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comparison at best, I wonder how many of those violent crimes would've have been murders had an instant and relatively withdrawn method of murder been immediately available (all it takes is a split second of insanity to lethally shoot someone, most other methods require somewhat more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misused even if its the death of their own child, tho I guess when the wablance is called people will want such laws repealed because tis somehow more harsh than life itself.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..
Fine goes to the city/court/state for putting up with stupid people?
Unless you can prove the kid got it out of the safe,ect. Even then it should be a minor violation as any mis use of a weaopn should apply to the owner unless they within 30/90 days of finding it missing report it as stolen.
That or we treat the weaopn as a more neutral object and focus on who is mis using it if a child it goes to the parent to own up to it and pay the fine to help the court/cops/system keep going.
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 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....
I didn't say we don't treat murders well, but the very existence of the reality of murders points to a fault somewhere in the nature of law and the keeping of it. There is no perfect system because humans aren't prefect.
I'm skeptical of the idea of punishing people who lie about being raped although I acknowledge the reasoning behind it. The problem is that the system isn't prefect and people will inevitably end up being punished for speaking out about being raped, and it acts as a deterrent to people who might want to speak out about being raped. The mind of a victim doesn't need that added push factor from going to the law.
I'm also skeptical about your view of the sex offenders list, is your proposition a 'one size fits all' rule or would you have a different law for those who have quite obviously committed a heinous crime? The problem with double standards is that they have less integrity in court.
I didn't say we don't treat murders well, but the very existence of the reality of murders points to a fault somewhere in the nature of law and the keeping of it. There is no perfect system because humans aren't prefect.
I'm skeptical of the idea of punishing people who lie about being raped although I acknowledge the reasoning behind it. The problem is that the system isn't prefect and people will inevitably end up being punished for speaking out about being raped, and it acts as a deterrent to people who might want to speak out about being raped. The mind of a victim doesn't need that added push factor from going to the law.
I'm also skeptical about your view of the sex offenders list, is your proposition a 'one size fits all' rule or would you have a different law for those who have quite obviously committed a heinous crime? The problem with double standards is that they have less integrity in court.
Modern humanity is naive, older humanity where is life is equal to dirt is dumb, frankly if you fail to live within the rules of society guided by a true non politically correct or expedient sense of fairness and compassion(drug addicts should be taken care of drugs be made legal and we handle the problem from healthcare standpoint rather than a law enforcement one where we fight a never ending battle with an ever growing black market, welfare is good but if you are on it or social security or a government program to help you live/survive you need to be drug tested you need to have more programs available to you to seek work or further education, which could be done if the education system in this country was not a broken joke) then you have no right to live within that society, habitable murders and rapists(child or other wise) need to be culled from the prison system, I think beyond that anythign else is debatable.
mmm to convict someone of lying on rape charges you will need evidence(correspondence,audio,ect,ect ) or a confession frankly the process is as lengthy as the rape case itself, thus its for lack of a better term balanced.
Minors and children are different you can't use a one size fits all approach for them, harming children(thos under 10 IMO) should come with a more harsh punishment, for the beginning young adult phaze slightly less harsh with the parent(s)having a say in which way the direction of the case goes(either its treated with maxim punishment in mind or its handled as a adult on adult crime).
For those 14+ they can use civil court to back up whatever the criminal system dose, on the flip side when they do something wrong it is split between the parent and their charge, for minor things fines(which can be paid via doubling the amount and garnishing it monthly from their welfare ) and community time, for medium criminal things (theft over 500, assault with server injury or death,ect) fines(which can be paid via doubling the amount and garnishing it monthly from their welfare ) and community time on the guardian(s). If the guardian is disabled in some(and reafrimed by a court appointed doctor) way they just have to sit while the others pickup trash,ect.
The reason we should treat children a bit different is they can grow up to be a burden on society, after a certain point there is nothing much that can be done and you are going to have to treat that minor as a adult.
This seems what I would call adult this seems what I can call fair and logical. Tho such thigns and the real world are not always fucitonalable. . .
The sex offenders list IMO is these days a joke, and frankly child porn is the new wave of Nazism/consumerism,ect. people here it and stop thinking, they devolve back into a clannish state of me and mine vrs everyone else. Kids can not sex offenders or predators can they be messed up and not better parenting or mental health help yes but if lil Johny is groping lil Suzy perhaps he needs to be told not to do that be an adult and either sent to the corner or spanked if he dose not...put on a list? WTF?
Begin of long rant about schools.
Oh and don't get me started on pocket knifes,nail files,aspirin,medication and such..... good god why is the school the absolute accountable person when soemone else kid hurts another? The school,ect is neutral ground the guardians are temporary and unless real neglect is involve not accountable for abusive behavior(unless their doing it), how about public school you sign a waiver that you can not sue the school for anything but specific cases of real abuse or neglect?
single person is raped by the same person more than once I think stalking laws,ect kick in.
Now I am going to rant on child porn if you can't handle thinking about the subject then don;t read it.
First off distribution of it is something that should not be a crime, rather it should be handled in civil court. I believe between copy right laws and class action lawsuits it would be rather easy for the populace to mitigate it.
This allows for fake child porn and all kinds of reasonable fiction,ect to be created and made without it being treated the same as child porn since we have fell off that slippery slope. Now lets move on to production and sell, all sell is banned it may lead to reasonable things being banned but at least its a bit more progressive/dexterous than kill im all and let god sort them out. If a person or group is involved in the production of child or minor porn, that was not black mailed or beaten into it(that is inducing the minor person who's over 14 and did it for the money, unless they did it to keep family or parent alive by buying them legal medication and such things, helping a friend out with collage,ect or even yourself for further education is not a good enough reason, tho the 500K may be wavered assessed that can be linked to it need to be csesed tho), its an automatic felony with fines up to 500K, all property and assets ceased, as well as anything the spouse has.
When it comes nudity and posing I don't see a problem with it, if it shows an open vagina or a erected penis then it crosses into pornography and can not be sold.
Production needs to be better defined to separate the abusive for sell stuff from the kids being kids stuff.
The selling of child porn should be treated in a similar manner assets ceased and a fine of 10000 the amount made off it, so a buck a pic is 10K per pic, or you made 10K you pay to society 1M in fines.
Also the adults involved in it where abuse is clear need to be put away for life, or paroled for life with one chance to not screw up again after their time is served, of course if they were doing teh raping ect they are already in trouble if they pass the 6th count of rape.
Now heres an even stupider question, should it be set up so counts of rape be counted by the person or indecent? Due it it being life after the 6th by the person makes sense, if a single person is raped by the same person more than once I think stalking laws,ect kick in.
I know I know I know I think to much and and sometimes not enough but I am more on the side of we have enough laws we don;t need all the ones we got and we need to change some things to work better.
I tend to think in vast generalizations, that in order to work need tweaking and toning down and maybe just maybe a mega ton of word processing... LOL
what about the difference in US pop and UK pop, idk what UK's pop is but what are the crime rates if they are both at an equal population based on the number you have displayed?
Edit: UK: 61,414,062
US: 307,006,550
Forgive me if i missed the point of the thread, i just woke up a bit ago and i am still kinda sleepy, but the UK has rougly 1/5 the pop of US, if the population was mad equal (or find a ratio of the crime rates) which country would have more crime?
Forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong, but isn't the UK now counted alongside the rest of the European Union as one when it comes to these types of statistics?
Off topic: I can't wait for GTA: London 2, a bit more focus on melee combat and buying illegal guns.
Okay, here's the main thing to take away from this: Everywhere in the world there are sick fkers. Larger populations, logically, have more of them, but in overall statistics the percentages will be fairly close.
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..
Fine goes to the city/court/state for putting up with stupid people?
Unless you can prove the kid got it out of the safe,ect. Even then it should be a minor violation as any mis use of a weaopn should apply to the owner unless they within 30/90 days of finding it missing report it as stolen.
That or we treat the weaopn as a more neutral object and focus on who is mis using it if a child it goes to the parent to own up to it and pay the fine to help the court/cops/system keep going.
So on top of them being heartbroken over the loss of their child you want them to be broke too? Wow. Now i indeed do see why it is such a great country. This thread proved my thoughts wrong!
On a more serious note. This is the kind of stuff that could easily create a corrupt policeforce and an image of lawyers being evil. (Oh wait)
The OP is well written, but I feel that comparing the UK (statistcaly at least) with America is a bad idea from the start, purely because of its size. Amarica spans an entire continent coast to coast, whereas England is an island which I'm fairly sure could fit comfortably in most states. It doesn't seem right to compare statistics per 1000 people when america hs countless billions more people.
Another country concidered safer than America would be Australia, which is also a continent - it would probably look better for America if it could say it had a lower level of crime than Australia. Canada is another example, but while China and Russia are the also in the listof the worlds biggest countries, Russia is too sparsely populated, and Chinese figures could be distorted by their government.
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..
Fine goes to the city/court/state for putting up with stupid people?
Unless you can prove the kid got it out of the safe,ect. Even then it should be a minor violation as any mis use of a weaopn should apply to the owner unless they within 30/90 days of finding it missing report it as stolen.
That or we treat the weaopn as a more neutral object and focus on who is mis using it if a child it goes to the parent to own up to it and pay the fine to help the court/cops/system keep going.
So on top of them being heartbroken over the loss of their child you want them to be broke too? Wow. Now i indeed do see why it is such a great country. This thread proved my thoughts wrong!
On a more serious note. This is the kind of stuff that could easily create a corrupt policeforce and an image of lawyers being evil. (Oh wait)
I guess one could omit it if your own kid got killed by an unsecured weaopn of thiers.
I waz short sighted...I tend to go run my trains of thought off the tracks...or mash them up real good LOL
Everyone else, to quote my motto, "Politicians prefer unarmed peasants."
So let's have a little game of guess that politician,
Quote One
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Quote Two
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States..."
Quote Three
"To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..."
I think all the Euros on the escapist have completely missed the point of gun ownership in America, it wasn't guaranteed to protect ourselves from one another (though that is an additional quality.) It was implemented so we could keep our government in check.
Well its normal progression of a society really, the populace is busy with their daily lives beyond that they have to be nurtured to do more in politics,civics,ect. The reason for us to bear arms was due to the revolution these days its nothing more than a annoyance in control of the populace. Our Constitution did a poor job in separating money/wealth and government and we are reaping that disconnect via ever growing empire... the US can not sustain itself and will eventual collapse but will it be on the path of good intention or domination who knows....
Modern humanity is naive, older humanity where is life is equal to dirt is dumb, frankly if you fail to live within the rules of society guided by a true non politically correct or expedient sense of fairness and compassion(drug addicts should be taken care of drugs be made legal and we handle the problem from healthcare standpoint rather than a law enforcement one where we fight a never ending battle with an ever growing black market, welfare is good but if you are on it or social security or a government program to help you live/survive you need to be drug tested you need to have more programs available to you to seek work or further education, which could be done if the education system in this country was not a broken joke) then you have no right to live within that society, habitable murders and rapists(child or other wise) need to be culled from the prison system, I think beyond that anythign else is debatable.
mmm to convict someone of lying on rape charges you will need evidence(correspondence,audio,ect,ect ) or a confession frankly the process is as lengthy as the rape case itself, thus its for lack of a better term balanced.
Minors and children are different you can't use a one size fits all approach for them, harming children(thos under 10 IMO) should come with a more harsh punishment, for the beginning young adult phaze slightly less harsh with the parent(s)having a say in which way the direction of the case goes(either its treated with maxim punishment in mind or its handled as a adult on adult crime).
For those 14+ they can use civil court to back up whatever the criminal system dose, on the flip side when they do something wrong it is split between the parent and their charge, for minor things fines(which can be paid via doubling the amount and garnishing it monthly from their welfare ) and community time, for medium criminal things (theft over 500, assault with server injury or death,ect) fines(which can be paid via doubling the amount and garnishing it monthly from their welfare ) and community time on the guardian(s). If the guardian is disabled in some(and reafrimed by a court appointed doctor) way they just have to sit while the others pickup trash,ect.
The reason we should treat children a bit different is they can grow up to be a burden on society, after a certain point there is nothing much that can be done and you are going to have to treat that minor as a adult.
This seems what I would call adult this seems what I can call fair and logical. Tho such thigns and the real world are not always fucitonalable. . .
The sex offenders list IMO is these days a joke, and frankly child porn is the new wave of Nazism/consumerism,ect. people here it and stop thinking, they devolve back into a clannish state of me and mine vrs everyone else. Kids can not sex offenders or predators can they be messed up and not better parenting or mental health help yes but if lil Johny is groping lil Suzy perhaps he needs to be told not to do that be an adult and either sent to the corner or spanked if he dose not...put on a list? WTF?
Begin of long rant about schools.
Oh and don't get me started on pocket knifes,nail files,aspirin,medication and such..... good god why is the school the absolute accountable person when soemone else kid hurts another? The school,ect is neutral ground the guardians are temporary and unless real neglect is involve not accountable for abusive behavior(unless their doing it), how about public school you sign a waiver that you can not sue the school for anything but specific cases of real abuse or neglect?
single person is raped by the same person more than once I think stalking laws,ect kick in.
Now I am going to rant on child porn if you can't handle thinking about the subject then don;t read it.
First off distribution of it is something that should not be a crime, rather it should be handled in civil court. I believe between copy right laws and class action lawsuits it would be rather easy for the populace to mitigate it.
This allows for fake child porn and all kinds of reasonable fiction,ect to be created and made without it being treated the same as child porn since we have fell off that slippery slope. Now lets move on to production and sell, all sell is banned it may lead to reasonable things being banned but at least its a bit more progressive/dexterous than kill im all and let god sort them out. If a person or group is involved in the production of child or minor porn, that was not black mailed or beaten into it(that is inducing the minor person who's over 14 and did it for the money, unless they did it to keep family or parent alive by buying them legal medication and such things, helping a friend out with collage,ect or even yourself for further education is not a good enough reason, tho the 500K may be wavered assessed that can be linked to it need to be csesed tho), its an automatic felony with fines up to 500K, all property and assets ceased, as well as anything the spouse has.
When it comes nudity and posing I don't see a problem with it, if it shows an open vagina or a erected penis then it crosses into pornography and can not be sold.
Production needs to be better defined to separate the abusive for sell stuff from the kids being kids stuff.
The selling of child porn should be treated in a similar manner assets ceased and a fine of 10000 the amount made off it, so a buck a pic is 10K per pic, or you made 10K you pay to society 1M in fines.
Also the adults involved in it where abuse is clear need to be put away for life, or paroled for life with one chance to not screw up again after their time is served, of course if they were doing teh raping ect they are already in trouble if they pass the 6th count of rape.
Now heres an even stupider question, should it be set up so counts of rape be counted by the person or indecent? Due it it being life after the 6th by the person makes sense, if a single person is raped by the same person more than once I think stalking laws,ect kick in.
I know I know I know I think to much and and sometimes not enough but I am more on the side of we have enough laws we don;t need all the ones we got and we need to change some things to work better.
I tend to think in vast generalizations, that in order to work need tweaking and toning down and maybe just maybe a mega ton of word processing... LOL
I raised an eyebrow at your suggestion at 'culling' people from the system. Unfortunately this is lawfully impossible - the right to life is generally considered on of the basic human rights. Yes, I know the death penalty is still around in some places but I have a hard time imagining you could convince Australia to do it.
Also , forgive me if I'm wrong, but you also seem to be relying on the civil law institutions for a number of things (general criminal activity, child porn, etc). Now, I don't know about you but in Aus Civil Law is not meant to be able to deal with Criminal Activity. Civil Law deals with civilian disputes and grievances, and Criminal Law is for Crimes and is run by the State. The law is not a thing to be taken into the hands of the layman, and not every person can afford to enter court or even knows how.
Civil action (copyright etc) can't mitigate the distribution of child pornography because it's an illegal trade. Who's going to take the illegal distributor to court under copyright laws? The person who made it? Besides, if you left it to the Civil courts then there would be no definition of child pornography set down in law, just a thousand precedents that can be interpreted in a thousand different ways. And seeing as its law enforcement (ie, the police) that find child pornographers and distributors, It's impossible for them to ignore it and let it become a Civil issue.
That's enough from me....
Oh and here's something to keep you thinking: What if a person has been gang raped by multiple individuals (say, seven)? Under your proposition, do they all get life?
IMO: Yes.
what about the difference in US pop and UK pop, idk what UK's pop is but what are the crime rates if they are both at an equal population based on the number you have displayed?
Edit: UK: 61,414,062
US: 307,006,550
Forgive me if i missed the point of the thread, i just woke up a bit ago and i am still kinda sleepy, but the UK has rougly 1/5 the pop of US, if the population was mad equal (or find a ratio of the crime rates) which country would have more crime?
Ratios and statistics are used to compare a set of figures when other values do not equal. In this case the population is unequal, so the crime figures are expressed as a ratio of x number of crimes to either 1,000 or 100,000 people. So saying the violent crime rate is 2000 that means there where 2000 violent crimes reported for every 100,000 people living in the country. You will often find crimes like theft in ratios to 1,000 as you might have as many as 100 thefts to every 1,000 people.
Eekaida said:
The OP is well written, but I feel that comparing the UK (statistcaly at least) with America is a bad idea from the start, purely because of its size. Amarica spans an entire continent coast to coast, whereas England is an island which I'm fairly sure could fit comfortably in most states. It doesn't seem right to compare statistics per 1000 people when america hs countless billions more people.
Another country concidered safer than America would be Australia, which is also a continent - it would probably look better for America if it could say it had a lower level of crime than Australia. Canada is another example, but while China and Russia are the also in the listof the worlds biggest countries, Russia is too sparsely populated, and Chinese figures could be distorted by their government.
The point of showing all numbers in statistics rather then pure figures is to that you can compare the rates in the countries.
As for land area. That hardly matters as 83.9% of the US population lives in Urban areas, while 90% of the UK population lives in Urban areas, and the majority of the population outside major urban areas tends to cluster around population centers within an hours travel to those major Urban areas. Now a small country with a population of 5 million or less may skew the results significantly when compared to a country the size of the US (310 million by the way) but there are enough large population centers with varying cultures between them in the UK that it can be accurate to compare the two. The UK has a population of 61 million. Sizable enough to average out most of the differences in reporting and culture between the two.
As for comparisons to Australia, the US actually has as more land then Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area], it might span an entire continent, but it isn't a large one. As for comparing crime rates. Those are impossible. Australia is a gold standard, the rates in Australia are the kinds of rates other countries can only hope for, comparing them to the US makes the US look as bad as the UK looks compared to the US. Australia has a rate of 73 violent crime per 100,000 people, the lowest in the world of the major westernized countries.
Canada another country commonly seen as peaceful, and mentioned by you, has twice the violent crime rate as the US.
China cannot be considered a westernized developed country, and Russia while sparsely populated when their entire land area is taken into consideration has large population centers in the predominately habitable areas of their country, a comparison cannot be reached with that country however because of massive social turmoil in parts of the country. I could have easily picked Canada as a comparison because the US is in ways less violent then even Canada, but for a better contrast I choose the UK, the point being to highlight that the US is undeserving of the reputation for violence it has.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
