Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
mattyrm wrote:
Such a bad argument, the average Joe cant make sarin. The average Joe who just had a really bad day can easily pick up an AK-47 and shoot the gak out of everyone in the vicinity.
I don't know why you cant grasp the obvious. Sure you can stab people, or bludgeon people, the simple fact is, if you want to kill as many people as possible before you get apprehended, then its better for all your potential victims if you are armed with things that don't fire 500 rounds a minute at people.
Because the majority of mass murderers are not average Joes who just go do it because they have a bad day. For every Charles Whitman there are two Columbine or Binghamton shooters who put some effort and planning into it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/05 16:14:10
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
mattyrm wrote:My point is I reckon 90% of the shootings in the States are done on a spur of the moment in a fit of rage, a bloke gets super pissed and shoots someone. If they slept on it, they probably wouldn't shoot the victim in the first place, and that's why firearms being all over the place are a problem.
Obviously a really committed guy could make a sarin bomb, but gak loads of stateside shootings aren't done by really committed guys, they are spur of the moment shootings.
Your reckoning doesn't really match with the newspaper stories. Most of the shootings, especially the more deadly ones, prepared for it weeks if nto months or years in advance.
Of course not, because the big ones get in the papers, and the big ones are the committed ones!
In 2010 in America there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms, the UK has only 600 murders a year.
The vast majority of those murders weren't done with months of planning.
gak, If I had a gun on me all the time In England I would probably have shot someone by now! That moment during a fight when you suddenly lash out in a rage, is experienced by most people at some point in their lives, and that is why its a problem carrying a firearm. I guarantee some of those 8775 murders would only have wound up being assaults if the guy that did the shooting was unarmed.
What would have been a punch in the mouth, is easily becomes a big deal if you have a pistol in your pants.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
mattyrm wrote:
Of course not, because the big ones get in the papers, and the big ones are the committed ones!
Actually not even all the big ones make the papers. Looking at the list, there are about a dozen I never even heard of.
mattyrm wrote:
In 2010 in America there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms, the UK has only 600 murders a year.
Surprise, a nation with a larger population has more murders. However, you have a point on proportion. The US has approx 10 in 100,000 firearms murders whereas the UK has approx 1 in 100,000 firearms murders.
The real oddity is that violent crime in general is a lot higher. If you reduce the US violent crime proportionately to Englands, the difference in gun crime is only 10% (measured incidents per 100k). The difference is that the US has vastly more violent crime in general then England does per 100k.
Saying 'Well, it's the gun's fault' is not accurate. Even hardcore anti-gun advocates admit that there is something happening culturally in the US that has been driving violence up in the last four decades.
It's not TV, games, books or movies. Otherwise Canada would be in the same boat. The real solution is not gun control, it's figuring out what's making American's go ballistic and stopping it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/05 16:57:09
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
mattyrm wrote:My point is I reckon 90% of the shootings in the States are done on a spur of the moment in a fit of rage, a bloke gets super pissed and shoots someone. If they slept on it, they probably wouldn't shoot the victim in the first place, and that's why firearms being all over the place are a problem.
Obviously a really committed guy could make a sarin bomb, but gak loads of stateside shootings aren't done by really committed guys, they are spur of the moment shootings.
Your reckoning doesn't really match with the newspaper stories. Most of the shootings, especially the more deadly ones, prepared for it weeks if nto months or years in advance.
Of course not, because the big ones get in the papers, and the big ones are the committed ones!
In 2010 in America there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms, the UK has only 600 murders a year.
The vast majority of those murders weren't done with months of planning.
gak, If I had a gun on me all the time In England I would probably have shot someone by now! That moment during a fight when you suddenly lash out in a rage, is experienced by most people at some point in their lives, and that is why its a problem carrying a firearm. I guarantee some of those 8775 murders would only have wound up being assaults if the guy that did the shooting was unarmed.
What would have been a punch in the mouth, is easily becomes a big deal if you have a pistol in your pants.
The carriers I've spoken with mention how carrying changes their mindset, to where they intentionally *avoid* altercations specifically for the reason you mentioned and are generally more cool-headed than before they started carrying(they have to be -- it's a big responsibility). I would argue that carriers are largely responsible individuals, or certainly that's the culture(here, anyway).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/05 17:08:32
mattyrm wrote:My point is I reckon 90% of the shootings in the States are done on a spur of the moment in a fit of rage, a bloke gets super pissed and shoots someone. If they slept on it, they probably wouldn't shoot the victim in the first place, and that's why firearms being all over the place are a problem.
Obviously a really committed guy could make a sarin bomb, but gak loads of stateside shootings aren't done by really committed guys, they are spur of the moment shootings.
Your reckoning doesn't really match with the newspaper stories. Most of the shootings, especially the more deadly ones, prepared for it weeks if nto months or years in advance.
Of course not, because the big ones get in the papers, and the big ones are the committed ones!
In 2010 in America there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms, the UK has only 600 murders a year.
The vast majority of those murders weren't done with months of planning.
gak, If I had a gun on me all the time In England I would probably have shot someone by now! That moment during a fight when you suddenly lash out in a rage, is experienced by most people at some point in their lives, and that is why its a problem carrying a firearm. I guarantee some of those 8775 murders would only have wound up being assaults if the guy that did the shooting was unarmed.
What would have been a punch in the mouth, is easily becomes a big deal if you have a pistol in your pants.
If you are going to make an argument against guns this is the way to do it. Getting rid of guns doesnt stop crime, truth be told guns are a Pandora's box though, you can't close it now. I think Matty of all people will agree that man is a fragile. creature, easy to maim and murder. Guns are just a tool that shifts easy to nearly effortless.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
AustonT wrote:
If you are going to make an argument against guns this is the way to do it. Getting rid of guns doesnt stop crime, truth be told guns are a Pandora's box though, you can't close it now. I think Matty of all people will agree that man is a fragile. creature, easy to maim and murder. Guns are just a tool that shifts easy to nearly effortless.
Yeah exactly, that's my point. I don't dislike guns, and I think America is fethed now, with all those millions of guns in circulation its pointless banning them now, I'm just glad we aren't in the same mess!
As I said, If I lived over there I would carry. I don't want to be the only man with a knife at a gunfight. I recommend Americans own a gun and train with it, but it doesn't mean I think we should be as lax with them in Europe. Once you open that can of worms it cant be shut again.
The problem with guns, is they are nasty weapons because they make taking a life far too easy. With my rifle I dropped a bloke from a couple hundred yards once on a dark morning, I centred on the muzzle flash, and fired three times at it, no blood, no fuss, I didn't even see the fethers face. Slept like a baby that night too. feth it.
That's a problem right there. Making it easy to end peoples existence is not a good thing. Just like Ned Stark says, The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. I don't wanna sound like a hippy or anything, but a small part of me wishes we had stuck with swords, if you had to look into a mans eyes before you killed him, people wouldn't go around getting themselves killed so often.
Well, until I get the urge to shoot a cow with a bazooka obviously... then Im back to liking guns again.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
BaronIveagh wrote:Saying 'Well, it's the gun's fault' is not accurate. Even hardcore anti-gun advocates admit that there is something happening culturally in the US that has been driving violence up in the last four decades.
Violent crime has gone down for five years in a row, at least.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/05 18:25:59
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
BaronIveagh wrote:Saying 'Well, it's the gun's fault' is not accurate. Even hardcore anti-gun advocates admit that there is something happening culturally in the US that has been driving violence up in the last four decades.
Violent crime has gone down for five years in a row, at least.
Yeah, but the real mystery is why it has been declining world wide since the mid 1990s.
I think it's the internet.
It rose steadily world wide for almost 40 years before that point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/05 18:41:25
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
A lot of violent urges these days are suppressed by video games.
Just my guess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/05 18:46:29
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
While I own guns and don't think that they're evil or anything, I just don't see the need for assault weapons and such. Yeah they're fun to shoot, but a lot of things that are fun are a lot less deadly.
Hunting, protection, stuff like that I get. Civilians don't need ARs and AKs and 50 cals in my opinion, but the 2nd Amendment says we can.
Its just hard for me to take the 2nd Amendment seriously when in the same document it says we can own slaves. Times change and I think that should be reflected with stricter gun laws, not that it will happen mind.
Also fun thing to try if your ever arguing with someone who is a big blowhard about the 2nd Amendment, ask them to name the other ones.
mattyrm wrote:My point is I reckon 90% of the shootings in the States are done on a spur of the moment in a fit of rage, a bloke gets super pissed and shoots someone. If they slept on it, they probably wouldn't shoot the victim in the first place, and that's why firearms being all over the place are a problem.
Obviously a really committed guy could make a sarin bomb, but gak loads of stateside shootings aren't done by really committed guys, they are spur of the moment shootings.
Your reckoning doesn't really match with the newspaper stories. Most of the shootings, especially the more deadly ones, prepared for it weeks if nto months or years in advance.
Of course not, because the big ones get in the papers, and the big ones are the committed ones!
In 2010 in America there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms, the UK has only 600 murders a year.
The vast majority of those murders weren't done with months of planning.
gak, If I had a gun on me all the time In England I would probably have shot someone by now! That moment during a fight when you suddenly lash out in a rage, is experienced by most people at some point in their lives, and that is why its a problem carrying a firearm. I guarantee some of those 8775 murders would only have wound up being assaults if the guy that did the shooting was unarmed.
What would have been a punch in the mouth, is easily becomes a big deal if you have a pistol in your pants.
The carriers I've spoken with mention how carrying changes their mindset, to where they intentionally *avoid* altercations specifically for the reason you mentioned and are generally more cool-headed than before they started carrying(they have to be -- it's a big responsibility). I would argue that carriers are largely responsible individuals, or certainly that's the culture(here, anyway).
A responsible carrier number one wish is to never have to draw their firearm, and anyone who carries a gun and can't wait to use it on a baddy is an idiot and not a responsible carrier. I've seen more of the former but I've also seen some of the latter, and it's a fething disgrace, that kind of attitude kills people, more often t hen not it kills someone who really shouldn't have been killed.
'It would be incredibly easy for me to carry a gun when I am old enough to do so, but I doubt I would even though I think there fun as hell. But I know that I have anger issues and I wouldn't trust my self with a weapon that can kill someone that easily.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
Seems we have an "inspired" killer in Wisconsin at a Sikh Temple
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
May the the blessings of His Grace the Emperor tumble down upon you like a golden fog. (Only a VERY select few will get this reference. And it's not from 40k. )
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
GalacticDefender wrote:
Though tighter control seems to have done a lot of good.
Really? That must be why the UK has something like 5x the violent crime per capita and is as the Mail put it:
"The most violent country in Europe."
You know he probably meant in terms of gun violence...
Incidentally the Mail scarcely counts as a newspaper so don't embarrass yourself by quoting it...
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze "You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry.
Let me start by saying I did not read all 17 pages so my point may have already been made.
The second amendment isn’t in place so us Americans can go off shooting each other with AK’s and AR’s it is there so we can shoot our government.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson.
Also the fact that almost all Americans have weapons is the best deterrent for an invading force.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Isoroku Yamamoto
The whole automatic weapon debate and the 100 round drum argument is coming from people who ether have never shot with a 100 round drum or have never been trained in the proper use of any weapon. The most people ever killed by one man was with a bolt action rifle. The 100 round drum saved many lives that day, the drums are gak and always jam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4 So you get some wackos every now and again, If the theater had allowed CCW’s the guy would have been dead after the first shot.
Automatically Appended Next Post: lol.. Yes if they had chain swords and power fist that guy would have been really dead lol...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/06 16:09:15
AustonT wrote:Really? That must be why the UK has something like 5x the violent crime per capita and is as the Mail put it:
"The most violent country in Europe."
If you want to read the 2010/11 crime report, feel free.
EXTENT AND TRENDS IN OVERALL VIOLENCE
The 2010/11 BCS estimates that there were 2,203,000 violent incidents against adults in
England and Wales.1 Although there was an apparent six per cent increase compared with
2009/10, estimates for these two years are not statistically significantly different (Table 2.01).
Within the overall category of BCS violence, there have been no statistically significant
changes for the specific offence types of wounding, assault without injury or robbery between
the 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS (Table 2.01).
There was a 38 per cent increase in the number of incidents of assault with minor injury
compared with the 2009/10 BCS. This was preceded by small fluctuations in recent years and
levels of these incidents are now similar to those seen in 2006/07.
As in previous years, assault without injury accounted for the largest proportion (38%) of all
violent incidents measured by the 2010/11 BCS, followed by assault with minor injury (27%),
wounding (24%), and robbery (11%) (Table 2.01).
There were 821,957 offences of violence against the person recorded by the police in
2010/11, six per cent less than in the previous year. Within the overall category of police
recorded violence against the person, both violence with injury and violence without injury fell,
by eight per cent and four per cent respectively (Table 2.04).
Long-term trends For the population groups and offences it covers, the BCS is the best source for assessing
long-term trends as it has used the same methodology since it began and is not influenced by
reporting and recording changes that can impact on police figures. There are some notable
omissions from the main BCS, for example, homicide data and data for victims aged 10 to 15
(see Box 3.1 for information on BCS experimental statistics on victimisation of children).
1 'All violence' includes wounding, assault with minor injury, assault without injury and robbery. For more information
see Section 5.1 of the User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics.
According to the Home Office, there were around 880,000 "Violence against the person" crimes in England and Wales in 2008–9, equivalent to 16 per thousand people in England and Wales. There were about 50,000 sexual offences during the same period, just under 1 per thousand. Other areas of crime included robbery (80,000; equivalent to around 1.5 crimes/per thousand), burglary (285,000; 5 per thousand) and vehicle theft (150,000; 3 per thousand). Based on the Government's preferred comparison system, this marked a 7% decline in crime on the year before.
In 2008, according to the FBI, 14,180 people were murdered in America.[4] In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[5]
Homicide
The US homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991 from a rate per 100,000 persons of 9.8 to 4.8 in 2010, is still among the highest in the industrialized world. There were 14,748 murders in the United States in 2010[30] (666,160 murders from 1960 to 1996).[31] In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, roughly three times as high as Canada (1.9) and six times as high as Germany (0.9). Taken from the chart in this section, the UK in 2000 had a rate of 1.4 per 100k A closer look at The National Archive of Criminal Justice Data indicates that per-capita homicide rates over the last 30 years on average of major cities, New Orleans' average annual per capita homicide rate of 52 murders per 100,000 people overall (1980–2009) ranks highest of U.S. cities with average annual homicide totals among the 10 highest during the same period. [32][33] Most industrialized countries had homicide rates below the 2.5 mark.[34][35]
There is a chart in there detailing other crimes, but it does not have a nice little summing paragraph like the UK one does.
The UK one. How many of them were Alcohol related?
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Jihadin wrote:The UK one. How many of them were Alcohol related?
JUdging by the amount of fights I have been in.. say 20, and whether me or the bloke I was fighting with was pissed or not..
I reckon about 99.9%.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
AustonT wrote:Really? That must be why the UK has something like 5x the violent crime per capita and is as the Mail put it:
"The most violent country in Europe."
If you want to read the 2010/11 crime report, feel free.
EXTENT AND TRENDS IN OVERALL VIOLENCE
The 2010/11 BCS estimates that there were 2,203,000 violent incidents against adults in
England and Wales.1 Although there was an apparent six per cent increase compared with
2009/10, estimates for these two years are not statistically significantly different (Table 2.01).
Within the overall category of BCS violence, there have been no statistically significant
changes for the specific offence types of wounding, assault without injury or robbery between
the 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS (Table 2.01).
There was a 38 per cent increase in the number of incidents of assault with minor injury
compared with the 2009/10 BCS. This was preceded by small fluctuations in recent years and
levels of these incidents are now similar to those seen in 2006/07.
As in previous years, assault without injury accounted for the largest proportion (38%) of all
violent incidents measured by the 2010/11 BCS, followed by assault with minor injury (27%),
wounding (24%), and robbery (11%) (Table 2.01).
There were 821,957 offences of violence against the person recorded by the police in
2010/11, six per cent less than in the previous year. Within the overall category of police
recorded violence against the person, both violence with injury and violence without injury fell,
by eight per cent and four per cent respectively (Table 2.04).
Long-term trends For the population groups and offences it covers, the BCS is the best source for assessing
long-term trends as it has used the same methodology since it began and is not influenced by
reporting and recording changes that can impact on police figures. There are some notable
omissions from the main BCS, for example, homicide data and data for victims aged 10 to 15
(see Box 3.1 for information on BCS experimental statistics on victimisation of children).
1 'All violence' includes wounding, assault with minor injury, assault without injury and robbery. For more information
see Section 5.1 of the User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics.
According to the Home Office, there were around 880,000 "Violence against the person" crimes in England and Wales in 2008–9, equivalent to 16 per thousand people in England and Wales. There were about 50,000 sexual offences during the same period, just under 1 per thousand. Other areas of crime included robbery (80,000; equivalent to around 1.5 crimes/per thousand), burglary (285,000; 5 per thousand) and vehicle theft (150,000; 3 per thousand). Based on the Government's preferred comparison system, this marked a 7% decline in crime on the year before.
There is a chart in there detailing other crimes, but it does not have a nice little summing paragraph like the UK one does.
First and foremost, the BCS only addresses crime in England and Wales, not the UK as a whole. Don't worry I'll help you out.
Eurostat compiles all 3 of the reported crime statistics for the UK.
There were 1056054 violent crimes reported in the UK in 2009 and 61.8M people http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10401629 That's 1708 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Which is lower than the number reported in both the Telegraph and the Mail, implying the population number I used is higher or the crime number lower, either way.
The FBI reports that the rate of violent crime per 100000 in the US was 431.9.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls 1/4th that of the UK.
The Telegraph and the Mail both wrote articles based on a commission looking at the 2007 numbers which apparently worked out to 2034/100000 compared to the US @ 471. again just above 1/4 the rate of the UK.
You quoted the report that said:
there was an apparent six per cent increase (in violent crime) compared with
2009/10,
Vice the FBI's report
The 2010 violent crime rate was 403.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, a decrease of 6.5 percent when compared with the 2009 violent crime rate.
So whatever point you are trying to make I must be missing somewhere in the facts. I will revise my statement after actually looking at the numbers the UK's crime rate is *only* 4x that of the US.
mattyrm wrote:
Jihadin wrote:The UK one. How many of them were Alcohol related?
JUdging by the amount of fights I have been in.. say 20, and whether me or the bloke I was fighting with was pissed or not..
I reckon about 99.9%.
I saw something that said about half of people hospitalized after fighting were intoxicated to some degree.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
AustonT wrote:Really? That must be why the UK has something like 5x the violent crime per capita and is as the Mail put it:
"The most violent country in Europe."
If you want to read the 2010/11 crime report, feel free.
EXTENT AND TRENDS IN OVERALL VIOLENCE
The 2010/11 BCS estimates that there were 2,203,000 violent incidents against adults in
England and Wales.1 Although there was an apparent six per cent increase compared with
2009/10, estimates for these two years are not statistically significantly different (Table 2.01).
Within the overall category of BCS violence, there have been no statistically significant
changes for the specific offence types of wounding, assault without injury or robbery between
the 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS (Table 2.01).
There was a 38 per cent increase in the number of incidents of assault with minor injury
compared with the 2009/10 BCS. This was preceded by small fluctuations in recent years and
levels of these incidents are now similar to those seen in 2006/07.
As in previous years, assault without injury accounted for the largest proportion (38%) of all
violent incidents measured by the 2010/11 BCS, followed by assault with minor injury (27%),
wounding (24%), and robbery (11%) (Table 2.01).
There were 821,957 offences of violence against the person recorded by the police in
2010/11, six per cent less than in the previous year. Within the overall category of police
recorded violence against the person, both violence with injury and violence without injury fell,
by eight per cent and four per cent respectively (Table 2.04).
Long-term trends For the population groups and offences it covers, the BCS is the best source for assessing
long-term trends as it has used the same methodology since it began and is not influenced by
reporting and recording changes that can impact on police figures. There are some notable
omissions from the main BCS, for example, homicide data and data for victims aged 10 to 15
(see Box 3.1 for information on BCS experimental statistics on victimisation of children).
1 'All violence' includes wounding, assault with minor injury, assault without injury and robbery. For more information
see Section 5.1 of the User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics.
According to the Home Office, there were around 880,000 "Violence against the person" crimes in England and Wales in 2008–9, equivalent to 16 per thousand people in England and Wales. There were about 50,000 sexual offences during the same period, just under 1 per thousand. Other areas of crime included robbery (80,000; equivalent to around 1.5 crimes/per thousand), burglary (285,000; 5 per thousand) and vehicle theft (150,000; 3 per thousand). Based on the Government's preferred comparison system, this marked a 7% decline in crime on the year before.
There is a chart in there detailing other crimes, but it does not have a nice little summing paragraph like the UK one does.
First and foremost, the BCS only addresses crime in England and Wales, not the UK as a whole. Don't worry I'll help you out.
Eurostat compiles all 3 of the reported crime statistics for the UK.
Spoiler:
There were 1056054 violent crimes reported in the UK in 2009 and 61.8M people http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10401629 That's 1708 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Which is lower than the number reported in both the Telegraph and the Mail, implying the population number I used is higher or the crime number lower, either way.
The FBI reports that the rate of violent crime per 100000 in the US was 431.9.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls 1/4th that of the UK.
The Telegraph and the Mail both wrote articles based on a commission looking at the 2007 numbers which apparently worked out to 2034/100000 compared to the US @ 471. again just above 1/4 the rate of the UK.
You quoted the report that said:
there was an apparent six per cent increase (in violent crime) compared with
2009/10,
Vice the FBI's report
The 2010 violent crime rate was 403.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, a decrease of 6.5 percent when compared with the 2009 violent crime rate.
So whatever point you are trying to make I must be missing somewhere in the facts. I will revise my statement after actually looking at the numbers the UK's crime rate is *only* 4x that of the US.
mattyrm wrote:
Jihadin wrote:The UK one. How many of them were Alcohol related?
JUdging by the amount of fights I have been in.. say 20, and whether me or the bloke I was fighting with was pissed or not..
I reckon about 99.9%.
I saw something that said about half of people hospitalized after fighting were intoxicated to some degree.
The UK figures include types of assault not included in the US stats, such as an assault which does not lead to serious bodily harm and assaults without a weapon.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Jihadin wrote:The UK one. How many of them were Alcohol related?
JUdging by the amount of fights I have been in.. say 20, and whether me or the bloke I was fighting with was pissed or not..
I reckon about 99.9%.
I saw something that said about half of people hospitalized after fighting were intoxicated to some degree.
Last I checked the average level of alcohol consumption in the UK was something like 3-5 times the average level in the US...
That'll make a difference...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/06 18:22:49
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze "You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry.
AustonT wrote:First and foremost, the BCS only addresses crime in England and Wales, not the UK as a whole. Don't worry I'll help you out.
England has 5/6ths of the UK's population, and the majority of the UK's built up areas.
So whatever point you are trying to make I must be missing somewhere in the facts. I will revise my statement after actually looking at the numbers the UK's crime rate is *only* 4x that of the US.
The classification of violent crime differs from country to country, as does the way it is reported. As mentioned by A Town Called Malus, the UK figure is quite high as it contains crimes not classed as "violent crimes" in the US. Check out the crime report for the UK definition.
Jihadin wrote:The UK one. How many of them were Alcohol related?
JUdging by the amount of fights I have been in.. say 20, and whether me or the bloke I was fighting with was pissed or not..
I reckon about 99.9%.
I saw something that said about half of people hospitalized after fighting were intoxicated to some degree.
Last I checked the average level of alcohol consumption in the UK was something like 3-5 times the average level in the US...
That'll make a difference...
It also mentioned scrutiny of 24 hour drinking.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
The UK figures include types of assault not included in the US stats, such as an assault which does not lead to serious bodily harm and assaults without a weapon.
Prove that.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
BaronIveagh wrote:Saying 'Well, it's the gun's fault' is not accurate. Even hardcore anti-gun advocates admit that there is something happening culturally in the US that has been driving violence up in the last four decades.
Violent crime has gone down for five years in a row, at least.
Yeah, but the real mystery is why it has been declining world wide since the mid 1990s.
I think it's the internet.
It rose steadily world wide for almost 40 years before that point.
Melissia wrote:A lot of violent urges these days are suppressed by video games.
Just my guess.
20 years later...
Just one theory.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/06 18:33:39
The UK figures include types of assault not included in the US stats, such as an assault which does not lead to serious bodily harm and assaults without a weapon.
