Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
37% is from the British Crime Survey for 2004, which is a victim study and has many many issues with it's questioning, and methodologies, for instance not including victims of crimes who live in University Halls of Residence (that's a lot of the 18-21 year range who are students), and capping offenses included to 5 per victim per year are just two of the wonderful errors in methodology so someone in an offense where their car was being broken into who challenged the robber, who then attacked that person with a knife, and later that year was beaten up in the street would have several of their offenses not included in that survey the car incidents would result in them being a victim of perhaps 5-6 crimes, which would cap them. The recorded crime is a little more factual, but obviously is colored based on the police perception of the incident.
OK lets talk Common assault, that's an assault that does not achieve the requirements to be Actual Bodily Harm. So a black eye for example would most likely be common assault. Now the second issue is that common assault/no injuries, is what the police have recorded it as. Which means that someone who was attacked and fought back, but was actually injured (broken tooth, rib, severed bruising), would likely see their attacker prosecuted under, since if they prosecuted under Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) there's a chance that because the victim fought back there is the legal argument that the injuries sustained by the victim were a result of him defending himself (i.e. the attacker though he instigated the attack, was acting in "self defense" to protect himself from the victims retaliation). Finally prosecuting for ABH is more difficult anyway, and less likely to achieve a conviction, so the booking Sergeant may just opt for the easier Common Assault, or charge both Common Assault and ABH, but the charge is dropped to Common Assault by the Prosecution. So Common Assault is a catchall for every kind of assault from stepping on someone's toe, to beating them nearly to death with a baseball bat, it is not without injury by any means. Just so you know I'm an Ex-Pat Brit, so I've seen how it works in reality.
However lets look at serious violence from that report...
In that report there were 1,045 murders (Excluding Harold Shipman), 8% were with a firearm (which is what the thread is actually about). So from British Law that bans handguns (and seriously limits ownership of rifles and shotguns) there should have been zero, if it worked, but 83 people still died because it doesn't. ~1% of all violent crimes involved the use of a gun too, where do they get these guns given that they're banned I wonder...?
Now back to that report from 2004...
2,715,000 Violent offenses happened according to that report, if we take the 37% no injuries out, that's 1,710,450 violent crimes with injury, which is ~500,000 more than the US figures, for a population of roughly 1/5 the US, if we use the reported crime no injury value of 22% that's 2,117,700 violent crimes. Either way it's between ~500,000 to ~1M more than the US with 1/5 of the population even eliminating the alleged crimes that would not be crimes in the US. So your chance of getting murdered is less, but your chance of being involved in a violent crime is more than 5 times greater.
37% is from the British Crime Survey for 2004, which is a victim study and has many many issues with it's questioning, and methodologies, for instance not including victims of crimes who live in University Halls of Residence (that's a lot of the 18-21 year range who are students), and capping offenses included to 5 per victim per year are just two of the wonderful errors in methodology so someone in an offense where their car was being broken into who challenged the robber, who then attacked that person with a knife, and later that year was beaten up in the street would have several of their offenses not included in that survey the car incidents would result in them being a victim of perhaps 5-6 crimes, which would cap them. The recorded crime is a little more factual, but obviously is colored based on the police perception of the incident.
OK lets talk Common assault, that's an assault that does not achieve the requirements to be Actual Bodily Harm. So a black eye for example would most likely be common assault. Now the second issue is that common assault/no injuries, is what the police have recorded it as. Which means that someone who was attacked and fought back, but was actually injured (broken tooth, rib, severed bruising), would likely see their attacker prosecuted under, since if they prosecuted under Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) there's a chance that because the victim fought back there is the legal argument that the injuries sustained by the victim were a result of him defending himself (i.e. the attacker though he instigated the attack, was acting in "self defense" to protect himself from the victims retaliation). Finally prosecuting for ABH is more difficult anyway, and less likely to achieve a conviction, so the booking Sergeant may just opt for the easier Common Assault, or charge both Common Assault and ABH, but the charge is dropped to Common Assault by the Prosecution. So Common Assault is a catchall for every kind of assault from stepping on someone's toe, to beating them nearly to death with a baseball bat, it is not without injury by any means. Just so you know I'm an Ex-Pat Brit, so I've seen how it works in reality.
However lets look at serious violence from that report...
In that report there were 1,045 murders (Excluding Harold Shipman), 8% were with a firearm (which is what the thread is actually about). So from British Law that bans handguns (and seriously limits ownership of rifles and shotguns) there should have been zero, if it worked, but 83 people still died because it doesn't. ~1% of all violent crimes involved the use of a gun too, where do they get these guns given that they're banned I wonder...?
Now back to that report from 2004...
2,715,000 Violent offenses happened according to that report, if we take the 37% no injuries out, that's 1,710,450 violent crimes with injury, which is ~500,000 more than the US figures, for a population of roughly 1/5 the US, if we use the reported crime no injury value of 22% that's 2,117,700 violent crimes. Either way it's between ~500,000 to ~1M more than the US with 1/5 of the population even eliminating the alleged crimes that would not be crimes in the US. So your chance of getting murdered is less, but your chance of being involved in a violent crime is more than 5 times greater.
The 37% common assault numbers was just the tip of the iceberg. The UK lists harassment and minor sexual offenses as violent crime too. The U.S. does not.
It's pretty clear that US and UK's criterias are vastly different, and saying the UK has 4x the violent crime of the U.S. doesn't pass the sniff test, especially when the UK has such exceptionally low murder rate (which isn't open to interpretation). I read somewhere than a barfight between two drunks could potentially count as two violent crimes if the police get involved, lol. You're kidding yourself if you think across the Atlantic. London is MILES safer than any U.S. city.
The 37% common assault numbers was just the tip of the iceberg. The UK lists harassment and minor sexual offenses as violent crime too. The U.S. does not.
It's pretty clear that US and UK's criterias are vastly different, and saying the UK has 4x the violent crime of the U.S. doesn't pass the sniff test, especially when the UK has such exceptionally low murder rate (which isn't open to interpretation). I read somewhere than a barfight between two drunks could potentially count as two violent crimes if the police get involved, lol. You're kidding yourself if you think across the Atlantic. London is MILES safer than any U.S. city.
Actually practically they're not. You're speaking from a point of ignorance. What you read is technically accurate but practically wrong, almost always barfights if the police are present result in the less injured being charged, and the more injured being released regardless of the instigator. You should also be aware that in the vast majority of said barfights no charges are leveled, because there's no police presence or it's over before they can arrive. So in those instances the barfights are only part of the crime stats if one party reports it.
Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic, I can state with complete confidence I've never been burgled in the US, I've never had my car stolen or broken into in the US, I've never been assaulted in the US, I don't personally know anyone who has been murdered while living in the US. The UK, not so clean, burglaries, once per year for 10 years (which meant my TV, Microwave, Audio, Computer was never more than a year old, gotta love the UK's new for old insurance policies), car theft or break in 3 times one car theft, two thefts of radio equipment, one motorcycle theft, assaulted twice in the UK (I was 16 the first time, typical Friday night fight, the second time I was attacked with a box-cutter), two people I know were murdered, one was my nephew he was two and was smothered with a pillow by the babysitter, the other was a close friend, who was attacked by 5 drunks who used his head as a trampoline until it literally came off. Those crimes happened in a period from 1987-2000 which is when I left to come to the US.
So in my personal perception I was SIGNIFICANTLY more effected by crime while living in the UK, than I have been living in the US, even if we just consider violent crimes, I was personally assaulted twice in the UK to zero in the US, regarding assaults to people I know in the UK I couldn't even begin to estimate possibly 30-40 assaults in the UK to maybe 2-3 in the US. Murders I personally know two murdered people in the UK, zero in the US.
However consider that this encompasses nearly the same time period. Now you're quite welcome to believe that the UK is still the 1950's picture book red brick and roof tile houses with manicured lawns, but the reality is quite different, and with all this it STILL DOESN'T EXPLAIN how firearms crimes increased by around 100% from 1997 through to 2006 AFTER THE 1997 Firearms act.
Except for law enforcement and the military what problems would arise if there were no guns in this country? I suppose we would have 30,000 more people alive every year. What's that, about a million folks in some 30 odd years? I guess people couldn't go hunting. Well, there's always the grocery store. So, what would be the major problem if there were no guns in the citizenry?
Where did you get these horse s**t numbers?
30,000?
In 2010 the US had 14,748 murders in total and about a third of these murders were committed without fire arms.
Lots of military grade fire arms in Switzerland, yet they have a murder rate of just 0.7 per 100,000 persons.
"Switzerland’s gun policies are unique in that able-bodied men between the ages of 20-34 are actually required to have fully automatic firearms in their homes. This is in case the emergency militia needs to be called, as Switzerland has no permanent army. A license is needed to own hunting weapons."
Have you put down your latte and strolled over to Austin yet?
My grandmother lived on the west side for 60 years and my father grew up there too. What exactly is your point? That you can't help but expose your prejudice for everyone to see?
I can't remember when I have seen so much BS propoganda with so little support on any thread as I have this one... This has reached a level of absurdity..
I've seen a lot of Tex.
My mama didn't raise no fool.
I don't go hardly anywhere without a "heater".
I also am one of the lucky ones to have a lifetime CCW that never expires.
I also am one of the lucky ones to have a lifetime CCW that never expires.
I live I'm a state where you don't need a license to open carry, which technically is the superior mode of carry , and we are a shall issue state for chp.
I'm moving to another state in 6 months that is constitutional carry. No licenses, carry as you wish.
The UK is worse than South Africa for per capita violent crimes. You have a 22% better chance of being a victim in the UK than in the US. Again, so much for being disarmed and safe.
As for murders, the US isn't even in the top 40. We have less murders per capita than liberal utopias such as France, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Germany, Spain, Netherlands... and on and on and on
I'll not post all the stats on how crime goes down when a state becomes open carry, or CCP.
You should avoid passing on assumptions as fact.
According to United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime: (not nationmaster)
Homicide:
USA: 4.8 per 100,000
AUS: 1.0 per 100,000
Homicde by firearm - 2009
USA: 3.3 per 100,000
AUS: 0.1 per 100,000
clear is there is a significant higher chance of being killed with a firearm in USA, compared to Australia.
Also, every publication regarding whether gun control has been successful states, that its till too early to tell (although the figures indicate above the chance of being killed by a firearm in Australia is VERY small).
Last edited by artemis agrotera; 12-12-2012 at 11:03 PM..
What you need to look at is the increase of deaths caused by such things as hammers, knives, Irons, and any number of other things.. They simply replaced firearms with a different arsenal..... Frankly, given the choice, I would much rather be shot, than beat to death with a club...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
