UK vs US, violent crime meme

[DreWId]

So a new photo on Facebook, liked by one of my conservative friends, says that the UK has 6x more violence or something like that and ends with "guess which country bans guns?"

There is no citation of the numbers, no source to public data, therefore the picture is nothing more than a meme. I'm not going to post it here because everything that I said so far is pretty much all the picture said, only with pretty flags on the meme.


So my question is, does anyone have the equitable numbers of violent crimes for 2010, 2011, or possibly 2012 for the UK and the US?

I thought I had the numbers, but I wasn't sure if 'violent crime' was meaning the same for both statistics (I got numbers from the BBC and the FBI). I tried again but was only finding "per 1,000 capita" in the UK and "per 100,000 capita" in the US.



I will completely believe and accept that the UK may have a higher violent crime rate than the US, but I'm not going to make an assertion either way until I see the numbers, raw and per capita hopefully, for both countries.

Any help?

[jwirr]

1. I am interested in this issue also as my s-i-l handed me a bunch of RW talking points about how

we are becoming more like Europe where the only people who have guns are the criminals. What is the status of gun ownership and gun violence in EU countries?

[DreWId]

3. What about Japan?

Japan has almost no violence and no guns.

[libodem]

4. I saw that on PBS this morning

One year it was 8 gun murders total.

[gejohnston]

6. how many murders total?

Many murder/suicides are ruled all suicides, although they use a different word to distinguish who we would call a murder from the one who offed themselves afterwords.

[libodem]

17. I only remember the one year being 8

Because ours was, way higher, like 2800. I wish I had hard facts. This is off the top of my head. Not very reliable. Sorry.

[gejohnston]

5. I lived in Japan

their lack of violence has nothing to do with guns. They could have the gun laws of Vermont, and they would still have almost no violence. While Japan doesn't have a second amendment, it also doesn't have a fourth, fifth amendments either.

Russia doesn't have any guns either, but make us look like Japan.

[DreWId]

9. In summation

Which, as I stated to your previous post, is significant considering the overall population density of the country.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Japan is also monocultural.

They do not have the diversity of cultures that we do. Cultures clash.

We have an elephant in the living room that everyone has to pretend isn't there. A largely disproportionate amount of our crime is black-on-black in the inner city and housing projects, caused by the hopelessness of being trapped to live there. Most of the people there are decent, law-abiding folks, but a high enough portion become violent criminals to cause serious problems.

[jwirr]

8. Okay, he did not mention them.

[gejohnston]

2. here is one that compares the OECD countries

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

US third in murder behind Mexico and Estonia
UK is first in assaults
Australia is first in rape
Belgium is first in robbery
Denmark is first in burglary
South Korea is first in suicide

Each country in Europe has different laws that are stricter and laxer in others. Although age requirements and registration is something the EU wants standardized, which is why Germany went to the federal registration and Finland raised their min age from 15 to 18. AFAIK, the Finland, Norway, Switzerland (not counting militia weapons) having the highest gun ownership after us. Switzerland and Czech Republic had the "laxest" laws.

Canada is third after US and Norway. Some surveys puts US second after Finland.
http://www.allcountries.org/gun_ownership_rates.html This is the only source I can find.

[DreWId]

7. So what we are to surmise is?

Are we to assume the Intentional Homicide and the Assault Cases are separate from each other and not one subtracted from the other?

If so, then couldn't we extrapolate that although the UK has higher assaults, they don't end in the death of victim?

And with that said, there'd be two views: "The UK is more violent because they have a ban on guns" versus "The UK would have more instances of deaths from violence were there not a ban on guns"


And all said and done, Japan - a significantly smaller country, area-wise, with an exceedingly dense population, is among the top 3 least violent countries even with significantly fewer guns than either? (Japan has .6 guns per 100 capita, UK has 6.2 per 100 capita, and the US has 88.8 per 100 capita)

[gejohnston]

11. so many logical fallacies, so little time.

Are we to assume the Intentional Homicide and the Assault Cases are separate from each other and not one subtracted from the other?

as a rule

If so, then couldn't we extrapolate that although the UK has higher assaults, they don't end in the death of victim?

And with that said, there'd be two views: "The UK is more violent because they have a ban on guns" versus "The UK would have more instances of deaths from violence were there not a ban on guns"

not quite. Even when UK had laxer gun laws than the US, the same situation existed. Whatever reason, using a gun was not considered "cool" to UK criminals. Other than a few criminal gangs, that still holds true. They tend to use machine guns more than we do. Depending on the size of the knife, caliber of the gun, and range, knives can be more lethal than guns. A kitchen butcher knife is more lethal than a .25 ACP and certaily more lethal than any gun using "armor piercing" ammo.

And all said and done, Japan - a significantly smaller country, area-wise, with an exceedingly dense population, is among the top 3 least violent countries even with significantly fewer guns than either? (Japan has .6 guns per 100 capita, UK has 6.2 per 100 capita, and the US has 88.8 per 100 capita)

You are assuming that the trigger pulls the finger, or that a gun is like a ring in a fantasy movie. Of course, those only count legal guns. They don't count those owned by the Yakusa who smuggle them from illegal factories in Cebu or make their own in Japan. I lived in Japan for over three years, it has nothing to do with guns. Their society is organized around community, not the individual. there is almost no wealth inequality. Of course, their legal system make fair trials almost impossible. Illegal searches and forced confessions are allowed in court. There is no right to council nor jury trial.

[DreWId]

14. Thanks for clarifying

What do you mean 'more lethal', can you explain, please? What is the firing rate of a .25 ACP? I have a difficult time picturing a butcher knife able to maim at the same rate as a gun (or for that matter, any bladed, close-combat weapon matching the firing rate and range of any gun, but I digress)

And with that paragraph what you're saying is that even with lesser gun laws the UK still had less homicide by gun?


As for the Japan statistics, I'm not quite understanding your analogies at the beginning. When you say "only count legal guns", I would assume that the U.S. numbers also only count legal guns. Even if that weren't the case, we are still looking at a lesser homicide by gun rate in Japan than the US, aren't we?
The last part of that paragraph is part of the overall picture of violence/homicide [subsection: guns] as it pertains to culture and cultural identity, right? I suppose we could look back to the 1950s US of gun ownership versus wealth inequality versus violence, as well. And if what you say is true about the Japanese judicial system, according to the statistics you presented, Japan still only has a punitivity ratio of .898 compared to the US's 1.471 (even moreso compared to the UK's punitivity ratio of .049).

But information like that doesn't quite fit a meme or bumper sticker, does it. lol

[gejohnston]

18. you are welcome

What do you mean 'more lethal', can you explain, please? What is the firing rate of a .25 ACP? I have a difficult time picturing a butcher knife able to maim at the same rate as a gun (or for that matter, any bladed, close-combat weapon matching the firing rate and range of any gun, but I digress)

I define more lethal as more likely to kill you if hit with it and more internal damage. The same fire rate as any other semi auto or double action revolver, how fast you can pull the trigger. Firing rates are only relevant with full autos.

And with that paragraph what you're saying is that even with lesser gun laws the UK still had less homicide by gun?

fewer murders regardless of means. IMHO, concentrating on specific means such as "gun" is intellectually bankrupt at best and I refuse to play that game.

As for the Japan statistics, I'm not quite understanding your analogies at the beginning. When you say "only count legal guns", I would assume that the U.S. numbers also only count legal guns. Even if that weren't the case, we are still looking at a lesser homicide by gun rate in Japan than the US, aren't we?

Number of illegal guns is unknowable. For example the German government estimates five unregistered guns for each registered guns. The illegal number can range from simple civil disobedience by non compliance, like Canada, to serious criminals. It is a safe bet none of Japan's gun murders were with a legal gun. Where I lived we had one shooting, it was a Yakusa hit.

The last part of that paragraph is part of the overall picture of violence/homicide as it pertains to culture and cultural identity, right?

Yes

I suppose we could look back to the 1950s US of gun ownership versus wealth inequality versus violence, as well.

Guns were used in fewer murders in 1950 even though the federal laws, and many state laws were laxer (the south had stricter laws than CA or IL at the time) than now. In 1965 guns were used in 58 percent of murders compared to 70 percent on average today.
And if what you say is true about the Japanese judicial system, according to the statistics you presented, Japan still only has a punitivity ratio of .898 compared to the US's 1.471 (even moreso compared to the UK's punitivity ratio of .049). They don't throw away the key for ripping off a pizza like California does either.

But information like that doesn't quite fit a meme or bumper sticker, does it. lol

The truth never does. Simple answers to complex problems are never solutions.

[DreWId]

20. It's so nice to have a discussion that doesn't devolve into talking points

Okay, so we both can agree that a butcher knife would cause major damage when striking a target. When I ask about rate of fire, my intention is to compare a single butcher knife being wielded in a stationary position versus a ranged-munitions-device, the munitions device would have a higher instance of opportunity to maim or damage a target - but I'm afraid I'm veering us off course.

fewer murders regardless of means.

As for this statement, what you mean to say is that even with more guns in the UK, there were still less murders overall? When did the UK start enacting stricter gun control measures? Could you source it, please?

It is a safe bet none of Japan's gun murders were with a legal gun.

Okay, let's make that safe bet, but that compares to this mother jones article (again, I hesitate to use any news source versus a statistical data source, so I am assuming their chart/reporting is correct - so, disclaimer noted.) which states 49 killers involved in mass shootings since 1982 obtained their guns legally.

Guns were used in fewer murders in 1950 even though the federal laws, and many state laws were laxer (the south had stricter laws than CA or IL at the time) than now. In 1965 guns were used in 58 percent of murders compared to 70 percent on average today.

Can you provide your source?

They don't throw away the key for ripping off a pizza like California does either.

How many of Japan's prisons are privately-owned as well? Certainly (my assumption) the incarceration rate doesn't help the overall Culture [subsection: stigma] as it pertains to economic and educational opportunities.

[gejohnston]

23. I try

As for this statement, what you mean to say is that even with more guns in the UK, there were still less murders overall? When did the UK start enacting stricter gun control measures? Could you source it, please?

Here is a basic overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Okay, let's make that safe bet, but that compares to this mother jones article (again, I hesitate to use any news source versus a statistical data source, so I am assuming their chart/reporting is correct - so, disclaimer noted.) which states 49 killers involved in mass shootings since 1982 obtained their guns legally.

Clackamas mall stole his, 1999 school shooters were minors in possession, and their straw buyer went to federal prison. Don't know about the rest. Of course, those are mental health issues more than gun law issues since such events were almost unheard of before 1980. Whitmann had a brain tumor. The bigger issue is the everyday criminals killing each other and hitting innocents in the crossfire. You can thank Nixon starting and everyone else continuing the WOD on that one.

Can you provide your source?

IIRC, it was a printed source I read some time ago, I'll see if I can find it.

How many of Japan's prisons are privately-owned as well? Certainly (my assumption) the incarceration rate doesn't help the overall Culture as it pertains to economic and educational opportunities.

probably zero, which is as it should be
.

[EarthWindFire]

10. a man named

Ben Swann did a pretty good job of breaking the numbers down.

[DreWId]

12. Proof?

Thanks, but can you at least post a link?

I'm not discrediting what you're suggesting, but one of my pet peeves is not citing sources

[EarthWindFire]

15. ok sorry

http://www.fox19.com/story/20608260/reality-check-an-apples-to-apples-comparison-of-us-and-uk-violent-crime-rates

[DreWId]

21. I'm not sure I get it

If I'm hearing the video correctly, the UK has a broader definition that includes smaller offenses the FBI does not consider violent crimes ("simple assaults" and "all sexual offenses&quot . Given the blogger the video quotes uses a UK number of 776, the blogger does not explain how the number 776 is reached. I would assume that the FBI number has to be adjust upwards to add in the categories the UK uses, or the UK number has to be lowered, counting only the numbers the FBI uses. This second scenario might be what the quote the video uses, but I don't see a source for the computation of that number.
Additionally, I do not see a source for the 2010 US number of 403 and again, does that include the incidences the UK also includes in its calculations or not? Can you clear that up?

The video doesn't source the 119 deaths of children age 1-12 from firearms in 2011, but I found this FBI source, just so it's out there.

[EarthWindFire]

22. this video

doesn't clear everything up, but its the best breakdown I have seen thus far. Sorry no additional info.

[stevebrt]

13. it all depends on the definitions

The definitions for violent crime are very different in the US and Britain.
The British definition includes all crimes against the person, including simple assaults, all robberies, and all sexual offenses, as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and forcible rapes.

[DreWId]

16. My point exactly

That's what I mean in my first post. I tried finding the numbers, myself, but ran into that issue. I don't see a comparative definition that includes the same categories, therefore I wasn't sure if what I was looking at was equitable.
The best I can see so far would be gejohnston's link to the "Comparisons of Crime in OECD Countries" report and even then I'm assuming the numbers are all equitable and accurate up to 2010.

[spin]

19. Watch the video at this site. ....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c82_1357146088

Obviously the video does favor one side of the debate so let me add some comments.

1) Both sides of the gun control debate largely ignore the fact that violent crime has decreased dramatically in the last 20 years. The NRA and gun manufacturers try to convince people that owning a firearm for self defense is essential. The pro gun control groups state that our violent crime rate is largely driven by easy access to firearms. The fact that violent crime is dropping doesn't help either side gain support and donations.

2) Comparing a small nation to the United States has some faults. England is about the size of either Louisiana or Alabama. In our nation some states are peaceful, others violent.

3) Nations often have significant cultural differences. For example it is extremely rare to have a riot break out at a professional football game while it happens frequently at Soccer games in other nations.

4) The United States will always have a level of violence caused by firearms as long as they are common in our nation. We currently have over 300,000,000 firearms and 80,000,000 gun owners. Few elected politicians or leaders of pro-gun control groups are suggesting a total ban and the confiscation of these weapons. Other nations have been able to ban and confiscate firearms but they started out with far fewer guns and gun owners. These nations also lacked the gun culture that is part of our nation's history and any laws similar to our 2nd Amendment. It's fine to point out that few murders by firearms occur in the UK but it's like saying that there are few traffic deaths in North Korea where there are only a few cars.

5) Not mentioned in the video is our failed War on Drugs which we lost decades ago. Turf warfare between competing drug gangs in Chicago is the biggest cause of the gun violence in that city.

6) Our mental health care system is inferior to many other nations as is our entire health care system. Hopefully this will improve in the near future due to the passage of Obama Care.

7) Our public educational system has fallen behind other nations in recent years. At least the high school graduation rate is showing signs of improvement and is now at a 40 year high so we are seeing signs of improvement. (ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/national-high-school-graduation-rates-at-a-four-decade-high/2013/01/21/012cd7da-63e7-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html) Still a significant percentage of our youth are only qualified to be hamburger flippers.

8) Of course a good education is wasted if there are no good jobs or opportunities.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Their reporting is entirely different.

Our criteria for violent crime and theirs have little correlation. The comparison is not honest, unfortunately.

[jimmy the one]

25. hierarchy rules

Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:20 AM - Edit history (1)

stvbrt (1 post): The definitions for violent crime are very different in the US and Britain. The British definition includes all crimes against the person, including simple assaults, all robberies, and all sexual offenses, as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and forcible rapes.

The fbi considers robbery as a crime against the person (larceny is the property equiv I believe), (as well as murder).
There is such a thing as an fbi 'hierarchy rule' which 'ranks' violent crimes - iirc in order murder, robbery, aggr asslt, rape, then the lesser felonies burg, larceny, gta, arson. When a person is victimized only the highest crime is reported on the fbi ucr (tho all crimes are listed on the on scene police report).

Hierarchy Rule: In a multiple-offense situation (i.e., one where several offenses are committed at the same time and place), after classifying all Part I offenses, score only the highest ranking offense, and ignore all others, regardless of the number of offenders and victims. (UCR Handbook, Pg. 33)
Example: Incident: During the commission of an armed bank robbery, the offender strikes a teller with the butt of a handgun. The robber runs from the bank and steals an auto..
Classification: Robbery, Aggravated Assault, and Motor Vehicle Theft are three Part I offenses apparent in this situation. Each of these offenses appears on the report listed in a certain order, and of these three crimes, Robbery is the "highest" on the list.
Therefore, this incident would be classified as Robbery, and, accordingly, one offense would be scored. All of the other offenses would be ignored.
http://nvrepository.state.nv.us/ucr/forms/FAQsforUCR.pdf

In UK they have what are known as 'notifiable offenses' (offences), which are how they notify you that you done wrong. Their 'Home Office' records & compiles notifiable offences & I believe official reports emanate from the Home Office.
.. in america there are two crime reporting methods, the fbi UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting) system which records REPORTED crime. Then there is the NCVS or National Crime Victimization Surveyr which records both reported crime as well as unreported crime (it's a survey). NVCS will of course have more crime instances. This is done since many people do not report crimes, I was one I didn't report a stolen moped once, figuring nothing could be done).
.. in UK they also have two crime reporting (a mirror image of US), the Home Office Reported crime (notifiable offences) and the BCS British Crime Survey of both reported & unreported crime. This century the BCS has seen violent crime decline, while home office reports have noted an increase in notifiable offences, in part explainable in that about year 1999,2000,2001 they switched their reporting methods, which inflated crime. IE prior 1999 a robbery of 5 people would count only as one robbery, after 2001 it would count as 5 robberies. Est'd increased violent crime rate by about 15%.

Another good way to compare UK & US gun crime is by hospital or med center admissions & costs for gunshot injury. US of course is miles ahead in this, outpacing UK by 70 to 1 I believe iirc. I will search on DU (I might've posted previously), & provide figures if possible. It provides insight in how much more violent, gun crime is, compared with razor & cosh gangs (bloody noses, slashings & broken bonedom & less death).
Personally I can think of hundreds of times I'm glad I didn't have a gun, but not once where I wished I'd had one.

australian: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

[jimmy the one]

26. costs of gunshot treatment US

Well I couldn't quickly find gunshot injury costs in my x-files so I googled & this came up, comparing US with canada, a bit dated from 1992, likely US costs a lot less by now, maybe down to 70 billion? I couldnt find a UK gunshot treatment annual cost, but am thinking along the lines of 2 billion, which would make it about the 70 to 1 proportion I earlier noted.

In 1992, gunshots killed 37,776 Americans; cut/stab wounds killed 4095. Another 134,000 gunshot survivors and 3,100,000 cut/stab wound survivors received medical treatment. Annually, gunshot wounds cost an estimated U.S.$126 billion. Cut/stab wounds cost another U.S.$51 billion.
The gunshot and cut/stab totals include U.S.$40 billion and U.S.$13 billion respectively in medical, public services, and work-loss costs.
>>> {Note, IMO, this would in part decrease the actual cost of medical treatment for gunshot injuries, since 'work loss' costs & public services not really medical costs to heal}
Across medically treated cases, costs average U.S.$154,000 per gunshot survivor and U.S.$12,000 per cut/stab survivor.
Gunshot wounds are more than three times as common in the U.S. than in Canada, which has strict handgun control.
With the same quality of life loss per victim, gunshot costs per capita are an estimated U.S.$495 in the U.S. vs U.S.$180 in Canada. Per gun, however, the costs are higher in Canada.
Gunshot wound rates rise linearly with gun ownership.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457597000079

In contrast to a stagnating incidence of civilian gunshot wounds in the United States, gunshot violence shows different trends in European countries. Firearm associated crime was increasing up to 30% in the UK {includes airgun crime} between 1998 and 2002. In the same period firearm associated crime in Germany was markedly decreasing. In 2007 in Germany only 4558 criminal acts with the use of firearms were registere. Additionally, in high income countries a significant number of gunshot wounds are related to suicide attempts.
As seen in the United States, gunshot violence has besides its medical importance also an enormous economic impact as the third most costly etiology of injury and the fourth most expensive form of hospitalization. Therefore, treatment algorithms for emergency care of gunshot injuries have to be established in European trauma departments.
http://www.sjtrem.com/content/18/1/35 --- mainly not related to treatment costs.

UK - only thing I could find: But with the average medical cost of treating a stab or gunshot victim rising to £38,500,

Approx would be $70,000 (?) for about half the US of 154,000 -(?)

[DanTex]

27. The US has by far the highest homicide rate of any developed nation.

In general, guns do not affect violent crime rates overall. They affect homicide rates specifically. More guns do not result in more fights or violent crimes, but they make fights and violent crimes more deadly, because guns are much more dangerous than any other weapons. And the data show this pretty clearly: the overall rate of violent crime in the US is not out of line with places like Canada, UK, Europe, etc., but our homicide rates are off the chart.

About the data. As you point out, "violent crime" is not uniformly defined across nations, because things like "aggravated assault" require subjective definitions. The homicide comparisons are easier to draw. Still, if you are looking for raw data, one source is the UN, for example:
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/International_Statistics_on_Crime_and_Justice.pdf

About the right-wing memes. What the NRA crowd likes to do is cherry-pick statistics, in both directions. They find a country with low violent crime rate compared to the US, and then they claim that the US has a higher homicide rate because we are a more violent people. Then they find a country with a high violent crime rate compared to the US, and claim that guns are keeping is safe. It's all about finding an excuse to explain away the link between guns and homicide. But none of it is true. Overall, if you look at all other developed nations, the clear pattern is that the US has high homicide rate, but about average in violent crime.

PS. International comparisons are not the only way to see the effect of guns on homicide. There have also been several studies which have looked at rates of gun ownership versus homicide at the state and county level in the US, looking at changes over time, and controlling for various other potential factors. Here are some links.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

[James Mahogany]

28. DreWId UK vs US, violent gun crime meme reply - US more violent by far, see link

As far as I know, this is the most comprehensive and applicable research made which shows why such statistics are not only misleading but grossly inaccurate.

http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

You're more likely to suffer grievous assault, rape, murder, burglary and carjacking (not to mention being shot) in the US than in the UK. If you don't like numbers and reading, jump to the conclusion.

[James Mahogany]

29. DreWId UK vs US, violent gun crime meme reply - US more violent by far, see link (revised)

Apparently there was a mistake in the original calculation:

http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

Regardless, you're still more likely to be burgled, have your car stolen, suffer aggravated assault, be raped, shot and murdered in the US than in the UK.

[guardian]

31. some numbers

From a quick google search

Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia, according to a survey yesterday.

According to the figures released yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 - second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent.

Scotland had a slightly lower rate of violence, at 3.4 per cent.

In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery.

One in 40 people in England and Wales had their cars stolen in 1999, the highest rate in the 17 developed countries examined.

Just one in 200 Americans suffered a car theft while in Japan there was only one per 1,000 of the population.

The chances of becoming a victim of any crime in England and Wales were second only to Australia.

England and Wales are among the countries 'most pressured by crime', the report concludes.


The two countries had the equal highest number of crimes per head of population of all 17 states. There were 58 incidents for every 100 inhabitants in England and Wales - the same as Australia. The study said the size of the sample meant first place in many categories came down to statistical accident, suggesting that for many areas of crime Britain may actually be worst in the world.

Shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe said: 'It's no wonder the people of England and Wales have more chance of becoming victims of crime when there are over 2,500 fewer police, violent crime is soaring and 30,000 convicted prisoners have been let out before serving even half their sentences.