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

[pixelo]

ITT: a whole bunch of Britfags that don't understand the difference between gun deaths and violent crimes.

Here's a hint, not all violent crimes result in gun deaths. If I bash your skull in with a baseball bat it is a violent crime but it is not a gun death. UK is #1 in overall violent crime rate and the US has more gun deaths. Why is that so hard for some of you butthurt fuckers to understand?

And for fucks sake, the stats are NOT FROM THE DAILY MAIL, they are from The Telegraph, which they received directly from the government. The source is linked in the thread, I know you fuckers got an accent, but you should at least be able to read English.

We may have more gun deaths here in the US, but overall the UK is a far more violent place, just accept it and move on. Acting like some whiny little bitches that refuse to accept stats from your own government just makes you look silly.

Nah just thought I'd mention what utter bollocks that claim is when you whiny gun nuts use retarded made up statistics to "prove" how having no guns make society dangerous

Also re: not being able to read English the data is from eurostat and the opposition party who weren't in government at the time, not from the government.

Anyway, enjoy your guns!

 

[Delaney]

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.

It's not patriotism, we aren't that big on it, you won't see people flying the any of the British flags in front of their houses here (exceptions made during football tournaments). It's about the incongruence between my, and seemingly other Brits experiences and the statistics.

I haven't thrown around any statistics, I've only posted statistics as reported in your press. If you're saying The Telegraph made the stats up you could provide some evidence or at least some stats that contradict what they published. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe they published inaccurate information because I haven't seen anyone in here refute the numbers they cited.

As far as where it is safer to live, country by country comparisons are never going to give the whole picture. My point was simply to show that the US is not the violent place everyone outside of the US seems to think it is. And oddly enough, most of our gun violence is in the most heavily restricted areas for guns. There may or may not be a correlation, but that's for others to decide.

It's not odd logically. Area's of dense population have restrictions for obvious reasons, NYC, LA and other major cities right? It's no coincidence that area's of dense population also are area's dense with criminals who have no regard for such restrictions.

Your OP implied that due to the UK's gun control it is a more violent place to live. This is where the butthurt has come from, for all the reasons listed by various people above, the main one being disparity in reporting methods of the UK.

Apart from Clarkey who is some sort of car jacking magnet, majority of non-criminals who live here can tell you the most violence we're likely to encounter is a fist fight.

 

[flx89]

so my country is not listed there, but who cares.....the government kills you here

 

[birdy23]

motherofgod.jpg

and you guys think middle east have one of the worst people.

 

[teatree]

We may have more gun deaths here in the US, but overall the UK is a far more violent place, just accept it and move on. Acting like some whiny little bitches that refuse to accept stats from your own government just makes you look silly.

Your initial contention was that "violent crime" had increased in Britain because gun laws were tightened.

We're attempting to make you understand that a) violent crime is counted differently here and b) the stats for violent crime increased after Blair's much criticised libertarian impulse to remove controls over pub opening hours.

Britain is a drinking culture - we're always been a drinking culture, going back centuries. We get merry. Some chavs start to take a swing when they've had a skinful. But most people just get loud and sing in the streets late at night. If people from the 12thC England time-travelled here today, they'd recognise the culture and fit right in.

And as far as we're concerned a few fisticuffs is harmless. All those concerned will have a very sore head for days and that's all.

The USA used to have a drinking culture just like us, in the 1950's and 1960's, but somehow it became "bad" to drink. But pub drinking is a social activity.

Ever since you've all gotten uptight and stopped social drinking and started isolating yourselves complete with guns to "defend" yourselves against your neighbours, you've started to spiral into increasing massacres.

Loosen up. Go on a binge, have some fun. Sing "Pah Ra Pa Pa Pum" at the top of your voice in the streets tonight. You'll feel better for it.

 

[mituozo]

ITT: a whole bunch of Britfags that don't understand the difference between gun deaths and violent crimes.

Here's a hint, not all violent crimes result in gun deaths. If I bash your skull in with a baseball bat it is a violent crime but it is not a gun death. UK is #1 in overall violent crime rate and the US has more gun deaths. Why is that so hard for some of you butthurt fuckers to understand?

And for fucks sake, the stats are NOT FROM THE DAILY MAIL, they are from The Telegraph, which they received directly from the government. The source is linked in the thread, I know you fuckers got an accent, but you should at least be able to read English.

We may have more gun deaths here in the US, but overall the UK is a far more violent place, just accept it and move on. Acting like some whiny little bitches that refuse to accept stats from your own government just makes you look silly.

As previously explained, those stats are from crime surveys, which equivalent surveys done in the US highlight a violent crime rate in a similar range ( http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey

Notice the comparison with the UK report:

The NCVS survey is comparable to the British Crime Survey conducted in the United Kingdom.

This thread is utterly ridiculous.

I'm far from patriotic, but to believe everything written in a single newspaper, published with the sole intention of pandering it's audience, with the data provided by the conservative party 10 months before a general election is moronic.

British Crime Survey | Home Office

Is the survey that provides the source for that data.

You're comparing the results of a survey including unreported crime with the results from your government on reported cases of aggravated assault. The only stats included in US violent crime figures.

The reported US violent crime rate includes only Aggravated Assault, whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the much-more-numerous Assault level 1 (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm).[33][34] A government study concluded that direct comparison of the 2 countries' violent crime totals or rates was "inappropriate".[45]

ARCHIVED - PDF document

Governments, academics, and journalists often express an interest in cross-national crime comparisons, particularly
between Canada and the United States. This interest stems from the desire to discover causal explanations for
crime and to develop more effective criminal justice and social policies (Archer & Gartner 1984; Howard, Newman,
Pridemore 2000). Unfortunately, methodological complexities have placed considerable barriers to such comparisons.
Differences between national data sources, both for police reported and victimization surveys, have hampered
accurate comparisons. Despite these divergent national data collection systems, the tendency has been to compare
crime rates between countries with little or no attention to these limitations. Recently, the proliferation of the Internet
has led to the growth in this type of misinformation.
Recognizing the methodological hurdles, along with the benefits of comparing crime rates between Canada and
the United States, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics has undertaken the task of assessing the feasibility of
comparing police reported statistics between Canada and the United States. This report, which represents the first
step of this study, compares and contrasts the specific offence definitions, classification, and scoring rules between
the Canadian and American Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) surveys. Where applicable, this discussion notes
modifications that could allow for reliable cross-national comparisons.
Official crime statistics also have general limitations. Many crimes are never reported to or detected by police and
consequently, police reported data under-estimates the amount of crime, especially for highly unreported crimes
such as sexual assault. National household victimization surveys, including the American National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) and the Canadian General Social Survey (GSS), can estimate the amount of unreported crimes by
capturing both offences that have been reported to police and those that have gone unreported. While the rate of
reportability may vary for each country, the different survey designs prevent direct comparison between Canada
and the United States. Despite this inability, it is reasonably safe to assume that the rate of reportability is similar
between the two countries (Ouimet 1999). Moreover, data from the International Crime Victimization Survey (1990)
suggests that Canadian and American reporting patterns tend to be constant for certain crimes, namely burglary
and robbery.
1
Reporting by police to the UCR surveys is another factor influencing police reported crime rates. Although it is
impossible to estimate its effect, it is important to recognize the jurisdictional variations in the decision to record
reported crimes as actual or unfounded offences.

Is the study that shows just how ridiculous it is to compare crime statistics for countries which are determined in completely different ways.

If you want to compare a statistic from country to country, use a stat which is identically measured in each country. The reason people post intentional homicide rate all the time is because it's something clearly defined and far more readily comparable from country to country.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Look, here's an article from Bloomberg that states the US has more gun killings a week, than Canada does a year.

Daily Gun Slaughter in U.S. Obscured by Newtown Rampage - Bloomberg

Statistics sure are neat, aren't they?

 

[mituozo]

Look, here's an article from Bloomberg that states the US has more gun killings a week, than Canada does a year.

Daily Gun Slaughter in U.S. Obscured by Newtown Rampage - Bloomberg

Statistics sure are neat, aren't they?

Exactly - just because something is published in a newspaper, or on a website, doesn't make it "the" source of information for that topic.

Mainstream media all have motives, as do the people supplying information to the press.

All the media give a shit about is writing stuff that their audience will read.

If they can twist statistics to come up with a story that will get hits, they'll do it.

It's not illegal to publish a table in a newspaper comparing stats from various different surveys with varying methodologies. So they get away with it. They have sources for all their data.

Just change the data source until you get something that fits the message you want to get across, and if you can't do that, look through the data to find something within it that gets across the point you are trying to make.

You can argue for almost anything by manipulating statistics from various studies over the last few decades.

Save people on the US' roads guys, and eat more fucking lemons.

(Data sourced from your government)

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

The USA used to have a drinking culture just like us, in the 1950's and 1960's, but somehow it became "bad" to drink. But pub drinking is a social activity.

Ever since you've all gotten uptight and stopped social drinking and started isolating yourselves complete with guns to "defend" yourselves against your neighbours, you've started to spiral into increasing massacres.

I think our shitty beer had more to do with that, but over the last 10 years we've seen a huge increase in amazing craft brewers so now more people are able to enjoy good beer. Full disclosure, in post #78 I was actually trolling you guys from one of my favorite pubs while drinking cask ale. Consider it shit talking from across the Atlantic.

Save people on the US' roads guys, and eat more fucking lemons.

I think you may be on to something here.

 

[teatree]

I think our shitty beer had more to do with that, but over the last 10 years we've seen a huge increase in amazing craft brewers so now more people are able to enjoy good beer. Full disclosure, in post #78 I was actually trolling you guys from one of my favorite pubs while drinking cask ale. Consider it shit talking from across the Atlantic.

Good for you. Maybe you should petition your government to lower the drinking age to 18 as well.

The thing that jarred the most about the Lanza case was that teh mother took her son shooting to "teach him responsibility".

20-year olds are not meant to be "responsible". They are meant to explore the world, go back-packing, doss around for a few years doing nothing much and have fun. Plenty of time to be responsible later when they buy their first home and have their first child. Given that life expectancy is about 80 years, what is the hurry?

Communities like that in Newtown where everything is picture perfect and people are expected to behave "just so" sound like nightmarishly restrictive places to live. If that kid had been allowed to go to a pub where people didn't mind in the least that he looked skinny and weird, and drown his sorrows, maybe things would have turned out differently.

 

[donyniceguy]

hmm i just remember the tragedy of Dunblane, Skotlandia where Thomas Hamilton killed 16 students of elementary school and then the government has banned civilian handgun. UK really has a highest crime rate.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Good for you. Maybe you should petition your government to lower the drinking age to 18 as well.

That's one thing I never really understood about the US. You're old enough to goto Afghanistan and cruise around in a tank, but not old enough to have a beer when you return from war.

 

[jfizzle]

nah dawg.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

That's one thing I never really understood about the US. You're old enough to goto Afghanistan and cruise around in a tank, but not old enough to have a beer when you return from war.

None of us understand that shit. Probably the best thing about growing up in Detroit was driving across the bridge to Windsor to get drunk at 19.

 

[schockergd]

None of us understand that shit. Probably the best thing about growing up in Detroit was driving across the bridge to Windsor to get drunk at 19.

It has to do with DUIs at a young age.

Most of the US was 16-18 during the 60s-80s then all of a sudden the government decided that somehow changing it to 21 would decrease DUIs.

 

[amateursurgeon]

I think our shitty beer had more to do with that, but over the last 10 years we've seen a huge increase in amazing craft brewers so now more people are able to enjoy good beer. Full disclosure, in post #78 I was actually trolling you guys from one of my favorite pubs while drinking cask ale. Consider it shit talking from across the Atlantic.



I think you may be on to something here.

I tried one of your US craft beers last night (can't remember which one, but it was from one of the larger craft breweries) and I must say, I was very impressed. Things have certainly progressed a long way from budweiser and miller.

 

[Moxie]

That's one thing I never really understood about the US. You're old enough to goto Afghanistan and cruise around in a tank, but not old enough to have a beer when you return from war.

When the US entered the Vietnam War, the voting and drinking age was 21 in most US states. The age to be drafted was only 18, so thousands of men that weren't "free" to vote or drink were told they had to go fight and die for "freedom" elsewhere. Outrage over this helped get the voting age lowered to 18 near the end of the war, and then alcohol laws followed along.

Then in the 80s, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others pushed to raise it back to 21. They basically did this in the same way that groups are now going about trying to ban guns - by highlighting tragic stories to appeal to emotion, and by being overoptimistic about how effective the law would be in keeping things out of the hands of people who want them.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I tried one of your US craft beers last night (can't remember which one, but it was from one of the larger craft breweries) and I must say, I was very impressed. Things have certainly progressed a long way from budweiser and miller.

You should check out anything from Founders (located here in Michigan). They have some of the highest rated beers in the world in several categories, and their distribution is pretty widespread now.

 

[scottspfd82]

They basically did this in the same way that groups are now going about trying to ban guns - by highlighting tragic stories to appeal to emotion, and by being overoptimistic about how effective the law would be in keeping things out of the hands of people who want them.

Our Government would never do that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64G5FfG2Xpg]Demand A Plan to End Gun Violence - YouTube[/ame]

Oh wait.

I used to like a few of those actors. I'm not going to be able to stand any of these people again knowing they've put this bullshit propaganda together in an effort to take away people's natural right to defend themselves.

 

[scottspfd82]

Worth reading...

Media Bias About Guns by John R. Lott, Jr.

(For those interested, Lott has written extensively on this topic.)

Will just leave this here:

Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You… « Kontradictions

These were both great reads.

Ron Paul made some good points back in 2008...

Protecting Terrorists and Despots

The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.​

Also some interesting quotes throughout history...

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”

-The Dalai Lama, 2001

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

-Mohandas Ghandi

Not exactly your typical "bible clinging" rednecks.

I'm highly suspect of anyone who attempts to take away my ability to defend myself. And I'm constantly amazed by how many people are pushing an agenda to do it.


​