A peek at the truth: Violence in the UK vs violence in the US.

[manaman]

Killings are lowest in 20 years
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/21/police-figures-unexpected-drop-crime
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/27/conservatives-crime-figures-reality-check
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8153392.stm

that's 651 murders in a population of 61,414,062 (that's the 2008 population number btw)

Crime is going down at record levels in England and Wales
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/22/uk-crime-rates-police-force

the risk of being a victim of crime is now at its lowest for 30 years
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/22/crime-falls-despite-recession-figures

basically don't belive the hype
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8368310.stm

most UK measures say crime has fallen year after year since 1997 except when the figures are in the hands of the opposition or certain newspapers who like to engender fear.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/852555f8-9004-11df-91b6-00144feab49a.html

anyway have a look for yourself:
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ia/atlas.html

There are two problems with those stories, one isn't really your fault. Those statistics are for England and Wales only. I used statistics for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Northern Ireland are definitely more violent places then England and Wales true, but not by the vast gap usually considered. The second problem is that the Home Office is the only body reporting those figures. The UN and European Union studies both Show a rise in both simple assault and major assault in England and Wales when graphed from 1996 to 2006, a rise in total crime, violent crime, but a dip in homicide rates in England and Wales, but a rise in homicide rates elsewhere in the UK. Specifically the study lists them as some of the countries with both the highest increasses and high incidents of assault. The European Union study lists the overall probability of becoming a victim of crime in the UK at 70%. Even the 2006 Home Office study showed an increase in crime between 2000 and 2006, while the 2009 study shows a decrease. Due to this disagreement between rates I choose to base most of the information of 2007. Yes it was three years ago, and yes the rates maybe falling, but the intent here was to show that if the US can be considered less violent then a nation commonly considered to not be violent, then the US is not in fact the violent place people consider it to be.

 

[Axolotl]

And I'll refer to Heinlein on this issue. "An armed society is a polite society."

Hence the world famous civility of Somalia.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

One thing I have noticed is when a society tries to deal with violence and law they disperse violence more than remove/lower it. Guns in the UK is a good example you get less deaths but more crime then they have to ban other items in order to try and lower the over all violence.

The US is a miss mash of ratios the most surprising is the regions with less laws on guns and more open carry laws you have less crime.

Cultural norms help lower/raise over all ratios but I think when a society tries to go out of its way to ban things in order to lower violence you get more situations where the lawless are more armed than the law abiding and the law abiding are that much more dependent on government local or regional protection, as laws tend to only effect the lawless. Law makers forget this in their march to get elected.....

 

[Agayek]

Guns are to killing what those scooters you sometimes see fat people on are to walking.
I've seen statistics that pretty much say the exact opposite, so I just ignore statistics.
That said, I live in a place without guns, and we don't have crime either so there's always that.

Your comparison isn't all that valid. If only because if you want someone dead, it doesn't matter if you have a gun at hand or not. The only true weapon is the mind. As long as it functions, you can successfully kill anyone, regardless of what tools are available.

I would also argue that guns, in and of themselves, are no more harmful than a knife or any of a number of other equally lethal items that are widely available. It requires either staggering amounts of stupidity or intent to do real damage with any of them.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I'm of the opinion that our backwards-ass laws are what has increased the damn murder rates in the UK, having the option to defend yourself without fear of getting raped in a shower a week later is a nice thing to have.
Of course, there are those out there that don't understand what defence is.

Striking someone who struck you? Defence.
Striking a man repeatedly after he insulted your mother? That's not defence...

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

And I'll refer to Heinlein on this issue. "An armed society is a polite society."

Hence the world famous civility of Somalia.

Ya but you will not remove the tensions and hatred by removing guns you will just created better armed groups who will use more random hit and run tactics. Also you can't really compare Somalia to a stable modern country, they have so many problems before you can even attempt a functional weaopn ban and even then if you have a army thats not that badly corrupted ...it just leads to that much easier of a coo...

I think the ideal of "An armed society is a polite society." is true, I mean look at tribes and other societies before the introduction of easy access to guns, everyone had a weaopn but not all social groups self imploded on themselves.

Guns are not really new persay they just make killing more efficient its humanities own lust for greed and control that ultimately causes strife and massacres and it dose not help politics ignores things in order to look good....

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Guns are to killing what those scooters you sometimes see fat people on are to walking.
I've seen statistics that pretty much say the exact opposite, so I just ignore statistics.
That said, I live in a place without guns, and we don't have crime either so there's always that.

Your comparison isn't all that valid. If only because if you want someone dead, it doesn't matter if you have a gun at hand or not. The only true weapon is the mind. As long as it functions, you can successfully kill anyone, regardless of what tools are available.

I would also argue that guns, in and of themselves, are no more harmful than a knife or any of a number of other equally lethal items that are widely available. It requires either staggering amounts of stupidity or intent to do real damage with any of them.

Well it is a decent comparison however he forgets some fat eople can not walk well at all due to other issues not just being lazy or fat. Its the same with guns, a gun is a tool that can kill but also has a deep and rich history yes it has bad history too but essentially its a tool with limited use as are bows as are nailing guns as are staplers as are bats. It comes down to the person using it as lawless or crazy people will use any object to harm others.

 

[kouriichi]

Huh.
You know, i have no trouble beliving that.

 

[The 5th Hour]

That was a very interesting thread - I look forward to reading you next time.

It saddens me that people will jump faster on the issue of gun ownership and it's relationship to violence than they will on the issue of rape. It's sad because people seem to naturally shy away, or just 'not see' the topic. And I want to say it was good of you to mention it in your essay, if only to stop it becoming a closet issue.

I don't know how rape differs in different countries and it's obviously hard considering no one knows how often it occurs. I think it's more of a regional issue rather than a issue that can be compared between countries. Even the best nations have their slums and impoverished areas where crime flourishes.

 

[Dys]

Isn't talking about violence and discounting murder a bit like talking about sexual assault and ignoring penetration? I don't disbelieve anything said, but I don't really see how the exclusion of the most typical violent crime, in a point made by comparing violent crime has any relevance to any argument about...anything. It's a pretty subjective comparison at best, I wonder how many of those violent crimes would've have been murders had an instant and relatively withdrawn method of murder been immediately available (all it takes is a split second of insanity to lethally shoot someone, most other methods require somewhat more effort).

Also, while I don't have much of an opinion on gun ownership (though I hate people who completely neglect common sense and leave loaded firearms lying around...It's not fascist gun control, it's just common sense) I feel the whole "if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns" argument is a touch flawed. I live in Melbourne, Australia and, outside of police, nearly all gun owners are criminals. Strangely enough, the only people who ever seem to be hurt by guns are also criminals (it's scary how easy they are to acquire), I'm far more worried about someone attacking me with a legal knife or broken bottle than I am about getting shot....

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

That was a very interesting thread - I look forward to reading you next time.

It saddens me that people will jump faster on the issue of gun ownership and it's relationship to violence than they will on the issue of rape. It's sad because people seem to naturally shy away, or just 'not see' the topic. And I want to say it was good of you to mention it in your essay, if only to stop it becoming a closet issue.

I don't know how rape differs in different countries and it's obviously hard considering no one knows how often it occurs. I think it's more of a regional issue rather than a issue that can be compared between countries. Even the best nations have their slums and impoverished areas where crime flourishes.

I think the gun debate is more diluted than rape but harder to prove completely one way or the other.



Rape like murder has 3 layers the victim the perpetrator and the evidence, unlike murder the vicing lives and the the situation is easier to fake. It can be as difficult as anything else to prove, but with the evolution of human bullying in law we could take a lot more steps when it claimed and processed.

But like parts of human bullying(sexual harassment, odd levels of forced eqaulity ,racial stuff,ect,ect) and the loss of presumption of innocents in the US.... its just a mess to deal with. If you are asking is rape bad, to me its the same as murder and needs to be handled like it.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Isn't talking about violence and discounting murder a bit like talking about sexual assault and ignoring penetration? I don't disbelieve anything said, but I don't really see how the exclusion of the most typical violent crime, in a point made by comparing violent crime has any relevance to any argument about...anything. It's a pretty subjective comparison at best, I wonder how many of those violent crimes would've have been murders had an instant and relatively withdrawn method of murder been immediately available (all it takes is a split second of insanity to lethally shoot someone, most other methods require somewhat more effort).

Also, while I don't have much of an opinion on gun ownership (though I hate people who completely neglect common sense and leave loaded firearms lying around...It's not fascist gun control, it's just common sense) I feel the whole "if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns" argument is a touch flawed. I live in Melbourne, Australia and, outside of police, nearly all gun owners are criminals. Strangely enough, the only people who ever seem to be hurt by guns are also criminals (it's scary how easy they are to acquire), I'm far more worried about someone attacking me with a legal knife or broken bottle than I am about getting shot....

All arguments are flawed and rape without penetration is still torture, but when a society makes laws to limit guns, creates zones(parks,forests,ect) to limit guns in you create better ways for criminals to take advantage of it. I think on gun ownership we have chosen zero tolerance over looking at the case things from a case by case perspective.

I don;t think we need a law to tell people how to put up guns I think we need a law to fine people when guns are misused even if its the death of their own child, tho I guess when the wablance is called people will want such laws repealed because tis somehow more harsh than life itself.

I see guns like I see vehicle ownership people do not know how to drive well and half of them should not even be on the road but we as a society don't really care about that and msot people want to be allowed to drive no matter how bad they are.

Gun ownership is like that but we have managed to place more odder more arbitrary rules on it and frankly zero tolerance BS is not helping things.

 

[The 5th Hour]

I think the gun debate is more diluted than rape but harder to prove completely one way or the other.



Rape like murder has 3 layers the victim the preparatory and the evidence, unlike murder the vicing lives and the the situation is easier to fake. It can be as difficult as anything else to prove, but with the evolution of human bullying in law we could take a lot more steps when it claimed and processed.

But like parts of human bullying(sexual harassment, odd levels of forced eqaulity ,racial stuff,ect,ect) and the loss of presumption of innocents in the US.... its just a mess to deal with. If you are asking is rape bad, to me its the same as murder and needs to be handled like it.

Yes I agree that rape is and will never be the black and white occurrence that murder is (not talking about motive or means - just outcome). Law isn't perfect and law enforcement isn't prefect either, unfortunately it's the reason rape is an almost impossible issue to solve perfectly and why some people hold the opinion that gun ownership is a civilian right. But you can't handle rape the same way you handle murder - we've been trying that for ages and although we are at the best time in human history for justice it could still be a whole lot better. Yes rape is bad, yes murder is bad - but different issues need different solutions.

 

[HK_01]

Now, seeing as everyone is talking about gun ownership instead of crime in general, let me just say this: I have yet to hear of a single case where a gun helped someone protect themselves against a criminal. I'm sure that there are some cases, but far too few to actually matter in the argument.

 

[Woodsey]

Meh, last time I looked at the figures there was more gun crime in NYC than the whole UK.

Maybe so but at least in America you can go out at night.

What the fu-

Where the hell do you live over here?! xD

Now, seeing as everyone is talking about gun ownership instead of crime in general, let me just say this: I have yet to hear of a single case where a gun helped someone protect themselves against a criminal. I'm sure that there are some cases, but far too few to actually matter in the argument.

I've never thought about that before but it's a good point.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Isn't talking about violence and discounting murder a bit like talking about sexual assault and ignoring penetration? I don't disbelieve anything said, but I don't really see how the exclusion of the most typical violent crime, in a point made by comparing violent crime has any relevance to any argument about...anything. It's a pretty subjective comparison at best, I wonder how many of those violent crimes would've have been murders had an instant and relatively withdrawn method of murder been immediately available (all it takes is a split second of insanity to lethally shoot someone, most other methods require somewhat more effort).

Also, while I don't have much of an opinion on gun ownership (though I hate people who completely neglect common sense and leave loaded firearms lying around...It's not fascist gun control, it's just common sense) I feel the whole "if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns" argument is a touch flawed. I live in Melbourne, Australia and, outside of police, nearly all gun owners are criminals. Strangely enough, the only people who ever seem to be hurt by guns are also criminals (it's scary how easy they are to acquire), I'm far more worried about someone attacking me with a legal knife or broken bottle than I am about getting shot....

All arguments are flawed and rape without penetration is still torture, but when a society makes laws to limit guns, creates zones(parks,forests,ect) to limit guns in you create better ways for criminals to take advantage of it. I think on gun ownership we have chosen zero tolerance over looking at the case things from a case by case perspective.

I don;t think we need a law to tell people how to put up guns I think we need a law to fine people when guns are misused even if its the death of their own child, tho I guess when the wablance is called people will want such laws repealed because tis somehow more harsh than life itself.

I see guns like I see vehicle ownership people do not know how to drive well and half of them should not even be on the road but we as a society don't really care about that and msot people want to be allowed to drive no matter how bad they are.

Gun ownership is like that but we have managed to place more odder more arbitrary rules on it and frankly zero tolerance BS is not helping things.

I Dont think you thought that one over. Fine people who got their own child killed? Who the fck would the money go to? The Kid? The Parents? The Familly? Or the people who sold them the gun? It just would not make any sence at all..

 

[Ironic Pirate]

This, boys and girls, is a "thread." Asking a silly hypothetical question, encouraging a procession of folks to leave their one-line answers, is not "discussion value." While I'm not going to debate in this thread, I do want to say that this is a very interesting read and a great write up by manaman.

Agreed. I give it an A+, because it should foster some interesting discussion.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I think the gun debate is more diluted than rape but harder to prove completely one way or the other.



Rape like murder has 3 layers the victim the preparatory and the evidence, unlike murder the vicing lives and the the situation is easier to fake. It can be as difficult as anything else to prove, but with the evolution of human bullying in law we could take a lot more steps when it claimed and processed.

But like parts of human bullying(sexual harassment, odd levels of forced eqaulity ,racial stuff,ect,ect) and the loss of presumption of innocents in the US.... its just a mess to deal with. If you are asking is rape bad, to me its the same as murder and needs to be handled like it.

Yes I agree that rape is and will never be the black and white occurrence that murder is (not talking about motive or means - just outcome). Law isn't perfect and law enforcement isn't prefect either, unfortunately it's the reason rape is an almost impossible issue to solve perfectly and why some people hold the opinion that gun ownership is a civilian right. But you can't handle rape the same way you handle murder - we've been trying that for ages and although we are at the best time in human history for justice it could still be a whole lot better. Yes rape is bad, yes murder is bad - but different issues need different solutions.

I dunno we treat murders pretty damn well IMO, Rape cases should have a process when claimed the preparatory (curse you spell checker curse you) is hit with a restraining order that both business and people need to follow, then it the case is put together if convicted , and first convicted it should be a mandatory 5 years and the same goes for lying about it, this way you reduce the chance of lairs, on the 2nd charge its like violating parole you are put in jail until the case is done, if the victim is lying thats a 5 year minim plus another 10 years of parole.For the 3rd to 6th charge its the same as the 2nd. Now on the 7th and beyond a jury or panel looks at the record, looks at the vitcoms and decides weather its bad luck or real predator behavior if convicted they get life, rapeing anyone under 10 life, at 11-13 the parents must inst on life other wise its treated as a 2nd offense, 14+ its treated like a first offense unless its not a first offense(IMO statutory rape needs to be done away with and parents need to stop using quasi sane laws to parent for them, and frankly at 16+ there is not a damn thing a parent can do to stop it so raise your fing kids better, also you should be able to sue soemone on civil grounds of corrupting a minor, it dose not need to be a criminal issue.).I don't think its overly harsh or excessive.

As for the sex offenders list you really need 2 convictions before you get on it and nothing else...zero tolerance puts kids who take pics of themselves on it..... holy hell we are so not a society of sane adults....