"Civilized" Life

Ever wonder what life would be like in one of those "civilized" oases with "sensible" gun laws?



I am proud America is still so barbaric:

Without the thread of daylight robbery it would be so boring.

It's like yin and yang. There's a little dot of yin in yang and a little dot of yang in yin.

Muggers on tricycles are the spice that keeps life interesting. That's deep, man.

Pick the little bastard up and toss him. Of course this is the UK we're talking about...that would be being a "bad victim". If you want to be a good citizen in the UK, you be a "good victim" and sit there and take it.

Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country

United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people


How anybody could imagine that somehow, "violent crime" is waaaay higher in one place than another, when the homicide rate is 3 TIMES HIGHER in that other place, is just beyond me.

Kinder, gentler violent criminals?

Or apples and oranges?

Apples and oranges indeed.

Let's look at some more stats

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
# 6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 7 Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
# 3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people
# 4 Montserrat: 0.749384 per 1,000 people
# 5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
# 6 Jamaica: 0.476608 per 1,000 people
# 7 Zimbabwe: 0.457775 per 1,000 people
# 8 Dominica: 0.34768 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
# 10 Iceland: 0.246009 per 1,000 people
# 11 Papua New Guinea: 0.233544 per 1,000 people
# 12 New Zealand: 0.213383 per 1,000 people
# 13 United Kingdom: 0.142172 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita
# 7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
# 8 Poland: 9.46071 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
# 10 South Africa: 8.89764 per 1,000 people
# 11 Montserrat: 8.24323 per 1,000 people
# 12 Iceland: 8.11156 per 1,000 people
# 13 Switzerland: 8.06303 per 1,000 people
# 14 Slovenia: 7.93734 per 1,000 people
# 15 Czech Republic: 7.24841 per 1,000 people
# 16 Hungary: 7.15849 per 1,000 people
# 17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_kid-crime-kidnappings
# 1 United Kingdom: 3,261 kidnappings
# 2 South Africa: 3,071 kidnappings
# 3 Canada: 2,933 kidnappings

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita
# 8 United Kingdom: 1.57433 per 1,000 people
# 9 Uruguay: 1.57114 per 1,000 people
# 10 Poland: 1.38838 per 1,000 people
# 11 United States: 1.38527 per 1,000 people

The first link: "Total crimes"

Yes, that does tell one a lot, doesn't it. How many apples equal an orange?


The second: "Rapes".

Particularly interesting is that Canada is ranked fifth, when Canada does not have a crime called "rape" in our criminal law.


Doing well so far, aren't we?


The third: "Burglaries".

Hmm. Right here, day after day, we are told tales of how people's homes are busted into and they escape with their lives only with the aid of their trusty sidearms.

If the UK has nearly twice as many burglaries as the US, how come there aren't bodies littering the landscape?


Next up: "Kidnapping".

You seriously believe that the UK has the highest rate of kidnapping in the world. You really do. You do, don't you? Admit it, so I can point and jeer.


Last but not least: "Robbery".

Oh. You mean like kids on trikes making other kids give up their lunch money.

Homicide in the course of robbery is rather prevalent in the US. I guess things are different in the UK, since the US still has 3 TIMES AS MANY HOMICIDES as the UK.

Kindler gentler robbers in the UK? Or just another basket of fruit?


That's my midnight chuckle. I'm off home for the chesterfield boy's birthday dinner.



typo fixed

"Violent crime" is not just about homicides, any more than a person's perception of relative safety (the point made in the BBC story in the OP) is all about homicide.

It wasn't my source quoted, take up any inconsistency with RaleighNCDUer who originally posted it. Apparently the 'rape' numbers came from "Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)"

Apparently the 'rape' numbers came from "Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)"


http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html

Sexual assault

271. (1) Every one who commits a sexual assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm

272. (1) Every person commits an offence who, in committing a sexual assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation of a weapon;
(b) threatens to cause bodily harm to a person other than the complainant;
(c) causes bodily harm to the complainant; or
(d) is a party to the offence with any other person.

Aggravated sexual assault

273. (1) Every one commits an aggravated sexual assault who, in committing a sexual assault, wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

(2) Every person who commits an aggravated sexual assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e092/e092a-eng.shtml

I was going to quote this specifically in relation to the false ranking of Canada in the "rape" catgory, but the rest of it is right on point as well.

The actual data are outdated, but the POINTS I was making are clear.

Factors affecting violent crime rates

It is difficult to say whether the steady increase in the violent crime rate recorded by police up to 1992 is a reflection of actual increases in the levels of violence in society, artifacts of other factors or both. Nor can it be established with certainty whether the more recent declines reflect a real reduction in levels of violence.

Changing societal values

Changes to the law and reduced societal tolerance toward certain types of violence, such as schoolyard violence and spousal assault, no doubt have changed the way police respond to and record these types of incidents. About 60% of violent crime is classified as level 1 assaults where the physical injury to the victim is relatively minor, and much of the increase in total violent crime rates is attributable directly to changing rates of level 1 assaults.

Changes to criminal law

Major changes to criminal law can have a great effect on violent crime rates. In 1983, the offences relating to rape and indecent assault were removed from the Criminal Code and replaced with three levels of sexual assault. Under the new law, both men and women can be victims of sexual assault, and charges can be brought in cases of sexual assault involving spouses.

Changes in police practices

Three parallel classifications of assault offences came into effect at that same time. Under the new assault law, police officers can lay a charge if they have "reasonable and probable cause" to believe an assault has occurred. Before 1983, police had difficulty proceeding with charges unless there was independent evidence, apart from the complainant's testimony, to corroborate the complaint. Throughout the 1980s, policy directives in police departments across the country made it mandatory for police officers to lay charges in cases of wife assault where probable grounds existed. This removed a significant amount of discretion in the decision to lay charges and shifted domestic violence from a private to a public affair. The elevated rates of assault are at least partly due to these changes in police procedures.

General trends in violent crime

Violent crimes account for a relatively small proportion of all criminal incidents recorded by the police each year. As Figure 1 indicates, there were almost 2.7 million incidents involving violations of the Criminal Code known or reported to the police in 1995. Approximately 11% of these were violent crimes. Fifty-eight percent were property offences, and 30% were other offences under the Criminal Code such as mischief, prostitution and disturbing the peace.


<the key is missing; top line is assault level 1 (common assault), bottom is all other crimes of violence>

The violent crime rate increased significantly over the last 15 years, but recently has declined ­ in some cases quite significantly (Figure 2). While the 1995 violent crime rate was 47% higher than in 1983, common assault (level 1, which increased by 85%) accounted for most of this increase (Table 1). If the relatively minor assaults were factored out, the rate for more serious types of violent assaults increased about 19%.



However, in the period from 1983 to 1992, the most rapidly increasing rate (nearly 160%) was for sexual assault. It has since declined considerably (Figure 3).

Figure 3 <figure is missing>

The violent crime rate peaked in 1992 and has declined each year since. The rate in 1995 was 995 incidents per 100,000 population, 4% lower than the rate in 1994, which itself was 3% lower than the rate in 1993. ...

Anybody who thinks that the reporting rate for sexual assaults was not a significant factor in the increase in the rate of reported sexual assaults 1983-1992 would have had to have their head in the sand.

"Sexual assault" in Canada includes all of the offences I listed at the beginning -- and includes assaults on men.


The ranking of Canada at the link given in this tread for the crime of "rape" is complete and utter bullshit.

It is plainly based on figures for reported sexual assaults, since there is no way to determine the rate for the crime of "rape" in Canada, there being no such crime.

I will take all of the other figures there - homicide excepted, perhaps - with the same large grain of salt. Especially the one about the UK having a higher rate of kidnapping than, oh, Colombia ...

..like I said, I didn't provide the source. (Though on googling, most sources seem to lead to this source, flawed as it appears.)

I'm quite failing to grasp this.

You posted those rankings, and the links.

I have responded to the facts alleged in your post.

You're acknowledging that they are unreliable, to say the least?

Okay then.

I wasn't the original source of the facts that both YOU AND I quoted.

Have some bran, it helps get the crap out.

Seems you were happy to quote the source until I used it, then, "oh that crappy source."

----------------------------------
RaleighNCDUer
2. such a hell hole.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-...
------------------------------------
iverglas
13. ignored it, didn't they?


Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country

United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people

{these figures can be found on the above link}

------------------------------------

Your points concerning the inaccuracy of the comparative figures for rape are well taken, but in fairness to the UNODC (which is about as much slack as I'm willing to cut them), they do compile these surveys on the basis of the responses they get from national governments. When UNODC asks the Canadian Department of Justice "how many rapes did you have reported?" and the DoJC replies "we had x thousand sexual assaults," UNODC doesn't have anything else to put in the survey.

I will take all of the other figures there - homicide excepted, perhaps - with the same large grain of salt. Especially the one about the UK having a higher rate of kidnapping than, oh, Colombia ...

Nobody on this forum actually claimed that, if for no other reason than that Colombia didn't submit the number of reported kidnappings to the UNODC. One way or another, that's a blatant straw man. (Once again, you fail to live up to the standards you demand of others.)

And if you look at the UNODC's figures, you'll see that the UK has by no means the highest claimed rate for kidnappings; South Africa, Belgium, Luxembourg and Canada all have markedly higher rates of kidnapping per 100,000 population. Thing is, the UK has a population of 61 million, against 49 million for South Africa, 33 million for Canada, 10 million for Belgium, and under half a million for Luxembourg. In smaller populations, a relative handful of offenses will drive the rate up quickly. So it's quite possible for the UK to have a lower kidnapping rate while still having a larger absolute number of reported offenses.

From an earlier post:

"Burglaries".

Hmm. Right here, day after day, we are told tales of how people's homes are busted into and they escape with their lives only with the aid of their trusty sidearms.

If the UK has nearly twice as many burglaries as the US, how come there aren't bodies littering the landscape?

That's readily explicable. The answer lies in the types of burglaries. One distinction criminologists make is between "cold" and "hot" burglaries; the former being a burglary that takes place while the occupants of the dwelling are not home, and the latter being when they are home.

The overwhelming majority of American residential burglaries (over 85%) are "cold," primarily because most American burglars are afraid of being shot. The typical residential burglary takes place in the daytime and takes about two hours, of which some 90 minutes is spent "casing the joint" to make sure nobody's home. The flipside to that is that when a "hot" burglary does occur, the intruder is likely to be prepared to meet and overcome resistance (i.e. he's armed, and there may be more than one), and the entry is likely to be "confrontational," i.e. the intruder is actively seeking out the occupants; at best, to force them to point out valuables, open locked safes and strongboxes; at worst, to inflict grievous bodily harm upon them. A "confrontational burglary" is what's popularly referred to as a "home invasion," especially when it involves more than one intruder.

By contrast, the UK "hot" burglary rate is (last time anyone looked) over 40%, but hot burglaries are less likely to be confrontational (as in Ms Kirwan-Taylor's case); they occur because when the occupants are home, alarm systems are more likely to be turned off, and handbags, briefcases and wallets may be left on hall tables or sideboards, and the burglars are counting on the occupants to stay put and do no more than call 999.

Which is not to say confrontational burglaries don't occur in the UK:
Lancashire - Fisherman's Friend family robbed http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/7957840.stm
West Yorkshire - Woman robbed of jewellery in home http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/7926030.stm
Northern Ireland - Three pensioners robbed in homes http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7873529.stm
Northern Ireland - Gang with swords rob men in home http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7856879.stm
Surrey - Woman tied up and robbed in home http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/surrey/7865054.stm
Lincolnshire - Pensioner robbed by bogus callers http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/7927735.stm
Nottinghamshire - Man robbed by raiders at his home http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/7748893.stm
South of Scotland - 82-year-old woman robbed in home http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/south_of_scotland/7693375.stm
Lancashire - Man and daughter robbed at home http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/7689581.stm
Wiltshire - Woman robbed at home by knifeman http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/7677741.stm

And they can get violent beyond a bit of shoving:
Wear - Couple beaten in knifepoint raid http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wear/7936117.stm
Tyne - Victim 'beaten to death for £40' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7919882.stm
North Yorkshire - Man bound and beaten in guns raid http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/7905177.stm
Hampshire - Gang 'brutally' attacks man, 73 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7916634.stm

All incidents are from the first three months of this year, are not exhaustive, and in a few cases, the news story describes multiple incidents.

Last but not least: "Robbery".

Oh. You mean like kids on trikes making other kids give up their lunch money.

As every British prime minister says during question time, "I refer the Right Honourable lady to the answer I gave some moments ago." No, it's not just kids taking other kids' lunch money. Moreover, the UK now has a term, "steaming" for "robbery performed on train or bus passengers by a gang or large group and often involving some level of violence" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steaming_(crime) ).

This is also the country that gave the English language the word "glassing," meaning a physical attack consisting of smashing a drinking glass into the victim's face. As of 2002, there were an estimated 5,000 glassings a year in the UK, leading to pubs switching to toughened glass or plastic for their drinking ware.

Homicide in the course of robbery is rather prevalent in the US. I guess things are different in the UK, since the US still has 3 TIMES AS MANY HOMICIDES as the UK.

I've already pointed this out elsewhere in the thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x230951#231245), but if you factor out young, urban black males--i.e. the demographic most likely to be involved in, or affected by, the drug trade--the U.S. homicide rate is fairly unremarkable. Legalizing drugs and improving prospects for people from inner cities is going to do way more to curb homicide in the U.S. than any gun control measure.

In that post, I also made reference to the International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS, http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/), though I erroneously stated the survey was annual; it is, in fact, conducted every 3-5 years. It only measures a limited number of countries, but it does have the benefit of being consistent in its definitions, and thus forms a somewhat more reliable basis for international comparisons than the UNODC surveys. In ICVS-4 (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/Industr2000a.pdf), conducted in 2000, England & Wales and Australia did spectacularly badly out the 17 countries (counting Scotland and Northern Ireland as separate countries) surveyed.

Theft of cars: England & Wales came first, Australia second (Canada came 6th, the U.S. 14th)
Theft from cars: England & Wales came second, Australia third (the U.S. 4th, Canada 9th)
Residential burglary, including attempts: Australia came first, England & Wales second (Canada 3rd, the U.S. 6th)
Residential burglary with entry (i.e. burglar got into the house): Australia came first, England & Wales third (Canada 4th, the U.S. 8th; more than 50% of U.S. burglary attempts failed)
Selected "contact crimes" (robbery, assault with force, and sexual assaults against women): Australia came first, England & Wales second (Canada 3rd, the U.S. 13th).

In the summary, the authors note:

Risks <of robbery> were highest in 1999 in Poland (1.8%), England and Wales, and Australia (both 1.2%).
<...>
Two types of sexual incidents were measured: offensive sexual behaviour and sexual assault (i.e. incidents described as rape, attempted rape or indecent assaults). <...> Women in Sweden, Finland, Australia and England and Wales were most at risk of sexual assault.

In ICVS-5 (2004-2005, http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf), a large number of countries were added to the roster. However, England continued to lead the table in burglary with entry (the U.S. came 8th out of 25), came fourth in robbery (behind Mexico, Ireland and Estonia; the U.S. came 19th out of 25), and came 4th in assaults (behind Northern Ireland, Iceland and Ireland; the US came 6th out of 25).

The big turnaround was sexual assaults: England & Wales came in 6th, while the U.S. took the lead position. However, the authors do note:

An additional reason to exercise great caution is the recurrent finding that rates of sexual offences of countries are less stable over the years than those of other types of crime. This finding may indicate that responses to the question on sexual incidents are susceptible to events or media campaigns that may have temporarily raised awareness about this issue.

Italics mine.

All told, though, the surveys do seem to indicate that where crime is concerned, England is a particularly unpleasant place to live among industrialized nations.

victims of homicide is much rarer than being a victim of homicide.

iow, and i say this as somebody who has worked as a LEO for 20+ years as well as studied the stats... a LOT of homicides are one gangbanger killing another, drug dealer killing another, etc. etc. stuff like that.

that doesn't affect the "average person" very much.

contrarily, crimes like burglary, auto theft, robbery, etc. affect the "common man" FAR FAR more often.

in crimes like burglary, auto theft, robbery, etc. the offender and victim rarely know each other. in homicides, they usually do.

fwiw, NYC used to be much more dangerous than it is. new yorkers took perverse pride in the violence and decay of their city (take a bite of the big apple, never mind the maggots), that is no longer the case.

The societies are fundamentally different. We are raised differently, we have different cultural mores, different entertainment, different damn near everything. Direct comparisons on XYZ crime statistic are pretty spurious.

Explaining the US murder rate, triple the UK murder rate, by "different cultural mores" is just a little too easy, and a little too, well, bald assertion-like.

I'm also not sure why it would explain the allegedly higher rates of violent crimes in the UK.

What I do think goes some way to explaining that unexpected observation is differences in reporting and charging practices.

On a quick google news search for uk crackdown youth crime:

http://www.londragazete.com/haber_detay.asp?haberID=4235 (dated June 18)

Raids have taken place at a number of addresses across all 32 boroughs where arrests have been made.

Arrests were made for a range of offences including robbery, serious assault, violent disorder, aggravated burglary and the supply of controlled drugs.

It is just over a year since Blunt 2 was launched to tackle unacceptable acts of violence against young people in London. Since then 5,748 knives have been recovered, more than 300,000 stop and searches conducted and more than 10,800 people arrested for knife-related offences.

... “Through intelligence we have identified the individuals we believe are causing the greatest amount harm. We have targeted a number of gangs intent upon causing misery. This operation builds upon that work by focusing on violent offenders, some of whom are gang members, with the intention of arresting them for various offences and placing them before the courts. ..."

That kind of police operation will have an effect on crime rates -- since the crime rates in this instance are derived from police-reported crimes.


typo fixed ... googling "cracdown" likely won't get you much.

My comment was overly broad, so it's cheap to say so now, but I intended 'cultural mores' to include not just criminal behavior, but also the public demand that drives our law enforcement (or not) to crack down like the program you just cited. We don't have that. We don't have programs anything like that. If we tried, it would probably be perceived by the public as a jack-booted, heavy handed over reaction. We apparently lack the public demand for aggressive enforcment of the laws. We have plenty of laws already on the books that would go a long way toward curbing gun violence, for instance, but we do not properly fund our police departments, we do not elect very aggressive DA's, etc.

We somehow manage to have fairly lax enforcement, AND a shedload of people in jail. (most of which are non-violent offenders)


I can't cite a single state-level program like what you cited. Apparently we lack the public demand for it.

Edit: You also make a good point on reporting practices. Our own are just becoming uniform across the nation, in the last few years. Makes it even harder to do comparisons with other nations.

to search, seize, question, etc. as english cops do vs. US cops.

england for example, does not have the exclusionary rule where evidence obtained unlawfully is automatically suppressed. it CAN be suppressed, but it's not automatic, like in the US.

england does not have a right to remain silent. your silence CAN be used against you.

england has broader seizure powers in general, search powers, surveillance powers (both legally and as a matter of de facto prevalence) etc.

I used to live in England; happiest years of my childhood. Now you couldn't pay me enough to live there. Crime's only part of it; the stifling attitude of government paternalism plays a larger role. I dislike the term "nanny state," but it's hard to describe the UK as anything else.

Homicide statistics, well, those are just one part of the overall crime picture. If you go over the annual reports from the International Crime Victims Survey (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/) you'll see that England & Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland are counted as separate countries) top the league with shocking consistency (except bicycle theft; the Dutch and the Danes have that one locked down). Of course, the ICVS doesn't measure homicide, because it's a bit difficult to interview a homicide victim.

Suffice to say, though, that if you aren't a young black male who lives in a large city and is involved in the drugs trade, your chances of becoming a homicide victim in the United States are fairly unremarkable. It's the drug trade, and the brutalization of this involved in it, that is the single largest factor driving the American homicide rate. And if this Grauniad article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1) is to be believed, the UK may go the same way:

The Guardian's source said that guns were becoming a first rather than a last recourse. "A gun used to be used as a mediator; now everything is revolved with a gun. It's brought the heat on everyone. Before you would get a two , now it's a five. It's getting like the US now, like The Wire. It's like a prediction of what will happen here. I think they all think they're playing Grand Theft Auto. It's madness out there."

And a good thing, too -- considering the number of homicides in the US that start out as muggings with guns.

Of course, then they don't show up in the robbery statistics, do they? Hmm.

And a good thing, too -- considering the number of homicides in the US that start out as muggings with guns.

Got any evidence to indicate how high this number actually is?

Of course, then they don't show up in the robbery statistics, do they? Hmm.

In other words, we mere mortals wouldn't able to tell. So how come you can? Or, if you can't, why make the earlier statement with such confidence?

The fact that we are so barbaric is probably why we have so much less mugging.

one from Liverpool and I don't remember where the other is from. But both are emphatic that they feel considerably safer from random violence here in eastern NC than they did in the UK.

Liverpool and eastern North Carolina. Yes, very comparable places indeed.

Do you know anything about Liverpool? I'm pretty sure not, and frankly, I wouldn't know where to start to educate you.

The other woman isn't from the city, IIRC, and her observations were similar to those in the BBC article.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Well, obviously, that's impossible, since handguns are prohibited in Chicago, and you need a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) to even own a firearm or purchase ammunition in the state of Illinois.

Unless, of course, the problem is that criminals don't obey weapons laws, and acquire guns trafficked in from elsewhere. Oddly enough, that happens in western Europe too, tight gun laws and knife bans notwithstanding. I know from my own experience that I've been, or come close to becoming, a victim of violent crime more often in Netherlands that I've ever been in the United States.

But you and I both know that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data," so why the mock the fact that discussion tends to center on statistics?

The individual in question was apparently hit over the head with a baseball bat.

I don't believe we were talking about guns here. I believe we were talking about violent crime.


But you and I both know that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data," so why the mock the fact that discussion tends to center on statistics?

I do beg your pardon, but I think this discussion started with an article about "feelings".

I was under the impression--but do correct if I'm wrong--that the U.S. is purportedly more violent than other countries because we have all these firearms in private hands, and that, consequently, we could curb the violent crime rate if only we restricted ownership of firearms.

However, if your Chicago anecdote is indicative of anything in a wider context, it's that American society is more violent (or at least more homicidal) than selected others, and therefore, restricting guns won't help, because we'll just substitute baseball bats, or other bludgeons, or blades, and keep on killing each other at the same rate.

Actually, there may be something to that, given that the U.S. non-gun homicide rate is higher than the overall homicide rate of quite a few other countries. But given that homicides in the U.S. are overwhelmingly (~90%) committed by people who already have quite lengthy record of prior arrests and often a few convictions for violent crimes, that undermines the notion that regular citizens, without arrest records or convictions, need to be deprived of access to firearms in order to promote public safety. Indeed, it arguably strengthens the case that such citizens should retain their freedom to own firearms, given the supposedly violent nature of American society.

Unless your anecdote was just that, and didn't prove a damn thing one way or the other.

What a character...

You people are so funny.

If you say so.

In the two weeks I spent in England a few years ago....

Ten years earlier on one of my visits south, I and my host returned to his apartment in... Chicago

Yawn. Ok you've been to England and you assume we haven't, or at least the majority of us haven't. And you've made multiple visits to the US.

Actually I've spent most of my life in America. And I've been to England too. But I'm not foolish enough to think being there a few years ago makes me some kind of expert on English society. So I leave my trips to England out of the picture and quote people who know what they're talking about--people who have a basis on which to make valid observations. There's American expatriate and freelance journalist Helen Kirwan-Taylor, who has lived in the UK for years and Justin Oliver Webb who was educated in England and now is the BBC's North American Editor operating out of Missouri.

Against these two journalists, we have you, a towering beacon of objectivity who spent two weeks in England a few years ago and has visited the US multiple times. Impressive.

Ah, anecdotes.

Indeed. "I spent two weeks in England" or "I spent last night in a Holiday Inn"--those are anecdotes.

There's nothing like seeing total ignoramuses spouting off about things they are totally ignorant of, and competing to see who can be the most ignorantly insulting.

Agreed.

The smart folks listen to people with actual expertise. The really dumb folks look down their noses at the smart ones, blissfully unaware that they can only do so because they are standing on their heads.

Does the top of your head hurt, iverglas?

Here's some advice. I know you're concerned about your image--which particular flavor of dumbass to look like in public. Tomorrow, why not pass up all the clown suits in your closet (humor isn't your strong suit) and come as a decent, intelligent woman?

Fake it until you make it.

PS: Thanks for reminding me how silly and time wasting this place can be, and for making me feel guilty. I was wrong--debating you is more like boxing a quadriplegic.

I need to be much scarcer around here and you've been a great help in reminding me what I don't like about the place, in spite of some fine folks here. I appreciate it.

I've never seen a fist fight on the streets of Seattle. Guess what I saw last time I went to Vancouver?


Which is odd, admittedly, because Americans tend to be far more violent, just looking at crime statistics.

I saw a dying victim of a violent assault on the lawn of an apartment building in a residential neighbourhood of Chicago.

Hmm.

Visiting the downtown east side, were you? ;)

I wonder how the fist fight would have turned out if one of the combattants had had a pocket pistol.

Firearms are illegal there! D:

I take it you did take my point about anecdotes!

And there's been TONS of anecdotes tossed around lately. Quite frustrating.