bbbbut mah bloggerz postz
Is Muhammad (and all its variations) still the most popular name to newborns in the UK?
Oh, it still is?
Carry on lads.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
bbbbut mah bloggerz postz[/quote]
Yeah those cooky FBI people making up false statistics. Ha! What is that scraping I hear? Oh it is you frantically scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Next you will be quoting info wars.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Is Muhammad (and all its variations) still the most popular name to newborns in the UK?
Oh, it still is?
Carry on lads. [/quote]
Unless it has changed since last year. Why would that be a problem?
Top ten girlsâ?? names for 2014
Sophia (+2)
Emily (-)
Lily (+1)
Olivia (-3)
Amelia (+2)
Isla (+2)
Isabella (-2)
Ava (+2)
Sophie (-)
Top ten boysâ?? names for 2014
Muhammad (+27)
Oliver (-1)
Jack (-1)
Noah (+5)
Jacob (+2)
Charlie (-3)
Harry (-3)
Joshua (+4)
James (+1)
Ethan (-2)
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Next you will be quoting info wars.
[/quote]
No. I’m quoting the UN, which you’ve ignored since your last screen name.
You’re quoting a blogger who is reading other data.
I am using a peer reviewed study done by a global organization. You’ll linking to an internet blogger who is reading websites.
You lose, and lose hard here.
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Is Muhammad (and all its variations) still the most popular name to newborns in the UK?
Oh, it still is?
Carry on lads. [/quote]
Unless it has changed since last year. Why would that be a problem?
Top ten girlsâ?? names for 2014
Sophia (+2)
Emily (-)
Lily (+1)
Olivia (-3)
Amelia (+2)
Isla (+2)
Isabella (-2)
Ava (+2)
Sophie (-)
Top ten boysâ?? names for 2014
Muhammad (+27)
Oliver (-1)
Jack (-1)
Noah (+5)
Jacob (+2)
Charlie (-3)
Harry (-3)
Joshua (+4)
James (+1)
Ethan (-2)[/quote]
Problem? Indeed Sire. A big bloody problem.
Why is your take on usurpation by immigration? (I know, sounds like a Jessie Jackson rhyme!)
Fancy the UK home office stats? (England and Wales let’s say).
A pop of what, 56-8 mil?
What are their violent crime rate per 100,000 versus ours?
Yes, murder rate is higher here. Duh?
But that does not mean the UK is less violent.
Apples vs Apples
Less guns =/= Less violent crime.
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Do tell. I was just thinking I’ve had this conversation before. I was also wondering if this is one of the trolls the EU pays to troll forums and social media. [/quote]
Oh yes. He must be a troll because he disagrees with you and his experiences and analysis are not the same as yours.
/sarcasm
I don’t get the troll vibe. Never have, and he certainly doesn’t sound like any past troll members. Generally, he is very well spoken. So people disagree and get stubborn, that doesn’t sound like real life or anything.[/quote]
He claims to love America yet advocates the European elitist ideology, changes identity to try and convince us he’s someone different and denies information from credible sources such as the FBI. Yeah he’s a troll. [/quote]
I’m not defending him or his misinformed position. But surely you know a bunch of people that legitimately think highly of themselves as patriots and yet spout the same nonsense. We call them liberals most of the time. Poor misguided souls. But that doesn’t mean they don’t love America, it just means we think their positions are bunk. As for the changing identity I never looked that closely, as I just told beans above.
The rates of victimization for violent crime are lower in the US. This is true.[/quote]
Then why do the official FBI statistics only have lower rates of violent crime for robbery and knife crime than the UK? Everything else is higher. Far higher. This isn’t debatable, this is a direct comparison of official U.S statistics and U.K statistics.
I cited all sources from the British/U.K government and the American government and the relating authorities. How is this up for debate?[/quote]
Because a) you didn’t cite, you meta-cited. In other words, you cited a person citing information. With no link to the raw data. OR to the person and place you took the photo from. b) because you are ignoring a valid world organization study without giving any valid reason for doing so. In other words, you are not saying “this and this is the reason that study is flawed”. You are not even addressing the study in any way. If you want to be taken seriously you have to address the study, because it isn’t some conspiracy theory website, it’s the UN.
Lets do a little calculation. The FBI considers “violent crime” to be made of 4 categories: rape, murder/manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery. The UK does not count robbery in its violent crime statistics: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2014/stb-crime-stats.html#tab-Changes-in-Presentation
2013 data for UK:
634,586 “violent crimes against the person”
57,818 robbery
Total of 692,404 violent crimes according to FBI categories. According to the UK’ s methodological notes (pdf links found here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/methodological-notes/index.html), Rape does not seem to be included in their violent crime statistics for year 2013 (the most recent year). I will assume I am wrong and that it is simply “assumed” that rape is counted in the violent crime category and not explained. The net effect of NOT including rape under present statistics would result in a substantial increase in UK violent crime statistics.
Now, 2013 data for USA:
1,163,146 violent crimes according to FBI data. Includes robbery but not burglary. FBI — Violent Crime
Just for fun, I will add the total BURGLARIES to our “violent crime” statistics. That is an additional 1,928,465 crimes. (FBI — Burglary)
Total 3,091,611 violent crimes in USA, up from 1,163,146.
Reporting as “per 100,000”. 2013 population for UK–64.1 million. USA–316.5 million.
United Kingdom: 692,404 / 64.1 = 10,801.9 per 100,000. Without including “robbery” in their stats, it is 634,586 / 64.1 = 9,899.9 per 100K
USA: 3,091,611 / 316.5 = 9,768.1 per 100,000 people. Remember, this was with an added almost 2 million burglaries. Without that it is 3,675 per 100K people.
So, no matter which way you slice it, it is NOT APPARENT that the USA is significantly more violent than the UK. In fact, it looks less violent per capita overall, though of course our murder rate will be higher. So I feel quite confident in saying that the statistics are NOT CLEAR that we are more violent as a country per capita. Taking into account differing reporting and categorization protocols is beyond the scope of this limited post and would require digging into a full study, which I do not have time for, and am not inclined to bother with because the overall trend does NOT show that we are more violent as a whole. Naturally we do have higher gun crime because we have roughly 300 million guns that are privately owned in this country.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Lets do a little calculation. The FBI considers “violent crime” to be made of 4 categories: rape, murder/manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery. The UK does not count robbery in its violent crime statistics: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2014/stb-crime-stats.html#tab-Changes-in-Presentation
2013 data for UK:
634,586 “violent crimes against the person”
57,818 robbery
Total of 692,404 violent crimes according to FBI categories. According to the UK’ s methodological notes (pdf links found here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/methodological-notes/index.html), Rape does not seem to be included in their violent crime statistics for year 2013 (the most recent year). I will assume I am wrong and that it is simply “assumed” that rape is counted in the violent crime category and not explained. The net effect of NOT including rape under present statistics would result in a substantial increase in UK violent crime statistics.
Now, 2013 data for USA:
1,163,146 violent crimes according to FBI data. Includes robbery but not burglary. FBI — Violent Crime
Just for fun, I will add the total BURGLARIES to our “violent crime” statistics. That is an additional 1,928,465 crimes. (FBI — Burglary)
Total 3,091,611 violent crimes in USA, up from 1,163,146.
Reporting as “per 100,000”. 2013 population for UK–64.1 million. USA–316.5 million.
United Kingdom: 692,404 / 64.1 = 10,801.9 per 100,000. Without including “robbery” in their stats, it is 634,586 / 64.1 = 9,899.9 per 100K
USA: 3,091,611 / 316.5 = 9,768.1 per 100,000 people. Remember, this was with an added almost 2 million burglaries. Without that it is 3,675 per 100K people.
So, no matter which way you slice it, it is NOT APPARENT that the USA is significantly more violent than the UK. In fact, it looks less violent per capita overall, though of course our murder rate will be higher. So I feel quite confident in saying that the statistics are NOT CLEAR that we are more violent as a country per capita. Taking into account differing reporting and categorization protocols is beyond the scope of this limited post and would require digging into a full study, which I do not have time for, and am not inclined to bother with because the overall trend does NOT show that we are more violent as a whole. Naturally we do have higher gun crime because we have roughly 300 million guns that are privately owned in this country. [/quote]
In the UK, Hate Speech is probably defined as a “crime against persons”.
Are we really talking about this UN study again? IIRR the data was adjusted so a while bunch of countries could be compared to each other and it was vetted and vetted and then vetted some more.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Are we really talking about this UN study again? IIRR the data was adjusted so a while bunch of countries could be compared to each other and it was vetted and vetted and then vetted some more. [/quote]
Yes, and it clearly shows the UK leading the US in all the bad categories and some of the good ones too.
But this has been ignored, ignored, ignored by Mr.92 over the span of two screen names now.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Are we really talking about this UN study again? IIRC the data was adjusted so a whole bunch of countries could be compared to each other and it was vetted and vetted and then vetted some more. [/quote]
Yes, and it clearly shows the UK leading the US in all the bad categories and some of the good ones too.
But this has been ignored, ignored, ignored by Mr.92 over the span of two screen names now. [/quote]
Oh how I miss these fun debates in PWI…
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
In the UK, Hate Speech is probably defined as a “crime against persons”.
[/quote]
No, this was “violence against the person” and hate speech is not included according to their methodology report.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Lets do a little calculation. The FBI considers “violent crime” to be made of 4 categories: rape, murder/manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery. The UK does not count robbery in its violent crime statistics: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2014/stb-crime-stats.html#tab-Changes-in-Presentation
2013 data for UK:
634,586 “violent crimes against the person”
57,818 robbery
Total of 692,404 violent crimes according to FBI categories. According to the UK’ s methodological notes (pdf links found here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/methodological-notes/index.html), Rape does not seem to be included in their violent crime statistics for year 2013 (the most recent year). I will assume I am wrong and that it is simply “assumed” that rape is counted in the violent crime category and not explained. The net effect of NOT including rape under present statistics would result in a substantial increase in UK violent crime statistics.
Now, 2013 data for USA:
1,163,146 violent crimes according to FBI data. Includes robbery but not burglary. FBI — Violent Crime
Just for fun, I will add the total BURGLARIES to our “violent crime” statistics. That is an additional 1,928,465 crimes. (FBI — Burglary)
Total 3,091,611 violent crimes in USA, up from 1,163,146.
Reporting as “per 100,000”. 2013 population for UK–64.1 million. USA–316.5 million.
United Kingdom: 692,404 / 64.1 = 10,801.9 per 100,000. Without including “robbery” in their stats, it is 634,586 / 64.1 = 9,899.9 per 100K
USA: 3,091,611 / 316.5 = 9,768.1 per 100,000 people. Remember, this was with an added almost 2 million burglaries. Without that it is 3,675 per 100K people.
So, no matter which way you slice it, it is NOT APPARENT that the USA is significantly more violent than the UK. In fact, it looks less violent per capita overall, though of course our murder rate will be higher. So I feel quite confident in saying that the statistics are NOT CLEAR that we are more violent as a country per capita. Taking into account differing reporting and categorization protocols is beyond the scope of this limited post and would require digging into a full study, which I do not have time for, and am not inclined to bother with because the overall trend does NOT show that we are more violent as a whole. Naturally we do have higher gun crime because we have roughly 300 million guns that are privately owned in this country. [/quote]
Well done post, Aragorn. I appreciate the effort you put into this.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Lets do a little calculation. The FBI considers “violent crime” to be made of 4 categories: rape, murder/manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery. The UK does not count robbery in its violent crime statistics: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2014/stb-crime-stats.html#tab-Changes-in-Presentation
2013 data for UK:
634,586 “violent crimes against the person”
57,818 robbery
Total of 692,404 violent crimes according to FBI categories. According to the UK’ s methodological notes (pdf links found here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/methodological-notes/index.html), Rape does not seem to be included in their violent crime statistics for year 2013 (the most recent year). I will assume I am wrong and that it is simply “assumed” that rape is counted in the violent crime category and not explained. The net effect of NOT including rape under present statistics would result in a substantial increase in UK violent crime statistics.
Now, 2013 data for USA:
1,163,146 violent crimes according to FBI data. Includes robbery but not burglary. FBI — Violent Crime
Just for fun, I will add the total BURGLARIES to our “violent crime” statistics. That is an additional 1,928,465 crimes. (FBI — Burglary)
Total 3,091,611 violent crimes in USA, up from 1,163,146.
Reporting as “per 100,000”. 2013 population for UK–64.1 million. USA–316.5 million.
United Kingdom: 692,404 / 64.1 = 10,801.9 per 100,000. Without including “robbery” in their stats, it is 634,586 / 64.1 = 9,899.9 per 100K
USA: 3,091,611 / 316.5 = 9,768.1 per 100,000 people. Remember, this was with an added almost 2 million burglaries. Without that it is 3,675 per 100K people.
So, no matter which way you slice it, it is NOT APPARENT that the USA is significantly more violent than the UK. In fact, it looks less violent per capita overall, though of course our murder rate will be higher. So I feel quite confident in saying that the statistics are NOT CLEAR that we are more violent as a country per capita. Taking into account differing reporting and categorization protocols is beyond the scope of this limited post and would require digging into a full study, which I do not have time for, and am not inclined to bother with because the overall trend does NOT show that we are more violent as a whole. Naturally we do have higher gun crime because we have roughly 300 million guns that are privately owned in this country. [/quote]
Your last sentence is what I said that got beans raging. Gun control means you are far less likely to be murdered or shot than you are in the U.S. As I said I am for the right to bear arms. I don’t think liberty should be traded for security.
But people in this thread were saying the U.K is more dangerous to live than America because people don’t have guns lol.
This notion an armed society is a polite society is nonsensical. Why is most of the west unarmed and has lower violent crimes and gun crime than the U.S.
I guess the whole “if you ban legal gun owners from being armed that just means all the criminals have them and the law abiding citizens don’t” line isn’t holding up.
22 gun death in the UK. Per capita that is far lower than the per capita statistics for the U.S. Staggeringly lower. And U.K knife crime is around 0.2% higher per capita than the U.S. That 0.2% more knife crime does not go an inch to bridging the violence gap to level.
There is a reason per capita you are 35.2 times more likely to be killed by a gun and around 4 times more likely to be murdered in general. The notion the U.S is less dangerous than the U.K despite being far higher per capita in murder is illogical.
Look per capita at the chances of being murdered in the U.K and the U.S.
The facts don’t support that the U.K is anywhere near as dangerous. Why do the FBI statistics themselves have statistics that show per capita the U.S has more rates of almost every violent crime?
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
The facts I cherry pick don’t support that the U.K is anywhere near as dangerous. BEcause if I actually looked at the fects as a whole, and understood gun crime =/= all crime I’d have to eat my body weight in crow. So I’ll continue to ignore a peer reviewed study that shows, unequivocally that one is more likely to be a victim in the UK than in the US. [/quote]
Fixed that for you.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
The facts I cherry pick don’t support that the U.K is anywhere near as dangerous. BEcause if I actually looked at the fects as a whole, and understood gun crime =/= all crime I’d have to eat my body weight in crow. So I’ll continue to ignore a peer reviewed study that shows, unequivocally that one is more likely to be a victim in the UK than in the US. [/quote]
Fixed that for you. [/quote]
Peer reviewed study ? You mean part of a speculative unofficial portion of a U.N study that gathered unofficial data by merely asking people if they had been affected by crime. Not official statistics.
If you went to the U.S and asked how many people had suffered crime against them how many people would say they had? You are refusing to acknowledge the official statistics of your nation and instead referring to a U.N paper that asked random people if they had been victimised. 22% of the tiny amount of people they actually asked said they had. Well, I guess that means all the official statistics no longer matter. LOL.
This is like arguing with people over 9/11. If you don’t acknowledge official government statistics then what can anyone do?