Dissecting crime stats

[RampantAndroid]

This guy seems to have brought up some interesting points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

What he's basically pointing out is that our murder rate is ~4 to the UK's ~1 (england and whales), but that the real statistic to look at is the violent crime rate. According to the FBI, it's 386 per 100k in the US (~50% down from 1992) compared to a rate of (by this guy's calculations) 1361 per 100k. That is to say, the UK is 3.5 times MORE VIOLENT than the US.

So, uh....gun bans work, right?

 

[SandEagle]

us, uk
u s uk
u suk

 

[Screech]

more violent crime, fewer deaths

pick your poison

edit: the real data to look at the success or lack thereof of gun bans is to compare two places with economic similarity where one enacts a gun ban and one does not. In most cases the places that enact gun bans see a much larger increase in crime over time than those without, even if the place banning guns starts with a lower crime or murder rate (I believe this is essentially what happened in the UK vs the US).

/ramble off

 

[fskimospy]

This guy seems to have brought up some interesting points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

What he's basically pointing out is that our murder rate is ~4 to the UK's ~1 (england and whales), but that the real statistic to look at is the violent crime rate. According to the FBI, it's 386 per 100k in the US (~50% down from 1992) compared to a rate of (by this guy's calculations) 1361 per 100k. That is to say, the UK is 3.5 times MORE VIOLENT than the US.

So, uh....gun bans work, right?

The evidence you're putting forth there is pretty strong for the 'gun bans work' argument. If you have a more violent society with fewer deaths, that seems to indicate that people are less able to cause death despite having a greater desire to inflict violence.

 

[RampantAndroid]

The evidence you're putting forth there is pretty strong for the 'gun bans work' argument. If you have a more violent society with fewer deaths, that seems to indicate that people are less able to cause death despite having a greater desire to inflict violence.

A rate of murders of what, 4 vs 1 and a fair number of gun deaths are criminal on criminal. I think we can find more effective ways to bridge the gap. I will not give up guns and in return accept higher rates of assault, rape and so forth. You're just trading one evil for another (and in my view a 3.5 increase in violent crime is 100% unacceptable), and for no god damned good reason.

 

[Screech]

The evidence you're putting forth there is pretty strong for the 'gun bans work' argument. If you have a more violent society with fewer deaths, that seems to indicate that people are less able to cause death despite having a greater desire to inflict violence.

If both started with identical crime rates in the absence of a gun ban and then diverged after, I would agree, but I do not believe this to be the case. I am open to being proven wrong, however, if such data exists. It is easy to find things like this http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528
but I would like to see the actual data, per year, over many decades instead.

 

[fskimospy]

A rate of murders of what, 4 vs 1 and a fair number of gun deaths are criminal on criminal. I think we can find more effective ways to bridge the gap. I will not give up guns and in return accept higher rates of assault, rape and so forth. You're just trading one evil for another (and in my view a 3.5 increase in violent crime is 100% unacceptable), and for no god damned good reason.

There's no reason to believe that the US's rates of violent crime are related to gun ownership. Violent crime has precipitously decreased in the US in the last 30 years while gun ownership has declined as well. That seems to be evidence against your argument.

 

[ElFenix]

The evidence you're putting forth there is pretty strong for the 'gun bans work' argument. If you have a more violent society with fewer deaths, that seems to indicate that people are less able to cause death despite having a greater desire to inflict violence.

it does not follow that there is a greater desire to inflict violence.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

There's no reason to believe that the US's rates of violent crime are related to gun ownership. Violent crime has precipitously decreased in the US in the last 30 years while gun ownership has declined as well. That seems to be evidence against your argument.

Do you have any numbers showing gun ownership declining?

Carrying concealed firearms has greatly increased in the last 230 years which could be attributed to the lower rate of violent crime.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you have any numbers showing gun ownership declining?

Carrying concealed firearms has greatly increased in the last 230 years which could be attributed to the lower rate of violent crime.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...wnership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

 

[Doppel]

This guy seems to have brought up some interesting points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

What he's basically pointing out is that our murder rate is ~4 to the UK's ~1 (england and whales), but that the real statistic to look at is the violent crime rate. According to the FBI, it's 386 per 100k in the US (~50% down from 1992) compared to a rate of (by this guy's calculations) 1361 per 100k. That is to say, the UK is 3.5 times MORE VIOLENT than the US.

So, uh....gun bans work, right?

I found this years ago also. IIRC home invasion rates are much lower in the US. I don't know why but it seems reasonable to think that it may be because chances of being shotgunned to death are much higher here.

Unless these numbers are skewed I think I prefer how it is in the US.

The evidence you're putting forth there is pretty strong for the 'gun bans work' argument. If you have a more violent society with fewer deaths, that seems to indicate that people are less able to cause death despite having a greater desire to inflict violence.

Either that or the UK isn't really predisposed to be more violent but people are courageous knowing chances of victims being armed are low.

 

[RampantAndroid]

There's no reason to believe that the US's rates of violent crime are related to gun ownership. Violent crime has precipitously decreased in the US in the last 30 years while gun ownership has declined as well. That seems to be evidence against your argument.

Uhhh, gun ownership has decreased? What are you smoking dude?

First off, ALL numbers on households with guns is A VOLUNTARY THING. I can tell the poll if I own guns, or I can keep in on the down low. I'll do the latter every time.

http://www.shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/gallup-gun-ownership.gif

There is a marked decrease due to the AWP. Did people just stop admitting, or did people get rid of guns? Probably some of both. I believe the real number is well over 50%, but regardless, we're well above 45%. It's not decreasing. Moreover, go look at data on gun sales per year. That number keeps climbing.

 

[StinkyPinky]

This guy seems to have brought up some interesting points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

What he's basically pointing out is that our murder rate is ~4 to the UK's ~1 (england and whales), but that the real statistic to look at is the violent crime rate. According to the FBI, it's 386 per 100k in the US (~50% down from 1992) compared to a rate of (by this guy's calculations) 1361 per 100k. That is to say, the UK is 3.5 times MORE VIOLENT than the US.

So, uh....gun bans work, right?

No, it's not. As the OECD say on their own website violent crime statistics are meaningless because of multiple factors

1) Report rate, varies hugely per country
2) How each countries views violent crimes such as "assault". For example, the UK "assault" is much more broad than it is in the USA
3) Investigation. Funding differences mean certain police forces will just blow off any assault complaints and never bother to progress the case. Which is what happens here in the US.

That is why the OECD use homicides to judge crime statistics.

 

[piasabird]

US Crime Statistics are probably including all of the Death by Cop deaths and suicides. Technically these are not murders. Cops shoot people too.

There were 1,000 cars overturned and burned in France for new years. I dont get that. Then when they report it, they say youths, when what they mean is young muslim men. That is how I interpret it. They seek to hide the truth.

 

[piasabird]

In the UK the cops are not killing people.

 

[OCGuy]

Apples and Oranges.

A quick look at a map, and a quick look at crime statistics, will tell anyone with an IQ above room temp. why the US and other "Western" States cannot be directly compared.

Unfortunately discussing any of that data is considered racist, because we all know that numbers are subjective.

 

[monovillage]

Uhhh, gun ownership has decreased? What are you smoking dude?

First off, ALL numbers on households with guns is A VOLUNTARY THING. I can tell the poll if I own guns, or I can keep in on the down low. I'll do the latter every time.

I always tell every random stranger with a name tag and a clipboard if I have valuable items in my house.

 

[fskimospy]

Uhhh, gun ownership has decreased? What are you smoking dude?

First off, ALL numbers on households with guns is A VOLUNTARY THING. I can tell the poll if I own guns, or I can keep in on the down low. I'll do the latter every time.

http://www.shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/gallup-gun-ownership.gif

There is a marked decrease due to the AWP. Did people just stop admitting, or did people get rid of guns? Probably some of both. I believe the real number is well over 50%, but regardless, we're well above 45%. It's not decreasing. Moreover, go look at data on gun sales per year. That number keeps climbing.

The number climbing doesn't matter, its households with a gun and the evidence shows a steady decline. Evidence I already linked.

 

[ichy]

If gun laws were the only variable between the US and the UK then this would be an intelligent argument. In reality though...

 

[RampantAndroid]

The number climbing doesn't matter, its households with a gun and the evidence shows a steady decline. Evidence I already linked.

And I linked to a source that disagrees with yours. ENGLISH MOTHERF***** CAN YOU READ IT?

Jeez.

 

[RampantAndroid]

If gun laws were the only variable between the US and the UK then this would be an intelligent argument. In reality though...

I consider this an intelligent arguement when people claim that we should follow the UK's lead. Or Australia's lead (I looked up numbers for aussie land. Their assault numbers have been RISING, and one source listed off violent crimes in Victoria as being over 7000 per 100,000 in 2011.)

Point being: the policies in the US have so far led to us having a lower violent crime rate and a drop in overall crime. Why do we not look at ways to sensibly and sanely decrease those numbers instead of just trying to take massive measure that are unlikely to have any positive effect?

 

[fskimospy]

And I linked to a source that disagrees with yours. ENGLISH MOTHERF***** CAN YOU READ IT?

Jeez.

Uhmm, your chart doesn't disagree with mine. Not only does it only go back to the 90's instead of to the 70's like my link did, but it also shows a net decrease in gun ownership over its time.

So actually, your chart just reinforces my point. Crime went down during a period that gun ownership went down. If that is evidence either way, it would have to be evidence against the idea that gun ownership was a driver in decreasing crime rates.

CHARTS, MOTHERFUCKER, CAN YOU READ THEM?

 

[RampantAndroid]

Uhmm, your chart doesn't disagree with mine. Not only does it only go back to the 90's instead of to the 70's like my link did, but it also shows a net decrease in gun ownership over its time.

So actually, your chart just reinforces my point. Crime went down during a period that gun ownership went down. If that is evidence either way, it would have to be evidence against the idea that gun ownership was a driver in decreasing crime rates.

CHARTS, MOTHERFUCKER, CAN YOU READ THEM?

Yes, completely ignore the asterisk about the reporting being voluntary. And gun sales only increasing. Yes, you smart!


Don't bother to look up Gallup's report either - that might disagree with your shitty position.

The results show that Democrats have been the fastest growing purchasers of firearms, closing the gap to 40%-55% by household ownership compared to Republicans.

 

[Matt1970]

The evidence you're putting forth there is pretty strong for the 'gun bans work' argument. If you have a more violent society with fewer deaths, that seems to indicate that people are less able to cause death despite having a greater desire to inflict violence.

Or Medicine is getting better.

 

[ivwshane]

No, it's not. As the OECD say on their own website violent crime statistics are meaningless because of multiple factors

1) Report rate, varies hugely per country
2) How each countries views violent crimes such as "assault". For example, the UK "assault" is much more broad than it is in the USA
3) Investigation. Funding differences mean certain police forces will just blow off any assault complaints and never bother to progress the case. Which is what happens here in the US.

That is why the OECD use homicides to judge crime statistics.

You are talking to morons that think that because a chart backs up their opinion that it must be true, they don't question the data. As an example just look at all the rabid righties pointing to polls and saying Obama is going to lose big. These people are sheep and are easily mislead using fear based reasoning.