One of the standard claims of the gun enthusiasts when trying to downplay the role of guns in violent crime is that the U.K. is worse off than we are, and they have strict gun control. I've been told countless times that if guns are not available, criminals will use other "tools." In England they use knives, for example. And what's more, the gun folks say, crime goes up not down when guns are banned. I never bought any of these suggestions, needless to say.
Recently, it became more specific. Bob S., one of our most faithful and passionate commenters started claiming that violent crime in the U.K. is four times greater than in the U.S. Now, Bob has often criticized me for not doing research and not trusting statistics, but can you blame me? Last week on his blog I called him on a comparison he'd made between non-fatal gun injuries and all automobile accidents. It wasn't gun injuries compared to car accidents in which someone was hurt, which I would have had a problem with, it was all car accidents, even little fender benders. Despite the absurdity of the comparison, his loyal fans, to a man, complimented him on the astute post.
Well, finally I looked at the famous U.K. link which supposedly "proves" the unbelievable four-times-the-US idea. Here it is.
Indeed, the British web site called Mail Online, which was emphasizing how violent England is, said that in Britain there are over 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000 population while in the United States there are only 466 per 100,000.
I compared that to the FBI stats shown here. According to them, in recent years the U.S. number has dramatically fallen to 2,000 per 100,000, just about the same as in England. Note that a few years ago it was more than double that figure.
So, as it turns out, both countries are extremely violent, but ours is more lethal. The big difference comes in the murder department. According to the Mail Online site, England has less than 1,000 per year. We all know how that compares to the good old US of A.
What's your opinion? How did the British researchers come up with only 466? The FBI considers violent crimes to be "rape, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and homicide." And with only those, they come up to about 2,000 per.
Here's an idea. What if we forget about all the statistics, quit cherry-picking the ones that support our argument and just use common sense. If there are fewer guns available, then only the most determined criminal will get one or use something else. Many will not. The spur-of-the-moment crimes and the less determined crooks will simply do without.
Please leave a comment.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteI think you may need to check your numbers again.
Using the website link provided it shows the violent crime rate not to be 2,000 per 100,000 but 21.0.
And that category includes Rape, Murder, Robbery, Aggravated Assault and Simple Assault.
Your reading comprehension skills have suffered greatly, maybe it is an infection from hanging around OneUtah. They seem to have the same problem.
You said:
It wasn't gun injuries compared to car accidents in which someone was hurt, which I would have had a problem with,
That is exactly the comparison I made on my site...if you could comprehend.
Here, let me show you with the relevant parts highlighted.
First, firearms
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable–over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)
Then we move to cars
Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States — one death every 13 minutes
Get that MikeB!!! The information was there, the is a direct comparison between injuries!!!
200,000 for firearms versus 2.9 MILLION for cars.
Don't forget what else I said also
We do have to keep in mind all the other factors: frequency of use, ownership, safety etc when we look at the comparisons.
Now, instead of whining that I didn't play fair -- which I did--- why don't you explain why it is absurd?? Is it absurd because you say so?
Here's an idea. What if we forget about all the statistics, quit cherry-picking the ones that support our argument and just use common sense.
You are a broken record MikeB. Over and over again, we've shown the statistics, a wide variety of statistics do not support your idea of common sense.
The results from the U.K. show your idea of common sense doesn't work.
Instead of facing up to the facts, the reality of gun control failing....you simply want to ignore it all and still keep going.
My rights aren't subject to your idea of common sense.
I compared that to the FBI stats shown here. According to them, in recent years the U.S. number has dramatically fallen to 2,000 per 100,000, just about the same as in England. Note that a few years ago it was more than double that figure.
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you're getting that info from (certainly not from the linked data) U.S violent crime rates have never been anywhere near 2000 per 100,000.
The Brits are exponentially more violent than the U.S.
As I discussed here, the crime rate in the UK is ~ 3 times what it is in Delaware, yet in DE I can strap on a gun and walk around legally, no permt needed.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/but-i-thought-guns-were-problem.html
It all has to do with definitions and what dataset you are using.
ReplyDeleteThe FBI statistics you link to show that all violence to people greater than 12 years of age is roughly 20 per 100,000 (or 2000 per 1000). Couple things you should pick up on from that. The definition on that page for violence includes what is typically included in violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) as well as simple assault. The second issue is that it only includes those above 12 so there is a significant group of people not included (about 20% of the US population is under 12) and it is probably safe to say that very few violence incidents would be added by including those people. Correcting for these two, the BJS has statistics showing that the violent crime rate in the US for 2007 was 466 per 100,000 (or 4.66 per 1000). So that is where they are getting the number for the US.
The UK number is coming from the British Crime Survey which includes things such as prostitution, groping, fighting (without injury) and such in their violent crime category. The report does state that about 50% of violent crime resulted in no injury, so using this the rate in Britain would be about 1000 per 100,000 (double the US).
The sources of information are completely different. The BCS is based on a survey of the population of Britain so the crimes it captures are not always reported to the police (basically, the same type of survey that Kleck used for his DGU numbers). The US source is from the Uniform Crime Reports which is what is reported to the FBI by LEA around the country.
In the end, the UK paper is trying to sell something and showing that the UK is more violent than the rest of Europe and other commonwealth nations(which was the focus of the story) will get a rise. Comparing statistics across different countries who use different methods of gathering data and different definitions is nigh impossible. However, what it does show is that the UK is not this peaceful paradise since guns have been banned. In fact, gun crimes have been on the rise since 1999 according to the BCS. Funny how that happens.
Bob said, "Using the website link provided it shows the violent crime rate not to be 2,000 per 100,000 but 21.0."
ReplyDeleteWould you have another look, please. It says 21 per 1,000. You have to add 2 zeros.
But what Reputo said is what I've been telling you for months. These things cannot be compared. And, as he also pointed out, if you insist on making such comparisons, let's throw in the under-twelve crowd and let's add some of those other crimes the Brits count.
It's totally false that the UK is more violent than the U.S. Tell that to Mike W. while you're at it.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteMy mistake on the scale. Still the issue remains, is Britain more violent then America?
Yes. While the survey methods in the cases may vary, there is enough evidence to show that it is....repeatedly these studies, these results have been pointed out to you.
Even the English paper agrees that England is more violent. So, what is your response....to dismiss the statistics, the evidence and focus on "common sense". Well, it isn't working.
Your point about throwing in the under 12 crowd is mistaken, because the article INCLUDED those numbers. Guess what? Britain is still more violent. Adding more crimes not reported by the British would only make their crime problem larger.
It's totally false that the UK is more violent than the U.S. Tell that to Mike W. while you're at it.
I wish I could live in your world where your statements make reality. I really wish I could live there. Unfortunately, I live in the real world where ever bit of evidence is showing that the U.K. is more violent than America. Care to show evidence otherwise or do you want to blow some more hot air and try to convince us to take your word?
Now, care to address your mistakes on the car comparison?
I included injury numbers, not just accident numbers in the comparison. You missed that or did you deliberately ignore it?
200,000 firearm injuries per year
2,900,000 automobile injuries per year.
Tell me again how you are for gun control because it saves lives, yet you won't call for restrictions on cars to save lives>
mikeb,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your premise that these things cannot be compared. What I said was Comparing statistics across different countries who use different methods of gathering data and different definitions is nigh impossible. What you try to do is compare without correcting for any of the factors that would make the comparison invalid. I presented two of them to you based on your 2000 figure. To say that we can't compare is a cop out. To then appeal to common sense without any analysis of the facts shows that you really aren't concerned about the truth, safety, reducing gun crime, or any other idea you may have said. You believe the world should operate the way you think and everyone should have the same viewpoint as you. Sorry, we don't.
If we correct the FBI data you linked to(which includes simple assault) for age (add in all of the under 12), then the rates we would be getting are about 1500 for the US and 2000 for the UK (since their's includes all of the simple assaults and the 12 and under crowd, no adjustment is needed). Guess what, 2000 is still bigger than 1500.
If we use the violent crime rate of 466 that the FBI publishes, and compare that to a halfed UK rate (since they state that half of their violent crimes did not result in injury), then we get 466 for the US and 1000 for the UK. Guess what, 1000 is still more than 466.
The pro-rights commenters on here disagree about a lot of things in regard to guns, crime and statistics. Bob S. and Mike W. may think this is convincing evidence that Britain is 3 or 4 times more violent than the US. I don't. But I still think there is more than enough evidence to say that Britain is more violent than the US. Sorry if the facts fly in the face of your common sense. The difference is they look at the evidence and come to a conclusion based on the evidence. You casually glance at the evidence and dismiss everything that doesn't fit your viewpoint of the world. Me, I like to engross myself in for tables and statistics than most people see in their life (certainly more than any newspaper reporter would be comfortable admitting to) and then I look at how those datasets fit together.
Maybe it would have been better if you had actually read the sources that you quoted to find out how they got the numbers. It didn't take me more than 10 minutes. If you actually cared about what you say you do, then put some more time into it and come up with a fact based conclusion. Where do you think this world would be if all of the "tough" decisions were made based on common sense? Leave the feelings for some Charlotte Bronte novel.
One of the UK's problems is what they consider a violent crime. For example, if a robber beats a homeowner, that's considered assault. If the homeowner defends his/herself, that's also considered assault.
ReplyDeleteI imagine that a portion of the UK's violence is composed of people who had the nerve to fight back.
Chaulk up another point we agree on MikeB...we might even be able to sit down and enjoy a beer together someday.
ReplyDelete"Here's an idea. What if we forget about all the statistics, quit cherry-picking the ones that support our argument and just use common sense."
I completely agree.
You've never seen me make an argument here or elsewhere taking a stance based on statistics.
Remember the old Loony Tunes cartoons where Foghorn Leghorn is arguing with the baby chick Egghead about the concept of "figures don't lie?"
Well, that's a huge fucking lie. I try not to cuss in my comments and only do so now for proper emphasis.
Give me a set of data and I can make it say whatever I want, based on the nature and wording of the questions I ask.
Also remember the famous quote about "lies, damned lies and statistics."
I'm not saying statistics can not be usefull, but that statistics can be cherry picked to support a predetermined goal.
The secret is to not have a predetermined goal to begin with.
True science is blind. Let the facts lead you where they may.
This is something many humans have a problem with.
So let us use common sense...
An unarmed victim is easier to vicitimize that an armed victim.
The more defenseless you are individualy, has no correlation to an increased degree of safety.
Making an action which is already illeagal, even more illegal, will have an impact on illegal activity.
What kind of beer do you like MikeB?
Bob said, "Even the English paper agrees that England is more violent."
ReplyDeleteThe article was slanted to show how bad things are in England. It was an English paper trying to make a point, a very biased point. They weren't trying to deny the British violence, they were trying to highlight it.
"Your point about throwing in the under 12 crowd is mistaken, because the article INCLUDED those numbers."
Bob, The under-12 demographic was excluded on the FBI chart. First you missed the scale, 21 per 1000, then it seems you missed that exclusion and naturally you jumped to the wrong conclusion about my comment.
Add it all up, Bob and the US is not less violent than the UK. Furthermore, our violence is more often lethal, much more.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteReputo covered the under 12 issue, remember?
Correcting for these two, the BJS has statistics showing that the violent crime rate in the US for 2007 was 466 per 100,000 (or 4.66 per 1000). So that is where they are getting the number for the US.
And as far as the article being biased or slanted, so what?
Are the facts wrong?
Just because the story was written in a sensational manner doesn't change the statistics. The U.K. IS MORE VIOLENT THAN AMERICA.
SHOW THE PROOF OTHERWISE. Don't just keep saying because you don't like the facts that they aren't true.
America is more lethal and I think that a function of culture not tools. Every bit of evidence I've seen shows no proven causation--heck and very little correlation between firearms and deaths. Some countries with high ownership have low number of deaths and some countries with low ownership have high levels of death. This is also seen within the United States.
In the long run, those arguments don't really matter. It is our right to keep and bear arms. Just as it is your right to spout off on the subject......neither of us are going to give up our rights.
"The article was slanted to show how bad things are in England."
ReplyDeleteSays the man who will take Brady Campaign or VPC pressers or a post from Gun Guys at face value and offer it as "proof."
You consistently cite anti-gunners without acknowledging bias.
kaveman, I've always said I don't trust stats and take them all with a grain of salt. Unlike what some of my antagonists say, I apply that to Brady stats too.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bob S. gives me stats, I take them with two grains.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteGlad you take the stats with a grain of salt or two.
Question is, are the stats given correct, verifiable and accurate?
The stats I usually give and you question the most are from the government. I usually provide a link to the stats I use so people can check them out. That is the way for others to determine if the stats are correct, verifiable and accurate.
The USA has not had a problem with underrreporting crime stats like the British government. If anything the violent crime rate in England is higher than what is shown in the article. This has been in the news many times, this is verifiable, it has been confirmed by the British government.
The fact that you still take the stats I provide with 2 grains of salt says more about you than it does about me.
mikeb,
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to mention that when you look at stats with a grain of salt and don't agree with them, then you make up your own. 30% becoming 10%, 1:200 or 1:100 (maybe tomorrow, you will downgrade it to 1:50).