UK Has Highest Violent Crime Rate in World - Great Job Gun Control

Clarkey said:
I can show you a lot of public CCTV coverage from my home city of Wolverhampton.

My main issue is this, you're happy for the state, police to have guns (certain sections) and criminals but you aren't happy to arm yourself?
Click to expand...

So it went from someone pulling a gun outside a small town to someone pulling a gun in the city of wolverhampton.

Make up your mind mate.... at least make the story coherent.


I never, in any of my posts, said i was happy for the 'state' / police, to carry guns, nor did i mention anywhere my own preferences to personally carrying guns. Looks like you're digging for an argument though, keep digging. :Yahoo_29:
 


Unarmed Gunman said:
Is The Telegraph a legit paper?

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

"The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa."

"The figures were sourced from Eurostat, the European Commission's database of statistics. They are gathered using official sources in the countries concerned such as the national statistics office, the national prison administration, ministries of the interior or justice, and police. A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.
Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population."


"But last October it emerged that levels of violent crime in England and Wales had been underestimated for more than a decade because of a blunder in recording methods. Ministers admitted that some police forces had not been recording offences of grievous bodily harm with intent as serious violent crime. When the offences were included violent crime figures immediately increased by a fifth."
Click to expand...

Let me make it easier for you.

Bobby lives in town.

Town has 2 people.

Bobby kills Barbara and shoots himself, Now town have 0 people.

Town now has 100% violent crime rate in the world.

Town now more dangerous than 'Merica, cos stats say so!.

Meanwhile George has moved in, and spends the rest of his days smoking his pipe and eating pork.

Thank god we have stats to give us an informed view of the world.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
And I'm not saying violent crime would go down in the UK if everyone owned a weapon, but we do know that once they banned guns in the UK violent crime went up. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
Click to expand...

LOL. Most of the "violent crime" in Britain is down to the Blair govt changing teh pub opening hours. It used to be that pubs closed at 11 p.m. now they can be open 24 hours if the local council has given them a permit.

Brits are famous for their drinking, and as there is no cut-off point, they get legless, fisticuffs ensue, they get nicked and it's then a "violent crime".

For a recent example of this, here's the Daily Mail getting outraged at "Black Eye Friday" when everyone celebrated breaking up for Christmas with a good old-fashioned binge:

Christmas 2012: Violence and vomiting in Britain's towns during festive season | Mail Online

article-2252078-169E9F72000005DC-544_634x522.jpg

article-2252078-169E9F7A000005DC-600_634x463.jpg

article-2252078-169E9F84000005DC-487_634x400.jpg

article-2252078-169E6C3B000005DC-832_634x450.jpg


They'll have spent the weekend with terrible hangovers, but they'll be fine for Christmas Day.

I get that other countries are "shocked" by this kind of thing - but it's pretty harmless, a few black eyes and that's it. But yes, each black eye inflates our "violent crime" statistics.

Young British men don't really go round shooting people, they get shitfaced. And the whole "loner"/exclusion thing doesn't really happen here either - everyone is invited along and included in the binge!

The three massacres we have had (Hungerford in 1987, Dunblane in 1996 and Derrick Bird in 2010) were all done by middle-aged men in their 40's whose lives had gone wrong.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
... but most people in the US don't have to deal with it and almost never fear violence in their neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

This is true. The only people I fear in my neighborhood are the cops.

People tend to believe in the effectiveness* of gun regulation in the same way people tend to believe in their god(s). To them, it is a religion. It is the only way to their version of salvation, which, in this case, would be a "safer society" (whatever that means). Arguing with them rarely results in their conversion - or reversion? - to a supportable position, regardless of empirical evidence, logic, and reason. Similarly, a case based on ethics for leaving the tools of defense - against all foes, individual and state - in the hands of individuals also falls flat.

It is like arguing for anarchy and against socialism/democracy/etc. When the religion takes hold, it is very difficult to uproot it. Discussions of this kind tend to devolve into name-calling, a signal of emotionalism and low-level thinking.

Incidentally, looking at the "gun control" argument from an aggregate view - that is, examining and comparing crime rates by country, city, etc. - is problematic. The data rarely show definitive causation. It is far better to look at the issue from the perspective of incentives, disincentives, and how individuals view both.



* By effectiveness, I mean in the context of protecting people from predators. Gun regulation is extremely effective in disarming the populace and tempering future revolts. This latter point also tends to fall on deaf ears, despite ample evidence (some still in the news).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaxSteve
You know what, it's almost christmas... fuck knows why i decided to involve myself in an argument on WF, its an irrelevant pursuit that means nothing in the end.

I retract all my statements, hope you all have a good Xmas and you and your families stay safe ----- wherever you may be.

Thats the iimportant thing here.
 
IceToEskimos said:
Michael Robert Ryan (Hungerford) was 27, not that it makes much difference.
Click to expand...

You are right. "Only" two thirds of the massacres in Britain were caused by middle-aged men. And none was caused by a person of college age.

Maybe if Adam Lanza's mum had not mollycoddled him and instead of taking him to shooting galleries, had allowed him to go to the pub and get drunk like normal people, the shootings wouldn't have happened.

People need outlets, and booze is pretty safe, most of the time it makes you feel happy and if you drink too much, you just pass out.

I'd rather be part of a boozing culture than a shooting culture.
 
All the butt-hurts have this in their profile:
Location: UK
Click to expand...

I wish people could get past this collectivist mentality, "my country, my country, BUT MY COUNTRY!!!".

Fuck your countries, your groups, and your delusional patriotism.
 
dreamache said:
All the butt-hurts have this in their profile:


I wish people could get past this collectivist mentality, "my country, my country, BUT MY COUNTRY!!!".

Fuck your countries, your groups, and your delusional patriotism.
Click to expand...

lol, It's not patriotism. The stats are a huge surprise to me, too, but the media is known for it's sensationalist/alarmist statistics.

It just reeks of bullshit to anyone that lives here, and "violent crimes" is open to interpretation.

I can only guess that the UK's idea of "violent crime" is very different than some of the other countries listed, or we have a few really shitty cities that are helping to ramp up the figure.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
With all of this talk about gun control after the most recent shooting spree, it would seem like a worthwhile endeavor to look at how well it's worked out for our tea drinking buddies across the pond. Gun control in the UK is considered the most restrictive in the world, as it turns out, they are also the most violent country in the world.

CBixr.jpg


If you're wondering why the United States isn't on the chart, it's because the US doesn't even rank in the top 10 for violent crime. The most recent numbers show the US has a violent crime rate of 466 per 100,000 residents. The funniest part of that number is that the majority of that is in cities with the most restrictive gun laws in the US like Chicago, NY, DC etc. The areas of the US with open carry laws have negligible violent crime rates.

It's too bad that law abiding citizens in the UK aren't allowed to own guns so they could protect themselves and bring these ridiculous violent crime rates under control.

Come on Britfags, you guys really need to get all of this Ultra Violence under control...

2WsCB.jpg
Click to expand...


Sorry, that table is 100% bullshit. What's the source? The source on the image is a little bullshitty (UN, Conservatives).

Gun deaths by country

Number of homicides in England and wales (a large part of the UK) is between 600- 800 a year for the past 30 years.

_61680099_homicides624x419.gif

BBC News - Crime data: Homicide at 30-year England and Wales low

Number of homicides in the USA in 2008 16,799.


The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population
United States 4.96
United Kingdom 1.2
Canada 1.8
Switzerland 0.70
Mexico 21.5
 
Aha - you found this wonderful piece of statistical bullshittery on the site of the world's most visited "newspaper" - the daily mail.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online


This newspaper makes it's money (and is now the the "news" site with the highest traffic in the world) by writing stuff they know is lies and actually irritates people who know it to be bullshit (they just got me searching for it and visiting their site so..). People argue and spread it round pretty well. A form of "link-bait" if you'll excuse the technical jargon.

For more amazing truthful factiness from the Daily mail, someone has hacked together an app that distils Daily Mail science to give you an accurate guide as to what prevents and causes cancer. You may find it confusing as they seem to print articles claiming that the same thing both prevents and cures cancer.
Don't let that you doubt this amazing research that confirms Mexico and South africa are less violent places than the UK though!
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
CBixr.jpg
Click to expand...


Whoa there, this looks like a perfect example of the media being deceptive. This must be rankings of those 10 countries, and those 10 countries only. Probably nearly all of eastern Europe and Africa have higher rates than Canada, for example. Much of Asia, Latin America, and places like Haiti and Jamaica probably do also.


the national statistics office
Click to expand...

The British Crime Survey or BCS is a systematic victim study, currently carried out by BMRB Limited on behalf of the Home Office. The BCS seeks to measure the amount of crime in England and Wales by asking around 50,000 people aged 16 and over...

The Home Office asserts that the BCS can provide a better reflection of the true level of crime than police statistics since it includes crimes that have not been reported to, or recorded by, the police.

British Crime Survey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population
Click to expand...

This is the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting number - in other words, those reported and recorded by the law.

The US also does their own survey, called the National Crime Victimization Survey.

For 2011 the rate was 2,250 per 100,000.

In 1993 it was 7,980 per 100,000.

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv11.txt
 
Also - the stats are most definitely not measuring the same thing, my guess is that "violent crime" for the purposes of this bullshit daily mail linkbait probably includes slapping someone, nasty look or particularly smelly fart in the UK but in Mexico you need to lose at least 3 limbs.

Also blatantly made up by the daily mail to cause controversy and indignation by UK readers, their main audience who love to have their "this country is going to the shitter" prejudices confirmed.

Try comparing a specific crime, e.g. murder by any means.


Edit: Some awesome daily mail news here, hunting down the facts to keep you informed.

Posh behind bars... but don't worry it's just Victoria Beckham behind some railings.
 
Last edited:
dreamache said:
All the butt-hurts have this in their profile:


I wish people could get past this collectivist mentality, "my country, my country, BUT MY COUNTRY!!!".

Fuck your countries, your groups, and your delusional patriotism.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly no patriot and I personally couldn't give a fuck if the figures are true or not, it wouldn't surprise me much if it were. We have some pretty shitty areas of the country where the bulk of those crimes happen, same as any country.

However, citing the daily mail is no better than citing the onion.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
I don't know why you keep saying the Daily Mail, the stats are from the government and were originally cited in The Telegraph. I posted the link above, read the thread.
Click to expand...

Nah the stats are 100% bullshit, this league table is created by the daily mail and/or the telegraph.

Perhaps selectively pulling some stats that don't compare like for like to create this league table, and to generate a reaction and form a conclusion thats BS.

I don't mean to be ad hominem but if you believe you are more likely to be a victim of violent crime in Sweden than Mexico, Canada than South Africa, the Netherlands than Honduras, then perhaps it's best you believe what you want!
 
Last edited:
pixelo said:
Try comparing a specific crime
Click to expand...

That can get tricky also because different nations define "assault" differently and in some places the police might just laugh if you called up and tried to report one.

Homicide comparisons are most reliable because they basically get defined the same way all over, and police make it a priority to at least record them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom