This will be the first a series of commonly misunderstood stances. This issue focuses on the view that the US is a violent place, by comparing it with another country commonly seen as a relatively stable and safe country.
Discounting murders (because of the historically low murder rates in the UK this figure would distort these statistics I am going to present).
The US has a total violent crime rate of 463, the UK has a violent crime rate of 2,300 these are per 100,000 people. However this rate is disputed as the violent crimes reported where during this time frame (2007 for both countries, as this is the last year with solid figures in all areas for both population and crimes in both countries, some estimation is done in other years) was 2,420,000. Since the population of the UK was some 60,609,153 this actually gives a rate of 3992.8. Going by the EU figures (with no indication provided for crimes and figures where added into the rate and which where left out) we have a violent crime rate of 2,034.
The most violent place in the US, Washington D.C., had a decades old ban on firearms. Still even with a rate twice the national average they had less then half the reported rate in the UK. For the sake of accuracy I will state that D.C. also had one of the worst murder rates in the world at the time.
The murder rate:
US - 0.042802 per 1,000 people, UK: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people (global average is .1)
Which translates to:
US - 16,204, UK - roughly 1,000 total murders. Figures released by the UK government are notoriously inaccurate, and usually only list total homicides (1,645), and rarely release any kind of break down, even as simple as which deaths where, negligent, and murder. However good estimated figures exist for which crimes where in fact murders and hover around 1,000-1,200)
Arguments, where you can possibly say that having a gun around possibly contributed to the escalation to murder accounted for only 3,645 murders in the US. However only some 1,200 of those where committed with a firearm, in crimes of passion people use whatever is handy, which is not a gun as often as you might think. While most murders (10,000 of them) where committed with a firearm. Gangland killings accounted for 77 murders, arguments over property (and committed during a robbery) accounted for 282 murders. It's far more likely that you are going to be the target of murder in this country then the victim of a botched robbery, a gang murder or even a brawl escalated into murder.
In total escalated violence, and accounted for a little over half the murders in the US. The rest where crimes of passion, and premeditated murder.
Private statistics from the country show that armed robbery with handguns has risen 40% since 1997, and that overall some 10% of murders in the UK are committed with guns. The murder rate has also drastically increased in the country since 1954 by nearly 70%. Violent crime risen as well. Inner city areas account for most of this increase where rates have nearly doubled (91% increase). A drastic increase in gun violence in a country that is held as the gold standard of gun control.
All of this is irrelevant because the initial gun laws had little to do with protecting individuals as they did with protecting society in the UK. Labor disruption lead to fears of Bolshevik revolt lead to the first major gun bans in the 20s. Unfounded or not the government felt it needed to remove guns from the hands of individuals to protect society as a whole. This reversal of centuries of common law is evident more now then ever before in the country. Where the country has laws making defending yourself on an individual level a risky proposition, let alone defending another. The country has sacrificed individual liberties for social security, and figures stacking up seem to show that it's not working. You cannot take a good long look at the social changes that account for the massive increase in violence in the country since the 1960s without a look at the policies that enabled them including gun control. However I would like to state that gun control is irrelevant to this argument. The gun laws came about because of the social changes that lead to more violence and did not cause them.
When I mention a historically low murder rate in the UK I mean it. As long as they have been tracking murder rates (since around 1700) the UK has fluctuated around 1.0 murders per 100,000 people. Up to the 1960s the UK rate was stable around 1.0, since 1960 it has risen nearly a 50% increase to 1.4. The increase in crime cannot be attributed to a lack of funding for police as the police presence has risen out of proportion with the crime rates since the 1960s as well and from a rate of 15 per 1,000 people to a rate of 110.9 per 1,000, dipping slightly after the 90s to a rate of 92 per 1,000 (For England and wales, only accurate figures by the governments where unavailable for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but are estimated to be higher). That is a six fold increase in police presence.
The rape dispute:
I would like to take a moment to also contend that while rape convictions in the US remain higher then the UK, the UK has taken to dismissing many more minor rape charges (such as minors and taking advantage of an inebriated individuals).
Reporting in rape cases has always remained low, but it seems that the lack of punishment for these specific rape cases has lead reporting to sink even lower. The US remains a reporting rate of about 30 per 100,000 while the UK has a rate of 22. In other words reported rapes are lower in the UK. However a vetted survey that includes research presented by BBC 1 in the UK that showed there where an estimated 85,000 cases that would have qualified as rape under US laws occurred in 2006, but only 800 convictions for rape, figures show that 13,000 rape cases where reported in the UK during the same time frame, meaning only roughly 16% of rapes are reported in the UK, while in the US 41% of rapes are reported.
Not all together surprising when an estimated 1% of rapists are actually punished for their crime.
While the figures may be prone to some over reporting, as they indicate some 1 out every every 230 women in the UK was raped in 2006. That would still pale in comparison to South Africa where one out every three women in a sample of 4,000 surveyed where rapped in the same year.
The US has a reporting rating of roughly 40% for rapes, 47% of those involved alcohol or where date rapes. While the US has seen a sharp decline in rapes since 1980 (roughly 80%) it is likely the majority of this is lack of reporting as what constitutes rape has changed. Not as many women report incidents where things escalated while alcohol was involved.
The US probably leads crime statistics only in homicides, with rape a contested category. Even using only figures provided by the government in the UK the rates of all crimes aside from Rape and homicide are higher in the UK, with most being four times as high. However with the falling homicide rate in the US (at the end of the 80s the rate stood at 7, and is currently 5.4, most notably the areas with the highest rates across the country are falling drastically) and the rising rate in the UK it may only be a matter of time before the rates are comparable.
Both countries suffered a rise in violence from the early to mid century, however this rise started to reverse in the 80s in the US while it escalated in the UK.
How it compares with some other countries:
Germany has seen an increase in violent crime lagging behind the rest of the world starting in the 80s. The full extent of this increase cannot be judged yet. Germany remains a relatively safe place to live. Canada has roughly twice the violent crime rate of the US. Only Australia seem to be immune to the social woes plaguing modern developed countries, with some of the lowest crime statistics in the developed world outside ignoring minor countries with small populations that skew results.
I should have at some point several other in depth looks into some popular misconceptions people have. Should you yourself know any, or wish to suggest any feel free to!
The second, as suggested by Pete, the Ground Zero mosque. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.236359-A-peek-at-the-truth-Why-does-an-argument-against-the-Ground-Zero-mosque-even-exist]
Dispute, discuss or tell stories, whatever you people want, as long as it is relatively on topic. And if you read the entire lengthy post, thanks.
Discounting murders (because of the historically low murder rates in the UK this figure would distort these statistics I am going to present).
The US has a total violent crime rate of 463, the UK has a violent crime rate of 2,300 these are per 100,000 people. However this rate is disputed as the violent crimes reported where during this time frame (2007 for both countries, as this is the last year with solid figures in all areas for both population and crimes in both countries, some estimation is done in other years) was 2,420,000. Since the population of the UK was some 60,609,153 this actually gives a rate of 3992.8. Going by the EU figures (with no indication provided for crimes and figures where added into the rate and which where left out) we have a violent crime rate of 2,034.
The most violent place in the US, Washington D.C., had a decades old ban on firearms. Still even with a rate twice the national average they had less then half the reported rate in the UK. For the sake of accuracy I will state that D.C. also had one of the worst murder rates in the world at the time.
The murder rate:
US - 0.042802 per 1,000 people, UK: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people (global average is .1)
Which translates to:
US - 16,204, UK - roughly 1,000 total murders. Figures released by the UK government are notoriously inaccurate, and usually only list total homicides (1,645), and rarely release any kind of break down, even as simple as which deaths where, negligent, and murder. However good estimated figures exist for which crimes where in fact murders and hover around 1,000-1,200)
Arguments, where you can possibly say that having a gun around possibly contributed to the escalation to murder accounted for only 3,645 murders in the US. However only some 1,200 of those where committed with a firearm, in crimes of passion people use whatever is handy, which is not a gun as often as you might think. While most murders (10,000 of them) where committed with a firearm. Gangland killings accounted for 77 murders, arguments over property (and committed during a robbery) accounted for 282 murders. It's far more likely that you are going to be the target of murder in this country then the victim of a botched robbery, a gang murder or even a brawl escalated into murder.
In total escalated violence, and accounted for a little over half the murders in the US. The rest where crimes of passion, and premeditated murder.
Private statistics from the country show that armed robbery with handguns has risen 40% since 1997, and that overall some 10% of murders in the UK are committed with guns. The murder rate has also drastically increased in the country since 1954 by nearly 70%. Violent crime risen as well. Inner city areas account for most of this increase where rates have nearly doubled (91% increase). A drastic increase in gun violence in a country that is held as the gold standard of gun control.
All of this is irrelevant because the initial gun laws had little to do with protecting individuals as they did with protecting society in the UK. Labor disruption lead to fears of Bolshevik revolt lead to the first major gun bans in the 20s. Unfounded or not the government felt it needed to remove guns from the hands of individuals to protect society as a whole. This reversal of centuries of common law is evident more now then ever before in the country. Where the country has laws making defending yourself on an individual level a risky proposition, let alone defending another. The country has sacrificed individual liberties for social security, and figures stacking up seem to show that it's not working. You cannot take a good long look at the social changes that account for the massive increase in violence in the country since the 1960s without a look at the policies that enabled them including gun control. However I would like to state that gun control is irrelevant to this argument. The gun laws came about because of the social changes that lead to more violence and did not cause them.
When I mention a historically low murder rate in the UK I mean it. As long as they have been tracking murder rates (since around 1700) the UK has fluctuated around 1.0 murders per 100,000 people. Up to the 1960s the UK rate was stable around 1.0, since 1960 it has risen nearly a 50% increase to 1.4. The increase in crime cannot be attributed to a lack of funding for police as the police presence has risen out of proportion with the crime rates since the 1960s as well and from a rate of 15 per 1,000 people to a rate of 110.9 per 1,000, dipping slightly after the 90s to a rate of 92 per 1,000 (For England and wales, only accurate figures by the governments where unavailable for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but are estimated to be higher). That is a six fold increase in police presence.
The rape dispute:
I would like to take a moment to also contend that while rape convictions in the US remain higher then the UK, the UK has taken to dismissing many more minor rape charges (such as minors and taking advantage of an inebriated individuals).
Reporting in rape cases has always remained low, but it seems that the lack of punishment for these specific rape cases has lead reporting to sink even lower. The US remains a reporting rate of about 30 per 100,000 while the UK has a rate of 22. In other words reported rapes are lower in the UK. However a vetted survey that includes research presented by BBC 1 in the UK that showed there where an estimated 85,000 cases that would have qualified as rape under US laws occurred in 2006, but only 800 convictions for rape, figures show that 13,000 rape cases where reported in the UK during the same time frame, meaning only roughly 16% of rapes are reported in the UK, while in the US 41% of rapes are reported.
Not all together surprising when an estimated 1% of rapists are actually punished for their crime.
While the figures may be prone to some over reporting, as they indicate some 1 out every every 230 women in the UK was raped in 2006. That would still pale in comparison to South Africa where one out every three women in a sample of 4,000 surveyed where rapped in the same year.
The US has a reporting rating of roughly 40% for rapes, 47% of those involved alcohol or where date rapes. While the US has seen a sharp decline in rapes since 1980 (roughly 80%) it is likely the majority of this is lack of reporting as what constitutes rape has changed. Not as many women report incidents where things escalated while alcohol was involved.
The US probably leads crime statistics only in homicides, with rape a contested category. Even using only figures provided by the government in the UK the rates of all crimes aside from Rape and homicide are higher in the UK, with most being four times as high. However with the falling homicide rate in the US (at the end of the 80s the rate stood at 7, and is currently 5.4, most notably the areas with the highest rates across the country are falling drastically) and the rising rate in the UK it may only be a matter of time before the rates are comparable.
Both countries suffered a rise in violence from the early to mid century, however this rise started to reverse in the 80s in the US while it escalated in the UK.
How it compares with some other countries:
Germany has seen an increase in violent crime lagging behind the rest of the world starting in the 80s. The full extent of this increase cannot be judged yet. Germany remains a relatively safe place to live. Canada has roughly twice the violent crime rate of the US. Only Australia seem to be immune to the social woes plaguing modern developed countries, with some of the lowest crime statistics in the developed world outside ignoring minor countries with small populations that skew results.
I should have at some point several other in depth looks into some popular misconceptions people have. Should you yourself know any, or wish to suggest any feel free to!
The second, as suggested by Pete, the Ground Zero mosque. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.236359-A-peek-at-the-truth-Why-does-an-argument-against-the-Ground-Zero-mosque-even-exist]
Dispute, discuss or tell stories, whatever you people want, as long as it is relatively on topic. And if you read the entire lengthy post, thanks.
