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.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK. As I stated previously, there are many other factors in play other than police actions and legal defense to consider. As I've all ready pointed out, or killings by minors and the mentally ill. Those in and of themselves would drop the US murder rate by 15%. There are a few more, but really, I all ready pointed out that I admit the US still has a higher murder rate, just not as bad as you'd think.

Meh, depending on the year it'll be between three and four times, either way it's multiple times bigger. And you can plus/minus for all kinds of piddling detail, but you're never getting away from that reality that the murder rate is multiple times higher.

So all that extra stuff, one thing counted in one total but not in the other... maybe all those bits will drop the ratio from 3 times to 2.8 times... none of that changes the central reality that the US has a murder rate that is completely unique among developed countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
A better comparison would be US rates vs. Central and South American countries. This isn't Europe. Its a completely different environment.

No, you are a developed country with a white collar, educated population with high incomes, and your infrastructure from police to courts is like any other developed country (not perfect, but a millions times better than what you'll find in most of central America). As such your crime rates are much the same as the rest of the developed world, the rates for property crime and violent crime other than murder are actually a little above the average in the rest of the developed world.

Claiming that you need to be compared to developing countries is crazy.

Clearly, Midsomer is not being included in the UK murder statistics.

 djones520 wrote:
When you actually calculate that into the per 100k numbers, it drops it from 3.9 to 3.5. That is a pretty significant shift, not just smoke and mirrors.

First up, your maths is wrong. Reducing by 721 drops the total by about 6%. This would reduce a 3.9 murder rate to 3.66, not 3.5 as you said.

And second and more importantly, this is still minor nonsense. Moving from 3.9 to 3.66 is still multiples bigger. The basic conclusion remains the same - the US is unique among developed countries when it comes to its murder rate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Europe never had a frontier. Europe hasn't dealt with cartel members (look how Italy and Sicily have fared with organized crime). Each country defines crime in different manners. We could note that assaults are much higher in Britain than the US.

First up, cartel violence is a very small portion of your murder rate.

Second up, the whole world has organised crime, and it's not pleasant anywhere.

I see we've once again wandered in to that very silly argument in which an American tries to come up with all kinds of ways in which America is very different to the rest of the developed world by listing lots of things in which the US is not actually any different to the rest of the world, all in order to excuse the one area in which America is very different to the rest of the developed world, murder rate.

I can only imagine the race to cook meth as a conglomeration of some Brand. The price is higher on that meth b\c of regulations and sanitary working condition(employees with ID containing sworn statements of not being meth heads). Now imagine you're a hopeful meth head awaiting liberation, only to find out it's still cheaper to party at Lindsey Lohan's house.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
When you actually calculate that into the per 100k numbers, it drops it from 3.9 to 3.5. That is a pretty significant shift, not just smoke and mirrors.

First up, your maths is wrong. Reducing by 721 drops the total by about 6%. This would reduce a 3.9 murder rate to 3.66, not 3.5 as you said.

And second and more importantly, this is still minor nonsense. Moving from 3.9 to 3.66 is still multiples bigger. The basic conclusion remains the same - the US is unique among developed countries when it comes to its murder rate.

You might want to figure out how to do the calculations before you call someone else out on their math.

CRIME RATE – A crime rate describes the number of crimes reported to
law enforcement agencies per 100,000 total population. A crime rate
is calculated by dividing the number of reported crimes by the total
population; the result is multiplied by 100,000. For example, in 2010 there
were 58,100 robberies in California and the population was 38,826,898. This
equals a robbery crime rate of 149.6 per 100,000 general population.

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/prof10/formulas.pdf

11961 - 721 = 11240

(11240 / 318900000) 100000 = 3.52

Also, an interesting thing to note. Rate per 100K in 1994 was 9.0. 2004 5.5. 2014 3.5.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

A rather remarkable trend in reduction of murder rates. I guess though because other countries are lower, it means we aren't doing something right.

 djones520 wrote:
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/prof10/formulas.pdf

11961 - 721 = 11240

(11240 / 318900000) 100000 = 3.52

What you've done is taken a starting figure calculated by another source, 3.9 per 100,000, and then calculated your own figure, and then recorded a difference between the two. Among people like myself who create comparison figures all day, this is called 'fething up'.

If you don't get what I'm saying, go and calculate the opening murder rate of 3.9 per 100,000 for yourself. Take the 11,961 you gave, divide it by the 318,900,000 figure you gave, and see how it doesn't give 3.9. It gives 3.75.

Your mistake is in taking at face value a figure given by another source, and assuming it was using same numerator and denominator you used in your later calculation. It wasn't, and in most cases it rarely will be. The options therefore are to recalculate both figures for yourself, or to calculate the net impact of the change and apply that change to the original.

The first is the better method, if you're completely confident in your new figures. If you'd done that with your figures then you would have said 'the murder rate is 3.75, but after adjustment it goes to 3.52'. The second method is better when you have reason to believe the original figure is more reliable than your current figures. In that case you would calculate the 721 adjustment as a percentage of the total murders and apply that to your original 3.9, to give 3.66.

This probably isn't the most fun way to learn this lesson, but please learn it anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Also, an interesting thing to note. Rate per 100K in 1994 was 9.0. 2004 5.5. 2014 3.5.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

A rather remarkable trend in reduction of murder rates. I guess though because other countries are lower, it means we aren't doing something right.

You're doing heaps right. Of course, the rest of the developed world is also doing lots right - murder is down everywhere and it's great. I'm the guy who's always saying that things are getting better and I'm annoyed at how much everyone likes to complain about how terrible everything is. Look at my sig for God's sake.

But it'd be a very silly argument to claim that because the overall trend is down, that doesn't mean there aren't significant factors that are increasing it within individual countries. That'd be like claiming that because life expectancy is up, then the increase in junk food must not be bad for people.

The USA is literally attached to one of the biggest drug running countries in the world. Drugs = crime = murder. We also have a hot mess of culture clash - not to mention a portion of our population that refuses to assimilate. These are all problems that Europeans don't have.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The USA is literally attached to one of the biggest drug running countries in the world. Drugs = crime = murder. We also have a hot mess of culture clash - not to mention a portion of our population that refuses to assimilate. These are all problems that Europeans don't have.

Just curious, who is refusing to assimilate?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Just curious, who is refusing to assimilate?

Canadians... Curse them and their politeness

 Xenomancers wrote:
The USA is literally attached to one of the biggest drug running countries in the world. Drugs = crime = murder. We also have a hot mess of culture clash - not to mention a portion of our population that refuses to assimilate. These are all problems that Europeans don't have.

Actually the US is middle of the road for drug use. If your theory had merit then Australia, who's the #1 illegal drug user per the 2014 global survey, would have the highest murder rate. And yet our murder rate is perfectly middle of the road.

And pretty much every country with immigrant populations has problems, or perceives to have problems, with assimilation. If it drove up murder you'd see higher rates of murder in every country with high rates of immigration. But you don't.

And so here we are, again, with Americans listing reasons their country is different but only listing things in which America just isn't different to the rest of the developed world. All in order to avoid acknowledging that the one way in which you are very different might just be driving up that murder rate.

 sebster wrote:
Actually the US is middle of the road for drug use. If your theory had merit then Australia, who's the #1 illegal drug user per the 2014 global survey, would have the highest murder rate. And yet our murder rate is perfectly mi.

Clearly you're all just too high to bother murdering anyone

 LordofHats wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Actually the US is middle of the road for drug use. If your theory had merit then Australia, who's the #1 illegal drug user per the 2014 global survey, would have the highest murder rate. And yet our murder rate is perfectly mi.

Clearly you're all just too high to bother murdering anyone

So the solution is more drugs for the USA!

 sebster wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK. As I stated previously, there are many other factors in play other than police actions and legal defense to consider. As I've all ready pointed out, or killings by minors and the mentally ill. Those in and of themselves would drop the US murder rate by 15%. There are a few more, but really, I all ready pointed out that I admit the US still has a higher murder rate, just not as bad as you'd think.

Meh, depending on the year it'll be between three and four times, either way it's multiple times bigger. And you can plus/minus for all kinds of piddling detail, but you're never getting away from that reality that the murder rate is multiple times higher.

So all that extra stuff, one thing counted in one total but not in the other... maybe all those bits will drop the ratio from 3 times to 2.8 times... none of that changes the central reality that the US has a murder rate that is completely unique among developed countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
A better comparison would be US rates vs. Central and South American countries. This isn't Europe. Its a completely different environment.

No, you are a developed country with a white collar, educated population with high incomes, and your infrastructure from police to courts is like any other developed country (not perfect, but a millions times better than what you'll find in most of central America). As such your crime rates are much the same as the rest of the developed world, the rates for property crime and violent crime other than murder are actually a little above the average in the rest of the developed world.

Claiming that you need to be compared to developing countries is crazy.

Why is it crazy to compare ourselves to the actual region we live in. Pardon the hell out of me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Just curious, who is refusing to assimilate?

Canadians... Curse them and their politeness

As stated. their politeness is a cover, to get them closer, so when you turn your back BAM! they drop a moose on you.

 Frazzled wrote:


Why is it crazy to compare ourselves to the actual region we live in. Pardon the hell out of me.

Because you are not representative of the region. Same reason Australia is not usually compared to South East Asia in terms of statistics.

 Frazzled wrote:

Why is it crazy to compare ourselves to the actual region we live in. Pardon the hell out of me.

Sebster has put forward ways that the comparison between the US & Other developed countries is relevant: economics, police & court structures, education levels and general social infrastructure. If you'd like to challenge the fact these are relevant to crime rates, please do so. Alternatively if you agree these traits are relevant to crime rates but would simply like to challenge the idea we share these more with South American countries than others, please do so. Simply outline the reasoning behind these challenges and what evidence you feels supports that reasoning.

If we are to take your fixation on geography at face value, are we to believe that perhaps the particular tectonic plates under people's feet are what drive them to kill their fellow man, hmm? You've repeatedly made claims that "environment" and the region are important but have suggested no plausible mechanism for the difference that can be attributed to "environment" or the region. Maybe it's all the corn?

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Also, an interesting thing to note. Rate per 100K in 1994 was 9.0. 2004 5.5. 2014 3.5.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

A rather remarkable trend in reduction of murder rates. I guess though because other countries are lower, it means we aren't doing something right.

You're doing heaps right. Of course, the rest of the developed world is also doing lots right - murder is down everywhere and it's great. I'm the guy who's always saying that things are getting better and I'm annoyed at how much everyone likes to complain about how terrible everything is. Look at my sig for God's sake.

But it'd be a very silly argument to claim that because the overall trend is down, that doesn't mean there aren't significant factors that are increasing it within individual countries. That'd be like claiming that because life expectancy is up, then the increase in junk food must not be bad for people.

I agree with you sebster. The data is what it is and the statistics show what they show. The US has a higher murder rate than other developed countries. Our murder rate is significantly higher whereas our incidence rate with other crimes is much closer to the average. I think the issue isn't whether or not the US murder rate is higher, it's if it's high enough to have an impact on society. I don't want to push anecdotal evidence but I think most people who've visited the US from other developed countries or anyone from the US who's visited other developed countries would agree that being in the US doesn't feel noticiably less safe than other developed countries. We have a higher murder rate and more violent crime in the news but it's still low enough that the majority of US citizens are never affected by a murder so as a whole our society doesn't treat it as a severe problem. There are certainly localities, namely urban areas, that have murder rates much higher than the national average and in those localities you do see severe social strain and problems because of the high crime rate. I think that its likely that the murder rate in Australia could double or triple and it would be a bad thing but society there would still be very stable and it would be a far cry from Mad Max levels of social upheaval. I think that's the impetus behind the argument others are making. Living in the US doesn't feel like it's 3x or 4x more dangerous than living in Australia so there's an urge to find evidence to support that feeling.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Just curious, who is refusing to assimilate?

Canadians... Curse them and their politeness

Sorry.


Seriously though... just end the War on Drugs! Legalise all the various listed substances.Take the money currently being pissed away on fighting the way and put it into treatment.

Within a few generations, the 'drug problem' will be mostly sorted out, I'm sure.

If legalizing drugs is a good idea then why haven't more countries done it. Or have they and I'm just unaware of it. I know Portugal did it and last I read it's working great for them. But why haven't others done so.

yellowfever wrote:
If legalizing drugs is a good idea then why haven't more countries done it. Or have they and I'm just unaware of it. I know Portugal did it and last I read it's working great for them. But why haven't others done so.

Because of political pressure from us and other countries who are still hanging on to the idea that it works, despite large amounts of evidence saying it does not. Also because of people like you who continue to vote for people who refuse to admit it has failed.

Then there are the countries who do not have separation of church and state that do it because of religious reasons.

There are also other countries who have legalized drugs to certain degrees. Marijuana is legalized in multiple countries now and they have yet to burn to the ground.

What the hell do you mean by people like me. And how do you know how I vote.

I wasn't trying to imply if I'm for or against it. I'm asking if anyone knows.

yellowfever wrote:
What the hell do you mean by people like me. And how do you know how I vote.

I wasn't trying to imply if I'm for or against it. I'm asking if anyone knows.

Because if I'm honest with myself, and I hope you are, I realize that this is an issue that has crossed party lines. I've seen a shift in the Democrat side of things, calling for an end to these policies, but the Republicans haven't budged one bit. For a decent period of time, it didn't really matter which way you voted, you were voting for a candidate who was gonna continue the war on drugs.

But he was calling me out. Your statement means everyone is guilty regardless of which side they are on. My original point was to get information if anyone knew it. That's it.

yellowfever wrote:
What the hell do you mean by people like me. And how do you know how I vote.

I wasn't trying to imply if I'm for or against it. I'm asking if anyone knows.

I know how you vote because the notion that the War on Drugs is failed has only come about recently and there are very, very few politicians right now who are trying to end it.

Wow. Your ability to know a lot from very little is astounding

yellowfever wrote:
Wow. Your ability to know a lot from very little is astounding

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. Regardless of who you vote for, you have been supporting the War on Drugs.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why is it crazy to compare ourselves to the actual region we live in. Pardon the hell out of me.

You're pardoned. But it's crazy because murder rates don't track by geography. You aren't more likely to go in to a furious rage and murder the sleazy ex-boyfriend who punched your daughter because Mexico and Brazil are geographically closer to you than Switzerland and Belgium are.

But you are more likely to do those things when educational levels are lower, when policing is less effective, and so on. And that makes you comparable to Europe and the rest of the developed world, and not very comparable to South America.

I get what your saying as far as that. I just don't agree with it. Nice chatting

yellowfever wrote:
I get what your saying as far as that. I just don't agree with it. Nice chatting

Cool, I mean you are wrong. But cool.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I agree with you sebster. The data is what it is and the statistics show what they show. The US has a higher murder rate than other developed countries. Our murder rate is significantly higher whereas our incidence rate with other crimes is much closer to the average. I think the issue isn't whether or not the US murder rate is higher, it's if it's high enough to have an impact on society. I don't want to push anecdotal evidence but I think most people who've visited the US from other developed countries or anyone from the US who's visited other developed countries would agree that being in the US doesn't feel noticiably less safe than other developed countries. We have a higher murder rate and more violent crime in the news but it's still low enough that the majority of US citizens are never affected by a murder so as a whole our society doesn't treat it as a severe problem. There are certainly localities, namely urban areas, that have murder rates much higher than the national average and in those localities you do see severe social strain and problems because of the high crime rate. I think that its likely that the murder rate in Australia could double or triple and it would be a bad thing but society there would still be very stable and it would be a far cry from Mad Max levels of social upheaval. I think that's the impetus behind the argument others are making. Living in the US doesn't feel like it's 3x or 4x more dangerous than living in Australia so there's an urge to find evidence to support that feeling.

I completely agree with you on all of this. It's important to remember that while 10,000 people murdered is a big number, out of a population of 300m it isn't that big - murder is still quite unlikely to impact an individual's life.

And I never felt unsafe when I traveled through the US.