Understanding the UK

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

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.[/quote]

No, that’s not what got him upset. The stance that liberty should not be traded for security is entirely sensible and one he agrees with.

My last sentence very clearly says “we have a higher percentage of our current crime as gun crime because we have many times more guns”. What you said was “The US is more dangerous than the UK, and THAT IS BECAUSE OF GUNS”.

You did NOT make the point that guns make up a higher percentage of crime, you made the point that our crime is higher than your country’s crime BECAUSE of guns. That is a very different argument to make, and one that is at best exceedingly difficult to show. It is one that I have shown–as has the UN report that beans quoted–to at the very least be unclear, and likely to be entirely untrue.

No, that’s not what everybody was saying. It is perhaps something that ONE person I am aware of in this thread was saying, but not everybody. In any case, since the numbers don’t match your claim, you can make a case for it. Not a strong case perhaps, but you can make a case that our total violent crime numbers are lower than yours, even if we effectively double our numbers by adding burglary.

The numbers simply do not support your position, and you either need to admit you won’t approach the UN study, or admit that you don’t care about the numbers, or find a reason why they don’t match. You cannot, however, simply keep repeating “its not true because GUNS!” That’s not a reason, that is a declarative statement that has been challenged several times over with numbers and reports.

This is false. I just showed you it was not clearly true, and very possibly false. Do the calculation yourself. I added a safety factor of over 100% by padding our numbers with our burglary numbers. Either man up and bring up some supporting reasons for your position or admit you’re possibly wrong. This is annoying. LOWER GUN CRIME =/= LOWER VIOLENT CRIME. If two countries have 1,000 violent crimes, but in one 50 of those crimes are committed using a gun and the other has 500 using a gun, then you CANNOT clearly say that “country B has higher crime” . That’s not legitimate. You can say it has a higher PERCENTAGE of gun crime. That is true. And something I already admitted.

[quote] 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]

Your error is that you equated “murder” with “more dangerous overall”. You defined the problem differently than most in this thread, which was obvious from the beginning, and differently from most criminologists. This requires defense. The overall numbers are not in your favor, and we all have already admitted we have higher gun crime. Look at the total per capita numbers again.

You are claiming victory where it is not clear at all. So far I have limited myself to simply showing you that the conversation is not one-sidedly clear, as you seem to believe it is. I have not, actually, argued that the US is definitively safer. I have said it is not clear that the UK is safer by several measures. There are differences and they are important.

102

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Let us make one thing clear: my post–which you dismissed summarily by repeating your same lines again and without using any supporting reasons as to why you don’t like my numbers–used the FBI stats and the British Office for National Statistics official report, complete with sourced links. My post doesn’t support your position. And importantly, MY POST USES OFFICIAL NUMBERS FROM THE MOST UP-TO-DATE STATISTICS THERE ARE.

103

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
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.

[/quote]

We know you didn’t read the UN study, no need to keep confirming it.

104

Say, here’s an idea:

Let’s ONLY compare the capital cities of the two countries.

After all, both London and Washington are densely-populated, racially diverse cities with similarly strict gun laws and a surfeit of police officers.

Sure, London has a population of over eight million (if you count the entire metropolitan area), and DC Metro has far fewer, at only 5.8 million, but surely the Brits will be good sports about it and give us Colonials a handicap, comparing TOTAL numbers (not rate per 100,000) of violent crimes in the following four categories:

Homicide
Rape
Aggravated Assault (British equivalent would be Grievous Bodily Harm)
Armed Robbery

Ready?

Steady?

Go!

105

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Let us make one thing clear: my post–which you dismissed summarily by repeating your same lines again and without using any supporting reasons as to why you don’t like my numbers–used the FBI stats and the British Office for National Statistics official report, complete with sourced links. My post doesn’t support your position. And importantly, MY POST USES OFFICIAL NUMBERS FROM THE MOST UP-TO-DATE STATISTICS THERE ARE.[/quote]

So you, one guy on the internet interpreted the data completely differently to the way every organisation around the world does?
Can you explain to me why the U.S is ranked far higher for violent crime statistics than the U.K including the U.N, which did the study you and beans are claiming disproves the statement i am making?

Can you explain the rankings and why the U.S is ranked worse for almost every crime?

106

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
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.

[/quote]

We know you didn’t read the UN study, no need to keep confirming it. [/quote]

Did you?

“The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by an arm of the United Nations most recently in 2005, shows the difference between reported crime and all crimes committed by conducting polls that ask people if they’ve been victims of specific crimes. Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of “assaults and threats” per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher – 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales. So this data set doesnt support the thrust of the meme, either.”

107

This made me laugh:

When we presented the Skeptical Libertarian blog post and our own research to the source of the meme – Adam Kokesh, a libertarian activist – an aide to Kokesh sent us the original link from the Daily Telegraph and said, “We appreciate the close eye on that post and all the research.”

108

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Let us make one thing clear: my post–which you dismissed summarily by repeating your same lines again and without using any supporting reasons as to why you don’t like my numbers–used the FBI stats and the British Office for National Statistics official report, complete with sourced links. My post doesn’t support your position. And importantly, MY POST USES OFFICIAL NUMBERS FROM THE MOST UP-TO-DATE STATISTICS THERE ARE.[/quote]

No you compared unreported and reported crime in the U.K to only reported crime that lead to conviction in the U.S. That is why it is embarrassing beans keeps citing that study without realising why it is dumb as fuck to do so.

See my above posts that explain why even in that U.N study the U.S has worse statistics going by the study being cited to argue the position in opposition to mine. It is quite hilarious in a sad, ironic kind of a way.

109

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
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.

[/quote]

We know you didn’t read the UN study, no need to keep confirming it. [/quote]

Did you?

“The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by an arm of the United Nations most recently in 2005, shows the difference between reported crime and all crimes committed by conducting polls that ask people if they’ve been victims of specific crimes. Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of “assaults and threats” per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher – 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales. So this data set doesnt support the thrust of the meme, either.”[/quote]

Links politifact, not the study…

lmao you’re a buffoon of the highest order. Fuck you are stupid.

110

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Let us make one thing clear: my post–which you dismissed summarily by repeating your same lines again and without using any supporting reasons as to why you don’t like my numbers–used the FBI stats and the British Office for National Statistics official report, complete with sourced links. My post doesn’t support your position. And importantly, MY POST USES OFFICIAL NUMBERS FROM THE MOST UP-TO-DATE STATISTICS THERE ARE.[/quote]

So you, one guy on the internet interpreted the data completely differently to the way every organisation around the world does?
Can you explain to me why the U.S is ranked far higher for violent crime statistics than the U.K including the U.N, which did the study you and beans are claiming disproves the statement i am making?

Can you explain the rankings and why the U.S is ranked worse for almost every crime? [/quote]

Thank you, I’m already familiar with that site. I went to the source, you can see my links. If you choose to follow them of course, but the numbers are there. It depends on how the rankings are interpreted in the nationmaster site. Which, by the way, is not the same as the UN nor is it as official.

If you read the study from the UN, then analyze THAT study’s conclusions for me and tell me WHY they are either a) wrong, or b) why the study does not support beans’s conclusion. Those are the only two choices because if b) is not the case–i.e. if the UN study actually said what beans said, then NOT “every single organization in the world” interprets things as you wish they would.

You have made claims earlier that the UN didn’t use official numbers. Either a) substantiate those claims, since it seems you’ve read the study…or so you say…or b) retract that line of argument.

I asked you specific questions with regard to supporting your position which you have not answered. Don’t dodge.

111

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Let us make one thing clear: my post–which you dismissed summarily by repeating your same lines again and without using any supporting reasons as to why you don’t like my numbers–used the FBI stats and the British Office for National Statistics official report, complete with sourced links. My post doesn’t support your position. And importantly, MY POST USES OFFICIAL NUMBERS FROM THE MOST UP-TO-DATE STATISTICS THERE ARE.[/quote]

So you, one guy on the internet interpreted the data completely differently to the way every organisation around the world does?
Can you explain to me why the U.S is ranked far higher for violent crime statistics than the U.K including the U.N, which did the study you and beans are claiming disproves the statement i am making?

Can you explain the rankings and why the U.S is ranked worse for almost every crime? [/quote]

Thank you, I’m already familiar with that site. I went to the source, you can see my links. If you choose to follow them of course, but the numbers are there. It depends on how the rankings are interpreted in the nationmaster site. Which, by the way, is not the same as the UN nor is it as official.

If you read the study from the UN, then analyze THAT study’s conclusions for me and tell me WHY they are either a) wrong, or b) why the study does not support beans’s conclusion. Those are the only two choices because if b) is not the case–i.e. if the UN study actually said what beans said, then NOT “every single organization in the world” interprets things as you wish they would.

You have made claims earlier that the UN didn’t use official numbers. Either a) substantiate those claims, since it seems you’ve read the study…or so you say…or b) retract that line of argument.

I asked you specific questions with regard to supporting your position which you have not answered. Don’t dodge.[/quote]

I said the U.N did not use official crime statistics compiled by the U.K. They asked people if they had been victims of crime. That is true. The data are from surveys amongst the general public. Not official crime statistics for the nations in the poll.

112

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

No you compared unreported and reported crime in the U.K to only reported crime that lead to conviction in the U.S. That is why it is embarrassing beans keeps citing that study without realising why it is dumb as fuck to do so.

See my above posts that explain why even in that U.N study the U.S has worse statistics going by the study being cited to argue the position in opposition to mine. It is quite hilarious in a sad, ironic kind of a way.[/quote]

I took those numbers in my post directly from the parent databases at each of the official crime statistic databases presented.

The ONS is the recognized national statistical organization for your country. The numbers I took were from POLICE REPORTED CRIME. Not, “unreported”.

The FBI’s UCR is internationally used and recognized as gold standard for our country. If you are suggesting that the FBI only reports data that already led to a conviction, then you are flatly and demonstrably wrong. That is incorrect.

113

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

No you compared unreported and reported crime in the U.K to only reported crime that lead to conviction in the U.S. That is why it is embarrassing beans keeps citing that study without realising why it is dumb as fuck to do so.

See my above posts that explain why even in that U.N study the U.S has worse statistics going by the study being cited to argue the position in opposition to mine. It is quite hilarious in a sad, ironic kind of a way.[/quote]

I took those numbers in my post directly from the parent databases at each of the official crime statistic databases presented.

The ONS is the recognized national statistical organization for your country. The numbers I took were from POLICE REPORTED CRIME. Not, “unreported”.

The FBI’s UCR is internationally used and recognized as gold standard for our country. If you are suggesting that the FBI only reports data that already led to a conviction, then you are flatly and demonstrably wrong. That is incorrect. [/quote]

You misunderstand. I am saying the 2005 U.N study did.

114

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Say, here’s an idea:

Let’s ONLY compare the capital cities of the two countries.

After all, both London and Washington are densely-populated, racially diverse cities with similarly strict gun laws and a surfeit of police officers.

Sure, London has a population of over eight million (if you count the entire metropolitan area), and DC Metro has far fewer, at only 5.8 million, but surely the Brits will be good sports about it and give us Colonials a handicap, comparing TOTAL numbers (not rate per 100,000) of violent crimes in the following four categories:

Homicide
Rape
Aggravated Assault (British equivalent would be Grievous Bodily Harm)
Armed Robbery

Ready?

Steady?

Go![/quote]

Year 2013 London-----Wash, D.C.
Homicide 112------104 (includes the 12 victims of the US Naval Yard shooting)
rape, 4,206-----298 (as “sexual assault” not only rape)
Grievous BH 18,752----3,830
Robbery 28,254----4,093

These are both from the Metropolitan Police official stats. They are not adjusted for population, but are total numbers.

115

So nobody wants to compare crime stats in London to those in Washington DC?

Comparing a giant continental landmass with a population of 320 million to a little island with a population of 64 million is not exactly a fair comparison, unless you are only interested in showing a certain set of results.

Compare the two capital cities. See what happens.

116

Yamato,
How do you define “dangerous”? Murder rate only?
I define dangerous as ** How likely am I going to be a victim of a violent crime.

Do we differ?

117

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Year 2013 London-----Wash, D.C.

Robbery 28,254----4,093
[/quote]

lol. But hey, they didn’t usez da gunz to robbzzz you…

118

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
So nobody wants to compare crime stats in London to those in Washington DC?

Comparing a giant continental landmass with a population of 320 million to a little island with a population of 64 million is not exactly a fair comparison, unless you are only interested in showing a certain set of results.

Compare the two capital cities. See what happens.[/quote]

I suppose it would be better, but even then I don’t see any value in a comparison. The demographics, culture, etc… are just too different.

119

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
So nobody wants to compare crime stats in London to those in Washington DC?

Comparing a giant continental landmass with a population of 320 million to a little island with a population of 64 million is not exactly a fair comparison, unless you are only interested in showing a certain set of results.

Compare the two capital cities. See what happens.[/quote]

I suppose it would be better, but even then I don’t see any value in a comparison. The demographics, culture, etc… are just too different. [/quote]

There are 590% more robbery’s in London than DC. I would imagine even if you added in Baltimore it would still be a bit more significant.

There is a lot of value in that given the arguments given in this thread and the insults hurled at those of us that can read things outside our bubble once in awhile. .

120

Sorry if I have missed it. Why is Yamato using UN stats as opposed to the UK Home Office stats??