimes are affected by changes in reporting and recording practices. In April 1998, certain new offences e.g. common assault, possession of a weapon, assault on a constable and harassment, were added to the recorded crime series."

Crime Statistics for England and Wales - Changes in how police record crime

Take out "Common Assault" and the violent crime rate is lower in the UK than the US. The US' "Aggravated Assault" is much more narrow and is a felony that requires "life-threatening injury or use of weapon likely to produce death or great bodily harm". That is the same as the UK's ABH or GBH, which are included as "Wounding" in the violent crime data.

Aggravated Assault - Crime in the United States 2005
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206chap456.pdf
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206append.pdf

That's also why the UK reported crimes have increased while the BCS data show a decline in crime. The UK has been tracking new crimes and encouraging reporting over the last few years, so BCS data is more reliable.

"The BCS is considered to be the most reliable indicator of trends in violent crime as police susceptible to reporting and recording changes (especially in less serious offences)."

"For the crime types it covers, the BCS can provide a better reflection of the true extent of crime because it includes crimes that are not reported to the police. The BCS count also gives a better indication of trends in crime over time because it is unaffected by changes in levels of reporting to the police, and in police recording practices."

rds crime in england and wales 2005-2006
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime0506summ.pdf

 

[Karmashock]

The UK has been tracking new crimes and encouraging reporting over the last few years, so BCS data is more reliable.

The BCS combines too many factors together into a single variable. Furthermore, it's methodology is too complex for me or YOU to be able to understand entirely.


I am much more comfortable with raw figures of verified incidents. Anything more complex then that is too easy to manipulate.

 

[TurtleDude]

its been several years since I saw the study but the rate of violent crime perpetrated by white americans was lower than that of whites in Europe and scotland's rate was far higher than ours. A majority of those who commit murder in the United States already have criminal records that make their possession of any firearm a federal felony and not surprisingly, the same is true of the victims-more than half have criminal records.

british gun bans have only done one thing and that is to eliminate crime with LEGAL handguns since there are NO legal handguns (the home office bragged about there not being any murders with LEGAL handguns) but it has not stemmed the flow of millions of ILLEGAL handguns which is why the last time I was in england-3 or so years ago-the papers were calling manchester GUNCHESTER

 

[Nietz1950]

There's no need to get you to admit you were wrong. All that needs to be done is to discredit your claims to any objective, serious observers. Once a person starts claiming bias on UN comparative studies, Canadian government reports, UK preferred data, international media, and even rejecting their own original sources, then nobody's going to take your claims seriously.

There are apparently "2,420,000" violent crimes in a September to September window of time.

Your original UK data came from the BCS survey. That same survey shows a decline in violent crime over the last decade but you don't accept it anymore because it's too "complex" to understand.

You've been shown many times that the UK violent crime consists mostly of crimes the FBI does not count as a violent crime. It's very difficult to miss this fact, when the BCS says violent crime is mostly threats and harassment while the FBI lists nothing so minor.

Maybe you really believed violent crime was 10 times higher in the UK and you uncovered some massive secret. There's no way you still honestly belive that - you're just trying to find data to fit a pre-determined conclusion.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

The BCS combines too many factors together into a single variable. Furthermore, it's methodology is too complex for me or YOU to be able to understand entirely.


I am much more comfortable with raw figures of verified incidents. Anything more complex then that is too easy to manipulate.

And if there aren't any raw figures? The British Computer society figures don't seem suspicious- how could they be 'manipulated'? If you dispute all of your opponent's sources this vaguely, it makes you look scared- which I undersand, since if we counted everything Britain counts as violent crime in our statistics, our rate would be much higher than theirs (it has been shown that, even not counting school fights, stalking, etc., we have more than half their rate).

 

[Nietz1950]

The British [Crime Survey] figures don't seem suspicious- how could they be 'manipulated'?

He doesn't believe they are manipulated. He rejects them because they conflict with the conclusion he wants to present.

His entire "self-calculated" crime rate was based on the figure of 2.4 million violent crimes, which came directly from the BCS survey.

 

[Karmashock]

There's no need to get you to admit you were wrong. All that needs to be done is to discredit your claims to any objective, serious observers. Once a person starts claiming bias on UN comparative studies, Canadian government reports, UK preferred data, international media, and even rejecting their own original sources, then nobody's going to take your claims seriously.

now you're just lying...:roll:

I did dismiss the UN. That was valid.


I did NOT dismiss the Canadian government but instead it's comparative study and demanded that you simply present the raw data.

I did not dismiss the UK government. I dismissed speculative information that was as much theory and assumption as actual hard fact. I again only demanded that you cite only hard numbers.

As to international media, that is not a signal entity and you CANNOT credibly say that I dismissed all media throughout the world because I may have dismissed a single article.

I did not reject my own sources as I was citing the FBI.



No one will take YOU seriously if you lie. In fact, not only will you not be taken seriously but you won't be respected either.


Make an effort to be worthy of respect.



What I want is hard numbers from as close to the source as possible. Why go to a second or third or fourth party? ASK THE SOURCE!!! And get the raw figures. I want the data before it's had a chance to get monkeyed with... That is fair no matter how hard you try to pretend it isn't.

You've been shown many times that the UK violent crime consists mostly of crimes the FBI does not count as a violent crime. It's very difficult to miss this fact, when the BCS says violent crime is mostly threats and harassment while the FBI lists nothing so minor.

No, you haven't done that at all. I actually cited the legal definition of what you were talking about and it's all but identical to the US version. Back up your claim better.

Maybe you really believed violent crime was 10 times higher in the UK and you uncovered some massive secret. There's no way you still honestly belive that - you're just trying to find data to fit a pre-determined conclusion.

The precise figure is impossible for either of us to know. However, I do believe that your figures exaggerate US numbers and underestimate UK figures. The precise ratio is debatable... but only with hard numbers. I'm not going to bother with vague graphs based upon complex methodologies that could too easily be used to distort the data. I want system with as close to NO methodology in it what so ever. Simply the exact reporting of the number of incidents. Period.

 

[RDawson]

That is extremely extremely extremely similar to our own codes.

It is nothing like the offenses included in the FBI violent crimes.

UK Common Assault is a minor crime with a maximum sentence of 6 months. It entails anything from "behavior interpreted as threatening" to "occasioning actual superficial harm". The injuries can be no more than "grazes, scratches, Abrasions, minor brusing, Swellings, Reddening of the skin". There can never be a weapon used or presented in this form of assault.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_c.html#06

US Aggravated assault is a felony that requires "life-threatening injury or use of weapon likely to produce death or great bodily harm".

Aggravated Assault - Crime in the United States 2005

You have to be kidding yourself if you think UK Common Assault rates should be equated with the FBI classification of Aggravated Assault.

But if you remove Common Assault from the UK crime data then UK violent crime is lower than the US because...

"These less serious other offences against the person accounted for 84 per cent of violent crime in 2005/06"

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206.pdf

 

[Nietz1950]

I did dismiss the UN. That was valid.

No, it exposed your bias. The International Crime Victim Survey is the most cited and farreaching standardized crime study. It is used by every major nation's reorting agencies, including the US. The BJS refers to it constantly.

I did NOT dismiss the Canadian government but instead it's comparative study

So you dismissed a comparative study published by the government. I even went ahead and gave you a paper from Canadian IRS which actually went through the process, adjusting each figure from the Canadian reporting definitions to the US standards just as you asked me to do. They came up with a violent crime rate about half of the US. You also dismissed this government paper.

I did not dismiss the UK government.

The UK government said measuring crime rates is best seen through the victimization survey, just like the BJS says of our own victimization study. You dismissed this advice because you didn't like the results.

I did not reject my own sources as I was citing the FBI.

You compared it to the UK violent crime rates, which came from the BCS. Everyone can see - it's the first post in the thread. Then when you saw the BCS showed a decline in crime, you said it was too confusing to accept.

What I want is hard numbers from as close to the source as possible.

Victimization surveys are the best source then. They get the facts straight from a standardized survey and they don't let police reporting get in the way. Both the US and UK have such surveys and the UK entire report has been linked several times.

I actually cited the legal definition of what you were talking about and it's all but identical to the US version.

It's not even close. I was going to show you how stupid such a claim is, but someone else already did. Aggravated Assault is the only form of assault the FBI data included, and that is the most severe form in the US.

I want system with as close to NO methodology in it what so ever. Simply the exact reporting of the number of incidents. Period.

That's what the UN study does, with cooperation from various governments and academics throughout the world. A standardized survey applied in a peer-reviewed form. You don't accept it because you aren't very familiar with recognizing authoritive academic papers. I could never imagine a person in academia actually trying to make the claim that such a report should be invalid.

 

[Karmashock]

The person who started this topic is too proud of an obvious mistake. No great secret has been uncovered.

3/4 of the violent crime in the UK is common assault and it does not exist in American law as a violent crime. In America, they are called things like stalking or minor battery. It even includes minor things like touching someone who has a phobia or asking out a girl after she rejects you once.

There you're right. Aggravated assault is a much stiffer crime then simple assault.


However, in the US assault is roughly the same as assault in the UK.


Lets go over the numbers again. Please refer back to that spreadsheet I linked to on the home office:
Number of incidents in thousands
Woundings 547
Robbery 311
Common Assault 1490


Those are the ONLY things being counted in that list.


That gave us the grand total figure of 2,420,000 incidents per year.


Lets subtract all the common assaults, which is something we can do if we have the raw numbers. This would of course be impossible with the vague BCS or UN stats.

Woundings and robberies per year then is 858,000 per year. Given the UK's listed population that gives you a rate of 1411 Woundings and robberies per 100,000 people. Which is STILL many times higher then the US rate.



This is why I insist upon hard numbers. Maybe the numbers I'm working with are STILL wrong... That could be... I'm open to that debate. But I will NOT accept information that cannot be analyzed.


By the way the US "robbery" rate is 140.7 while based on the above data the UK rate is 511.5 (310,000 incidents divided by the total population of the UK in 100,000's) .


I am not saying my analysis of the above information is perfect, but neither is it entirely without merit. What's more at least I am examining hte data instead of lazily reading figures off a graph.

I am HAPPY to concede places where I make mistakes... such as the mistake I made about agrivated assaults. That clearly skewed my numbers. BUT that still leaves me a LOT of room to say that US figures are STILL lower.

 

[Nietz1950]

That clearly skewed my numbers. BUT that still leaves me a LOT of room to say that US figures are STILL lower.

They are lower because you are comparing a victim survey to the FBI's reported crime report. Victimization surveys show much higher results.

Remember the first time you did this "analysis" and saw a reported crime rate about half the number you used? You said the difference was "unknown", but it was quite obvious... That's because the reported crime was much lower than the BCS data.

We're back at square one because we could compare the US victimization survey, but the methods are probably different. The US victimization survey says there are 2000 violent crimes per 100,000 persons in the US... much closer to UK values.