-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Feinstein to introduce AWB in January
- Thread starter nittany03
- Start date
Wow, a random guy on the internets with facts!! You never see that nowadays! :0 Oh, wait......Maybe not wrong.......but very misleading if you only take the overall figure and compare the two, but that would deflate his argument which is maybe why he didn't go into more detail.
My first question was what the UK and US consider 'violent crimes'? From what I can see they both have very similar definitions that include murder/homicide, robberies, rapes, burglary, motor vehicle theft and a few others. Drilling down to the numbers in the actual categories tell a bit more complete story though.
Here are some pretty straightforward crime rates that can easily be compared between the two countries crime data, I used crimes reported to police like the FBI crime figures that were originally highlighted and not crime surveys like the US's National Crime Victim Survey and the UK's British Crime Survey. I had to do the math on the UK rates since they don't have them in the paper I used summarizing the stats, they just have the total numbers and I tried to apply the FBI crime definitions to the UK categories which are broken down into more detailed descriptions. All numbers are the rate per 100,000 and are for the US 2011 and for the UK 2010/11, (12 months over both years) using 56 million for the combined population of England and Wales:
FBI crime rates link
UK Home Office crime rates link
US Forcible Rape Rate - 26.8
UK Rape Rate - 28.4*
*Page 43, including male and female
US Burglary Rate - 702.2
UK Burglary Rate - 933.3**
**I used 'Total Burglary Offences' from page 44
US Murder Rate - 4.7
UK Murder Rate - 1.15^
^Page 42
US Vehicle Theft Rate - 229.6
UK Vehicle Theft Rate - 189.5*** or 243.2#
***I used 'Aggravated vehicle taking' and 'Theft or unauthorised taking of vehicle', page 44
#Includes 'Interfering with a motor vehicle' in addition to the two figures above which by the UK definition includes "tampering with a motor vehicle", you could include it as possible attempted theft which is included in the FBI definition but I don't see it in the UK figures. Neither UK rate includes 'Theft from vehicle' which is not in the FBI definition, again from page 44
So some of the more easily compared violent crime numbers aren't really that much different at all, especially when contrasted with the difference in the overall rate of violent crime the random dude on the internet uses. So where do the difference come from? A good example is the aggravated assault/violence against person rates:
US Aggravated Assault Rate - 241.1
UK Rate of Violence against the person - with Injury (minus deaths) - 656.4^^^
UK Rate of Violence against the person - with and without Injury (minus deaths) - 1465.9^^^
^^^Page 42
A close look at the rates though show a dramatic rise in the UK violence against person- with injury rate, more than doubling in 4 years, then falling by more than 50% from that peak all in less than 10 years. The vast majority of that change comes from 'Less serious wounding' and the now equivalent 'Actual Bodily Harm and other injury' numbers. Since none of the other violent crime rates have such dramatic variations within the past ten years it makes me wonder about reporting requirements and definitions changing across England and Wales. There is also a bit of a difference in definition of assault between the two countries WRT to the rates in the links with the UK one being much more broad. The FBI definition of aggravated assaults include assaults including violence and attempted violence while the UK 'without injury' rate includes such things 'Public fear, alarm and distress'. I haven't found where the FBI breaks down the numbers in such detail.
So what do all the above rates say? For most of the easily comparable rates to include rape, burglary and vehicle theft the rates in the UK and US aren't all that different. Probably the rate easiest to measure, the homicide rate, shows a dramatic difference between the two countries. The big difference occurs in the assault rates, I proposed a reason for the huge discrepancy but I can't say for sure that is the reason though for the difference. Either way I would prefer to have 'less serious wounds' than be dead.
So in summary I wasted a good chunk of a slow day actually looking up the data from the sources instead of being lazy and relying on a single random guy from the internets. It is also a little puzzling why he claims the few seem to have noticed that crime rates in the US have fallen so dramatically and why no one seems to ask why that has happened. I guess he hasn't cracked a paper recently or watched the news since I have seen that reported repeatedly. The why it is still being debated but NYC seems to have a good handle on focusing on the what and where and maybe that is why their crime rates continue to drop dramatically from the rates they were at 20, 10 and even 5 years ago.
So, too much? Too little? Do you even care? Or is it just not enough truthiness?
Schumer seems to think the AWB is the root cause of the drop...
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Flash, I would call the 28% difference in burglary between the countries statistically significant, too.
The numbers are interesting. Just curious: how do the studies count crime? Do they use arrests for that particular crime? Convictions? Calls? I ask because one of the major takeaways from a criminal justice class I took in college way back when was that the way crime is counted can significantly effect the numbers. More importantly, it can effect trends, even move them in the opposite direction, which can lead people to erroneous conclusions regarding why the crime rate is changing. If the two studies you datamined count crime in different ways, you are comparing apples to oranges with those numbers.
Regarding why crime has dropped, it started dropping off in the late 90's/early 2000's. The studies around that time when I was taking college courses about it pointed to the strongest correlation between the popularity of crack-cocaine and violent crime. NYC was also an outlier in that it was the only major city which saw a significant drop in crime paired with hiring more police. Most cities saw the opposite trend, but that was also due to the way crime statistics were counted, depending on the study (# of arrests for that crime).
I think that the real takeaway is that the percentage of people who legally own guns is not strongly correlated with violent crime rates. All the more reason for people to stick to the "it's my right to defend myself" argument and not the "it lowers crime" or "I need it for hunting" arguments. If anything, it's more of a blow to those seeking more gun regulation in the name of preventing violent crime because it is not likely to statistically affect our crime rate.
The numbers are interesting. Just curious: how do the studies count crime? Do they use arrests for that particular crime? Convictions? Calls? I ask because one of the major takeaways from a criminal justice class I took in college way back when was that the way crime is counted can significantly effect the numbers. More importantly, it can effect trends, even move them in the opposite direction, which can lead people to erroneous conclusions regarding why the crime rate is changing. If the two studies you datamined count crime in different ways, you are comparing apples to oranges with those numbers.
Regarding why crime has dropped, it started dropping off in the late 90's/early 2000's. The studies around that time when I was taking college courses about it pointed to the strongest correlation between the popularity of crack-cocaine and violent crime. NYC was also an outlier in that it was the only major city which saw a significant drop in crime paired with hiring more police. Most cities saw the opposite trend, but that was also due to the way crime statistics were counted, depending on the study (# of arrests for that crime).
I think that the real takeaway is that the percentage of people who legally own guns is not strongly correlated with violent crime rates. All the more reason for people to stick to the "it's my right to defend myself" argument and not the "it lowers crime" or "I need it for hunting" arguments. If anything, it's more of a blow to those seeking more gun regulation in the name of preventing violent crime because it is not likely to statistically affect our crime rate.
Yeah, it is but not so much as the murder rate.
Great question and I don't know the answer. That is part of the reason I highlighted what I thought were the most comparable crimes with well-known definitions shared by both countries. Can't really fudge a murder rate that much. That is also part of the reason I think the assault rates are so drastically different, some of the UK stats have no equivalent to US ones.
I have seen a lot of arguments as to why the crime rate has dropped so dramatically and I think it is a variety of factors to include better policing to include technology, changing demographics, a large percentage of the criminals being locked up and some change in culture. But there are smarter folk than me that probably have better answers
I think you are right on both counts but for one statistic, the murder rate. That alone gives a pretty good argument in favor of gun restrictions.
"Does a boy get a chance to whitewash a fence every day?”
The only problem I have with that statement is the simple fact that the US and the UK have such drastic differences in cultures. As an example, and from what I can gather, the UK is very much a "knife culture", even before they had a gun ban.
Basically, all statistics aside, I have a tough time rectifying our laws in the US with other countries simply because every country is dramatically different, even a country that is as close as Canada.
So, saying that the murder rate would dramatically reduce in the US is a best guess at most. I think the better question would be "which kind of murder rate would decrease". I.e., would it be the murder rate of folks who legally go to a gun shop and follow due process to get their gun or would it be the gangbangers on the street? I don't know the answer but I would like to hear comments.
In the end, I'm pretty uncomfortable making laws in the US based solely off of another country's experience, especially when the law is so dramatically different/against our civil rights.
Shack…that's a qual. Check switches safe…cleared to RTB.
No attempt to ban hammers, impose fist capacity limits, or clubs with more than three of the 'assault club' characteristics from the Good Senators from California and New York...still standing by to see this piece of legislation:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles
Interesting link. Unfortunately, none of those homicides make the national news. It's all about the media drumbeat…and I guess, to be "fair and balanced", I doubt any first class grade in a school was ever killed in one day with a hammer, bat, bludgeon, whatever.
Sadly, that's how ridiculous the whole thing has become.
Nowadays, I guess, children playing "Cowboys and Indians" or "Cops and Robbers" is not only racist in the extreme (in the first case), but also symptomatic (in both instances) of homicidal tendencies and adherence to "the culture of gun violence".
Someday, we will eventually reap whatever the hell it is we're sowing.
Interesting thread, abductive reasoning abounds. Arguments that illustrate "other countries" that ban almost all private gun ownership, such as Japan and Syria, have more desirable outcomes vs.a.vs violence may be myopic to say the least. I will leave Syria for another day, as some will be quick to say that "...that situation is different..." which is exactly my point.
Japan I know very much about. When in Japan I volunteered as often as possible to be a Shore Patrol ride along with the Japanese National Police. Yes, they think our Second Amendment is quaint, needs to be eliminated. They also think they same direction with our Fourth Amendment and especially our Fifth Amendment. They also believe we need a National Police Force such as their own. Seldom do they apprehend a suspect without getting a full confession, rubber flip-flops make an excellent "persuader", leaving virtually no marks. They were a standard item in each interrogation room I saw. I joined them in laughing about our ATF - Alcohol - Tobacco - Firearms organization. An ineffective, outdated organization.
While on the subject, after Katrina and more recently Sandy, the Japanese are horrified to see the wholesale looting taking place after the storms. Horrified is an understatement. Quick to point out that there was no looting after the tsunami of 3/11/2011.
Indeed we have different situations that we are dealing with, with many components, not just gun ownership.
You had me at "abductive reasoning". Nice.
Seriously? Is the whole"rubber flip-flops persuader" thing a model for us? I, too, served two tours in Japan. They didn't know what a Constitution was until we taught them. HINT: There were guns involved in the educational process...
Nanking?
Chief: On a more forthright note, I honestly think you're trying to make a valid point of some sort. But your approach just loses me.