This just in: FUCK ENGLAND! Bunch'a violent bastards.
- Thread starter Yuma504
- Start date
He makes some good points about the public being mislead, but then he does the same thing. Different countries define and record "violent crime" differently. He points out that the US has many more metropolitan areas in comparison to the UK as if that fact is significant, but it's not when you factor in that the US also has a much bigger population.
population density
USA = 87.4/sq mi
UK = 661.9/sq mi
population density
USA = 87.4/sq mi
UK = 661.9/sq mi
I love it when people try to compare two entirely different things!
In UK abh is violent crime if prosecuted. abh can be giving someone a black eye by the way.
Actually, no - I think it has to have punctured the skin, so stabbing the back of someone's hand with a plastic fork would probably work.
In UK abh is violent crime if prosecuted. abh can be giving someone a black eye by the way.
Actually, no - I think it has to have punctured the skin, so stabbing the back of someone's hand with a plastic fork would probably work.
Want to know what's included in our violent crime stats?
It's just ridiculous to compare the two, so stop comparing them. If you're going to compare two things, compare two things identically measured. I don't know how many times people need to say it. I mean, our violent crime stats involve possession of firearms for fuck's sake, and "Racially/religiously aggravated public fear"
I don't give a shit whether my country has a higher crime rate than yours or not, but the fact that you guys keep repeatedly "proving" it with incomparable statistics is laughable.
Maybe I am just too biased and obtuse concerning the issue, but I don't comprehend your argument. He clearly points out the differences in population, the lack of guns and the differences in what crimes are counted and defined.
There are six areas in England and Wales with a population density that is on par with our 226 areas of high population.
Yet, England and Wales as a whole are way more violent.
i.e.: Lack of guns does not reduce crime.
Could you school me in the error of my comprehension here?
In the UK the death of an individual is not considered a murder UNTIL someone is CONVICTED of causing the death and if that murderer caused multiple deaths it is counted as ONE murder.
In the US if a coroner established that the death of an individual was caused by another individual that death is counted as a homicide (murder).
We count these instances way more liberally, England basically counts on a (fill in the sum)= 1 model, and you're still more violent.
But I concur with you: Why is Piers Morgan and the libtards using England's crime statistics to support a gun ban, when its more violent overall, DESPITE THE FUCKING POLICE STATE YOU LIVE IN?
Ignoring the England/Wales vs USA rates of crime comparisons, I live in "Murder City" aka "Choppa City". More gun deaths happen per capita in New Orleans than anywhere else in the country. The problem is not AR 15's , or high capacity magazines. The problem is not high stockpiles of ammo by criminals. The problem is this:
If "black on black" crime stats were scrubbed from the analysis, the numbers would indicate the gun problem in America is a disproportionate rate of suicide by firearm for white males and females over the age of 40.
If "black on black" crime stats were scrubbed from the analysis, the numbers would indicate the gun problem in America is a disproportionate rate of suicide by firearm for white males and females over the age of 40.
I just watched it again and didn't notice him make any comment about total populations or about what the UK defines as a violent crime.
"We have SIX TIMES more large metropolitan areas as they do." - guy in video
We have over five times the population they do, so his observation does not mean much when talking about RATES.
England and Wales count violent crime differently than the US. It doesn't matter what my own opinions are, a red flag goes up in my head whenever I see anyone trying to compare countries in that manner. Homicide is basically counted the same all over, which usually makes it the best comparison.
Page 16 of the report he references, under the "violence against the person - without injury" category :
Over 50,000 cases of HARASSMENT. Does the FBI count that as violent crime?
Over 100,000 cases of PUBLIC FEAR, ALARM, DISTRESS
What the hell is that? Well apparently it is considered a violent crime in the UK if you insult someone and make them fear violence. Fear or provocation of violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Over 10,000 RACIALLY OR RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED PUBLIC FEAR
Nearly 10,000 THREATS TO KILL
Over 10,000 POSSESSION OF AN ARTICLE WITH BLADE OR POINT
As I pointed out in another thread on here today, even places like Utah and Montana still have relatively high homicide rates compared to many countries, and Alaska has about the same rate as New York City.
Blacks are less than 15% of the population, so despite higher rates, nearly half the total is still being made up by other races. There are a few black people in Utah and such, but remove them and Utah might still have triple the homicide rate of Switzerland.
quoting myself : "The difference between Switzerland and Utah can't be explained by gun laws, race, or population densities. US culture as a whole would appear to have something unique to it that goes beyond those factors.
uh oh, this is my 3,000 post so here is British Lucy Pinder in USA bikini, lol
Paused at 42 seconds when said he likes the FBI statistics because they're non-biased. Really?
*Continues watching*
*Continues watching*
OK so watched it all now.
Few comments;
1. That guy is an political and sociological lightweight. Generic comments about the media and agendas. Solution to solving violent crime? "Put on their boots" , go to the poor neighbourhoods, create jobs and something someting education system! Yeahhhhhh! Wooooo! 'Mericaaaa!
2. Why no one is taking credit for crime reduction? Paraphrasing a quote from the Wire here "If you take credit for statistics going down, it means you need to take credit when they go up". Not to mention the FBI is an inherently political organisation. Stats are more likely to get wielded out at the times of re-elections, not just for the sake of it.
3. As others have probably said, the guy doesn't even consider the measurement and definition of "violent crime". If different definitions then the data isn't like for like which means you can't compare. He doesn't even address this issue for his audience which means they're also idiots.
4. One explanation of the media. Moral panic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
5. Edit: Also use of urban areas came across as almost very nearly PC/liberal racism.
Few comments;
1. That guy is an political and sociological lightweight. Generic comments about the media and agendas. Solution to solving violent crime? "Put on their boots" , go to the poor neighbourhoods, create jobs and something someting education system! Yeahhhhhh! Wooooo! 'Mericaaaa!
2. Why no one is taking credit for crime reduction? Paraphrasing a quote from the Wire here "If you take credit for statistics going down, it means you need to take credit when they go up". Not to mention the FBI is an inherently political organisation. Stats are more likely to get wielded out at the times of re-elections, not just for the sake of it.
3. As others have probably said, the guy doesn't even consider the measurement and definition of "violent crime". If different definitions then the data isn't like for like which means you can't compare. He doesn't even address this issue for his audience which means they're also idiots.
4. One explanation of the media. Moral panic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
5. Edit: Also use of urban areas came across as almost very nearly PC/liberal racism.
Although any attempt to compare US crimes to UK crimes is always an exhibit of futility, this guy looks exactly like a lifelong Liberal who read deeper than most into the data, and other liberals will listen to him before a redneck anyday. I'm glad he made that vid.
Sadly, the roots of the "where the crime is at" problem is too racist to talk about on TV so no matter what, no one with a public office or microphone is ever going to talk about the important details here at all.
It matters little though; they obviously have an agenda to remove our guns no matter how much that hurts us.
Sadly, the roots of the "where the crime is at" problem is too racist to talk about on TV so no matter what, no one with a public office or microphone is ever going to talk about the important details here at all.
It matters little though; they obviously have an agenda to remove our guns no matter how much that hurts us.